Next Article in Journal
Integrating Hydraulic Properties into Irrigation Management of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L., ‘Felina 32’) Under Mediterranean Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Texture Mediates the Short-Term Response of Particulate and Mineral-Associated Organic Carbon to Straw Return in the Loess Plateau
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy16060648
agronomy-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Visual and Olfactory Cues for Monitoring Lobesia botrana in Vineyards Under Mating Disruption

by
Yasir Islam
1,2,*,
Constanza Castillo
1,2,
Marco Tasin
3,4 and
Eduardo Fuentes-Contreras
1,2,*
1
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile
2
Research Ring in Pest Insects and Climate Change (PIC2), Santiago, Chile
3
Department of Chemical Sciences, University of Padua, 35131 Padova, Italy
4
Mani in Terra, 38121 Trento, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2026, 16(6), 648; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060648
Submission received: 6 February 2026 / Revised: 10 March 2026 / Accepted: 17 March 2026 / Published: 19 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant–Insect Interactions in the Agroecosystem)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Lobesia botrana is a major pest in grapevine, monitored using sex pheromone as a standard practice. However, when the sex pheromone is used in mating disruption (MD), monitoring becomes ineffective. A blend of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA) was identified as an attractant for L. botrana in MD vineyards. With the aim of increasing the attraction of 2-PET/AA, we evaluated whether terpenoid-based attractants and trap color could enhance the catches of L. botrana in traps baited with 2-PET/AA. First, we assessed the attraction to 2-PET/AA in combination with two terpenoid mixtures. Grape Mimic Mixture 1 (GMM1) contained a 100:78:9 proportion of (E)-β-caryophyllene, (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene, and (E)-β-farnesene, and Grape Mimic Mixture 2 (GMM2) was composed of a 10:1:1:1:1:1 proportion of limonene, (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene, (±)-linalool, (E)-caryophyllene, farnesene, and methyl salicylate. Furthermore, we assessed whether traps of different colors (blue, green, orange, red, white, and transparent) could enhance L. botrana catches. Neither GMM1 nor GMM2 improved L. botrana catches over 2-PET/AA alone. In addition, the proportion of mated L. botrana females was similar across treatments. Transparent traps caught more moths than other colors. Our results suggest a modification in the color and odor of traps to improve the monitoring of L. botrana in vineyards treated with MD.

1. Introduction

The European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) is a major pest of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) in many European and Mediterranean areas [1,2] as well as in Chile and Argentina [3]. In Mediterranean areas, L. botrana has three flights per season [2]. It causes substantial economic losses in grapevine production, with yield and quality reductions. Direct damage results from larvae feeding on grape clusters, while indirect damage arises from grey mold caused by Botrytis cinerea [1]. Monitoring of this pest traditionally relies on male attraction to traps baited with synthetic sex pheromone. However, male trap catches are reduced due to extensive use of mating disruption (MD) with sex pheromone [1,4,5]. Therefore, the development of alternative attractive lures to increase the catches under MD will be of great benefit for monitoring programs of this pest.
Host-plant volatiles are attractive to L. botrana males and females [6,7]. Grapevines emit a complex blend of terpenoids, including (E)-β-caryophyllene, limonene, (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene (DMNT), (E)-β-farnesene, linalool, (E,E)-α-farnesene, and methyl salicylate, which may serve as olfactory cues for L. botrana [7,8,9]. Grapevine berry and cluster volatiles such as (E)-β-caryophyllene, DMNT and (E)-β-farnesene are attractive to L. botrana adults in wind tunnel bioassays acting like a grapevine mimic [6,8,9,10].
Microbial and plant-based volatile compounds improved the attractiveness of trapping systems for both male and female L. botrana [11,12,13,14]. 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and phenylacetonitrile (PAN), particularly when paired with acetic acid (AA), effectively attracted adult L. botrana of both sexes [11,12]. Since these compounds are naturally produced by microorganisms and grapevines, they may function as host-plant or nutritional signals, positioning them as viable options for dual-sex attraction strategies [11,13]. The addition of AA has been found to be essential in developing effective dual-sex attractants for various fruit moth species [14,15,16], while 2-PET can significantly enhance trap catches of others [17,18]. Consequently, this dual-sex targeting approach could represent a valuable tool for improved monitoring of L. botrana population.
Trap color influences the effectiveness of pheromone-based monitoring systems for some tortricid moths in fruit orchards [19,20]. Research has shown that green and orange delta traps lured with sex pheromone caught more Cydia pomonella than white traps, while red and green traps reduced non-target honeybee catches [19]. Similarly, C. pomonella catches in orange and green traps were higher than in white traps lured with sex pheromone, but not with sex pheromone and pear ester [21]. On the other hand, catches of Choristoneura rosaceana and Grapholita molesta were not significantly affected by color in traps lured with sex pheromone, although blue and white traps tended to catch higher numbers of non-target flies and honeybees [20]. Similarly, L. botrana trap catches were not significantly different between white, yellow, green, brown and multi-color (yellow, green and brown) sex-pheromone-lured traps in grapevine from Iran [22]. Based on these findings, yellow, red, or orange delta traps have been recommended for monitoring tortricid moths in apple orchards due to reduced non-target catch and improved visibility for locating traps within tree canopies [20]. This highlights the importance of considering both trap color and brightness to improve monitoring of tortricid moths.
The present study aimed to evaluate the combined effect of olfactory and visual cues previously described in the literature on the attraction of L. botrana. Specifically, we tested the efficacy of adding two synthetic terpenoid blends, Grape Mimic Mixture 1 (GMM1), containing (E)-β-caryophyllene, (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene, and (E)-β-farnesene in a proportion of 100:78:9 [8], and Grape Mimic Mixture 2 (GMM2), composed of limonene, (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene, (±)-linalool, (E)-caryophyllene, (E,E)-α-farnesene, and methyl salicylate in a proportion of 10:1:1:1:1:1 [7]. These grape odor mimics were added on top of the reference blend of 2-PET/AA to determine if L. botrana catches can be increased in MD vineyards. In parallel, we assessed the effect of six different delta trap colors (blue, green, orange, red, white, and transparent), when baited with 2-PET/AA, to evaluate whether trap color could further influence moth catches.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Olfactory Trials

Lures were prepared by adding 500 μL of acetic acid (AA) (100% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) and 500 μL 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) (≥99.0% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, Santiago, Chile) into 2 mL polyethylene Eppendorf vials (approximately 40 mm height × 11 mm external diameter; Guangzhou Jet Bio-Filtration Co., Guangzhou, China) containing cotton plugs. To ensure a more consistent and sustained release of these compounds, 500 μL of mineral oil (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) was subsequently added on top of the AA/2-PET load [14]. Traps baited with 2-PET/AA were installed with GMM1 and GMM2 in the vineyards. The lure GMM1 consists of a three-component blend: (E)-β-caryophyllene (≥80% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene (>99% purity; Pherobank BV, Wijk bij Duurstede, The Netherlands), and (E)-β-farnesene (≥95% purity; Bedoukian Research Inc., Danbury, CT, USA) in a proportion of 100:78:9 [8]. The lure GMM2 consists of a six-component blend: limonene (≥95% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany), (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene (>99% purity; Pherobank BV, Wijk bij Duurstede, The Netherlands), (±)-linalool (≥95% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany), (E)-β-caryophyllene (≥80% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), methyl salicylate (99% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany), and (E,E)-α-farnesene (farnesene isomer mixture 95% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) in a proportion of 10:1:1:1:1:1 [7]. In the case of (E,E)-α-farnesene, the farnesene isomer mixture was used, and its proportion was adjusted accordingly.
A solution containing the compounds of GMM1 (16.4 µL) and GMM2 (131 µL) was prepared by diluting the blend with an equal volume of light mineral oil (>99% purity; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The resulting mixtures were then impregnated into a straight grey rubber septum (22 × 43 mm; lower diameter 15.5 mm; upper height 20 mm; lower height 23 mm; flange thickness 3.5 mm; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) [7].
Six treatments included 2-PET/AA, 2-PET/AA + GMM1, 2-PET/AA + GMM2, 2-PET/AA + GMM1 + GMM2, sex pheromone (commercial rubber septa EGVM-PH; Feromonas Chile, Santiago, Chile), each loaded with 1 mg of (E,Z)-7,9-dodecadienyl acetate), and a blank control without lure; these were compared in each trial. Six replicates of each treatment were placed in a randomized complete block design. White delta traps (Feromonas Chile, Santiago, Chile) were used with disposable sticky liners (185 × 185 mm) (Figure S1). Traps were attached to trellis wires at ca. 1.0–1.5 m height inside the canopy. Trap openings were kept free from physical obstructions. Traps were placed in grids beginning 50 m from the border of the vineyard with 20 m between traps and 10 m between blocks. Liners were collected and traps were rotated in position clockwise once a week. Moths were counted and sexed with a stereoscopic microscope in the laboratory. Females were placed in 95% alcohol, and their mating status was determined by dissecting the bursa copulatrix with a stereoscopic microscope in the laboratory [23].
Terpenoid trials were conducted during 2023–2024 in two commercial vineyards in the Maule Region, Chile: Viña Julieta (35°44′52.6″ S 71°47′40.9″ W) and Viña El Nogal (35°31′31.58″ S 71°33′35.21″ W). The experiment was repeated three times in the season, one field trial during the second flight at Viña El Nogal and two field trials in Viña Julieta and Viña El Nogal during the third flight. These trials were conducted for approximately 4 weeks during the second flight (20 December 2023 to 16 January 2024) and for 3 weeks during the third flight (21 February 2024 to 13 March 2024). Viña Julieta consisted of irregularly shaped plots under drip irrigation, bordered by scattered plum trees (Prunus domestica) and adjacent vineyard blocks. In contrast, Viña El Nogal featured a more complex matrix, with the experimental plot bordered by uncultivated land and an active irrigation channel crossing the vineyard’s edge. All vineyard plots (2 ha, respectively) were planted at a density of 5000 plants ha−1 with CV Carménère (El Nogal and Julieta). To control L. botrana, hand-applied Isonet L (Shin-Etsu Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) dispensers loaded with 172 mg/dispenser of (E,Z)-7,9-dodecadienyl acetate were applied at 500 dispensers ha−1 in mid-September.

2.2. Visual Trials

Traps of different colors were loaded with 2-PET/AA and installed in the vineyards. The color of the delta traps with disposable sticky liners (185 × 185 mm) used in this trial was white (Feromonas Chile, Santiago, Chile), red or orange (Suterra, Bend, OR, USA). Because blue and green traps could not be purchased, a commercial paint was used on both sides of one white trap, using Ultra Cover 2X spray paint Gloss Brilliant Blue (code 334027) or Gloss Spring Green (code 334055) (Rust Oleum, Vernon Hills, IL, USA), similar to the colors used by Knight and Miliczky [19], Knight and Fisher [21], and Myers, Krawczyk, and Agnello [20]. Traps were used with the brand label facing inward (i.e., reversed) so that the entire surface displayed a uniform color. Painted traps were left in a ventilated room for 3 weeks before their deployment in the field in order to reduce the paint off-gassing of solvents. Transparent traps were constructed with the same size and shape of delta traps by binding two acetate scrapbook transparent sheets (letter size, 22 × 22.9 cm, 180 μ thickness; Alotek, Santiago, Chile) folded and glued using hot-melt silicone.
The characterization of the trap color was carried out using a CM-700d portable spectrophotometer (Konika Minolta, Tokyo, Japan), an instrument designed to measure surface color from 400 to 700 nm. To enable direct comparison with previous studies using the Munsell color scale, the spectrophotometer was configured to perform measurements directly in this color scale. For the measurements, 1 cm × 1 cm fragments were cut from the traps, ensuring that each sample represented the external surface exposed to insect interaction. These samples were placed directly on the measurement base of the device, ensuring full and uniform contact. Standard illumination at simulated daylight (D65) was used, with a 10° observer angle and an 8 mm aperture, under the specular-component-included measurement mode, which is recommended for glossy surfaces. Each sample was measured at least three times at different points on the fragments to obtain a representative average. Average values on the Munsell scale (value, chroma, and hue) were transformed to Red, Green, and Blue (RGB) scale using https://colorizer.org/ (accessed on 3 March 2026). The resulting values (Table S1) were used as reference parameters for comparing traps and their relationships to insect catches, following the methodologies described by Knight and Miliczky [19].
The visual trials were conducted during the 2023–2024 season in the same Viña El Nogal previously described. The experiment was repeated three times in the season, corresponding to the three flights of the pest. The trials were conducted for 7 weeks during the first flight (3 October to 21 November 2023), 7 weeks during the second flight (12 December 2023 to 27 January 2024), and 5 weeks during the third flight (19 February to 21 March 2024). A randomized complete block design with five replicates was used. Each block included eight treatments: blue, green, orange, red, white, and transparent traps; a white trap with sex pheromone (EGVM-PH, Feromonas Chile, Santiago, Chile); and a white trap without any attractants (blank control) in the same row. All traps in each block were inspected and changed in position weekly throughout the season. Caught insects were stored in the liners for later identification. Moths were counted and sexed with a stereoscopic microscope in the laboratory, but the dry condition of female abdomens made the identification of mating status difficult and therefore was not included in the analysis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed with R software version 4.0.3 [24]. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) with negative binomial distribution and log link function were fitted to the male, female and total trap catches of L. botrana for each vineyard, flight, and season of the trials. The analyses were performed using the glmer.nb() function within the R package lme4, followed by a pairwise comparison performed by the emmeans function within the R package emmeans, the pairs function within the R package multcompView, and the cld function within the R package multcomp. Traps with different lures and trap colors were considered as a fixed effect, and block was the random effect. Analysis of deviance with a Wald test was used to evaluate significant effects. Multiple comparisons with a Tukey test were used to evaluate differences between treatments, p < 0.05. Traps without lures were included in all the trials but did not catch any L. botrana and were not included in the statistical analyses. Sex pheromone lures only caught males and therefore were not included in statistical analyses for female catches. The proportion of mated and unmated females in the first terpenoid trials were compared with a Fisher’s exact test using the fisher.test function.

3. Results

3.1. Olfactory Trials

Sex pheromone (EGVM-PH) traps caught exclusively males during both the second and third flights in all three trials (1–3). In Trial 1, no significant differences were found in male and total L. botrana catches among traps baited with 2-PET/AA alone or in combination with GMM1 or GMM2 (Table 1).
There were no significant differences in female catches among treatments in Trials 1 and 2 during the second and third flights. In Trial 2, regardless of the use of GMM1, GMM2 or both, 2-PET/AA lure attracted significantly more males and total L. botrana in comparison with EGVM-PH. In Trial 3, the lowest L. botrana female and total catches were recorded in traps baited with 2-PET/AA combined with GMM2. In contrast, EGVM-PH caught significantly fewer males and total moths than the traps containing 2-PET/AA alone, 2-PET/AA plus GMM1, and 2-PET/AA plus GMM1 and GMM2 during the third flight of Trial 3 (Table 1).

3.2. Mating Status

In Trial 1, the proportion of mated females ranged from 40% to 78% across treatments, with no significant differences among treatments (p = 0.66). During Trial 2, mating proportions were higher, ranging from 67% to 79%, though differences among treatments remained non-significant (p = 0.12) (Table 2).
Similarly, in Trial 3, mating proportions ranged from 57% to 85%, without differences (p = 0.53). Overall, the majority of caught females across all trials and treatments were mated, typically exceeding 60%, and the addition of GMM1 or GMM2 to 2-PET/AA did not significantly alter their mating status.

3.3. Visual Trials

Transparent traps baited with 2-PET/AA caught a higher number of males than blue and green traps, and that same trap color caught significantly more total moths than blue, green, and red traps during the first flight (Table 3).
No significant differences were observed among trap colors for female catches in the first flight. Similarly, during the second flight, no differences were found in male catches among trap colors. However, orange traps baited with 2-PET/AA caught significantly more females than blue, green and red traps. Orange traps also caught a higher number of total moths than green traps. During the third flight, transparent traps with 2-PET/AA caught more females and total moths than any other colored traps, though no significant difference was observed in male catches between transparent and orange traps. In this same trial, transparent traps with 2-PET/AA caught more males, females and total L. botrana than white traps baited with EGVM-PH (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Our results indicate that neither GMM1 nor GMM2 could improve L. botrana catches when combined with the blend of 2-PET/AA, suggesting that the tested terpenoid mixtures do not act as an olfactory synergist. In particular, reduced catches, observed when GMM2 was combined with 2-PET/AA in trial 3, indicate a repellent effect. However, these mixtures were tested at a single dose and specific proportion, and it is unknown if different doses or proportions would change the outcome. Our finding differs from previous studies demonstrating that the same grape constituents had an influence on L. botrana behavior under laboratory conditions [6,7,10]. While grape volatiles, including terpenoids, have been shown to elicit antennal responses in L. botrana adults and influence oviposition behavior at specific ratios and concentrations in the laboratory [6,25], their effectiveness as trap attractants in a field setting appears context dependent. One possible explanation is that grapevine emits complex blends of constitutive terpenoids along with additional plant volatiles [25], creating a “background odor” that may mask or dilute the terpenoid-enriched odor plume from the trap. Under such conditions, moths may be unable to distinguish or orient to the relatively weak terpenoid signal emitted by the source. EAG and the wind tunnel attraction of GMM1 and GMM2 to L. botrana adults under laboratory conditions were not confirmed in our field study in vineyards under MD.
Furthermore, abiotic factors such as wind, temperature, and CO2 and ozone levels, as well as biotic factors such as grapevine phenology, water status, pathogens and ongoing herbivory, can alter the quantity and composition of natural grapevine volatiles [26,27], making synthetic blends less informative or not ecologically relevant for the pest [10]. Together, these factors contribute to the limited enhancement effect observed for terpenoid mixtures when used in combination with 2-PET/AA. Because the vegetative and reproductive growth of grapevine is slower in the spring than in the summer, the background emission of terpenoid volatiles could also be lower [25,28]. In addition, the diel rhythm of grapevine release of volatile compounds could be affected by shorter days and lower temperatures during spring [29]. Therefore, the synthetic terpenoid mixtures could be attractive during the first flight in early spring.
On the other hand, fermentation-related volatiles attracted L. botrana throughout the season. The 2-PET/AA binary blend, which mimics microbial breakdown products (among others), has proven to be effective for attracting both sexes of L. botrana in MD-treated vineyards [11,13,14]. Adults may prioritize other olfactory cues, such as fermentation volatiles, over grape-specific terpenoids when seeking feeding or oviposition sites [30]. These fermentation volatiles probably stand out against the complex background of vineyard volatiles, providing a more reliable olfactory signal than plant-derived terpenoids [11,13].
Recent advances in understanding insect vision have revolutionized trap design approaches. Visual modeling, which uses known properties of insect photoreceptors and opponent mechanisms to predict optimal trap colors, has successfully improved catch efficiency for multiple pest species [31]. Color perception in insects depends on photoreceptor classes and opponent mechanisms that differ fundamentally from human vision, making human-guided color selection often suboptimal [31]. Alternatively, transparent traps may mimic light-reflective surfaces, such as grape berries or leaves [32], or create visual contrasts that affect trap detectability under crepuscular low-light conditions, but, without characterizing the optical properties of the acetate material, their resemblance to natural plant surfaces cannot be assumed.
The performance of transparent traps, as shown here, could have practical implications for vineyard monitoring programs. Since MD strategies disrupt pheromone-based trapping, transparent traps baited with 2-PET/AA could serve as a more reliable alternative for monitoring L. botrana populations. Transparent traps may also reduce non-target catches, as some colored traps can attract beneficial insects or other non-pest species [19]. However, field durability and visibility to growers should be considered, as transparent traps may be harder to spot during routine inspections compared to brightly colored ones. To overcome this, brightly colored flags could be used to clearly mark trap positions in the field, facilitating their identification during routine inspections.
In our study, a high percentage (40–85%) of females were mated with no differences between treatments. Catch of mated females does not indicate that MD was ineffective, because MD could be delaying mating rather than completely preventing it. Although we did not evaluate fruit damage, no evident infestation in the fruit clusters in the vineyard was observed. This suggests that MD was effective, despite the presence of mated females in traps. Although this interpretation is supported by previous studies showing that even a delay in mating can significantly reduce reproductive output in L. botrana females [33], the correlation between the number of mated females captured in our kairomone trap and the population level remains unknown.
Trap monitoring of Tortricidae fruit moths is useful for detecting populations early, enabling timely intervention before significant damage occurs. Furthermore, estimation of pest phenology can optimize control strategies based on life cycle stages. Monitoring female presence is particularly important as females are responsible for egg laying and population growth [34]. Regular monitoring reduces unnecessary pesticide applications, saves costs, and minimizes environmental impact, allowing for informed decision making and more effective, sustainable, integrated pest management programs [5].
Our study suggests that olfaction and vision can be integrated for pest monitoring systems. While 2-PET/AA provides an olfactory stimulus, trap color could enhance the physical interception of moths. This multi-modal approach could be extended to other pest species, particularly in crops where MD is widely implemented. For example, combining food-based attractants with optimized trap color has improved monitoring of other tortricid pests, such as C. pomonella [34]. Beside trap color, ultraviolet-light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) also enhanced catches to 2-PET/AA, significantly outperforming traditional sex pheromone lures for monitoring purposes [14].

5. Conclusions

This study showed that terpenoid formulations GMM1 and GMM2, at the specific ratios and release rates tested, did not significantly increase L. botrana catches when combined with 2-PET/AA. Trap color significantly affected catch efficiency, with transparent traps capturing more moths late in the season, underscoring the role of visual cues in monitoring. The 2-PET/AA binary lure remained the most reliable alternative to sex pheromone traps in MD-treated vineyards. These results highlight the value of integrating olfactory and visual cues. Future work should refine terpene blends and evaluate additional trap design parameters such as color, size, shape, and material to develop more robust monitoring tools.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy16060648/s1. Table S1: Description of trap colors used in field experiments for Lobesia botrana monitoring according to the Munsell (value, chroma, and hue) and RGB (red, green, and blue) color systems. Figure S1: Delta traps and lures used in field experiments for Lobesia botrana monitoring.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID), through PhD Scholarship 21220564 and ANID Research Ring in Pest Insects grant number ATE 230025, and by the Doctorado en Ciencias Agrarias program at Universidad de Talca.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Elías González and Alexis Muñoz for field work support. We also thank “Programa Nacional de Lobesia botrana” (SAG, Chile) for the collaboration in the selection of vineyards for the field trials in Chile.

Conflicts of Interest

Marco Tasin is the owner of Azienda Agricola Agroecologica Mani in Terra. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript.
Mating disruptionMD
2-phenylethanol2-PET
Acetic acidAA
Grape Mimic Mixture 1GMM1
Grape Mimic Mixture 2GMM2

References

  1. Ioriatti, C.; Anfora, G.; Tasin, M.; De Cristofaro, A.; Witzgall, P.; Lucchi, A. Chemical ecology and management of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Benelli, G.; Lucchi, A.; Anfora, G.; Bagnoli, B.; Botton, M.; Campos-Herrera, R.; Carlos, C.; Daugherty, M.P.; Gemeno, C.; Harari, A.R. European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana Part I: Biology and ecology. Entomol. Gen. 2023, 43, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Taret, G.; Azin, G.; Vanin, M. Area-wide management of Lobesia botrana in Mendoza, Argentina. In Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management; Hendrichs, J., Pereira, R., Vreysen, M.J.B., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 597–614. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ioriatti, C.; Lucchi, A. Semiochemical strategies for tortricid moth control in apple orchards and vineyards in Italy. J. Chem. Ecol. 2016, 42, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Benelli, G.; Lucchi, A.; Anfora, G.; Bagnoli, B.; Botton, M.; Campos-Herrera, R.; Carlos, C.; Daugherty, M.P.; Gemeno, C.; Harari, A.R. European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana Part II: Prevention and management. Entomol. Gen. 2023, 43, 281–304. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tasin, M.; Bäckman, A.-C.; Bengtsson, M.; Varela, N.; Ioriatti, C.; Witzgall, P. Wind tunnel attraction of grapevine moth females, Lobesia botrana, to natural and artificial grape odour. Chemoecology 2006, 16, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anfora, G.; Tasin, M.; De Cristofaro, A.; Ioriatti, C.; Lucchi, A. Synthetic grape volatiles attract mated Lobesia botrana females in laboratory and field bioassays. J. Chem. Ecol. 2009, 35, 1054–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tasin, M.; Bäckman, A.-C.; Bengtsson, M.; Ioriatti, C.; Witzgall, P. Essential host plant cues in the grapevine moth. Naturwissenschaften 2006, 93, 141–144. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tasin, M.; Bäckman, A.-C.; Anfora, G.; Carlin, S.; Ioriatti, C.; Witzgall, P. Attraction of female grapevine moth to common and specific olfactory cues from 2 host plants. Chem. Senses 2010, 35, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Tasin, M.; Bäckman, A.-C.; Coracini, M.; Casado, D.; Ioriatti, C.; Witzgall, P. Synergism and redundancy in a plant volatile blend attracting grapevine moth females. Phytochemistry 2007, 68, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tasin, M.; Larsson Herrera, S.; Knight, A.L.; Barros-Parada, W.; Fuentes Contreras, E.; Pertot, I. Volatiles of grape inoculated with microorganisms: Modulation of grapevine moth oviposition and field attraction. Microb. Ecol. 2018, 76, 751–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. El-Sayed, A.M.; Sporle, A.; Gemeno, C.; Jósvai, J.K.; Simmons, G.S.; Suckling, D.M. Leafroller-induced phenylacetonitrile and acetic acid attract adult Lobesia botrana in European vineyards. Z. Naturforsch. C 2019, 74, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Larsson Herrera, S.; Rikk, P.; Köblös, G.; Szelényi, M.O.; Molnár, B.P.; Dekker, T.; Tasin, M. Designing a species-selective lure based on microbial volatiles to target Lobesia botrana. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Islam, Y.; Preti, M.; Knight, A.L.; Basoalto, E.; Bosch, D.; Peñalver-Cruz, A.; Rodríguez, M.A.; Fuentes-Contreras, E. Integrated monitoring of Lobesia botrana using LED traps and allelochemicals in pheromone-disrupted vineyards. Entomol. Gen. 2025, 45, 1047–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Knight, A.; Hilton, R.; Basoalto, E.; Stelinski, L. Use of glacial acetic acid to enhance bisexual monitoring of tortricid pests with kairomone lures in pome fruits. Environ. Entomol. 2014, 43, 1628–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Preti, M.; Knight, A.L.; Angeli, S. Improved monitoring of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in stone fruit orchards with a pheromone-kairomone combination lure. Insects 2020, 11, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Judd, G.J.; Knight, A.L.; El-Sayed, A.M. Development of kairomone-based lures and traps targeting Spilonota ocellana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple orchards treated with sex pheromones. Can. Entomol. 2017, 149, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Knight, A.; El-Sayed, A.; Judd, G.; Basoalto, E. Development of 2-phenylethanol plus acetic acid lures to monitor obliquebanded leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) under mating disruption. J. Appl. Entomol. 