Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 465–475 | Cite as

Efficacy and mode of action of kaolin and its interaction with bunch-zone leaf removal against Lobesia botrana on grapevines

  • Federico Tacoli
  • Elena Cargnus
  • Fatemeh Kiaeian Moosavi
  • Pietro Zandigiacomo
  • Francesco PavanEmail author
Original Paper


Lobesia botrana control strategies in vineyards aim to develop environmentally safe tools as an alternative to synthetic insecticides. The activity of kaolin on L. botrana performance was studied in laboratory and field bioassays. The efficacy of kaolin and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) against the moth, with or without bunch-zone leaf removal (LR), was compared in four trials carried out in vineyards in north-eastern Italy. In the laboratory bioassays, kaolin berry coverage reduced the egg-laying preference of L. botrana by 53% and decreased female survival and fecundity by 22 and 82%, respectively. Kaolin egg coverage reduced the hatching rate by 14%. The larval settlement preference for berries covered with kaolin was reduced by 72%, but larval survival and development were not affected. In the field bioassay, kaolin reduced the egg-laying preference by 84%. In the field trials, kaolin, Bt and LR reduced L. botrana infestation significantly. Although Bt was more effective than kaolin, the efficacy of the two products was similar when combined with LR. Based on the results obtained and its effectiveness also against grapevine leafhoppers, kaolin can play an important role in the context of integrated pest management in vineyards.


Bunch-zone leaf removal European grapevine moth Natural product Cultural control Particle film Bacillus thuringiensis 



We would like to thank all the vineyard owners who kindly offered their properties as trial sites: Federico Bigot, Moreno Ferlat, Renzo Sgubin and Denis and Patrick Sturm. We would also like to thank Giovanni Bigot, Davide Cisilino, Davide Mosetti and Michele Stecchina, who collaborated in the field trials.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Abbott WS (1925) A method for computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol 18:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker JE, Fulton A, Evans KA, Powell A (2006) The effect of kaolin particle film on Plutella xylostella behaviour and development. Pest Manag Sci 62:498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boselli M, Scannavini M, Melandri M (2000) Confronto fra strategie di difesa contro la tignoletta della vite. L’Informatore Agrario 56(19):61–65Google Scholar
  4. Bostanian NJ, Racette G (2008) Particle films for managing arthropod pests of apple. J Econ Entomol 101:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brillante L, Belfiore N, Gaiotti F, Lovat L, Sansone L, Poni S, Tomasi S (2016) Comparing kaolin and pinolene to improve sustainable grapevine production during drought. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0156631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadogan BL, Scharbach ED (2005) Effect of kaolin-based particle film on spurce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Torticidae)) oviposition in the laboratory. Pest Manag Sci 61:1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Civolani S, Boselli M, Butturini A, Chicca M, Fano EA, Cassinelli S (2014) Assessment of insecticide resistance of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Emilia-Romagna region. J Econ Entomol 107:1245–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coniberti A, Ferrari V, Dellacassa E, Boido E, Carrau F, Gepp V, Disegna E (2013) Kaolin over sun-exposed fruit affects berry temperature, must composition and wine sensory attributes of Sauvignon blanc. Eur J Agron 50:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebeling W (1971) Sorptive dusts for pest control. Annu Rev Entomol 16:123–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fermaud M (1998) Cultivar susceptibility of grape berry clusters to larvae of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 91:974–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fermaud M, Giboulot A (1992) Influence of Lobesia botrana larvae on field severity of Botrytis rot of grape berries. Plant Dis 76:404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galet P (1982) Les Maladies et les Parasites de la Vigne. Tome II. Les parasites animaux, Paysan du Midi, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  13. Glenn DM (2016) Effect of highly processed calcined kaolin residues on apple productivity and quality. Sci Hortic 201:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glenn DM, Puterka GJ (2005) Particle films: a new technology for agriculture. Hortic Rev 31:1–44Google Scholar
  15. Glenn DM, Puterka G, Vanderzwet T, Byers RE, Feldhake C (1999) Hydrophobic particle films: a new paradigm for suppression of arthropod pests and plant diseases. J Econ Entomol 92:759–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glenn DM, Cooley N, Walker R, Clingeleffer P, Shellie K (2010) Impact of kaolin particle film and water deficit on wine grape water use efficiency and plant water relations. HortScience 45:1178–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hostetter DL, Ignoffo CM, Kearby WH (1975) Persistence of formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis spores and crystals on eastern red cedar foliage in Missouri. J Kans Entomol Soc 48:189–193Google Scholar
  18. Ifoulis AA, Savopoulou-Soultani M (2004) Biological control of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae by using different formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis in 11 vine cultivar under field conditions. J Econ Entomol 97:340–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ioriatti C, Lucchi A (2016) Semiochemical strategies for tortricid moth control in apple orchards and vineyards in Italy. J Chem Ecol 42:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ioriatti C, Anfora G, Tasin M, De Cristofaro A, Witzgall P, Lucchi A (2011) Chemical ecology and management of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 104:1125–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ioriatti C, Lucchi A, Varela LG (2012) Grape berry moths in Western European vineyards and their recent movement into the New World. In: Bostanian NJ, Vincent C, Isaacs R (eds) Arthropod management in vineyards: pest, approaches, and future directions. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 339–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kiaeian Moosavi F, Cargnus E, Pavan F, Zandigiacomo P (2017) Mortality of eggs and newly hatched larvae of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) exposed to high temperatures in the laboratory. Environ Entomol 46:700–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiaeian Moosavi F, Cargnus E, Pavan F, Zandigiacomo P (2018) Effect of grapevine bunch exposure to sunlight on berry surface temperature and Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) egg laying, hatching and larval settlement. Agric For Entomol 20:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight AL, Unruh TR, Christianson BA, Puterka GJ, Glenn DM (2000) Effects of a kaolin-based particle film on obliquebanded leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 93:744–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight AL, Christianson BA, Unruh TR, Puterka G, Glenn DM (2001) Impact of seasonal kaolin particle films on apple pest management. Can Entomol 133:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lalancette N, Belding RD, Shearer PW, Frecon JL, Tietjen WH (2005) Evaluation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic kaolin particle films for peach crop, arthropod and disease management. Pest Manag Sci 61:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lapointe SL, McKenzie CL, Hall DG (2006) Reduced oviposition by Diaprepes abbreviates (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and growth enhancement of citrus by Surround particle film. J Econ Entomol 99:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lo Verde G, Rizzo R, Barraco G, Lombardo A (2011) Effects of kaolin on Ophelimus maskelli (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in laboratory and nursery experiments. J Econ Entomol 104:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorenz DH, Eichhorn KW, Bleiholder H, Klose R, Meier U, Weber E (1995) Growth stages of the grapevine: phenological growth stages of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. vinifera). Codes and descriptions according to the extended BBCH scale. Aust J Grape Wine Res 1:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lucchi A, Benelli G (2018) Towards pesticide-free farming? Sharing needs and knowledge promotes Integrated Pest Management. Environ Sci Pollut R. Google Scholar
  31. Maher N, Thiéry D (2004) A bioassay to evaluate the activity of chemical stimuli from grape berries on the oviposition of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Bull Entomol Res 94:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mantel N (1966) Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:163–170Google Scholar
  33. Markheiser A, Rid M, Biancu S, Gross J, Hoffmann C (2018) Physical factors influencing the oviposition behaviour of European grapevine moths Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella. J Appl Entomol 142:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markό V, Blommers LHM, Bogya S, Helsen H (2008) Kaolin particle films suppress many apple pests, disrupt natural enemies and promote woolly apple aphid. J Appl Entomol 132:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martín-Vertedor D, Ferrero-Garcia JJ, Torres-Vila LM (2010) Global warming affects phenology and voltinism of Lobesia botrana in Spain. Agric For Entomol 12:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moreau J, Benrey B, Thiéry D (2006) Grape variety affects larval performance and also female reproductive performance of the European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Bull Entomol Res 96:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreau J, Rahme J, Benrey B, Thiéry D (2008) Larval host plant origin modifies the adult oviposition preference of the female European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana. Naturwissenschaften 95:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moschos T (2006) Yield loss quantification and economic injury level estimation for the carpophagous generations of the European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Int J Pest Manag 52:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nateghi MF, Paknejad F, Moarefi M (2013) Effect of concentrations and time of kaolin spraying on wheat aphid. J Biol Environ Sci 7:163–168Google Scholar
  40. Pavan F, Girolami V, Sacilotto G (1998) Second generation of grape berry moths, Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep., Tortricidae) and Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hb.) (Lep., Cochylidae): spatial and frequency distributions of larvae, weight loss and economic injury level. J Appl Entomol 122:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pavan F, Stefanelli G, Cargnus E, Villani A (2009) Assessing the influence of inflorescence traits on the susceptibility of grape to vine moths. J Appl Entomol 133:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavan F, Floreani C, Barro P, Zandigiacomo P, Dalla Montà L (2013) Occurrence of two different development patterns in Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae during the second generation. Agric For Entomol 15:398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pavan F, Bigot G, Cargnus E, Zandigiacomo P (2014a) Influence of the carpophagous generations of the European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana on grape bunch rots. Phytoparasitica 42:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pavan F, Cargnus E, Bigot G, Zandigiacomo P (2014b) Residual activity of insecticides applied against Lobesia botrana and its influence on resistance management strategies. Bull Insectol 67:273–280Google Scholar
  45. Pavan F, Cargnus E, Kiaeianmoosavi S, Bigot G, Tacoli F, Zandigiacomo P (2016) Bunch-zone leaf removal of grapevines to prevent damage by Lobesia botrana and grey mould. Bull Insectol 69:107–115Google Scholar
  46. Pavan F, Stefanelli G, Villani A, Cargnus E (2018) Influence of grapevine cultivar on the second generations of Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella. Insects 9:8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pease CE, Lόpez-Olguín JF, Pérez-Moreno I, Marco-Mancebόn V (2016) Effects of kaolin on Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and its compatibility with the natural enemy, Trichogramma cacoeciae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J Econ Entomol 109:740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Puterka GJ, Glenn DM, Sekutowski DG, Unruh TR, Jones SK (2000) Progress toward liquid formulations of particle films for insect and disease control in pear. Environ Entomol 29:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Puterka GJ, Reinke M, Luvisi D, Ciomperik MA, Bartels D, Wendel L, Glenn DM (2003) Particle film, Surround WP, effects on glassy-winged sharpshooter behavior and its utility as a barrier to sharpshooter infestations in grape. Plant Health Prog. Google Scholar
  50. Puterka G, Glenn DM, Pluta RC (2005) Action of particle films on the biology and behaviour of pear psylla (Homoptera: Psyllidae). J Econ Entomol 98:2079–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rapagnani MR, Caffarelli V, Barlattani M (1988) Lobesia botrana Schiff. Studio in laboratorio del ciclo di sviluppo in funzione della temperature. In: Atti XV Congr naz ital Ent, L’Aquila, Italy, pp 973–980Google Scholar
  52. Rapagnani MR, Caffarelli V, Barlattani M (1989) Ovideposizione a diverse temperature costanti e variabili di Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. (Lepidoptera–Tortricidae). Boll Lab Entomol Agr «Filippo Silvestri» Portici 46:45–57Google Scholar
  53. Rapagnani MR, Caffarelli V, Barlattani M, Minelli F (1990) Descrizione di un allevamento, in laboratorio, della tignoletta dell’uva Lobesia botrana Den. e Schiff. (Lepidoptera–Tortricidae) su un nuovo alimento semi-sintetico. Boll Ist Ent «G. Grandi» Univ Bologna 44:57–64Google Scholar
  54. Sackett TE, Buddle CM, Vincent C (2005) Effect of kaolin on fitness and behaviour of Choristoneura rosaceana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae. J Econ Entomol 98:1648–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sánchez-Ramos I, Pascual S, Marcotegui A, Fernández CE, Gonzáles-Núñez M (2014) Laboratory evaluation of alternative control methods against the false tiger, Monosteira unicostata (Hemiptera: Tingidae). Pest Manag Sci 70:454–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sharon R, Zahavi T, Soroker V, Harari AR (2009) The effect of grapevine cultivars on Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) population levels. J Pest Sci 82:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Silva CAD, Ramalho FS (2013) Kaolin spraying protects cotton plants against damages by boll weevil Anthonomus grandis Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J Pest Sci 86:563–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stavridis DG, Savopoulou-Soultani M (1998) Larval performance on and oviposition preference for known and potential hosts by Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Eur J Entomol 95:55–63Google Scholar
  59. Stelinski LL, Pelz-Stelinski KS, Liburd OE, Gut LJ (2006) Control strategies for Rhagoletis mendax disrupt host-finding and ovipositional capability of its parasitic wasp, Diachasma alloeum. Biol Control 36:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tacoli F, Mori N, Pozzebon A, Cargnus E, Da Vià S, Zandigiacomo P, Duso C, Pavan F (2017a) Control of Scaphoideus titanus with natural products in organic vineyards. Insects 8:129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tacoli F, Pavan F, Cargnus E, Tilatti E, Pozzebon A, Zandigiacomo P (2017b) Efficacy and mode of action of kaolin in the control of Empoasca vitis and Zygina rhamni (Hemiptera: Cicadellide) in vineyards. J Econ Entomol 110:1164–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tubajika KM, Civerolo EL, Puterka GJ, Hashim JM, Luvisi DA (2007) The effects of kaolin, harpin, and imidacloprid on development of Pierce’s disease in grape. Crop Prot 26:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Unruh TR, Knight AL, Upton J, Glenn DM, Puterka GJ (2000) Particle films for suppression of the codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple and pear orchards. J Econ Entomol 93:737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vartholomaiou AN, Navrozidis EI, Payne CC, Salpiggidis GA (2008) Agronomic techniques to control Lobesia botrana. Phytoparasitica 36:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vincent C, Hallman G, Panneton B, Fleurat-Lessard F (2003) Management of agricultural insects with physical control methods. Annu Rev Entomol 48:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wood M, McBride J (2001) Scientists sharpen strategies to sabotage: glassy-winged sharpshooter. Agric Res Mag 49:20–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal SciencesUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations