Next Article in Journal
Willingness to Pay for Weather-Indexed Insurance: Evidence from Cambodian Rice Farmers
Previous Article in Journal
Connecting Future Environmental Trends and Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Resources of Concern: A Case Study of Big Pine Key, Florida
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Economic Examination and Prospects on Innovation in New Grapevine Varieties Dealing with Global Warming and Fungal Diseases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/su142114554
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effects of Climate Change on the Activity of the Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella Moths on the Grapevine Cultivars from the Târnave Vineyard

by
Maria Comșa
1,*,
Liliana Lucia Tomoiagă
1,
Maria-Doinița Muntean
1,
Mihaela Maria Ivan
2,
Sorița Maria Orian
2,
Daniela Maria Popescu
2 and
Veronica Sanda Chedea
1
1
Research Station for Viticulture and Enology Blaj (SCDVV Blaj), 515400 Blaj, Romania
2
Research Department, SC Jidvei SRL, 517385 Jidvei, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14554; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114554
Submission received: 30 August 2022 / Revised: 28 October 2022 / Accepted: 2 November 2022 / Published: 5 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change Influence in Agriculture-Experimenting the Introduction of Cultivated Crops in Culture)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Knowledge about the geographical areas preferred by grapevine moths, the size of the populations, and the attraction to certain cultivars supports winegrowers for a better zoning of vineyards and vine cultivars, which is in continuing dynamic due to the climate change. Grapevine moths Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller) and Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hübner) are the main pests of grapes in the Târnave vineyard. For this reason, the influence of the cultivar in the climatic conditions of 2016–2019 period on the dynamics of the two moths species was evaluated in five plantations (Jidvei, Șona, Sâmniclăuș, Tăuni and Cenade) from Târnave vineyards on five cultivars Fetească regală, Sauvignon blanc, Chardonnay, Traminer and Rhine Riesling. During the studied period, the climate experienced deviations from the multiannual values. Our results highlight different activities of the two moth species. The number of captures was influenced by climatic conditions, geographical area and grape cultivar. L. botrana prefers drier climates, lower geographical areas and Traminer cultivar; meanwhile, E. ambiguella prefers wetter climates, higher hilly areas and the Sauvignon blanc cultivar. These findings are important in the general context of grapevine protection in order to reduce the use of pesticides by choosing the right cultivars in the appropriate climate conditions.

1. Introduction

Climate change particularly affects grapevine culture [1] as well as the development of grapevine diseases and pests [2,3] and their interactions [4]. In these conditions, a continuous monitoring of the vineyards is necessary to adapt practices and management strategies as specific as possible. Vineyards are agroecosystems, which can host a large number of pests [5]. Among these, grapes moths E. ambiguella (Hübner) and L. botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)—both originating in the Palearctic region—have been recognized as key pests of Western European vineyards since the 18th century [6]. Usually, E. ambiguella is more common in the northern regions of Western Europe, while L. botrana is more widespread in warmer regions [7]. E. ambiguella has been detected from Sicily to southern Scandinavia even outside the grapevine growing areas and is reported as a dominant species in vineyards located in Germany, France (northern regions), Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia [6,7]. L. botrana, considered as the European grapevine moth, is one of the major harmful insects detected in worldwide vineyards. [8]
E. ambiguella and L. botrana are two of the most important harmful arthropods in viticulture, causing significant economic losses mostly because of the 2nd larvae generation, which feed on grapes [9,10,11,12,13]. By their feeding action, E. ambiguella and L. botrana can further attract infestations by Botrytis cinerea (a necrotrophic fungus that causes grey rot) and fruit flies (Drosophila spp.) [14].
Both L. botrana and E. ambiguella share similar native ranges. In some years, both pests are present, while in others, one is more dominant [15]. In Romania, E. ambiguella usually has two generations per year [16,17]; meanwhile, L. botrana has mostly three generations per year [10,16]. Both species overwinter in the pupae stage on the grapevine [18].
For viticulturists, it is important to keep the moth populations below the economic damage threshold; therefore, pest monitoring is an essential part of integrated pest management. Due to the increasing resistance of pests to the insecticide, which often exceeds the ability to generate new pest-control products, and because the larvae are sensitive to insecticides only immediately after hatching, the control of vine moths is generally preventive [19]. Following the spatio-temporal dynamics of moths through regular sampling and periodic monitoring allows viticulturists to make decisions regarding if and when a harmful population requires appropriate programming and optimization of subsequent protection measures [13,20,21].
Târnave is the largest vineyard in the Romanian viticultural zone 1, and it is positioned at the intersection of the geographical coordinates of 46–47° northern latitude and 23°–24° eastern longitude on the Transylvanian Plateau [22,23,24,25,26]. Here, in the Târnave vineyard, there are favorable conditions for the development of white grape cultivars, such as Fetească regală, Italian Riesling, Sauvignon blanc, Fetească albă, Chardonnay, Muscat Ottonel, Traminer, Rhine Riesling and other white grapevine cultivars. Along with the recent climate changes, red grape varieties such as: Fetească neagră, Pinot noir, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot or Syrah became also suitable for planting [27] in this area.
The aim of this study is to investigate the spatio-temporal dynamics of the two grapevine moths species, E. ambiguella and L. botrana, in grapevine plantations of the Târnave vineyard as well as the evaluation of ecopedoclimatic factors that underlie the variability of L. botrana and E. ambiguella activity using precision agriculture in combination with data analytics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Studied Areas from Târnave Vineyard

The studies were carried out during four consecutive years (2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019) in the vineyards of SC Jidvei SRL Company (2500 ha) (Alba County Romania), plantations located in a hilly landscape of the Târnave vineyard [28]. Five grapevine plantations cultivated with different grape cultivars were studied (Figure 1) and they are presented in Table 1.
The Jidvei (J) grapevine plantation is located on the left side of Târnava Mică river and the plots studied were FR1J—Fetească regală, plot 1, Jidvei plantation; FR2J—Fetească regală, plot 2, Jidvei plantation; SB1J—Sauvignon blanc, plot 1, Jidvei plantation; SB2J—Sauvignon blanc, plot 2, Jidvei plantation.
Șona (S) grapevine plantation also located on the left side of the Târnava Mică river, has two plots cultivated with the Sauvignon blanc grape cultivar; therefore, the samples studied were SB1S—Sauvignon blanc, plot 1, Șona plantation; SB2S—Sauvignon blanc plot 2, Șona plantation.
The Sânmiclăuș (SN) grapevine plantation is located on the right side of the Târnava Mică river and it is a plot cultivated with Sauvignon blanc, Chardonnay and Traminer cultivars; therefore, the samples analyzed are SBSN—Sauvignon blanc, Sânmiclăuș plantation; CHSN—Chardonnay, Sânmiclăuș plantation; TRSN—Traminer, Sânmiclăuș plantation.
The Tăuni (T) grapevine, plantation located on the right side of the Târnava Mare river, has three experimental plots: SBT—Sauvignon blanc, Tăuni plantation; RR1T—Rhine Riesling, plot 1, Tăuni plantation; RR2T—Rhine Riesling plot 2, Tăuni plantation.
The Cenade (C) grapevine plantation is located on the left side of the Târnava Mare river, and it is cultivated with Sauvignon blanc, Rhine Riesling and Chardonnay cultivars; therefore, the studied plots were the following: SBC— Sauvignon blanc, Cenade; RRC—Rhine Riesling, Cenade plantation; CHC—Chardonnay, Cenade plantation.

2.2. Climate Characterization of the Studied Area from Târnave Vineyard

At SC Jidvei SRL Company (Târnave vineyard), climate factors with major impact (temperature and rainfall) are automatically recorded daily by meteorological stations (iMetos by Pessl instruments, Weiz, Austria). Thus, for this study, climatic data were obtained from the meteorological stations located in each of the studied plantations. Parameters such as average monthly air temperature (°C), average annual air temperature (°C), the sum of the monthly precipitation (mm), the sum of the annual precipitation (mm), and the duration of the growing season (days) were calculated [29] and processed into climatograms [30] in order to correlate them with the moths activity. The average monthly air temperatures were calculated as the mean of the temperatures recorded during 1 month (°C), the average annual air temperature was calculated as the mean of the temperatures recorded per year (°C), the sum of the monthly precipitation was calculated as Ʃ of rainfall water quantities in 1 month (mm), the sum of the annual precipitation was calculated as Ʃ of rainfall water quantities per year (mm), and the duration of the growing season was calculated as Ʃ of days from sprouting to the first frost (days) [29].

2.3. Monitoring Eupoecilia ambiguella and Lobesia botrana Populations

For the monitoring of the moths populations, tetratraps with synthetic pheromones were installed: AtraBOT traps for L. botrana and AtraMBIG traps for E. ambiguella. The pheromonal traps were of Romanian origin, manufactured at the Raluca Ripan Chemistry Research Institute, Cluj Napoca, and they are based on the pheromone lure on the moth males, followed by the capture of the insect by fixing it on an adhesive surface. The traps were fixed at about 80 cm above the ground, one per plot. The pheromone capsules were replaced after 6 weeks, and the clogged valves were replaced if necessary. The traps were checked weekly, with the captures being identified, counted, and notated, on which occasion the trap was also cleaned by removing all the butterflies and insects from the adhesive surface. Identification of moths (Figure 2) was carried out in the field based on physical characteristics [31].
Data collection was achieved using the 4Grapes mobile and tablet application using GPS-based geolocation. This application is linked to information from the QGIS database [28] (location of the plantation, plot, and grapevine variety); therefore, data were collected and stored on a platform that allows map viewing with indications of location, variety, date and other desired parameters. The flight of males of both species (E. ambiguella and L. botrana) was monitored throughout the vegetation period, from the end of April to the end of September or October, during four consecutive years (2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The experimental data were statistically analyzed with Statview 5.0, performing one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by a Fisher protected least-significant difference (PSLD) test. p-values lower than 0.05 were considered significant, while p-values between 0.05 and 0.1 were considered tendencies.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Climate Characterization of the Studied Area from Târnave Vineyard

The studied climatic data collected from the meteorological stations were compared to the reference multiannual values [27]. From the viticultural point of view, the climate of the Transylvanian plateau corresponds to the bioclimatic index of 7.3, indicating that the vineyards here are rich in hydric resources [23]. These bioclimatic conditions make the Târnave vineyard recognized for its dry and semi-dry white wines [26].
The viticultural year 2016 was characterized by a normal vegetation period of 189 days for all five vineyards. Temperature plays a particularly important role in insect development [3]. The average annual temperatures registered in 2016 were 10.0 °Cat Jidvei (J) plantation, 10.3 °C at Șona plantation, 10.5 °C at Sânmiclăuș plantation, 10.6 °C at Tăuni plantation and 10.7 °C at Cenade plantation (Figure 3A). These values are slightly lower than the multiannual average temperature (10.8 °C). Precipitations were abundant in all of the five plantations, with the largest amount being recorded at Jidvei station (906 mm), followed by Tăuni (824 mm), Șona (813.6 mm), Cenade (770.4 mm), and Sânmiclăuș (766. 8 mm). All the recorded annual amounts of precipitation in 2016 were higher than the multiannual average (655.6 mm); therefore, 2016 is considered a cooler and rainier year characterized by a great variability of temperatures and precipitation (Figure 3A).
The viticultural year 2017 (Figure 3B) had a vegetation period of 188 days, with average annual temperatures lower than the multiannual average (10.8 °C). The coolest area was Jidvei with 10.1 °C, followed by Tăuni (10.4 °C), Șona and Sânmiclăuș (10.5 °C) and Cenade (10.8 °C) (Figure 3B). In terms of precipitation, at all of the five meteorological stations, the annual amount was lower than the average multiannual amount. The lowest rainfall level was recorded in Jidvei, (473.8 mm) and the highest amount was recorded in Tăuni (547 mm) (Figure 3 B). Thus, the viticultural year 2017 is considered slightly cooler and quite dry compared to the multiannual values (655.6 mm).
The viticultural year 2018 was a generous year for the grapevine plantations of Târnave vineyard (Figure 3C). This year was characterized by a soft winter, warm spring, moderate temperatures and abundant precipitations in the first part of the summer and a warm and dry autumn. The average annual air temperature in Jidvei was 10.8 °C, a value similar to the multiannual average. In Șona and Sânmiclăuș, an average annual temperature of 11.3 °C was registered. Higher values than the multiannual average temperature (10.8 °C) were registered in Tăuni (11.5 °C) and in Cenade (11.9 °C). The sum of annual precipitation also registered values close to the multiannual precipitations (655.6 mm). However, in the viticultural year 2018, precipitations were unevenly distributed. In all of the studied plantations, a very high amount of precipitation was recorded in June and July (60% of the annual precipitation amount). All of the studied areas registered similar precipitation amounts, with the largest sum of annual precipitations being registered at Șona (695 mm) and the smallest at Cenade (625 mm).
In the viticultural year 2019, all of the studied plantations registered higher average annual temperatures than the multiannual average temperature. The lowest average annual temperature was recorded in Sânmiclăuș (11.1 °C), and the highest average annual temperature was recorded in Șona (11.9 °C). All of the five plantations registered similar annual temperatures, with slight differences being observed in October. The annual precipitation amount was slightly lower than the multiannual average. The highest amount of precipitations was recorded at Șona (662.8 mm) and the lowest amount at Cenade (408 mm) (Figure 3D).
By comparing the studied years, we can conclude that the coolest and rainiest year was 2016, the warmest year was 2019, and the driest year was 2017. The plantations that registered the highest average annual temperature were Cenade in 2016, 2017 and 2018 and Șona in 2019, while the lowest annual temperatures were registered in Jidvei in 2016, 2017 and 2018, and Sânmiclăuș in 2019. In the four years of study, the highest amount of precipitation was recorded at Șona, and the lowest precipitation amount was recorded at Cenade.
During the studied period, the climate experienced deviations from the multiannual values (10.8 °C), with the average annual temperatures being lower in 2016 and 2017 and higher in 2018 and 2019. The amount of precipitation was lower than the multiannual (655.6 mm) in 2017, similar in the years 2018 and 2019, and higher in 2016.
We assess that the temperature and precipitation differences observed between the studied areas are largely due to the altitude and distribution of the landforms as well as the influence of the type of the adjacent areas (forests or pastures).

3.2. Monitorization of Flight Activity and Number of Adult Moths Caught on Pheromone Traps

Due to the fact that the highest number of L. botrana captures was observed in the Sânmiclăuș plantation on the Sauvignon plot (SNSB), the data recorded in this study area were used to build the annual flying curves. L. botrana monitoring took place during the vegetation period of each year (Figure 4). In the same way, for E. ambiguella were used the data from Tăuni plantation—Sauvignon plot (TSB). E. ambiguella ended flight activity at the end of September, which was earlier than L. botrana (end of October).

3.2.1. The Dynamic of Flight Activity of the Lobesia botrana Species

Following the monitoring performed on the L. botrana species, in the four years of study, a trivoltin flight model was observed (Figure 4).
During the four years of study, the flight period of the first generation (G1) of L. botrana started at the end of April and lasted until the end of June (Figure 4). The second generation of L. botrana (G2) recorded the lowest number of captures and registered the lowest flight activity: from the beginning till the end of June. The third generation of L. botrana (G3) registered the highest number of captures and also had the highest number of flight days: from the beginning of July to the end of October (2017, 2019). The delimitation between G2 and G3 of L. botrana is not very clear, with a sort of overlap being observed in all of the studied years. Filip et. al. reported that in the Murfatlar vineyard (RO), L. botrana had three generations per year, and the development stages were very extensive, especially G3 [32].
The maximum of the flight curve of G1 was registered on 30 April 2018 (92 moths/trap—April III). For G2, the maximum number of captures was observed on 15 July 2017 (58 captures/trap—July III), and for G3, the maximum captures value was reached on 30 September 2017 (280 moths/trap—Sept. III) (Figure 4). Even though G1 had a lower number of captures in 2017 than in other years, G3 registered a record number of captures in 2017. This variability is due to the climatic conditions of each year. The year 2017 recorded the lowest amount of precipitation without being classified as a dry year. The months of August and September (2017) had quite small amounts of precipitation, which we consider to have favored the development of G3 of L. botrana. In fact, every year, towards the end of September, a more intense activity of L. botrana males was noticed.
The results regarding the number of captures of each generation are in accordance with those obtained from studies conducted in other Romanian vineyards (RO), such as in Iași vineyards [33], in which G1 was more numerous than G2. Studies conducted in the Murfatlar vineyard (RO) [32] and Dealu Mare (RO) [10] highlight the fact that L. botrana has three generations per year, with three flight peaks recorded in May, July and August. Moreover, in the viticultural plantations from Bujoru (RO) [34,35], the plantations from Dealurile Craiovei (RO) [36] registered a fourth generation, but it was incomplete (pseudogeneration). Pavan et. al. [12] reported that in some warmer areas, G3 flight takes place from late July to early August and this is associated with a shorter development time of second-generation larvae, which, in the warmer areas, develop in five stages while in cooler areas develop in ix stages. G3 is particularly difficult to control because the larvae hatch and penetrate rapidly into mature berries, and control measures on G3 should primarily target L. botrana eggs [37]. Factors that increase the preference of L. botrana for a particular grapevine variety at G1 (anthophagous generation) are different from those of other generations [38].

3.2.2. The Dynamic of Flight Activity of Eupoecilia ambiguella Specie

In the ecopedoclimatic conditions of the Tăuni plantation, during the studied period of time, E. ambiguella recorded two flight peaks resulting in two well-defined generations per year (Figure 5). Generally, the first generation (G1) of E. ambiguella had a shorter flight time, with the flight peaks towards the end of May (2016, 2018, 2019) or the beginning of June (2017) and the second generation (G2) had a larger flight time, with flight peaks in mid-August (2016, 2017, 2018) or the beginning of September (2019) depending on the annual climate fluctuations. In 2018, the maximum number of captures was registered for G1 individuals (143 captures), while in 2017, the maximum flight was recorded for G2 with 107 captured males. Our results are in agreement with the results of Popa, obtained from observations made in Dealu Mare vineyard (RO) [10] and with the results of Bărbuceanu, obtained from Ştefăneşti vineyards (RO, Argeş) [16]. They also recorded two generations of E. ambiguella per year.
Climate changes in the Târnave vineyard had a strong impact on the activity of the two species. The studies carried out in the Târnave vineyard between 1992–1995 showed that both L. botrana and E. ambiguella recorded two generations per year [39]. Compared to the period of 1992–1995, an extra generation of L. botrana was identified in our study during 2016–2019. Furthermore, during the 1992–1995 period, the ratio between the two species was slightly in favor of E. ambiguella. In our studies (2016–2019), the ratio between the two was highly in favor of L. botrana, which we consider an invasive species in the context of climate changes, a fact also stated by Tancík et. al., Pavan et. al., and Voigt [40,41,42]. In the conditions of the years 1992–1995, the flight periods of the L. botrana and E. ambiguella species overlapped perfectly [39]. In comparison, in our studies, the flight of the two species was similar only for the first generation. The activity of grape moths in the Târnave vineyard is in a continuous dynamic that is influenced by a complex of factors.

3.3. The Influence of Climatic Conditions on the Activity of L. botrana and E. ambiguella

Taking into account the two species of moths, and following studies and analyses, the results showed that in the four years of study, they had different behaviors depending on the manifestation of climatic conditions. Analyzing the results from the four years, the L. botrana species registered significant differences between the number of captures in 2017 (p <0.05%) compared to the number of captures in 2016, 2018 and 2019 in the sense that the highest number of captures was in 2017 (Figure 6). The year 2017 registered the lowest amount of rainfall, which may prove to be the most favorable year for the evolution of L. botrana. In 2016, there was a higher amount of precipitation and a lowest number of captures; thus, we consider that it was a year with less-favorable climatic conditions for the development of L. botrana.
For the E. ambiguella species, the differences are statistically insignificant in all of the four years of study. However, in 2018, the highest number of captures was recorded on the pheromone traps (Figure 6). We consider that the significant amount of precipitations registered during the vegetation period of the year 2018 was favorable for the development of the E. ambiguella moth (Figure 3C). In each year of study in the Târnave vineyard, the number of L. botrana captures was significantly higher than the number of E. ambiguella captures (Figure 7).
From a statistical point of view, in the four years, the number of L. botrana captures from the experimental plots from Jidvei and Sânmiclăuș is significantly higher (p < 0.05) compared to the number of captures from Șona, Tăuni and Cenade (Figure 8A). In 2017, there was a significantly higher number of L. botrana captures in the Sânmiclăuș plantations than in the Jidvei plantations (Figure 8A 2017).
Regarding the E. Ambiguella species, a significantly higher number of captures was registered in Tăuni, with the differences between Jidvei, Șona, Sânmiclăuș, and Cenade being similar (Figure 8B).
Our findings are in agreement with the results present in the literature. Studies conducted by Pavan et al. regarding the distribution of the two species in vineyards from Italy reveal a significantly higher proportion of L. botrana larvae than E. ambiguella larvae [38]. In addition, the results obtained from studies conducted in vineyards in southern Slovakia showed that the number of L. botrana captures in pheromone traps was significantly higher than the number of E. ambiguella captures [40]. The cause may be the high temperature during the summer, which has dramatically reduced the number of male captures of E. ambiguella [40]. The two species coexist in transition areas and their proportion depends on climatic conditions [41]. Colder and rainier seasons favor the dominance of E. ambiguella populations, while warmer and drier seasons favor L. botrana [16,41,42].

3.4. Geographical Spread of L. botrana and E. ambiguella Moths in Vineyards

Regarding the distribution of the two species of moths in the five plantations studied, the results show large differences from one vineyard to another, keeping approximately the same proportions each year. In the 4 years of study, the highest number of captures of L. botrana was registered in Sânmiclăuș plantations (9091, representing 59.1% of the total L. botrana captures), and the smallest number of captures was registered in the experimental plots of Tăuni (Figure 9). In Șona and Tăuni plantations, L. botrana was almost nonexistent, and this may be due to the altitude, the exposure to direct sunlight, or the soil management.
During the 4 years of study, E. ambiguella was mostly found in from the experimental plot from Tăuni (1486, representing 90% of the total number of E. ambiguella captures). In the other plantations, E. ambiguella was found only sporadically, with the number of captures being very low (Figure 10).
In the Târnave vineyard, L. botrana has a much wider-spread area, being found mostly in Sânmiclăuș and Jidvei compared to E. ambiguella, which were mostly found in the Tăuni vineyard (Figure 10).
The E. ambiguella population could be affected by the presence of alternative host plants and therefore by the complexity of the landscape, a fact stated also by Reineke et. al. [43]. According to studies conducted by Svobodava et al., the favorable climate for tortricids is declining in the Mediterranean (west of Spain and in Portugal) and the climate is becoming favorable for these species in the areas that include Hungary and the Black Sea coast (Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine) [44]. According to the same climatic scenario, for the Cydia pomonella and L. botrana species, it is predicted that they will change their range to the north by about 550 and 1300 km, respectively [44]. In the recent decades, the L. botrana species has moved to northern areas and the pest has invaded new wine-growing areas in Europe, even replacing E. ambiguella [44]. It is expected that in the context of climate change, this trend will become more severe in the future [45,46].
L. botrana is recognized as an extremely invasive pest in vineyards in warmer wine-growing areas [47,48], and E. ambiguella has been assumed to have the same invasive potential in colder wine-growing areas [49]. The Târnave vineyard is subjected to climate changes, which have resulted in an increase in the average annual temperature by 1–1.5 °C, and the vegetation period of grapevines has increased by 10–15 days [26,29].

3.5. Distribution of L. botrana and E. ambiguella Moths on Cultivars and Locations

By comparing the activity of the two studied moths on the experimental plots, the results show large differences in the distribution of the moths depending on the cultivars and locations. In the Jidvei vineyard, where two plots of Fetească regală, FR1J and FR2J, were studied, the differences between the average number of captures of L. botrana per plot are significant (Figure 11A). Thus, in the FR2J plot, located at an altitude of 404 m, there were significantly more captures than in the FR1J plot, located at an altitude of 345 m. We found the opposite situation in the plots cultivated with Sauvignon blanc, SB1J and SB2J, in the sense that, in the SB1J plot, located at an altitude of 311 m, there were significantly more captures of L. botrana than in the SB2J plot, located at an altitude of 399 m. On the same plots, the number of E. ambiguella captures were very small and the differences between them are statistically insignificant (Figure 11B). In the Șona plantation, the differences between the captures of L. botrana and E. ambiguella from the two plots of Sauvignon blanc, are statistically insignificant. In this area was registered the lowest activity of the two moths, with the plots being situated at an altitude of 386 and 378 m, respectively. In the plantations from Sânmiclăuș was registered the highest activity of the L. botrana moth in all of the four years. The results showed that there are no statistical differences between the three experimental plots located here (Figure 11A). At Cenade, the results show that the number of L. botrana captures on the RRC plot was higher than that on the CHC and SBC plots. At Tăuni, the results showed no differences between the number of L. botrana captures on the three studied plots.
Our results suggest that the spread of L. botrana species in the Târnave vineyard decreases along with the increase of the altitude. Studies conducted by Schartel et al. in California estimate that L. botrana occurrences are more numerous at altitudes below 250 m [47]. In contrast, studies conducted in vineyards from Italy stated that the number of generations of L. botrana will increase along with the altitude and temperature and that the global warming could exacerbate this phenomenon [2]. On the other hand, other studies claim that exposure to direct sunlight (at higher altitudes) can increase the temperature of the grape surface and, as a result, increase the mortality of L. botrana eggs and larvae [50].
In the case of the E. ambiguella species, found mainly in the vineyards from Tăuni, there were statistical differences registered between the captures from the SBT (405 m) and RR1T (348 m) plots. In general, it can be observed that E. ambiguella is more common in the wine-growing regions located on hills, which is in accordance with the findings of Pavan et. al. [51].
L. botrana has nocturnal activity, and the mating flight is initiated during the night. The laying of eggs begins at sunset and lasts until night. In contrast, E. ambiguella is flight-active at dawn, and egg laying has been observed from noon to night [52], when the temperature is higher, and the atmospheric humidity is lower; thus, the mortality of the eggs is higher. Each plot of the vineyard is unique, and the distribution of insects changes depending on the stage of development, the season, the phenological state of the crop, and the climatic conditions [20]. The causes of non-uniformity in insect populations are often difficult to understand, being determined by several factors [53]. Pest outbreaks may be more common in simpler landscapes [54] as well as because they often contain fewer resources to support natural enemies [55]. Complex landscapes can also provide alternative host plants for pests [56,57,58].

3.6. Preference of L. botrana and E. ambiguella Moths for Grapevine Cultivars

The number of males captured within a particular species reflects the preference of females for laying eggs, as they are actually attracted to them [59]. Several researchers suggest that grapevine cultivars can influence preference for L. botrana and E. ambiguella [8,38,59,60].
The results gathered in the four years of study including five cultivars of grapevine show that captures of both L. botrana and E. ambiguella were recorded on all cultivars. By analyzing the data (Figure 12A), it can be stated that the cultivar has a significant effect on the number of males captured on the traps.
From the statistical point of view, our study reveals that L. botrana has a preference for the Traminer cultivar, with the number of L. botrana captures being significantly higher than on the other cultivars. This is also due to the fact that the Traminer cultivar was studied only at Sânmiclăuș, where the largest number of L. botrana captures was registered. On the Fetească regală and Chardonnay cultivars, the number of L. botrana captures was similar, with the differences being statistically insignificant. The lowest number of L. botrana captures was recorded on the Rhine Riesling cultivar.
Regarding the preference of the E. ambiguella species (Figure 12B), following statistical analyses, the preferred cultivars seem to be Sauvignon blanc and Rhine Riesling, with the number of E. ambiguella captures being significantly higher on Sauvignon blanc and Rhine Riesling than on the other cultivars. In our study Chardonnay, Traminer and Fetească regală were less-preferred by E. ambiguella. According to some authors, the preferred cultivars for L. botrana are Chardonnay, Tocai Frulano and Sauvignon blanc [38,60]; meanwhile, E. ambiguella, seems to prefer red cultivars [38]. The factors that increase L. botrana preference for a cultivar at G1 (the anthophage generation) are different from those that make it preferred during the other generations [38]. For G1, the level of infestation was correlated with the precocity of flowering [41]. Studies conducted by Vogelweith and Thiéry showed that the grape cultivar can affect the immunity of the moth larvae. Larvae from Gewurztraminer grapes were more resistant to parasitoids compared to those from Riesling and Merlot grapes [5]. Knowing moth preferences can lead to an improved monitoring system, with the preferred cultivar being used as an early indicator [59].

4. Conclusions

Collectively, our results show that the distribution of L. botrana and E. ambiguella species in the Târnave vineyard is uneven and influenced to greatest extent by climatic factors, landform and grapevine cultivars.
During the studied period of time, the climate experienced deviations from the multiannual values. The average annual temperature was lower in 2016 and 2017, and higher in 2018 and 2019. The amount of precipitation was lower than the multiannual reference value in 2017, similar in the years 2018 and 2019 and higher in 2016.
Less rainfall and lower altitudes are associated with a higher number of captures of L. botrana. Higher altitudes and moderate rainfalls are associated with higher number of E. ambiguella captures.
The analysis of the obtained data reveals:
  • The existence of three generations of L. botrana and two generations of E. ambiguella;
  • The presence and dominance of the L. botrana species in two of the vineyards: Sânmiclăuș and Jidvei;
  • The presence and dominance of the E. ambiguella species in the vineyards of Tăuni;
  • The reduced, almost non-existent presence of both moths in the Șona plantation.
In terms of moths preferences for a certain grapevine cultivar, the study shows that L. botrana prefers the Traminer cultivar, having Rhine Riesling as the least-preferred cultivar and E. ambiguella prefers the Sauvignon blanc cultivar, with Chardonnay being the least-preferred of the cultivars.
Further studies regarding the biology and ecology of the grapevine moths in the context of climate change are needed in all of the Romanian vineyards, especially in the Târnave area. Such information is useful for winegrowers, as it provides insight into the dynamics and management of grapevine moths.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C. and V.S.C.; methodology, M.C.; software, M.M.I., S.M.O. and D.M.P.; validation, V.S.C. and L.L.T.; formal analysis, M.C.; investigation, M.C.; resources, D.M.P.; data curation, M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.; writing—review and editing, M.C., M.-D.M. and V.S.C.; supervision, V.S.C. and M.-D.M.; project administration, M.C.; funding acquisition, M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Biasi, R.; Brunori, E.; Ferrara, C.; Salvati, L. Assessing Impacts of Climate Change on Phenology and Quality Traits of Vitis Vinifera L.: The Contribution of Local Knowledge. Plants 2019, 8, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Caffarra, A.; Rinaldi, M.; Eccel, E.; Rossi, V.; Pertot, I. Modelling the Impact of Climate Change on the Interaction between Grapevine and Its Pests and Pathogens: European Grapevine Moth and Powdery Mildew. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 148, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schneider, L.; Rebetez, M.; Rasmann, S. The Effect of Climate Change on Invasive Crop Pests across Biomes. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 2022, 50, 100895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Castex, V.; Beniston, M.; Calanca, P.; Fleury, D.; Moreau, J. Pest Management under Climate Change: The Importance of Understanding Tritrophic Relations. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vogelweith, F.; Thiéry, D. An Assessment of the Non-Target Effects of Copper on the Leaf Arthropod Community in a Vineyard. Biol. Control. 2018, 127, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Roehrich, R.; Boller, E. Tortricids in Vineyards; van der Geest, L.P.S., Evenhuis, H.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ioriatti, C.; Lucchi, A.; Varela, L.G. Grape Berry Moths in Western European Vineyards and Their Recent Movement into the New World. In Arthropod Management in Vineyards; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 339–359. [Google Scholar]
  8. Thiéry, D.; Desneux, N. Host Plants of the Polyphagous Grapevine Moth Lobesia botrana during Larval Stage Modulate Moth Egg Quality and Subsequent Parasitism by the Parasitoid Trichogramma cacoeciae. Entomol. Gen. 2018, 38, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Monta, L.D.; Marchesini, E.; Pavan, F. Relazione Fra Tignole Della Vite e Ttacchi Di Botrytis cinerea. Inf. Fitopatol. 2007, 57, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  10. Popa, O.E. Researches On Wine Moths Flight Captured On Pheromone Traps. Sci. Pap. Ser. B Hortic. 2012, LVI, 481–484. [Google Scholar]
  11. Markheiser, A.; Rid, M.; Biancu, S.; Gross, J.; Hoffmann, C. Physical Factors Influencing the Oviposition Behaviour of European Grapevine Moths Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pavan, F.; Floreani, C.; Barro, P.; Zandigiacomo, P.; Dalla Montà, L. Occurrence of Two Different Development Patterns in Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Larvae during the Second Generation. Agric. For. Entomol. 2013, 15, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blümel, S.; Eitzinger, J.; Gruber, B.; Gatterer, M.; Altenburger, J.; Hausdorf, H.H. Influence of Weather Variables on the First Seasonal Occurrence of the Grape Berry Moths Eupoecilia ambiguella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Lobesia Botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a Case Study Region in Austria. Mitt. Klosterneubg. 2020, 70, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jackson, R.S. Wine Science: Principles and Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schmidt, K.; Hoppmann, D.; Holst, H.; Berkelmann-Löhnertz, B. Identifying Weather-Related Covariates Controlling Grape Berry Moth Dynamics. Eppo Bull. 2003, 33, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bărbuceanu, D. The Effect of Climate on Populations of Grape Moths in the Vineyard Stefanesti-Arges. An. Univ. Oradea Fasc. Biol. Tom XII 2005, XII, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bărbuceanu, D.; Andriescu, I. Contributii La Studiul Biologiei Si Ecologiei Moliei Strugurilor Eupoecilia ambiguella Hb. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Conditiile Podgoriei Stefanesti-Arges Contributions to the Biologic and Ecologic Study of the Grape Moth Eupoecilia ambiguella Hb. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) under the Conditions of Ştefăneşti-Argeş Vineyard. Sci. Artic. USAMV Iași Hortic. Ser. 2005, 48, 613–618. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liliana, T. Ghidul Fitosanitar Al Viticultorului; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; ISBN 9789737443007. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mirică, I.; Mirică, A. Protecția Viței de Vie Împotriva Bolilor Și Dăunătorilor; Ceres: București, Romania, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sciarretta, A.; Trematerra, P. Geostatistical Tools for the Study of Insect Spatial Distribution: Practical Implications in the Integrated Management of Orchard and Vineyard Pests. Plant. Protect. Sci. 2014, 50, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brenner, R.J.; Pocks, D.A.; Arbogast, R.T.; Weaver, D.K.; Shuman, D. Practical Use of Spatial Analysis in Precision Targeting for Integrated Pest Managelllent. Am. Entomol. 1998, 44, 79–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iliescu, M.; Popescu, D.M.; Comsa, M. The Impact of Climatic Factors on the Rootstock Quality, in the Blaj Vineyard Center. Bull. Univ. Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj-Napoca. Hortic. 2015, 72, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Călugăr, A.; Babeş, A.C.; Bunea, C.I.; Pop, T.I.; Tomoiagă, L.; Iliescu, M. Oenological Characterization Of Wines From Grape Clones Created At Research Station For Viticulture And Enology Blaj, Romania. CZU 2018, 663, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cudur, F.; Iliescu, M.; Comșa, M.; Popescu, D.; Cristea, C. Soil Type Influence on Yield Quantity and Quality at Grape Varieties for White Wines Obtained in the Viticultural Centre Blaj. Bull. UASVM Hortic. 2014, 71, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  25. Donici, A.; Bunea, C.I.; Călugăr, A.; Harsan, E.; Bora, F.D. Investigation of the Copper Content in Vineyard Soil, Grape, Must and Wine in the Main Vineyards of Romania: A Preliminary Study. Bull. Univ. Agric. Sci. Vet. Med. Cluj-Napoca Hortic. 2019, 76, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chedea, V.S.; Dragulinescu, A.M.; Tomoiaga, L.L.; Balaceanu, C.; Iliescu, M.L. Climate Change and Internet of Things Technologies—Sustainable Premises of Extending the Culture of the Amurg Cultivar in Transylvania—A Use Case for Târnave Vineyard. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Despre, Arta Vinului,Vița de Vie. Available online: https://www.jidvei.ro/vita-de-vie/ (accessed on 8 April 2022).
