Dispersal shapes the dynamics of populations, their genetic structure and species distribution; therefore, knowledge of an organisms’ dispersal abilities is crucial, especially in economically important and invasive species. In this study, we investigated dispersal strategies of two phytophagous eriophyoid mite species: Aceria tosichella (wheat curl mite, WCM) and Abacarus hystrix (cereal rust mite, CRM). Both species are obligatory plant parasites that infest cereals and are of economic significance. We investigated their dispersal success using different dispersal agents: wind and vectors. We hypothesised that in both mite species the main mode of dispersal is moving via wind, whereas phoretic dispersal is rather accidental, as the majority of eriophyoid mite species do not possess clear morphological or behavioural adaptations for phoresy. Results confirmed our predictions that both species dispersed mainly with wind currents. Additionally, WCM was found to have a higher dispersal success than CRM. Thus, this study contributes to our understanding of the high invasive potential of WCM.
Dispersal is an important biological process that determines the dynamics and spatial distribution of populations, shapes their genetic structure, and affects evolutionary processes, such as local adaptation and speciation (Ronce 2007; Clobert et al. 2012). A high dispersal ability can lead to accelerated spread in the field and hence can influence the range expansion of organisms by potentially increasing invasion into a new habitat (Dunning et al. 1995; Hanski and Gilpin 1997; Hanski 1999; Clobert et al. 2001; Kot and Lewis 1996; Phillips et al. 2008; Travis et al. 2009). Thus, knowledge of the dispersal ability of pests or other organisms of economic significance, like eriophyoid mites, is of crucial importance to develop effective monitoring and management tactics.
Eriophyoid mites (Acariformes: Eriophyoidea) are obligatory plant parasites, some inducing a great adverse impact on agriculture and forestry due to a high invasive potential (Navia et al. 2010). Thus, there is a huge demand for empirical data on their dispersal abilities that would enable predictions of future expansion of harmful species. There is some evidence that eriophyoid mites can disperse actively for short distances, i.e., by walking within or between plants (Michalska et al. 2010; Galvão et al. 2012; Melo et al. 2014; Majer et al. 2021a). However, this mode of dispersal is extremely limited due to their minute size (length ca. 0.2 mm) and lack of adaptations that facilitate efficient active dispersal (Lindquist and Oldfield 1996). Eriophyoid mites are known to increase their ranges by aerial dispersal (Lindquist and Oldfield 1996; Sabelis and Bruin 1996; Zhao and Amrine 1997a, b; Thomas and Hein 2003). However, phoretic dispersal with invertebrate and vertebrate vectors has also been hypothesised to be a mode of eriophyoid mite transfer (Massee 1928; Gibson and Painter 1957; Shvanderov 1975; Waite and McAlpine 1992; Jeppson et al. 1975; Schliesske 1990; Liu et al. 2016), although experimental studies on phoretic dispersal are much scarcer than those on aerial dispersal (Michalska et al. 2010). Generally, the dispersal strategies in the majority of eriophyoid mite species remain untested (Michalska et al. 2010). It is important to note that aerial and phoretic dispersal are commonly considered passive forms of dispersal because the organisms cannot control their movement (Clobert et al. 2012; but see Washburn and Washburn 1984; Jung and Croft 2001). However, during the departure (emigration) phase, organisms often undertake behaviours that increase the probability of their dispersal (Bell et al. 2005; Reynolds et al. 2007; Osakabe et al. 2008; Reynolds and Reynolds 2009). Thus, passive dispersal may include an active component.
In this study, various modes of passive dispersal were investigated for grass-feeding eriophyoid species: wheat curl mite (WCM) Aceria tosichella Keifer and cereal rust mite (CRM) Abacarus hystrix (Nalepa). Passive dispersal is defined as movement driven primarily by external forces where there is no control over the direction or distance travelled. Both species infest different grass hosts, including cereals, and are vectors of plant viruses (Oldfield and Proeseler 1996; Mahmood et al. 1998; Byamukama et al. 2012; Navia et al. 2013; Oliveira-Hofman et al. 2015). WCM is one of the most important pests of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Navia et al. 2010, 2013), which is a crucial food grain source for humans (Shewry and Hey 2015). The mechanism of aerial dispersal of WCM has been tested several times in the field (Slykhuis 1953, 1955; Pady 1955; Staples and Allington 1956, 1959; Nault and Styer 1969; Harvey and Martin 1980, 1988; Harvey et al. 1990; Brey 1998; Liu et al. 2005; Umina et al. 2016) and experimentally (e.g. Thomas and Hein 2003; Kiedrowicz et al. 2017; Laska et al. 2019; Overmyer 2020; Kuczyński et al. 2020), whereas studies on the ability of CRM to effectively spread by wind are much scarcer (Nault and Stryer 1969; Kuczyński et al. 2020). Although the role of phoresy in the spread of WCM has been discussed in literature for more than 50 years (Slykhuis 1955; Michalska et al. 2010; Kiedrowicz et al. 2017), critical empirical investigations on the possibility of dispersal with vectors in those two mite species are scarce. There are only two published experimental tests of the ability of WCM to disperse with insect vectors, i.e., aphids (Gibson and Painter 1957) or an artificial vertebrate vector (Kuczyński et al. 2020). However, there has been no experimental study testing the possibility of phoretic dispersal in CRM.
Here, we fill this gap and assess the dispersal success of WCM and CRM using wind and phoretic vectors. We investigated aerial dispersal in wind tunnels (Majer et al. 2021a). To test phoretic dispersal, we used Anaphothrips obscurus Müller (Insecta: Thysanoptera) and a robot constructed from Lego Mindstorm kits (a device built according to Kuczyński et al. 2020), as potential small and large vectors, respectively. We hypothesised that wind is the most successful mode of dispersal of both eriophyoid mites, whereas phoretic dispersal is rather accidental, due to the lack of clear morphological (Lindquist and Oldfield 1996) or behavioural (Kiedrowicz et al. 2017) adaptations to phoresy in both mite species.
Materials and methods
Stock colonies of WCM and CRM were maintained on bread wheat (var. Muszelka) growing in pots and kept in rearing cages consisting of metal frames wrapped with nylon bags to protect against contamination, at room conditions (22–24 °C, L12:D12 photoperiod, 45% RH). WCM specimens originated from common wheat Triticum aestivum in Choryń, Poland (52°02′36″ N, 16°46′02″ E), and CRM specimens originated from quack grass, Elymus repens (L.) Gould, in Poznań, Poland (52°28′04″ N, 16°55′36″ E). WCM and CRM are species complexes consisting of several distinct genetic lineages (Skoracka and Dabert 2010; Skoracka et al. 2012, 2018a; Szydło et al. 2015; Laska et al. 2018). The stock colonies were established from WCM lineage MT-1 (also called Type 2; Hein et al. 2012; Skoracka et al. 2018b) (GenBank acc. no: JF920077) (Skoracka et al. 2012) and CRM Abacarus hystrix complex 2 (GenBank acc. no: FJ387550.1) (Skoracka and Dabert 2010; Laska et al. 2018) based on molecular identification using a cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene fragment (Dabert et al. 2010; Skoracka and Dabert 2010). Hereafter, for simplicity, we use WCM for WCM MT-1 and CRM for CRM complex 2. When referring to the species complexes in general (not a particular lineage), we call it WCM sensu lato or CRM sensu lato.
Three factors potentially playing a role in passive dispersal were tested (wind and two types of phoretic vectors) along with a control with no dispersal factor. Tests of dispersal were performed in transparent tunnels constructed according to Kuczyński et al. (2020) with modifications, as described below. The tunnels were made of plexiglass (PMMA) tubes (11 cm diameter, 50 cm long). The 50-cm long tunnels were used on the basis of previous studies (e.g., Kuczyński et al. 2020; Overmyer 2020) and pilot tests. Tests showed that a 50-cm distance allows for aerial mite dispersal and the active movement of insect vectors, but not the active movement (walking) of mites. In this way, dispersal via vectors and wind could be tested, and the possibility of mites dispersing to target plants by walking was excluded. Wheat plants (ca. 18 cm high) infested with WCM or CRM were cut from the stock colonies, and mite specimens were counted under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZ40). These cut wheat shoots infested with mites were next used in experiments as the source shoots, and each one served as a single experimental unit. Mean density of mites per shoot for each variant including control was 1205.6 (range 290–2500, n = 43) for WCM and 1476.3 (range 400–2500, n = 40) for CRM. Source shoots were installed at one end of the tunnel by using clips. At the other end of the tunnel, we placed pots (9 cm diameter) containing 10 uninfested wheat plants (up to 10 days old, ca. 10 cm high, hereafter called ‘target plants’). In all tests, the distances between the source shoot and target plants were 50 ± 2 cm and the exposure period was 48 h. After 48-h dispersal sessions, source shoots were inspected under a stereomicroscope to assess the condition of plants and to determine the presence of live mites (Table 1). All exposure tests started in the afternoon (about 2:00–3:00 pm) and were performed at room temperature (22 °C). Technical adaptations and procedures depending on the tested dispersal mode were performed as described below.
Dispersal with wind
In this test, a stable wind was generated by an axial fan that was installed at one end of the PMMA tube. The average wind speed was 2.5 m/s. The wind speed of 2.5 m/s was used based on pilot observations and previous research which has revealed that the mites disperse intentionally, not accidentally, in these conditions (Laska et al. 2019). Moreover, this wind speed corresponds to the mean wind speed during the summer in Poland (2.62 m/s) when cereal-feeding arthropods undertake dispersal before harvest. The information on the mean wind speed is based on the data collected at 61 meteorological stations in Poland, sourced from the Polish Institute of Meteorology and Water Management—National Research Institute.
The source shoots were installed at the fan end of the wind tunnel. The mean source population sizes were 1290 for WCM and 1585 for CRM (Table 1). At the other end of the tunnel, target plants were placed on a metal grille in an elbow connector and were protected within a polyamide funnel to prevent contamination during the experiments (Fig. 1A) (for details see Kuczyński et al. 2020; Majer et al. 2021a). The experiment was replicated 10× for each species, and trials for each species were run separately, but under similar room conditions (Majer et al. 2021b).
Dispersal with an insect vector
Anaphothrips obscurus was used as an insect vector for mite dispersal. The thrips originated from quack grass collected in Huby Moraskie, Poland (52°28′04.3″ N, 16°55′36.2″ E), and were identified based on their morphology, according to Mirab-balou et al. (2013). For this purpose, thrips specimens were mounted on microscopic slides and examined under a compound microscope (Olympus BX41). Stock colonies of thrips were established by inspecting shoots using a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZ40), and transferring the insects onto potted wheat plants by using a small paintbrush. Thrips stock colonies were kept on wheat in rearing cages consisting of metal frames wrapped with nylon bags (to protect against contamination), at room temperature (22–24 °C), for the time of conducting experiments (ca. 6 months). Anaphothrips obscurus was used as a potential vector in eriophyoid mite dispersal because it is a host generalist and the most abundant thrips species on grasses, including cereals, in Poland. Moreover, A. obscurus inhabits and explores the same plant microhabitats as WCM and CRM (leaf sheaths and bases, leaf furrows, inner parts of the leaf), which increases the probability of contact between mites and thrips. Preliminary observations were performed, based on the investigation of up to 4000 shoots of wheat and triticale collected in cereal fields across Poland (ca. 312,000 km2) during three seasons, from June to August, 2012–2014. These observations indicated that both mite species and thrips co-occurred on wheat leaves and spikes, and WCM and CRM individuals were found attached to the legs, abdomens and wings of the thrips. Laboratory observations of thrips (A. obscurus) and mites (WCM or CRM) confirmed the field observations. Individual mites of both species were separately placed on thrips’ abdomens and the thrips and mite behaviour was observed. The thrips did not indicate ‘cleaning’ behaviours, but the mites also did not climb onto the vectors intentionally. A similar approach has been taken with aphids, but aphids performed ‘cleaning’ behaviours that removed mites from their bodies. Slykhuis (1955) also found WCM attached to thrips sampled in the field.
To establish thrips into mite source colonies, wheat shoots infested with mites were transplanted into small pots (tube-shaped) filled with soil (15 mm diameter) and covered with silicone tubes (to prevent contamination). Next, 24 h before the dispersal experiment was started, 10 thrips individuals (five winged and five wingless) from the laboratory stock colony were placed on each wheat shoot by using a small paintbrush. Winged and wingless thrips were used because in our pilot survey we observed mites attached to both forms. Both forms might act as potential vectors, as winged thrips are better dispersers, but wingless stages are more abundant. Mean mite populations on source shoots were 1079 for WCM and 1912.5 for CRM (Table 1). Before initiating the study in the tunnel, mites and thrips were incubated in laboratory conditions to allow acclimatisation and contact between mites and insects. After 24 h, wheat source shoots were examined under a stereomicroscope to confirm that thrips were still present with no escapes. Subsequently, these source shoots were installed into the tunnel, allowing thrips to move between the source shoot and target plants (Fig. 1B). Target plants were placed on a metal grille in an elbow connector and were protected within a polyamide funnel to prevent contamination during the experiments. No wind was generated. After the end of the experiment, target plants were inspected for thrips presence. In all repetitions, thrips (both winged and wingless) were found on the target plants (suggesting the dispersal of thrips). The experiment was replicated 10× for WCM and 8× for CRM, and each species was tested separately, in similar room conditions.
Dispersal with a robot vector
In this test, we used the device described in Kuczyński et al. (2020), with some modifications. Lego Mindstorms NXT v.2.0 elements were used to construct a dispersal agent that could imitate a vector larger that an insect, such as a mammal. At the top of the tunnel, we placed two pulleys connected by a flexible string and attached an engine to one of the pulleys. On the string, a spherical element (4 cm diameter) was hung, covered with natural sheep felted wool material (20 × 20 cm, sourced from the common fabric shop). As it moved during the experiment, the element was allowed to contact both the source shoot and target plants. Mean mite populations of source shoots were 1595 for WCM and 1500 for CRM (Table 1). Shoots were installed as in previous treatments, whereas target plants were installed through a hole cut in the tube (Fig. 1C). The robotic engine was programmed to imitate the movement scheme of simplified natural activity of vertebrates that are present in the field and hypothetically could act as vectors of eriophyoid mites. The artificial vector moved through the middle of the tube toward an infested source plant and made contact with the source plant for 3 s and then moved in the opposite direction, toward the target plant. The vector contacted the target plants for 3 s. After that time, it returned to the centre of the tube and stopped for 30 min before repeating the same cycle. The robot was programmed to perform 24 cycles per 12 h of vectoring, followed by 12 h stationary in the centre of the tube. As the treatment exposure lasted 48 h, the whole programme (12 h vectoring and 12 h stationary) was repeated on the second day. The experiment (the whole 48 h programme) was replicated 10× for WCM and 11× for CRM, with each replicate and each species tested separately in similar room conditions.
Incubation of target plants
After 48 h of dispersal, all target plants were covered with nylon bags to avoid contamination, transferred into a growth chamber and incubated for 14 days at ambient conditions (22–24 °C, L12:D12 photoperiod, 45% RH). During that time, mites that successfully dispersed toward target plants were allowed to reproduce. After 14 days, the mites on each target plant (i.e., the colonists, C) were counted. The 2-week incubation period was used to estimate the number of individuals that successfully established on the target plants (founders) (as described in Kuczyński et al. 2020).
By knowing the number of colonists (C) after 2 weeks and the population growth rate (r) at a specific rearing temperature (Kuczyński et al. 2016), we estimated the number of individuals that successfully settled and established the population on the target plant (number of founders, F). Thus, F was an unobservable (latent) variable. Dispersal success (d) was calculated according to the formula d = F/N, i.e., the proportion of founders to the number of individuals in the source population.
To calculate the model parameters, we used a Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach, as described in Kuczyński et al. (2020) and modified in Majer et al. (2021a). Dispersal success (d) of WCM and CRM using different dispersal modes was estimated independently. Statistical analyses were performed using JAGS Gibbs-sampling environment (Plummer 2003) and R v.3.6 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria 2019). Both environments were integrated via the jags UI library (Kellner 2018). Vague normal density priors were used for the logit-scale parameters for expected probability of dispersal success, and half-Cauchy density priors were used for the logit-scale standard deviations of random intercepts. For population growth rates, informative priors were used, which were adopted from Kuczyński et al. (2016). Gibbs sampling was performed with three independent chains for 1.2 × 106 iterations each. The first 2 × 105 iterations of each chain were discarded as burn-in, and only samples from every 100th iteration were stored.
In both WCM and CRM, dispersal was successful only with wind. No mite dispersal was detected with the insect vector or the robot, or in the control (Table 1, Fig. 2). The success of WCM aerial dispersal [d = 0.023, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.017–0.030] was significantly higher than that of CRM (d = 0.008, 95% CI 0.005–0.014) (Fig. 2).
During dispersal sessions, the source shoots have wilted and dried out gradually, and were completely dry after the sessions. Most of the resident mite individuals on the source shoots were dead after each of the dispersal session. Single live individuals (both mobile and quiescent) were found on source shoots in all tests except the aerial dispersal of CRM (in that treatment, all residents died—no live mites were found on the source shoots) (Table 1).
The knowledge of dispersal strategies of pest species is of special importance for improving pest control strategies. Here, we investigated the dispersal success of two economically important eriophyoid mites (WCM MT-1 and CRM complex 2) that are wheat pests, by comparing different dispersal modes: aerial dispersal and phoretic dispersal with large and small vectors. We found wind to be the only successful factor in passive dispersal of both species, as we did not detect phoretic dispersal with the tested vectors.
The two eriophyoid species studied significantly differed in their aerial dispersal success; WCM dispersed more effectively than CRM. Majer et al. (2021a) also demonstrated that aerially transferred WCM have a higher colonisation ability than CRM. WCM also showed increased behavioural activity via wind, whereas the activity of CRM decreases in such conditions (Kiedrowicz et al. 2017). Thus, the results of this study are consistent with previous investigations. However, it may be expected that CRM would have lower mortality during aerial dispersal than WCM, because CRM are known to produce wax filaments and this is hypothesised to regulate water loss and maximise the drag during aerial dispersal. Frost (1997) has experimentally shown that the wax filaments produced by CRM sensu lato increase the survival of individuals at a low relative humidity and increase the non-cuticular surface area. In our study, however, all CRM resident individuals died on the source shoots after 2 days of wind exposure as no live residents were observed on the source shoots. In contrast, some WCM individuals remained alive on the source shoots, although WCM does not produce wax filaments. Wosula et al. (2015) obtained similar results when they compared WCM off-host survival with the CRM sensu lato survival tested by Frost (1997) and found that CRM survival is not significantly greater than that for WCM. However, WCM sensu lato is less vagrant than CRM sensu lato (Sabelis and Bruin 1996), as it usually hides within the leaf sheaths; therefore, it is less exposed to unfavourable abiotic conditions on the host plant than CRM. It is possible that WCM residents survived better on the dried source shoots than CRM, as WCM regularly hide in curled leaves or leaf sheaths (Nault and Styer 1969). Moreover, it has been suggested that factors such as drying of the host plants, but also increased temperature and light, may increase the dispersal of WCM (Nault and Styer 1969). The differential effects of these abiotic factors for CRM and WCM remain unknown. Due to the fact that different biotic and abiotic conditions might influence dispersal potential of both species, further studies that include testing such factors are necessary.
Transfer with wind currents has been regarded as a risky mode of dispersal (Sabelis and Bruin 1996), as organisms cannot control the direction of movement, and there is a very low probability of landing on a suitable patch. Thus, aerial dispersal is extremely adventurous for highly specialised animals, and would be more appropriate for use by generalists (Sabelis and Bruin 1996; Bonte et al. 2003). WCM sensu lato and CRM sensu lato have long been regarded as host generalists that can inhabit several dozen grass species (Amrine and Stasny 1994; Navia et al. 2013), and thus, they have been considered examples that support the Sabelis and Bruin (1996) hypothesis. However, recent studies revealed that WCM sensu lato and CRM sensu lato are, in fact, species complexes consisting of several cryptic lineages, and particular lineages of each species inhabit a smaller number of host species than previously thought. Specifically, WCM MT-1 and CRM complex 2 to date have been found on nine and four grass species, respectively (Laska et al. 2018; Skoracka et al. 2018a). WCM MT-1 has also survived on plants belonging to the Amaryllidaceae family (Skoracka et al. 2014a). The high aerial dispersal ability in lineages of WCM and CRM may be associated with their capability to feed on different hosts, but it likely also results from other ecological factors, such as the annual dynamics of agroecosystems especially the seasonal variation in cereal host availability.
At a local scale, cereals provide a relatively stable environment that is highly homogeneous in terms of quality and the spatial distribution of hosts, and they provide a high-level resource for phytophagous consumers for a part of the year (Vialatte et al. 2005; Lombaert et al. 2006). The high availability of appropriate habitats could be a factor increasing successful aerial dispersal by decreasing the risk of landing in an unfavourable place, and this should accelerate the evolution of aerial dispersal (Sabelis and Bruin 1996; Bowler and Benton 2005). Moreover, some have suggested that aerial dispersal of WCM sensu lato might be directed, as mite movement depends on the wind direction in the field (Umina et al. 2016). This would also reduce the chances of landing in an unfavourable place. However, cereal resources are not available between harvest and planting of the subsequent crop (Wegulo et al. 2008; Gillespie et al. 1997). As harvest approaches, mites must disperse and colonise alternative hosts rapidly, and wind is the most ubiquitous agent for passive dispersal in the field (Navia et al. 2013; Wosula et al. 2015; McMechan and Hein 2017). The shift from cereals to alternative hosts enabled by the wind is risky because aerial dispersal is characterised by a low degree of control of the direction and distance of travel, and high mortality (Bonte et al. 2012). Eriophyoid mites may compensate for these costs of aerial dispersal by their short developmental time, arrhenotoky, high intrinsic population growth rate, and high colonisation abilities (Navia et al. 2013). It has been shown that WCM sensu lato may reach very high population densities just prior to harvest (McMechan and Hein 2017), and mite dispersal during this time would certainly be impacted by the plant growth stage and environmental conditions (Umina et al. 2016). Agroecosystems are, therefore, habitats that favour phytophagous arthropods with a high rate of population increase and with dispersal strategies adapted to both the optimal exploitation of locally abundant resources and the rapid colonisation of fluctuating environments (Lombaert et al. 2006). Thus, we can conclude that passive aerial dispersal is the most advantageous mode of dispersal for WCM and CRM.
Phoretic dispersal has also been discussed to play some role in eriophyoid mites spreading (Sabelis and Bruin 1996; Michalska et al. 2010). On the one hand, eriophyoid mites have been observed attached to the bodies of many vectors, both small (e.g., spiders and insects) and large (e.g., humans), suggesting the possibility of phoresy (Michalska et al. 2010). For example, the coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer was found on bees, ants, and other insects, but also on bats (Julia and Mariau 1979; Griffith 1984; Moore and Alexander 1987; Schliesske 1990; Sumangala and Haq 2005; Galvão et al. 2012). The grape rust mite, Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa), was found attached on human hands and transported between plants by humans as vectors (Duffner et al. 2001). On the other hand, most of the conclusions on phoretic dispersal in eriophyoid mites were based on reports about mites attached to the bodies of potential vectors, without restrictive testing of the possibility to disperse from site to site (Michalska et al. 2010). Moreover, Lindquist and Oldfield (1996) argued that eriophyoid mites have no clear morphological adaptations allowing effective phoretic dispersal. Kiedrowicz et al. (2017) examined the behaviour of WCM and CRM in the presence of a potential insect vector and did not detect any behavioural adaptations to phoresy. The lack of adaptations to phoresy might suggest that this is rather an accidental and inefficient dispersal mode. However, Liu et al. (2016) showed that an eriophyoid mite species, Aceria pallida Keifer, effectively disperses attached to the psyllid Bactericera gobica (Loginova) and, moreover, uses this insect as a winter hibernation site, successfully escaping unfavourable winter conditions and returning to its host plant early in the spring. This obligatory interaction of the eriophyoid mite and insect indicates that phoresy can evolve in eriophyoid mites. However, the existence of phoresy in most eriophyoid mite species requires further investigation.
In this study we tested whether WCM and CRM might disperse with small or large vectors, as this phenomenon has been scarcely investigated in grass-feeding mites. The possibility of WCM sensu lato to disperse on insects was earlier investigated in a greenhouse experiment, which showed that mites rarely disperse with aphids (Gibson and Painter 1957). In our study, we used thrips as small vectors in tests of phoretic dispersal of WCM and CRM. Thrips and mites co-occur in sympatry, so there is a high probability of direct contact between them (Michalska et al. 2010; personal observations). We also used a robot to imitate a large vector (such as a mammal). It has been found that some eriophyoid mites could be transported by human activities (Barke et al. 1972; Schliesske 1977; Tanaka and Shibao 2003; Duffner et al. 2001; Gabi and Mészáros 2003), thus it would be also possible that cereal-feeding mites disperse with vertebrates associated with cereal fields, such as roe deer, foxes, hares and rodents. However, our results did not confirm efficient phoresy in WCM nor CRM. Interestingly, in other studies that used a robot to test phoretic dispersal in WCM (Kuczyński et al. 2020), there was some evidence for dispersal with a robot, but it was an extremely rare event. Our results confirm that in WCM and CRM successful settlement after transportation with vectors is unlikely.
Studying passive dispersal is logistically challenging, especially in minute invertebrates such as eriophyoid mites, because tracking their movement is difficult. Thus, providing experimental data on their dispersal strategies will help to understand the mechanisms of their spread, and could be useful to predict their range expansion and distribution in the field. It has been shown in many other taxa that the basic knowledge of their biology and ecology, including mechanism of their dispersal may help to predict and prevent future invasions (Drake and Lodge 2006; Liebhold and Tobin 2008; Catford et al. 2011; Frost et al. 2019; Dominguez Almela et al. 2020). Information on dispersal modes and strategies could be incorporated into models of pest spreading and outbreaks, and may be helpful in monitoring and predicting future invasions (Jeger 1999). The enhanced dispersal potential of WCM shown in this study may also impact range expansion, increasing the risk of its invasion (Skoracka et al. 2014b).
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Zenodo repository under: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4719293.
Custom code used in this study is openly available in the Zenodo repository under: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3964151.
