Impaginato 183 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(3): 183-189 doI: 10.13128/ahs-20575 Field evaluation of three biopesticides for control of the raspberry cane midge, Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes) in Bulgaria M. Mohamedova Department of Entomology, Agricultural University Plovdiv, 12 Mendeleev Str., 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Key words: azadirachtin, Bacillus subtilis, biocontrol, efficacy, Resseliella theobaldi, spinosad. Abstract: The raspberry cane midge, Resseliella theobaldi is a key pest on red raspberry, Rubus idaeus. The larvae of the insect severely attack the raspberry canes, resulting in premature death of the plant canes. In the last decade, organic production of raspberry fruits has significantly increased in Bulgaria. At the same time there are few products of botanical or microbiological origin that might be used for control of this pest. In present study the effect of NeemAzal® T/C (azadirachtin A), Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad), and Bacillus subtilis on R. theobaldi was evaluated. The experiments were conducted in two raspberry fields at different altitude. In the field at lower altitude (196 m), the raspberry cane midge has developed four generation per year, while in the field at higher altitude (960 m) three generations of the pest have been completed. Lowest number of larvae in raspberry canes was observed after application of NeemAzal® T/C, and B. subtilis in both raspberry fields. Both products demon- strated highest efficacy at 7th day after treatment, when the number of larvae per splits was 67.1-82.5% for NeemAzal® T/C, and 75.1-81.2% for B. subtilis lower compared with the control at the two experimental sites. 1. Introduction Among the small fruit crops grown in Bulgaria, the red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) is the most valuable. during the last five years, the total area of raspberry plantation has increased by 43% and the yield has reached 3620 kg-1 ha. At the same time approximately 54% of raspberry production is organic. In 2015 and 2016, about 75% of the total raspberry yield was exported mainly to western european countries, but also to sev- eral markets in Asia (Agrostatistics, 2015). The most serious pest of raspberry is the raspberry cane midge, Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes) (diptera: Cecidomyiidae), which causes pre- mature death of the plant canes. In Bulgaria, the insect was first reported by Stoyanov in 1960. The author examined the life cycle of R. theobaldi (*) Corresponding author: m.mohamedova@au-plovdiv.bg Citation: MoHAMedovA M., 2017 - Field evalutation of three biopesticides for control of the raspberry cane midge, Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes) in Bulgaria. - Adv. Hort. Sci., 31(3): 183-189. Copyright: © 2017 Mohamedova M. This is an open access, peer reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ahs/) and distribuited under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Received for publication 20 April 2017 Accepted for publication 15 May 2017 AHS Advances in Horticultural Science Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(3): 183-189 184 under different conditions and reported the develop- ment of three-five overlapping generations a year. The larvae of the insect attack the plant primocanes, both of those fruiting in June-July as well as those fruiting in August-September (Stoyanov, 1963). The larvae feed under the bark of canes and clearly define dark brown spots appearing on the green sur- face of the canes. Pitcher (1952) stated that damage to raspberry plants caused by R. theobaldi was usual- ly associated with fungal pathogens such as Botrytis cinerea, Fusarium avenaceum and Didymella applan- ta. The fungi cause necrosis of vascular cylinder through the larval feeding sites (Williamson, 1987). The complex of damage involved the raspberry cane midge and mycoses is known as “midge blight” (Pitcher and Webb, 1952). As a result of usually pre- sent of midge blight, there is no established relation- ship between population level of R. theobaldi and d e g r e e o f p l a n t d a m a g e c a u s e d b y t h e i n s e c t (Williamson and Hargreaves, 1979). According to Shternshis et al. (2002), the effect of the control treatments against the pest should be assessed by estimating the severity of midge blight including fun- gal lesions. To date, the biological control of raspberry cane midge is still poorly investigated. There are few reports concerning alternatives to chemical control for R. theobaldi. Sex-pheromone-based strategies are promising techniques to control of many economical- ly important pests. Pheromone traps for raspberry cane midge were used for the first time in the UK in 2005 (Milenković et al., 2006). Cross and Hall (2006) and Hall et al. (2009) identified 2-acetoxy-5-unde- canone as a major component of R. theobaldi female sex pheromone. over the past ten years, the sex pheromones have been tested for monitoring the male emergence (Cross et al., 2008, Tanasković and Milenković, 2010, Sipos et al., 2012). Therefore, little information concerning the application of biopesti- cides for control of R. theobaldi in raspberry organic production is currently available. For instance, use of products based on entomopathogenic bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and Streptomyces avermi- tilis against raspberry midge blight have been report- ed (Shternshis et al., 2002). Further, there are no publications on the biological control of this raspber- ry pathogen complex. The objective of this study was to evaluate the possibility to control raspberry cane midge using two commercial biopesticides and one noncommercial bacterial strain under field conditions. In particular, I attempted to assess the role of used products in reducing the number of R. theobaldi larvae in rasp- berry canes. 2. Materials and Methods Biopesticides and bacterium cultivation C o m m e r c i a l f o r m u l a t i o n s N e e m A z a l ® T / C (azadirachtin A, Trifolio-M, Germany), and Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad, dowAgroSciences, Bulgaria), and a bacterium Bacillus subtilis were used against midge in raspberry fields. The strain of B. subtilis was grown in the dark for 48 h at 24°C on tryptic soy broth agar (TSBA). For inoculum production a loop of the bacteria was transferred into 100 ml of TSB and allowed to multi- ply for 48 h on a rotary shaker (160 rpm) at the same temperature. Bacterial suspensions were centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 20 min, and the bacterial pellet was resuspended in sterile¼ strength Ringer’s solution (Merck). The bacterial suspension was adjusted to a final concentration of 108 CFU ml-1 by dilution with Ringer’s solution. The bacterial strain identification was determined by FAMe Analysis, following by BIoLoG Analysis. Experimental design The trials were conducted in 2016 in two commer- c i a l r a s p b e r r y p l a n t a t i o n s i n t h e r e g i o n s o f Bogdanovo (196 m) and Samokov (960 m). The first location (Bogdanovo) has a flat topography, with small hills. The soil type is Leptosols (Bulgarian Soil Taxonomy), and the landscape is dominated by agri- cultural land use. According to the climatic data (National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology, BAS), the average air temperature from April through october 2016 was 22.4°C. The average rainfall for the investigation period was 284 mm. The geographical coordinates of the raspberry field in Bogdanovo are 42°36’ N, 26°00’ e. The second location (Samokov) is a valley between two mountains - Rila and verila. The soil type is Fluvisols, and the landscape is dominated by arable land. The average air temperature from April through october 2016 was 15.4°C. For the same period, the average rainfall was 531 mm. The geo- graphical coordinates of the raspberry field in Samokov are 42°21’ N, 23°34’ e. The cultivar Heritage (USA) was grown in both three years old fields. Plants were located in spacing of 50 cm within rows and 2.0 m between rows. experimental plots were 10 m2, each plot containing approximately 100-120 raspberry canes. The size of Mohamedova - Field evaluation of three biopesticides for control of the raspberry cane midge in Bulgaria 185 the buffer zone between the plots was 4 m. The treatments were arranged in a completely random- ized block design with four replications. Treatment and application methods The PheroNorm® standard large delta traps (Andermatt Biocontrol AG, Switzerland) were used to determine the population dynamic of the cane midge. The traps containing 10 µl cane midge sex pheromone lure per trap were mounted on bamboo sticks at height of 60 cm the 10th of April. Three traps were used in Bogdanovo (11 ha), and two in Samokov (7,5 ha). Two applications were made in Samokov, one against the first generation (on the 17th May), and one against the second generation (on the 14th July). Three applications were made in Bogdanovo on 9th May, 8th July and 13th August against the first, sec- ond and third generations of R. theobaldi, respective- ly. The timing of each treatment was chosen accord- ing to the number of males caught by the traps. The treatments were made during the period of midge oviposition and larvae hatching. T h e t e s t s u s p e n s i o n s w e r e : N e e m A z a l ® T / C (0.2%), Sineis 480 SC® (0,025%), and B. subtilis (20 ml). The suspensions were applied at a volume appli- cation rate of 0.1 l m-2, using a hand held sprayer. The plants in the control were treated with equal quantity (0.1 l m-2) of water. Data collection and analysis The observations were made on the 3rd, 6th, and 12th day after treatments. Twenty canes per repli- cate, 20 canes were examined under stereomicro- scope and the number of larvae in the natural splits was counted. obtained data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANovA) and the treatment means were compared with the control plants, according to the duncan’s test (P<0.05). 3. Results In 2016, the raspberry midge cane flight pattern demonstrated four generations in Bogadonovo (196 m) and three generations in Samokov (960 m) (Fig. 1). In both commercial fields, the flight of midges started in the second half of April, a week later in Samokov (25.04) compared with Bogdanovo (18.04). At lower altitude, the first, the second, and the third generations of the pest showed three pronounced peaks of its flight dynamic. In the higher altitude, there were two peaks of midge cane flight - the first one between 19th and 25th of May, and the second one between 18th and 21th of July, for the first and second generations respectively (Fig. 1). In general, the population density of the males was higher in Bogdanovo than at Samokov. The high- est number of males was recorded during the inten- sive flight of the first generation of the midge in both Bogdanovo (824) and Samokov (683) sites (Fig. 1). Later in the season, the number of the males attract- ed by the traps in Bogdanovo was 623, 698 and 193 for the second, third and fourth generation, respec- tively. In Samokov, the number of the males was 528 and 267 for the second and third generation, respec- tively. The flight of the fourth generation of R. t h e o b a l d i c o n t i n u e d u n t i l 1 2 t h o f o c t o b e r i n Bogdanovo, while the flight of the third generation of the midge in Samokov was completed on 27th of September (Fig. 1). The results obtained from this observation allowed finding the most appropriate date for treatments. The evaluated bioinsecticides demonstrated bio- logical activity against the raspberry midge cane applied during the period of pest oviposition and lar- vae hatching. except for the treatment against the second generation of R. theobaldi in Samokov, in both raspberry fields, Bogdanovo and Samokov, the highest efficiency was found for the insecticide NeemAzal® T/C (Tables 1 and 2). This biopesticide also demonstrate the rapid initial effect against the penetration of larvae into raspberry canes. The num- ber of midge larvae per split in raspberry canes treat- ed with NeemAzal® T/C was significantly lower than the control at observations at 3rd, 7th and 12th day after applying the insecticide in Bogdanovo (Table 1, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the efficacy demonstrated by NeemAzal® T/C and B. subtilis. After the treatment against the first genera- tion the number of midge larvae per split varied Fig. 1 - Trap catches of males of Resseliella theobaldi in the fields of Bogdanovo and Samokov during the spring, summer and autumn of 2016. Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(3): 183-189 186 between 1.08 and 1.54 for NeemAzal® T/C, and b e t w e e n 1 . 5 5 a n d 2 . 0 7 f o r B . s u b t i l i s . S i m i l a r results were observed after the second and third treatments. The insecticide Sineis 480 SC® demon- s t r a t e d t h e l o w e s t e f f i c a c y c o m p a r e d w i t h NeemAzal® T/C and B. subtilis (Table 1, P<0.05). At the observation at 3rd day after treatments against the first and third generation of raspberry midge in Bogdanovo, the number of larvae in plots treated with Sineis 480 SC® was not significantly different from the number of larvae in control plots. In the second generation there was a statistical difference between the variant with the bioinsecticide and the control variant. After the treatments at 7th and 12th day, the insecticide showed better effect, and the number of larvae into the canes was significantly lower than the control but still higher compared with NeemAzal® T/C and B. subtilis (Table 1, P<0.05). In the experiments conducted in Samokov Sineis 480 SC® demonstrated higher efficacy against rasp- berry cane midge and the number of larvae per split was statistically different than the control at all three observations (Table 2, P<0.05). In this field, B. subtilis was more effective than NeemAzal® T/C and the number of larvae per split varied between 2.86 and 2.91 after first treatment. After the same treatment, the number of larvae into the canes treated with NeemAzal® T/C varied between 3.15 and 2.94. After the treatment against the second generation of R. theobaldi, B. subtilis showed rapid initial effect than NeemAzal® T/C. There was significant difference in number of larvae at 3rd day - 2.63 and 4.86 for B. sub- tilis and NeemAzal® T/C, respectively (Table 2, P<0.05). Table 1 - efficacy of three biopesticides using against raspberry midge cane in Bogdanovo Means within each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, duncan’s test (p<0.05). Treatments Products/active ingredients Number of midge larvae/split (day after treatment) 3rd (±Sd) 7th (±Sd) 12th (±Sd) First generation NeemAzal® T/C (azadirachtin A) 1.54 (±0.18) a 1.12 (±0.07) a 1.08 (±0.37) a Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad) 4.25 (±0.45) b 2.93 (±1.04) b 3.41 (±1.35) b B. subtilis 2.07 (±0.67) a 1.35 (±0.11) a 1.55 (±0.64) a Control 5.62 (±1.02) b 6.28 (±1.22) c 6.78 (±0.56) c Second generation NeemAzal® T/C (azadirachtin A) 2.48 (±1.11) a 1.74 (±0.64) a 1.62 (±0.19) a Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad) 5.77 (±1.32) b 3.82 (±1.04) b 3.87 (±0.94) b B. subtilis 3.19 (±0.44) a 2.17 (±0.05) a 2.28 (±0.14) a Control 8.44 (±1.12) c 8.92 (±1.65) c 9.41 (±0.27) c Third generation NeemAzal® T/C (azadirachtin A) 1.24 (±0.72) a 0.92 (±0.08) a 0.98 (±0.34) a Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad) 3.48 (±1.13) b 2.14 (±0.22) a 2.21 (±0.75) a B. subtilis 1.37 (±0.18) a 1.22 (±0.31) a 1.43 (±0.86) a Control 4.05 (±0.93) b 4.89 (±1.16) b 5.12 (±0.99) b Table 2 - efficacy of three biopesticides using against raspberry midge cane in Samokov Means within each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, duncan’s test (p<0.05). Treatments Products/active ingredients Number of midge larvae/split (day after treatment) 3rd (±Sd) 7th (±Sd) 12th (±Sd) First generation NeemAzal® T/C (azadirachtin A) 3.15 (±1.11) a 2.13 (±0.82) a 2.94 (±0.54) a Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad) 6.05 (±1.32) b 4.74 (±1.08) b 5.38 (±0.67) b B. subtilis 2.92 (±0.97) a 2.39 (±0.17) a 2.86 (±0.91) a Control 10.21 (±1.24) c 12.17 (±1.98) c 14.71 (±1.15) c Second generation NeemAzal® T/C (azadirachtin A) 4.86 (±0.46) b 3.77 (±0.21) b 3.58 (±1.06) a Sineis 480 SC® (spinosad) 5.14 (±1.11) b 3.98 (±0.87) b 3.43 (±0.35) a B. subtilis 2.63 (±1.07) a 2.05 (±0.57) a 2.73 (±0.97) a Control 8.73 (±0.48) c 10.84 (±1.54) c 13.22 (±1.18) b Mohamedova - Field evaluation of three biopesticides for control of the raspberry cane midge in Bulgaria 187 4. Discussion and Conclusions R. theobaldi was described by Theobald in 1920 (Barnes, 1926). Since then, almost a century later, it has become a pest of economic importance of rasp- berry crop throughout europe. The midge cane is widely distributed in Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, Italy, F r a n c e , I r e l a n d , U K , S w e d e n , C z e c h R e p u b l i c , Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. In these countries the insect has been introduced mainly with infested planting materials and somewhere with infested soil. When establishing a new raspberry plantation, it is critical to choose the cultivar that is well adapted to local soil and climatic conditions and it is less suscep- tible to infestation by the raspberry cane midge, as well. Normally, infested raspberry plants have demonstrated the symptoms of dark brown, clearly defined spots in the canes 3 to 5 weeks after laying the eggs (Stoyanov, 1963). For this reason, it is important to determine the most appropriate timing for control of R. theobaldi. The treatments have to be done before the larval feeding sites become visible. organic production of raspberry in many coun- tries, including Bulgaria, is a challenge because of lack of products for plant protection, which have nonchemical origin. Moreover, in Bulgaria there are no officially registered biopesticides or even chemical insecticides, that can be specifically used for control of the midge cane. Meanwhile, NeemAzal® T/C has been registered for control of tomato borer, Tuta absoluta, Meyr. Considering this need, the present study met its objective - the results showing the pos- sibility of biological control of the R. theobaldi. The tested biologically based preparations demonstrated their efficacy against the larvae of midge cane. The pest had four generations in the plantation at lower altitude (Bogdanovo) and three generation in the plantation at higher altitude (Samokov). Further, the data from the pheromone traps showed that the first generation had the highest population density in both raspberry plantations. The forth and the third generations in both sites showed the lowest popula- tion density. According to this information, the time and the number of treatments were determined. Among the tested biopesticides, NeemAzal® T/C and B. subtilis demonstrated the highest efficacy, causing up to 82.5% (the former) and 81.2% (the later) reduction of number of midge larvae in the splits compared to the control. Sineis 480 SC® demonstrated slower initial effect than NeemAzal® T/C and B. subtilis, but comparatively high efficacy, causing up to 63.26% reduction in number of larvae in the splits compared with the control. In fact, the present evaluation is the second attempt to apply only environmentally safe products for control of R. theobaldi. The first one was made by Shternshis et al. (2002). The authors tested the preparations based on Bt (BACTICIdAe®), and S. aver- mitilis (PHYToveRM®) for control of the raspberry midge blight and reported significant reduction of disease complex severity compared with the control variants. S. avermitilis is the base of spinosad, the active ingredient of Sineis 480 SC®. Spinosad as an active ingredient of the product Audienz®, was test- ed by Barrofio et al. (2011) against the raspberry midge cane. The result from this experiment is ambivalent, showing comparatively high efficacy against the midge larvae, but not significantly differ compared to the control. In this study spinosad showed to be less effective to the raspberry cane midge compared with both, azadirachtin A and B. subtilis. The result is interesting, because the spin- osad penetrates translaminarly in plant tissues and this suggests higher efficacy compared with the other tested products. deleva and Harizanova (2014) stated the rapid initial effect of spinosad against the larvae of tomato borer, T. absoluta. The authors reported 73.33% larval mortality in tomato leaves at 3rd day after treatment. Neem-based products have been evaluated for their efficacy against the different pest on berry plants. Kim (2014) reported insufficient activity of azadirachtin against the rednecked cane borer, Agrilus ruficollis F. on blackberries in USA. Contrary, Aguilera et al. (2009) commented the high efficacy of Neem against the raspberry weevil, Aegorhinus superciliosus G. in Chile. The authors reported signifi- cant embryogenesis inhibition after applying the Neem. The lowest number of larvae in raspberry canes observed in this evaluation is probably due to affect of azidarachtin on both larvae and adult of raspberry cane midge. The results obtained after application of, B. sub- tilis indicate that the bacterium might be considered as an effective agent for control of R. theobaldi. B. subtilis was originally isolated from the soil and has been tested as a biocontrol agent of root-knot nema- t o d e , M e l o i d o g y n e a r e n a r i a o n t o m a t o (Mohamedova and Samaliev, 2011). The bacterium is able to colonize successfully the rhizosphere of the plants and affect different pathogens in this zone. This suggests that B. subtilis could influence the pupae of the raspberry cane midge in the soil. I have not observed any phytotoxicity or negative Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(3): 183-189 188 influence of the three biopesticides on raspberry plants and beneficial insects. In several raspberry canes collected from the plantation in Samokov was observed parasitized 4th instar midge larvae of the third generation (Fig. 2). The midge larvae probably were infested by the parasitic larvae of Aprostectus genus. Therefore the results of the present evaluation show the possibility of the tested biopesticides to control of the raspberry cane midge. These products are a good alternative to chemical insecticide and might be successfully integrated in the control strate- gies of R. theobaldi in both, conventional and organic raspberry production. Further research should focus on screening the pesticides and bioagents, which could be able to control the disease complex “midge blight”, causing very often the dead of raspberry plants. Acknowledgements The present study was partially supported by Association of raspberry growers in Bulgaria. The author would like to thank to S. velikova for her kind help and the growers who allowed access to their plantations. I am grateful to prof. Svetoslav Bobev for his comments concerning the “midge blight” symp- toms and his advice and experience during the process of writhing of this manuscript. References AGRoSTATISTICS, 2015 - Fruit production. - Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Sofia, Bull. No., 289. AGUILeRA P.A., ZAMPeZZI v.M., ARANedA d.X., KLeIN K.C., ReBoLLedo R.R., 2009 - Azadirachtin effectivity in embryogenesis inhibition of Aegorhinus superciliosus (Guérin) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). - IdeSIA, 27(1): 47-55. BARNeS H.F., 1926 - The gall midges of blackberries and raspberries. - J. Pomol. Hort. Sci., 5: 137-140. BARoFFIo C.A., MITTAZ C., BedARd F., 2011 - Flight moni- toring and efficacy trials against Ressliella theobaldi in Switzerland. - IoBC/WPRS Bulletin, 70: 45-49. C R o S S J . v . , B A R o F F I o C . , G R A S S I A . , H A L L d . R . , ŁABANoWSKA B., MILeNCovIĆ S., NILSSoN T., SHTeRN- SHIS M., ToRNÉUS C., TRANdeM N., vÉTeK G., 2008 - Monitoring raspberry cane midge Resseliella theobaldi w i y h s e x p h e r o m o n e t r a p s : r e s u l t s f r o m 2 0 0 6 . - IoBC/WPRS Bulletin, 39: 11-17. CRoSS J.v., HALL d.R., 2006 - Sex pheromone of raspberry cane midge. - IoBC/wprs Bulletin, 29(9): 105-109. deLevA e., HARIZANovA v., 2014 - Efficacy evaluation of insecticides on larvae of the tomato borer Tuta absolu- ta, Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) under laboratory conditions. - Agriculture & Food, 2: 158-164. HALL d.R., FARMAN d.I., CRoSS J.v., PoPe T.W., ANdo T., YAMAMoTo M., 2009 - (S)-2-Acetoxy-5-Undecanone, Female Sex Pheromone of the raspberry cane midge Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes). - J. Chem. ecol., 35: 230- 242. KIM S.-H., 2014 - Control of Agrilus ruficollis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) with insecticides and identifying visual attractants for use in a monitoring trap. - Phd Thesis, University of Arkanzas, USA. MILeNCovIĆ S., TANASKovIĆ S., SReTeNovIĆ d., 2006 - Monitoring flight of raspberry midge Resseliella theobaldi (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) by the pheromone trap. - vII Counseling on plant protection. Zlatibor, 27 November - 2 december 2006. Book of Abstracts, pp. 117-118 (In Serbian). MoHAMedovA M., SAMALIev H., 2011 - Effect of the rhi- zobacterium, Bacillus subtilis on Meloidogyne arenaria at different temperature. - Agric. Sci. Technol., 3(4): Fig. 2 - Parasitized and nonparasitized 4th instar larvae of Resseliella theobaldi in splits of raspberry canes collec- ted from Samokov raspberry plantation (September, 2016) Mohamedova - Field evaluation of three biopesticides for control of the raspberry cane midge in Bulgaria 189 378-383. PITCHeR R.S., 1952 - Observations on the raspberry cane midge (Thomassiniana theobaldi Barnes). I. Biology. - J. Hortic. Sci., 27: 71-94. PITCHeR R.S., WeBB P.C., 1952 - Observations on the rasp- berry cane midge Thomassiniana theobaldi Barne. II. “Midge blight”, a fungal invasion of the raspberry cane following injury by T. theobaldi. - J. Hortic. Sci., 27: 95- 100. SHTeRNSHIS M.v., BeLJAev A.A., SHPATovA T.v., BoKovA J.v., dUZHAK A.B., 2002 - Field testing of BACTICIDAE®, PHYTOVERM® and CHITINASE for control of the rasp- berry midge blight in Siberia. - BioControl, 47: 697-706. SIPoS K., MAdÁR S., MARKÓ, M., PÉNZeS B., 2012 - The possibility of automation of sex pheromone trapping: Tested on Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes) (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae). - Afr. J. Agric. Res, 7(5): 1410-1413. SToYANov d., 1960 - Protection against the pests and dis- eases of raspberry in due time. - ovostarstvo, 7: 24-29 (in Bulgarian). SToYANov d., 1963 - Investigations on the raspberry cane midge Thomassiniana thebaldi Barnes in Bulgaria. - Izvestija na Instituta za Zastita na Rastenijata, Gara Kostinbrod, 4: 41-46 (in Bulgarian). TANASKovIĆ S., MILeNCovIĆ S., 2010 - Monitoring of flight phenology of raspberry cane midge Resseliella theobaldi Barnes (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) by the pheromone traps in western Serbia. - Acta entomol. Serbica, 15(1): 81-90. WILLIAMSoN B., 1987 - Effect of fenitrothion and benomyl sprays on raspberry cane midge (Resseliella theobaldi) a n d m i d g e b l i g h t , w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o Leptospheria coniothyrium in the disease complex. - J. Hortic. Sci., 62: 171-175. WILLIAMSoN B., HARGReAveS A.J., 1979 - A technique for scoring midge blight of red raspberry a disease complex caused by Resseliella theobaldi and associated fungi. - Ann. Appl. Biol., 91(3): 297-301.