Viteus vitifoliae (grapevine phylloxera)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- 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
- Plant Trade
- Wood Packaging
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- 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
- Viteus vitifoliae (Fitch)
Preferred Common Name
- grapevine phylloxera
Other Scientific Names
- Dactylosphaera vastatrix (Planchon)
- Dactylosphaera vitifoliae (Shimer)
- Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch
- Daktylosphaera vitifoliae Fitch
- Pemphigus vitifoliae Fitch
- Peritymbia vastatrix Fitch
- Peritymbia vitifoliae (Planchon)
- Peritymbia vitisana Westwood
- Phylloxera pervastatrix Börner
- Phylloxera vastatrix (Planchon)
- Phylloxera vitifoliae (Fitch)
- Phylloxera vitifolii (Fitch)
- Rhizaphis vastatrix (Planchon)
- Viteus vastatrix (Planchon)
International Common Names
- English: grape leaf louse; grape phylloxera; phylloxera; vine louse
- Spanish: filoxera de la vid
- French: phylloxéra de la vigne; puceron galligène de la vigne
- Portuguese: filoxera da videira
Local Common Names
- Denmark: vindværglus
- Finland: viinikirva
- Germany: Reblaus; Wurzelreblaus
- Israel: phylokserat hagefen
- Italy: filossera della vite
- Japan: budo-hirokisera
- Netherlands: druifluis
- Norway: vinbladlus
- Turkey: bag flokserasi
- VITEVI (Viteus vitifoliae)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page Although the implacable spread of V. vitifoliae through European vineyards could in everyday language be regarded as 'invasive', it was actually quite slow, and technically only concerned a plant introduced as a monoculture outside its native range. There was no effect on native vegetation. A certain proportion of land formerly used for viticulture reverted to other uses or was lost to cultivation, but it is hard to separate this from the general decline of peasant farming in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Hemiptera
- Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
- Unknown: Aphidoidea
- Family: Phylloxeridae
- Genus: Viteus
- Species: Viteus vitifoliae
DescriptionTop of page Gallicolae form
Globular aphid, 1.6-1.8 mm long and 1-1.2 mm wide; cephalothorax widened and its dorsal face rounded off; abdomen tapers off and is slightly frayed posteriorly; antennae composed of three segments, the third one being the most developed and provided with a large primary latero-external sensorium; the processus terminalis is short and broad, little differentiated at its base, having a length which is one-third in excess of that of the third segment (dimension taken from the base of the sensorium to the tip of the antenna, excluding the apiales); dorsal cuticle is rough, but entirely free from tubercles. The rostrum reaches the femora of the foremost legs.
The eggs measure 300-330 x 160-170 µm.
The four larval stages have the same general external morphology as the adult. In the later stages, the width of the body increases more rapidly than the length, and the body thus becomes rounder in outline. Similarly, the size of the legs and antennae does not increase at the same rate as that of the body; they therefore appear smaller in the later stages. From the second stage onwards, the tubercles on the dorsal surface become more obvious.
General appearance similar to gallicolae form, but smaller, being about 1 mm in length. It is distinguished from gallicolae by the presence of tubercles on the dorsal surface - 12 on the head, 28 on the thorax and 30 on the abdomen. On the antenna, the processus terminalis is well differentiated and much finer than that of the gallicolae form.
DistributionTop of page V. vitifoliae is native to North America (probably the eastern part) and was introduced into other continents (South and Central America, Africa, Oceania) in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and it has continued to spread throughout the twentieth century. Its introduction into European vineyards in the 1860s led to extremely severe losses and was considered as a major disaster (Galet, 1977). The destruction was stopped by the grafting of European grapevine cultivars onto American rootstocks. Downie (2002) used molecular methods to show that introduced phylloxera represents only a limited sample of the natural genetic diversity of the insect, most introduced populations deriving from north-east USA where Vitis riparia dominates. In Europe, populations can be differentiated into distinct northern and southern clusters (Forneck et al., 2000).
A distribution map for V. vitifoliae can be found in CIE (1975) and 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|
|China||Restricted distribution||IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hunan||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Liaoning||Absent, formerly present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Shandong||Absent, formerly present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Shanghai||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Georgia (Republic of)||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|India||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Jammu and Kashmir||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Indonesia||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Kazakhstan||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, DPR||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Taiwan||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Turkey||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; Gözel and Gözel, 2014|
|Uzbekistan||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Algeria||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Morocco||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014|
|Tunisia||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Canada||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-British Columbia||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-New Mexico||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-New York||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Oregon||Present||Downie et al., 2001|
Central America and Caribbean
|Argentina||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Rio de Janeiro||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Santa Catarina||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Belgium||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Bulgaria||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Cyprus||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Estonia||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Finland||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Germany||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Greece||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Guernsey||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Hungary||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Latvia||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Moldova||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Montenegro||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands||Absent, confirmed by survey||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; EPPO, 2014||Absent, confirmed by survey, intercepted only. Based on long-term annual surveys.|
|Norway||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Poland||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014||EPPO Reporting Service No. 2011/196.|
|Portugal||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Russian Federation||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Southern Russia||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Serbia||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Balearic Islands||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|UK||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014|
|-England and Wales||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-New South Wales||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-South Australia||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014|
|-Victoria||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|New Zealand||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page V. vitifoliae has very limited capacity for natural spread if it remains more or less confined to the root system in the radicicolae form (as it does in Europe), and this is partly what ensured that the species did not very rapidly occupy all European vineyards. The radicicolae form is liable to be carried by international trade only on grapevine plants for planting and not on fruits.
V. vitifoliae is regulated by the European Union (EU, 2000) and by other EPPO countries (Belarus, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine). It is also recommended as a quarantine pest in several regions of the world: Asia, South America. It has been one of the classic targets for phytosanitary regulations, leading to the first international measures and agreements for phytosanitary purposes in Europe in the nineteenth century. However, the number of important viticultural regions which remain free from V. vitifoliae is now very limited. The pest occurs in practically all major wine-producing areas (Europe, California, South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand). Some countries in the Near East, tropical Asian countries and parts of China remain free of the pest. Within Europe, a few pest-free areas remain (Cyprus, parts of Greece, small areas in Czechoslovakia and Switzerland). In the UK, where many vineyards were planted in the 1980s, the pest has been introduced and is under eradication.
Once established, the insect is extremely difficult and costly to eradicate. As it spreads relatively slowly, there is probably a case for maintaining measures to protect remaining pest-free areas. On the other hand, schemes for certification of grapevine planting material provide a simple alternative means of ensuring that all traded grapevine planting material is free from V. vitifoliae.
A different problem is the introduction or appearance of possible new biotypes of the pest, presenting a threat to grapevine-growing countries. The establishment of new biotypes, which have overcome the resistance of certain rootstock cultivars, could lead to a dramatic change in the phytosanitary situation in European and Mediterranean vineyards. However, it is possible that even this problem can be solved by certification rather than by plant quarantine.
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page The principal economic hosts of V. vitifoliae are species of Vitis. There are large differences in tolerance or resistance between species: roots of V. vinifera are extremely susceptible to attack by the radicicolae (the root-feeding form), but the leaves are resistant, whereas the American species, V. riparia, withstands extensive galling of the leaves, but is resistant to root attack. V. riparia is therefore widely used in interspecific hybrid rootstock production. Other American species are resistant (V. rupestris, V. berlandieri [Vitis cinerea var. helleri]) or susceptible (V. labrusca, V. aestivalis) to this pest.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page V. vitifoliae damage can appear initially as a few dead or declining contiguous vines in a vineyard.
Small galls, about the size of half a pea, develop on the leaf surface, sometimes so numerous as to cover practically the entire leaf. The galls are open on the underside of the leaf. Although leaf galling by V. vitifoliae does not normally cause significant losses in grape production, severe infestations do cause considerable distortion and dropping of affected leaves late in the season.
Numerous knots or galls form on grapevine roots, with rotting of the roots, yellowing of the foliage and general decrease in vigour of the vines. Death of susceptible vines may result within 3-10 years.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / abnormal forms|
|Leaves / abnormal leaf fall|
|Roots / galls along length|
|Roots / reduced root system|
|Roots / swollen roots|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
The full life-cycle of V. vitifoliae on American grapevines is a complex alternation between an aerial, leaf-feeding form and the root-feeding form (gallicolae and radicicolae, respectively). However, V. vitifoliae can also persist parthenogenetically as the root-feeding form, without the leaf-feeding stage of the cycle. The occurrence or non-occurrence of the gallicolae form depends on several factors, including vine species, cultivar and environment (Stevenson and Jubb, 1976).
On American grapevine species, V. vitifoliae lives on the roots and leaves, and exhibits a full cycle of development with the presence of all forms of the aphid. This full life-cycle involves migration from the roots to the leaves and back to the roots, and also an alternation of parthenogenetic and sexual reproduction. On cultivars of the European grapevine (V. vinifera) grafted onto American rootstocks, the aphid normally infests only the underground parts of the plant and undergoes an incomplete cycle of seasonal development, with no change of feeding site. European grapevines grown on their own roots are so susceptible that plants are killed by radicicolae (except in very particular conditions, for example, in isolated places in France where vineyards are naturally flooded in winter).
The winter is passed as eggs attached to the grapevine stems (American grapevines) and in the form of first- and second-instar nymphs on the nodules or galls on vine roots (European grapevines). The survival of eggs on stems is dependent on temperature: optimal temperatures for survival are between 21 and 36°C (Granett and Timper, 1987).
In the full life-cycle, eggs on the stems hatch in spring, after the foliage has appeared, and the yellow gallicolae aphids developing from these eggs migrate to the leaves, where they begin feeding, so causing the formation of galls. As soon as the aphids mature, they lay 400-600 eggs inside each gall. Four to six generations of the gallicolae are usually produced. Individuals of the final generation of these leaf-inhabiting aphids drop to the ground and burrow beneath the soil to the roots, as deep as 1.2 m, where they can live for a number of parthenogenetic generations. Towards autumn, winged, sexuparous forms are produced on the grapevine roots; they leave the ground and fly to grapevine leaves. After 24 h, two kinds of eggs are laid; larger ones give rise to females and smaller ones to males. This sexual generation mates, producing the winter eggs, thus completing the life-cycle. Even very severe winter conditions do not kill the eggs.
On European cultivars of V. vinifera grafted onto American rootstocks, radicicolae become active, feeding on the roots, as soon as growth starts in the spring. They continue to multiply parthenogenetically through the summer. Sexuparous forms appear, but the gallicolous aphids do not normally develop on the leaves, and the aerial life-cycle is therefore not completed. Corrie et al. (2002) confirm that, in an equivalent situation in Australia, "the majority of vineyards are infested by functionally parthenogenetic lineages". Occasionally, galls do appear on V.vinifera leaves, according to cultivar, local conditions, possibly migration from naturalized American vine rootstocks. Insecticides can be used to control them.
V. vitifoliae can survive under virtually all climatic conditions tolerated by its host plant. It appears not to be influenced by temperature, rainfall or humidity within that range (de Klerk, 1974). In South Africa it has been shown to be influenced by soil type, with infestations decreasing as the percentage of fine and medium sand content of a soil increases. V. vitifoliae does not occur in soils with a medium to fine sand content of more than 65% (de Klerk, 1974). Development from egg to adult female takes about 22 days and the annual active reproductive period is 7.5 months.
Recently, Downie and Granett (1998) described another life-cycle variant in south-western USA, in which sexuparous forms appear directly on the leaf galls, and the root phase is absent.
In conclusion, it may be said that the survival of V. vitifoliae on a particular scion/rootstock combination, and the severity of symptoms on roots and leaves, depends on a complex interaction of the tolerance or resistance of the roots or leaves to the radicicolous or gallicolous forms, which varies further according to the strain of the pest and the variant of the life-cycle which it follows. These interactions are currently the subject of much research, stimulated by the apparent resurgence of V. vitifoliae as a pest in the 1990s (see, for example, Omer et al., 1999; Forneck et al., 2001; Granett et al. 2001a,b). For more information, see Dominguez Garcia-Tejero (1957), Maillet (1957), Rilling (1964), Daris (1970), Bovey (1972), Gorkavenko (1975) and Gorkavenko and Gorkavenko (1977).
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Little information is available on biological control of V. vitifoliae, but predators of eggs of the gallicolae form have been observed (Wheeler and Henry, 1978; Wheeler and Jubb, 1979).
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||adults; nymphs|
|Leaves||adults; eggs; nymphs||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Roots||adults; eggs; nymphs||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||adults; eggs; nymphs||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Wood PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Loose wood packing material|
|Processed or treated wood|
|Solid wood packing material with bark|
|Solid wood packing material without bark|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page V. vitifoliae is the most destructive pest of grapevines known in Europe and the western USA and has become an important pest of wine grapes in Pennsylvania. Within 25 years of its introduction into France from America (in about 1860) it had destroyed nearly one-third of the vineyards in the country - more than 100,000,000 ha - with incalculable economic and social consequences. This was because the European grapevine cultivars then grown were highly susceptible. The solution found was to replant with European cultivars grafted onto American rootstocks, a practice which is now almost universal wherever V. vitifoliae occurs. The pest still represents a serious threat to the few regions where susceptible grape cultivars are still cultivated on their own roots (rather than on resistant rootstocks). It is also more damaging in recently planted vineyards, and damage is less significant on vigorous vines over 10 years old. Leaf infestation is reported to have no economic effect on wine grapes, or on the quality and quantity of wine made from them (Strapazzon and Girolami, 1985b; Strapazzon et al., 1986). In California in the early 1980s, large populations of V. vitifoliae were detected in grapevines grafted on 'AxR#1' (a hybrid between V. vinifera and V. rupestris). The existence of a different biotype (biotype B), having a greater parasitic ability on this rootstock, was demonstrated (Granett et al., 1985). These susceptible vineyards had to be uprooted, fumigated and replanted at a cost of over US$500 million (Chiarappa and Buddenhagen, 1994). In general, rootstocks with no vinifera parentage have retained their resistance remarkably, for over 120 years (Grannet et al., 2001a). Problems are more likely on rootstocks like AXR#1, with vinifera, parentage, which are now best avoided. For more information, see Balachowsky and Mesnil (1935), Dominguez Garcia-Tejero (1957) and Rilling (1964).
Environmental ImpactTop of page V. vitifoliae is only a pest of viticulture, attacking species, especially Vitis vinifera, which have been widely planted outside their native range. Although it had the immediate effect of destroying vineyards, the areas concerned have in general been replanted with grapevines on resistant rootstocks, so there has been llittle long-term effect on land use.
Social ImpactTop of page V. vitifoliae had catastrophic social effects when it was first introduced into Europe. Numerous small vine growers lost their livelihood altogether, and flocked to the cities to join an increasing pool of unemployed labourers. Local politics were radicalized, strengthening socialist and communist support in the agricultural population.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Flooding of vineyards for several weeks can help in reducing pest populations (Torregrosa et al., 1997) and was classically used in the past.
Use of resistant rootstocks has been the main and most successful control measure for many decades. However, recent studies indicate that this practice might become less effective in future if new biotypes of V. vitifoliae develop (Williams and Shambaugh, 1988). In Italy, new biotypes have been reported to develop in several parts of the country, distinct from those which were originally introduced from the USA (Strapazzon and Girolami, 1985a). A combined German and New Zealand research project demonstrated differences in susceptibility of several rootstocks after inoculations with New Zealand and German populations of V. vitifoliae (King and Rilling, 1985), and in the USA research studies showed that certain populations of the pest overcame the resistance of even highly resistant cultivars (Granett et al., 1985). Naturalized rootstock species (e.g. V. riparia), escaped from cultivation, may support phylloxera populations of greater genetic diversity (Kocsis et al., 2002).
Chemical treatments can be used, but they rarely provide a total elimination of V. vitifoliae. In Russia, grapevine stocks were fumigated with hexachlorobutadiene (Litvinov et al., 1985b). In Japan, a hot-water treatment for rootstocks at 45°C for 20 min. has been reported to be effective.
