Sitotroga cerealella (grain moth)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- 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
- Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier)
Preferred Common Name
- grain moth
Other Scientific Names
- Alucita cerealella (Olivier)
- Anacampsis cerealella (Olivier)
- Gelechia cerealella (Olivier)
- Gelechia pyrophagellas
International Common Names
- English: angoumois grain moth; rice grain moth; rice moth
- Spanish: alucita de los cereales; palomilla de los cereales; palomilla de los graneros (Mexico); palomilla de los granos; palomita de los cereales (Argentina); polilla de los cereales
- French: alucite des cereales; alucite des grains; mite angoumoise du grain; papillon de l' angoumois
- Portuguese: traca dos cereais (Brazil)
Local Common Names
- Brazil: traça dos cereais
- Denmark: fransk kornmøl
- Germany: Motte, Franzoesische Korn-; Motte, Getreide-
- Israel: ash hatevua
- Italy: alucite dei cereali; tignola vera del grano
- Japan: bakuga
- Netherlands: grauwe rijstmot
- Norway: maismoll
- Turkey: arfa guvesi
- SITTCE (Sitotroga cerealella)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Lepidoptera
- Family: Gelechiidae
- Genus: Sitotroga
- Species: Sitotroga cerealella
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Although originally described in Alucita by Olivier (1789), this species was re-allocated to Sitotroga by Heinemann (1870) as the type species of this new genus.
DescriptionTop of page Egg
The eggs are laid singly or in clumps of variable numbers. They are white when first laid and quickly change to a reddish colour. The egg is oval with the anterior (micropylar) end truncate and bearing longitudinal ridges and weaker transverse ridges (Carter, 1984).
The larva is rarely seen, because it completes its development within a single grain. The head is small and yellowish-brown and retracted into the thorax. The body of the larva is stout and yellowish-white, the peritreme of spiracles is brown. The prothoracic and anal plates are weakly developed and concolorous with the integument. The abdominal prolegs are weakly developed, each with no more than three crotchets. The anal comb is absent.
The final-instar larva spins a silken cocoon and changes to a reddish-brown pupa. The abdominal spiracles are slightly raised and the pupal cremaster has one dorsal and two lateral, short, stout spines.
The moth is small, pale brown, 5-7 mm long with wings folded, wingspan 10-16 mm. The head, thorax and filiform antennae are pale brown; labial palpi are long, slender, sharply pointed and upcurved, pale brown with dark tips, terminal segment longer than second, second segment rough-scaled beneath. The forewing is elongate, pale brown or ochreous-brown, with a few black scales at the base of the dorsum and a concentration of black scales towards the apex. The wing fringes are concolorous with the wing or a little paler, with a central black band. Vein CuP is absent, and veins R4, R5 and M1 are stalked. The hindwing is greyish-brown, apex greatly produced. Abdomen brown.
DistributionTop of page Many sources state that S. cerealella is cosmopolitan (e.g. ARS, USDA, 1978). The distribution map is based on evidence published in the past 20 years.
The moth has also been found on imported products in the UK, but has not become established there (Carter, 1984).
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|
|Bangladesh||Present||Howlander and Matin, 1988|
|China||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977; Dunkel et al., 1985; Zhu, 1987|
|-Fujian||Present||He et al., 2002|
|India||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977; Ramashrit and Mishra, 1989|
|-Andaman and Nicobar Islands||Present||Gupta, 1983|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present||Visalakshi et al., 2005|
|-Arunachal Pradesh||Present||Pathak and Jha, 2003|
|-Assam||Present||Borah and Mohon, 1982|
|-Bihar||Present||Sinha and Sinha, 1992|
|-Delhi||Present||Kishore & Jotwani, 1982; Pajni and Mehta, 1986|
|-Gujarat||Present||Upadhyay et al., 1979|
|-Himachal Pradesh||Present||Jitender et al., 2001|
|-Indian Punjab||Widespread||Bhardwaj et al., 1977; Dhaliwal et al., 1989|
|-Karnataka||Present||Majumder and Singh, 1989|
|-Kerala||Present||Saradamma et al., 1973|
|-Maharashtra||Present||Padwal-Desai et al., 1987|
|-Manipur||Present||Pande and Bimal-Singh, 1983|
|-Meghalaya||Present||Pathak et al., 2002; Pathak and Jha, 2003|
|-Meghalaya||Present||Pathak et al., 2002; Pathak and Jha, 2003|
|-Mizoram||Present||Pathak and Jha, 2003|
|-Nagaland||Present||Pathak and Jha, 2003; Jamir et al., 2008|
|-Nagaland||Present||Pathak and Jha, 2003; Jamir et al., 2008|
|-Odisha||Present||Ilyasa et al., 1983; Prakash and Kauraw, 1982|
|-Rajasthan||Present||Mahla and Ameta, 2001|
|-Sikkim||Present||Pathak and Jha, 2003|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||Dakshinamurthy and Regupathy, 1988|
|-Tripura||Present||Pathak and Jha, 2003|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||Girish et al., 1974|
|-West Bengal||Present||Singh, 1979|
|Israel||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Japan||Present||Yoshida, 1984; Takeshita and Imura, 1990|
|Lebanon||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Malaysia||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977; Muda, 1985|
|-Peninsular Malaysia||Present||Muda, 1985|
|Pakistan||Present||Baloch,1976; Champ & Dyte,1977; Ahmed et al., 1992|
|Philippines||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Saudi Arabia||Present||Mostafa et al., 1981|
|Sri Lanka||Present||Ganesalingam and Krishnarajah, 1979|
|Taiwan||Present||Hung & Hwang,1992; Yao, 1992; Peng, 1984; Lo, 1986|
|Algeria||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Botswana||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Egypt||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Ethiopia||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Gambia||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Kenya||Present||Champ & Dyte,1977; De-Lima, 1978; De-Lima, 1979|
|Libya||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Mozambique||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Namibia||Present||Stejskal et al., 2006|
|Nigeria||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Senegal||Present||Seck, 1991a; Seck, 1991b; Seck, 1991c; Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Somalia||Widespread||Abukar et al., 1986; Lavigne, 1991|
|South Africa||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Zambia||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977; Hindmarsh and MacDonald, 1980|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Giga and Katerere, 1986; Giga et al., 1991|
|Mexico||Present||Tigar et al., 1994|
|USA||Present||Storey et al., 1983|
|-Florida||Present||Vick et al., 1987|
|-Georgia||Present||Arbogast and Mullen, 1987; Arbogast and Mullen, 1988|
|-Kentucky||Present||Weston et al., 1993|
|-South Carolina||Present||Arbogast, 2005|
|-Texas||Present||Cogburn and Vick, 1981|
Central America and Caribbean
|Dominican Republic||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Argentina||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Brazil||Present||Da-Cruz, 1980; Rebelles-Reis, 1989|
|-Maranhao||Present||Das-Chagas et al., 1982|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||De-Oliveira et al., 1990|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||Da-Cruz, 1980|
|Colombia||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Guyana||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977; Rambajan, 1981|
|Paraguay||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Austria||Present||Faber, 1978; Faber, 1982|
|Croatia||Present||Manojlovic, 1987; Kalinovic et al., 1990|
|Cyprus||Widespread||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Greece||Present||Buchelos, 1980; Levinson and Buchelos, 1981|
|Italy||Present||Trematerra and Gentile, 2002|
|Netherlands||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Russian Federation||Present||Vechtomova, 1983|
|-Russia (Europe)||Present||Vechtomova, 1983|
|Spain||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Switzerland||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977|
|Ukraine||Present||Ustinov et al., 1986|
|Australia||Present||Champ and Dyte, 1977; Greening, 1979; Goodyer, 1982|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page S. cerealella is a quarantine pest in Germany (Wohlgemuth and Reichmuth, 1983), but is not listed as a quarantine pest by EPPO (Smith et al., 1992).
