Thaumatotibia leucotreta (false codling moth (FCM))
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Plant Trade
- Impact
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- References
- Links to Websites
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick
Preferred Common Name
- false codling moth (FCM)
Other Scientific Names
- Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyrick
- Cryptophlebia roerigii Zacher
- Olethreutes leucotreta Meyrick
- Thaumatotibia roerigii Zacher
International Common Names
- English: citrus codling moth; orange codling moth; orange moth
- Spanish: palomilla de la naranja
- French: fausse carpocapse; teigne de l'oranger
- German: falschen Apfelwickler
EPPO code
- ARGPLE (Cryptophlebia leucotreta)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageT. leucotreta is endemic to sub-Saharan Africa and has shown itself to be an ineffective invader. It has only successfully established in two regions where it is not indigenous; these are the Western Cape of South Africa (Giliomee and Riedl, 1998; Hofmeyr et al., 2015) and Israel (Wysoki, 1986). Further confirming its poor dispersal and colonisation ability is the fact that it has not spread further in the Middle East than Israel, despite being established there for about 35 years. Furthermore, generally being a solitary infestor of fruit (unlike fruit flies) (Grout and Moore, 2015; Hatting et al., 2019), with the possible exception of pomegranates, mate finding and the consequent probability of establishment in a new environment is dramatically reduced.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Lepidoptera
- Family: Tortricidae
- Genus: Thaumatotibia
- Species: Thaumatotibia leucotreta
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageThis species was for a long time known as Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyrick, but Komai (1999) transferred the species to the genus Thaumatotibia.
Description
Top of pageDescribed in detail by Couilloud (1988), Williams (1953), Komai (1999), Gilligan et al. (2011) and EPPO (2019).
Eggs
Flattened, oval, diameter 0.9 mm.
Larva
When young, creamy-white with brown to black head capsule. The full-grown larva is 15-20 mm long, bright red or pink, head prothoracic plate and pinacula yellow-brown. Can be differentiated from certain other closely related species by the presence of an anal comb; an enlarged, but unsclerotized, L group pinaculum on the first thoracic segment, extending below the spiracle; and the latter with 3 setae.
Pupa
Contained within a tough silken cocoon amongst debris or in the upper layer of soil.
Adult
Strongly dimorphic: Male wingspan 15-16 mm, female 19-20 mm. In both sexes the forewing pattern consists of a mixture of grey, brown, black and orange-brown markings, the most conspicuous being a triangular marking in the outer part of the wing, against the hind margin, and a crescent shaped marking above it. The male is distinguished from all other species by its specialised hindwing, which is slightly reduced and has a circular pocket of fine hair-like black scales overlaid with broad weakly shining whitish scales in the anal angle. It also has a heavily tufted hind tibia.
Timm et al. (2007, 2008), Rentel (2013) and EPPO (2019) provide morphological and molecular keys to aid in the identification of economically important Tortricidae in South Africa, including T. leucotreta.
Distribution
Top of pageT. leucotreta has occasionally been recorded in Europe. However, these have been isolated recordings, where it has been imported with produce from Africa, rather than from established populations (Bradley et al., 1979; Karvonen, 1983; Knill-Jones, 1994; Langmaid, 1996; Huisman and Koster, 2000; Svensson, 2002). In 2009, an incursion of T. leucotreta was detected in the Netherlands on glasshouse Capsicum chinense, but was subsequently eradicated (EPPO, 2010; Potting and van der Straten, 2011).
Following the detection of a single adult male in a trap in Ventura County, California, USA, in 2008 (Gilligan et al., 2011), APHIS and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) conducted extensive surveys for T. leucotreta throughout the state. There have been no further detections of the pest in California, and the 2008 detection is considered an isolated regulatory incident. T. leucotreta is listed as a quarantine pest in the USA (NAPPO, 2016), the EU (European Union, 2017) and several other countries.
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe 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.
Last updated: 12 May 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Angola | Present | Native | |||||
Benin | Present | Native | |||||
Burkina Faso | Present | Native | |||||
Burundi | Present | Native | |||||
Cabo Verde | Present | Native | |||||
Cameroon | Present | Native | |||||
Central African Republic | Present | Native | |||||
Chad | Present | Native | |||||
Congo, Democratic Republic of the | Present | ||||||
Côte d'Ivoire | Present | Native | |||||
Eritrea | Present | Native | |||||
Eswatini | Present | Native | |||||
Ethiopia | Present | Native | |||||
Gambia | Present | Native | |||||
Ghana | Present | Native | |||||
Kenya | Present, Widespread | Native | |||||
Madagascar | Present | Native | |||||
Malawi | Present | Native | |||||
Mali | Present | Native | |||||
Mauritius | Present | Native | |||||
Mozambique | Present | Native | |||||
Niger | Present | Native | |||||
Nigeria | Present | Native | |||||
Réunion | Present | Native | |||||
Rwanda | Present | Native | |||||
Saint Helena | Present | Native | |||||
Senegal | Present | Native | |||||
Sierra Leone | Present | ||||||
Somalia | Present | Native | |||||
South Africa | Present | Native | |||||
Sudan | Present | Native | |||||
Tanzania | Present | Native | |||||
Togo | Present | Native | |||||
Uganda | Present | Native | |||||
Zambia | Present | Native | |||||
Zimbabwe | Present | Native | |||||
Asia |
|||||||
Israel | Present, Localized | Introduced | 1986 | Invasive | |||
Europe |
|||||||
Belgium | Absent, Intercepted only | ||||||
Denmark | Absent, Intercepted only | ||||||
Finland | Absent, Intercepted only | 1974 | 1965 | Two infested oranges | |||
Germany | Absent, Eradicated | ||||||
Italy | Absent, Intercepted only | 2014 | 2014 | ||||
Lithuania | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
Netherlands | Absent, Eradicated | 2009 | 1998 | ||||
Slovenia | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
Spain | Absent, Intercepted only | ||||||
Sweden | Absent, Intercepted only | 2001 | 2001 | ||||
Switzerland | Present, Only in captivity/cultivation | 2008 | |||||
United Kingdom | Absent, Intercepted only | Moths caught in traps | |||||
North America |
|||||||
United States | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
-California | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
-New Jersey | Absent, Intercepted only |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageT. leucotreta is extremely polyphagous, there being in excess of 70 food plants recorded. However, the validity of many of the listed host plants has been questioned or even refuted (EPPO, 2013; Moore et al., 2015b).
Schwartz (1981) used 10 references, dating from 1901 to 1976 in compiling a list of 35 host plants, of which 21 were cultivated. Venette et al. (2003) used 15 references dating from 1972 to 2003 in compiling their list of 70 host plants of T. leucotreta. EPPO (2013) used some of the same and several other references, dating from 1958 to 2010 in compiling a list of 107 previously listed hosts. However, they questioned the validity of several of these and even outright refuted 36 of the listed host species (Moore et al., 2015b). This was based on a thorough investigation of the literature and the conclusion that reporting was often ambiguous or there was no original source of substantiating data. Most recently, Brown et al. (2014) has significantly added to the list of hosts, particularly wild indigenous and naturalised hosts in East Africa (Kenya), including some which are cultivated. It should also be noted that there are differences in host status of certain crops in different regions. For example, maize is recorded as an important host in West Africa (Schulthess et al., 1991), cotton as a notable host in East Africa (Reed, 1974) and Ricinus as a conspicuous host in Israel, whereas in southern Africa, infestation on all of these hosts is considered as extremely rare.
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pageSymptoms
Top of pageList of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Fruit / frass visible | ||
Fruit / internal feeding | ||
Inflorescence / external feeding | ||
Inflorescence / frass visible | ||
Leaves / internal feeding | ||
Seeds / frass visible | ||
Seeds / internal feeding |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageThe female moth lays 100-400 or even more eggs at night, usually singly on the bolls, fruit or nuts of the plant. On citrus the young larva mines just beneath the surface, or bores into the pith causing premature ripening of the fruit. On cotton it first mines the boll wall, but later transfers to the seeds.
When full grown the larva descends to the ground on a silken thread and spins a tough silken cocoon in the top few millimetres of soil or amongst debris (Love et al., 2019). The development time for each stage varies considerably with temperature; details are given by Daiber (1980) who states that in South Africa five generations per year could be achieved by the moth. There is no diapause (Terblanche et al., 2014).
The adult is nocturnal and although found to be attracted to light in a laboratory set up, this has not been the case in the field (Gunn, 1921; Catling and Aschenborn, 1978). The mating behaviour is highly developed and relates to three androconial areas on the male (Zagatti and Castel, 1987).