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management approaches rely on a careful choice of resistant rootstocks (rootstocks which have V. vinifera parentage should be avoided, as virulent biotypes can be selected and may eventually damage these), certified material free from V. vitifoliae, possible chemical treatments and adequate water and fertilization management.
Grapevine-growing countries may require that the place of production of plants for planting, and cut branches, has been inspected and that V. vitifoliae has not been found during the last two growing seasons. It may be required that fruits for transporting be free from leaves.
ReferencesTop of page
Bovey R, 1972. La Défense des Plantes Cultivées. 6th edition. Payot, Switzerland, 177-180
Corrie AM, Crozier RH, Heeswijck Rvan, Hoffmann AA, 2002. Clonal reproduction and population genetic structure of grape phylloxera, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae, in Australia. Heredity, 88(3):203-211; 40 ref
Daris BT, 1970. Phylloxera as a pest of viticulture in Greece. PANS, 16:447-450
Dominguez Garcia-Tejero F, 1957. La filoxera. In: Dossat SA, ed. Plagas y Enfermedades de Las Plantas Cultivadas. Madrid, Spain, 776-789
Downie DA, Fisher JR, Granett J, 2001. Grapes, galls, and geography: the distribution of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA variation across host-plant species and regions in a specialist herbivore. Evolution, 55(7):1345-1362; many ref
EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
EU, 2000. Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 July 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of organisms harmful to plant or plant products. Official Journal of the European Communities, No L169, 1-112
Forneck A, Blaich R, Walker MA, 2000. Estimating the genetic diversity among European collections of grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) with AFLP-PCR markers. Acta Horticulturae, No. 528:531-534; 6 ref
Galet P, 1977. Les maladies et les parasites de la vigne. Montpellier, France: Paysan du Midi
Gorkavenko AS, 1975. Present state and future of vineyard protection against phylloxera in the USSR. VIII International Plant Protection Congress, Moscow, 1975. Vol. III. Papers at sessions V... VI... and VII... Moscow. USSR, 172-177
Granett J, Omer AD, Walker MA, 2001. Seasonal capacity of attached and detached vineyard roots to support grape phylloxera (Homoptera: Phylloxeridae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 94(1):138-144; 24 ref
Gözel Ç, Gözel U, 2014. The potential use of entomopathogenic nematodes against tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta (Lep: Gelechiidae) [Conference poster]. In: Proceedings, 4th ESENIAS Workshop: International Workshop on IAS in Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Areas in ESENIAS Region, Çanakkale, Turkey, 16-17 December 2013 [ed. by Uludag, A.\Trichkova, T.\Rat, M.\Tomov, R.]. Ankara, Turkey: Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 116
Maillet P, 1957. Phylloxéra et écologie. Vitis, 1:57-65
OEPP/EPPO, 1987. EPPO Standards PM 3/19. Fumigation of grapevine to control Daktulosphaira vitifoliae. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 18:337-339
Rilling G, 1964. Development potential of radicicolae and gallicolae eggs of Dactylosphaera vitifolii in relation to environmental factors. Vitis, 4:144-151
Strapazzon A, Girolami V, 1985. Aspects of phylloxera infestation (Viteus vitifolip (Fitch)) on European vines. Atti XIV Congresso Nazionale Italiano di Entomologia. Palermo - Erice - Bagheria, 28 maggio-1 giugno 1985. Palermo, Italy: Accademia Nazionale Italiano di Entomologia, 633-641
Torregrosa L, Viguier D, Vergnettes B, Planas R, 1997. Phylloxera (Daktylosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) et dépérissement du vignoble. Cas des parcelles audoises à la submersion. ProgrFs Agricole et Viticole, 114(10):223-231
Wheeler AG Jr, Jubb GL Jr, 1979. Scymnus cervicalis Mulsant, a predator of grape phylloxera, with notes on S. brullei Mulsant as a predator of woolly aphids on elm (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Coleopterists Bulletin, 33(2):199-204
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/