2017, 141, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Knight, A.L.; Miliczky, E. Influence of trap color on the capture of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), honeybees, and non-target flies. J. Entomol. Soc. B. C. 2003, 100, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  20. Myers, C.T.; Krawczyk, G.; Agnello, A.M. Response of tortricid moths and non-target insects to pheromone trap color in commercial apple orchards. J. Entomol. Sci. 2009, 44, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  21. Knight, A.L.; Fisher, J. Increased catch of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in semiochemical-baited orange plastic delta-shaped traps. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1597–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rayegan, S.; Rafie, J.N.; Sadeghi, A. The effect of delta trap colors and heights on efficiency of trapping of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Iran. J. Entomol. Zool. 2016, 4, 479–483. [Google Scholar]
  23. Arraztio, D.; Curkovic, T. Determinación del estatus de cópula en Lobesia botrana (Denis y Shiffermüller, 1776) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) usando la técnica de la hembra centinela. Rev. Chil. Entomol. 2023, 49, 385–394. [Google Scholar]
  24. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019; Available online: https://www.r-project.org (accessed on 25 October 2025).
  25. Tasin, M.; Anfora, G.; Ioriatti, C.; Carlin, S.; De Cristofaro, A.; Schmidt, S.; Bengtsson, M.; Versini, G.; Witzgall, P. Antennal and behavioral responses of grapevine moth Lobesia botrana females to volatiles from grapevine. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lazazzara, V.; Avesani, S.; Robatscher, P.; Oberhuber, M.; Pertot, I.; Schuhmacher, R.; Perazzolli, M. Biogenic volatile organic compounds in the grapevine response to pathogens, beneficial microorganisms, resistance inducers, and abiotic factors. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 529–554. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Rienth, M.; Vigneron, N.; Darriet, P.; Sweetman, C.; Burbidge, C.; Bonghi, C.; Walker, R.P.; Famiani, F.; Castellarin, S.D. Grape berry secondary metabolites and their modulation by abiotic factors in a climate change scenario—A review. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 643258. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang, J.; Abbey, T.; Kozak, B.; Madilao, L.L.; Tindjau, R.; Del Nin, J.; Castellarin, S.D. Evolution over the growing season of volatile organic compounds in Viognier (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes under three irrigation regimes. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Giacomuzzi, V.; Cappellin, L.; Nones, S.; Khomenko, I.; Biasioli, F.; Knight, A.L.; Angeli, S. Diel rhythms in the volatile emission of apple and grape foliage. Phytochemistry 2017, 138, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tasin, M.; Betta, E.; Carlin, S.; Gasperi, F.; Mattivi, F.; Pertot, I. Volatiles that encode host-plant quality in the grapevine moth. Phytochemistry 2011, 72, 1999–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santer, R.D.; Allen, W.L. Optimising the color of traps requires an insect’s eye view. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 931–934. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cha, D.H.; Hesler, S.P.; Linn, C.E., Jr.; Zhang, A.; Teal, P.E.; Knight, A.L.; Roelofs, W.L.; Loeb, G.M. Influence of trap design on upwind flight behavior and capture of female grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) with a kairomone lure. Environ. Entomol. 2013, 42, 150–157. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  33. Torres-Vila, L.; Rodríguez-Molina, M.; Stockel, J. Delayed mating reduces reproductive output of female European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2002, 92, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Knight, A. Improved monitoring of female codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) with pear ester plus acetic acid in sex pheromone-treated orchards. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1283–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Mean (SE) Lobesia botrana catches in delta traps baited with a combination of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA) with Grape Mimic Mixture 1 (GMM1), Grape Mimic Mixture 2 (GMM2) and sexual pheromone (EGVM-PH) in a mating-disruption-treated vineyard, Chile.
Table 1. Mean (SE) Lobesia botrana catches in delta traps baited with a combination of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA) with Grape Mimic Mixture 1 (GMM1), Grape Mimic Mixture 2 (GMM2) and sexual pheromone (EGVM-PH) in a mating-disruption-treated vineyard, Chile.
Trial/Flight
Capture		2-PET/AA2-PET/AA +
GMM1		2-PET/AA +
GMM2		2-PET/AA +
GMM1 + GMM2		EGVM-PHWald Test
1/2nd
Male3.83 (1.10) a1.83 (0.74) ab3.00 (0.51) a4.50 (1.05) a0.33 (0.33) bχ2 = 15.9, df = 4
p < 0.01
Female1.83 (0.70)1.83 (0.94)1.50 (0.56)1.66 (0.33)0.00 (0.00) *χ2 = 0.29, df = 3
p = 0.96
Total5.66 (1.66) a3.66 (1.05) a4.50 (0.99) a6.16 (1.10) a0.33 (0.33) bχ2 = 17.1, df = 4
p < 0.01
2/3rd
Male6.00 (1.57) a8.16 (3.19) a10.50 (3.48) a7.00 (0.44) a0.50 (0.34) bχ2 = 21.3, df = 4
p < 0.01
Female2.33 (0.91)3.00 (1.03)4.50 (1.31)2.00 (0.68)0.00 (0.00) *χ2 = 4.08, df = 3
p = 0.25
Total8.33 (2.40) a11.16 (4.11) a15.0 (4.72) a9.00 (0.77) a0.50 (0.34) bχ2 = 26.07, df = 4
p < 0.01
3/3rd
Male10.83 (2.49) a18.33 (4.89) a3.00 (2.25) b17.16 (4.02) a1.66 (0.84) bχ2 = 39.07, df = 4
p < 0.01
Female5.66 (1.22) a5.00 (1.03) a1.16 (0.83) b6.16 (1.22) a0.00 (0.00) *χ2 = 14.82, df = 3
p < 0.01
Total16.50 (3.24) a23.33 (5.66) a4.16 (3.07) b23.33 (5.15) a1.66 (0.84) bχ2 = 43.97, df = 4
p < 0.01
Row means for each treatment followed by a different letter were significantly different, p < 0.05, Tukey test. N = 6, * No female catches were obtained in these treatments and hence were not included in the statistical analysis.
Table 2. Mating status of Lobesia botrana females caught in delta traps baited with a combination of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA) with Grape Mimic Mixture 1 (GMM1) and Grape Mimic Mixture 2 (GMM2) in a mating-disruption-treated vineyard, Chile.
Table 2. Mating status of Lobesia botrana females caught in delta traps baited with a combination of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA) with Grape Mimic Mixture 1 (GMM1) and Grape Mimic Mixture 2 (GMM2) in a mating-disruption-treated vineyard, Chile.
Trial/Flight TreatmentsMatedUnmatedTotalFisher Exact Test
1/2nd
2-PET/AA7411p = 0.66
2-PET/AA + GMM17411
2-PET/AA + GMM2729
2-PET/AA + GMM1 + GMM24610
2/3rd
2-PET/AA11314p = 0.12
2-PET/AA + GMM114418
2-PET/AA + GMM218927
2-PET/AA + GMM1 + GMM28412
3/3rd
2-PET/AA29534p = 0.53
2-PET/AA + GMM123730
2-PET/AA + GMM2437
2-PET/AA + GMM1 + GMM2261137
Table 3. Mean (SE) Lobesia botrana catches in traps of different color and baited with a combination of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA), or sex pheromone (EGVM-PH) in a mating-disruption-treated vineyard, Chile.
Table 3. Mean (SE) Lobesia botrana catches in traps of different color and baited with a combination of 2-phenylethanol (2-PET) and acetic acid (AA), or sex pheromone (EGVM-PH) in a mating-disruption-treated vineyard, Chile.
Flight
Capture		2-PET/AA-Blue2-PET/AA-Green2-PET/AA-Orange2-PET/AA-Red2-PET/AA-White2-PET/AA-TransparentEGVM-PH-White
1st
Male1.2 (0.4) b0.6 (0.4) b2.2 (0.8) ab1.4 (0.8) ab2.6 (0.9) ab4.8 (0.7) a2.0 (0.8) ab
Female0.6 (0.3)0.2 (0.2)0.4 (0.3)0.2 (0.2)0.6 (0.3)1.0 (0.5)0.0 (0.0) *
Total1.8 (0.4) b0.8 (0.4) b2.6 (0.8) ab1.6 (0.7) b3.2 (0.8) ab5.8 (1.0) a2.0 (0.8) ab
2nd
Male9.6 (5.3)8.6 (1.4)25.2 (5.2)8.0 (2.1)18.8 (4.2)17.8 (4.8)21.2 (11.9)
Female5.8 (3.6) bc3.0 (1.2) c22.0 (5.1) a6.2 (1.7) bc7.8 (2.3) abc12.0 (2.7) ab0.0 (0.0) *
Total15.4 (8.9) ab11.6 (1.8) b47.2 (9.8) a14.2 (3.8) ab26.6 (6.4) ab29.8 (7.3) ab21.2 (11.9) ab
3rd
Male3.0 (1.6) c4.2 (1.7) bc15.8 (4.7) ab9.8 (3.9) bc6.4 (1.6) bc26.0 (5.3) a8.4 (3.5) b
Female1.0 (0.5) d2.2 (0.7) cd8.2 (2.9) b4.4 (1.5) bc2.8 (0.7) cd17.2 (2.4) a0.0 (0.0) *
Total4.0 (2.1) c6.4 (2.2) c24.0 (7.2) b14.2 (5.3) bc9.2 (1.8) bc43.2 (7.8) a8.4 (3.5) bc
Row means for each treatment followed by a different letter were significantly different, p < 0.05, Tukey test. N = 5, * No female catches were obtained in these treatments and hence were not included in the statistical analysis.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Islam, Y.; Castillo, C.; Tasin, M.; Fuentes-Contreras, E. Visual and Olfactory Cues for Monitoring Lobesia botrana in Vineyards Under Mating Disruption. Agronomy 2026, 16, 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060648

AMA Style

Islam Y, Castillo C, Tasin M, Fuentes-Contreras E. Visual and Olfactory Cues for Monitoring Lobesia botrana in Vineyards Under Mating Disruption. Agronomy. 2026; 16(6):648. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060648

Chicago/Turabian Style

Islam, Yasir, Constanza Castillo, Marco Tasin, and Eduardo Fuentes-Contreras. 2026. "Visual and Olfactory Cues for Monitoring Lobesia botrana in Vineyards Under Mating Disruption" Agronomy 16, no. 6: 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060648

APA Style

Islam, Y., Castillo, C., Tasin, M., & Fuentes-Contreras, E. (2026). Visual and Olfactory Cues for Monitoring Lobesia botrana in Vineyards Under Mating Disruption. Agronomy, 16(6), 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16060648

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