Does the landscape of Douro wine region (Portugal) affects the complex of antagonists of the grape berry moth?

1 2 Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Viticultura Duriense Cluster dos vinhos da Região do Douro Does the landscape of Douro wine region (Portugal) affects the complex of antagonists of the grape berry moth? Cristina Carlos 1, C. Val 1, A. Rataux 1, J. Aranha 2, A. Crespí 2, G. Marques 2, L. Torres 2

Douro Wine region (Portugal)

European Grapevine moth (EGVM) - Lobesia botrana Den & Schiff Lepidoptera: Tortricidae Key pest in Douro Wine Region 3 rd generation often promotes Botrytis bunch rot

Landscape of Douro Valley Typical wine-farm is fragmented into plots of vineyards of variable size, slope, shape, orientation, and varieties, surrounded by woodland remnants, olive/almond/orange trees, edges with natural vegetation and dry stone walls average surface / winegrower : 3,2 acres (1,3 Ha)

2010- Enhancing functional biodiversity in DWR vineyards 1 2 The experimental work began in 2010 and is being developed following an action plan that aims to: a) identify potential ecological infrastructures (EI) already existing on the state b) identify strategies to enhance biological control of EGVM

Started on 3 Experimental States on Douro Valley Pinhão Quinta das Carvalhas (Real Companhia Velha) Quinta de S. Luíz (Sogevinus) Quinta do Seixo (SOGRAPE)

2010 Levantamentos de Flora e artrópodes (e.g. S. Luíz) 50 m 25 m 0 m Mata

Maio Levantamento da Flora Setembro

2010 Pitfall Traps 3 Periods (24 hours)

2010 (D- VAC sampling) 3 periods

2010 Chromotropic traps (3 periods)

2010- Identification by morpho-species RBA (Rapid Biodiversity Assessment)

Results 2010 - Assessment of the Flora 30 25 20 Asteraceae Fabaceae Poaceae More than 150 species 15 10 5 0 amaranthaceae anacardiaceae apiaceae araliaceae asparagaceae Aspleniaceae Asteraceae Boraginaceae brassicaceae campanulaceae Caryophyllaceae Celtidaceae chenopodiaceae cistaceae Crassulaceae cucurbitaceae Dioscoreaceae Ericaceae Euphorbiaceae fabaceae fagaceae geraniaceae lamiaceae guttiferae Lythraceae malvaceae moraceae oleaceae Orobanchaceae papaveraceae Phytolaccaceae poaceae Polygonaceae Polypodiaceae Primulaceae pteridaceae Ranunculaceae Resedaceae rosaceae rubiaceae salicaceae santalaceae scrophulariaceae Simaroubaceae solanaceae urticaceae Valerianaceae vitaceae S. Luíz 27- Mai 01- Set schrubland 33 18 border hedgerow 25 9 border road 42 17 vineyard_0m 38 10 Embankm. vineyard_0 m 35 6 vineyard_25 m 33 10 Embankm. vineyard_25 m 28 10 vineyard_50 m 33 6 Embankm. vineyard_50 m 31 9 Total of species (Richness) 104 43 Seixo 27- Mai 01- Set schrubland 26 12 border road 13 - Embankm. vineyard_0 m 25 10 vineyard_25 m 20 10 Embankm. vineyard_25 m 17 8 vineyard_50 m 19 12 Embankm. vineyard_50 m 18 9 Embankm. vineyard_0 m 17 6 border hedgrow (olive trees) 20 8 Total of species (Richness) 65 26 Carvalhas 27-01- Mai Set Woodland 20 17 embankment woodland 47 21 border road 40 18 embankment road 54 17 vineyard_0m 26 19 embankment vineyard_0 m 22 3 vineyard_25 m 18 12 embankment vineyard_25 m 28 11 vineyard_50 m 17 15 embankment vineyard_50 m 26 4 Total of species (Richness) 113 64

Most abundant shrubs Crataegus monogyna Cistus salvifolius Arbutus unedo Lonicera etrusca

Most abundant herbaceous Coleostephus myconis Daucus carota Foeniculum vulgare Hypochoeris radicata Inula viscosa

Results 2010 - Pitfall traps More than 400 morpho-species identified Morpho-species identified Arachnida Coleoptera hymenoptera hemiptera 89% of all Arthopoda in pitfall traps Phylum Classe Order Nb Morpho-sp Arthropoda Arachnida - 129 31,2 Insecta Coleoptera 106 25,6 % Hymenoptera 77 18,6 Hemiptera 55 13,3 Diptera 18 4,3 Orthoptera 4 1,0 Thysanoptera 3 0,7 Neuroptera 3 0,7 Dictyoptera 2 0,5 Lepidoptera 2 0,5 Embioptera 1 0,2 Raphidioptera 1 0,2 Psocoptera 1 0,2 Zygentoma 1 0,2 Other arthropoda 11 2,7 Total 414

Results 2010 - Pitfall traps (mean abundance - Carvalhas) Carvalhas woodland embankm. road embankm. woodland vineyard a ab b b b b

Results 2010 - Pitfall traps (Eveness- equitability) a Carvalhas ab ab ab ab b

Results 2010 - Pitfall traps (Eveness- equitability) a a 3 Carvalhas sites (SL + carv + seixo) ab ab ab a a ab b b Woodland

Work done since 2002 - Identifying parasitoids of EGVM Year State 1ª G (%) 2ª G (%) 2002 S. Luíz Sogevinus 12,0 6,7 Bonfim Symington 10,1 36,8 2004 S. Luíz Sogevinus 45,5-2005 Vallado Qta Vallado SA 2,0 - D. Matilde Qta D. Matilde 5,2 Seixo Sogrape V. SA - 24,7

7 Species of parasitoids identified (by C. Villemant MNHN Paris) Família Género, Espécie Número total % Eulophidae (Hym) Elachertus affinis Masi 53 32,9 Chalcididae (Hym) Brachymeria sp. 47 29,2 Ichneumonidae (Hym) Campoplex capitator Aubert 31 19,3 Pteromalidae (Hym) Dibrachys sp. 4 2,5 Eulophidae (Hym) Elasmus sp. 1 0,6 Braconidae (Hym) Ascogaster quadridentata Wesmael 1 0,6 Bethylidae (Hym) Goniozus gallicola (Kieffer) = Parasierola gallicola (Kieffer) 1 0,6 Tachinidae (Dipt.) not identified 1 0,6 other parasitoids not identified 6 3,7 Parasitoids not developed 16 9,9 Total 161 100,0

Most abundant - 3 Species order Hymenoptera Elachertus affinis Brachymeria sp. Campoplex capitator

2011 How the landscape could affect parasitism of EGVM? 7 8 Elachertus affinis Masi. (Hym: Eulophidae) Campoplex capitator Aubert (Hym: Ichneumonidae) Pupa of taquinid fly

Some Results 2011 Quinta Aciprestes 66,7% of parasitism in 2011 (1 rst Gen) Elachertus affinis Masi. (Hym: Eulophidae)

Quinta Carvalhas 37-40% of parasitism in 2011 (1 rst Gen) Elachertus affinis Masi. (Hym: Eulophidae)

Quinta Ventozelo 41 % of parasitism in 2011 (1 rst Gen) Elachertus affinis Masi. (Hym: Eulophidae)

Quinta Seixo 33,3 % of parasitism in 2011 (2 nd Gen) Elachertus affinis Masi (Hym: Eulophidae 7 Campoplex capitator Aubert (Hym: Ichneumonidae) Dibrachys sp. (Hym: Pteromalidae) Brachymeria sp. (Hym: Chalcididae)

Quinta Cidrô 16,7 3,3 % of parasitism in 2011 (1 rst Gen- 2 nd Gen) Elachertus affinis Masi. (Hym: Eulophidae) 7 Not identified (Diptera: Taquinidae)

Quinta Granja 6,0 25 % of parasitism in 2011 (1 rst gen - 2 nd gen) Elachertus affinis Masi. (Hym: Eulophidae) 7 (Hym: Ichneumonidae) (Hym: Braconidae)

2011 Evaluation of the presence of entomopathogenic fungi - Screening the occurrences of indigenous entomopathogenic fungi in soils - Evaluation of their potential as biological control agents for Lobesia botrana Larva and Pupa of Lobesia infected by Beauveria bassiana

Work to do Data collected on 2010: - Classify morpho-species of Arthropoda collected with D-VAC sampling and Chromotropic traps and look if they reflect the same trends observed on material captured with pitfall traps Data collected on 2011: - Analyse the possible impact of some pesticides done in 2011 on parasitoids - Analyse the impact of the ground vegetation on parasitoids (e.g. differences between 1rst and 2 nd gen.) - Analyse the impact of landscape (occupation of soil) in each buffer around points where the parasitoids where assessed - Analyse the conectivity of the landscape of each site

Thank you for your attention! Questions? Special thanks to - To the companies and the viticulture managers involved - To the students involved