Advertisement

Experimental & Applied Acarology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 189–197 | Cite as

Abundance of phytoseiid mites on Vitis species: effects of leaf hairs, domatia, prey abundance and plant phylogeny

  • Richard Karban
  • Gregory English-Loeb
  • M. Andrew Walker
  • Jennifer Thaler
Article

Abstract

We observed the number of predatory mites (Phytoseiidae:Typhlodromus caudiglans) on the foliage of 20 North American species of grapes (Vitis spp) plus the domesticated EuropeanVitis vinifera, all grown in a common garden. We found relatively few phytophagous mites. The numbers of phytophagous mites were not correlated with the plant characteristics that we measured. We found approximately five times as many predatory mites as phytophagous mites and the numbers of these phytoseiid predators were not affected by the availability of prey. Similarly, numbers of phytoseiids were unaffected by plant gender and, hence, the availability of pollen, another source of food. The numbers of phytoseiids were not clustered according to the taxonomic grouping of the tested plant species. Leaf surface characteristics explained over 25% of the variance in the numbers of phytoseiids. Numbers of phytoseiids were positively associated with the density of vein hairs, the density of bristles in leaf axils, and the presence of leaf domatia. These results suggest that sheltered habitats rather than food availability may limit the numbers of phytoseiid mites on grapevines.

Key words

Phytoseiid predatory mites Vitis leaf surface mite domatia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey L.H. 1934. The species of grapes peculiar to North America. Gentes Herbarium. 3(4): 149–244.Google Scholar
  2. Chant D.A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part 1. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Can. Entomol. Suppl. 12: 1–119.Google Scholar
  3. Comeaux B.L., Nesbitt W.B. and Fantz P.R. 1987. Taxonomy of the native grapes of North Carolina. Castanea 52: 197–215.Google Scholar
  4. Derrickson E.M. and Ricklefs R.E. 1988. Taxon-dependent diversification of life history traits and the perception of phylogenetic constraints. Funct. Ecol. 2: 417–423.Google Scholar
  5. Downing R.S. and Moilliet T.K. 1967. Relative densities of predacious and phytophagous mites on three varieties of apple trees. Can. Entomol. 99: 738–741.Google Scholar
  6. Duso C. 1992. Role ofAmblyseius aberrans (Oud.),Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten andAmblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in vineyards. J. Appl. Entomol. 114: 455–462.Google Scholar
  7. Easterbrook M.A. 1992. The possibilities for control of two-spotted spider miteTetranychus urticae on field-grown strawberries in the UK by predatory mites. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2: 235–245.Google Scholar
  8. English-Loeb G.M., Karban R. and Hougen-Eitzman D. 1993. Direct and indirect competition between spider mites feeding on grapes. Ecol. Appl. 3: 699–707.Google Scholar
  9. Flaherty D.L., Wilson L.T., Stern V.M. and Kido H. 1985. Biological control in San Joaquin valley vineyards. In: M.A. Hoy and D.C. Herzog (eds), Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 501–520.Google Scholar
  10. Flaherty D.L., Wilson L.T., Welter S.C., Lynn C.D. and Hanna R. 1992. Spider mites. In: Grape Pest Management, 2nd edn. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, California, pp. 180–192.Google Scholar
  11. Gould S.J. and Lewontin R.C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 205: 581–598.Google Scholar
  12. Grostal P. and O'Dowd D.J. 1994. Plants, mites and mutualism: leaf domatia and the abundance and reproduction of mites onViburnum tinus (Caprifoliaceae). Oecologia 97: 308–315Google Scholar
  13. Huffaker C.B. 1958. Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27: 343–383.Google Scholar
  14. Huffaker C.B., van de Vrie M. and McMurtry J.A. 1970. Tetranychid populations and their possible control by predators: an evaluation. Hilgardia 40: 391–458.Google Scholar
  15. IBPGR/OIV (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources/Office International de la Vigne et du Vin) 1989. Minimal Desciptor List for Grapevine Varieties. Update of IBPGR/83/154 Grape Descriptors. IBPGR Executive Secretariat, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. King E.G., Hopper K.R. and Powell J.E. 1985. Analysis of systems for biological control of arthropod pests in the U.S. by augmentation of predators and parasites. In: M.A. Hoy, and D.C. Herzog (eds), Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 201–227.Google Scholar
  17. Kinn D.N. and Doutt R.L. 1972. Natural control of spider mites on wine grape varieties in northern California. Environ. Entomol. 1: 513–518.Google Scholar
  18. Lundstroem A.N. 1887. Von domatien. Pflanzenbiologische Studien. II. Die Anpassung der Pflanzen an Thiere. Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Uppsala Ser3. 13: 1–88.Google Scholar
  19. McMurtry J.A. 1982. The use of phytoseiids for biological control: progress and future prospects. In: M.A. Hoy (ed.) Recent Advances in Knowledge of the Phytoseiidae. Agricultural Sciences Publications, University of California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 23–48.Google Scholar
  20. McMurtry J.A., Huffaker C.B. and van de Vrie M. 1970. Tetranychid enemies: their biological characters and the impact of spray practices. Hilgardia 40: 331–389.Google Scholar
  21. Miles D.B. and Dunham A.E. 1993. Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: the use of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Ann. Rev. Ecol. System. 24: 587–619.Google Scholar
  22. Moore M.O. 1991. Classification and systematics of Eastern North AmericanVitis L. (Vitaceae) north of Mexico. SIDA 14: 339–367.Google Scholar
  23. Munson T.V. 1909. Foundation of American Grape Culture. T.V. Munson and Son, Denison.Google Scholar
  24. O'Dowd D.J. and Willson M.F. 1989. Leaf domatia and mites on Australasian plants: ecological and evolutionary implications. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 37: 191–236.Google Scholar
  25. O'Dowd D.J. and Willson M.F. 1991. Associations between mites and leaf domatia. TREE 6: 179–182.Google Scholar
  26. Overmeer W.P.J. 1985. Alternative prey and other food resources. In: W. Helle and M.W. Sabelis (eds) Spider Mites. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol. 1B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 131–139.Google Scholar
  27. Pemberton R.W. and Turner C.E. 1989. Occurrence of predatory and fungivorous mites in leaf domatia. Am. J. Bot. 76: 105–112.Google Scholar
  28. Putman W.L. 1962. Life-history and behaviour of the predacious miteTyphlodromus (T.)caudiglans Schuster (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Ontario, with notes on the prey of related species. Can. Entomol. 94: 163–177.Google Scholar
  29. Putman W.L. and Herne D.H.C. 1964. Relations betweenTyphlodromus caudiglans Schuster (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can. Entomol. 96: 925–943.Google Scholar
  30. Sabelis M.W. 1981. Biological Control of Two-spotted Spider Mites using Phytoseiid Predators. Part 1. Modelling the Predator-Prey Interaction at the Individual Level. Agricultural Research Reports 910, Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Sabelis M.W. 1985. Predation on spider mites. In: W. Helle and M.W. Sabelis (eds) Spider Mites. Their Biology, Natural Enemies, and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 103–129.Google Scholar
  32. Schruft G.A. 1985. Grape. In: W. Helle and M.W. Sabelis (eds) Spider Mites. Their Biology, Natural Enemies, and Control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 359–366.Google Scholar
  33. Schuster R.O. and Pritchard A.E. 1963. Phytoseiid mites of California. Hilgardia 34: 191–285.Google Scholar
  34. Stenseth C. 1979. Effect of temperature and humidity on the development ofPhytoseiulus persimilis and its ability to regulate populations ofTetranychus urticae (Acarina: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae). Entomophaga 24: 311–317.Google Scholar
  35. Tanigoshi L.K. 1982. Advances in knowledge of the phytoseiidae. In: M.A. Hoy (ed.) Recent Advances in Knowledge of the Phytoseiidae. Agricultural Sciences Publications, University of California, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  36. Viala P. and Ravaz L. 1903. American Vines. Complete translation of the 2nd edition by R. Dubois and E.H. Twight. Freygang-Leary, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Walter D.E. and Denmark H.A. 1991. Use of leaf domatia on wild grape (Vitis munsoniana) by arthropods in central Florida. Florida Entomol. 74: 440–446.Google Scholar
  38. Zar J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Karban
    • 1
  • Gregory English-Loeb
    • 2
  • M. Andrew Walker
    • 3
  • Jennifer Thaler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyCornell University, NY Agricultural Experiment StationGenevaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Viticulture and EnologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations