Biology and Management of Grape Berry Moth in North American Vineyard Ecosystems

  • Rufus Isaacs
  • Luis A. F. Teixeira
  • Paul E. Jenkins
  • Natalia Botero Neerdaels
  • Greg M. Loeb
  • Michael C. Saunders


The grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana (Clemens), is one of the most widespread and damaging insect pest of grapes in eastern North America. It was renamed from Endopiza viteana Clemens (Brown 2006). Larvae (Fig. 15.1c) of this pest bore into berries causing direct injury, reducing yield, and opening berries to opportunistic pathogens (Fig. 15.1d). Where this pest reaches high populations, berries may not be harvestable due to contamination by larvae or diseases that reduce fruit quality, forcing grape growers to leave heavily-infested regions of vineyards unharvested. In the past 50 years, prevention of damage and infestation by grape berry moth has been achieved primarily by the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, but increased restrictions on these chemicals in food crops and the risk of resistance to insecticides continues to stimulate the search for alternative control methods. This review includes the current status of knowledge about the biology of P. viteana and management strategies for its control. An earlier review of this pest and its management is provided by Dennehy et al. (1990a). We also refer readers to Ioriatti et al. (Chap. 14) for comparison with European species of berry-infesting Lepidoptera. In this chapter, we highlight future research opportunities that may improve the sustainability of vineyard integrated pest management programs while reducing crop damage from P. viteana.


Pheromone Trap Mating Disruption Female Moth Wild Grape Wild Grapevine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Our thanks to Keith Mason, Steve Van Timmeren, Elly Maxwell, Mark VanderWerp, Tim Weigle, Steve Hesler, Jody Timer and Andy Muza, for their collaboration on grape berry moth research. We also thank the many grape growers in Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania for access to their farms and for their willingness to collaborate on applied research projects. Funding support is gratefully acknowledged from USDA-CSREES Crops at Risk, Viticulture Consortium East, and North Central IPM Programs; Michigan State University’s Project GREEEN; National Grape Cooperative; and the Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council.


  1. Baldwin CJ (2009) Sustainability in the food industry. Wiley-Blackwell, AmesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball BD, Lovitt DF (1968) Plant pest control programs: orchard and vineyard inspection and removal. Michigan Department of Agriculture, LansingGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball BD, Lovitt DF (1969) Plant pest control programs: neglected orchard and vineyard removal. Michigan Department of Agriculture, LansingGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball BD, Lovitt DF (1971) Neglected orchard and vineyard removal. Michigan Department of Agriculture. Pest Control Programs, LansingGoogle Scholar
  5. Biever KD, Hostetter DL (1989) Phenology and pheromone trap monitoring of the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Missouri. J Entomol Sci 24:472–481Google Scholar
  6. Bostanian NJ, Vincent C, Goulet H, Lesage L, Lasnier J, Bellemare J, Mauffette Y (2003) The arthropod fauna of Quebec vineyards with particular reference to phytophagous arthropods. J Econ Entomol 96:1221–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botero-Garcés N, Isaacs R (2003) Distribution of grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in natural and cultivated habitats. Environ Entomol 32:1187–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Botero-Garcés N, Isaacs R (2004a) Influence of uncultivated habitats and native host plants on cluster infestation by grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Michigan vineyards. Environ Entomol 33:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botero-Garcés N, Isaacs R (2004b) Movement of the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana: ­displacement distance and direction. Physiol Entomol 29:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JW (2006) Scientific names and pest species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) frequently cited erroneously in the entomological literature. Am Entomol 52:182–189Google Scholar
  11. Cardé RT, Minks AK (1995) Control of moth pests by mating disruption. Annu Rev Entomol 40:559–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cha DH, Nojima S, Hesler SP, Zhang A, Linn CE Jr, Roelofs WL, Loeb GM (2008a) Identification and field evaluation of grape shoot volatiles attractive to female grape berry moth (Paralobesia viteana). J Chem Ecol 34:1180–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cha DH, Hesler SP, Moser CL, Nojima S, Linn CE, Roelofs WL, Loeb GM (2008b) Flight tunnel responses of female grape berry moth (Paralobesia viteana) to host plants. J Chem Ecol 34:622–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cha DH, Linn CE Jr, Teal PEA, Zhang A, Roelofs WL, Loeb GM (2011) Eavesdropping on plant volatiles by a specialist moth: significance of ratio and concentration. PLoS One 6:e17033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017033 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen S, Fleischer SJ, Tobin PC, Saunders MC (2011) Projecting insect voltinism under high and low greenhouse gas emission conditions. Environ Entomol 40:505–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark LG, Dennehy TJ (1988) Oviposition behavior of grape berry moth. Entomol Exp Appl 47:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costello MJ, Daane KM (1999) Abundance of spiders and insect predators on grapes in central California. J Arachnol 27:531–538Google Scholar
  18. Dennehy TJ, Hoffman CJ, Nyrop JP, Saunders MC (1990a) Development of low-spray, biological and pheromone approaches for control of grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana Clemens, in the eastern United States. In: Bostanian NJ, Wilson L, Dennehy TJ (eds) Monitoring and integrated management of arthropod pests of small fruit crops. Intercept Ltd., Andover, pp 261–282Google Scholar
  19. Dennehy TJ, Hoffman CJ, Kamas JS (1990b) Grape berry moth risk assessment reduces insecticide use 70 percent. Chautauqua County Agricultural News 72. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Geneva, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Enviroweather (2011) Enviroweather – weather–based pest, natural resources, and production management tools. http//
  21. Fergusson-Kolmes LA, Dennehy TJ (1993) Differences in host utilization by populations of North American grape phylloxera (Homoptera: Phylloxeridae). J Econ Entomol 86:1502–1511Google Scholar
  22. Galet P (1979) A practical ampelography. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gleissner BD, Worthley HN (1941) Evidence for a third brood of the grape berry moth, Polychrosis viteana Clemens, in the great lakes region. J Econ Entomol 34:426–431Google Scholar
  24. Gu H, Danthanarayana W (1990) Age-related flight and reproductive performance of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Entomol Exp Appl 54:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendrickson AH (1913) Forty-second annual report of the secretary of the state horticultural society of Michigan for the year 1912, Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffman CJ, Dennehy TJ (1989) Phenology, movement, and within-field distribution of the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in New York vineyards. Can Entomol 121:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffman CJ, Dennehy TJ, Nyrop JP (1992) Phenology, monitoring, and control decision components of the grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) risk assessment program in New York. J Econ Entomol 85:2218–2227Google Scholar
  28. Ingerson HG (1920) Life history of the grape berry moth in northern Ohio. U S Dep Agric Bull 911:1–38Google Scholar
  29. Isaacs R, Mason KS, Maxwell E (2005) Stage-specific control of grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), by selective and broad-spectrum insecticides. J Econ Entomol 98:415–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Isaacs R, Mason KS, Teixeira LAF, Loeb G, Hesler S, Weigle T, Muza A, Timer J, Saunders M (2012) Comparison of three dispenser distribution patterns for pheromone mating disruption of Paralobesia viteana in vineyards. J Econ Entomol (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Isely D (1917) Control of the grape-berry moth in the Erie-Chautauqua grape belt. Washington, D.C. U S Dep Agric Bull 550:1–44Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins PE (2006) Control of the grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana, using reduced-risk insecticides, cultural controls, and conservation of natural enemies. M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  33. Jenkins PE, Isaacs R (2007) Reduced-risk insecticides for control of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and conservation of natural enemies. J Econ Entomol 100:855–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jenkins PE, Isaacs R (2008) Mating disruption of Paralobesia viteana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in vineyards using pheromone deployed in SPLAT-GBM™ wax droplets. J Chem Ecol 34:1089–1095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson F, Hammar AG (1912) The grape berry moth. Washington, D.C. U S Dep Agric Bull 116:15–71Google Scholar
  36. Landolt PJ, Phillips TW (1997) Host plant influences on sex pheromone behavior of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 42:371–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis BA, Johnson DT (1999) Grape berry moth management program. Proc Okla Ark Hortic Ind Show 18:56–60Google Scholar
  38. Luciani MA (1987) The biology of the grape berry moth, Endopiza Viteana, Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in southern Ontario. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Guelph, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  39. Martinson TE, Hoffman CJ, Dennehy TJ, Kamas JS, Weigle T (1991) Risk assessment of grape berry moth and guidelines for the management of the eastern grape leafhopper. N Y Food Life Sci Bull 138:1–10Google Scholar
  40. 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 32:2115–2143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moore MO (1991) Classification and systematics of eastern North American Vitis L. (Vitaceae) north of Mexico. Sida Contrib Bot 14:339–367Google Scholar
  42. Morano LD, Walker MA (1995) Soils and plant communities associated with three Vitis species. Am Midl Nat 134:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nagarkatti S, Tobin PC, Saunders MC (2001) Diapause induction in the grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ Entomol 30:540–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagarkatti S, Muza AJ, Saunders MC, Tobin PC (2002a) Role of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma minutum in biological control of the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana. BioControl 47:373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagarkatti S, Tobin PC, Muza AJ, Saunders MC (2002b) Carbaryl resistance in populations of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New York and Pennsylvania. J Econ Entomol 95:1027–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. NEWA (2011) Network for environment and weather applications, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program.