  28. Popescu, D.; Tiberiu, G.; Adrian, M.; Remus, C.; Călin, T.; Giovani, B. Viticulture 4.0—Digitisation in the Wine-Growing Sector @JIDVEI. 2018. Available online: https://vdocuments.net/daniela-popescu-tiberiu-gaman-adrian-moldovan-remus-jidvei-is-the-biggest.html?page=1 (accessed on 8 April 2022).
  29. Răcoare, S.H.; Iliescu, L.M.; Tomoiagă, L.L.; Comșa, M.; Sîrbu, A.D.; Muntean, D.M.; Chedea, V.S. The Grapevine Phenology And The Climate Changes In Tarnave Vineyard. Sci. Papers. Ser. B Hortic. 2022, LXVI, 351–361. [Google Scholar]
  30. Savu, S.; Tomoiaga, L.L.; Chedea, V.S. Ecological Microclimate Influence on Grapevine Phomopsis viticola Attack Frequency in Aiud-Ciumbrud Vineyards. Bull. UASVM Hortic. 2020, 77, 1843–5394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. CABI. Available online: http://www.cabi.org (accessed on 8 April 2022).
  32. Filip, I.; Ranca, A.; Guluță, F. Integrated Control System of the Grape Moth (Lobesia botrana den & Schiff) in Murfatlar Vineyard. Sci. Artic. USAMV Iași Hortic. Ser. 2007, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pisticiuc, I.; Zaldea, G.; Necita, A. Evidence of the Main Pathogenic Agents and Pests of the Vine and Its Phytosanitary in the Climate Conditions of 2019. Sci. Pap. Hortic. Ser. B 2020, 63, 131–136. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tăbăranu, G.; Enache, V.; Donici, A. Aspecte Privind Evoluția Moliei Strugurilor (Lobesia botrana -Den. et Schiff.) În Ecosistemul Viticol Bujoru În Contextul Schimbărilor Climatice Actuale. CZU 2018, 47, 651–655. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tabaranu, G. Enache Viorica Researches on of Grape Moth the Evolution (Lobesia botrana-Den Et Schiff) Of Dealul Bujorului the Vineyard, in the Context of Current Climate Change. Lucrări Ştiinţifice Seria Horticultură USAMV Iași. Lucr. Ştiinţifice Ser. Hortic. USAMV Iași 2016, 59, 263–268. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mitrea, I.; Stan, C.; Tuca, O. Research Regarding the Integrate Management of the Vine Moth (Lobesia botrana Den Et Schiff.) at the Dealurile Craiovei Vineyard. Bull. USAMV-CN 2007, 63, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carlos, C.; Gonçalves, F.; Oliveira, I.; Torres, L. Is a Biofix Necessary for Predicting the Flight Phenology of Lobesia botrana in Douro Demarcated Region Vineyards? Crop Prot. 2018, 110, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pavan, F.; Stefanelli, G.; Villani, A.; Cargnus, E. Influence of Grapevine Cultivar on the Second Generations of Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella. Insects 2018, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Tomoiagă, L. Observații Cu Privire La Dinamica Moliilor Viței de Vie Lobesia botrana Den et Schiff Și Clysia ambiguella În Podgoriile Din Centrul Transilvaniei, Observations on the Dynamics of Vine Moths Lobesia botrana Den et Schiff and Clysia ambiguela in the Vineyards of Central Transylvania. Prot. Plantelor 1996, VI, 69–73. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tancík, J.; Korbelová, E.; Tamašek, Z. Effect of Applications of Isonet L Plus, the Controlled-Release Dispenser in the Protection of Vineyards Against Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella in the Southern Slovakia. Acta Hortic. Reg. 2014, 17, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pavan, F.; Stefanelli, G.; Cargnus, E.; Villani, A. Assessing the Influence of Inflorescence Traits on the Susceptibility of Grape to Vine Moths. J. Appl. Entomol. 2009, 133, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Voigt, E. Influence of Meteorological Factorson the Population dinamics of Eupoecilia ambiguella HB. and Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. Novved. Korszer. 1970, 4, 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  43. Reineke, A.; Pozzebon, A.; Herczynski, O.; Duso, C. Insights in Genetic Diversity of German and Italian Grape Berry Moth (Eupoecilia ambiguella) Populations Using Novel Microsatellite Markers. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Svobodová, E.; Trnka, M.; Dubrovský, M.; Semerádová, D.; Eitzinger, J.; Štěpánek, P.; Žalud, Z. Determination of Areas with the Most Significant Shift in Persistence of Pests in Europe under Climate Change. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 708–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Reineke, A.; Thiéry, D. Grapevine Insect Pests and Their Natural Enemies in the Age of Global Warming. J. Pest. Sci 2016, 89, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gutierrez, A.P.; Ponti, L.; Gilioli, G.; Baumgärtner, J. Climate Warming Effects on Grape and Grapevine Moth (Lobesia botrana) in the Palearctic Region. Agric. For. Entomol. 2018, 20, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Schartel, T.E.; Bayles, B.R.; Cooper, M.L.; Simmons, G.S.; Thomas, S.M.; Varela, L.G.; Daugherty, M.P. Reconstructing the European Grapevine Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), Invasion in California: Insights from a Successful Eradication. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2019, 112, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gutierrez, A.P.; Ponti, L.; Cooper, M.L.; Gilioli, G.; Baumgärtner, J.; Duso, C. Prospective Analysis of the Invasive Potential of the European Grapevine Moth Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) in California. Agric. For. Entomol. 2012, 14, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gilligan, T.M.; Epstein, M.E.; Passoa, C.S.; Powell, J.A.; Sage, O.C.; Brown, J.W. Discovery Of Lobesia botrana ([Denis & Schiffermüller]) In California: An Invasive Species New Tonorth America (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 2011, 113, 14–30. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kiaeian Moosavi, F.; Cargnus, E.; Pavan, F.; Zandigiacomo, P. Mortality of Eggs and Newly Hatched Larvae of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Exposed to High Temperatures in the Laboratory. Environ. Entomol. 2017, 46, 700–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Pavan, F.; Floreani, C.; Barro, P.; Zandigiacomo, P. Influence of Generation and Photoperiod on Larval Development of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1652–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Markheiser, A.; Rid, M.; Biancu, S.; Gross, J.; Hoffmann, C. Tracking Short-Range Attraction and Oviposition of European Grapevine Moths Affected by Volatile Organic Compounds in a Four-Chamber Olfactometer. Insects 2020, 11, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. van Helden, M. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Arthropods in Arable Fields, 1st ed.; Precision Crop Protection-The Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. O’Rourke, M.E.; Petersen, M.J. Extending the ‘Resource Concentration Hypothesis’ to the Landscape-Scale by Considering Dispersal Mortality and Fitness Costs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 249, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat Management to Conserve Natural Enemies of Arthropod Pests in Agriculture. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tscharntke, T.; Karp, D.S.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Batáry, P.; Grattone, C.; Huntf, L.; Ives, A.; Jonsson, M.; Larseni, A.; Martinj, E.A.; et al. When Natural Habitat Fails to Enhance Biological Pest Control–Five Hypotheses. Sci. Direct 2016, 204, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Popescu, D.; Comsa, M.; Hoble, A.; Bunea, C. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service in Transylvania-New Approach to Sustainable Vineyards. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2019, 20, 1870–1879. [Google Scholar]
  58. Paredes, D.; Rosenheim, J.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Winter, S.; Karp, D.S. Landscape Simplification Increases Vineyard Pest Outbreaks and Insecticide Use. Ecol. Lett. 2021, 24, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sharon, R.; Zahavi, T.; Soroker, V.; Harari, A.R. The Effect of Grape Vine Cultivars on Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Population Levels. J. Pest. Sci. 2009, 82, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gennuso, E.; Ragusa, E.; Tsolakis, H. Evaluation of Infestation by Lobesia botrana (Dennis et Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) and Its Relation to Territorial Differences and Cultivar Susceptibility. Integr. Prot. Prod. Vitic. IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2013, 85, 203–210. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 14554 g001 550
Figure 1. Maps of studied areas in Târnave vineyard (green color—SB1J, SB2J, SB1S, SB2S, SBSN, SBT, SBC; blue color—FR1J, FR2J; yellow color—CHSN, CHC; red color—TRSN; purple color—RR1T, RR2T, RRC).
Figure 1. Maps of studied areas in Târnave vineyard (green color—SB1J, SB2J, SB1S, SB2S, SBSN, SBT, SBC; blue color—FR1J, FR2J; yellow color—CHSN, CHC; red color—TRSN; purple color—RR1T, RR2T, RRC).
Sustainability 14 14554 g001
Sustainability 14 14554 g002 550
Figure 2. Lobesia botrana: (A,A1–A3); Eupoecilia ambiguella (B,B1–B3); pheromonal trap (C) (Original photo).
Figure 2. Lobesia botrana: (A,A1–A3); Eupoecilia ambiguella (B,B1–B3); pheromonal trap (C) (Original photo).
Sustainability 14 14554 g002
Sustainability 14 14554 g003 550
Figure 3. Climatogram of Jidvei, Șona, Sânmiclăuș, Tăuni, and Cenade plantations for the years 2016 (A), 2017 (B), 2018 (C) and 2019 (D).
Figure 3. Climatogram of Jidvei, Șona, Sânmiclăuș, Tăuni, and Cenade plantations for the years 2016 (A), 2017 (B), 2018 (C) and 2019 (D).
Sustainability 14 14554 g003
Sustainability 14 14554 g004 550
Figure 4. Flight activity of Lobesia botrana.
Figure 4. Flight activity of Lobesia botrana.
Sustainability 14 14554 g004
Sustainability 14 14554 g005 550
Figure 5. Flight activity of Eupoecilia ambiguella.
Figure 5. Flight activity of Eupoecilia ambiguella.
Sustainability 14 14554 g005
Sustainability 14 14554 g006 550
Figure 6. Average number of L. botrana captures/trap/year (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures/trap/year. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant.)
Figure 6. Average number of L. botrana captures/trap/year (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures/trap/year. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant.)
Sustainability 14 14554 g006
Sustainability 14 14554 g007 550
Figure 7. Average number of L. botrana (LB) and E. ambiguella (EA) captures/trap/year. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant.)
Figure 7. Average number of L. botrana (LB) and E. ambiguella (EA) captures/trap/year. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant.)
Sustainability 14 14554 g007
Sustainability 14 14554 g008 550
Figure 8. Average number of L. botrana (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures in plantations. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant; on the OX axis are represented the number of captures > 1 and on the OY axis the numbers of captures < 1.)
Figure 8. Average number of L. botrana (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures in plantations. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant; on the OX axis are represented the number of captures > 1 and on the OY axis the numbers of captures < 1.)
Sustainability 14 14554 g008
Sustainability 14 14554 g009 550
Figure 9. Distribution of L. botrana species in vineyards.
Figure 9. Distribution of L. botrana species in vineyards.
Sustainability 14 14554 g009
Sustainability 14 14554 g010 550
Figure 10. Distribution of E. ambiguella species in vineyards.
Figure 10. Distribution of E. ambiguella species in vineyards.
Sustainability 14 14554 g010
Sustainability 14 14554 g011 550
Figure 11. Average number of L. botrana (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures/trap/plot. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant; on the OX axis are represented the number of captures >1 and on the OY axis the numbers of captures < 1.)
Figure 11. Average number of L. botrana (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures/trap/plot. (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant; on the OX axis are represented the number of captures >1 and on the OY axis the numbers of captures < 1.)
Sustainability 14 14554 g011
Sustainability 14 14554 g012 550
Figure 12. Average number of L. botrana (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures/trap/cultivars, (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant.)
Figure 12. Average number of L. botrana (A) and E. ambiguella (B) captures/trap/cultivars, (The variants with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05); the differences of the variants with the same letter are statistically insignificant.)
Sustainability 14 14554 g012
Table
Table 1. Information regarding the experimental plots used in the study of the dynamic of the grapevine moths Eupoecilia ambiguella and Lobesia botrana in the Târnave vineyard.
Table 1. Information regarding the experimental plots used in the study of the dynamic of the grapevine moths Eupoecilia ambiguella and Lobesia botrana in the Târnave vineyard.
PlantationVariety/PlotEstablishment YearPlot Surface [ha]Vine Management SystemSoil ManagementGPS CoordinatesAltitudeAdjacent Areas
Jidvei (J)Fetească regală 1 (FR1J)20115.6Guyot with periodic replacement of the armsTillage4.62175897
2.40685159		345 mGrapevine plantations
Fetească regală 2 (FR2J)20103.26Alternative grassing4.620476794
2.407701199		404 mGrapevine plantations, forest
Sauvignon blanc 1 (SB2J)200615.66Alternative grassing4.622460552
2.407597702		311 mGrapevine plantations, walnut plantation
Sauvignon blanc 2 (SB2J)20067.71Permanent grass cover4.62122824
2.40839464		399 mGrapevine plantations, forest
Șona (S)Sauvignon blanc 1 (SB1S)2005133Guyot with periodic replacement of the armsPermanent grass cover4.62032931
2.40156813		386 mGrapevine plantations, grassland
Sauvignon blanc 2 (SB2S)20052.76Permanent grass cover 4.6203575
2.40172483		378 mGrapevine plantations, grassland
Sânmiclăuș (SN)Sauvignon blanc (SBSN)200611.03Classical lowTilllage4.625414638
2.403265727		332 mApples plums and grapevine plantations
Traminer (TRSN)20063.26Guyot with periodic replacement of the armsAlternative grassing4.62557756
2.40249267		371 mGrapevine plantations, cereal crops (wheat, corn)
Chardonnay (CHSN)20069.72Alternative grassing4.6257406829
2.4024253647		386 mGrapevine plantations, cereal crops (wheat, corn)
Tăuni (T)Sauvignon blanc (SBT)200718.6Guyot with periodic replacement of the armsPermanent grass cover4.616793798
2.414274301		405 mGrapevine plantations, grassland, forest
Rhine Riesling 1 (RR1T)20076.61Permanent grass cover4.616490308
2.414282416		348 mGrapevine plantations, grassland, forest
Rhine Riesling 2 (RR2T)20105.32Permanent grass cover4.615699197
2.415552524		466 mGrapevine plantations, grassland, forest
Cenade (C)Chardonnay(CHC)20088.8Guyot with periodic replacement of the armsAlternative grassing4.60290786
2.40158771		409 mGrapevine plantations, grassland, forest
Sauvignon blanc (SBC)20099.73Alternative grassing4.603375789
2.400707454		433 mGrapevine plantations, grassland
Rhine Riesling (RRC)20083.91Guyot with periodic replacement of the armsAlternative grassing4.60367322
2.40008326		439 mGrapevine plantations, grassland
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Comșa, M.; Tomoiagă, L.L.; Muntean, M.-D.; Ivan, M.M.; Orian, S.M.; Popescu, D.M.; Chedea, V.S. The Effects of Climate Change on the Activity of the Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella Moths on the Grapevine Cultivars from the Târnave Vineyard. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114554

AMA Style

Comșa M, Tomoiagă LL, Muntean M-D, Ivan MM, Orian SM, Popescu DM, Chedea VS. The Effects of Climate Change on the Activity of the Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella Moths on the Grapevine Cultivars from the Târnave Vineyard. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114554

Chicago/Turabian Style

Comșa, Maria, Liliana Lucia Tomoiagă, Maria-Doinița Muntean, Mihaela Maria Ivan, Sorița Maria Orian, Daniela Maria Popescu, and Veronica Sanda Chedea. 2022. "The Effects of Climate Change on the Activity of the Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella Moths on the Grapevine Cultivars from the Târnave Vineyard" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114554

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop