
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12169-X
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36138
e36138
Research Article
Effective section on grapevine plants (Vitis vinifera L.) attacked by Xylotrechus arvicola Olivier (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) grubs: Influence and effects on its resistance
Rodríguez-González Álvaro alrog@unileon.es
a⁎
Ramírez-Lozano Daniela a
Antolín-Rodríguez Andrea b
Zanfaño Laura a
Carro-Huerga Guzmán a
Casquero Pedro A. a
Guerra Marcos c
García-González Julia b
Juan-Valdés Andrés b
a Grupo Universitario de Investigación en Ingeniería y Agricultura Sostenible (GUIIAS), Instituto de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Biodiversidad, Escuela de Ingeniería Agraria y Forestal, Universidad de León, Avenida de Portugal 41, 24009, León, Spain
b Grupo de Investigación en Ingeniería de Materiales y Eco-Eficiencia (INMATECO), Departamento de Ingeniería y Ciencias Agrarias, Escuela de Ingeniería Agraria y Forestal (EIAF), Universidad de León, Avenida de Portugal 41, 24071, León, Spain
c Grupo Universitario de Investigación en Ingeniería y Agricultura Sostenible (GUIIAS), Escuela de Inge-niería Agraria y Forestal (EIAF), Campus de Ponferrada, Universidad de León, Avenida de Astorga s/n 24401, Ponferrada, Spain
⁎ Corresponding author. alrog@unileon.es
10 8 2024
30 8 2024
10 8 2024
10 16 e3613816 5 2024
6 8 2024
9 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Xylotrechus arvicola Olivier 1795 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) is an insect pest that affects Vitis vinifera L. 1753 (Vitales: Vitaceae) plants in the main wine-producing regions of Spain. X. arvicola larvae bore into grapevine wood, causing both direct damage (ingestion of vascular tissues) and indirect damages (introduction of wood fungi) to the plant. The aim of research was to evaluate the effective section of wood damaged by larvae and assess its resistance capacity through compression tests and loading and breaking times. Compressive tests (on trunks) and flexural tests (on branches) were performed to evaluate the effective section. Trunk samples exhibited a higher effective section than branches samples, with effective section percentages ranging from 91.49 % to 93.53 % in trunks and decreasing from 84.91 % to 86.95 % in branches. Both loading times (Time 1) and breakage times (Time 2) increased with the effective section of the wood, although these times were lower in damaged wood samples of both trunks and branches. Additionally, significant differences were observed in the interactions between loading time x effective section and breakage time x effective section in dry trunks. This indicates a stronger relationship between the effective section and increased resistance in trunks. The results suggest that, in ‘Tempranillo’ variety, branches with a lower effective section are more prone to breakage when affected by X. arvicola larvae, whereas trunks, with a greater effective section, maintain better stability. This research should be continued with the evaluation of other vine varieties and different years of X. arvicola attacks, as the current findings are based on a single variety (‘Tempranillo’) over a period of ten years.

Keywords

Wood boring
Cerambycid
Vineyard
Resistance
Loading time
Breakage time
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

The characterization of the biological damage in wood samples aims to identify attacks and measure the degraded areas. Some authors [1,2] have described that this process can be quantified using semi-destructive or non-destructive techniques. According to Cabaleiro et al. [3], the effective section in wood samples excludes the degraded areas from the resistant section, which is assumed to be the reference section for calculating the mechanical performance of the timber element.

The deterioration of wood due to biological degradation can be caused by wood-boring insects or wood fungi. Fungal decay alters the physical and mechanical properties of the material, resulting in both mass loss and a substantial decrease in stiffness and strength. Although fungal decay can be very severe, its extent within the wood samples is usually localised. In contrast, insect damage causes more diffused deterioration due to the presence of tunnel-like bored voids and typically extensive infestation [[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]].

Numerous studies have quatified the reduction in physical and mechanical properties of wood degraded by insects compared to sound wood [[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]]. These studies consistently found a positive correlation between the loss of density and the loss of mechanical properties.

Grapevine plants, is susceptible to be attack by pest, especially borer insects. Polyphagous and monophagous insects attack various woody species can be highlighted [14,15]. X. arvicola, which belongs to the Cerambycidae family within the Coleoptera order, is an example of a wood-damaging insect particularly observed in Spain, where it attacks grapevine wood [16].

The insect X. arvicola Olivier 1795 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) is a xylophagous, polyphagous wood-boring insect native to riverside trees. Among the genera attacked by this insect are Quercus spp., Carpinus spp., Castanea spp., Fagus spp., Populus spp., Salix spp., Tilia spp., Morus spp., Sorbus spp., Crataegus spp., Malus spp., Cydonia spp. and Prunus spp. [[16], [17], [18], [19]]. Since the late 90's, X. arvicola has become an important pest of grapevines (V. vinifera L. 1753) in the main wine-producing areas of the Iberian Peninsula [[20], [21], [22], [23], [24]]. X. arvicola insect adults measure between 8 and 20 mm in length, with females being generally larger than males. Their coloration is brown or blackish, and the pronotal and elytral bands are usually yellow [25]. After mating, X. arvicola females lay eggs concentrated in cracks or under the vine rhytidome [26]. The oviposition period of females extends over a long period of time. Approximately eight days after egg laying, the larvae emerge [27,28], and neonate larvae, upon hatching, move into the wood, boring galleries inside the plant [29].

Adults, eggs and neonate larvae are the most susceptible stages of this pest. However, it is difficult for a treatment to be effective since eggs (protected by the rhytidome), and the larvae, inaccessible when applying traditional chemicals [26] that do not possess penetrative attributes into the wood [30]. Another problem is the control of X. arvicola adults, as thay exhibit a staggered emergence pattern over time [29], which is highly influenced by weather conditions such as increased temperature and decreased rainfall [31].

X. arvicola larvae bore into the wood tissue of grapevine plants, creating galleries into the plant over a couple of years, causing direct damage to the grapevine wood [18]. Adults emerging from holes facilitate fungal growth, with notable fungi including Diplodia seriata (De Not), Eutypa lata (Tul and Tul), Phaeoacremonium minimun (Gams, Crous, Wingf., Mugnai), Phaeomoniella clamydospore (Crous and Gams), and Formitiporia mediterranea (Fisch); this represents the indirect damage caused to grapevine wood [32]. The impact of this fungi is particularly important in the ‘Tempranillo’ and ‘Cabernet-Sauvignon’ varieties, two of the main varieties grown in vineyards of Spain. Additionally, these varieties exhibit a greater sensitivity to being attacked by X. arvicola [24,32]. If the plant is attacked over several years, it dies due to damages to vascular tissues, leading to significant economic losses [33]. A visible characteristic of a vineyard attacked by X. arvicola is the numerous broken branches of grapevines, due to the weakened wood structure caused by the larvae galleries [29]. Cultural techniques to combat this pest are limited to removing the rhytidome of grapevines [34], pruning branches below the affected area by larvae [35], allowing the plant structure to rebuild. But these techniques are expensive and unsustainable on a large vineyard [34]. Pruning attacked branches in grapevines is easier to perform in the ‘bush/gobelet vine’ training system compared to the ‘bilateral cordon’ [27,36].

Studies conducted on wood affected by X. arvicola larvae have shown that it is more sensitive compared to unaffected wood [37]. Additionally, affected wood breaks faster than unaffected wood [38], regardless of the cross-sectional area [39], which includes both the effective and damaged surfaces by larvae. To date, it has not been possible to estimate the resistance capacity of the effective surface of wood not damaged by larvae. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effective section of wood not damaged by larvae and determine its resistance capacity through compression tests, loading, and breaking times.

2 Material and methods

2.1 Grapevine plants

Plants were obtained from vineyards during January and February of 2017 and 2018. The samples were taken from plants that had been pruned to remove larvae and prevent their spread in subsequent years. The vineyards were located in Peñafiel town (Valladolid province, Casilla y León region, Spain) and belongs to the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) ‘Ribera Del Duero’. The sampled grapevine plants had 28-year-old, of ‘Tempranillo’ variety, and with loam-sandy soils (41°36′26.59′′N, 4°06′03.84′′W). The vines were spaced 3 × 1.5 m apart and surrounded by other vineyards. The plants were trained in the ‘Trellis' system (Double Cord or Royat), consisting of two branches and a trunk (with 1.0 m each branch and 0.7 m of trunk in height).

2.2 Experimental conditions before mechanical tests

Wood samples from grapevine plants (trunks and branches) exposed to X. arvicola larvae attacks over ten years in vineyards were collected to study the cumulative effects of larvae feeding on the vascular tissues of grapevine wood over time. Wood samples were randomly selected from undamaged and damaged for both part of the plant, trunks and branches, according to external observable symptoms described by Peláez et al. [34], as for example, exit holes of adults on the surface of the wood and/or galleries in pruning cuts.

Before mechanical tests, the Structural Round Timber Test Methods from the European Standard UNE 14251-2004, developed by the Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification [40], were used to select samples with appropriate measurements for analysis. Grapevine wood samples that did not meet the standard requirements (UNE 14251-2004) were excluded from the subsequent strength tests.

Thirty-one wood samples were evaluated (eleven from trunks and twenty from branches) in fresh conditions to ensure that the moisture content was similar to that in the field. The other wood samples (twenty-four from trunks and twenty-two from branches) were dried at room temperature (26 ± 1 °C) for 30 days before the mechanical tests to ensure the elimination of moisture, in accordance with the European Standard UNE 14251-2004 [40].

2.3 Mechanical strength of wood samples

The effects of X. arvicola larvae on the resistance of wood trunks and branches of V. vinifera were evaluated using two standard experiments: a compression test and a flexural test (for wood trunks and branches, respectively).

All grapevine trunks and branches, whether undamaged or damaged, dry or fresh, were tested with a hydraulic press (EIC - Engineering, Instrumentation and Control) with a maximum load capacity of 2000 kN. This device applies loads using a pump that generates oleohydraulic pressure. Data collection (total applied load) was recorded with a data logger and processed using EIC software. All tests were performed at a constant load speed (200 N/s) until failure of wood samples. Wood trunks and branches that twisted or slipped during the test were omitted from the data analyses.

2.4 Calculation of the effective section

To calculate the effective section in each wood sample, the cross-sectional area at both ends of the samples was measured using a ruler. Subsequently, the damaged surface area caused by larval galleries in the same regions was measured. Finally, for each sample, the damaged surface area was subtracted from the total calculated surface area. In this manner, the effective surface area was obtained for each sample. To calculate the percentage of the effective surface obtained, it was multiplied by 100 and divided by the total surface of the sample (Fig. 1A and B).Fig. 1 Diagram of effective section in V. vinifera wood samples. The shaded area in yellow representedrepresents the effective section: (A) in trunks and (B) in branches.

Fig. 1

2.5 Effective section and its relationship with breakage and loading time

Before performing the mechanical tests, the following dimensions were measured in each wood trunk sample (both dry and fresh): three measurements of minimum diameter, three measurements of maximum diameter, and the total length of the trunk sample. The damaged surface area caused by galleries at both ends of the samples were recorded for the affected grapevine wood trunk samples. The trunks were placed vertically to mimic the compression strength experienced by the wood trunks in field conditions, with both end surfaces cut perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the sample. The compressive test was conducted according to the European Standard EN 14251:2003, and the following equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) were used for the analysis:(1) ⋏=lki

(2) i=IA

(3) I=πr44

(4) A=πr2

(5) σ=NA=Nπr2

where ⋏: slenderness ratio (dimensionless); lk: buckling length or length of the sample (mm); i: radius of gyration (mm); I: area moment of inertia (mm4); A: cross-sectional area (mm2); r: radius (mm); σ: compression normal stress (MPa=N/mm2); N: normal force (N).

During the mechanical testing, two break times were measured: “Time 1”, the time when the force applied by the hydraulic press to the wood trunk sample remains constant for 5 s, and “Time 2”, the time when the force applied by the hydraulic press completely broke the wood sample.

2.6 Effective section and its relationship with breakage and loading time

Before performing the mechanical tests, the following dimensions were measured in each wood branch sample (both dry and fresh): three measurements of minimum diameter, three measurements of maximum diameter, the diameter at the point of the branch where the load was applied (one measurement in the direction of the load and another in the direction perpendicular to the applied load), and the total length of the branch. The damaged surface area caused by galleries at both ends of the samples were recorded for the affected grapevine wood branches. The branches, placed horizontally, rested on two roller supports 30 cm apart (18 times the branch nominal diameter to minimize shear stresses). Two concentrated loads were applied from the topside of the wood sample to mimic the downward bending experienced by the vine branches in field conditions. The flexural test was performed according to the European Standard EN 14251:2003, and the following equations (6), (7), (8), (9) were used for the analysis:(6) i=IA

(7) I=πr44

(8) A=πr2

(9) σ=MZWZ=(MZI)r

where i: radius of gyration (mm); I: area moment of inertia (mm4); A: cross-sectional area (mm2); r: radius (mm); σ: normal stress from bending (MPa = N/mm2); Mz: bending moment (N∙mm); Wz: section modulus (mm3).

During the mechanical testing, two break times were measured: “Time 1”, the time when the force applied by the hydraulic press to the wood branch sample remains constant for 5 s, and “Time 2”, the time when the force applied by the hydraulic press completely broke the wood sample.

2.7 Statistical analysis

The effective section (in mm2) of wood samples (both undamaged and damaged) was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA, followed by a Fisher's LSD test post hoc (significance at p ≤ 0.05). Analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 24 (IBM SPSS Statistics, 1968, Armonk, NY, USA).

ANCOVA was used to examine the effect of the effective section of grapevine wood samples (fixed factor) on loading time and breakage time as a covariate. The linear regression coefficients for the interactions between effective section and loading time, and between effective section and breakage time, were tested using an F-test (significance at p ≤ 0.05). Analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 24 (IBM SPSS Statistics, 1968, Armonk, NY, USA).

3 Results

3.1 Effective section

Significant differences in the effective section between wood trunks and wood branches (fresh and dry) were observed. Fresh trunks had a significantly higher effective section (F = 12.627; df (1,20); P = 0.002) than fresh branches, representing 91.49 % and 86.95 % of the effective section in trunks and branches, respectively. Similarly, for dry wood samples, dry trunks had a significantly higher effective section (F = 30.488; df (1,10); P ≤ 0.001) than dry branches, representing 93.53 % and 84.91 % of the effective section in trunks and branches, respectively. There were no significant differences in the effective section obtained between the wood samples from trunks (fresh and dry) and branches (fresh and dry) (Table 1).Table 1 Results of ANOVA determining the differences of effective section between wood trunks and branches of grapevine.

Table 1Parameter	Part of plant	Dry	Fresh	F	df	P	
Effective section (mm2)	Trunks	6086.79 ± 1245.67 aAa,b (93.53 %)c	8051.24 ± 1807.22 aAa,b (91.49 %)c	0.664	(1,14)	0.429	
Branches	1204.11 ± 112.50 aBa,b (84.91 %)c	1114.55 ± 227.30 aBa,b (86.95 %)c	0.141	(1,16)	0.712	
	F	12.627	F	30.488				
	d.f.	(1,20)	d.f.	(1,10)				
	P	0.002	P	≤0.001				
a Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in values between different wood moisture content (dry and fresh) within the same part of the plant (trunk or branch); Difference Minimum Significant (DMS) test (p ≤ 0.05).

b Different capital letters indicate significant differences within the same wood moisture content (dry or fresh) between different parts of plant (trunk and branch); Difference Minimum Significant (DMS) test (p ≤ 0.05).

c Values in brackets indicate the percentage of effective surface in the samples evaluated.

3.2 Loading time (time 1) of wood trunks and wood branches in relation to effective section

The loading time experienced by undamaged dry trunks in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher compared to damaged dry trunks. The effective section in undamaged dry trunks was significantly higher (F = 45.713; d.f. = 1,20; P ≤ 0.001) compared to the effective section of damaged dry trunks. The interaction between loading time and effective section was significantly different (F = 5.806; d.f. = 1,20; P = 0.026) between undamaged and damaged dry trunks. The loading time in dry trunks increased with the effective section in both undamaged and damaged dry trunks, with lower loading time values observed in damaged wood (Fig. 2A) (Table 2).Fig. 2 Linear regression of the Time 1 ′Loading time' (seconds, y-axis): (A) Dry trunks; (B) Fresh trunks; (C) Dry branches; (D) Fresh branches, in relation to effective section (mm2, x-axis) in grapevine wood samples. ‘Blue Points' represent values of undamaged wood by X. arvicola larvae; ‘Yellow Points' represent values of damaged wood by X. arvicola larvae. ‘Blue Line' is the trendline for ‘Blue Points'; ‘Yellow Line' is the trendline for ‘Yellow Points'.

Fig. 2

Table 2 Results of ANCOVA determining the differences in the regression coefficients between loading time (Time 1) and effective section.

Table 2
	d.f.	Mean Square	F-value	Probability	
Dry trunks	
Time 1	1	1175.312	0.263	0.614	
Effective section	1	204105.334	45.713	0.00001a	
Time 1 × effective section	1	25923.833	5.806	0.026a	
Residuals	20	4464.969			
Fresh trunks	
Time 1	1	2408.716	0.483	0.509	
Effective section	1	5259.430	1.055	0.339	
Time 1 × effective section	1	270.855	0.054	0.822	
Residuals	7	4987.427			
Dry branches	
Time 1	1	6.865	0.062	0.806	
Effective section	1	120.772	1.091	0.310	
Time 1 × effective section	1	9.663	0.090	0.768	
Residuals	18	110.693			
Fresh branches	
Time 1	1	735.491	1.873	0.190	
Effective section	1	568.470	1.677	0.214	
Time 1 × effective section	1	8.252	0.021	0.887	
Residuals	16	392.755			
a Indicate significant at p ≤ 0.05.

The loading time experienced by undamaged fresh trunks in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher compared to damaged fresh trunks. The effective section in undamaged fresh trunks was not significantly high compared to the effective section of damaged fresh trunks. The interaction between loading time and effective section was not significantly different between undamaged and damaged fresh trunks. The loading time in fresh trunks increased with the effective section in both undamaged and damaged fresh trunks, with lower loading time values observed in damaged wood (Fig. 2B) (Table 2).

The loading time experienced by undamaged dry branches in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher compared to damaged dry branches. Similarly, the effective section in undamaged dry branches did not significantly differ from that of damaged dry branches. The interaction between loading time and effective section was not significantly different between undamaged and damaged dry branches. Loading time in dry branches increase with the effective section in undamaged dry branches, while lower loading time values were observed in damaged wood (Fig. 2C) (Table 2).

The loading time experienced by undamaged fresh branches in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher in comparison to damaged fresh branches. Similarly, the effective section in undamaged fresh branches did not significantly differ from that of damaged fresh branches. The interaction between loading time and effective section was not significantly different between undamaged and damaged fresh branches. Loading time in fresh branches increase with the effective section in both undamaged and damaged fresh branches, with lower loading time values observed in damaged wood (Fig. 2D) (Table 2).

3.3 Breakage time (time 2) of wood trunks and wood branches in relation to effective section

The breakage time of undamaged dry trunks in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher in comparison to damaged dry trunks. However, the effective section in undamaged dry trunks was significantly higher (F = 35.732; d.f. = 1,20; P ≤ 0.001) compared to the effective section of damaged dry trunks. The interaction between breakage time and effective section was significantly different (F = 8.572; d.f. = 1,20; P = 0.008) between undamaged and damaged dry trunks. Breakage time increase with the effective section in both undamaged and damaged dry trunks, with lower breakage time values observed in damaged wood (Fig. 3A) (Table 3).Fig. 3 Linear regression of the Time 2 ′Breakage time' (seconds, y-axis): (A) Dry trunks; (B) Fresh trunks; (C) Dry branches; (D) Fresh branches, in relation to effective section (mm2, x-axis) in grapevine wood samples. ‘Blue Points' represent values of undamaged wood by X. arvicola larvae; ‘Yellow Points' represent values of damaged wood by X. arvicola larvae. ‘Blue Line' is the trendline for ‘Blue Points'; ‘Yellow Line' is the trendline for ‘Yellow Points'.

Fig. 3

Table 3 Results of ANCOVA determining the differences in the regression coefficients between breakage time (Time 2) and effective section.

Table 3	d.f.	Mean Square	F-value	Probability	
Dry trunks	
Time 2	1	3795.177	0.485	0.494	
Effective section	1	279457.523	35.732	0.00001a	
Time 2 × effective section	1	67039.610	8.572	0.008a	
Residuals	20	7820.946			
Fresh trunks	
Time 2	1	22.447	0.005	0.946	
Effective section	1	1752.511	0.381	0.556	
Time 2 × effective section	1	4645.365	1.011	0.348	
Residuals	7	4596.365			
Dry branches	
Time 2	1	0.506	0.002	0.965	
Effective section	1	312.903	1.193	0.289	
Time 2 × effective section	1	9.667	0.037	0.850	
Residuals	18	262.337			
Fresh branches	
Time 2	1	623.676	0.947	0.345	
Effective section	1	846.666	1.286	0.273	
Time 2 × effective section	1	546.103	0.829	0.376	
Residuals	16	658.376			
a Indicate significant at p ≤ 0.05.

The breakage time experienced by undamaged fresh trunks in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher in comparison to damaged fresh trunks. The effective section in undamaged fresh trunks was not significantly higher in comparison to the effective section of damaged fresh trunks. The interaction between breakage time and effective section was not significantly different between undamaged and damaged fresh trunks. The breakage time in fresh trunks increase with the effective section in both undamaged and damaged fresh trunks (Fig. 3B) (Table 3).

The breakage time endured by undamaged dry branches in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher compared to damaged dry branches. The effective section in undamaged dry branches was not significantly higher in comparison to the effective section of damaged dry branches. The interaction between breakage time and effective section was not significantly different between undamaged and damaged dry branches. The breakage time in branches increase with the effective section in undamaged dry branches, but the breakage time values were lower in damaged wood (Fig. 3C) (Table 3).

The breakage time endured by undamaged fresh branches in relation to their effective section was not significantly higher in comparison to damaged fresh branches. The effective section in undamaged fresh branches was not significantly higher in comparison to the effective section of damaged fresh branches. The interaction between breakage time and effective section was not significantly different between undamaged and damaged fresh branches. The breakage time in fresh branches increase with the effective section in both undamaged and damaged fresh branches, but the breakage time values were lower in damaged wood (Fig. 3D) (Table 3).

4 Discussion

The trunk samples had a higher effective section than the branch samples, averaging 1114.55 mm2–1204.11 mm2 in fresh and dry branches, respectively, and averaging 6086.79 mm2–8051.24 mm2 in dry and fresh trunks, respectively. The greater wood volume of the trunks accounts for their larger section, whereas the branches, having a smaller wood volume, exhibit a smaller section [39]. When X. arvicola larvae damage the vascular tissues of these two plant parts, the trunks are more likely to maintain a greater effective section compared to the branches. Effective section percentages in the trunks exceed 91 % and 93 % in fresh and dry samples, respectively, indicating a larger area for nutrient and water passage. The effective section in branches decreases to over 84 % and 86 % in dry and fresh wood samples, respectively. This reduced effective section in the branches weakens them, corroborating previous reports of affected grapevine branches exhibiting poor leaf development, less vigorous shoots, and reduced productivity [41]. Additionally, clusters in damaged branches are smaller, flowers are fewer and more easily shed [33]. Pruning branches below the affected area is a recommended technique to manage this issue [35], although it is costly and unsustainable on a large scale [34]. Insects of Cerambycidae family, to which X. arvicola belongs, are known for their long-lasting larval boring periods, causing serious damage. Similar damage have been documented for other species in vineyards, such as Vesperus xatarti (Dufour-Mulsant), considered a pest in vineyards since the mid-19th century [42], Clytus arietis (L.), reported as a pest in Spanish [43,44] and French vineyards [45], Acalolepta vastator (Newman), which causes significant damage in Australian vineyards [46], and Xylotrechus pyrrhoderus (Bates), which is particularly damaging in Chinese vineyards, especially to the ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ and ‘Chardonnay’ varieties [47,48].

Regarding the loading times of wood samples evaluated in relation to the effective section, both undamaged and damaged wood samples exhibited similar behavior under compression strength. In trunks and branches, loading times increased as the effective section of the wood increased, with the loading times being lower in the damaged wood samples. Additionally, the interaction between loading time and effective section in dry trunks showed significant differences, indicating a stronger relationship between the effective section and increased resistance in dry trunks.

The breakage times of the wood samples, evaluated in relation to the effective section, showed similar behavior in undamaged and damaged wood samples concerning their resistance to compression strength, with the exception of damaged fresh trunks. In general, the breakage times for trunks and branches increased as the effective section of the evaluated wood increased. However, damaged fresh trunks exhibited a slight decrease in breakage times with an increase in effective section. The breakage times were consistently lower in damaged wood samples compared to undamaged ones for both trunks and branches.

Furthermore, the interaction between breakage time and effective section in dry trunks showed significant differences, indicating a stronger relationship between effective section and increased resistance in these samples. This study highlights how X. arvicola larvae modify the mechanical properties of grapevine plants. Damaged wood trunks and branches exhibit lower compressive stress resistance, reduced loading time, and shorter breakage time. It is important to note that these results are especific to the ‘Tempranillo’ variety and are based on a limited number of samples collected over two years. Further studies should be conducted on other grapevine varieties to better understand the impact of X. arvicola larvae on different types of grapevines.

Several authors [49,50] have demostrated that larvae living in deep wood of low nutritional value and with minimal predation pressure extend their development time to several years, as is the case with X. arvicola larvae [18]. This prolonged development period within the host is sufficient to significantly reduce the resistance of the affected vine wood in the samples evaluated. Other examples where insect pest larvae have caused mechanical damage to their hosts include Monochamus galloprovincialis and Acanthocinus aedilis on Pinus sylvestris [51], the cerambycids Torneutes pallidipennis (Reich) on Prosopis flexuosa (Fabales: Fabaceae) [52], and the red oak borer, Enaphalodes rufulus (Haldeman), an insect pest of living oaks [53]. In addition to the structural damage caused by these boring insect larvae, there is also indirect damage caused from fungal attacks facilitated by the galleries made by the larvae within the host. The fungal symbionts of cerambycid beetles, which are endosymbiotic fungi, enhance the degradation of wood [[54], [55], [56]]. The impact of wood pathogens or diseases on the biomechanical properties of woody species is well-documented in other genera, such as Pinus spp. [51,57,58], Pseudotsuga spp. [59], and Larix spp. [60]. Woody species affected by wood diseases accumulate a higher amount of dead wood, which leads to increase fragility and progressive death of the affected areas [61]. James and Kane [62], and Detters et al. [63] described that the accumulation of dead wood due to fungal attacks predisposes the affected host to damage or breakage when subjected to external agents such as snow, wind, or, in our particular case, the static loads from the weight of the grapes. This is especially pertinent during the weeks when grape clusters are gaining weight on the vine until they are harvested.

5 Conclusion

This study demonstrated that larvae negatively impact the mechanical resistance of grapevine wood samples. Trunk samples exhibited a higher effective section compared to branch samples, with effective section percentages exceeding 91 % in trunks and decreasing to over 86 % in branches. The larvae modified the mechanical properties of the trunks and branches. The wood samples in both trunks and branches increased loading times and breakage times as the effective section increased, although the times were lower in damaged samples. Significant differences were observed in the interactions of loading time x effective section and breakage time x effective section in dry trunks. This suggests that the effective section in trunks is more strongly related to their increased resistance. The results indicate that, in the ‘Tempranillo’ variety, branches with a lower effective section are more prone to breakage when affected by X. arvicola larvae, whereas trunks, with a greater effective section, maintain better stability. This research highlights the need for further evaluation of other vine varieties and different years of X. arvicola attack, as the current findings are based on a single variety (‘Tempranillo’) over a period of ten years.

Funding

This research was funded by the projects “Solución global para mejorar la producción vitivinícola frente al cambio climático basada en robótica, en tecnología IT y en estrategias biotecnológicas y del manejo del viñedo (Acronym: GLOBALVITI; Reference: IDI-20160746)” and “Estudio de nuevos factores relacionados con el suelo, la planta y la microbiota enológica que influyen en el equilibrio de la acidez de los vinos y en su garantía de calidad y estabilidad en climas cálidos (Acronym: LOWpHWINE 2020; Reference: IDI-20210391)”. And, by the Universidad de León through the Programa propio de investigación de la Universidad de León “Ayudas a la investigación-2024".

Data availability statement

The authors do not have permission to share data.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Álvaro Rodríguez-González: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Investigation. Daniela Ramírez-Lozano: Methodology, Conceptualization. Andrea Antolín-Rodríguez: Methodology, Conceptualization. Laura Zanfaño: Methodology, Conceptualization. Guzmán Carro-Huerga: Methodology, Conceptualization. Pedro A. Casquero: Funding acquisition. Marcos Guerra: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Julia García-González: Methodology, Conceptualization. Andrés Juan-Valdés: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Investigation.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the research program of the Universidad de León 2022 for the grant awarded to Daniela Ramírez Lozano, to the Junta de Castilla y Leon for the aid for financing the predoctoral hiring of research personnel, co-financed by the European Social Fund and which is translated into ORDEN EDU/875/2021 awarded to Andrea Antolín Rodríguez and, to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (Spain) for the grant awarded to Laura Zanfaño González (FPU 20/03040 ).
==== Refs
References

1 Feio A. Machado J.S. In-situ assessment of timber structural members: combining information from visual strength grading and NDT/SDT methods – a review Construct. Build. Mater. 101 2015 1157 1165 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.123
2 Machado J.S. Riggio M. D'Ayala D. Assessment of structural timber members by non- and semi-destructive methods Construct. Build. Mater. 101 2015 1155 1156 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.032
3 Cabaleiro M. Branco J.M. Sousa H.S. Conde B. First results on the combination of laser scanner and drilling resistance tests for the assessment of the geometrical condition of irregular cross-sections of timber beams Mater. Struct. 51 2018 99 10.1617/s11527-018-1225-9
4 Kim G.H. Barnes H.M. Lyon D.E. Effect of decay on the mechanical properties of full-sized lumber Holzforschung 48 1994 145 149 10.1515/hfsg.1994.48.2.145
5 Brischke C. Welzbacher C.R. Huckfeldt T. Influence of fungal decay by different basidiomycetes on the structural integrity of Norway spruce wood Holz als Roh- Werkst. 66 6 2008 433 438 10.1007/s00107-008-0257-1
6 Sousa H.S. Branco J.M. Lourenço P.B. Characterization of cross-sections from old chestnut beams weakened by decay Int. J. Architect. Herit. 8 2014 436 451 10.1080/15583058.2013.826303
7 Witomski P. Olek W. Bonarski J.T. Changes in strength of Scots pine wood (Pinus silvestris L.) decayed by brown rot (Coniophora puteana) and white rot (Trametes versicolor) Construct. Build. Mater. 102 2016 162 166 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.109
8 Li S. Gao Y. Brunetti M. Macchioni N. Nocetti M. Palanti S. Mechanical and physical properties of Cunninghamia lanceolata wood decayed by brown rot IForest - Biogeosciences For 12 2019 317 322 10.3832/ifor2922-012
9 Gilfillan J.R. Gilbert S.G. Development of a technique to measure the residual strength of woodworm infested timber Construct. Build. Mater. 15 2001 381 388 10.1016/S0950-0618(01)00004-6
10 Cruz H. Machado J.S. Effects of beetle attack on the bending and compression strength properties of pine wood Adv. Mater. Res. 778 2013 145 151 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.778.145
11 Nunes L. Parracha J.L. Faria P. Palma P. Maurício A. Pereira M.F.C. Towards an assessment tool of anobiid damage of pine timber structures IABSE Symp. 2019 Guimaraes Resilient Built Environ. - Risk Asset Manag. March 27-29 2019 Guimar~aes Port 2019 Guimar˜aes, Portugal 1734 1741 10.2749/guimaraes.2019.1734
12 Parracha J.L. Pereira M.F.C. Maurício A. Machado J.S. Faria P. Nunes L. A semi-destructive assessment method to estimate the residual strength of maritime pine structural elements degraded by anobiids Mater. Struct. 52 2019 54 10.1617/s11527-019-1354-9
13 Verbist M. Branco J.M. Nunes L. Characterization of the mechanical performance in compression perpendicular to the grain of insect-deteriorated timber Buildings 10 2020 14 10.3390/buildings10010014
14 Svacha P. Danilevsky M.L. Cerambycoid larvae of Europe and Soviet Union (Coleoptera, Cerambycoidea). Part II Acta Universitatis Carolinae 31 1988 129 279
15 Sama G. Atlas of the Cerambycidae of Europe and the Mediterranean area Zlin: Nakladatelstvi Kabourek 1 2002 173 Northern, Western, central and Eastern Europe, British Isles and Continental Europe from France (excluding Corsica) to Scandinavia and Urals
16 Moreno C.M. Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier 1795) (Coleóptera: Cerambycidae): descripción morfológica, ciclo biológico, incidencia y daños en el cultivo de la vid 2005 Publicaciones del Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León (ITACYL) Valladolid, Spain PhD thesis
17 Bahillo P. Cerambícidos (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) del País Vasco Cuadernos de Investigación Biológica 19 2006 274
18 Vives E. Ramos M.A. Coleoptera: Cerambycidae 12 2000 Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales Madrid CSIC. Madrid. Spain
19 Biurrun R. Yanguas R. Garnica I. Benito A. Xylotrechus arvicola. El taladro del endrino Navarra agraria 164 1997 47 51
20 Ocete R. Del Tío R. Presencia del perforador Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) en viñedos de la Rioja Alta Bol. Sanid. Vegetal Plagas 22 1996 199 202
21 Rodríguez M. Ocaña P. Presencia del perforador Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier) en viñas de la provincia de Ciudad Real-1996 XXII Reunión Del Grupo de Trabajo de Los Problemas Fitosanitarios de La Vid 1997 Ciudad Real, Spain
22 Ocete R. López M.A. Principales insectos xilófagos de los viñedos de la Rioja Alta y Alavesa Vit. Enol. Prof. 62 1999 24 30
23 Peláez H. Maraña J.M. Urbez J.R. Barrigón J.M. Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier, 1795) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Presencia en los viñedos de Castilla y León IV Congreso Ibérico de Ciencias Hortícolas; (Extremadura, Spain: Caceres). Actas Horticultura 30 2001 1326 1332
24 Ocete R. López M. Prendes C. Lorenzo C. González-Andújar J. Lara M. Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae), a new impacting pest on Spanish vineyards Vitis 41 2002 211 212 10.5073/vitis.2002.41.211-212
25 Moreno C.M. Martín C.M. Urbez J.R. Maraña R. Moro S. García D. Peláez H. Descripción de dos coleópteros que afectan al viñedo en Castilla y León Phytoma 147 2003 34 42
26 Peláez H. Hernández J.M. Martín M.C. Moreno C.M. Santiago Y. Determinación de las características del huevo de Xylotrechus arvicola (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae, Olivier, 1795). Diputación de Zamora Libro de Actas del X Congreso Ibérico de Entomología 2002 Castilla y León Zamora, Spain 52
27 Rodríguez-González A. Peláez H.J. González-López O. Mayo S. Casquero P.A. Reproductive patterns of Xylotrechus arvicola (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), an emerging pest of grapevines, under laboratory conditions J. Econ. Entomol. 109 2016 1226 1230 10.1093/jee/tow045 27016597
28 Rodríguez-González A. Mayo S. González-López O. Peláez H.J. Casquero P.A. Biological parameters of Xylotrechus arvicola females, an insect pest in Iberian Peninsula vineyards Oeno One 51 2017 373 379 10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.4.1880
29 García-Ruiz E. Contribución al Manejo de Plagas en vid: Xylotrechus arvicola Olivier (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) y Lobesia botrana Denis & Schiffermüller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) 2009 University of La Rioja Logroño. Spain PhD Thesis
30 Rodríguez-González A. Mayo S. González-López O. Reinoso B. Gutiérrez S. Casquero P.A. Inhibitory activity of Beauveria bassiana and Trichoderma spp. on the insect pests Xylotrechus arvicola (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Chrisomelidae: Bruchinae) Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 2017 12 10.1007/s10661-016-5719-z 27933578
31 Rodríguez-González A. Malvar R.A. Guerra M. Sánchez-Maíllo E. Peláez H.J. Carro-Huerga G. Casquero P.A. Xylotrechus arvicola (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) capture in vineyards in relation to climatic factors Pest Manag. Sci. 78 2022 3030 3038 10.1002/ps.6928 35426244
32 García-Benavides P. Martin-Zamorano P. Ocete-Pérez C.A. Maistrello L. Ocete R. Biodiversity of pathogenic wood fungi isolated from Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier) galleries in vine shoots J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 47 2013 73 81 10.20870/oeno-one.2013.47.2.1540
33 Ocete R. López-Martínez M.A. Prendes C. Lorenzo C.D. González-Andújar J.L. Relación entre la infestación de Xylotrechus arvicola (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) (Olivier) y la presencia de hongos patógenos en un viñedo de la Denominación de Origen “La Mancha” Bol. Sanid. Vegetal Plagas 28 2002 97 102
34 Peláez H. Moreno C. Santiago Y. Maraña R. Urbez J.R. Lambert S.M. María C.M. Evan E. Barrigón J. Prada P.V. Xylotrechus arvicola: un cerambícido en el cultivo de la vid Terra 55 2006 50 60 2006
35 Ocete R. López M. Gallardo A. Pérez M. Rubio I. Efecto de la infestación de Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) sobre la floración de la variedad Tempranillo en La Rioja Bol. Sanid. Vegetal Plagas 30 2004 311 316
36 Rodríguez-González A. Peláez H.J. Mayo S. González-López O. Casquero P.A. Biometric traits of Xylotrechus arvicola adults from laboratory and grape field Vitis 55 2016 73 78 10.5073/vitis.2016.55.73-78
37 Rodríguez-González A. Casquero P.A. García-González J. Rodríguez-Robles D. Morán-Del Pozo J.M. Juan-Valdés A. Analysis of the mechanical properties of wood attacked by Xylotrechus arvicola larvae, and its influence on the structural properties of the plant Vitis 58 2019 105 112 10.5073/vitis.2019.58.105-112
38 Rodríguez-González A. Casquero P.A. Carro-Huerga G. García-González J. Álvarez-García S. Juan-Valdés A. Failure under stress of grapevine wood: the effects of the cerambycid Xylotrechus arvicola on the biomechanics properties of Vitis vinifera Maderas Cienc. Tecnol. 20 2020 167 178 10.4067/S0718-221X2020005000203
39 Rodríguez-González A. Casquero P.A. Pereira J.A. González-López O. Guerra M. García-González J. Morán-Del Pozo J.M. Juan-Valdés A. Mechanical behaviour of grapevine wood affected by Xylotrechus arvicola Maderas Cienc. Tecnol. 25 16 2023 1 14 10.4067/s0718-221x2023000100416
40 AENOR - Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification Website of Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification http://www.aenor.es/ 2024 accessed 15/01/24
41 Moreno C.M. Martín Y. Santiago Y. De Evan E. Hernández J.M. Peláez H. Presencia de Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier, 1795) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) en viñedos de la zona centro de Castilla y León Bol. Sanid. Vegetal Plagas 30 2004 475 486
42 Jacquelin Du Val C. Note sur le male du Vesperus xatarti Mulsant Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 8 1850 347 349
43 Ruiz Castro A. Fauna entomológica de la vid en España Estudio sistemático-biológico de las especies de mayor importancia económica vol. IV 1943 Coleoptera). CSIC Madrid, Spain
44 Domínguez García-Tejero F. Plagas y Enfermedades de las Plantas Cultivadas 2004 Mundi-Prensa Madrid. Spain
45 Baggiolini M. Epard S. Un nouveau ravageur de la vigne, le Clyte (Clytus arietis L.) Agriculture Romande VII 1968 91 92
46 Goodwin S. A new strategy for the chemical control of fig longicorn, Acalolepta vastator (Newman) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), infesting grapevine Aust. J. Entomol. 44 2005 170 174
47 Armendáriz I. Juárez J.S. Campillo G. Miranda L. Pérez-Sanz A. Daños mecánicos producidos por Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier, 1875) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) Bol. Sanid. Vegetal Plagas 34 2008 477 483
48 Sakai T. Nakagawa J. Takahashi J. Iwabuchi K. Ishii K. Isolation and identification of the male sex pheromone of the grape borer Xylotrechus pyrrhoderus Bates (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Chem. Lett. 1984 263 264
49 Walczynska A. Danko M. Kozlowski J. The considerable adult size variability in wood feeders is optimal Ecol. Entomol. 35 2010 16 24
50 Walczynska A. Is wood safe for its inhabitants? Bull. Entomol. Res. 100 2010 461 465 19939320
51 Jankowiak R. Rossa R. Filamentous fungi associated with Monochamus galloprovincialis and Acanthocinus aedilis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Scots pine Pol. Bot. J. 52 2007 143 149
52 Ferrero M.E. Coirini R.O. Díaz M.P. The effect of wood-boring beetles on the radial growth of Prosopis flexuosa DC. In the arid Chaco of Argentina J. Arid Environ. 88 2013 141 146 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.004
53 Stephen F.M. Salisbury V.B. Oliveria F.L. Red oak borer, Enaphalodes rufulus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas, USA: an unexpected and remarkable forest disturbance Integrated Pest Manag. Rev. 6 2013 247 252 10.1023/A:1025779520102
54 Buchner P. Endosymbiosis of Animals with Plant Microorganisms 1965 John Wiley and Sons New York. USA
55 Dominik J. Starzyk J.R. Owady niszczące drewno Państwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Leśne 1989 Warszawa, Poland
56 Jones K.G. Dowd P.E. Blackwell M. Polyphyletic origins of yeast-like endocytobionts from anobiid and cerambycid beetles Mycol. Res. 103 1999 542 546 10.1017/S0953756298007308
57 Kurkela T. Aalto T. Varama M. Jalkanen R. Defoliation by the common pine sawfly (Diprion pini) and subsequent growth reduction in Scots pine: a retrospective approach Silva Fenn. 39 2005 467 480 http://doi:10.14214/sf.360
58 Drenkhan R. Kurkela T. Hanso M. The relationship between the needle age and the growth rate in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris): a retrospective analysis by Needle Trace Method (NTM) Eur. J. For. Res. 125 2006 397 405 10.1007/s10342-006-0131-9
59 Hansen E.M. Stone J.K. Capitano B.R. Rosso P. Sutton W. Winton L. Incidence and impact of Swiss needle cast in forest plantations of Douglas fir in coastal Oregon Plant Dis. 84 2000 773 778 10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.7.773 30832107
60 Krause S.C. Raffa K.F. Comparison of insect, fungal, and mechanically induced defoliation of larch: effects on plant productivity and subsequent host susceptibility Oecologia 90 1992 411 416 28313529
61 Hauer R. Wing J.W. Dawson J.O. Ice storm damage to urban trees J. Arboric. 19 1993 187 193
62 James K. Kane B. Precision digital instruments to measure dynamic wind loads on trees during storms Agric. For. Meteorol. 148 2008 1055 1061 http://doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.02.003
63 Detters A. Cowell C. McKeown L. Howard P. Evaluation of Current Rigging and Dismantling Practices Used in Arboriculture. Report Submitted to the Health and Safety Executive and the Forestry Commission, United Kingdom 2008 355
