Experimental & Applied Acarology

, Volume 33, Issue 1–2, pp 45–53 | Cite as

The predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) causes feeding scars on leaves and fruits of apple

  • C. SengoncaEmail author
  • I. A. Khan
  • P. Blaeser


Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae) is the most important predator of Panonychus ulmi (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae) in orchards and vineyards. It was recently found that adult T. pyri females cause microscopic scars on apple leaves. The present laboratory experiments were carried out to confirm the production of scars on apple leaves and to assess if females cause scars on fruits as well. Scar production on apple leaves and/or fruits was investigated under various nutritional conditions: no food, pollen of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) only, nymphs of P. ulmi only, and pollen + prey. Both on leaves and fruits, either offered alone or in combination, feeding scars were produced under all nutritional conditions, but mostly in the ‘no food’ treatment. The predators consumed significantly more P. ulmi nymphs when offered alone than when offered in combination with pollen. T. pyri laid eggs under all nutritional conditions, but mostly in the ‘pollen + prey’ treatment and least when no food was offered. T. pyri females caused scars on both leaves and fruits when offered simultaneously, but more on leaves than on fruits. The scars were also bigger on leaves than on fruits in all experiments. T. pyri survived and reproduced on plant material in the absence of other food sources. Whether the scars produced on leaves and fruits harm the quality of fruits or the yield of apple cannot be concluded from the present experiments.

Apple Feeding scars Panonychus ulmi Plant feeding Predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alomar O. and Albajes R. 1996. Greenhouse whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) predation and tomato fruit injury by the zoophytophagous predator Dicyphus tamaninii (Heteroptera: Miridae). In: Alomar O. and Wiedenmann R.N. (eds) Zoophytophagous Heteroptera: Implications for Life History and Integrated Pest Management. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, Lanham, Maryland, USA, pp. 155–177.Google Scholar
  2. Armer C.A., Wiedenmann R.N. and Irwin M.E. 1999. Effects of soybean mosaic virus on the facultative phytophagous predator Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Environ. Entomol. 28(6): 1036–1043.Google Scholar
  3. Camporese P. and Duso C. 1996. Different colonization patterns of phytophagous and predatory mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on three grape varieties: a case study. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 20(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  4. Chant D.A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Can. Entomol. 91(12): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coll M. and Guershon M. 2002. Omnivory in terrestrial arthropods: mixing plant and prey diets. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 47: 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coll M. and Ruberson J.R. 1998. Predatory Heteroptera: Their Ecology and Use in Biological Control. Thomas Say Publications, Entomological Society America, Lanham, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Dosse G. 1961. Ü ber die Bedeutung der Pollennahrung für Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 4: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duso C. and Camporese P. 1991. Developmental times and oviposition rates of predatory mites Typhlodromus pyri and Amblyseius andersoni (Acari: Phytoseiidae) reared on different foods. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 13: 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duso C. and Pasqualetto C. 1993. Factors affecting the potential of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as biocontrol agents in north-Italian vineyards. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 17(4): 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engel R. and Ohnesorge B. 1994. The role of alternative food and microclimate in the system Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) Panonychus ulmi (Acari: Tetranychidae) on grapevines. 2. Field experiments. J. Appl. Ent. 118(3): 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabarra R., Castane C., Bordas E. and Albajes R. 1988. Dicyphus tamaninii as a beneficial insect and pest in tomato crops in Catalonia, Spain. Entomophaga 41: 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Magalhaes S. and Bakker F.M. 2002. Plant feeding by a predatory mite inhabiting cassava. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 27: 27–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGregor R.R., Gillespie D.R., Park C.G., Quiring D.M.J. and Foisy M.R.J. 2000. Leaves or fruit? The potential for damage to tomato fruits by the omnivorous predator, D. hesperus. Ent. Exp. Appl. 95: 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McMurtry J.A. and Croft B.A. 1997. Life-styles of Phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 42: 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McMurtry J.A. and Rodriguez J. 1987. Nutritional ecology of phytoseiid mites. In: Slansky F. and Rodriguez J. (eds) Nutritional Ecology of Insects, Mites and Spiders. Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 1016.Google Scholar
  16. Overmeer W.P.J. 1985. Alternative prey and other food resources. In: Helle W. and Sabelis M.W. (eds) Spider Mites — Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 137–139.Google Scholar
  17. Papaioannou-Souliotis P., Markoyiannaki-Printziou D., Rumbos I. and Adamopoulos I. 1999. Phytoseiid mites associated with vine in various provinces of Greece: a contribution to faunistics and biogeography, with reference to eco-ethological aspects of Phytoseius finitimus (Ribaga) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 40(2): 113–125.Google Scholar
  18. Porres M.A., McMurtry J.A. and March R.B. 1975. Investigation of leaf sap feeding by three species of phytoseiid mites by labelling with radioactive phosphoric acid (H3 32PO4). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 68: 871–872.Google Scholar
  19. Sampson C. and Jacobson R.J. 1999. Macrolophus caliginosus Wagner (Heteroptera: Miridae): a predator causing damage to UK tomatoes. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 22: 213–216.Google Scholar
  20. Schausberger P. 1998. Population growth and persistence when prey is diminishing in single-species and two-species systems of the predatory mites Euseius finlandicus, Typhlodromus pyri and Kampimodromus aberrans. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 88(3): 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sengonca C., Schade M. and Schütze A. 1994. Vorkommen und Ausbreitung der Raubmilbe Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten in nordrheinischen Apfelanbaugebieten. Erwerbsobstbau 36: 204–207.Google Scholar
  22. Sengonca C., Saleh A. and Blaeser P. 2003. Investigations on the potential damage caused to cucumber fruit by the polyphagous predatory bug Dicyphus tamaninii Wagner (Heteroptera: Miridae) under different nutritional conditions. J. Plant Dis. Protect. 110(1): 59–65.Google Scholar
  23. Solomon M.G., Easterbrook M.A. and Fitzgerald J.D. 1993. Mite-management programs based on organophosphate-resistant Typhlodromus pyri in UK apple orchards. Crop Protect. 12(4): 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wei Q. and Walde S.J. 1997. The functional response of Typhlodromus pyri to its prey, Panonychus ulmi: the effect of pollen. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 21: 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zaher M.A. and Shehata K.K. 1971. Biological studies on the predator mite Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae) with the effect of prey and non-prey substances. Z. Ang. Entomol. 67: 389–394.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology and Plant Protection, Institute of PhytopathologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations