Conotrachelus nenuphar (plum curculio)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Impact Summary
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst)
Preferred Common Name
- plum curculio
Other Scientific Names
- Curculio nenuphar Herbst
International Common Names
- English: American plum weevil; curculio, plum; peach curculio
- French: charançon de la prune
Local Common Names
- Germany: Ruessler, Nordamerikanischer Pflaumen-
- CONHNE (Conotrachelus nenuphar)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
The plum curculio, C. nenuphar, is native to North America and restricted to east of the Rocky Mountains. Although it feeds on several wild host plants and several species of cultivated pome and stone fruit, C. nenuphar has not extended its geographical range over the years. Given its life-cycle (larvae complete their development and diapause in the soil), it is not likely to be a global invasive species. It can be considered as a local invader, as it will invade any new orchard plant (apple: Malus; plum: Prunus; peach: Prunus) and thereby become a serious pest of these agricultural habitats.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Coleoptera
- Family: Curculionidae
- Genus: Conotrachelus
- Species: Conotrachelus nenuphar
DescriptionTop of page
White, oval, about 0.35 x 0.6 mm, laid in the fruit.
White, curved, legless with a brown head, 6-9 mm long when mature.
White, 4.5-7 mm long. Found in an earthen cell.
A brownish-grey weevil about 5 mm long with four humps on the elytra (Lienk, 1980).
DistributionTop of page
C. nenuphar is restricted to North America (EPPO, 2003). The National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS) publishes information on the distribution of C. nenuphar at: http://ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/pc/mgif/pcall.html.
See CABI/EPPO (1998).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Canada||Restricted distribution||Garland and Campbell, 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-British Columbia||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Manitoba||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-New Brunswick||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Newfoundland and Labrador||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Nova Scotia||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ontario||Present||Hagley et al., 1977; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Prince Edward Island||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Quebec||Present||Le Blanc et al., 1981; Lafleur and Hill, 1987; Racette et al., 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Alabama||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Arkansas||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Colorado||Present||Quaintance and Jenne, 1912; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Connecticut||Present||Maier, 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Delaware||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Georgia||Present||Yonce et al., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Illinois||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Indiana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Iowa||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Kansas||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Kentucky||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Louisiana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maine||Present||Lathrop, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maryland||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Massachusetts||Present||Maier, 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Michigan||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Minnesota||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Mississippi||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Missouri||Present||Chapman, 1938; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Montana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Nebraska||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-New Hampshire||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-New Jersey||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-New York||Present||Maier, 1990; Reissig et al., 1998; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-North Carolina||Present||McGiffen and Meyer, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-North Dakota||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ohio||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Oklahoma||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Rhode Island||Present||Maier, 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Carolina||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Dakota||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tennessee||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Texas||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Utah||Present||Alston and Stark, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Vermont||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Virginia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-West Virginia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Wisconsin||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands||Absent, confirmed by survey||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
C. nenuphar is unlikely to be transported as larvae in fruits, except in cherries; contamination of packing by adults is more likely. Although adults could also be transported with dormant nursery stock, this is unlikely.
As no biocontrol agents can effectively control the pest in commercial orchards (van Driesche et al., 1987), broad-spectrum insecticides (adulticides) remain the primary controls in a commercial context.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Principal habitat|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
Peaches, apricots and nectarines are the preferred hosts of C. nenuphar but apples are also widely affected. Apples are less damaged in areas adjacent to peach orchards than in areas where peaches are little grown. Pears are often scarred and deformed by the feeding and egg punctures of C. nenuphar but the larvae fail to develop in them (Armstrong, 1958). There are varietal differences in the susceptibility of apples, with eggs being destroyed and larval establishment being prevented by fruit growth in some varieties (Paradis, 1957). The larvae have also been found developing inside leaf curl galls and pockets in plum fruits, caused by the fungus Taphrina communis. The black excrescences of Dibotryon morbosum [Apiosporina morbosa] also provide satisfactory food for the larvae (EPPO, 1979). For further information on the hosts of C. nenuphar, see Maier (1990) and Yonce et al. (1995).
With mark and release experiments, Leskey and Wright (2007) established that the order of preference of the host range for C. nenuphar as (in decreasing order of preference): Japanese plum (Prunus salicina), European plum (Prunus domestica), peach (Prunus persica), sweet cherry (Prunus avium), tart cherry (Prunus cerasus), apricot (Prunus armeniaca), apple (Malus domestica) and pear (Pyrus communis).
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page
On apple, C. nenuphar can cause two types of damage. In spring, females oviposit in young fruit, marking them with characteristic half-moon shaped scars; and in spring and summer, the adults puncture the fruit causing round (2-3 mm diameter), feeding scars.
The appearance of plum curculio damage is highly variable and, of all fruit damage rated by IPM specialists, damage caused by plum curculio had the lowest average agreement level (71.8%) (Vincent and Hanley, 1997). Internal damage to the fruit is caused by larval feeding and exit holes. Most infested fruits drop prematurely in June, though cherries rot on the trees. Adult feeding may also cause marginal damage to leaves and blossoms.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / external feeding|
|Fruit / internal feeding|
|Fruit / obvious exit hole|
|Fruit / premature drop|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
C. nenuphar overwinters as adults in plant debris, preferably under maple leaves (Lafleur et al., 1987). The pest is univoltine in the northern part of its range (north of Virginia, USA) and at least partially multivoltine in southern areas. Spring emergence times vary with geographical location.
In Quebec, Canada, the overwintered adults appear in May, about 11 days before full bloom in apple, reaching a peak from 6 days before full bloom to 10 days after petal fall (Paradis, 1957). In south-western Quebec, adults emerged when apple trees of cv. McIntosh were in the 'green tip stage' in late April (Paradis, 1956). Emergence may take 3-4 weeks (Lafleur and Hill, 1987).
In Ontario, Canada, emergence begins at end of April and is almost (90%) complete by early June. Emergence continues until late June or early July (Armstrong, 1958).
In Texas, USA, emergence occurs in late March to early May (King and Morris, 1957). After emergence the weevils may remain on the surface of the soil for some time before appearing on the trees, where they feed on the new shoots and blossom until the fruit becomes available (Smith and Flessel, 1968; Chouinard et al., 1994).
In spring, the adults invade orchards from the surrounding woodland (Lafleur et al., 1987). In Quebec, the adult population peaks somewhere between the tight cluster stage and 10 days after petal fall in early June (Paradis, 1956). The highest distance covered by the adults, mainly by walking, was recorded from the tight cluster stage until June drop in late June (Lafleur and Hill, 1987).
In Ontario, oviposition begins in late May and continues until early August. The timing of oviposition varies with climate. In insectary experiments, some overwintered adults lived for 17 months and a few went through a second winter to 22 months (Armstrong, 1958).
In New York, USA, Reissig et al. (1998) estimated that 60% of total fruit damage by oviposition was accomplished when 230 day-degrees C above 10°C had accumulated after petal fall (on average, mid-June).
The eggs are laid in a cavity that the female bites into the epidermis of the fruit. The skin of the fruit is cut into a distinctive crescent-shaped slit which partially surrounds the egg. The eggs and young larvae are sensitive to pressure and other unfavourable effects of fruit growth. The destruction of eggs by crushing may account for varietal differences in the susceptibility of apples to attack by C. nenuphar. The gum exuding from egg-laying scars on half-grown plums can kill the larvae. More than one larva can develop in a single fruit. The abundance of fruit has a significant influence on the population of C. nenuphar and a poor crop may lead to a marked decrease in the population size. The larvae feed in the fruit, which usually drops prematurely. The time spent in the fruit varies from 15 (Armstrong, 1958) to 18 days (Paradis, 1956). When fully fed, the larvae leave the fruit and pupate in cells in the soil. The time spent in the soil depends on temperature and humidity but varies from 3 weeks to more than 5 weeks, the longer periods generally occurring more in the northern part of its range.
The summer generation of adults emerge over a long period from July to October in Ontario, Canada, and Maine, USA (Lathrop, 1949), with a peak of emergence in September. In Georgia, USA, approximately one-half to three-quarters of the adults lay eggs in the same year giving a partial second generation (Snapp, 1940). The adults leave the trees and search for overwintering sites in September. In caged experiments in Ontario, 93% of adults overwintered at the soil surface under leaves and other debris, 4% were found in the top inch of the soil and the remainder overwintered deeper in the soil (Armstrong, 1958). In Virginia, USA, weevils were found hibernating up to 15 cm deep in loose soil and in clay at an average depth of 6 cm.
For further information on the biology and ecology of C. nenuphar, see Quaintance and Jenne (1912), Chapman (1938), Snapp (1940), Smith and Flessel (1968), Racette et al. (1992) and Vincent et al. (1999). Holloway (1977) and Le Blanc (1982) have reviewed the literature on C. nenuphar.
ClimateTop of page
|Df - Continental climate, wet all year||Preferred||Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Bacillus thuringiensis entomocidus||Pathogen||Adults|
|Bacillus thuringiensis subtoxicus||Pathogen||Adults|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Nealiolus curculionis is the most common larval parasite of C. nenuphar in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, Canada (Armstrong, 1958).
Impact SummaryTop of page
ImpactTop of page
Next to the codling moth (Cydia pomonella), C. nenuphar is regarded as the most serious pest of pome and stone fruit in eastern North America (Prokopy and Croft, 1994). For example, in Quebec, up to 85% of harvested apples may be damaged by C. nenuphar in unsprayed orchards (Vincent and Bostanian, 1988; Vincent and Roy, 1992). Plum curculio populations return to levels of economic importance 1 to 3 years after cessation of pesticide spraying (Glass and Lienk, 1971; Hall, 1974; Hagley et al., 1977).
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Tolerant of shade
- Highly mobile locally
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Pest and disease transmission
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
The apple weevil, Anthonomus quadrigibbus is similar to C. nenuphar and is restricted to North America (Chouinard et al., 2000; Agnello et al., 2006). Anthonomus pomorum (Toepfer et al., 1999) is also similar but is restricted to Europe.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
The best method of monitoring C. nenuphar in commercial orchards is to carefully examine thousands of small fruits looking for fresh egg-laying scars (Hoyt et al., 1983; Le Blanc et al., 1984). In commercial orchards in Quebec, Canada, Vincent et al. (1997) successfully used a threshold of 1% damaged fruit, with careful monitoring of fruit three times a week, to manage localized, peripheral treatments following full-block treatment at petal fall.
There have been several studies aimed at improving the timing of insecticide treatments by trapping adults (for example, Le Blanc et al., 1981; Tedders and Wood, 1994; Prokopy et al., 1998, 1999a, b). The principle behind the pyramid trap (Tedders and Wood, 1994), which has the silhouette of a small tree, is the tendency of C. nenuphar to move towards tree silhouettes in the spring (Lafleur and Hill, 1987). Other trap models proposed include clear plexiglass panels (Dixon et al., 1999), conical boll weevil traps (Prokopy and Wright, 1998), sticky (Yonce et al., 1995) and non-sticky apples (Racette, 1988), plastic funnels (LeBlanc et al., 1981), screen traps (Mulder et al., 1997), pitfall traps (Yonce et al., 1995), cylinder traps (Prokopy et al., 2000) and branch-mimicking traps (Leskey and Prokopy, 2002). There is an abundance of literature that documents the effects of various factors explaining trap performance, such as visual cues (Leskey, 2006), proximity of host trees (Leskey and Wright, 2004a, b), architecture (Lafleur et al., 2007) and material (Lamothe et al., 2008). Trapping has indicated that immigration in orchards of Massachusetts, USA can last for 51 to 85 days (Piñero and Prokopy, 2006). So far, none of these models has shown sufficient attractiveness or reliability to replace the visual examination of fruitlets as the recommended monitoring technique for the protection of commercial orchards.
Adult plum curculios are attracted to salicycl-aldehyde early in the season and gallic acid later in the season (Snapp and Swingle, 1929a). Extracts of peach have also been tested (Snapp and Swingle, 1929b).
Over the past 20 years, attractants have been tested for several curculionid species (Hardee et al., 1971; Hedin et al., 1979; Booth et al., 1983). Hardee et al. (1971) found that plant extracts significantly increased the attractiveness of the boll weevil pheromone and Dickens (1989) found that certain green leaf volatiles (Visser et al., 1979) were also attractive to the boll weevil.
Early attempts to identify potential attractants for adult plum curculios in stored apples and aluminium carbonate (Prokopy et al., 1995; Prokopy and Leskey, 1997), fresh apple juice and synthetic apple blossom fragrance (Le Blanc, 1982) have been unsuccessful. Butkewich and Prokopy (1993) found that because odours of host fruit were significantly less attractive at 4 and 8 cm than at 2 cm from plum curculios, fruit odor-based traps are unlikely to be useful in commercial orchards.
Eller and Bartelt (1996) isolated and subsequently synthesized an aggregation pheromone from male plum curculios: (+)-(1R,2S)-Methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl) cyclobutaneacetic acid. This compound, grandisoïc acid, is attractive to both sexes.
Placing live adults as baits in Tedder's pyramid traps has been unsuccessful, possibly because of repulsive distress signals emitted by the curculios (Prokopy and Leskey, 1997). However, lures impregnated with a racemic mixture of grandisoïc acid have been reported by Johnson et al. (1997) to significantly increase the number of plum curculios trapped in Tedder's pyramid traps. Chouinard et al. (unpublished data) demonstrated an increase in attractiveness when the lure was used in conjunction with small amounts of green leaf volatiles; high amounts showed a repulsive effect. Leskey et al. (1997) reported the attractiveness of a chemically uncharacterized host odour produced by apples at petal fall, and of water extracts of small apples and apple twigs. Plum curculio adults are known to be strongly attracted to host plum volatiles (Lesley and Prokopy, 2001; Leskey and Wright, 2007). Plant odours and pheromonal combination have been tested (Piñero and Prokopy, 2003) but none of the results are amenable to commercial use.
Observations of the behaviour of adults, both in the field and in cages, has led to the design of better IPM programmes for C. nenuphar. Using Zn65 as a marker, it was shown that most adults move from orchards to the surrounding woodland in autumn (Lafleur et al., 1987). After overwintering, the returning plum curculios gradually invade apple orchards between pink and petal fall (Lafleur and Hill, 1987) after spending several days on the ground under the perimeter rows of trees (Racette et al., 1990; Chouinard et al., 1993, 1994). From full bloom to 9 days after fruit set, adults were found to be active mainly during the night (Racette et al., 1991). In field cages, adults (labelled with Zn65) showed a similar diel periodicity when foraging on dwarf apple trees and, because adults are most active in the trees between 20:00 and 00:00 h, insecticide treatments are likely to be most effective if applied in the early part of the night (Chouinard et al., 1992a).
There have been several attempts to relate adult activity to ambient temperature to optimize the timing of insecticide treatments (reviewed by Racette et al., 1992). In all of these studies, the relationship between meteorological factors and adult activity was established a posteriori. A notable exception is in the study by Lamothe et al. (2008), where adults were studied under meteorological conditions set a priori. The conclusions are that adult captures are higher: at night; during warmer periods (20 and 25ºC); when wind velocity is low; during or shortly after rainfall; and that photoperiod is a factor having an important predictive value for plum curculio captures. Two approaches have been investigated: the development of a trap to evaluate adult populations and relate population levels to risks (Prokopy and Wright, 1998), and the development of day-degree models to predict the appearance of damage in the orchards (Reissig et al., 1998). So far, both methods have not been used as the sole method to manage plum curculio populations. A model predicting nocturnal activity of the plum curculio on a hourly basis has also been recently developed and is currently under validation (Chouinard et al., 2002). A model used as a decision aid to time insecticide treatments against summer adults of the bivoltine strain has been implemented in peach orchards of southeastern USA (Lan et al., 2004).
Several natural enemies have been recovered from C. nenuphar but none are able to provide an effective alternative to chemical insecticides in commercial orchards (van Driesche et al., 1987; Racette et al., 1992).
Several species of nematodes tested as larvicides were ineffective (Tedders et al., 1982). In the laboratory, 95.1% larval mortality was caused at a concentration of 400 Steinernema carpocapsae nematodes per larvae (Olthof and Hagley, 1993). There was no significant increase in larval mortality from 200 to 400 nematodes per larvae. At these concentrations, 73.4% larval mortality was achieved in natural sods. Nematode treatments affected larvae of the apple sawfly, Hoplocampa testudinea (Vincent and Bélair, 1992). Nematode treatments applied to the soil did not prevent damage to apples, but lowered populations of both pests for the subsequent growing season.
To prevent damage to fruit, the effectiveness of repeated applications of S. carpocapsae to the foliage or aerial parts of apple trees was tested (Bélair et al., 1998). In a caged environment, localized applications of nematodes at the base of tree trunks significantly reduced adult populations maintained there (82-100% mortality vs 0-18% in the control). The virulence and reproductive potential of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (Hb strain), Heterorhabditis marelatus (Point Reyes strains), Heterorhabditis megidis (UK211 strain), Steinernema riobrave (355 strain), S. carpocapsae (All strains) and Steinernema feltiae (SN strain) has been tested by Shapiro-Ilan et al. (2002). S. carpocapsae and S. riobrave appeared to have the most potential for controlling adults, whereas S. feltiae and S. riobrave had the best potential for larval control. Shapiro-Ilan et al. (2004) carried out field studies to test if S. feltiae and S. riobrave control C. nenuphar larvae in the soil. S. riobrave was the only treatment that caused a significant reduction in weevil emergence.
The strategy of treating 20 m-wide peripheral zones of apple orchards (when needed) in spring is based on the finding that plum curculio damage is frequently more abundant at this time in peripheral zones (Le Blanc et al., 1984) and that during the tight cluster stage most plum curculio adults move only 1-4 m per day when returning to the orchards from their overwintering sites in adjacent woodlots (Lafleur and Hill, 1987). During this 5-20 day re-invasion period, petal fall was selected as the most appropriate time for this peripheral zone treatment.
Using this approach in an experimental orchard, fruit damage at harvest was reduced from 57 to 2.4% (Chouinard et al., 1992b), while reducing the amount of insecticide used by 70%, and the plum curculio adult population by 83%. The approach has been validated in commercial orchards (Vincent et al., 1997). Plum curculio damage at harvest varied from 0.0 to 0.7% and from 0.0 to 0.8% fruit in plots receiving peripheral sprays (experimental) and full-plot sprays (reference), respectively; and most damaged apples (95%) were found in peripheral zones. Total insect damage on fruit at harvest varied from 1.3 to 3.8% in experimental plots, and from 0.4 to 5.0% in reference plots.
The life-cycle of C. nenuphar can be interrupted by laying a barrier underneath the canopy of apple trees so that the larvae cannot pupate in the soil (Benoit et al., 2006). However, such a method cannot prevent damage to the fruit in the year of production. To achieve control, it must be deployed over several consecutive years. The deployment of such a barrier also exerts an entomocidal effect on the apple sawfly, H. testudinea, and herbicidal effects on a number of weeds.
ReferencesTop of page
Agnello A; Chouinard G; Firlej A; Turechek W; Vanoosthuyse F; Vincent C, 2006. Field Guide to Tree Fruit Insect, Mite and Disease Pests and Natural Enemies of Eastern North America. Cooperative Extension Publication, 169. Ithaca, USA: Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES), 238 pp.
Alston DG; Stark AV, 2000. Plum curculio biology and distribution in Utah. Plum curculio biology and distribution in Utah. Logan, USA: Utah State University. http://www.utahhort.org/talks/2000/alston.htm
Armstrong T, 1958. Life-history and ecology of the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario. Canadian Entomologist, 90(1):8-17.
Benoit DL; Vincent C; Chouinard G, 2006. Management of weeds, apple sawfly (Hoplocampa testudinea Klug) and plum curcuclio (Conotrachelus nenuphar Herbst) with cellulose sheeting. Crop Protection, 25(4):331-337.
Blanc JPR le; Hill SB; Paradis RO, 1984. Oviposition in scout-apples by plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and its relationship to subsequent damage. Environmental Entomology, 13(1):286-291
Booth DC; Phillips TW; Clpsson A; Silverstein RM; Lanier GN; West JR, 1983. Aggregation pheromone components of two species of Pissodes weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): isolation, identification, and field activity. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 9(1):1-12
Butkewich SL; Prokopy RJ, 1993. The effect of short-range host odor stimuli on host fruit finding and feeding behavior of plum curculio adults (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 19(4):825-835
Chapman PJ, 1938. The plum curculio as an apple pest. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 684, 1-75.
Chouinard G; Bourgeois G; Cormier D, 2000. Modeling nocturnal activity: a tool for plum curculio monitoring and control strategies. Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstract No. 13510.
Chouinard G; BTlair G; Vincent C, 1996. Control of plum curculio adults with Steinernema carpocapsae. Proceedings XX International Congress of Entomology, Florence, Italy (abstract).
Chouinard G; Cormier D; Bourgeois G, 2002. A Temperature Dependant Model Describing Nocturnal Activity of Plum Curculio in Apple Trees Following Bloom. Acta Horticulturae, 584:201-205.
Chouinard G; Firlej A; Vanoosthuyse F; Vincent C, 2000. Guide d'identification des ravageurs du pommier et de leurs ennemis naturels. QuTbec, Canada: Conseil des Productions vTgTtales du QuTbec.
Chouinard G; Vincent C; Hill SB; Panneton B, 1992. Cyclic behavior of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), within caged dwarf apple trees in spring. Journal of Insect Behavior, 5(3):385-394
Chouinard G; Vincent C; Tartier L; Laplante G; Morin Y, 1996. Outils de dTpistage pour les insectes, acariens et maladies des vergers de pommiers au QuTbec. Proc. International Symposium on agricultural pest forecasting and monitoring, Quebec City, Quebec, 163-183.
Coombs AB; Whalon ME; Wise JC; Bush RM, 1997. Tedders traps baited with lures for monitoring plum curculio in Michigan, Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstract No. P343.
Dixon BM; Prokopy RJ; Schultz BB, 1999. Influence of weather and time of day on plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) tree canopy entry behaviours and evaluation of traps for predicting fruit injury. Journal of Entomological Science, 34(2):191-202; 16 ref.
Driesche RG van; Prokopy RJ; Coli WM, 1987. Potential for increased use of biological control agents in Massachusetts apple orchards. Research Bulletin, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, No. 718:6-21
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, 1979. Data sheets on quarantime organisms. EPPO list A2. Data sheets on quarantime organisms. EPPO list A2. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Paris France,
Garland JA; Campbell JM, 1990. Plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst). Canadian Agricultural Insect Pest Review, 68:36-37.
Glass EH; Lienk SE, 1971. Apple insect and mite populations developing after discontinuance of insecticides: 10 year record. Journal of Economic Entomology, 64:23-26.
Hagley EAC; Monteith LG; Herne DHC; Trottier R, 1977. Pest population buildup in apple orchards following omission of insecticide and acaricide sprays. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 108:7-11
Hardee DD; Wilson NM; Mitchell EB; Huddleston PM, 1971. Factors affecting activity of Grandlure, the pheromone of the boll weevil, in laboratory bioassays. Journal of Economic Entomology, 64:1454-1456.
Holloway RL, 1977. A bibliography of the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). South Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station Technical Bulletin, 1064:1-14.
Howard LO, 1906. The plum curculio. United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Entomology Circular, 73., USA: United States Department of Agriculture, 1-10.
Hoyt SC; Leeper JR; Brown GC; Croft BA, 1983. Basic biology and management components for insect IPM. In: B. A. Croft BA, Hoyt SC, eds. Integrated management of insect pests of pome and stone fruits. New York, USA: Wiley, 93-151.
Jenkins D; Cottrell T; Horton D; Hodges A; Hodges G, 2006. Hosts of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in Central Georgia. Environmental Entomology, 35(1):48-55. http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/0046225x/v35n1s6.pdf
Jenkins DA; Mizell RF III; Shapiro-Ilan D; Cottrell T; Horton D, 2006. Invertebrate predators and parasitoids of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Georgia and Florida. Florida Entomologist, 89(4):435-440. http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/
Johnson DT; Mulder PG; McCraw D, 1997. Evaluation of trap design and pheromone for plum curculio monitoring. Entomol. Soc. Am. Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tenn. Abstract No. D646.
King DR; Morris HF, 1957. The plum curculio in East Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology, 50 (4): 516-517.
Lafleur G; Chouinard G; Vincent C; Cormier D, 2007. Impact of trap architecture, adjacent habitats, abiotic factors, and host plant phenology on captures of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) adults. Journal of Economic Entomology, 100(3):737-744. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0022-0493%282007%29100%5B737%3AIOTAAH%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Lafleur G; Hill SB, 1987. Spring migration, within-orchard dispersal, and apple-tree preference of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in southern Quebec. Journal of Economic Entomology, 80(6):1173-1187
Lafleur G; Hill SB; Barthakur NN, 1985. Observations on mortality, detection distance, and rate of loss of label in plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), using improved techniques for topical application of radioisotopes on insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 78(5):1157-1165
Lafleur G; Hill SB; Vincent C, 1987. Fall migration, hibernation site selection, and associated winter mortality of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in a Quebec apple orchard. Journal of Economic Entomology, 80(6):1152-1172; [12 fig.].
Lamothe S; Chouinard G; Vincent C, 2008. Abiotic factors and trap design modulate the performance of traps used to monitor the plum curculio. Journal of Economic Entomology, 101(6):1838-1846. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0022-0493-101.6.1838
Lan Z; Scherm H; Horton DL, 2004. Temperature-dependent development and prediction of emergence of the summer generation of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the southeastern United States. Environmental Entomology, 33(2):174-181.
Lathrop FH, 1949. Biology of the plum curculio in Maine. Journal of Economic Entomology, 42(1):12-18.
Lathrop FH; Dirks CO, 1944. Timing the seasonal cycles of insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 37(2):199-204.
Le Blanc J-PR, 1982. Trapping and monitoring techniques for plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), (Coleoptera:Curculionidae), in a southwestern Quebec apple orchard. PhD thesis, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada.
Le Blanc J-PR; Hill SB; Paradis RO, 1981. Essais de piTgeage du charanton de la prune, C. nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) dans une pommeraie du sud-ouest du QuTbec. Annales de la SociTtT d'Entomologie du QuTbec, 26:182-190.
Leskey T; Bakis M; Gagne H; Phelan L; Prokopy R, 1997. Petal fall is the most attractive development stage of McIntosh apple trees to plum curculio adults. Fruit Notes, 62(1):13-15.
Leskey TC; Chouinard G; Vincent C, 2008. Managing the Apple Maggot Fly and the Plum Curculio: Honoring the Legacy of R. Prokopy. In: Managing Fruit Pest Biorationality: the Long Path from speciation to concientious profits [ed. by Aluja, M. \Leskey, T. C. \Vincent, C.]. Wallingfrod, UK: CABI, 110-144.
Leskey TC; Wright SE, 2004. Monitoring plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), populations in apple and peach orchards in the mid-Atlantic. Journal of Economic Entomology, 97(1):79-88.
Lienk SA, 1980. Plum curculio. Tree Fruit IPM. Insect Identificatio Sheet No. 3. Geneva: New York Agricultural Expterimental Station.
Maier CT, 1990. Native and exotic rosaceous hosts of apple, plum, and quince curculio larvae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the northeastern United States. Journal of Economic Entomology, 83(4):1326-1332
McGiffen ME Jr; Meyer JR, 1986. Effect of environmental factors on overwintering phenomena and spring migration of the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 15(4):884-888
Mulder PG; McCraw BD; Reid W; Grantham RA, 1997. Monitoring adult weevil populations in pecan and fruit trees in Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University Extension Facts F-7190, 7 pp.
Olthof TH; Hagley EAC, 1993. Laboratory studies of the efficacy of Steinernema nematodes against the Plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 86:1078-1082.
Paradis RO, 1956. Observations sur le cycle Tvolutif du charanton de la prune, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Hbst.), sur la pomme dans le QuTbec. Annales de la SociTtT d'entomologie du QuTbec, 2:60-70.
Paradis RO, 1957. Observations sur les dTgGts causTs par le charanton de la prune, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Hbst.), sur les pommes dans le sud-ouest du QuTbec. Canadian Entomologist, 89:496-502.
Piñero JC; Prokopy RJ, 2003. Field evaluation of plant odor and pheromonal combinations for attracting plum curculios. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 29(12):2735-2748. http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0098-0331
Piñero JC; Prokopy RJ, 2006. Temporal dynamics of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), immigration into an apple orchard in Massachusetts. Environmental Entomology, 35(2):413-422. http://docserver.esa.catchword.org/deliver/cw/pdf/esa/freepdfs/0046225x/v35n2s30.pdf
Polavarapu S; Kyryczenko-Roth V; Barry JD, 2004. Phenology and infestation patterns of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on four highbush blueberry cultivars. Journal of Economic Entomology, 97(6):1899-1905. HTTP://www.esa.catchword.org
Prokopy R; Leskey T, 1997. Do natural sources of odor enhance plum curculio attraction to traps? Fruit Notes, 62(1):9-12.
Prokopy RJ; Cooley SS; Phelan PL, 1995. Bioassay approaches to assessing behavioral responses of plum curculio adults (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to host fruit odor. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 21(8):1073-1084
Prokopy RJ; Croft BA, 1994. Apple insect pest management. In: Metcalf RL, Luckmann WH, eds. Introduction to Insect Pest Management. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 543-585.
Prokopy RJ; Marsello M; Leskey TC; Wright SE, 1999. Evaluation of unbaited pyramid traps for monitoring and controlling plum curculio adults (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in apple orchards. Journal of Entomological Science, 34(1):144-153; 15 ref.
Prokopy RJ; Wright S, 1997. How do plum curculios approach host trees and pyramid traps? Fruit Notes (Univ. Massachusetts), 62:5-8.
Quaintance AL; Jenne EL, 1912. The plum curculio. Bulletin of the US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology, 103:1-250.
Racette G, 1988. Daily activity of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and implications for control. M.Sc. thesis. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill University.
Reissig WH; Nyrop JP; Straub R, 1998. Oviposition model for timing insecticide sprays against plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in New York State. Environmental Entomology, 27(5):1053-1061; 20 ref.
Shapiro-Ilan DI; Mizell IIIRF; Cottrell TE; Horton DL, 2004. Measuring field efficacy of Steinernema feltie and Steinernema riobrave for suppression of plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar, larvae. Biological Control, 30:496-503.
Smith EH; Flessel JK, 1968. Hibernation of the plum curculio and its spring migration to host trees. Journal of Economic Entomology, 61:193-203.
Snapp OI, 1940. Further studies of the plum curculio in the Georgia peach belt. Journal of Economic Entomology, 33(3):453-456.
Snapp OI; Swingle HS, 1929. Further results with the McIndoo olfactometer. Journal of Economic Entomology, 22:984-985.
Snapp OI; Swingle HS, 1929. Preliminary reports of attrahents (sic) for peach insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 22:98-101.
Tedders WL; Weaver DJ; Wehunt EJ; Gentry CR, 1982. Bioassay of Metarhizium anisoplip, Beauveria bassiana, and Neoaplectana carpocapsp against larvae of the plum curculio Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 11(4):901-904
Vincent C; Bostanian NJ, 1988. La protection des vergers de pommiers au QuTbec: Ttat de la question. Naturaliste Canadien (Revue d'Tcologie et de systTmatique), 115:261-276.
Vincent C; Chouinard G; Bostanian NJ; Morin Y, 1997. Peripheral-zone treatments for plum curculio management: validation in commercial apple orchards. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 84(1):1-8; 21 ref.
Vincent C; Chouinard G; Leskey TC, 2004. The Plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar Herbst (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), 1769-1774. In: Encyclopedia of Entomology, 3 [ed. by Capinera, J. L.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Visser JH; Ave DA, 1978. General green leaf volatiles in the olfactory orientation of the Colorado beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata [Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium - Insect and Host Plant - held at Fulmer Grange, Slough, England, 4-9 June 1978.], 24:738-749.
Wise JC; Coombs AB; Vandervoort C; Gut LJ; Hoffmann EJ; Whalon ME, 2006. Use of residue profile analysis to identify modes of insecticide activity contributing to control of plum curculio in apples. Journal of Economic Entomology, 99(6):2055-2064. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0022-0493-99.6.2055
Wise JC; Kim K; Hoffmann EJ; Vandervoort C; Gökçe A; Whalon ME, 2007. Novel life stage targets against plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), in apple integrated pest management. Pest Management Science, 63(8):737-742. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/pestmanagementscience
Yonce CE; Horton DL; Okie WR, 1995. Spring migration, reproductive behavior, monitoring procedures, and host preference of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on Prunus species in central Georgia. Journal of Entomological Science, 30(1):82-92; 12 ref.
ContributorsTop of page
26/02/2008 Updated by:
Charles Vincent, Horticultural Research & Development Centre, Agriculture & Agri-food Canada, 430 boul Gouin, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, J3B 3E6, Canada
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/