Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 45, Issue 3–4, pp 111–122 | Cite as

Influence of leaf trichomes on predatory mite (Typhlodromus pyri) abundance in grape varieties

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Non-glandular leaf trichomes positively influence the abundance of many phytoseiid mites. We characterized the influence of grape leaf trichomes (domatia, hairs, and bristles) on Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten abundance over two years in a common garden planting of many grape varieties and 2 years of sampling in a commercial vineyard. In general, a lack of trichomes was associated with much lower predator numbers and in the case of Dechaunac, a cultivar with almost no trichomes, very few T. pyri were found. Phytoseiid abundance was best predicted by a model where domatia and hair had an additive effect (r 2 = 0.815). Over two years of sampling at a commercial vineyard there were T. pyri present on all of the 5 cultivars except Dechaunac. At the same time, European red mite prey were present on Dechaunac alone. These results suggest that on grape cultivars lacking leaf trichomes, T. pyri likely will not attain sufficient densities to provide biological control of European red mite, despite presence of the mite food source. The relationship between leaf trichomes and phytoseiid abundance that is observed at the scale of single vines in a garden planting appears to also be manifest at the scale of a commercial vineyard. Because persistence of predatory mites in or nearby the habitats of prey mites is important for effective mite biological control, leaf trichomes, through their influence on phytoseiid persistence, may be critical for successful mite biological control in some systems.

Keywords

Non-glandular trichomes Phytoseiid Domatia Biological control 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Bill Srmack for allowing us to collect leaf samples from the National Clonal Germplasm Repository vineyard in Geneva, NY. Joe Ogrodnick provided photographic expertise. Karen Wentworth, Amy Loveland, Carol Herring, Milo Bonacci, and Jeanie McCann provided laboratory assistance. A special thanks to Amy Roda for guidance and support. This work was supported by the NJ Shaulis Scholarship in viticulture and the New York State Wine and Grape Foundation.

References

  1. Agrawal AA (2000) Mechanisms, ecological consequences and agricultural implications of tri-trophic interactions. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:329–335. doi: 10.1016/S1369-5266(00)00089-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Karban R (1997) Domatia mediate plant-arthropod mutualism. Nature 387:562–563. doi: 10.1038/42384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer YM, Clifford HT (1990) An annotated list of domatia-bearing species. Notes Jodrell Lab 12:1–33Google Scholar
  5. Camporese P, Duso C (1996) Different colonization patterns of phytophagous and predatory mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on three grape cultivars: a case study. Exp Appl Acarol 20:1–22Google Scholar
  6. Croft BA, Kim SS, Kim DI (1995) Leaf residency and interleaf movement of four phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on apple. Environ Entomol 24:1344–1351Google Scholar
  7. Downing RS, Moilliet TK (1967) Relative densities of predacious and phytophagous mites on three cultivars of apple trees. Can Entomol 99:733–741Google Scholar
  8. Duso C (1992) Role of Amblyseius aberrans (Oud.), Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in vineyards: III. Influence of variety characteristics on the success of A. aberrans and T. pyri releases. J Appl Entomol 114:455–462Google Scholar
  9. Duso C, Vettorazzo E (1999) Mite population dynamics on different grape varieties with or without phytoseiids released (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 23:741–763. doi: 10.1023/A:1006297225577 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duso C, Pasini M, Pellegrini M (2003) Distribution of the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on different apple cultivars. Biocontrol Sci Technol 13:671–681. doi: 10.1080/09583150310001606264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. English-Loeb G, Norton AP, Walker MA (2002) Behavioral and population consequences of acarodomatia in grapes on phytoseiid mites (Mesostigmata) and implications for plant breeding. Entomol Exp Appl 104:307–319. doi: 10.1023/A:1021233027023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. English-Loeb G, Norton AP, Gadoury D, Seem R, Wilcox W (2005) Tri-trophic interactions among grapevines, a fungal pathogen, and a mycophagous mite. Ecol Appl 15:1679–1688. doi: 10.1890/04-1939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faraji F, Janssen A, Sabelis MW (2002) The benefits of clustering eggs: the role of egg predation and larval cannibalism in a predatory mite. Oecologia 131:20–26. doi: 10.1007/s00442-001-0846-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grostal P, O’Dowd DJ (1994) Plants, mites, and mutualism: leaf domatia and the abundance and reproduction of mites on Viburnum tinus (Caprifoliaceae). Oecologia 97:308–315Google Scholar
  15. IBPGR/OIV (International Board for Plant Genetic Research/Office International de la Vigne et du Vin) (1989) Minimal descriptor list for grapevine varieties. Update of IBPRG/83/154 grape descriptors. IBPGR Executive Secretariat, RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. Karban R, English-Loeb G, Walker MA, Thaler J (1995) Abundance of phytoseiid mites on Vitis species: effects of leaf hairs, domatia, prey abundance and plant phylogeny. Exp Appl Acarol 19:189–197. doi: 10.1007/BF00130822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kreiter S, Tixier M-S, Croft BA, Auger P, Barret D (2002) Plants and leaf characteristics influencing the predaceous mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in habitats surrounding vineyards. Environ Entomol 31:648–660Google Scholar
  18. McMurtry JA (1992) Dynamics and potential impact of ‘generalist’ phytoseiids in agroecosystems and possibilities for establishment of exotic species. Exp Appl Acarol 14:371–382. doi: 10.1007/BF01200574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monks A, O’Connell DM, Lee WG, Bannister JM, Dickinson KJM (2007) Benefits associated with the domatia mediated tritrophic mutualism in the shrub Coprosma lucida. Oikos 116:873–881. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15654.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norton AP, English-Loeb G, Gadoury DM, Seem RC (2000) Mycophagous mites and foliar pathogens: leaf domatia mediate tritrophic interactions in grapes. Ecology 81:490–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norton AP, English-Loeb G, Belden E (2001) Host plant manipulation of natural enemies: leaf domatia protect beneficial mites from insect predators. Oecologia 126:535–542. doi: 10.1007/s004420000556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nyrop J, English-Loeb G, Roda A (1998) Conservation biological control of spider mites in perennial cropping systems. In: Barbosa P (ed) Conservation biological control. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Dowd DJ, Pemberton RW (1994) Leaf domatia in Korean plants: floristics, frequency, and biogeography. Vegetatio 114:137–149Google Scholar
  24. O’Dowd DJ, Willson MF (1989) Leaf domatia and mites on Australasian plants: ecological and evolutionary implications. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 37:191–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Dowd DJ, Willson MF (1991) Associations between mites and leaf domatia. Trends Ecol Evol 6:179–182. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(91)90209-G CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pemberton RW, Turner CE (1989) Occurrence of predatory and fungivorous mites in leaf domatia. Am J Bot 76:105–112. doi: 10.2307/2444779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poppy GM, Sutherland JP (2004) Can biological control benefit from genetically-modified crops? Tritrophic interactions on insect-resistant transgenic plants. Physiol Entomol 29:257–268. doi: 10.1111/j.0307-6962.2004.00382.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Putman WL, Herne DHC (1964) Relations between Typhlodromus caudiglans Schuster (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can Entomol 96:925–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roda A, Nyrop J, Dicke M, English-Loeb G (2000) Trichomes and spider-mite webbing protect predatory mite eggs from intraguild predation. Oecologia 125:428–435. doi: 10.1007/s004420000462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roda A, Nyrop JP, English-Loeb G (2003) Leaf pubescence mediates abundance of non-prey food and the density of the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri. Exp Appl Acarol 29:193–211. doi: 10.1023/A:1025874722092 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Romero GQ, Benson WW (2005) Biotic interactions of mites, plants and leaf domatia. Curr Opin Plant Biol 8:436–440. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2005.05.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabelis MW, Van Baalen M, Bakker FM, Bruin J, Drukker B, Egas M et al (1999) The evolution of direct and indirect plant defence against herbivorous arthropods. In: Olff H, Brown VK, Drent RH (eds) Herbivores: between plants and predators. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 109–166Google Scholar
  33. Seelmann L, Auer A, Hoffmann D, Schausberger P (2007) Leaf pubescence mediates intraguild predation between predatory mites. Oikos 116:807–817. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15895.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. StataCorp (2007) Stata statistical software: release 10. StataCorp, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  35. Walde SJ, Nyrop JP, Hardman JM (1992) Dynamics of Panonychus ulmi and Typhlodromus pyri: factors contributing to persistence. Exp Appl Acarol 14:261–291. doi: 10.1007/BF01200568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walter DE (1996) Living on leaves: mites, tomenta, and leaf domatia. Annu Rev Entomol 41:101–114. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.000533 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walter DE, Denmark HA (1991) Use of leaf domatia on wild grape (Vitis munsoniana) by arthropods in central Florida. Fla Entomol 74:440–446. doi: 10.2307/3494838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Willson MF (1991) Foliar shelters for mites in the Eastern deciduous forest. Am Midl Nat 126:111–117. doi: 10.2307/2426155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York State Agricultural Experiment Station (NYSAES), Department of Entomology, Barton LabCornell UniversityGenevaUSA

Personalised recommendations