  47. Pettit RH (1933) The principal grape insects of Michigan. Agric Exp Stn Mich State Coll Agric Appl Sci Spec Bull 239:3–18Google Scholar
  48. Pfeiffer DG, Boucher TJ, Lachance MW, Killian JC (1992) Entomological research in Virginia (USA) vineyards. In: Bostanian NJ, Wilson LT, Dennehy T (eds) Monitoring and integrated management of arthropod pests of small fruit crops. Intercept Ltd., Andover, pp 45–61Google Scholar
  49. Roelofs WL, Tette JP, Taschenberg EF, Comeau A (1971) Sex pheromone of the grape berry moth: identification by classical and electroantennogram methods, and field tests. J Insect Sci 17:2235–2243Google Scholar
  50. Schowalter TD (2000) Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  51. Schumacher P, Weyeneth A, Weber D, Dorn S (1997) Long flights in Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) measured by a flight mill: influence of sex, mated status and age. Physiol Entomol 22:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seaman AJ, Nyrop JP, Dennehy TJ (1990) Egg and larval parasitism of the grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in three grape habitats in New York. Environ Entomol 19:764–770Google Scholar
  53. Slingerland MV (1904) The grape berry moth. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell Univ Bull 223:41–80Google Scholar
  54. Smythe RA (1913) Forty-second annual report of the secretary of the state horticultural society of Michigan for the year 1912, Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
  55. Snyder DP, Weigle TH, White GB (1992) Economics of integrated pest management practices for insects in grape production. Cornell University. Coll Agric Life Sci 92:1–9Google Scholar
  56. Stelinski LL, Pelz KS, Liburd OE (2004) Field observations quantifying attraction of the parasitic wasp, Diachasma alloeum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to blueberry fruit infested by the blueberry maggot fly, Rhagoletis mendax (Diptera: Tephritidae). Fla Entomol 87:124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taschenberg EF, Roelofs WL (1977) Mating disruption of the grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana, with pheromone released from hollow fibers. Environ Entomol 6:761–763Google Scholar
  58. Taschenberg EF, Cardé RT, Hill A, Tette JP, Roelofs WL (1974a) Sex pheromone trapping of the grape berry moth. Environ Entomol 3:192–194Google Scholar
  59. Taschenberg EF, Cardé RT, Roelofs WL (1974b) Sex pheromone mass trapping and mating disruption for control of redbanded leafroller and grape berry moths in vineyards. Environ Entomol 3:239–242Google Scholar
  60. Teixeira LAF, Mason KS, Isaacs R (2009) Control of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation to oviposition phenology. J Econ Entomol 102:692–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 29:1514–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thiéry D, Moreau J (2005) Relative performance of European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) on grapes and other hosts. Oecologia 143:548–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  64. Tobin PC, Nagarkatti S, Saunders MC (2001) Modeling development in grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ Entomol 30:692–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tobin PC, Nagarkatti S, Saunders MC (2002) Diapause maintenance and termination in grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ Entomol 31:708–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tobin PC, Nagarkatti S, Saunders MC (2003) Phenology of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in cultivated grape at selected geographic locations. Environ Entomol 32:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tobin PC, Nagarkatti S, Loeb G, Saunders MC (2008) Historical and projected interactions between climate change and insect voltinism in a multivoltine species. Glob Change Biol 14:951–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Trimble RM (1993) Efficacy of mating disruption for controlling the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), a case study over three consecutive growing seasons. Can Entomol 125:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trimble RM (2007) Comparison of efficacy of pheromone dispensing technologies for controlling the grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by mating disruption. Environ Entomol 100:1815–1820Google Scholar
  70. Trimble RM, Pree DJ, Vickers PM, Ker KW (1991) Potential of mating disruption using sex-pheromone for controlling the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Niagara peninsula, Ontario vineyards. Can Entomol 123:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trimble RM, Vickers PM, Nielsen KE, Barinshteyn G (2003) Sprayable pheromone for controlling the North American grape berry moth by mating disruption. Agric For Entomol 5:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williamson JR, Johnson DT (2005) Effects of grape berry moth management practices and landscape on arthropod diversity in grape vineyards in the southern United States. HortTechnology 15:232–238Google Scholar
  73. Wise JC, Jenkins PE, Schilder AM, Vandervoort C, Isaacs R (2010) Sprayer type and water volume influence pesticide deposition and control of insect pests and diseases in juice grapes. Crop Prot 29:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Witzgall P, Bengtsson M, Trimble RM (2000) Sex pheromone of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ Entomol 29:433–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rufus Isaacs
    • 1
  • Luis A. F. Teixeira
    • 2
  • Paul E. Jenkins
    • 1
  • Natalia Botero Neerdaels
    • 3
  • Greg M. Loeb
    • 4
  • Michael C. Saunders
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Product Support and RenewalDuPont Crop ProtectionWilmingtonUSA
  3. 3.Driscoll’s Strawberry Associates Inc.WatsonvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Entomology, New York State Agricultural Experiment StationCornell UniversityGenevaUSA
  5. 5.Department of EntomologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations