Next Article in Journal
Pan-Genomic Analysis of Clostridium botulinum Group II (Non-Proteolytic C. botulinum) Associated with Foodborne Botulism and Isolated from the Environment
Next Article in Special Issue
AFLA-PISTACHIO: Development of a Mechanistic Model to Predict the Aflatoxin Contamination of Pistachio Nuts
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Mass Spectrometry to Determine the Diversity of Toxins Produced by Gambierdiscus and Fukuyoa Species from Balearic Islands and Crete (Mediterranean Sea) and the Canary Islands (Northeast Atlantic)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification of the Fungal Pathogens of Postharvest Disease on Peach Fruits and the Control Mechanisms of Bacillus subtilis JK-14
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Pest Management and Ochratoxin A Contamination in Grapes: A Review

by
Letizia Mondani
1,
Roberta Palumbo
1,
Dimitrios Tsitsigiannis
2,
Dionysios Perdikis
3,
Emanuele Mazzoni
1,* and
Paola Battilani
1,*
1
Department of Sustainable Crop Production (DI.PRO.VE.S.), Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
2
School of Plant Sciences, Department of Crop Science, Laboratory of Plant Pathology, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece
3
School of Plant Sciences, Department of Crop Science, Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxins 2020, 12(5), 303; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12050303
Submission received: 30 March 2020 / Revised: 29 April 2020 / Accepted: 4 May 2020 / Published: 7 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Collection Understanding Mycotoxin Occurrence in Food and Feed Chains)

Abstract

:
Ochratoxin A (OTA) is the most toxic member of ochratoxins, a group of toxic secondary metabolites produced by fungi. The most relevant species involved in OTA production in grapes is Aspergillus carbonarius. Berry infection by A. carbonarius is enhanced by damage to the skin caused by abiotic and biotic factors. Insect pests play a major role in European vineyards, and Lepidopteran species such as the European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana are undoubtedly crucial. New scenarios are also emerging due to the introduction and spread of allochthonous pests as well as climate change. Such pests may be involved in the dissemination of OTA producing fungi even if confirmation is still lacking and further studies are needed. An OTA predicting model is available, but it should be integrated with models aimed at forecasting L. botrana phenology and demography in order to improve model reliability.
Key Contribution: Several insect pests can affect and increase OTA contamination in grapes, but only the European grape berry moth Lobesia botrana has so far been confirmed as directly involved. Further evidence exists that a sustainable and ecofriendly approach to L. botrana control could reduce fungal infection and OTA accumulation in grapes. However, new pests are having an increasing impact on grapes; therefore, their involvement should be rapidly evaluated, and pest control strategies to reduce risk of contamination should be integrated without negatively affecting yields and neither grape quality nor safety. Approaches to integrate L. botrana bio-ecological data within the OTA predicting model available are discussed.

1. Introduction

Ochratoxins are a group of toxic secondary metabolites produced by fungi. Ochratoxin A (OTA) is the most toxic member of the ochratoxin group as well as the most studied, and it has been classified as a group 2B carcinogen (i.e., possible human carcinogen) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [1]. OTA occurs at global level in a wide variety of agricultural products (e.g., cereals, grapes, coffee, cocoa, spices) as well as derived foods and beverages, including grape juice, wine and dried vine fruits (i.e., currants, raisins and sultanas) [2,3,4]. Wine was first reported to be contaminated with OTA in 1996 [5], and at present it is regarded as the second major source of human exposure to OTA, after cereals. OTA has been demonstrated to be nephrotoxic and associated with a fatal human kidney disease, Balkan Endemic Nephropathy (BEN) [6,7]. Acute toxicity of OTA is mostly due to nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity; it has also shown carcinogenic, immunotoxic, genotoxic, teratogenic and possibly neurotoxic properties [8]. Due to the risks for consumers associated with dietary exposure to OTA, maximum permitted levels (MLs) have been established for this mycotoxin in the EU in different grape products (i.e., 2 µg/kg in wine and grape juice; 10 µg/kg in dried vine fruits (currants, raisins and sultanas)) [9].
OTA is produced by several fungal species of the genera Aspergillus and Penicillium. These genera are part of the complex microflora of grapes together with other filamentous fungi (i.e., Alternaria, Acremonium, Botrytis, Cladosporium and Rhizopus) [10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, the main species responsible for OTA contamination of grapes belong to the genera Aspergillus section Nigri, the so-called black aspergilli [3,16].
Black aspergilli are often present in the soil and on grape berries during the entire crop production cycle, although they have difficulty penetrating healthy berries at early grape growth stages; their entry into the fruit is enhanced by skin damage caused by insect pests or other factors that may cause splitting of the berries such as rainfall or fungal infections (i.e., powdery mildew) [17]. Among these factors, insect pests are confirmed to play a major role in the fungal invasion of berries and their OTA contamination. However, despite the large number of insect species infesting grapes [18], only a limited number of them, e.g., the European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana (Denis and Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) or mealybugs have been associated with OTA contamination [19,20].
The use of effective pest management strategies against grape moths has minimized the risk of OTA contamination in the grape chain [21,22,23]. However, global warming is likely to bring more frequent extreme climatic events that may lower the efficacy of OTA contamination mitigation measures due to their variable impact on fungi, insect pests, grapes and on their interactions. In addition, due to globalization new insect pests are emerging in vineyards worldwide and assessment of their potential involevement in OTA contamination has to be prioritized. In this context, the use of predictive systems for OTA risk has been recognized as a valid tool to support the optimization of grapevine planning and management practices along the value chain [24]. However, model validation requires a consistent set of quantitative data, whereas efforts are required to predict the impact of L. botrana and to integrate it in the modelling of OTA contamination and in mitigation measures.
Thus, the aim of this paper is to (i) revise the recently increasing available information in peer-reviewed literature on black aspergilli and OTA contamination in grapes and main insect pests that cause damage to grape berries and show their possible relation with OTA contamination (ii) to collect data on the phenology of L. botrana as well as ecological factors influencing its behavior with a view to modelling implementation on its influence on OTA contamination in grapes. The need for future research will also be highlighted.

2. Black Aspergilli and Ochratoxin A Production in Grapes

The genus Aspergillus currently includes 185 species and is one of the most important genera in food spoilage and contamination [25]. More than 30 species of Aspergillus have been isolated from grapes in vineyards around the world, and A. carbonarius and A. niger aggregates, belonging to A. section Nigri are the most frequently reported species, accounting for 50–98.5% of all Aspergillus strains [26,27,28,29,30,31,32] as well as the most relevant species involved in OTA production and accumulation in wine [33,34,35] (Figure 1).

2.1. Physiology and Ochratoxin A Production by Black Aspergilli

Black Asperigilli grow at temperatures between 8 °C and 45 °C. A. carbonarius is more sensitive to low and high temperatures with respect to A. niger. The optimum temperature for both species is around 30 °C with water activity (aw) = 0.96 and 0.98, respectively [36,37]; nevertheless, A. niger is confirmed as more thermophilic than A. carbonarius [29,38]. A. niger aggregate is more abundant and more frequently isolated from grapes than A. carbonarius, although only 2–20% of A. niger isolates are OTA producers [21]; on the contrary, nearly 100% of the isolates of A. carbonarius are toxigenic [39,40,41]. A. carbonarius, on the other hand, is very tolerant to high CO2 concentrations. Pateraki et al. (2007) demonstrated that a modified atmosphere composed by 25% of CO2 and 1% of O2 stimulates A. carbonarius growth whereas an atmosphere composed by 50% of CO2 and 1% of O2 slightly reduces growth capacity on grape juice medium at 0.85–0.93 aw [42]. The optimal range of temperatures and aw for OTA production in most isolates is 15 °C and 0.95-0.97 aw or 20 °C and 0.98–0.99 aw, but also optimal temperatures ranging from 30 °C to 35 °C are reported for some isolates [37,43,44,45,46,47].
In addition, pH can influence the production of OTA in grapes and pH values ranging from 2 to 10 have been reported to be conductive for OTA production on CYA and YES media [48,49].

2.2. Ecology in Vineyard

Black aspergilli are present on berries from fruit set to ripening and their incidence increases towards harvest. Normally, they overwinter in soil and vine residues [2,50]. A. carbonarius is a saprophyte, so penetration of grape berries preferentially occurs after damage caused by insects, heavy rainfall and storms or other fungal infections (i.e., powdery mildew). The highest incidence of black aspergilli is recorded at fruit maturity, when high levels of sugar accumulate in berries, but infections can also start at berry setting [50]. Field trials have confirmed that the last 20 days of ripening are crucial for OTA synthesis in grapes [50].
Weather and region of origin can greatly influence OTA contamination [21,51,52]. Battilani et al. [16] found that the incidence of black aspergilli at harvest was related to the latitude and longitude of vineyards, and a positive gradient was detected moving from west to east and from north to south in Europe. Further, the incidence of infected berries was highest in the hottest and driest years.

2.3. Black Aspergilli and Ochratoxin A Production in Dried Grapes

“Dried grapes” commercially means dried vine fruits and they differ in name depending on the type of grape used: raisins and sultans from white seedless grapes, and currants from red seedless grapes. The average OTA contamination in dried grapes is usually much higher than in wine with values ranging up to 50–70 µg/kg [53]. During the drying process, the ratio between A. carbonarius and A. niger changes in favor of A. carbonarius [54], which is known to be the most efficient OTA producer, and is still active until aw becomes unsuitable (aw < 0.85) [55]. Most reports regarding OTA in dried grapes concern the Mediterranean area and the incidence of contamination can be up to 88% of the samples [54,56,57,58,59], greatly influenced by the geographic area and the year of production [60]. OTA contamination can be mitigated by SO2 treatments and a rapid drying process with temperatures higher than 30 °C. Moreover, the elimination of discolored berries and the frequent turning over of the fruits can greatly reduce the accumulation of OTA during the drying process [57].

2.4. Ochratoxin A in Grape Juice and Wine

The occurrence of OTA in grape juice is of particular interest for public health, because of the widespread consumption of this product by children who are its major consumers [61]. Despite this, few studies have focused on this topic. Zimmerli and Dick [5] detected OTA contamination in red grape juice in the Swiss market with a median concentration of 235 pg/mL. In Europe, in some cases OTA contamination levels in red grape juice are comparable to wine (5.26–7 µg/L) [53,62,63,64]. On the other hand, only 17% of white grape juice samples showed OTA contamination [65]. OTA has also been detected in a must derived product, “pekmez”, a condensed juice produced in Turkey, and 48% of the samples analyzed in the study exceeded the EU limit for safe consumption (2 µg/kg maximum level for grape juice) [66]. OTA accumulates in grapes during the cropping season, and it is commonly dectected after early veràison. White wine is definitely less prone to OTA contamination; the period between berry breakage and juice separation is very limited and the release of OTA from berry skin is therefore avoided. The red wine making process does not lead to an increase in OTA compared to berry contamination and some reduction is reported, despite its release from grape skin during maceration. Clarification, alcoholic and malolactic fermentation can contribute to OTA reduction. Impact on wine color is the principal factor for compounds used for clarification; those applied in white wine greatly influence wine color and OTA adsorption too, but their impact is unwanted in red wine, where the role of the color is crucial. Furthermore, a significant impact of yeasts and lactic bacteria on OTA content, during alcoholic and malo-lactic fermentations, was observed only when selected strains were added, but this is increased if grapes are contaminated. Combined control strategies and timely production of juice and wine can result in lower OTA accumulation [21].

3. Main Insect Pests on Grapes

Several insect species can be considered grape pests and their importance is usually variable in different environments [67]. The pest status and the corresponding impact of insects feeding on grapes depends greatly on their feeding habits. Indeed, two main approaches can be recognized linked to a different type of mouthpart structure: sucking or chewing. In the first case, phytophagous species use modified mouthparts to reach the vascular system or simply to empty cells in the parenchyma or in the mesophyll. In several cases the true economic damage caused by these pests is not due to sap or cytoplasm removal; in fact, honeydew production or pathogen transmission (viruses or phytoplasmas) are much more important. The chewing species remove plant tissues, usually creating more or less extended injuries in plant tissues. In this case, grape tissue removal can also be of limited importance if compared to the possibility that wounds can open a penetration route for many different pathogens producing berry rot.
In the history of grape cultivation, several significant examples of changes in phytosanitary problems have been reported and often business practices have greatly modified the importance of a specific pest. For example the grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch), Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae) upon its arrival in Europe, approximately in the middle of the nineteenth century, impacted significantly on grape cultivation [67,68], making grafting mandatory. More recently, the introduction of Scaphoideus titanus Ball (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), likely in mid-twentieth century France [69], forced the modification of pest management strategies in the areas where this leafhopper is distributed [70]. Some other species, usually not considered of phytosanitary importance, are changing their pest status. The most recent examples are the honeydew moth Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) [71] and mealybugs that are having a greater and wider impact [72,73,74]. However, the role of temperature increase, as the result of new climate scenarios, in changing the relevance of different pests, is still under debate [75,76]. Experimental approaches have pointed out contrasting effects on different life traits of a pest such as L. botrana; increasing temperatures have reduced the length of the larval stage and increased both survival rates and the ability of larvae to move fast to avoid natural enemies. On the other hand, energy reserves (lipid accumulation) and the activity of some enzymatic systems like phenoloxydases involved in immunity response towards parasitoid eggs have been reduced [77].
Such events have modified, and are still modifying, the importance of traditional pests like vine moths. In European vineyards, undoubtedly the major role as key pests is still played by twoLepidopteran species: the European grapevine moth L. botrana and the grape berry moth Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).
Both moths are polyphagous pests that attack many botanical species with berry and berry-like fruits [78]. Both species have a comparable behavior and they attack grapes producing very similar damage, but they do not completely share an ecological niche; L. botrana is more thermophilic and E. ambiguella prefers a fresh and cold climate [79]. The latter was the most important pest in European vineyards until the first decades of the 20th century, but in many areas it is being replaced by the former species that has expanded its prevalence area from the Mediterranean Basin to Switzerland, Austria and southern Germany [80]. Nowadays L. botrana distribution covers a geographical area that includes Central Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, southern Russia, Japan, the Middle East, and northern and western Africa [81]. L. botrana is still enlarging its distribution area and there were reports of new area sof colonization inChile in 2008 and Argentina in 2010. It was also reported in California in 2009 [82], but in this area, after a huge phytosanitary effort, it is now considered eradicated [83]. The distribution range of E. ambiguella is from Britain to Japan, from the Mediterranean Basin to the Scandinavian countries; therefore, much wider than the grapevine-growing regions [84].

3.1. Life Cycle and Impact of Grape Moths

L. botrana share with E. ambiguella a similar life cycle and behavior. Both are multivoltine species with facultative diapause even if the latter usually completes a smaller number of generations. On Vitis vinifera, L. botrana develops 2–4 generations per year depending on latitude and climate [85,86]. According to different literature sources, the temperature range for its development is between 8 °C and 34 °C, with an optimum in the range of 28–30 °C. In most cases, the effect of temperature on its developmental rate has been evaluated in lab conditions, feeding the insect with an artificial diet [87,88]. It is frequent to observe a tendency to increase the number of generations per year in many European and Mediterranean areas [89,90,91], but an increasing number of generations does not mean necessarily an increased impact of the pest on grape. Indeed, the increasing number of generations could have a significant fitness cost for the pest. In fact, if the last generation larvae do not complete their development before harvest, they can be irreversibly removed from the population pool [85,89,92]. E. ambiguella usually has two generations per year, even if a third generation has often been detected in warmer areas or years [93,94].
A common trait to both species is the female habit of laying single eggs instead of clusters. This is considered an evolutionary advantage increasing the chance for eggs to avoid natural enemies [18]; however, it makes visual monitoring in field more difficult.
In both species, the females, developed from the overwintering pupae, after mating, lay from 50 to 80 eggs on flower buds [78]. Then, the first-generation larvae are anthophagous and feed on pre-bloom flowers. During their development, these larvae use silk to build up a “nest” or “glomerulus” which is used as a refuge against adverse conditions (unfavourable temperature, predators and parasitoids). First generation attacks are not economically important for most grape cultivars [95,96] (Figure 2). In the following generations, eggs are laid singly on berries and new born larvae and after a short wandering period, penetrate berries. With their feeding activity, larvae produce “direct damage” which varies in severity depending on grape cultivar, ripening stage and larval age; further, a single larva usually damages several berries [97]. Depending on the water content and grape ripening stage, larvae can erode berries superficially or dig deeper inside. The damage level can be linked also with the oviposition preferences of gravid females. Waxy layers present on berries can act as specific attractants and this can account, at least partially, for cultivar susceptibility [98], but olfactory as well as visual stimuli can also play an important role [99,100].
“Direct” damage is a prerequisite for “indirect” damage, which is linked to the interaction of moth larvae with some fungi and it is often considered the most important from an economic point of view. Indeed the link between the feeding activity of larvae and resulting fungal damage has been demonstrated for L. botrana, but less/no data are available in the literature for E. ambiguella or any other moth species whose larvae can attack grape berries [101].
One of the best known examples regards grey mold (Botrytis cinerea). The fungus can use wounds produced by larvae to enter grape berries, but larvae are also involved in conidia delivery [102]; in addition, grey mold conidia can survive in the gut of the larvae and can be recovered viable from the faeces [103].
It has also been demonstrated that direct damage to the berries produced by moth larvae can greatly favor sour rot mediated by secondary pests such as Drosophila sp. [104].

3.2. Lobesia botrana and OTA

The link between L. botrana larval activity and OTA-producing Aspergillus spp. was pointed out in Apulia some years ago [19]. Authors reported significant differences in the number of colony forming units per g of berries (CFU/g) as well as in the OTA content among healthy berries, berries with Aspergillus rot symptoms and berries with L. botrana larvae damage and Aspergillus rot. Further, from asymptomatic berries collected from bunches with Aspergillus symptoms or with L. botrana damage, CFU counted were roughly 12 times higher in berries from bunches attacked by L. botrana. High variability in OTA content at harvest was detected, but the highest concentration (up to 681 ng/g) was always measured in berries from bunches with L. botrana attack symptoms. Further field trials pointed out and confirmed the association between L. botrana activity and the increase of fungi incidence and consequent OTA contamination in different environmental and agronomic situations [105,106]. In fact, high relative humidity, rainfall and temperature at the ripening period are very favorable for both L. botrana infestations and for OTA production indicating the key role that L. botrana has in the OTA contamination levels in grapes [105].
Tsolakis and collagues [107] evaluated the link between L. botrana and OTA contamination in Sicily in an organic vineyard and confirmed the OTA content was much higher (about 500 times) in bunches with L. botrana attacks in comparison with healthy ones. Nevertheless, in years with adverse climatic conditions for the European grapevine moth (high temperatures and low relative humidity), the ratio was only four times and the OTA concentration dropped from 20 µg/kg to 0.055 µg/kg.

3.3. Other Insect Risk

Currently, in the Mediterranean area, only L. botrana is reported to be a pest linked to OTA accumulation in grapes [19]. Indeed, no specific demonstration of the involvement of E. ambiguella or other moths like C. gnidiella in OTA contamination exist till now, but considering that such species have a similar feeding behavior, it is very likely that these moths could play a comparable role in enhancing OTA contamination. Nevertheless, considering that any insect causing wounds on grapes by feeding or ovipositing can be potentially linked to OTA, the list of species may be much longer. Experimental evidence exists for the fly Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Brazil. As many phytopathogenic fungi have been found in all the body parts of the adults of this insect, it has been suggested that the fly can serve as a mechanical vector of spores [108]. A significant increase of bunches infected by B. cinerea, Glomerella cingulata, and microorganisms of sour rot was demonstrated after oviposition wounds by A. fraterculus, even if no specific OTA assessment was performed [109]. Similar observations have also been carried out on Polistes dominulus (Christ) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in lab conditions, demonstrating the attitude of this species to facilitate sour rot diseases increasing host susceptibility and transmitting microbial communities to grapes, including Aspergillus spp. and Botrytis spp. [110].
Recently, mealybugs like Planococcus ficus Signoret (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) have been reported to play a role in OTA contamination as demonstrated by Chiotta et al. in Argentina working on red wine cultivars (Malbec, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon) [20]. According to their findings, A. section Nigri incidence and OTA concentration were higher in damaged berries than in healthy ones regardless of the cultivar and the growing period. The authors also suggest a significant involvement of ants in distributing black aspergilli as they feed on P. ficus honeydew that may also be a good substrate for fungal growth (Table 1).
New potential factors favouring OTA production in grapes may be the invasive insect pests that feed on berries and recently established in the Mediterranean area as well as in other regions worldwide [111]. The spotted-wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) inserts its eggs in berries by punctures made by its ovipositor exposing fruits to secondary pathogens. Larvae feed under the skin creating tunnels in the fruit flesh that results in collapse and rotting [112,113]. Attacks by this pest have been associated with fungi infections [113,114,115]. The brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), feeds by piercing the berries and infests vineyards mainly during harvest [116,117]. Its damage may be associated with disease infections of fruits including grapes [118,119]. Another pest that may play a role in the OTA contamination of grapes is the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), which has been reported to cause significant damage and outbreaks in table grapes of the Mediterrannean area, South Africa and Brazil [120,121,122,123]. These pests may be involved in OTA producing fungi dispersal, therefore their role should be taken into account in pest control strategies to be incorporated in OTA mitigation measures [124].

4. Control Measures for Black Aspergilli and Lobesia botrana

4.1. Control of Black Aspergilli

Agricultural practices are reported as the main tools to control OTA contamination in grapes [126] and good agricultural practices (GAPs) can reduce up to 80% OTA presence in wine [61,127] (Table 2).
Hocking et al. [128] observed that minimizing Aspergillus spp. inoculum in soil, via irrigation and pruning by maintaining constant soil moisture and reducing dead berry falling, respectively, can greatly reduce infections and OTA contamination during the cropping season. The trellising system used may impact the rate of bunch infection. Clusters closer to the soil seem to be more frequently infected, but the effect of proximity to the soil on OTA content has not yet been confirmed [21,129]. Furthermore, a correct management of canopy, pruning and irrigation—so that bunches are not exposed to sunburn, have a more open structure and berries are less susceptible to splitting—can lead to lower Aspergillus spp. infection and OTA accumulation.
Correct vineyard management strategies for reducing berry damage, by controlling via chemical and biological treatments fungi colonization and insect damage, can lead to a significant decrease in OTA accumulation in grapes [19,61,130].
Both biological and chemical treatments aimed at controlling black aspergilli are important in the achievement of OTA reduction in grape production. Chemical treatments are effective in reducing fungal growth and consequently OTA content in berries. Cyprodinil in combination with fludioxonil was confirmed as the most effective fungicide in all trials conducted in France, Spain, Italy and Greece [131,132,133,134]. Other active ingredients showed the capacity to reduce fungal growth in grape bunches in field trials such as pyrimethanil, fluazinam, iprodione and mepanipyrim [106].
Biocontrol Agents (BCAs) are increasingly attracting interest as a sustainable means of disease control. In recent years, it has been demonstrated that certain microorganisms can effectively reduce Aspergilli growth in pre-harvest. De Felice et al. [135] and Dimakopoulou et al. [136] tested the efficacy in vitro and in vineyards of naturally occurring Aureobasidium pullulans strains against Aspergilli. Bleve et al. [137] also demonstrated the efficacy of Cryptococcus laurentii in controlling OTA producing fungi. BCAs can also have a role in reducing post-harvest diseases and OTA contamination Kluyveromyces and Saccharomyces yeast were evaluated by Ponsone et al. [138] and Nally et al. [139] both in vitro and in situ preventing ochratoxigenic fungi. Droby et al. [140] stated that applying a combination of BCAs with different mechanisms of action and under favourable conditions for their colonization and growth can lead to excellent results against a large spectrum of fungi. Finally, all pre- and post-harvest biocontrol strategies were recently revised by several authors and they confirmed their high potential in OTA prevention [141,142,143].
Time of harvest is another important factor in determining OTA content in wine. In fact, it is well known that Aspergillus contamination is quite low in immature grapes, due to the hostile environment for spore germination [144], but from veraison to harvest, sugar content increases and berry skin becomes softer, so berries gradually become more susceptible to the attack of fungi and more suitable for OTA production. For this reason, delaying harvest can lead to a higher risk of OTA contamination [50,128].

4.2. Control of Lobesia botrana

Due to the importance of L. botrana in enhancing OTA contamination in grapes, the application of phytosanitary measures against the pest can be a promising approach as highlighted also in the system “corn-European Corn Borer-Fusarium” [146]. The management of larvae in open field can reduce OTA concentrations in grapes in integrated as well as in organic farming [105,106,125].
The impact of pest control varies significantly between years and growing areas. In fact, interaction with climatic conditions is considerable and can impact on the pest population; also, the effect of insecticide applications can be completely hidden [105,125]. As an example, dry and hot summers can have extremely negative effects on eggs that do not survive temperatures above 34.5 °C; therefore, pest control in dry and hot summers may be not be necessary due to the natural low level of the pest population [78]. Nevertheless, In fact, interaction with climatic conditions is considerable and can impact on the pest population; also, the effect of insecticide applications can be completely hidden [105,125]. monitoring should be continous to avoid damages close to harvest and this must be seriously considered.
Nowadays, phytosanitary measures against L. botrana still greatly rely on chemical insecticide applications, but alternative, low impact approaches are also available [124,147,148,149] (Figure 3). Learning from natural events, mating disruption (MD) is pursued; sex pheromones used by virgin females to attract selectively conspecific males can be delivered in the field in amounts largely exceeding their natural occurrence (several hundred mg/day) preventing males from detecting natural pheromone plumes emitted by virgin females (a few ng/day). In this way, matings are greatly reduced and population declines. Indeed, in many areas, classic MD, based on several hundred plastic or biodegradable pheromones dispensers/ha, or modern MD, based on just a few automatic dispensing devices/ha, are widely used and their application rates are constantly increasing [147,150,151,152]. MD enables “conservation biological control”, whereby parasitoids and other natural enemies are allowed to flourish and contribute both to control target and non-target pests. Outbreaks of secondary pests sometimes observed with MD application are related by some authors to limited insecticide use; this needs further evaluation but so far this is not limiting MD success or efficacy [151]. However, outbreaks of mealybugs or Drosophila suzukii may occur in vineyards in which MD is applied [132] and thus, monitoring of their populations is required to prevent OTA contamination in grapes.A classic and well-known microbial control agent like Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) is an interesting tool against grape moth larvae [153]. Recent formulations have demonstrated an efficacy comparable with chemical insecticides. The counterpart is represented by the larval feeding behavior of L. botrana, that has a tendency to dig inside the berries thus avoiding BT toxin ingestion [154]. For this reason, an accurate evaluation of the timing of applications is crucial to precisely target first instar larvae as soon as they emerge from the eggs.
Biological control is considered an interesting tool even if it has not been fully exploited. Knowledge of the effect of some key factors (host plant, farming practices at the field scale, landscape context, as well as climate change), affecting moth-natural enemies relationship, would improve the efficiency levels of biological control strategies. This would help growers and stakeholders to significantly reduce chemical input in vineyards [18]. The possibility of biological control is also greatly influenced by the general temperature increase that produces contrasting effects on the moth–parasitoid system. Higher temperatures reduce the vulnerability window of L. botrana to larval parasitoids as the moth larvae grow faster thus increasing the chance to escape search by natural enemies, but on the other hand, such higher temperature can downregulate behavioral and immune traits that confer resistance to parasitoids [77,155].

5. Predictive Models

The need to improve management strategies and more recently demand for predicting the potential effect of climate change, has recommended the development of mathematical models to forecast OTA and pest development.

5.1. Black Aspergilli Predictive Models

Several in vitro studies regarding the impact of ecological conditions on black aspergilli have been used for modelling, but just aimed at describing single steps of the fungal infection cycle, mainly growth and toxin production [29,156,157,158,159,160,161]. The resulting empiric models are a useful base for further modelling steps, but not helpful for grape management. The only example of mechanistic model able to predict OTA risk in grapes was developed by Battilani et al. [24]. Using hourly data on air temperature and humidity and rainfall as input, the model delivers a risk assessment, a probability of grape contamination above the legal limit of 2 µg/kg during the growing season and at harvest. The model validation step is still missing because of the lack of a consistent data set of georeferenced grape contamination data with the related meteorological information. Once validated, this model will be suitable also to deliver risk predictions under climate change scenarios and could include other relevant factors like the interaction of black aspergilli with pest insects or the cropping system.

5.2. Lobesia botrana Predictive Models

Several approaches have been adopted to develop predictive models for L. botrana. The simplest model attempts to predict pest phenology, mainly adult moth flight periods, using degree-days [162,163,164,165,166]. This method is straightforward and quite useful, but usually the applicability of such models is strictly local [167]. More sophisticated, but still phenological and empirical models, simulate pest development using linear or non-linear functions [168]. A fully functional application of a model only using daily temperature as input and based on a theoretical approach, published several years ago [169], is currently used in the Emilia-Romagna region (Northern Italy). The model outputs are, on a daily basis, the cumulated percentages of oviposition, of hatched larvae, of newly developed chrysalis and of hatched adults as well as the percentages of eggs, larvae, chrysalis and adults relative to a given generation. The model is used to predict up to the third generation of the pest and it is considered by farmers and technicians a very useful tool, above all, to get a reliable prediction of the occurrence of different pest developmental stages in the field and to help in choosing the best timing for sampling and management applications [170,171,172].
Much more sophisticated models have been developed with the aim to predict the phenology, but also the demography, of the moth stages starting from the abundance of adults at the beginning of the flight period, using temperature as the main driving factor and including mortality estimation [173,174]. Linking physiologically-based demographic models (PBDMs) for grape development such models have also been evaluated to simulate and estimate the expansion area of the pest [175].
The application of simulation models—evaluating not only the phenology of the pest, but also considering mortality factors or spatial distribution—could be quite useful as support to optimise moth pest control [85,175]. However, so far no practical and large scale application of such models exists.

6. Conclusions and Prospective

A model able to predict the risk of OTA contamination in grapes above the legal limit in force in Europe (OTA-grapes) is available and any effort to link its forecasting ability with models describing other aspects/parts of the system (grapes-pest-environment) will certainly improve grape cultivation sustainability and production safety. For example, L. botrana plays a key role in OTA contamination of grapes and, therefore, models that report on its phenology and particularly on its larval emergence, if combined with OTA-grapes, could improve model prediction performance and support more reliable decision making in the control of black aspergilli infections. Furthermore, the involvement in OTA contamination of the other rather common grape pest, E. ambiguella, should be examined and quantified, since this pest behaves in a very similar way to L. botrana in its interaction with the host plant, whereas its distribution is very wide. Modelling of E. ambiguella phenology and population dynamic is very limited, but it should be considered in the framework of changing climate that can deeply affect its prevalence in grape growing areas. In model implementation, temperature is a mandatory input as it is always the most significant driving force for insect development. On the other hand, variables such as rainfall and relative humidity can significantly affect pest mortality and should be included in more sophisticated models. Knowledge regarding the impact of increasing CO2 on pest phenology is instead largely unknown, but it should be studied because CO2 is significantly increasing as the climate changes. CO2 impacts on all the components of host–parasite systems affecting the host, the parasite and the beneficial organisms in different ways [176]. An holistic approach should be applied in the future, leading to a greater role for predictive models in accounting for interaction and combination of multiple factors of the vineyard system, including pest and disease control strategies.
The potential of newly emerged pests, to be involved in OTA-producing fungi dissemination, introduces new challenges for the prediction of OTA contamination and OTA control in grapes. Their role demands urgent investigation and clarification because our knowledge of the phenology or the impact of these pests on grapes is still limited. At the same time, pest management strategies need to be modulated to integrate the new threats in vineyard IPM, limiting eventual negative impacts on eco-friendly approaches and widely adopted strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.B., D.T. and E.M.; methodology, P.B., L.M. and R.P.; data curation, L.M. and R.P.; writing—original first/initial draft preparation, L.M., R.P. and E.M.; writing—review and editing, P.B., D.T., D.P., E.M., L.M. and R.P.; supervision, P.B.; funding acquisition, D.T. and P.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 778219 (OchraVine Control). Roberta Palumbo and Letizia Mondani carried out this work within the PhD school Agrisystem of Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IARC. Some naturally occurring substances, food items and constituents, heterocyclic aromatic amines and mycotoxins. In Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; World Health Organization: Lyon, France, 1993; ISBN 978-92-832-1256-0. [Google Scholar]
  2. Battilani, P.; Giorni, P.; Bertuzzi, T.; Formenti, S.; Pietri, A. Black Aspergilli and ochratoxin A in grapes in Italy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 111, S53–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Battilani, P.; Magan, N.; Logrieco, A. European research on ochratoxin A in grapes and wine. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 111, 1–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bryła, M.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Podolska, G.; Szymczyk, K.; Jędrzejczak, R.; Damaziak, K.; Sułek, A. Occurrence of 26 mycotoxins in the grain of cereals cultivated in Poland. Toxins 2016, 8, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Zimmerli, B.; Dick, R. Ochratoxin A in table wine and grape-juice: Occurrence and risk assessment. Food Addit. Contam. 1996, 13, 655–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. EFSA. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the Commission related to ochratoxin A in food. Efsa J. 2006, 4, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zepnik, H.; Völkel, W.; Dekant, W. Toxicokinetics of the mycotoxin ochratoxin A in F 344 rats after oral administration. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2003, 192, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tao, Y.; Xie, S.; Xu, F.; Liu, A.; Wang, Y.; Chen, D.; Pan, Y.; Huang, L.; Peng, D.; Wang, X.; et al. Ochratoxin A: Toxicity, oxidative stress and metabolism. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 12, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. European Commission. Recommendation 2006/576/EC on the presence of deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, ochratoxin A, T-2 and HT-2 and fumonisins in products intended for animal feeding. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, 229, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bau, M.; Castella, G.; Bragulat, M.R.; Cabañes, F.J. RFLP characterization of Aspergillus niger aggregate species from grapes from Europe and Israel. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 111, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Leong, S.L.; Hocking, A.D.; Scott, E.S. Aspergillus species producing ochratoxin A: Isolation from vineyard soils and infection of Semillon bunches in Australia. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 102, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Medina, A.; Mateo, R.; Laura Lopez-Ocana, L.; Valle-Algarra, F.M.; Jimenez, M. Study of spanish grape mycobiota and ochratoxin A production by isolates of Aspergillus tubingensis and other members of Aspergillus section Nigri. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 4696–4702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Palumbo, J.D.; O’Keeffe, T.J.; Vasquez, S.J.; Mahoney, N.E. Isolation and identification of ochratoxin A-producing Aspergillus section Nigri strains from California raisins. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 52, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Serra, R.; Lourenço, A.; Alipio, P.; Venancio, A. Influence of the region of origin on the mycobiota of grapes with emphasis on Aspergillus and Penicillium species. Mycol. Res. 2006, 110, 971–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Spadaro, D.; Patharajan, S.; Lorè, A.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Ochratoxigenic black species of Aspergilli in grape fruits of Northern Italy identified by an improved PCR-RFLP procedure. Toxins 2012, 4, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Battilani, P.; Barbano, C.; Marin, S.; Sanchis, V.; Kozakiewicz, Z.; Magan, N. Mapping of Aspergillus section Nigri in Southern Europe and Israel based on geostatistical analysis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 111, S72–S82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jiang, C.; Shi, J.; Zhu, C. Fruit spoilage and ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus carbonarius in the berries of different grape cultivars. Food Control. 2013, 30, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thiéry, D.; Louâpre, P.; Muneret, L.; Rusch, A.; Sentenac, G.; Vogelweith, F.; Iltis, C.; Moreau, J. Biological protection against grape berry moths. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cozzi, G.; Pascale, M.; Perrone, G.; Visconti, A.; Logrieco, A. Effect of Lobesia botrana damages on black aspergilli rot and ochratoxin A content in grapes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. Spec. 2006, 111, S88–S92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chiotta, M.L.; Ponsone, M.L.; Torres, A.M.; Combina, M.; Chulze, S.N. Influence of Planococcus ficus on Aspergillus section Nigri and ochratoxin A incidence in vineyards from Argentina. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 51, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Battilani, P.; Silva, A. Controlling ochratoxin A in the vineyard and winery. In Managing Wine Quality; Reynolds, A.G., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 515–546. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gonçalves, A.; Palumbo, R.; Guimarães, A.; Gkrillas, A.; Dall’Asta, C.; Dorne, J.L.; Battilani, P.; Venâncio, A. The route of mycotoxins in the grape food chain. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. Press 2020, 71, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mastrodimos, N.; Lentzou, D.; Templalexis, C.; Tsitsigiannis, D.I.; Xanthopoulos, G. Development of thermography methodology for early diagnosis of fungal infection in table grapes: The case of Aspergillus carbonarius. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 165, 104972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Battilani, P.; Camardo Leggieri, M. OTA-Grapes: A mechanistic model to predict ochratoxin A risk in grapes, a step beyond the systems approach. Toxins 2015, 7, 3012–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Samson, R.A.; Visagie, C.M.; Houbraken, J.; Hong, S.B.; Hubka, V.; Klaassen, C.H.; Perrone, G.; Seifert, K.A.; Susca, A.; Tanney, J.B.; et al. Phylogeny, identification and nomenclature of the genus Aspergillus. Stud. Mycol. 2014, 78, 141–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Rousseaux, S.; Diguta, C.F.; Radoi-Matei, F.; Alexandre, H.; Guilloux-Benatier, M. Non-Botrytis grape -rotting fungi responsible for earthy and moldy off-flavors and mycotoxins. Food Microbiol. 2014, 38, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Barberis, M.G.; Merlera, G.G.; Reynoso, M.M.; Chulze, S.N.; Torres, A.M. Factors affecting distribution and abundance of Aspergillus section Nigri in vineyard soils from grapevine growing regions of Argentina. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 3001–3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Freire, L.; Guerreiro, T.M.; Caramês, E.T.S.; Lopes, L.S.; Orlando, E.A.; Pereira, G.E.; Lima Pallone, J.A.; Catharino, R.R.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Influence of maturation stages in different varieties of wine grapes (Vitis vinifera) on the production of ochratoxin A and its modified forms by Aspergillus carbonarius and Aspergillus niger. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 8824–8831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. García-Cela, E.; Crespo-Sempere, A.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V.; Marin, S. Ecophysiological characterization of Aspergillus carbonarius, Aspergillus tubingensis and Aspergillus niger isolated from grapes in Spanish vineyards. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 3, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ioannidis, A.G.; Kogkaki, E.A.; Natskoulis, P.I.; Nychas, G.J.; Panagou, E.Z. Modelling the influence of temperature, water activity and sodium metabisulphite on the growth and OTA production of Aspergillus carbonarius isolated from Greek wine grapes. Food Microbiol. 2015, 49, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kizis, D.; Natskoulis, P.; Nychas, G.J.; Panagou, E.Z. Biodiversity and ITS-RFLP characterisation of Aspergillus section Nigri isolates in grapes from four traditional grape-producing areas in Greece. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kogkaki, E.A.; Sofoulis, M.; Natskoulis, P.; Tarantilis, P.A.; Pappas, C.S.; Panagou, E.Z. Differentiation and identification of grape-associated black aspergilli using Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopic analysis of mycelia. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 16, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Battilani, P.; Pietri, A. Ochratoxin A in grape and wine. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 108, 639–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Da Rocha Rosa, C.A.; Palacios, V.; Combina, M.; Fraga, M.E.; De Oliveira Rekson, A.; Magnoli, C.E.; Dalcero, A.M. Potential ochratoxin A producers from wine grapes in Argentina and Brazil. Food Addit. Contam. 2002, 19, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sage, L.; Krivoboc, S.; Delbos, E.; Seigle-Murandi, F.; Creppy, E.E. Fungal flora and ochratoxin A production in grapes and musts from France. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 1306–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bellí, N.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V.; Marin, S. Incubation time and water activity effects on ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus section Nigri strains isolated from grapes. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 38, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Mitchell, D.; Parra, R.; Aldred, D.; Magan, N. Water and temperature relations of growth and ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus carbonarius strains from grapes in Europe and Israel. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 97, 439–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Passamani, F.R.; Hernandes, T.; Lopes, N.A.; Bastos, S.C.; Santiago, W.D.; Cardoso, M.D.; Batista, L.R. Effect of temperature, water activity, and pH on growth and production of ochratoxin a by Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus carbonarius from Brazilian grapes. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1947–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bragulat, M.R.; Abarca, M.L.; Castellá, G.; Cabañes, F.J. Intraspecific variability of growth and ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus carbonarius from different foods and geographical areas. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bragulat, M.R.; Eustaquio, A.; Cabañes, F.J. Study on the presence of ochratoxin α in cultures of ochratoxigenic and non- ochratoxigenic strains of Aspergillus carbonarius. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Castellá, G.; Bragulat, M.R.; Puig, L.; Sanseverino, W.; Cabañes, F.J. Genomic diversity in ochratoxigenic and non ochratoxigenic strains of Aspergillus carbonarius. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pateraki, M.; Deekanea, A.; Mitchell, D.; Lydakis, D.; Magan, N. Influence of sulphur dioxide, controlled atmosheres and water availability on in vitro germination, growth and ocratoxin A production by strains of Aspergillus carbonarius isolated from grapes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2007, 44, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Astoreca, A.L.; Magnoli, C.E.; Dalcero, A.M. Ecophysiology of Aspergillus section Nigri species potential ochratoxin a producers. Toxins 2010, 2, 2593–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bellí, N.; Ramos, A.J.; Coronas, I.; Sanchis, V.; Marín, S. Aspergillus carbonarius growth and ochratoxin A production on a synthetic grape medium in relation to environmental factors. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 98, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Esteban, A.; Abarca, M.L.; Bragulat, M.R.; Cabañes, F.J. Effect of water activity on ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus niger aggregate species. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 108, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Romero, S.M.; Pinto, V.F.; Patriarca, A.; Vaamonde, G. Ochratoxin A production by a mixed inoculum of Aspergillus carbonarius at different conditions of water activity and temperature. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 140, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Selouane, A.; Bouya, D.; Lebrihi, A.; Decock, C.; Bouseta, A. Impact of some environmental factors on growth and production of ochratoxin A of/by Aspergillus tubingensis, A. niger, and A. carbonarius isolated from moroccan grapes. J. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Esteban, A.; Abarca, M.L.; Bragulat, M.R.; Cabanes, F.J. Influence of pH and incubation time on ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus carbonarius in culture media. J. Food Prot. 2005, 68, 1435–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Spadaro, D.; Patharajan, S.; Lore, A.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Effect of pH, water activity and temperature on the growth and accumulation of Ochratoxin A produced by three strains of Aspergillus carbonarius isolated from Italian vineyards. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2010, 49, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Leong, S.L.; Hocking, A.D.; Pitt, J.I.; Kazi, B.A.; Emmett, R.W.; Scott, E.S. Australian research on ochratoxigenic fungi and ochratoxin A. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 111, S10–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Otteneder, H.; Majerus, P. Occurrence of ochratoxin A (OTA) in wines: Influence of the type of wine and its geographical origin. Food Addit. Contam. 2000, 17, 793–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pietri, A.; Bertuzzi, T.; Pallaroni, L.; Piva, G. Occurrence of ochratoxin A in Italian wines. Food Addit. Contam. 2001, 18, 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Miraglia, M.; Brera, C. Assessment of Dietary Intake of Ochratoxin A by the Population of EU Member States; Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  54. Gómez, C.; Bragulat, M.R.; Abarca, M.L.; Mínguez, S.; Cabañes, F.J. Ochratoxin A-producing fungi from grapes intended for liqueur wine production. Food Microbiol. 2006, 23, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Leong, S.L.L.; Hocking, A.D.; Scott, E.S. Effect of temperature and water activity on growth and ochratoxin A production by Australian Aspergillus carbonarius and A. niger isolates on a simulated grape juice medium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 110, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. MacDonald, S.; Wilson, P.; Barnes, K.; Damant, A.; Massey, R.; Mortby, E.; Shepherd, M.J. Ochratoxin A in dried vine fruit: Method development and survey. Food Addit. Contam. 1999, 16, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Valero, A.; Marín, S.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V. Ochratoxin A-producing species in grapes and sun-dried grapes and their relation to ecophysiological factors. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 41, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lombaert, G.A.; Pellaers, P.; Neumann, G.; Kitchen, D.; Huzel, V.; Trelka, R.; Kotello, S.; Scott, P.M. Ochratoxin A in dried vine fruits on the Canadian retail market. Food Addit. Contam. 2004, 21, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Leong, S.L.; Hocking, A.D.; Pitt, J.I. Occurrence of fruit rot Fungi (Aspergillus section Nigri) on some drying varieties of irrigated grapes. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2004, 10, 83–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Stefanaki, I.; Foufa, E.; Tsatsou-Dritsa, A.; Dais, P. Ochratoxin A concentrations in Greek domestic wines and dried vine fruits. Food Addit. Contam. 2003, 20, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Varga, J.; Kozakiewicz, Z. Ochratoxin A in grapes and grape-derived products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 17, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Burdaspal, P.A.; Legarda, T.M. Ochratoxin A in wines and grape products originated from Spain and other european countries. Alimentaria 1999, 299, 107–113. [Google Scholar]
  63. Majerus, P.; Bresch, H.; Otteneder, H. Ochratoxin A in wines, fruit juices and seasonings. Arch. Lebensm. 2000, 51, 95–97. [Google Scholar]
  64. Woese, K. Ochratoxin A in grape juice and wine. Mycotoxin Res. 2000, 16, 132–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Majerus, P.; Otteneder, H. Detection and occurrence of ochratoxin A in wine and grape juice. Dtsch. Lebensm. Rundsch. 1996, 92, 388–390. [Google Scholar]
  66. Akdeniz, A.S.; Ozden, S.; Alpertunga, B. Ochratoxin A in dried grapes and grape-derived products in Turkey. Food Addit. Contam. Part B 2013, 6, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Vincent, C.; Isaacs, R.; Bostanian, N.J.; Lasnier, J. Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and aUture Direction; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; Principles of arthropod pest management in vineyards; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  68. Granett, J.; Walker, M.A.; Kocsis, L.O.; Amir, D. Biology and management of grape phylloxera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2001, 387–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Julien, C.; Denis, T. Biology and ecology of the Flavescence dorée vector Scaphoideus titanus: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 381–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Mazzoni, E.; Colla, R.; Chiusa, B.; Ciampitti, M.; Cravedi, P. Experiences for vector control of grape golden flavescence in Lombardia and Emilia Romagna (Northern Italy) vineyards. Int. Organ. Biol. Control. Bulettin. 2003, 26, 211–225. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lucchi, A.; Ricciardi, R.; Benelli, G.; Bagnoli, B. What do we really know on the harmfulness of Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) to grapevine? Ecol. Pest Manag. Phytoparasit. 2019, 47, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mansour, R.; Grissa-Lebdi, K.; Suma, P.; Mazzeo, G.; Russo, A. Key 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. 2016, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mazzoni, E.; Cravedi, P. Le cocciniglie e la trasmissione di virosi alla vite. Prot. Delle Colt. 2009, 2, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  74. Bordeu, E.; Troncoso, D.O.; Zaviezo, T. Influence of mealybug (Pseudococcus spp.)-infested bunches on wine quality in Carmenere and Chardonnay grapes. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. 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] [PubMed]
  76. 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]
  77. Iltis, C.; Louâpre, P.; Pecharová, K.; Thiéry, D.; Zito, S.; Bois, B.; Moreau, J. Are life-history traits equally affected by global warming? A case study combining a multi-trait approach with fine-grain climate modeling. J. Insect Physiol. 2019, 117, 103916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Bovey, P. Super-famille des Tortricoidea. In Entomologie Appliqueé a l’Agriculture; Balachowsky, A.S., Ed.; Masson et Cie: Paris, France, 1966; Volume 1, pp. 456–893. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bournier, A. Grape Insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1977, 22, 355–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ioriatti, C.; Lucchi, A.; Varela, G.L. Grape berry moths in western european vineyards and their recent movement into the new world. In Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions; Bostanian, N.J., Vincent, C., Isaacs, R., Eds.; Springer Science and Business Media B.V.: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. CABI. Invasive Species Compendium. Lobesia botrana (European Grapevine Moth). Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/42794 (accessed on 9 September 2019).
  82. Gilligan, T.M.; Epstein, M.E.; Passoa, S.C.; Powell, J.A.; Sage, O.C.; Brown, J.W. Discovery of Lobesia botrana ([Denis & Schiffermuller]) in California: An Invasive Species New to North America (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, Washington, DC, USA, 1 January 2011; Volume 113, pp. 14–30. [Google Scholar]
  83. Johnson, R. APHIS Declares Eradication of European Grapevine Moth (Lobesia botrana) and Eliminates All Quarantine Areas in California. Available online: https://www.pestalerts.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=678 (accessed on 9 September 2019).
  84. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. (EPPO) Global Database. Eupoecilia ambiguella (CLYSAM). Available online: https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/CLYSAM/distribution (accessed on 9 September 2019).
  85. Martin-Vertedor, D.; Ferrero-Garcıa, J.J.; Torres-Vila, L.M. Global warming affects phenology and voltinism of Lobesia botrana in Spain. Agric. For. Entomol. 2010, 12, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Roditakis, E.; Nikos, G.; Karandinos, M. Effects of photoperiod and temperature on pupal diapause induction of grape berry moth Lobesia botrana. Physiol. Entomol. 2001, 26, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Briere, J.; Pracros, P. Comparison of temperature-dependent growth models with the development of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 1998, 27, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gabel, B.; Mocko, V. Forecasting the cyclical timing of grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). Acta Entomol. Bohemoslov. 1984, 81, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  89. 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]
  90. Ponti, L.; Gutierrez, A.P.; Boggia, A.; Neteler, M. Analysis of grape production in the face of climate change. Climate 2018, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. 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]
  92. Marchesini, E.; Dalla Montà, L. Nel Veneto quattro generazioni di tignoletta della vite. Inf. Agrar. 2004, 60, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  93. Cravedi, P.; Mazzoni, E. Relazioni fra la somma delle temperature giornaliere e le catture con trappole a feromoni degli adulti di Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hbn.) (Lepidoptera: Colchylidae). Boll. Di Zool. Agrar. E Bachic. 1990, 22, 121–138. [Google Scholar]
  94. Pavan, F.; Sbrissa, F. Dannosità delle tignole della vite, Lobesia botrana (Den. et Schiff.) ed Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hb.), su cultivar a maturazione tardiva nell’Italia nordorientale. Frustula Entomol. 1994, 17, 43–53. [Google Scholar]
  95. 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]
  96. Roehrich, R.; Boller, E. Tortricids in vineyards. In Tortricid Pests, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control; van der Geest, L.P.S., Evenhuis, H.H., Eds.; Elsevier Science Publisher: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 507–514. [Google Scholar]
  97. Delbac, L.; Thiéry, D. Damage to grape flowers and berries by Lobesia botrana larvae (Denis & Schiffernüller) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), and relation to larval age. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2016, 22, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rid, M.; Markheiser, A.; Hoffmann, C.; Gross, J. Waxy bloom on grape berry surface is one important factor for oviposition of European grapevine moths. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 1225–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. 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] [Green Version]
  100. Tasin, M.; Lucchi, A.; Ioriatti, C.; Mraihi, M.; De Cristofaro, A.; Boger, Z.; Anfora, G. Oviposition response of the moth Lobesia botrana to sensory cues from a host plant. Chem. Senses 2011, 36, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Fermaud, M.; Le Menn, R. Transmisison of Botrytis cinerea to grapes by grape berry moth larvae. Phytopathology 1992, 82, 1393–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Fermaud, M.; Le Menn, R. Association of Botrytis cinerea with grape berry moth larvae. Phytopathology 1989, 79, 651–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mondy, N.; Charrier, B.; Fermaud, M.; Pracros, P.; Corio-Costet, M.-F. Mutualism between a phytopathogenic fungus (Botrytis cinerea) and a vineyard pest (Lobesia botrana). Positive effects on insect development and oviposition behaviour. Comptes Rendus L’académie Sci. Ser. Iii Sci. 1998, 321, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Barata, A.; Santos, S.; Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. New Insights into the ecological interaction between grape berry microorganisms and Drosophila flies during the development of sour rot. Microb. Ecol. 2012, 64, 416–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Cozzi, G.; Somma, S.; Haidukowski, M.; Logrieco, A.F. Ochratoxin A Management in Vineyards by Lobesia botrana Biocontrol. Toxins 2013, 5, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Visconti, A.; Perrone, G.; Cozzi, G.; Solfrizzo, M. Managing ochratoxin A risk in the grape-wine food chain. Food Addit. Contam. 2008, 25, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Tsolakis, H.; Corona, O.; Pulizzi, A.S.; Grippi, F.; Mondello, V. Incidence of grapevine moth Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) on occurrence of ochratoxin A in grapes. Int. Organ. Biol. Control Bulettin 2008, 36, 363–368. [Google Scholar]
  108. Machota, R.J.; Bortoli, L.C.; Botton, M.; Grützmacher, A.C. Fungi that cause rot in bunches of grape identified in adult fruit flies (Anastrepha fraterculus) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 73, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Machota, R.; Bortoli, L.C.; Cavalcanti, F.R.; Botton, M.; Grützmacher, A.D. Assessment of injuries caused by Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on the incidence of bunch rot diseases in table grape. Neotrop. Entomol. 2016, 45, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Madden, A.A.; Boyden, S.D.; Soriano, J.A.N.; Corey, T.B.; Leff, J.W.; Fierer, N.; Starks, P.T. The emerging contribution of social wasps to grape rot disease ecology. Peer J. 2017, 5, e3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Daane, K.M.; Vincent, C.; Isaacs, R.; Ioriatti, C. Entomological opportunities and challenges for sustainable viticulture in a global market. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 193–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) Global Database. PM 7/115 (1) Drosophila Suzukii. Eppo Bull. 2013, 43, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Baser, N.; Broutou, O.; Verrastro, V.; Porcelli, F.; Ioriatti, C.; Anfora, G.; Mazzoni, V.; Rossi Stacconi, M.V. Susceptibility of table grape varieties grown in south-eastern Italy to Drosophila Suzukii. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Ioriatti, C.; Guzzon, R.; Anfora, G.; Ghidoni, F.; Mazzoni, V.; Villegas, T.R.; Dalton, D.T.; Walton, V.M. Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) contributes to the development of sour rot in grape. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Entling, W.; Hoffmann, C. Single and combined effects of Drosophila suzukii and Drosophila melanogaster on sour rot development in viticulture. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Pfeiffer, D.G.; Leskey, T.C. Threatening the harvest: The threat from three invasive insects in late season vineyards. In Arthropod Management in Vineyards; Bostanian, N., Vincent, C., Isaacs, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Leskey, T.C.; Nielsen, A.L. Impact of the invasive brown marmorated stink bug in North America and Europe: History, biology, ecology, and management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 599–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Smith, J.R.; Hesler, S.P.; Loeb, G.M. Potential impact of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) on grape production in the finger lakes region of New York. J. Entomol. Sci. 2014, 49, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Moore, L.; Tirello, P.; Scaccini, D.; Toews, M.D.; Duso, C.; Pozzebon, A. Characterizing damage potential of the brown marmorated stink bug in cherry orchards in Italy. Entomol. Gen. 2019, 39, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Barnes, B.; Targovska, A.; Franz, G. Origin of a Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), outbreak determined by DNA analysis. Afr. Entomol. 2006, 14, 205–209. [Google Scholar]
  121. Buonocore, E.; Colombo, A.; Campo, G.; Nucifora, A. Symptoms of damage caused by Ceratitis capitata on clusters of ‘Italia’ grapes. Inf. Fitopatol. 1999, 49, 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  122. Roditakis, E.; Tsagkarakou, A.; Roditakis, N.E. Extensive damage on white variety table grapes by the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) in Crete. Eppo Bull. 2008, 38, 216–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gómez, M.; Paranhos, B.A.J.; Silva, J.G.; de Lima, M.A.C.; Silva, M.A.; Macedo, A.T.; Virginio, J.F.; Walder, J.M.M. Oviposition preference of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) at different times after pruning ‘Italia’ table grapes grown in Brazil. J. Insect Sci. 2019, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Lucchi, A.; Benelli, G. Towards pesticide-free farming? Sharing needs and knowledge promotes Integrated Pest Management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 13439–13445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Cozzi, G.; Haidukowski, M.; Perrone, G.; Visconti, A.; Logrieco, A. Influence of Lobesia botrana field control on black aspergilli rot and ochratoxin A contamination in grapes. J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 894–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Ponsone, M.L.; Chiotta, M.L.; Palazzini, J.M.; Combina, M.; Chulze, S. Control of ochratoxin A production in grapes. Toxins 2012, 4, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Rousseau, J.; Blateyron, L. Ochratoxine A in wines: No curative solution in wine, priority in the vineyard sanitary management. Rev. Des Oenologues Fr. 2002, 29, 14–16. [Google Scholar]
  128. Hocking, A.D.; Leong, S.L.; Kazi, B.A.; Emmett, R.W.; Scott, E.S. Fungi and mycotoxins in vineyards and grape products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Battilani, P.; Giorni, P.; Pietri, A. Epidemiology of toxin-producing fungi and ochratoxin A occurrence in grape. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Schena, L.; Ippolito, A.; Zahavi, T.; Cohen, L.; Nigro, F.; Droby, S. Genetic diversity and biocontrol activity of Aureobasidium pullulans isolates against postharvest rots. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1999, 17, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Bellí, N.; Marín, S.; Argilés, E.; Ramos, A.J. Effect of chemical treatments on ochratoxigenic fungi and common mycobiota of grapes (Vitis vinifera). J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kappes, E.; Serrati, L.; Drouillard, J.-B.; Cantus, J.; Kazantzidou, A. A crop protection approach to Aspergillus and OTA management in Southern European vineyards. In Proceedings of the International Workshop: Ochratoxin A in grapes and wine: Prevention and control, Marsala, Italy, 20–21 October 2005; pp. 8–9. [Google Scholar]
  133. Tjamos, S.E.; Antoniou, P.P.; Kazantzidou, A.; Antonopoulos, D.F.; Papageorgiou, I.; Tjamos, E.C. Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus carbonarius in corinth raisin and wine-producing vineyards in Greece: Population composition, ochratoxin A production and chemical control. J. Phytopathol. 2004, 152, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Valero, A.; Marin, S.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V. Effect of preharvest fungicides and interacting fungi on Aspergillus carbonarius growth and ochratoxin A synthesis in dehydrating grapes. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. de Felice, D.; Solfrizzo, M.; De Curtis, F.; Lima, G.; Visconti, A.; Castoria, R. Strains of Aureobasidium pullulans can lower ochratoxin A contamination in wine grapes. Phytopathology 2008, 98, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Dimakopoulou, M.; Tjamos, S.E.; Antoniou, P.P.; Pietri, A.; Battilani, P.; Avramidis, N. Phyllosphere grapevine yeast Aureobasidium pullulans reduces Aspergillus carbonarius (sour rot) incidence in wine-producing vineyards in Greece. Biol. Control. 2008, 46, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Bleve, G.; Grieco, F.; Cozzi, G.; Logrieco, A.; Visconti, A. Isolation of epiphytic yeasts with potential for biocontrol of Aspergillus carbonarius and A. niger on grape. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 108, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ponsone, M.L.; Chiotta, M.L.; Combina, M.; Dalcero, A.; Chulze, S. Biocontrol as a strategy to reduce the impact of ochratoxin A and Aspergillus section Nigri in grapes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 151, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Nally, M.C. Biocontrol of fungi isolated from sour rot infected table grapes by Saccharomyces and other yeast species. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 86, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Droby, S.; Wisniewski, M.; Macarisin, D.; Wilson, C. Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sonker, N.; Pandey, A.K.; Singh, P. Strategies to control post-harvest diseases of table grape: A review. J. Wine Res. 2016, 27, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Zhang, H.; Apaliya, M.T.; Mahunu, G.K.; Chen, L.; Li, W. Control of ochratoxin A-producing fungi in grape berry by microbial antagonists: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ramesh, C.; Jayagoudar, S. A review of ochratoxin contamination effects and its control. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2017, 13, 457–468. [Google Scholar]
  144. Leong, S.L.; Hocking, A.D.; Scott, E.S. Survival and growth of Aspergillus carbonarius on wine grapes before harvest. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 111, S83–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Battilani, P.; Logrieco, A.; Giorni, P.; Cozzi, G.; Bertuzzi, T.; Pietri, A. Ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus carbonarius on some grape varieties grown in Italy. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004, 84, 1736–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Mazzoni, E.; Scandolara, A.; Giorni, P.; Pietri, A.; Battilani, P. Field control of Fusarium ear rot, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner), and fumonisins in maize kernels. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Lucchi, A.; Sambado, P.; Juan Royo, A.B.; Bagnoli, B.; Conte, G.; Benelli, G. Disrupting mating of Lobesia botrana using sex pheromone aerosol devices. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 22196–22204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Hein, D.F.; Breuer, M.; Hummel, H.E.; Greiner, A.; Wendorff, J.H.; Hellmann, C. Electrospun nanofibers as novel carriers of insect pheromones: Communication disruption strategy against the tortricid moths Eupoecilia ambiguella and Lobesia botrana in vineyards. Iobc/Wprs Bull. 2011, 67, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  149. Lucchi, A.; Ladurner, E.; Iodice, A.; Savino, F.; Ricciardi, R.; Cosci, F.; Conte, G.; Benelli, G. Eco-friendly pheromone dispensers—a green route to manage the European grapevine moth? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9426–9442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Anfora, G.; Baldessari, M.; De Cristofaro, A.; Germinara, G.S.; Ioriatti, C.; Reggiori, F.; Vitagliano, S.; Angeli, G. Control of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by biodegradable ecodian sex pheromone dispensers. J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. 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]
  152. Benelli, G.; Lucchi, A.; Thomson, D.; Ioriatti, C. Sex pheromone aerosol devices for mating disruption: Challenges for a brighter future. Insects 2019, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Bae, S.S.; Fleet, G.H.; Heard, G.M. Occurrence and significance of Bacillus thuringiensis on wine grapes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Pertot, I.; Caffi, T.; Rossi, V.; Mugnai, L.; Hoffmann, C.; Grando, M.S.; Gary, C.; Lafond, D.; Duso, C.; Thiery, D.; et al. A critical review of plant protection tools for reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in viticulture. Crop Prot. 2017, 97, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Iltis, C.; Martel, G.; Thiéry, D.; Moreau, J.; Louâpre, P. When warmer means weaker: High temperatures reduce behavioural and immune defences of the larvae of a major grapevine pest. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 1315–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Marin, S.; Belli, N.; Lasram, S.; Chebil, S.; Ramos, A.J.; Ghorbel, A.; Sanchis, V. Kinetics of ochratoxin A production and accumulation by Aspergillus carbonarius on synthetic grape medium at different temperature levels. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71, M196–M200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Tassou, C.C.; Natskoulis, P.I.; Magan, N.; Panagou, E.Z. Effect of temperature and water activity on growth and ochratoxin A production boundaries of two Aspergillus carbonarius isolates on a simulated grape juice medium. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Tassou, C.C.; Panagou, E.Z.; Natskoulis, P.; Magan, N. Modelling the effect of temperature and water activity on the growth of two ochratoxigenic strains of Aspergillus carbonarius from Greek wine grapes. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 2267–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Mateo, F.; Gadea, R.; Medina, A.; Mateo, R.; Jimenez, M. Predictive assessment of ochratoxin A accumulation in grape juice based-medium by Aspergillus carbonarius using neural networks. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Garcia, D.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V.; Marin, S. Modelling mould growth under suboptimal environmental conditions and inoculum size. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 909–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Lappa, I.K.; Kizis, D.; Natskoulis, P.I.; Panagou, E.Z. Comparative study of growth responses and screening of inter-specific OTA production kinetics by A. carbonarius isolated from grapes. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Carlos, C.; Goncalves, 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]
  163. Cravedi, P.; Mazzoni, E. Relazioni fra la somma delle temperature giornaliere e le catture con trappole a feromoni degli adulti di Lobesia botrana Den. & Schiff. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Redia 1990, 73, 213–222. [Google Scholar]
  164. Cravedi, P.; Mazzoni, E. Verification of the relation between degree-days and pheromone trap catches of Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) (Lepidoptera Tortricidae). Redia 1994, 77, 109–122. [Google Scholar]
  165. Del Tío, R.; Martinez, J.L.; Ocete, M.E. Study of the relationship between sex pheromone trap catches of Lobesia botrana (Den. and Schiff.) (Lep., Tortricidae) and the accumulation of degree-days in Sherry vineyards (SW of Spain). J. Appl. Entomol. 2001, 125, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Milonas, P.G.; Savopoulou-Soultani, M.; Stavridis, D.G. Day-degree models for predicting the generation time and flight activity of local populations of Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep., Tortricidae) in Greece. J. Appl. Entomol. 2001, 125, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Gallardo, A.; Ocete, R.; Lopez, M.A.; Maistrello, L.; Ortega, F.; Semedo, A.; Soria, F.J. Forecasting the flight activity of Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) in southwestern Spain. J. Appl. Entomol. 2009, 133, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Amo-Salas, M.; Ortega-López, V.; Harman, R.; Alonso-González, A. A new model for predicting the flight activity of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 1586–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Baumgärtner, J.; Baronio, P. Modello fenologico di volo di Lobesia botrana Den. & Schiff. (Lep. Tortricidae) relativo alla situazione ambientale dell’Emilia Romagna. Boll. Ist. Ent. Univ. Bologna 1988, 43, 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  170. Bettati, T.; Bugiani, R.; Butturini, A.; Galassi, T.; Ilic, M.; Tiso, R. FITOSPA: Il nuovo supporto informatico e organizzativo del sistema di previsione e avvertimento delle avversità delle colture in Emilia-Romagna. Atti Giornate Fitopatol. 2014, 1, 533–542. [Google Scholar]
  171. Butturini, A.; Tiso, R. Tignoletta, il modello matematico di simulazione. Il Divulg. 2007, 3, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  172. Nigro, C.; Tiso, R.; Butturini, A.; Caponero, A. Validazione dei modelli MRV per monitorare i fitofagi. L’informatore Agrar. 2018, 9, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  173. Gilioli, G.; Pasquali, S.; Marchesini, E. A modelling framework for pest population dynamics and management: An application to the grape berry moth. Ecol. Model. 2016, 320, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Lanzarone, E.; Pasquali, S.; Gilioli, G.; Marchesini, E. A Bayesian estimation approach for the mortality in a stage-structured demographic model. J. Math. Biol. 2017, 75, 759–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. 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]
  176. Schulze-Sylvester, M.; Reineke, A. Elevated CO2 levels impact fitness traits of vine mealybug Planococcus ficus Signoret, but not its parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii Howard. Agronomy 2019, 9, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Grape bunch (cv Malagouzia) with Aspergillus rot caused by Aspergillus section Nigri (August 2018, Spata-Attiica-Greece).
Figure 1. Grape bunch (cv Malagouzia) with Aspergillus rot caused by Aspergillus section Nigri (August 2018, Spata-Attiica-Greece).
Toxins 12 00303 g001
Figure 2. First generation L. botrana larva and nest among developing berries (June 2018, Riccagioia, Oltrepo pavese-Italy).
Figure 2. First generation L. botrana larva and nest among developing berries (June 2018, Riccagioia, Oltrepo pavese-Italy).
Toxins 12 00303 g002
Figure 3. Mating disruption dispenser (June 2018, Riccagioia, Oltrepo pavese–Italy).
Figure 3. Mating disruption dispenser (June 2018, Riccagioia, Oltrepo pavese–Italy).
Toxins 12 00303 g003
Table 1. Current information on insect pests and ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in grape.
Table 1. Current information on insect pests and ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in grape.
PestGeographical AreaCultivarField/Lab StudyOTA LevelBerry Damaging InstarReferences
Lobesia botranaApulia (Italy)Bombino NeroUva di TroiaField108 ng/g (2001) 5 ng/g (2002)Larvae[19]
Lobesia botranaSicily (Italy)Malvasia di CandiaField20 µg/kgLarvae[107]
Lobesia botranaApulia (Italy)PrimitivoNegramaroField1.13––2.89 ng/mL (2005/untreated plots) 0.47–0.98 (2005/insecticide treated plots)Larvae[125]
Anastrepha fraterculusBrazilItaliaLab study(*)Adults (oviposition) and larvae[109]
Polistes dominulusUSAThompson SeedlessLab study(*)Adults[110]
Planococcus ficusArgentinaRed wine cultivarsField study51 µg/kg (2007) 9 µg/kg (2009)Adults and nymphs[20]
(*) These insects pests are mentioned to be involved in favouring fungi dispersal but no OTA measurement has been reported.
Table 2. Current information on Good Agricultural Practices and other factors that affect the ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in grape.
Table 2. Current information on Good Agricultural Practices and other factors that affect the ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in grape.
Crop Attributes/Agricultural PracticeNotesReferences
Crop type/processing Dried grapes > grape juice > red wine > white wine[5,145]
Geographical area vineyards location Southern and eastern European regions are more susceptible than northern and western regions[3,51,52]
Trellising system- proximity of berries to the soilIn vineyards in the south of Europe, bunches were 40–60 cm above soil, whereas in vineyards in the north were 150 cm above the soil[129]
PruningBunches must have an open structure with berries not being exposed to sun burn, reduce dead berry falling[128]
IrrigationIrrigation should be scheduled to prevent berry splitting[128]
Harvest timeHarvest date must be set as soon as grape is mature[50,128]
IPMOTA occurrence in wine can decrease up to 80% using appropriate fungi and pest management[61,127]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mondani, L.; Palumbo, R.; Tsitsigiannis, D.; Perdikis, D.; Mazzoni, E.; Battilani, P. Pest Management and Ochratoxin A Contamination in Grapes: A Review. Toxins 2020, 12, 303. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/toxins12050303

AMA Style

Mondani L, Palumbo R, Tsitsigiannis D, Perdikis D, Mazzoni E, Battilani P. Pest Management and Ochratoxin A Contamination in Grapes: A Review. Toxins. 2020; 12(5):303. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/toxins12050303

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mondani, Letizia, Roberta Palumbo, Dimitrios Tsitsigiannis, Dionysios Perdikis, Emanuele Mazzoni, and Paola Battilani. 2020. "Pest Management and Ochratoxin A Contamination in Grapes: A Review" Toxins 12, no. 5: 303. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/toxins12050303

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