Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 10708–10718 | Cite as

Managing the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus, through pheromone-mediated mating disruption

  • Andrea Lucchi
  • Pompeo Suma
  • Edith Ladurner
  • Andrea Iodice
  • Francesco Savino
  • Renato Ricciardi
  • Francesca Cosci
  • Enrico Marchesini
  • Giuseppe Conte
  • Giovanni BenelliEmail author
Research Article


The vine mealybug (VMB), Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), is a key insect pest of vineyards. While pheromone-based mating disruption (MD) has been successfully tested against a wide range of insect pests, knowledge about its efficacy against key mealybug species, such as P. ficus, is scarce. In this study, a novel MD product, Isonet® PF, was evaluated by testing 300, 400, and 500 dispensers/ha at four study sites located in Northern (Veneto) and Southern (Sicily) Italy. Experiments were carried out over 2 years by monitoring the mealybug populations in wine grape and table grape vineyards managed with and without the application of MD. Pheromone dispensers were periodically collected during the grapevine-growing season, extracted, and analyzed by GC-MS, to determine their pheromone content and the release in mg/ha/day. The results showed that use of the MD dispenser Isonet® PF reduced the percentage of VMB-infested bunches and the number of VMB specimens per bunch compared with the untreated controls. This was recorded over 2 years at all experimental sites. Differences in the incidence of infested bunches among the three tested rates of Isonet® PF were not detected. Overall, the results presented here contribute to optimizing the sex pheromone dosage used in MD control programs against VMB allowing a reduction of broad-spectrum insecticides currently employed to manage this important pest.


Biological control Chemical ecology Integrated pest management Sustainable pest control Sex pheromones 



Three anonymous reviewers kindly improved an earlier version of our manuscript. The authors are grateful to Shin-Etsu for kindly providing the tested dispensers. We would like to thank Dr. Mauro Varner, Cantine Mezzacorona (Villa Albius), and Dr. Sergio Rizzo, Cantine Fichera & Torrisi (Chiaramonte Gulfi), for the technical assistance, and Dr. Roma L. Gwynn (Duns, Scotland, UK) for proofreading the manuscript.

Funding information

This research was partially funded by the University of Catania, Research Project 2016-18 “Emergent Pests and Pathogens and Relative Sustainable Strategies” - 5A722192113.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. Almeida RP, Daane KM, Bell VA, Blaisdell GK, Cooper ML, Herrbach E, Pietersen G (2013) Ecology and management of grapevine leafroll disease. Front Microbiol 4:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabras P, Angioni A (2000) Pesticide residues in grapes, wine, and their processing products. J Agric Food Chem 48:967–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiotta ML, Ponsone ML, Torres AM, Combina M, Chulze SN (2010) Influence of Planococcus ficus on Aspergillus section Nigri and ochratoxin A incidence in vineyards from Argentina. Lett Appl Microbiol 51:212–218Google Scholar
  4. Cocco A, Lentini A, Serra G (2014) Mating disruption of Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in vineyards using reservoir pheromone dispensers. J Insect Sci 14:144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cocco A, Muscas E, Mura A, Iodice A, Savino F, Lentini A (2018) Influence of mating disruption on the reproductive biology of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), under field conditions. Pest Manag Sci 74:2806–2816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. da Silva EB, Mendel Z, Franco JC (2010) Can facultative parthenogenesis occur in biparental mealybug species? Phytoparasitica 38:19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. da Silva VP, Galzer ECW, Malausa T, Germain JF, Kaydan MB, Botton M (2016) The vine mealybug Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) damaging vineyards in Brazil. Neotrop Entomol 45:449–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daane KM, Bentley W, Walton V, Malakar-Kuenen R, Millar J et al (2006) New controls investigated for vine mealybug. Calif Agric 60:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daane KM, Almeida RP, Bell VA, Walker JT, Botton M, Fallahzadeh M, et al (2012) Biology and management of mealybugs in vineyards. In: Bostanian NJ, Vincent C, Isaacs R (eds) Arthropod management in vineyards. Springer, Dordrecht, p 271–307Google Scholar
  10. Daane KM, Middleton MC, Sforza RF, Kamps-Hughes N, Watson GW, Almeida RP et al (2018a) Determining the geographic origin of invasive populations of the mealybug Planococcus ficus based on molecular genetic analysis. PLoS One 13(3):e0193852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daane KM, Vincent C, Isaacs R, Ioriatti C (2018b) Entomological opportunities and challenges for sustainable viticulture in a global market. Annu Rev Entomol 63:193–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas N, Krüger K (2008) Transmission efficiency of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) by the mealybugs Planococcus ficus and Pseudococcus longispinus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Eur J Plant Pathol 122:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2016) Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products. Mating disruption pheromones ( First approved in 2008–09. Last update December 2016
  14. Fallahzadeh M, Japoshvili G, Saghaei N, Daane KM (2011) Natural enemies of Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Fars province vineyards, Iran. Biocontrol Sci Tech 21:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franco JC, Zada A, Mendel Z, Ishaaya I, Horowitz AR (2009) Novel approaches for the management of mealybug pests. In: Ishaaya I, Horowitz AR (eds) Biorational control of arthropod pests. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233–278Google Scholar
  16. Geiger CA, Daane KM (2001) Seasonal movement and distribution of the grape mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae); developing a sampling program for San Joaquin Valley vineyards. J Econ Entomol 94:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Güleç G, Kilincer AN, Kaydan MB, Ülgentürk S (2007) Some biological interactions between the parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and its host Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae). J Pest Sci 80:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gut LJ, Stelinski LL, Thomson DR, Miller JR (2004) Behaviour-modifying chemicals: prospects and constraints in IPM. In: Koul, Dhaliwal, Cuperus (eds) Integrated pest management: potential, constraints, and challenges. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, pp 73–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutierrez AP, Daane KM, Ponti L, Walton VM, Ellis CK (2008) Prospective evaluation of the biological control of vine mealybug: refuge effects and climate. J Appl Ecol 45:524–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haviland DR, Bentley WJ, Daane KM (2005) Hot-water treatments for control of Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on dormant grape cuttings. J Econ Entomol 98:1109–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinkens DM, McElfresh JS, Millar JG (2001) Identification and synthesis of the sex pheromone of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus. Tetrahedron Lett 42:1619–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ioriatti C, Lucchi A (2016) Semiochemical strategies for tortricid moth control in apple orchards and vineyards in Italy. J Chem Ecol 42(7):571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ioriatti C, Lucchi A, Bagnoli B (2008) Grape area-wide pest management in Italy. In: Koul et al (eds) Area-wide pest management: theory and implementation. CAB International, Wallingford, p 208–225Google Scholar
  24. Lance DR, Leonard DS, Mastro VC, Walters ML (2016) Mating disruption as a suppression tactic in programs targeting regulated lepidopteran pests in US. J Chem Ecol 42:590–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Langone D, Kurtural K, Daane KM (2014) Mating disruption of vine mealybug. Practical Winery & Vineyard, San Rafael, p 1–3 Google Scholar
  26. Le Vieux PD, Malan AP (2016) An overview of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in South African vineyards and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes as potential biocontrol agent. South Afric J Enol Vitic 34:108–118Google Scholar
  27. Lentini A, Serra G, Ortu S, Delrio G (2008) Seasonal abundance and distribution of Planococcus ficus on grape vine in Sardinia. IOBC/WPRS Bull 36:267–272Google Scholar
  28. Lentini A, Mura A, Muscas E, Nuvoli MT, Cocco A (2018) Effects of delayed mating on the reproductive biology of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Entomol Res 108:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lucchi A, Benelli G (2018) Towards pesticide-free farming? Sharing needs and knowledge promotes integrated pest management. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:13439–13445Google Scholar
  30. Lucchi A, Sambado P, Juan Royo AB, Bagnoli B, Benelli G (2018a) Lobesia botrana males mainly fly at dusk: video camera-assisted pheromone traps and implications for mating disruption. J Pest Sci 91:1327–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lucchi A, Sambado P, Juan Royo AB, Bagnoli B, Conte G, Benelli G (2018b) Disrupting mating of Lobesia botrana using sex pheromone aerosol devices. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:22196–22204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lucchi A, Ladurner E, Iodice A, Savino F, Ricciardi R, Cosci F, Conte G, Benelli G (2018c) Eco-friendly pheromone dispensers – a green route to manage the European grapevine moth? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:9426–9442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mansour R, Lebdi KG, Rezgui S (2010) Assessment of the performance of some new insecticides for the control of the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus in a Tunisian vineyard. Entomol Hell 19:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mansour R, Grissa-Lebdi K, Suma P, Mazzeo G, Russo A (2017a) Scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) of high economic importance in a Mediterranean area: host plants, bio-ecological characteristics, natural enemies and pest management strategies – a review. Plant Prot Sci 53:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mansour R, Grissa-Lebdi K, Khemakhem M, Imed C, Trabelsi I, Sabri A, Marti S (2017b) Pheromone-mediated mating disruption of Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Tunisian vineyards: effect on insect population dynamics. Biologia 72(3):333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mansour R, Belzunces L, Suma P, Zappalà L, Mazzeo G, Grissa-Lebdi K, Russo A, Biondi A (2018) Vine and citrus mealybug pest control based on synthetic chemicals. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38:37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mgocheki N, Addison P (2009) Interference of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with biological control of the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Biol Control 49:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Millar JG (2007) Insect pheromones for integrated pest management: promise versus reality. Redia 90:51–55Google Scholar
  39. Millar JG, Daane KM, McElfresh JS, Moreira JA, Malakar-Kuenen R, Guillén M, Bentley WJ (2002) Development and optimization of methods for using sex pheromone for monitoring the mealybug Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. J Econ Entomol 95:706–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller JR, Gut LJ (2015) Mating disruption for the 21st century: matching technology with mechanism. Environ Entomol 44:427–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neumann U (1996) Factors affecting the effectiveness of the mating disruption technique principles and necessities. Acta Hortic 422:241–246Google Scholar
  42. Ravelo-Pérez LM, Hernández-Borges J, Herrera-Herrera AV, Rodríguez-Delgado MÁ (2009) Pesticide extraction from table grapes and plums using ionic liquid based dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction. Anal Bioanal Chem 395:2387–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romano D, Benelli G, Stefanini C, Desneux N, Ramirez-Romero R, Canale A, Lucchi A (2018) Behavioral asymmetries in the mealybug parasitoid Anagyrus sp. near pseudococci: does lateralized antennal tapping predicts male mating success? J Pest Sci 91:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shapira I, Keasar T, Harari AR, Gavish-Regev E, Kishinevsky M, Steinitz H, Sofer-Arad C, Tomer M, Avraham A, Sharon R (2018) Does mating disruption of Planococcus ficus and Lobesia botrana affect the diversity, abundance and composition of natural enemies in Israeli vineyards? Pest Manag Sci 74:1837–1844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharon R, Zahavi T, Sokolsky T, Sofer-Arad C, Tomer M, Kedoshim R, Harari AR (2016) Mating disruption method against the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus: effect of sequential treatment on infested vines. Entomol Exp Appl 161:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sokolsky T, Cohen Y, Zahavi T, Sapir G, Sharon R (2013) Potential efficiency of grapevine leafroll disease management strategies using simulation and real spatio-temporal disease infection data. Austr J Grape Wine Res 19:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suma P, Mansour R, Russo A, La Torre I, Bugila AAA, Franco JC (2012) Encapsulation rates of the parasitoid Anagyrus sp. nr. pseudococci, by three mealybug species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Phytoparasitica 40(1):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tanne E, Ben-Dov Y, Raccah B (1989) Transmission of the corky-bark disease by the mealybug Planococcus ficus. Phytoparasitica 17:55–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsai CW, Chau J, Fernandez L, Bosco D, Daane KM, Almeida RPP (2008) Transmission of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 by the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus). Phytopathology 98:1093–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsai CW, Rowhani A, Golino DA, Daane KM, Almeida RP (2010) Mealybug transmission of grapevine leafroll viruses: an analysis of virus–vector specificity. Phytopathology 100(8):830–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walton VM, Pringle KL (2017) Vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), a key pest in South African vineyards. A review. South Afric J Enol Vitic 25:54–73Google Scholar
  52. Walton VM, Daane KM, Pringle KL (2004) Monitoring Planococcus ficus in South African vineyards with sex pheromone-baited traps. Crop Prot 23:1089–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walton VM, Daane KM, Bentley WJ, Millar JG, Larsen TE, Malakar-Kuenen R (2006) Pheromone-based mating disruption of Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. J Econ Entomol 99:1280–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waterworth RA, Wright IM, Millar JG (2011) Reproductive biology of three cosmopolitan mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) species, Pseudococcus longispinus, Pseudococcus viburni, and Planococcus ficus. Ann Entomol Soc Am 104:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Welter S, Pickel C, Millar J, Cave F, Van Steenwyk R, Dunley J (2005) Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests. Calif Agric 59:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Witzgall P, Kirsch P, Cork A (2010) Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management. J Chem Ecol 36:80–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zada A, Dunkelblum E, Assael F, Harel M, Cojocaru M, Mendel Z (2003) Sex pheromone of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus in Israel: occurrence of a second component in a mass-reared population. J Chem Ecol 29:977–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zada A, Dunkelblum E, Assael F, Franco JC, Da Silva EB, Protasov A, Mendel Z (2008) Attraction of Planococcus ficus males to racemic and chiral pheromone baits: flight activity and bait longevity. J Appl Entomol 132:480–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Lucchi
    • 1
  • Pompeo Suma
    • 2
  • Edith Ladurner
    • 3
  • Andrea Iodice
    • 3
  • Francesco Savino
    • 3
  • Renato Ricciardi
    • 1
  • Francesca Cosci
    • 1
  • Enrico Marchesini
    • 4
  • Giuseppe Conte
    • 1
  • Giovanni Benelli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture, Food and EnvironmentUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture, Food and EnvironmentUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  3. 3.Biogard DivisionCBC (Europe) SrlNova MilaneseItaly
  4. 4.AGREA S.r.l. Centro StudiSan Giovanni LupatotoItaly

Personalised recommendations