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actia cuthbertsoni | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Reed (1974) | Uganda | cotton | |
Agathis (Hymenoptera) | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Ullyett (1939) | Zimbabwe | Citrus | |
Alloplitis typhon | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Reed (1974) | Zimbabwe | cotton | |
Anoplolepis custodiens | Predator | Arthropods|Pupae | Brown et al. (2014) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Apanteles leucotretae | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Ford (1934) | Zimbabwe | Citrus | |
Apophua leucotretae | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Ford (1934) | Zimbabwe | Citrus | |
Ascogaster | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Uganda | cotton | ||
Aspergillus alliaceus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | Moore et al. (2002) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Bassus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Thompson (1946) | Zimbabwe | ||
Bassus bishopi | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Ullyett (1939); Zimba et al. (2016) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Beauveria bassiana | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Pupae | Begemann (1989); Begemann (2008) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Chelonus | Parasite | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | Bredo (1933); Pomeroy (1925) | Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria | cotton | |
Chelonus curvimaculatus | Parasite | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | Searle (1964) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Cryptophlebia leucotreta cypovirus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | CIBC (1984) | |||
Cryptophlebia leucotreta granulovirus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | Angelini et al. (1965); Mück (1985); Moore et al. (2011) | South Africa, Ivory Coast, Cape Verde | Citrus | |
Cryptophlebia peltastica nucleopolyhedrovirus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | Jukes et al. (2017) | |||
Elasmus johnstoni | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Le Pelley (1959) | Uganda | cotton | |
Granulosis virus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Heterorhabditis zealandica | Pathogen | Arthropods|Pupae | Manrakhan et al. (2014) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Lonchaea aristella | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Pupae | Moore (2002) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Orius | Predator | Eggs | Newton (1998) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Orius insidiosus | Predator | Eggs | Nyiira (1970) | Uganda | cotton | |
Oxycoryphe edax | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Newton (1998) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Phanerotoma curvicarinata | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Ullyett (1939) | South Africa | ||
Pheidole megacephala | Predator | Arthropods|Pupae | Brown et al. (2014) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Pristomerus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Thompson (1946) | Somalia | ||
Rhynocoris albopunctatus | Predator | Arthropods|Larvae | Nyiira (1970) | South Africa | Citrus, cotton | |
Trichogramma | Parasite | Eggs | Reed (1974) | South Africa | ||
Trichogrammatoidea cryptophlebiae | Parasite | Eggs | Catling and Aschenborn (1974) | South Africa | Citrus | |
Trichogrammatoidea fulva | Parasite | Eggs | Mauritius | Litchi chinensis |
Plant Trade
Top of pagePlant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport | Pest stages | Borne internally | Borne externally | Visibility of pest or symptoms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx | arthropods/larvae | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye | |
Fruits (inc. pods) | arthropods/larvae | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye |
Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport |
---|
Bark |
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes |
Growing medium accompanying plants |
Leaves |
Roots |
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants |
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches |
Wood |
Impact
Top of pageThis moth has the potential to be a serious economic pest of some citrus types and pomegranates in southern Africa, peppers and flowers particularly in East Africa, and of cotton in many parts of Africa. It also affects maize in West Africa. Historically, citrus crop losses of 10-20% were reported in South Africa (Glas, 1991). However, pest status varies considerably across citrus cultivars and production regions (EPPO, 2013; Moore et al., 2017). Reed (1974) described losses of between 42 and 90% in late crops of cotton in Uganda. It also used to be a significant pest of macadamia in Israel (Wysoki, 1986); however, macadamia is no longer grown commercially in this country (EPPO, 2013). Blomefield (1989) reported losses of up to 28% in a late peach crop in South Africa. Begemann and Schoeman (1999) calculated citrus crop loss in South Africa specifically due to T. leucotreta was 1.6% in Navels and 0.3% in Valencias. Currently, where high populations occur on preferred hosts, and where these are uncontrolled or the effective natural enemy complex is disrupted, T. leucotreta can still reduce crop yields (Newton, 1998; Moore, 2002). However, T. leucotreta is now very effectively controlled in citrus orchards in southern Africa, using an integrated suite of control options (Moore and Hattingh, 2012, 2016; Barnes et al., 2015; Moore et al., 2015a; Moore et al., 2017). Reduction in infestation of between 95 and 97% has been reported with currently available pre-harvest control options (Moore and Hattingh, 2012; Moore et al., 2015a). The sterile insect technique (SIT) has been used for control of T. leucotreta in several regions in South Africa since 2007 and is proving extremely effective, having reduced moth catches by 98% and fruit infestation by 99% since the inception of the programme (Barnes et al., 2015). Consequently, the pest status of T. leucotreta is now chiefly phytosanitary in nature, due to its endemism to southern Africa and regulations imposed by importing markets (Grout and Moore, 2015; South African Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2015; Moore et al., 2017).
Detection and Inspection
Top of pageThese will vary according to the crop affected. On oranges look for a yellow patch on the skin of green fruit and a brown patch on the skin, usually with evidence of a hole bored in the centre, sometimes with dark brown frass exuding.
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pageIn West Africa, T. leucotreta is often found in conjunction with the pyralid moth Mussidia nigrevenella. Differences between the larvae are given by Silvie (1990) and Moyal and Tran (1989).
In citrus in southern Africa, the only lepidopteran larva with which T. leucotreta could be confused is the carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae, but fairly straightforward diagnostic criteria (e.g. Timm et al. (2007, 2008) and Rentel (2013)) enable accurate differentiation. In macadamias, pecans and litchis, other species, such as Cryptophlebia peltastica, Thaumatotibia batrachopa and E. ceratoniae can occur, but can be differentiated according to Timm et al. (2007, 2008) and Rentel (2013).
Prevention and Control
Top of pageDue 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.
Introduction
There is currently a wide range of effective control options available (Moore and Hattingh, 2016; Malan et al., 2018). However, as T. leucotreta is indigenous wherever it occurs, with the exception of Israel, the occurrence of alternative wild hosts can lead to reinfestation, if growing in close proximity to the crop. However, T. leucotreta is a poor disperser and coloniser (Newton, 1998; Stotter et al., 2014) so this reinfestation would be a slow process. Additionally, a plethora of natural enemies would maintain suppression of the pest, if undisrupted within an IPM approach.
Monitoring
T. leucotreta is monitored using a combination of pheromone traps and fruit infestation (Moore et al., 2008). Amongst others, Newton et al. (1993) identified the female pheromone and Hofmeyr and Burger (1995) developed the original pheromone dispenser. However, due to the phytosanitary status of T. leucotreta for many export markets, traps are no longer used to determine whether intervention is necessary, but rather to assist with accurate timing and prioritisation of treatments (Moore et al., 2008).
Cultural Control
Reed (1974) and Byaruhanga and De Lima (1977) showed that late-sown crops of cotton in Uganda were worst affected, but the difference was not great. As T. leucotreta is primarily a fruit feeder, it is suggested by Glas (1991) that crops of cotton grown close to fruit trees may be less affected. Ullyett and Bishop (1938) found that weekly sanitation in citrus orchards (picking up and destruction of fallen fruit) reduced fruit loss from 6.1 to 3.3%. Stofberg (1954) found that a programme of regular sanitation could save between 24 and 60 fruit per tree from T. leucotreta infestation. He concluded that at that time, the cost of twice-weekly sanitation would be justified if T. leucotreta infestation was reduced by half. Moore and Kirkman (2008) showed that weekly orchard sanitation from December to June removed an average of 75% of T. leucotreta larvae infesting fruit. Orchard sanitation is considered as the backbone for effective control of T. leucotreta.
Biological Control
Parasitoids of T. leucotreta have been identified, and mass release of Trichogrammoide acryptophlebiae has been shown to be effective (Newton and Odendaal, 1990). Parasitoids are currently commercially available for augmentation (Malan et al., 2018) and have been shown to reduce T. leucotreta infestation by up to 60% (Newton and Odendaal, 1990; Moore and Hattingh, 2016).
Cryptophlebia leucotreta granulovirus (CrleGV) has been used commercially for more than 15 years, reducing T. leucotreta by up to more than 90%, with a residual efficacy from one spray of up to 17 weeks (Moore et al., 2015a). Currently, there are three commercially available CrleGV products on the market (Hatting et al., 2019).
Entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, isolated from citrus orchards (Goble et al., 2010, 2011; Coombes et al., 2013, 2015) reduced T. leucotreta infestation of citrus fruit by over 80% during a full season, from a single spring application to the soil (Moore et al., 2013; Coombes et al., 2016). However, these isolates are still to be commercially developed, and currently, the only EPF registered for control of T. leucotreta in southern Africa are applied to the tree for control of the egg and neonate larval stages.
An EPN product, with its active ingredient Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, is registered for use against the soil-dwelling life stage of T. leucotreta in South Africa (Malan et al., 2018). Application of H. bacteriophora to a citrus orchard floor, reduced T. leucotreta infestation of fruit by up to 81% (Moore et al., 2013).
Sterile Insect Technique
The Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), as a stand-alone treatment in a semi-commercial trial, reduced T. leucotreta infestation in 35 ha of Navel orange orchards by 95.2%, relative to an untreated control orchard (Hofmeyr et al., 2016a). These initial findings led to commercial implementation for control of T. leucotreta within an integrated programme in citrus, since 2007. The programme is proving extremely effective (Hofmeyr et al., 2015), having reduced moth catches by 99%, fruit infestation by 96% and export rejections by 89% since the inception of the programme (Barnes et al., 2015). After orchard sanitation, area-wide techniques, such as SIT and mating disruption, are considered as the most important control tactics for T. leucotreta.
Chemical Control
Chemical control of T. leucotreta has been shown to be effective. In field trials two synthetic pyrethroids, applied 2-3 months before harvest, reduced fruit drop by an average of 90% (Moore and Hattingh, 2016). Field trials conducted by Newton (1987) showed that a single application of the insect growth regulators, triflumuron or teflubenzuron, reduced fruit loss by up to 86%. Although T. leucotreta insecticide resistance has been reported for the older chemical control options (Hofmeyr and Pringle, 1998), Moore et al. (2015a) showed that the more recently registered chemicals, such as methoxyfenozide and spinetoram are also effective in controlling T. leucotreta infestation. Although chemical control is effective and important, there are sufficient effective non-chemical treatments available in order to not be reliant upon chemical control for T. leucotreta management.
Pheromonal Control
Field trials conducted with mating disruption in Navel orange orchards, reduced T. leucotreta infestation by 55 to 75% (Hofmeyr and Hofmeyr, 2002; Moore and Hattingh, 2012). More importantly, these reductions were 86 and 95%, respectively, in later evaluations shortly before harvest. Currently, there are four mating disruption products and one attract and kill product that are commercially available for use against T. leucotreta (Malan et al., 2018).
Postharvest Control
Cottier (1952) demonstrated the efficacy of T. leucotreta postharvest cold treatment by shipping infested fruit from South Africa to New Zealand at a pulp temperature of -0.55°C for 21 days, with no survival of any larvae and eggs. Myburgh (1963, 1965), conducted further trials and concluded that 21 to 22 days at -0.55°C would provide at least a Probit 9 level of control. More recently, Moore et al. (2017) demonstrated that the following treatments caused mortality at or in excess of the probit 9 level: 16 d at or below -0.1°C, 18 d at or below -0.3°C, 20 d at or below -0.3°C and 19 d at or below 1.2°C. Ware and du Toit (2011, 2016, 2018), respectively, demonstrated Probit 9 efficacy in grapes at 2°C for 22 days; demonstrated Probit 8.7 efficacy in avocadoes at -0.6°C for 18 d and at 0.8°C for 20 d; and recorded only one survivor out of 28,380 larvae treated in avocadoes at 2°C pulp temperature for 20 days. Some countries to which South Africa exports fruit require a disinfestation cold treatment as a phytosanitary risk mitigation measure for T. leucotreta (South African Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2015).
Ionizing radiation with 100 Gy, as a postharvest phytosanitary disinfestation treatment for T. leucotreta larvae and eggs, was effective at the Probit 9 level (Hofmeyr et al., 2016b, 2016c). A combination of 60 Gy followed by 16 days at 2.5°C was also effective at the Probit 9 level (Hofmeyr et al., 2016d, 2016e).
Systems Approach Control
Moore et al. (2016) and Hattingh et al. (2020) developed a systems approach consisting of three measures: 1) preharvest controls and measurements and postpicking sampling, inspection, and packinghouse procedures; 2) postpacking sampling and inspection; and 3) shipping conditions. They demonstrated that the maximum potential proportion of fruit that may be infested with live T. leucotreta after application of the systems approach is no greater than the proportion of fruit that may be infested after application of a Probit 9 efficacy postharvest disinfestation treatment to fruit with a 2% pretreatment infestation. This system has been used for export of citrus from South Africa to the EU, as an alternative to a stand-alone cold treatment.
References
Top of pageBegemann GJ, 1989. (Die isolering en massakultuur van die entomopatogeneniese swam Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo)). Citrus Journal , 645, 18-19.
Catling HD, 1969. Citrus pest control: recommendations for Swaziland. In: Bulletin of the Swaziland Ministry of Agriculture,( No.26) . 1-13.
Catling HD, Aschenborn H, 1974. Population studies of the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta Meyrick, on citrus in the Transvaal. Phytophylactica, 6, 31-38.
Catling, HD, Aschenborn, H, 1978. False codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick). In: Citrus Pests in the Republic of South Africa, [ed. by Bedford, ECG, Van den Berg, MA, De Villiers, EA]. Nelspruit, South Africa: ARC-Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops. 165-170.
CIE, 1976. Distribution maps of pests, No. 352. Wallingford, UK: CAB International
Cottier W, 1952. The cold sterilization of oranges from South Africa. In: N. Z. Sci. Rev , (July 1952) . 99.
Diakonoff A, 1974. Exotic Tortricoidea, with description of new species (Lepidoptera). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.), 10, 219-227.
EPPO, 2010. Isolated finding of Thaumatotibia (Cryptophlebia) leucotreta on Capsicum chinensis in the Netherlands. In: EPPO Reporting Service , (2010/013) . http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOReporting/2010/Rse-1001.pdf
EPPO, 2013. Pest risk analysis for Thaumatotibia leucotreta. Paris, France: EPPO.http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRA_intro.htm
EPPO, 2018. EPPO Global Database (available online). https://gd.eppo.int
European Union, 2017. Official Journal of the European Union. (L184) , Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Europhyt, 2019. Interceptions of commodities imported into the EU or Switzerland with harmful organism(s), January 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/ph_biosec_europhyt-interceptions-2019-01.pdf
Ford WK, 1934. Some observations on the bionomics of the false codling moth - Argyroploce leucotreta, Meyrick (Family Eucosmidae) - in Southern Rhodesia. Publications of the British South Africa Co, 3, 9-34.
Fuller C, 1901. The Natal codling moth, Carpocapsa sp. First report of government entomologist 1899-1900. In: Natal Department of Agriculture Report , South Africa: Natal Department of Agriculture.48-51.
Glas M, 1991. Tortricids in miscellaneous crops. In: van der Geest, van Luis, eds. Tortricoid Pests, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests: 5. UK: Elsevier
Grout TG, Moore SD, 2015. Citrus. In: Insects of Cultivated Plants in southern Africa, [ed. by Prinsloo GL, Uys V]. Pretoria, South Africa: Entomological Society of Southern Africa. 447-501.
Grové T, Steyn WP, de Beer MS, 2000. Host status of Hass avocado fruit for the false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). In: South African Avocado Growers’ Association Yearbook 2000 , 23. 99-102.
Grové T, Steyn WP, de Beer MS, 2004. Cryptophlebia species (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). In: South African Litchi Growers' Association Yearbook, 2004 , 16. 52-59.
Grové, T., de Jager, K., Theledi, M. L., 2019. Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) associated with fruit of the family Myrtaceae Juss. in South Africa. Crop Protection, 116, 24-32.
Hamburger M, Zarabi L, Weiss M, Argaman Q, Kuslitzky W, Klein K, 2001. False codling moth (Cryptophlebia leucotreta) in Israel. Phytoparasitica, 29(1), 84.
Hargreaves H, 1922. Annual report of government entomologist for year ended December 1921. In: Report of the Department of Agriculture of Uganda , Uganda: Department of Agriculture of Uganda.1-87.
Hattingh V, Moore SD, Kirkman W, Goddard M, Thackeray SR, Peyper M, Sharp G, Cronjé P, Pringle K, 2020. An improved systems approach as a phytosanitary measure for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in export Citrus fruit from South Africa. J. Econ. Entomol, 113, 700-711.
Hofmeyr H, Hattingh V, Hofmeyr M, Slabbert K, 2016. Postharvest phytosanitary disinfestation of Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in citrus fruit: Validation of an ionizing radiation treatment. Florida Entomologist, 99(2), 54-58.
Hofmeyr H, Hofmeyr M, Slabbert K, 2016. Postharvest phytosanitary disinfestation of Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in citrus fruit: Tolerance of eggs and larvae to ionizing radiation. Florida Entomologist, 99(2), 48-53.
Hofmeyr JH, Hofmeyr M, 2002. (Evaluasie van die paringsontwrigter Isomate vir die kommersiële bestryding van valskoldingmot op nawelbome). In: Citrus Res. Int. Annu. Res. Rep , 1. 68-74.
IPPC, 2014. Finding of one larva and three adults of Thaumatotibia leucotreta in one fruit production greenhouse of Capsicum annuum (bell peppers). IPPC Official Pest Report, No. NLD-26/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Jack RW, 1916. The citrus codling moth (Argyroploce leucotreta). Rhodesian Citrus Pests. In: Bulletin of the Department of Agriculture of Southern Rhodesia,(No.228) . 26-27.
Jehle JA, Fritsch E, Huber J, Backhaus H, 2003. Intra-specific and inter-specific recombination of tortricid-specific granuloviruses during co-infection in insect larvae. Archives of Virology, 148: 1317-1333
Julius Kühn Institut, 2018. First finding of Thaumatotibia leucotreta in Germany (Saxony). https://pflanzengesundheit.julius-kuehn.de/dokumente/upload/Thaumatotibia-leucotreta_pr2018-08sn.pdf
Kessler P, Zingg D, 2008. New baculovirus products offer solutions for the biological control of Cydia pomonella and Cryptophlebia leucotreta. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Entomology, Durban, 6-12 July 2008 . 24.
Knill-Jones SA, 1994. Two species of micro-lepidoptera new to the Isle of Wight. Entomologist's Record & Journal of Variation, 106(5-6), 114.
Komai F, 1999. A taxonomic review of the genus Grapholita and allied genera (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in the Palaearctic region. Entomologica Scandanavica Supplement, 55, 1-226.
Kroon DM, 1999. Lepidoptera of Southern Africa Host-plants and other Associations, Jukskei Park, South Africa: Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa.
Langmaid JR, 1996. Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at m.v. light in Hampshire. Entomologist's Gazette, 47(1), 50.
Manrakhan A, Daneel J-H, Moore SD, 2014. The impact of naturally occurring entomopathogenic nematodes on false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in citrus orchards. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 24(2), 241-245.
Meyrick E, 1930. Microlepidoptera of Mauritius. Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 309-323.
Moore S, Grout T, Hattingh V, Hofmeyr H, 2008. Thresholds and guidelines for intervention against citrus pests. South African Fruit Journal, 7, 77-81.
Moore SD, 2002. The development and evaluation of Cryptophlebia leucotreta granulovirus (CrleGV) as a biological control agent for the management of false codling moth, Cryptophlebia leucotreta, on citrus. Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.
Moore SD, Hattingh V, 2016. A review of control measures and risk mitigation options for false codling moth (FCM), Thaumatotibia leucotreta, and their efficacy. https://www.citrusres.com/system/files/documents/market-access/FCM%20risk%20mitigation%20and%20control%20review%20Dec%202016.pdf
Myburgh AC, 1963. Low temperature sterilisation of false codling moth, Argyroploce leucotreta fruits. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Fruit and Food Technology Research Institute, Department of Agricultural Technical Services.
Mück O, 1985. (Biologie, verhalten und wirtshcaftliche bedeutaung von parasite schädlicher Lepidopteren auf den Kapverden). Neue Entomologische Nachrichten, 18, 168.
NAPPO, 2016. Phytosanitary Alert System: Corrected Status of 2008 Thaumatotibia leucotreta (False Codling Moth) detection in the United States. NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=681
Newton PJ, 1998. Family Tortricidae. False codling moth Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick). Lepidoptera: Butterflies and moths. In: Citrus pests in the Republic of South Africa, [ed. by Bedford ECG, van den Berg MA, de Villiers EA]. Nelspruit, South Africa: Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, ARC. 192-200.
Pearson EO, 1958. The insect pests of cotton in tropical Africa, London, UK: Empire Cotton Growing Corporation and Commonwealth Institute of Entomology.355 pp.
Potting RPJ, van der Straten M, 2011. Pest Risk Analysis for Thaumatotibia leucotreta. (Version 5, February 2011) . 27 pp.
Rentel M, 2013. MSc Thesis: Morphology and taxonomy of tortricid moth pests attacking fruit crops in South Africa. South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
Schwartz A, 1981. (PhD thesis: ’n Bydrae tot die biologie en beheer van die valskodlingmot Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyr.) (Lepidoptera: Eucosmidae) op nawels). South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
Searle, C. M. St. L., 1964. Tech. Commn. Dep. agric. tech. Serv. S. Afr, (30) . ii+18 pp.
Songa GM, 2001. Characterization and quantification of arthropods in two maize production environments in Kenya. [Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Maize Conference, February 11 to 15, 2001], 38‐44.
South African Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2015. Special export protocols/programmes/directives. http://www.daff. gov.za/daffweb3/Branches/Agricultural-Production-Health-Food-Safety/Plant-Health/Exporting-from-SA/Special-export-protocols
Stofberg FJ, 1939. Bionomical notes on the false codling moth. [Proceedings of the Entomology Conference held at the Union Buildings, Pretoria], 50-53. (Mimeograph)
Stofberg FJ, 1954. False codling moth of citrus. In: Farming in South Africa , (June 1954) . 273-276.
Stotter RL, 2009. MSc thesis: Spatial and temporal distribution of false codling moth across landscapes in the Citrusdal area (Western Cape Province, South Africa). South Africa: University of Stellenbosh.
Stotter RL, Samways MJ, Hattingh V, 2014. Spatial and temporal distribution of false codling moth across landscapes in the Citrusdal area (Western Cape Province, South Africa). Crop Protection, 60, 1-4.
Ullyett GC, 1939. Parasites of the false codling moth (Argyroploce leucotreta) in South Africa. [Proceedings of the Entomology Conference, August 22-24 1939, Union Buildings, Pretoria], 54-55.
Ullyett GC, Bishop HJ, 1938. Report on the false codling moth experiment carried out at Martindale, C.P. 1938. In: Unpublished report of the Parasite Laboratory, Division of Entomology, Pretoria . Pretoria, South Africa: Parasite Laboratory, Division of Entomology.23 pp.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2008. Confirmed the Identification of a Single Male False Codling Moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta, in Ventura County, California. (August 7, 2008. DA–2008–43) , USA: USDA-APHIS-PPQ.
USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2010. New Pest Response Guidelines: False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta. Riverdale, Maryland, USA: USDA-APHIS-PPQ.http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/online_manuals.shtml
Venette RC, Davis EE, Da Costa M, Heisler H, Larson M, 2003. Mini risk assessment: false codling moth, Thaumatotibia (=Cryptophlebia) leucotreta (Meyrick) [Lepidoptera: Tortricidae]. In: University of Minnesota, Department of Entomology, CAPS PRA , USA: University of Minnesota.1-30. http://www.aphis. usda.gov/ppq/ep/pestdetection/pra/tleucotretapra
Willers P, 1979. Suitability of Harpephyllum caphrum (kaffir plum) as host for Mediterranean fruit fly and false codling moth. Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Journal, 543, 5-6.
Distribution References
CABI, 2021. CABI Distribution Database: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Catling HD, 1969. Citrus pest control: recommendations for Swaziland. In: Bulletin of the Swaziland Ministry of Agriculture. 1-13.
Diakonoff A, 1974. Exotic Tortricoidea, with description of new species (Lepidoptera). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.). 219-227.
EPPO, 2013. Pest risk analysis for Thaumatotibia leucotreta, Appendix 5., Paris, France: EPPO. http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRA_intro.htm
Fuller C, 1901. The Natal codling moth, Carpocapsa sp. First report of government entomologist 1899-1900. In: Natal Department of Agriculture Report, 48-51.
Hargreaves H, 1922. Annual report of government entomologist for year ended December 1921. In: Report of the Department of Agriculture of Uganda, 1-87.
IPPC, 2014. Finding of one larva and three adults of Thaumatotibia leucotreta in one fruit production greenhouse of Capsicum annuum (bell peppers). Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Jack RW, 1916. The citrus codling moth (Argyroploce leucotreta). Rhodesian Citrus Pests. In: Bulletin of the Department of Agriculture of Southern Rhodesia. 26-27.
JKI (Julius Kühn Institut), 2018. First finding of Thaumatotibia leucotreta in Germany (Saxony)., https://pflanzengesundheit.julius-kuehn.de/dokumente/upload/Thaumatotibia-leucotreta_pr2018-08sn.pdf
Kessler P, Zingg D, 2008. New baculovirus products offer solutions for the biological control of Cydia pomonella and Cryptophlebia leucotreta. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Entomology, Durban, 6-12 July 2008 [23rd International Congress of Entomology, Durban, 6-12 July 2008], 24.
Knill-Jones SA, 1994. Two species of micro-lepidoptera new to the Isle of Wight. Entomologist's Record & Journal of Variation. 106 (5-6), 114.
Langmaid JR, 1996. Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at m.v. light in Hampshire. Entomologist's Gazette. 47 (1), 50.
Meyrick E, 1930. Microlepidoptera of Mauritius. In: Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 309-323.
Mück O, 1985. (Biologie, verhalten und wirtshcaftliche bedeutaung von parasite schädlicher Lepidopteren auf den Kapverden). Neue Entomologische Nachrichten. 168.
NAPPO, 2016. Phytosanitary Alert System: Corrected Status of 2008 Thaumatotibia leucotreta (False Codling Moth) detection in the United States., NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=681
Pearson E O, 1958. The insect pests of cotton in tropical Africa. x + 355 pp.
Potting RPJ , van der Straten M, 2011. Pest Risk Analysis for Thaumatotibia leucotreta. Version 5, Februar 2011., 27 pp.
USDA–APHIS–PPQ, 2008. Confirmed the Identification of a Single Male False Codling Moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta, in Ventura County, California. August 7, 2008.,
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway | https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6 | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
Contributors
Top of page21/05/20 Review by:
Elma Carstens, Citrus Research Institute, Nelspruit, South Africa
Sean Moore, Citrus Research Institute, Nelspruit, South Africa
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
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/