Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 9426–9442 | Cite as

Eco-friendly pheromone dispensers—a green route to manage the European grapevine moth?

  • Andrea Lucchi
  • Edith Ladurner
  • Andrea Iodice
  • Francesco Savino
  • Renato Ricciardi
  • Francesca Cosci
  • Giuseppe Conte
  • Giovanni Benelli
Research Article


The development of environmentally sustainable control strategies to fight insect pests is a key challenge nowadays. Pheromone-mediated mating disruption (MD) is based on the release of synthetic sex attractants into a crop, interfering with mate finding of a given pest species. However, a limited number of research items have been published on the optimization of MD strategies against the European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana, as well as on the use of biodegradable dispensers to reduce waste production in vineyards, despite the high economic importance of this pest. Therefore, the present study evaluated the efficacy of the MD products Isonet® L TT and the biodegradable Isonet® L TT BIO, applied at various densities, in reducing L. botrana damage on grapevine in comparison to an untreated control and the reference MD product Isonet® L. Experiments were conducted in three different areas of grapevine cultivation, located in Central and Northern Italy, over three different years. Our MD approach allowed a reliable control of the three generations of L. botrana during the whole grape growing season, leading to a significant reduction in the infested flower clusters and bunches, as well as in the number of nests per flower cluster and bunch, if compared to the untreated control. The performances of Isonet® L TT BIO, Isonet® LTT, and Isonet® L did not differ in terms of infested flower clusters/bunches, as well as nests per flower cluster/bunch. This was confirmed in all experimental sites over 3 years of field experiments. Overall, the present research provides useful information for the optimization of MD programs against L. botrana, highlighting the interesting potential of biodegradable pheromone dispensers that can be easily applied at low densities in vineyards, reducing the use of chemical pesticides to control moth pests.


Chemical ecology Integrated pest management Lobesia botrana Mating disruption Pesticide-free farming Sex pheromones 



The authors would like to thank Shin-Etsu® Chemicals for providing the tested mating disruption products. Furthermore, we are grateful to the staff of Guado al Tasso, Marchesi Antinori (Bolgheri), Coop. Braccianti Campiano (Ravenna), and Az. Agricola Schiumarini (Forlì-Cesena) for kindly allowing fieldwork in their farms.

Funding information

This study was funded by BIOCONVITO P.I.F. “Artigiani del Vino Toscano” (Regione Toscana, Italy).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The mention of trade names or commercial products in this article does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the authors’ institutions.


  1. Aktar W, Sengupta D, Chowdhury A (2009) Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Int Toxicol 2(1):1–12Google Scholar
  2. Alavanja MC (2009) Introduction: pesticides use and exposure, extensive worldwide. Rev Environ Health 24(4):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anfora G, Baldessari M, De Cristofaro A, Germinara GS, Ioriatti C, Reggiori F, Vitagliano S, Angeli G (2008) Control of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by biodegradable Ecodian sex pheromone dispensers. J Econ Entomol 101(2):444–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angeli G, Anfora G, Baldessari M, Germinara GS, Rama F, De Cristofaro A, Ioriatti C (2007) Mating disruption of codling moth Cydia pomonella with high densities of Ecodian sex pheromone dispensers. J Appl Entomol 131(5):311–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arakaki N, Nagayama A, Kijima K, Yasui H, Tsujii N, Tanaka S, Ueda M, Kanayama S, Kawaguchi K, Jitsuno S, Oike M, Watanabe K, Wakamura S, Mochizuki F, Saguchi R, Fujii T, Naito T (2017) Ground-surface application of pheromones through a mini-dispenser for mating disruption of the white grub beetle Dasylepida ishigakiensis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Appl Entomol Zool 52(1):159–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashori A (2008) Wood–plastic composites as promising green-composites for automotive industries! Bioresour Technol 99(11):4661–4667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Athanassiou CG, Kavallieratos NG, Benelli G, Losic D, Usha Rani P, Desneux N (2018) Nanoparticles for pest control: current status and future perspectives. J Pest Sci 91:1–15.
  8. Behle RW, Cossé AA, Dunlap C, Fisher J, Koppenhöfer AM (2008) Developing wax-based granule formulations for mating disruption of oriental beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in turfgrass. J Econ Entomol 101(6):1856–1863. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bledzki AK, Franciszczak P, Osman Z, Elbadawi M (2015) Polypropylene biocomposites reinforced with softwood, abaca, jute, and kenaf fibers. Ind Crop Prod 70:91–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benelli G (2018) Plant-borne compounds and nanoparticles: challenges for medicine, parasitology and entomology – GREEN-NANO-PEST & DRUGS. Environ Sci Poll Res.
  11. Benelli G, Pavela R, Maggi F, Petrelli R, Nicoletti M (2017) Commentary: making green pesticides greener? The potential of plant products for nanosynthesis and pest control. J Clust Sci 28:3–10Google Scholar
  12. Boghossian E, Wegner LD (2008) Use of flax fibres to reduce plastic shrinkage cracking in concrete. Cement Concr Composit 30(10):929–937. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourguet D, Genissel A, Raymond M (2000) Insecticide resistance and dominance levels. J Econ Entomol 93(6):1588–1595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brockerhoff EG, Suckling DM, Kimberley M, Richardson B, Coker G, Gous S, Kerr JL, Cowan DM, Lance DR, Strand T, Zhang A (2012) Aerial application of pheromones for mating disruption of an invasive moth as a potential eradication tool. PLoS One 7(8):e43767. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardé RT (1990) Principles of mating disruption. Behavior-modifying chemicals for pest management: applications of pheromones and other attractants. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 47–71Google Scholar
  16. Cardé RT, Minks AK (1995) Control of moth pests by mating disruption: successes and constraints. Annu Rev Entomol 40(1):559–585. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardé RT, Haynes KF (2004) Structure of the pheromone communication channel in moths. In: Cardé R T, and Millar J G (eds) Advances in insect chemical ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 283–332Google Scholar
  18. Cardé RT, Willis MA (2008) Navigational strategies used by insects to find distant, wind-borne sources of odor. J Chem Ecol 34(7):854–866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Castellano S, Mugnozza GS, Russo G, Briassoulis D, Mistriotis A, Hemming S, Waaijenberg D (2008) Plastic nets in agriculture: a general review of types and applications. Appl Eng Agric 24(6):799–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper M, Varela LG, Smith RJ, Whitmer DR, Simmons GA, Lucchi A, Broadway R, Steinhauer R (2014) Growers, scientists and regulators collaborate on European grapevine moth program. Calif Agric 4:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De A, Bose R, Kumar A, Mozumdar S (2014) Targeted delivery of pesticides using biodegradable polymeric nanoparticles. Springer Briefs in Molecular Science. Springer, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  22. De Lame FM, Epstein D, Gut LJ, Goldfarb H, Miller JR (2010) Effect of varying dispenser point source density on mating disruption of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 103(4):1299–1305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Epstein DL, Stelinski LL, Reed TP, Miller JR, Gut LJ (2006) Higher densities of distributed pheromone sources provide disruption of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) superior to that of lower densities of clumped sources. J Econ Entomol 99(4):1327–1333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eurostat (2016) Pesticide sales statistics (, accessed October 2016
  25. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2016) Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products. Mating disruption pheromones ( First approved in 2008–09. Last update December 2016
  26. Grégoire JC, Miret JAJ, González-Cabrera J, Heimbach U, Lucchi A, Gardi C, Erdos Z, Koufakis I (2017) Protocol for the evaluation of data concerning the necessity of the application of insecticide1 active substances to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available means, including non-chemical methods. EFSA Supporting Publications, 14(4), 29 March 2017.
  27. Franck P, Reyes M, Olivares J, Sauphanor B (2007) Genetic architecture in codling moth populations: comparison between microsatellite and insecticide resistance markers. Mol Ecol 16(17):3554–3564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frédérique M, Miller JR, Atterholt CA, Gut LJ (2007) Development and evaluation of an emulsified paraffin wax dispenser for season-long mating disruption of Grapholita molesta in commercial peach orchards. J Econ Entomol 100(4):1316–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Funes H, Zerba E, Gonzalez-Audino P (2016) Monolithic dispensers for pheromones and their use in mating disruption of the ambrosia beetle Megaplatypus mutatus in poplar plantations. Agric Forest Entomol 18(1):52–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. González-Chang M, Wratten SD, Lefort MC, Boyer S (2016) Food webs and biological control: a review of molecular tools used to reveal trophic interactions in agricultural systems. Food Webs 9:4–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grieshop MJ, Brunner JF, Jones VP, Bello NM (2010) Recapture of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) males: influence of lure type and pheromone background. J Econ Entomol 103(4):1242–1249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guerrini S, Borreani G, Voojis H (2017) Biodegradable materials in agriculture: case histories and perspectives. In: Malinconico M (ed) Soil degradable bioplastics for a sustainable modern agriculture, green chemistry and sustainable technology. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  33. Gut LJ, Stelinski LL, Thomson DR, Miller JR (2004) Behaviour-modifying chemicals: prospects and constraints in IPM. In: Koul, Dhaliwal, Cuperus (eds) Integrated pest management: potential, constraints, and challenges. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, pp 73–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hicks S, Wang M, Doraiswamy V, Fry K, Wohlford EM (2017) Neurodevelopmental delay diagnosis rates are increased in a region with aerial pesticide application. Front Pediatr 5:116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hillocks RJ (2012) Farming with fewer pesticides: EU pesticide review and resulting challenges for UK agriculture. Crop Protect 31(1):85–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holland JM, Bianchi FJ, Entling MH, Moonen AC, Smith BM, Jeanneret P (2016) Structure, function and management of semi-natural habitats for conservation biological control: a review of European studies. Pest Manag Sci 72(9):1638–1651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hummel HE (2017) A brief review on Lobesia botrana mating disruption by mechanically distributing and releasing sex pheromones from biodegradable mesofiber dispensers. Biochem Mol Biol J 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ioriatti C, Lucchi A (2016) Semiochemical strategies for tortricid moth control in apple orchards and vineyards in Italy. J Chem Ecol 42(7):571–583. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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(4):1125–1113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ioriatti C, Lucchi A, Bagnoli B (2008) Grape areawide pest management in Italy. In: Koul O, Cuperus G W, and Elliott N (eds) Areawide pest management: Theory and implementation. CABI, , pp. 208–225Google Scholar
  41. 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: pests, approaches, and future directions”. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 339–359Google Scholar
  42. Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–771. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jenkins PE, Isaacs R (2008) Mating disruption of Paralobesia viteana in vineyards using pheromone deployed in SPLAT-GBM™ wax droplets. J Chem Ecol 34(8):1089–1095. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaplan I (2012) Attracting carnivorous arthropods with plant volatiles: the future of biocontrol or playing with fire? Biol Control 60(2):77–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lance DR, Leonard DS, Mastro VC, Walters ML (2016) Mating disruption as a suppression tactic in programs targeting regulated lepidopteran pests in US. J Chem Ecol 42(7):590–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGhee PS, Miller JR, Thomson DR, Gut LJ (2016) Optimizing aerosol dispensers for mating disruption of codling moth, Cydia pomonella L. J Chem Ecol 42(7):612–616. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meissner HE, Atterholt CA, Walgenbach JF, Kennedy GG (2000) Comparison of pheromone application rates, point source densities, and dispensing methods for mating disruption of tufted apple bud moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 93(3):820–827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Millar JG (2007) Insect pheromones for integrated pest management: promise versus reality. Redia 90:51–55Google Scholar
  49. Miller JR, Gut LJ, De Lame FM, Stelinski LL (2006) Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (part 2): case studies. J Chem Ecol 32(10):2115–2143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller JR, Gut LJ (2015) Mating disruption for the 21st century: matching technology with mechanism. Environ Entomol 44(3):427–453. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muccinelli M (2017) Prontuario dei fitofarmaci. Edagricole (, accessed October 2017
  52. Patanita MI (2007) Biothecnical methods for the control of main pests of walnut. Rev Ciências Agr 30:518–526Google Scholar
  53. Pérez-Staples D, Shelly TE, Yuval B (2013) Female mating failure and the failure of ‘mating’ in sterile insect programs. Entomol Exp Appl 146(1):66–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reyes M, Franck P, Charmillot PJ, Ioriatti C, Olivares J, Pasqualini E, Sauphanor B (2007) Diversity of insecticide resistance mechanisms and spectrum in European populations of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella. Pest Manag Sci 63(9):890–902. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rochman CM, Browne MA, Halpern BS, Hentschel BT, Hoh E, Karapanagioti HK, Rios-Mendoza LM, Takada H, Teh S, Thompson RC (2013) Policy: classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494(7436):169–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rochman CM, Cook AM, Koelmans AA (2016) Plastic debris and policy: using current scientific understanding to invoke positive change. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(7):1617–1626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Sica C, Russo G (2012) Plastic materials in European agriculture: actual use and perspectives. J Agric Eng 42(3):15–28Google Scholar
  58. Sharon R, Zahavi T, Sokolsky T, Sofer-Arad C, Tomer M, Kedoshim R, Harari AR (2016) Mating disruption method against the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus: effect of sequential treatment on infested vines. Entomol Exp Appl 161(1):65–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silver MK, Shao J, Zhu B, Chen M, Xi Y, Kaciroti N, Lozoff B, Meeker JD (2017) Prenatal naled and chlorpyrifos exposure is associated with deficits in infant motor function in a cohort of Chinese infants. Environ Int 106:248–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stelinski LL, Gut LJ, Mallinger RE, Epstein D, Reed TP, Miller JR (2005) Small plot trials documenting effective mating disruption of oriental fruit moth by using high densities of wax-drop pheromone dispensers. J Econ Entomol 98(4):1267–1274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stelinski LL, Miller JR, Ledebuhr R, Gut LJ (2006a) Mechanized applicator for large-scale field deployment of paraffin-wax dispensers of pheromone for mating disruption in tree fruit. J Econ Entomol 99(5):1705–1710. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stelinski LL, Gut LJ, Miller JR (2006b) Orientational behaviors and EAG responses of male codling moth after exposure to synthetic sex pheromone from various dispensers. J Chem Ecol 32(7):1527–1538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stelinski LL, Miller JR, Ledebuhr R, Siegert P, Gut LJ (2007) Season-long mating disruption of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by one machine application of pheromone in wax drops (SPLAT-OFM). J Pest Sci 80(2):109–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Suckling DM (2000) Issues affecting the use of pheromones and other semiochemicals in orchards. Crop Prot 19(8):677–683. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Suckling DM, Brockerhoff EG, Stringer LD, Butler RC, Campbell DM, Mosser LK, Cooperband MF (2012) Communication disruption of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by using two formulations at four point source densities in vineyards. J Econ Entomol 105(5):1694–1701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tcheslavskaia KS, Thorpe KW, Brewster CC, Sharov AA, Leonard DS, Reardon RC, Mastro VC, Sellers P, Roberts EA (2005) Optimization of pheromone dosage for gypsy moth mating disruption. Entomol Exp Appl 115(3):355–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Teixeira LAF, Mason K, Mafra-Neto A, Isaacs R (2010) Mechanically-applied wax matrix (SPLAT-GBM) for mating disruption of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Crop Prot 29(12):1514–1520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas MB, Read AF (2016) The threat (or not) of insecticide resistance for malaria control. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(32):8900–8902. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Todd JH, Barratt BI, Tooman L, Beggs JR, Malone LA (2015) Selecting non-target species for risk assessment of entomophagous biological control agents: evaluation of the PRONTI decision-support tool. Biol Control 80:77–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vacas S, Alfaro C, Navarro-Llopis V, Zarzo M, Primo J (2009a) Study on the optimum pheromone release rate for attraction of Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Econ Entomol 102(3):1094–1100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vacas S, Alfaro C, Navarro-Llopis V, Primo J (2009b) The first account of the mating disruption technique for the control of California red scale, Aonidiella aurantii Maskell (Homoptera: Diaspididae) using new biodegradable dispensers. Bull Entomol Res 99(4):415–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vacas S, Alfaro C, Navarro-Llopis V, Primo J (2010) Mating disruption of California red scale, Aonidiella aurantii Maskell (Homoptera: Diaspididae), using biodegradable mesoporous pheromone dispensers. Pest Manag Sci 66(7):745–751. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vacas S, Vanaclocha P, Alfaro C, Primo J, Verdú MJ, Urbaneja A, Navarro-Llopis V (2012) Mating disruption for the control of Aonidiella aurantii Maskell (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) may contribute to increased effectiveness of natural enemies. Pest Manag Sci 68(1):142–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vacas S, Navarro I, Primo J, Navarro-Llopis V (2016) Mating disruption to control the striped rice stem borer: pheromone blend, dispensing technology and number of releasing points. J Asia-Pacif Entomol 19(2):253–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vegter AC, Barletta M, Beck C, Borrero J, Burton H, Campbell ML, Costa MF, Eriksen M, Eriksson C, Estrades A, Gilardi KVK, Hardesty BD, Ivar do Sul JA, Lavers JL, Lazar B, Lebreton L, Nichols WJ, Ribic CA, Ryan PG, Schuyler QA, Smith SDA, Takada H, Townsend KA, Wabnitz CCC, Wilcox C, Young LC, Hamann M (2014) Global research priorities to mitigate plastic pollution impacts on marine wildlife. Endang Species Res 25(3):225–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Welter S, Pickel C, Millar J, Cave F, Van Steenwyk R, Dunley J (2005) Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests. Calif Agric 59(1):16–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Witzgall P, Stelinski L, Gut L, Thomson D (2008) Codling moth management and chemical ecology. Annu Rev Entomol 53(1):503–522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Witzgall P, Kirsch P, Cork A (2010) Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management. J Chem Ecol 36(1):80–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhao JZ, Li YX, Collins HL, Gusukuma-Minuto L, Mau RFL, Thompson GD, Shelton AM (2002) Monitoring and characterization of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) resistance to spinosad. J Econ Entomol 95(2):430–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhao JZ, Collins HL, Li YX, Mau RFL, Thompson GD, Hertlein M, Andaloro JT, Boykin R, Shelton AM (2006) Monitoring of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) resistance to spinosad, indoxacarb, and emamectin benzoate. J Econ Entomol 99(1):176–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agriculture, Food and EnvironmentUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.CBC (Europe) Srl, Biogard DivisionNova MilaneseItaly
  3. 3.The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPontederaItaly

Personalised recommendations