Amrine JWJ, Stasny TA (1994) Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of the World. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield
Barke HE, Davis R, Hunter PE (1972) Studies on peach silvermite, Aculus cornutus (Acarina: Eriophyoidea). J Georgia Ent Soc 7:171–178
Bell JR, Bohan DA, Shaw EM, Weyman GS (2005) Ballooning dispersal using silk: world fauna, phylogenies, genetics and models. Bull Entomol Res 95:69–114. https://doi.org/10.1079/BER2004350
Bonte D, Vandenbroecke N, Lens L, Maelfait JP (2003) Low propensity for aerial dispersal in specialist spiders from fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc B 270:1601–1607. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2432
Bonte D, Van Dyck H, Bullock JM et al (2012) Costs of dispersal. Biol Rev 87:290–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00201.x
Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793104006645
Brey CW (1998) Epidemiology of wheat curl mite (Aceria tosichella K.) and wheat streak mosaic virus on feral grass species and effect of glyphosate on wheat curl mite dispersal. Ph.D. Dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman
Byamukama E, Tatineni S, Hein GL et al (2012) Effects of single and double infections of winter wheat by Triticum mosaic virus and Wheat streak mosaic virus on yield determinants. Plant Dis 96:859–864. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0957-RE
Catford JA, Vesk PA, White MD, Wintle BA (2011) Hotspots of plant invasion predicted by propagule pressure and ecosystem characteristics. Divers Distrib 17:1099–1110
Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (2001) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TG, Bullock JM (2012) Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dabert M, Witaliński W, Kaźmierski A et al (2010) Molecular phylogeny of acariform mites (Acari, Arachnida): strong conflict between phylogenetic signal and long-branch attraction artifacts. Mol Phylogenet Evol 56:222–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.12.020
Dominguez Almela V, Palmer SCF, Gillingham PK et al (2020) Integrating an individual-based model with approximate Bayesian computation to predict the invasion of a freshwater fish provides insights into dispersal and range expansion dynamics. Biol Invasions 22:1461–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02197-6
Drake JM, Lodge DM (2006) Allee effects, propagule pressure and the probability of establishment: risk analysis for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-004-8122-6
Duffner K, Schruft G, Guggenheim R (2001) Passive dispersal of the grape rust mite Calepitrimerus vitis Nalepa 1905 (Acari, Eriophyoidea) in vineyards. J Pest Sci 74:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0280.2001.01001.x
Dunning JBJ, Stewart DJ, Danielson BJ, Noon BR, Root TL, Lamberson H, Stevens EE (1995) Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses. Ecol Appl 5:3–11
Frost WE (1997) Polyphenic wax production in Abacarus hystrix (Acari: Eriophyidae), and implications for migratory fitness. Physiol Entomol 22:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1997.tb01138.x
Frost CM, Allen WJ, Courchamp F et al (2019) Using network theory to understand and predict biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 34:831–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.04.012
Gabi G, Mészáros Z (2003) Examination of the development of the deutogynes of Calepitrimerus vitis Nalepa in the vine-growing region of Szekszárd, Hungary (Acari: Eriophyidae). Acta Phytopathol Entomol Hungarica 38:369–376. https://doi.org/10.1556/APhyt.38.2003.3-4.18
Galvão AS, Melo JWS, Monteiro VB et al (2012) Dispersal strategies of Aceria guerreronis (Acari: Eriophyidae), a coconut pest. Exp Appl Acarol 57:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-012-9527-z
Gibson WW, Painter RH (1957) Transportation by aphids of the wheat curl mite, Aceria tulipae (K.), a vector of the Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus. J Kans Entomol Soc 30:147–153
Gillespie RL, Roberts DE, Bentley EM (1997) Population dynamics and dispersal of wheat curl mites (Acari: Eriophyidae) in North Central Washington. J Kans Entomol Soc 70:361–364
Griffith R (1984) The problem of the coconut mite, Eriophyes guerreronis (Keifer), in the coconut groves of Trinidad and Tobago. In: Webb R, Knausenberger W, Yntema L (eds) Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the Caribbean food crops society, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, Oct 21–26 1984. East. Caribbean Cent., Coll. Virgin Islands & Caribbean Food Crops Soc., pp 128–132
Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego
Harvey TL, Martin TJ (1980) Effects of wheat pubescence on infestations of wheat curl mite and incidence of wheat streak mosaic. J Econ Entomol 73:225–227
Harvey TL, Martin TJ (1988) Sticky tape method to measure cultivar effect on wheat curl mite population in wheat spikes. J Econ Entomol 81:731–734
Harvey TL, Martin TJ, Seifers DL (1990) Wheat curl mite and wheat streak mosaic in moderate trichome density wheat cultivars. Crop Sci 30:534–536
Hein GL, French R, Siriwetwiwat B, Amrine JW (2012) Genetic characterization of north american populations of the wheat curl mite and dry bulb mite. J Econ Entomol 105:1801–1808. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC11428
Jeger MJ (1999) Improved understanding of dispersal in crop pest and disease management: current status and future directions. Agric for Meteorol 97:331–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(99)00076-3
Jeppson LR, Keifer HH, Baker EW (1975) Mites injurious to economic plants. University of California Press, Berkeley
Julia JF, Mariau D (1979) Nouvelles recherche´ en Cote d’Ivoire sur Eriophyes guerreronis K., acarien ravageur des noix du cocotier. Oleagineux 34:181–189
Jung C, Croft BA (2001) Aerial dispersal of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae): estimating falling speed and dispersal distance of adult females. Oikos 94:182–190. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.11044.x
Kellner K (2018) jagsUI: A Wrapper Around “rjags” to Streamline “JAGS” Analyses
Kiedrowicz A, Kuczyński L, Lewandowski M et al (2017) Behavioural responses to potential dispersal cues in two economically important species of cereal-feeding eriophyid mites. Sci Rep 7:3890. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04372-7
Kot M, Lewis MA (1996) Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology 77:2027–2042
Kuczyński L, Rector BG, Kiedrowicz A et al (2016) Thermal niches of two invasive genotypes of the wheat curl mite Aceria tosichella: congruence between physiological and geographical distribution data. PLoS ONE 11:e0154600. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154600