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page S. cerealella is a pest of stored products (grains). Some varieties are resistant to attack by this moth; varietal resistance in rice has been the subject of much research.
S. cerealella has also been found to infest stored spices, bell pepper (Capsicum annuum), coriander (Coriandrum sativum), black pepper (Piper nigrum), ginger (Zingiber officinale), turmeric (Curcuma longa) (Padwal-Desai et al., 1987) and the weed Echinochloa colonum (Dakshinamurthy and Regupathy, 1988), although there are fewer documented cases of this.
Plants are attacked at a postharvest stage, although some are also attacked at the fruiting stage.
Dakshinamurthy and Regupathy (1988) studied the infestation of various food plants by S. cerealella in Tamil Nadu, India, in order to determine possible sources of infestation for the next rice crop. S. cerealella was found to infest rice, sorghum, maize, pearl millet and the weed E. colonum.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Avena sativa (oats)||Poaceae||Main|
|Hordeum vulgare (barley)||Poaceae||Main|
|Oryza (rice (generic level))||Poaceae||Main|
|Oryza sativa (rice)||Poaceae||Main|
|Pennisetum (feather grass)||Poaceae||Main|
|Pennisetum glaucum (pearl millet)||Poaceae||Main|
|Secale cereale (rye)||Poaceae||Main|
|Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)||Poaceae||Main|
|Triticum aestivum (wheat)||Poaceae||Main|
|Triticum spelta (spelt)||Poaceae||Main|
|Zea mays (maize)||Poaceae||Main|
|Zizania palustris (northern wild rice (USA))||Poaceae||Main|
Growth StagesTop of page Fruiting stage, Post-harvest
SymptomsTop of page Larval infestation initially leaves no visible symptoms on the grains because larval development occurs within a single grain. Before pupation, the larva constructs a chamber just below the grain seed coat, forming a small, circular, translucent 'window'.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Seeds / internal feeding|
Biology and EcologyTop of page Infestations of S. cerealella occur during storage, or preharvest (Howlander and Matin, 1988) or postharvest (Seck, 1991a). In the field, S. cerealella is able to attack whole (undamaged) grains (Evans, 1987), which poses a greater problem in tropical and subtropical countries than elsewhere (ARS, USDA, 1978).
There are about five generations per year in southern Europe, but in warmer climates S. cerealella is continuously brooded with up to 12 generations per year. In temperate countries, it overwinters in the larval stage in stored grain kernels or in scattered wheat in litter, straw piles or baled straw.
The eggs are laid at night on the outside of cereal grains, in cracks, grooves or holes made by other insects (Hammad et al., 1967). Eggs are laid singly or in clumps; the number laid is variable. The adult lifespan may be up to 15 days (Mondragon and Almeida, 1988) and one female may lay up to 200 eggs (Dobie et al., 1984) although 40 is a more average number (ARS, USDA, 1978).
Larvae bore into the grain after hatching, entering sorghum kernels primarily in the germ end and its periphery (Wongo, 1990). Larvae complete their development in a single grain; two or three larvae may develop in single grains of maize, but only one adult is produced from single grains of other hosts (Cox and Bell, 1981).
The rate of development is dependent on temperature. Mondragon and Almeida (1988) found that development was favoured at 25°C, and that at this temperature, with 70±2% RH and a diet of maize, the mean period of development for the larval stage was 29.4 days. Although larvae will hatch at temperatures down to 12°C and up to 36°C (Cox and Bell, 1981), 16°C and 30% RH are cited as the minimum conditions for population increases (Evans, 1987) and the upper temperature limit is 35°C (Dobie et al., 1984). Humidity in the range 50-90% RH has little effect on the development rate (Boldt, 1974).
The nature of the host may also affect the rate of larval development, with development times of 20 days reported for wheat (Cocurt X-71) and 22.4 days for barley (Cleaper) (Mahdi et al., 1988). Even under laboratory conditions, there may be wide variation in life cycles, with adults emerging after 20 to 90 days (Grinberg and Palii, 1981).
Before pupation, the larva extends the anterior of its chamber to just beneath the surface of the grain, forming a small circular 'window' of translucent seed coat, which is the first visible sign of infestation. Mondragon and Almeida (1988) recorded an average pupal stage of 10.4 days, but this may be as short as 5 days (Dobie et al., 1984). In very small grains (e.g. some sorghum grains), pupation may occur between two or more grains held together by the silken threads of a thin cocoon.
The newly emerged adult pushes through the window of the seed coat, leaving a small, but characteristic, round hole, usually in the crown end of the grain (Wongo, 1990). Part of the window often remains at the edge of the hole in the form of a 'trapdoor' or shallow cone. At 30°C and 80% RH, the complete life cycle can take as little as 25 to 28 days, although at 25°C, the total life cycle was found to last 48.6 days (Mondragon and Almeida, 1988). Under optimal conditions, the estimated intrinsic rate of increase of the population is 50 times per lunar month.
The effect of different rearing temperatures (21, 24, 27 and 30°C) at 65% RH and different relative humidities (30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90%) at 26°C on the biology of S. cerealella reared on wheat grains was investigated in Egypt. The duration of the egg stage, preoviposition, oviposition and postoviposition periods, and adult lifespan was negatively correlated with temperature. The highest number of eggs were laid at 27°C (155/female).
Adults are strong fliers and cross-infestation occurs easily. However, they are also delicate and cannot penetrate far into closely packed grain. Because the larvae also stay in the same grain throughout their development, infestations in bulk grain are usually confined to the outermost exposed layers.
In temperate countries, the pest overwinters mainly in the larval form in stored grain kernels or in scattered wheat in litter, straw piles or baled straw. In the USA, the adults emerge in May (ARS, USDA, 1978).
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki||Pathogen|
|Bacillus thuringiensis thuringiensis||Pathogen|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page S. cerealella larvae are parasitized by the hymenopteran Pteromalus cerealellae. Bracon hebetor has also been reported to parasitize larvae in the former USSR (Astanov, 1980) and Saudi Arabia (Mostafa et al., 1981).
Trichogramma spp. have been reported to parasitize eggs in the former USSR (Zil'berg and Filipchuk, 1976) and Poland (Olszak and Bakowski, 1976). Blattisocius tarsalis is a predatory mite of the eggs.
S. cerealella is widely used in the former USSR to rear Trichogramma spp. for the biological control of other lepidopteran pests.
Sitophilus spp. and Rhyzopertha dominica compete with S. cerealella populations, although the weight loss caused by S. cerealella combined with these may be greater than that due to S. cerealella alone (Irsad and Talpur, 1993).
Cotesia ruficrus, found in Mythimna separata, may also have potential as a biological control agent of S. cerealella (Mundiwale et al., 1984) but has not yet been recorded in the field.
For further information on natural enemies of S. cerealella, see Haines (1998) and Schöller (1998).
ImpactTop of page Introduction
According to Schulten (1973) there are two kinds of factors implicated in the onset and spread of infestation by S. cerealella: (1) conditions in the field; and (2) conditions during storage.
S. cerealella is a major pest of stored grains, causing weight loss to grains by hollowing them out. Its impact is greater in the tropics and subtropics where it attacks grain in the field as well as in storage. In the tropics, cereal and leguminous grains need continual protection against insect attack at all stages from the growing plant in the field up to the time of consumption, since field-to-storage infestation is common by stored grain insects such as S. cerealella and Sitophilus oryzae (on growing and stored rice), Sitophilus zeamais (on growing and stored maize), Rhyzopertha dominica (on growing and stored wheat and other cereals) and Callosobruchus maculatus (on growing and stored cowpeas). Inadequate storage methods immediately after harvest and before processing add to the problem, and infestation continues to increase during processing, transportation and long-term or seasonal storage, causing an estimated overall yield loss of up to 30% (Singh and Benazet, 1975).
Weight loss may be negligible at infestations below 5% (Omar and Kamel, 1980) and rises in proportion to the degree of infestation and to time.
S. cerealella is often found alongside other pests, with which it may act synergistically. For example, in laboratory trials in Pakistan, S. cerealella was found to cause greater weight loss of wheat grains in combined rearings with R. dominica (2.57% loss), than in single rearings of S. cerealella alone (1.69%) (Irshad and Talpur, 1993). In Tanzania, a complex of pests was responsible for dry weight loss of 31.8% for maize cobs and 7.85% for grains after 9 months of storage (Henckes, 1992).
Larvae of S. cerealella, Plodia interpunctella and Ephestia have been recorded feeding on developing sorghum grains in India, causing considerable damage (Agarwal and Nadkarni, 1974). Also in India, field infestation of various food plants by Sitotroga was studied to determine possible sources of re-infestation of the next rice crop (Dakshinamurthy and Regupathy, 1988). The pest was found to infest rice, sorghum, maize, pearl millet and the weed Echinochloa colonum. Adult emergence was highest on pearl millet (26-32 adults/panicle), followed by sorghum (18-20) and maize (6-12). Losses due to pests (including S. cerealella) in the Sudan were found to range between 2.5 and 7.6% (Seifelnasr, 1992).
The structural components and physical characteristics of sorghum kernels as factors of resistance were studied by Wongo (1990). In laboratory studies, unthreshed sorghum was more suitable than threshed sorghum for the development of Sitotroga (Wongo and Pedersen, 1990). Percentage weight loss estimates were 0.44 (apparent) or 0.51 (real) for large grains and 0.60 (apparent) or 0.70 (real) for small grains (Shazali, 1987).
S. cerealella causes a considerable amount of damage to unhusked stored rice in Bangladesh. The studies reported by Shahjahan (1974) showed that 3-12% of rice kernels are attacked over a period of 6-9 months. This causes a total weight loss varying from 4.2 to 11.9%. In the same country during 4 months of infestation, S. cerealella caused 4-5% weight loss in husked rice and 1% in unhusked rice (Bhuiyah et al., 1992). This is similar to losses reported from Malaysia, where losses due to insects (including Sitotroga) were estimated at 3-7 and 5-14% in paddy and milled rice, respectively (Muda, 1985) and to reports from Thailand, where losses ranged from 1-25% (Sukprakam, 1985).
Insect species (including S. cerealella) and population densities in stored japonica rice in Taiwan were reported by Yao and Lo (1992). Stored rice (unhusked) samples drawn from India were found infested with S. cerealella to the extent of 88%, R. dominica (76.38%), S. oryzae (69%), Tribolium confusum (13.88%) and Oryzaephilus surinamensis (2.78%). Seed germination was also affected (to a maximum of 71.88%) and the average weight loss in storage was in the range 1.09-3.10% (Thakur and Sharma, 1996).
In laboratory studies, the effect of S. cerealella attack on stored grain of 9 rice genotypes was evaluated by Ferreira et al. (1997). After 14 months, the percentage of infested seeds and weight loss ranged from 10.5-61.5% and 5.5-26.1%, respectively. Genotype and level of infestation had significant effects on seed germination.
Grain from commercially grown varieties of rice from the USA, France and the Philippines showed significantly different levels of infestibility (Russell, 1976). In India, the resistance of 20 varieties was evaluated (Chatterji et al., 1977). The data showed that insect infestation and subsequent weight loss increased with the moisture content during storage. Varieties with a low protein content or a strong odour were the most resistant. Upadhyay et al. (1979) reported a study carried out on the relative resistance of grains of 12 rice varieties grown in the same country; a correlation was found between numbers of damaged seeds and percentage weight loss. In tests undertaken by Pandey et al. (1980) at Kanpur on 10 different rice varieties, the results indicated that none of the varieties was completely immune to Sitotroga.
In the USA, losses caused by S. cerealella, S. oryzae and R. dominica in 6 commercial varieties of rough rice were assessed as weight loss of rough rice, loss of milling yield, and loss of monetary value (Cogburn, 1977). Over three insect generations, damage attributable to S. cerealella or R. dominica was approximately equal; S. oryzae caused the least damage.
In Bangladesh, the populations of S. cerealella, S. oryzae and R. dominica in stored rice, and the percentage weight loss due to infestation by each species was studied over a 12-month period (Rubbi and Begum, 1986). The population of S. cerealella was highest, followed by S. oryzae and then R. dominica, and the percentage loss in weight of the rice followed the same order.
Resistance to S. cerealella was also assessed in 38 genotypes by Irshad et al. (1989); Wu (1990) reported that of 38 hybrid rice combinations evaluated, one was resistant and 8 were moderately resistant. Medina and Heinrichs (1986) reported that the susceptibility indices and grain weight loss differed significantly among varieties. According to Ragumoorthy and Gunathilagaraj (1988), in general resistant varieties had thick husks, low alkali values, coarse grain, higher 100-grain weight, and high silica, total protein and total amylose contents compared with less resistant ones.
In Malawi, infestation by S. cerealella, S. zeamais and S. oryzae began in the field and built up slowly in stored maize. After the onset of the rains, Sitotroga populations decreased and Sitophilus populations increased rapidly. Considerable differences were observed in susceptibility between maize varieties, varying from 10% damage in local varieties to 70-90% in varieties with soft grains and poor husk cover, after storage for 9 months (Schulten, 1975).
Also in Malawi, the high-protein opaque varieties (except for those that had been selected for kernel hardness from kernels rejected by ovipositing females of S. zeamais) were found to be much more susceptible than the more common varieties (Dobie, 1975). Again in Malawi, when the traditional stores were plastered with mud to minimise moisture uptake during the rainy season, this treatment resulted in less than 6% loss of grain weight over the 10 months of the experiment, compared with 19-28% for untreated stores (Golob and Muwalo, 1984).
In southern Somalia, average post-harvest losses to maize caused by stored-grain insects were reported as weight losses of 24.35-31.85% for cobs and 2-4% in individual grains (Abukar et al., 1986). Losses of stored subsistence maize due to insects in Kenya have been estimated at 4.54% (De-Lima, 1979).
Losses in storage in Zimbabwe were mainly caused by S. cerealella and S. zeamais (Giga and Katerere, 1986). Damage and losses in untreated and pesticide-treated maize stored on-farm were estimated by Giga et al. (1991). After 8 months, damage to untreated grain and grain treated with malathion, pirimiphos-methyl and methacrifos was 76, 36, 17 and 10%, respectively, and the weight losses estimated were approximately 13, 6, 4 and 2%.
In Tanzania, the most important pests of cobs were species of Sitophilus, followed by Prostephanus truncatus, Tribolium castaneum, S. cerealella and species of Carpophilus (Henckes, 1992). The most damage to shelled maize grains was caused by species of Sitophilus, followed by S. cerealella and T. castaneum, while the greatest grain losses were caused by species of Sitophilus, T. castaneum, S. cerealella and species of Carpophilus.
The susceptibility of grain of 11 maize varieties to attack by S. cerealella was determined in laboratory studies in India (Singh and Pandey, 1975). Highly significant positive relations were found between insect populations, percentage damage and grain weight loss. According to Khare et al. (1974) the loss in protein content in damaged grain varied from 8.76 to 50.85 mg/g.
In Brazil, tests to compare various chemical treatments as measures to protect stored maize in the husk from attack by S. cerealella and S. zeamais were carried out in Sao Paulo by Bitran et al. (1976, 1979). At the start of the test, about 1-2% of the grains were infested by these two species. By the end of the 10 month test period, these percentages were 3.03 and 29.38, respectively, in untreated maize. A significant correlation was found between the percentage weight loss of maize and the level of infestation by S. cerealella and S. zeamais. The effect of damage by one generation of S. cerealella on the weight, germination and humidity of maize grain was evaluated by Almeida and Murta (1995). Infestation resulted in 13.21% weight loss of grain. The percentage of grains germinating normally was significantly reduced, and abnormal germination and ungerminated grains were significantly increased following infestation.
The studies reported by Tigar et al. (1994) showed that the most numerous and most damaging primary pests in Mexico were S. zeamais, S. cerealella and P. truncatus.
In laboratory studies of resistance to S. cerealella in 15 varieties of maize, the contents of protein, sugars, starch, ash and oil in healthy maize grains were not correlated with a growth index for the pest and the loss in weight of the grains (Pandey and Pandey, 1983). Sinha and Sinha (1992) examined the impact of stored grain pests on seed deterioration and aflatoxin contamination in maize.
The resistance of 84 inbred lines of maize to S. cerealella was evaluated in the laboratory by Acharyulu and Chaudhary (1992).
In India, stored wheat had weight losses of 2.5% (Bhardwaj et al., 1977). A field survey was carried out in 12 districts of Haryana, India. The species recorded during the survey were S. oryzae, R. dominica, T. granarium, T. castaneum, Ephestia cautella, S. cerealella, Corcyra cephalonica and O. surinamensis. During 6 months of storage, a 2.03% weight loss was recorded by Dharam-Singh and Yadav (1995).
In Egypt, the relationship between total infestation and external infestation, weight loss, the number of insect fragments in milled grain and the moisture content of the kernels were investigated in local varieties of wheat, millet and maize in storage (Omar and Kamel, 1980). Weight loss was negligible unless infestation exceeded 5%.
Fifteen wheat varieties were tested for their susceptibility to S. cerealella during storage. None of the varieties tested were completely resistant to attack but their susceptibility varied considerably (Tirmzy et al., 1989). Similar results were recorded by Khattak et al. (1996). A study on the relationship of infestation of the Angoumois grain moth to wheat cultivars was reported by Wu and Duan (1998).
Observations on the combined infestation and losses caused by S. cerealella, R. dominica and T. castaneum in wheat grain have been conducted under laboratory conditions (Iqbal et al., 1988; Irshad and Talpur, 1993). Loss in weight of the grains was greater in combined rearings of S. cerealella and R. dominica (2.57%) and R. dominica and T. castaneum (2.25%), than in single rearings of R. dominica and S. cerealella (2.15 and 1.69%, respectively).
The effects of four barley cultivars on the fecundity, adult emergence and sex ratio of S. cerealella were observed in laboratory studies undertaken in Bulgaria (Germanov and Barov, 1981).
In India, a survey of the losses of grain that occurred during storage, due to insect pests including S. cerealella, S. oryzae, R. dominica, T. castaneum, O. surinamensis, T. granarium and E. cautella is reported by Girish et al. (1974). The loss in weight after storage for six months varied from 0.06 to 9.7%, and the loss in viability from 7.0 to 22.0%.
Stored wheat of 10 varieties was assessed for susceptibility to S. cerealella in Pakistan (Khattak and Shafique, 1981). Resistance was studied in 8 varieties by Gillani and Irshad (1990), while 15 hybrids were tested by Wu (1991). None of the varieties was completely immune to infestation by this pest, but susceptibility varied significantly.
According to Pandey and Pandey (1978), contents of protein, total and reducing sugars, starch, ash and oil of damaged grain of 15 varieties and on losses caused by S. cerealella indicated that the chemical constituents of the grain were not related to losses. It is thought that the losses in the different varieties may be related to the combined effects of the chemical and physical properties of the grain.
Role in Rearing Biological Control Agents
The eggs of S. cerealella have been used extensively to rear the predatory chrysopid Ceraeochrysa cubana (Vargas-Serrano et al., 1988) and species of Trichogramma (Ashraf et al., 1993) for biologica1 control of other pests.
In studies reported by Bichao and Araujo (1989), the total quantity of eggs of S. cerealella required to complete larval development in the predator Chrysoperla carnea, and the portions consumed in each larval instar, were determined, together with larval densities in standard mass-rearing containers.
Detection and InspectionTop of page S. cerealella larvae complete their development inside a single grain; damage is therefore not visible externally until the late stages of the infestation when translucent windows appear in the grain as the larva carves out a chamber beneath the surface of the grain.
Food-bait traps have proved the most effective method of detecting pests of stored-food products in the Ukrainian SSR (Ustinov et al., 1986). Adult males can be also detected using sticky traps baited with synthetic, female sex-attractant (Vick et al., 1979). Detection using X-ray imaging (Keagy and Schatzki, 1991) and sound detection (Vick et al., 1988) has also been investigated.
S. cerealella can be readily trapped by Z,E-7-11-hexadecadien-1-yl acetate (or HDA). Cogburn and Vick (1981) monitored the distribution of S. cerealella in rice fields and rice stores in Texas, USA, using pheromone-baited adhesive traps. The use of pheromones in monitoring S. cerealella adults has been reported in flour mills (Buchelos, 1980; Levinson and Buchelos, 1981) and in storage and field situations (Vick et al., 1987). Stockel and Sureau (1981) determined the optimum dose of pheromone for sex trapping applications in maize. Majumder and Singh (1989) studied the factors affecting the efficiency of sticky traps for capture of S. cerealella.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page The seed damage caused by S. cerealella is similar to that caused by the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae. They can be distinguished by the form of the adult emergence holes on the infested seeds and the presence of adult feeding damage by S. oryzae.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Standard insecticide and fumigation treatments are usually effective against S. cerealella. The choice of insecticide applied depends on the length of storage and the relative safety of the compound to the applicators, the consumer and the environment.
Phoxim and pirimiphos-methyl were found to give protection against S. cerealella in bagged rice for up to 6 months during trials in Guyana (Rai and Croal, 1973).
Methacrifos was compared with malathion for the protection of maize stored in the husk against S. cerealella and Sitophilus zeamais in Brazil (Bitran et al., 1980). The best results were obtained with a combination of fumigation (with phosphine) and treatment with methacrifos. In further studies on the use of decamethrin against S. cerealella and S. zeamais, fumigation followed by treatment with deltamethrin afforded the best protection. Deltamethrin was superior to malathion when the cobs were not also fumigated. A significant correlation was found between the weight loss of maize and the level of infestation by the two pests.
Fenvalerate and malathion have been found to be effective against S. cerealella on rice in India (Dakshinamurthy and Regupathay, 1992). Deltamethrin and permethrin are also reported to give good levels of protection against a number of stored-grain pests including S. cerealella (Hung et al., 1990). Repeated sprayings of carbaryl dust and tetrachlorvinphos have been used to control S. cerealella in Bangladesh (Bhuiyah et al., 1992). Fenoxycarb prevents reproduction of S. cerealella (Cogburn, 1988).
However, S. cerealella appears to have developed some resistance to malathion and phoxim in Taiwan (Kao and Tzeng, 1992). Weaving (1981) found that fenitrothion, fenthion and pirimiphos-methyl did not give satisfactory control of S. cerealella in Zimbabwe (Weaving, 1981).
A number of natural products have also been used to control S. cerealella. These include biogas derived from cattle manure (Jin and Pan, 1983), consisting of 60% methane, 30-35% carbon dioxide and traces of other gases (Palaniswamy and Dakshinamurthy, 1986). Dried leaves of wild sage (Lippia geminata) have also been found to be an effective repellent against S. cerealella for rice stored in India for up to 9 months (Prakash and Rao, 1984).
Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods
In Malawi, plastering stores with mud to reduce water uptake was effective, resulting in less than 6% loss in grain weight over 10 months, compared with 19-28% without treatment (Golob and Mulawo, 1984). Periodic inspection and removal of any infestations is also recommended.
Hermetic storage at low humidity (12% or less) gave excellent control of insect pests including S. cerealella in maize and sorghum grain without the need for chemical treatment for up to 8 months and without adversely affecting germination and vigour; grain stored in this way was suitable for seed.
The influence of planting date, harvest date, and maize hybrid on preharvest infestation of maize was investigated by Weston (1994). Late planting and early harvest are potentially useful methods for averting pre-harvest infestation of maize by Sitotroga.
Results from the USA indicate that early planting of maize or leaving it in the field after drying increase the chances of infestation (Weston et al., 1993). A weak correlation has been found between moisture content and infestation, which suggests that storing grain in a dry place can reduce the chances of infestation. Strangely, Weson et al. (1993) also found that grains with a moisture content of more than 31% were virtually uninfested by S. cerealella.
Hermetic storage at low humidity also gives good levels of control (Mantovani et al., 1986), especially when combined with low levels of phosphine (De-Lima, 1984). Polythene sacks are the most effective container (Hsieh et al., 1985). Some more technological approaches have been the use of microwave heating and partial vacuum which was shown to be effective in a laboratory study (Tilton and Vardell, 1982) and irradiation with gamma-radiation (Huque, 1972).
Varietal resistance is also important for some crops (e.g. Chellappa and Chelliah, 1976; Dhawaliwal et al., 1989).
ReferencesTop of page
Abukar MM; Burgio G; Tremblay E, 1986. Evaluation of post-harvest losses caused by insects to maize in three districts of southern Somalia. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria "Filippo Silvestri", 43:51-58
Adler C, 1998. Protection of stored products with nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Mitt. Biol. Bundesanst. Land-Forstwirtsch., 342:277-293.
Agricultural Research Service United States Department of Agriculture, 1978. Stored-grain insects, Agriculture Handbook No. 500. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service.
Almeida AAde; Murta RCC, 1995. Variations in weight, germination and humidity of maize grain, caused by one generation of Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier, 1819) (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 39(1):95-102; 15 ref.
Arbogast RT; Mullen MA, 1987. Dynamics of Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) populations in a small bulk of stored corn. Researches on Population Ecology, 29(1):1-15
Ayertey JN, 1979. The growth of single and mixed laboratory populations of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky and Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) on stored maize. Researches on Population Ecology, 21(1):1-11
Barney RJ; Weston PA, 1994. Grain storage in a small-farm ecosystem: Angoumois grain moth movement and management. Proc. 6th Int. Work. Conf. Stored-product Prot., Canberra, 1:383-384.
Bichao MH; Araujo J, 1989. Mass-rearing of Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae) larvae: optimization of rearing unit yield. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia, 113:117-124
Bitran EA; Campos TB; Oliveira DA; Araujo JBM, 1976. Test on the protection of stored maize in the husk, in relation to attack by Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky, 1855 and Sitotroga cerealella (Oliver, 1819). Arquivos do Instituto Biologico, 43(1/2):57-63
Bitran EA; Campos TB; Oliveira DA; Araujo JBM, 1979. Experiment on the protection of maize stored in cribs by the use of malathion and pirimiphos-methyl applied alone or in conjunction with fumigation. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 8(1):29-38
Bitran EA; Campos TB; Oliveira DA; Araujo JBM, 1981. Experimental evaluation of the action of the pyrethroid decamethrin in the treatment and conservation of unhusked maize in cribs. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 10(1):105-117
Cogburn RR; Vick KW, 1981. Distribution of Angoumois grain moth, almond moth, and Indian meal moth in rice fields and rice storages in Texas as indicated by pheromone-baited adhesive traps. Environmental Entomology, 10(6):1003-1007
Cox PD; Bell CH, 1981. A Review of the Biology of Moth Pests on Stored Products. Slough, UK: ADAS.
Da-Cruz FZ, 1980. Chaves para identificacao de alguns microlepidopteros que danificam produtos agricolas armazenados, com base nos caracteres da genitalia. Agronomia Sulriograndense, 16:347-361.
Dakshinamurthy A; Regupathy A, 1992. Pre-harvest spray of insecticides for the management of Sitotroga cerealella Olivier on rice. Bioecology and control of insect pests: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Growth, Development & Control Technology of Insect Pests [edited by Goel, S. C.] Muzaffarnagar, India; Uttar Pradesh Zoological Society, 218-224
Das-Chagas EF; Coelho IP; Rodrigues FJO, 1982. Insetos nocivos do Maranhao. 1. Entomofauna de produtos alimenticios armazenados. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 11:221-226.
De-Lima CPF, 1979. The assessment of losses due to insects and rodents in maize stored for subsistence in Kenya. Tropical Stored Products Information, 38:21-26.
De-Oliveira JV; Loeck AE; Dutra JLV, 1990. Levantamento dos insetos que ocorrem em arroz armazenado no Rio Grande do Sul. Lavoura Arrozeira, 43:3-4.
Dhaliwal HS; Deol GS; Randhawa AS, 1989. A new technique for large scale screening of wheat varieties against Angoumois grain moth, Sitotroga cerealella Oliver (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera). Indian Journal of Entomology, 51(1):94-95
Dharam-Singh; Yadav TD, 1995. Studies on the incidence of insect pests, practices and losses in stored wheat in Haryana. Indian Journal of Entomology, 57:107-115.
Dobie P, 1975. The susceptibility of different types of maize to post-harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais and Sitotroga cerealella, and the importance of this factor at the small-scale farm level. Brady, E. U.; Brower, J. H.; Hunter, P. E.; Jay, E. G.; Lum, P. T. M.; Lund, H. O.; Mullen, M. A.; Davis, R. (Organisers): Proceedings of the First International Working Conference on Stored-Product Entomology, Savannah, Georgia, USA, October 7-11, 1974. Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory, ARS, USDA & Department of Entomology, Georgia University. Savannah & Athens, Georgia USA, 98-113
Dobie P; Haines CP; Hodges RJ; Prevett PF; Rees DP, 1984. Insects and Arachnids of Tropical Stored Products: Their Biology and Identification. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Insitute.
El-Hassan Sharzali M; Reichmuth C, 1998. The relative toxicity of phosphine to eggs of the Angoumois grain moth Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and the almond moth Ephestia cautella (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Proc. 7th Intern. Work. Conf. Stored-product Prot., Beijing, 1:326-330.
El-Nahal AK; Ismail II; Kamel AH; Moustafa TS, 1978. Effect of temperature and relative humidity on the development of Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of Pest Control, September 30 - October 3, 1978. (Part I). Academy of Scientific Research and Technology and National Research Centre. Cairo Egypt, 148-155
Evans DE, 1987. Stored Products. In: Burn AJ, Coaker TH, Jepson PC, eds. Integrated Pest Management. London: Academic Press.
Ferreira E; Vieira NR; Castro E da M de, 1997. Intensity of the attack of Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) in rice genotypes and its effect on seedling emergence. International Rice Research Notes, 22:25.
Ganesalingam VK; Krishnarajah SR, 1979. Infestation of Sitotroga cerealella (Oliver) under field conditions and storages in northern Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science, Biological Sciences, 13(1/2):159-165
Germanov A; Barov V, 1981. Effect of four barley varieties on fertility, imago production and sex index in Sitotroga cerealella Oliv. Rasteniev"dni-Nauki, 18:149-155.
Girish GK; Tripathi BP; Tomer RPS; Krishnamurthy K, 1974. Studies on the assessment of losses. IV. Conventional grain storage practices and losses in rural areas in Uttar Pradesh. Bulletin of Grain Technology, 12(3):199-210
Greening HG, 1979. Observations on the occurrence of insect pests of stored grain in New South Wales. In: Evans DE, ed. Australian contributions to the symposium on the protection of grain against insect damage during storage, Moscow, 1978. Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Canberra Australia, 15-22
Haines CP, 1998. Arthropod natural enemies in stored product - overlooked and under-exploited. Proc. 7th Int. Work. Conf. Stored-product Prot., Beijing, 2:1205-1226.
Hammad SM; Shenouda MGH; El-Deeb AL, 1967. Studies on the biology of Sitotroga cerealella. Bulletin Societe Entomologique d'Egypte, 51:257-268.
Heinemann HV, 1870. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Zweite Abtheilung. Braunschweig (Heft) I.
Henckes C, 1992. Investigations into insect population dynamics, damage and loss of stored maize: an approach to IPM on small farms in Tanzania with special reference to Prostephanus truncatus (Horn). Thesis, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, Projekt fur Nacherntefragen (GTZ), Hamburg, Germany, xiv + 124 pp.
Jamir ITA; Ao MA; Khaund JN, 2008. Evaluation of storage structures against infestation of angoumois grain moth, Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) in stored paddy. Journal of Applied Zoological Researches, 19(2):187-192. http://www.azraindia.org
Jembere B; Obeng-Ofori D; Hassanali A; Nyamasyo GNN, 1995. Products derived from the leaves of Ocimum kilimandscharicum (Labiatae) as post-harvest grain protectants against the infestation of three major stored product insect pests. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 85(3):361-367; 13 ref.
Kao SS; Tzeng CC, 1992. A survey of the susceptibility of rice moth (Corcyra cephalonica) and Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella) to malathion and phoxim. Chinese Journal of Entomology, 12(4):239-245
Levinson HZ; Buchelos CT, 1981. Surveillance of storage moth species (Pyralidae, Gelechiidae) in a flour mill by adhesive traps with notes on the pheromone-mediated flight behaviour of male moths. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie, 92(3):233-251
Lima CPFDe, 1978. A study of the bionomics and control of Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) and Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier), and associated fauna in stored maize, under laboratory and field conditions in Kenya. A study of the bionomics and control of Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) and Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier), and associated fauna in stored maize, under laboratory and field conditions in Kenya. London University. UK, 240 pp.
Lima CPFde, 1984. Minimal fumigant requirements for long-term air-tight storage of grain. Controlled atmosphere and fumigation in grain storages. Proceedings of an international symposium 'Practical aspects of controlled atmosphere and fumigation in grain storages' held from 11 to 22 April 1983 in Perth, Western Australia [edited by Ripp, B.E.] Amsterdam, Netherlands; Elsevier, 665-671
Mahdi MT; El-Najjar SJT, 1988. The effect of certain varieties of wheat and barley on the biology of the laboratory reared first generation of Angoumois grain moth, Sitotroga cerealella Olivier (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 6(2):64-70
Manojlovic B, 1987. The influence of wheat and maize grain weight and number of larvae on the harmfulness, survival and fertility of the Angoumois grain moth Sitotroga cerealella Oliv. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Zastita Bilja, 38(3):207-224
Mondragon I; Almeida AA de, 1988. Influencia de dos temperaturas en el desarrollo de Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier, 1819) (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) en maiz almacenado. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 17:397-407.
Olivier M, 1789. Encyclopédie Méthodique, Tome quatrieme, Insectes. Paris.
Pande YD; Bimal Singh N, 1983. Relative host-preference of Sitotroga cerealella Olivier (Lepidoptera : Gelechiidae) for rice varieties during storage in Manipur. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 53(9):866-867
Pandey V; Pandey ND, 1978. Relation between the chemical constituents of damaged grains of maize varieties and losses caused by Sitotroga cerealella Oliver. Indian Journal of Entomology, 40(3):339-341
Peng WK, 1984. Population changes of stored-product insects in warehouses of bagged rice and the effect of phoxim treatment on the populations suppression. NTU Phytopathologist and Entomologist, No. 11:105-114
Rahman SMM; Gupta CP; Sidik M, 1995. Application of neem oil and Bacillus thuringiensis preparations to control insects in stored paddy. Proc. Symp. pest manag. stored food and feed, Bogor, 59:173-197.
Ramashrit S; Mishra SB, 1989. Insect pests of rice and paddy in storage and their control. Seeds and Farms, 15:16-19.
Rebelles-Reis P, 1989. Principais pragas do arroz de sequeiro. Informe Agropecuario Belo Horizonte, 14:44-58.
Saradamma K; Pillai KS; Das NM, 1973. Relative susceptibility of the rice variety 'Rohini' grown under different levels of nitrogen, to the storage pests. Agricultural Research Journal of Kerala, 11(2):182-183
Schulten GGM, 1973. Beginning and progression of maize infestation. Tropical Stored Products Information., 25:16-17.
Schöller M, 1998. Biological control of arthropod pests in stored product protection with predators and parasitoids - Review and bibliography. Mitt. Biol. Bundesanst. Land-Forstwirtsch., 342:85-189.
Seck D, 1991. Economic importance and development of an integrated control approach against insect pests of stores of maize, millet and cowpea in farming areas. Sahel PV Info, (33):15-20.
Seck D, 1991. Study of the initial infestation of Sitotroga cerealella Oliv. (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) as a function of the location of fields of millet, Pennisetum typhoides (L.) Leeke. Insect Science and its Application, 12(5-6):507-509
Shazali MEH, 1987. Weight loss caused by development of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) in sorghum grains of two size classes. Journal of Stored Products Research, 23(4):233-238
Singh K, 1979. Pre-harvest spray of malathion and DDVP for controlling the insect infestation of stored grains. International Pest Control, 21:66-67.
Singh KN; Agrawal RK; Srivastava PK, 1978. Infestation of grain moth Sitotroga cerealella Oliv. and maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Mots. on standing crops in the field. Bulletin of Grain Technology, 16(2):125-127
Singh LN; Pandey ND, 1975. Correlation studies between insect population, percentage of damage and loss in weight of maize varieties due to Rhizopertha dominica F. and Sitotroga cerealella Oliv. Indian Journal of Entomology, 37(3):239-242
Singh SR; Benazet J, 1975. Chemical intervention on all stages and on all scales of tropical storage practice. Brady, E. U.; Brower, J. H.; Hunter, P. E.; Jay, E. G.; Lum, P. T. M.; Lund, H. O.; Mullen, M. A.; Davis, R. (Organisers): Proceedings of the First International Working Conference on Stored-Product Entomology, Savannah, Georgia, USA, October 7-11, 1974. Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory, ARS, USDA & Department of Entomology, Georgia University. Savannah & Athens, Georgia USA, 41-46
Smith IM; McNamara DG; Scott PR; Harris KM(Editors), 1992. Quarantine pests for Europe: data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Communities and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Wallingford, UK; CAB International, ix + 1032 pp.
Stockel J, 1973. Variation in the reproductive power of males of Sitotroga cerealella Oliv. in relation to the order of emission and volume of the spermatophores (Lep. Gelechiidae). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France, 78(5/6):178-192
Stockel J; Sureau F, 1981. Monitoring for the Angoumois grain moth in corn. In: Mitchell ER, Ed. Management of Insects Pest with Semiochemicals. New York, USA: Plenum Press, 63-67.
Sundararaj R; Sundararajan R, 1990. Susceptibility of rice (Oryza sativa) to angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella) and its field incidence in Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 60(10):703-704
Suryoadikusumo DR, 1981. Preliminary study on pests of animal feed in central Java. Pests of stored products. Proceedings of BIOTROP Symposium on Pests of Stored Products, Bogor, Indonesia, 24-26 April 1978 BIOTROP Bogor Indonesia, 231-232
Tirmzy SH; Munshi GH; Abro GH, 1989. Relative susceptibility of different commercial wheat varieties to Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) during storage. Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoology, No. 9:255-258
Trematerra P; Gentile P, 2002. Stored insect pests in traditional cultivated hulled wheat crop areas of Central-Southern Italy with emphasis on Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier). Bulletin OILB/SROP [Proceedings of the IOBC/WPRS Working Group "Integrated Protection in Stored Products", Lisbon, Portugal, 3-5 September, 2001.], 25(3):27-32.
Vargas-Serrano C; Luque JE; Villaneuva A, 1988. Uso de dietas artificiales para la cria de larvas y adultos de Ceraeochrysa cubana (Hagen) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Agronomia Colombiana, 5:60-68.
Vick KW; Coffelt JA; Weaver WA, 1987. Presence of four species of stored-product moths in storage and field situations in north-central Florida as determined with sex pheromone-baited traps. Florida Entomologist, 70(4):488-492
Vick KW; Kvenberg J; Coffelt JA; Steward C, 1979. Investigation of sex pheromone traps for simultaneous detection of Indianmeal moths and Angoumois grain moths. Journal of Economic Entomology, 72(2):245-249
Weaver DK; Throne JE, 1994. Life history data for Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in farm-stored corn and the importance of sub-optimal environmental conditions in insect population modelling for bulk commodities. Proc. 6th Int. Work. Conf. Stored-product Prot., Canberra, 1:599-604.
Weaving AJS, 1981. Grain protectants for use under tribal storage conditions in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia). 3. Evaluation of admixtures with maize stored in traditional grain bins. Zimbabwe Journal of Agricultural Research, 19(2):205-224
Weston PA, 1994. Influence of planting date, harvest date, and maize (corn) hybrid on preharvest infestation of maize by Sitotroga cerealella. Proc. 6th Int. Work. Conf. Stored-product Prot., Canberra, 1:605-607.
Wohlgemuth R; Reichmuth C, 1983. Zusammenfassung der Erhebungen uber den Befall von Importgutern durch Vorratsschadlinge bei der Einfuhr in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland der Jahre 1975/76 bis 1979. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt fur Land und Forstwirtschaft, 212:1-156.
Wongo LE; Pedersen JR, 1990. Effect of threshing different sorghum cultivars on Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae and Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, 26(2):89-96
Wu JT, 1991. Evaluation of brown planthopper (BPH)- and whitebacked planthopper (WBPH)-resistant hybrid rices for resistance to Angoumois grain moth (AGM). International Rice Research Newsletter, 16(1):12
Wu JX; Duan YP, 1998. Study on relationship of infestation of the Angoumois grain moth, Sitotroga cerealella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) to wheat cultivars. Proc. 7th Intern. Work. Conf. Stored-product Prot., Beijing, 2:1354-1357.
Yoshida T, 1984. Historical change in the status of stored product insect pests especially in Japan. Proceedings of the Third International Working Conference on Stored-Product Entomology. October 23-28, 1983, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas USA Manhattan, Kansas, USA; Kansas State University, 655-668
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/