Kuczyński L, Radwańska A, Karpicka-Ignatowska K et al (2020) A comprehensive and cost-effective approach for investigating passive dispersal in minute invertebrates with case studies of phytophagous eriophyid mites. Exp Appl Acarol 82:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-020-00532-z
Laska A, Majer A, Szydło W et al (2018) Cryptic diversity within grass-associated Abacarus species complex (Acariformes: Eriophyidae), with the description of a new species, Abacarus plumiger n. sp. Exp Appl Acarol 76:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-018-0291-6
Laska A, Rector BG, Skoracka A, Kuczyński L (2019) Can your behaviour blow you away? Contextual and phenotypic precursors to passive aerial dispersal in phytophagous mites. Anim Behav 155:141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.07.003
Liebhold AM, Tobin PC (2008) Population ecology of insect invasions and their management. Annu Rev Entomol 53:387–408. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091401
Lindquist EE, Oldfield GN (1996) Evolution of eriophyoid mites in relation to their host plants. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 277–300
Liu J, Lee EA, Sears MK, Schaafsma AW (2005) Wheat curl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) dispersal and its relationship with kernel red streaking in maize. J Econ Entomol 98:1580–1586. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/98.5.1580
Liu S, Li J, Guo K et al (2016) Seasonal phoresy as an overwintering strategy of a phytophagous mite. Sci Rep 6:25483. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25483
Lombaert E, Boll R, Lapchin L (2006) Dispersal strategies of phytophagous insects at a local scale: adaptive potential of aphids in an agricultural environment. BMC Evol Biol 6:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-6-75
Mahmood T, Hein GL, Jensen SG (1998) Mixed infection of wheat with high plains virus and Wheat streak mosaic virus from wheat curl mites in Nebraska. Plant Dis 82:311–315
Majer A, Laska A, Hein G, Kuczyński L, Skoracka A (2021a) Propagule pressure rather than population growth determines colonisation ability: a case study using two phytophagous mite species differing in their invasive potential. Ecol Entomol 46:1136–1147. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13058
Majer A, Laska A, Hein G, Kuczyński L, Skoracka A (2021b) Dispersal strategies of two cereal-feeding eriophyid mite species. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3964151
Massee AM (1928) The life history of the black currant gall mite, Eriophyes ribis (Westwood). Nat Bull Entomol Res 18:277–307
McMechan AJ, Hein GL (2017) Population dynamics of the wheat curl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) during the heading stages of winter wheat. J Econ Entomol 110:355–361. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox028
Melo JWS, Lima DB, Sabelis MW et al (2014) Limits to ambulatory displacement of coconut mites in absence and presence of food-related cues. Exp Appl Acarol 62:449–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-013-9753-z
Michalska K, Skoracka A, Navia D, Amrine JW (2010) Behavioural studies on eriophyoid mites: an overview. Exp Appl Acarol 51:31–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-009-9319-2
Mirab-balou M, Minaei K, Chen X (2013) An illustrated key to the genera of Thripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae) from Iran. Zookeys 317:27–52. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.317.5447
Moore D, Alexander L (1987) Aspects of migration and colonization of the coconut palm by the coconut mite, Eriophyes guerreronis (Keifer) (Acari: Eriophyoidae). Bull Ent Res 77:641–650
Nault LR, Styer WE (1969) The dispersal of Aceria tulipae and three other grass-infesting eriophyoid mites in Ohio. Ann Entomol Soc Am 62:1446–1455
Navia D, Ochoa R, Welbourn C, Ferragut F (2010) Adventive eriophyoid mites: a global review of their impact, pathways, prevention and challenges. Exp Appl Acarol 51:225–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-009-9327-2
Navia D, de Mendonça RS, Skoracka A et al (2013) Wheat curl mite, Aceria tosichella, and transmitted viruses: an expanding pest complex affecting cereal crops. Exp Appl Acarol 59:95–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-012-9633-y
Oldfield GN, Proeseler G (1996) Eriophyoid mites as vectors of plant pathogens. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 259–273
Oliveira-Hofman C, Wegulo SN, Tatineni S, Hein GL (2015) Impact of Wheat streak mosaic virus and Triticum mosaic virus coinfection of wheat on transmission rates by wheat curl mites. Plant Dis 99:1170–1174. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-08-14-0868-RE
Osakabe M, Isobe H, Kasai A et al (2008) Aerodynamic advantages of upside down take-off for aerial dispersal in Tetranychus spider mites. Exp Appl Acarol 44:165–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-008-9141-2
Overmyer LM (2020) Factors influencing wheat curl mite Aceria tosichella Keifer dispersal. Thesis. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1–110
Pady SM (1955) The occurrence of the vector of the wheat streak mosaic, Aceria tulipae, on slides exposed in the air. Plant Dis Rep 39:296–297
Phillips BL, Brown GP, Travis JMJ, Shine R (2008) Reid’s paradox revisited: the evolution of dispersal kernels during range expansion. Am Nat 172:S34–S48. https://doi.org/10.1086/588255
Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of DSC, pp 20–22
R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Reynolds AM, Reynolds DR (2009) Aphid aerial density profiles are consistent with turbulent advection amplifying flight behaviours: abandoning the epithet “passive.” Proc R Soc B 276:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0880
Reynolds AM, Bohan DA, Bell JR (2007) Ballooning dispersal in arthropod taxa: conditions at take-off. Biol Lett 3:237–240. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0109
Ronce O (2007) How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:231–253. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095611
Sabelis MW, Bruin J (1996) Evolutionary ecology: life history patterns, food plant choice and dispersal. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 329–365
Schliesske, J (1977) Untersuchungen zur Morphologie, Biologie und Verbreitung von Aculus fockeui Nal. et Trt. (Acari: Eryophyoidea) in Niedersachsen. Thesis, Techn Univ Hannover
Schliesske J (1990) On the gall mite fauna (Acari: Eriophyoidea) of Cocos uncifera L. in Costa Rica. Plant Res Dev 31:74–81
Shewry PR, Hey SJ (2015) The contribution of wheat to human diet and health. Food Energy Secur 4:178–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.64
Shvanderov FA (1975) Role of phoresy in the migration of Eriophyoidea. Zool Zh 54:458–461
Skoracka A, Dabert M (2010) The cereal rust mite Abacarus hystrix (Acari: Eriophyoidea) is a complex of species: evidence from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Bull Entomol Res 100:263–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485309990216
Skoracka A, Kuczyski L, Santos De Mendoņa R et al (2012) Cryptic species within the wheat curl mite Aceria tosichella (Keifer) (Acari: Eriophyoidea), revealed by mitochondrial, nuclear and morphometric data. Invertebr Syst 26:417–433. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS11037
Skoracka A, Kuczyński L, Rector B, Amrine JW (2014a) Wheat curl mite and dry bulb mite: untangling a taxonomic conundrum through a multidisciplinary approach. Biol J Linn Soc 111:421–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12213
Skoracka A, Rector B, Kuczyński L et al (2014b) Global spread of wheat curl mite by its most polyphagous and pestiferous lineages. Ann Appl Biol 165:222–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12130
Skoracka A, Lopes LF, Alves MJ et al (2018a) Genetics of lineage diversification and the evolution of host usage in the economically important wheat curl mite, Aceria tosichella Keifer, 1969. BMC Evol Biol 18:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1234-x
Skoracka A, Rector BG, Hein GL (2018b) The interface between wheat and the wheat curl mite, Aceria tosichella, the primary vector of globally important viral diseases. Front Plant Sci 9:1098. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01098
Slykhuis JT (1953) Wheat streak mosaic in Alberta and factors related to its spread. Can J Agric Sci 33:195–197. https://doi.org/10.4141/agsci-1953-0021
Slykhuis JT (1955) Aceria tulipae Keifer (Acarina, Eriophyoidae) in relation to the spread of wheat streak mosaic. Phytopathology 45:116–128
Staples R, Allington WB (1956) Streak mosaic of wheat in Nebraska and its control. Univ Nebr Agric Exp Stn Res Bull 178:41
Staples R, Allington WB (1959) The efficiency of sticky traps in sampling epidemic populations of the eriophyoid mite Aceria tulipae (K.), vector of wheat streak mosaic virus. Ann Entomol Soc Am 52:159–164
Sumangala K, Haq MA (2005) Diurnal periodicity and dispersal of coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer. J Entomol Res 29:303–307
Szydło W, Hein G, Denizhan E, Skoracka A (2015) Exceptionally high levels of genetic diversity in wheat curl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) populations from Turkey. J Econ Entomol 108:2030–2039. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov180
Tanaka H, Shibao M (2003) A pattern of occurrence and dispersal of the tomato russet mite, Aculops lycopersici (Massee) in a tomato greenhouse. Proc Kansai Pl Prot Soc 45:23–27
Thomas JA, Hein GL (2003) Influence of volunteer wheat plant condition on movement of the wheat curl mite, Aceria tosichella, in winter wheat. Exp Appl Acarol 31:253–268. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APPA.0000010384.12678.46
Travis JMJ, Mustin K, Benton TG, Dytham C (2009) Accelerating invasion rates result from the evolution of density-dependent dispersal. J Theor Biol 259:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.03.008
Umina PA, Schiffer M, Parker P, Hoffmann AA (2016) Distribution and influence of grazing on wheat curl mites (Aceria tosichella Keifer) within a wheat field. J Appl Entomol 140:426–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12268
Vialatte A, Dedryver C-A, Simon J-C et al (2005) Limited genetic exchanges between populations of an insect pest living on uncultivated and related cultivated host plants. Proc R Soc B 272:1075–1082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3033
Waite GK, McAlpine JD (1992) Honey bees as carriers of lychee erinose mite Eriophyes litchi (Acari: Eriophyiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 15:299–302
Washburn JO, Washburn L (1984) Active aerial dispersal of minute wingless arthropods: exploitation of boundary-layer velocity gradients. Science 223:1088–1089. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.223.4640.1088
Wegulo SN, Hein GL, Klein RN, French RC (2008) Managing wheat streak mosaic. University of Nebraska, Lincoln (Extension EC1871)
Wosula EN, McMechan AJ, Hein GL (2015) The effect of temperature, relative humidity, and virus infection status on off-host survival of the wheat curl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae). J Econ Entomol 108:1545–1552. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov185
Zhao S, Amrine JW Jr (1997a) A new method for studying aerial dispersal behavior of eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). Syst Appl Acarol 2:107–110
Zhao S, Amrine JW Jr (1997b) Investigation of snow- borne mites (Acari) and revelance to dispersal. Int J Acarol 23:209–213
We are grateful to Dr. Mariusz Lewandowski and MSc Jarosław Raubic for their significant contribution in helping design the dispersal tunnel and technical support, Dr. Wiktoria Szydło, MSc Kamila Karpicka Ignatowska and BSc Anna Radwańska for help with maintaining mite stock colonies, MSc Jakub Jankowiak for providing the LEGO equipment and helping with robot construction and programming, the DANKO Hodowla Roślin Sp. z o.o. company for providing Triticum aestivum seeds. We are also grateful for valuable comments of the three anonymous reviewers, which significantly improved the manuscript.
The study was supported by National Science Centre Poland (NSC) grant no. 2019/35/N/NZ8/02639 to AM. AS was involved in this work while supported by the (NSC) grant 2016/21/B/NZ8/00786. NSC funded the scholarship no. 2018/28/T/NZ8/00060 to AM and scholarship no. 2019/32/T/NZ8/00151 to AL. AL was funded by Adam Mickiewicz University Foundation. AM & AL scholarships were founded by European Social Funds POWR.03.02.00–00–I006/17. The funding institutions did not participate in the design or analyses of experiments. All experiments performed complied with the current laws of Poland and UE.
Conflict of interest
We declare that we do not have any conflict of interest.
No ethical approval or specific permit was needed for rearing and experimental use of Aceria tosichella and Abacarus hystrix, which is neither protected nor endangered. The study adheres to the ASAB/ABS Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research, the legal requirements of Poland, and complied with existing laws regulating the treatment of invertebrates in EU.
Consent to participate
Consent for publication
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Majer, A., Laska, A., Hein, G. et al. Hitchhiking or hang gliding? Dispersal strategies of two cereal-feeding eriophyoid mite species. Exp Appl Acarol 85, 131–146 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-021-00661-z
- Abacarus hystrix
- Aceria tosichella
- Aerial dispersal
- Cereal rust mite
- Wheat curl mite