Advertisement

BioControl

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 137–152 | Cite as

Biocontrol of the shore fly Scatella tenuicosta with Hypoaspis miles and H. aculeifer in peat pots

  • Irene Vänninen
  • Heini Koskula
Article

Abstract

Hypoaspis miles Berlese and H. aculeiferCanestrini (Acari: Laelapidae) were usedagainst Scatella tenuicosta Collin(Diptera: Ephydridae) at the rates of 7, 14and 36 mites per 0.3-l peat pot (1000, 2000 and5000 per net-m2 of peat) with mint (Mentha piperita L.) as the crop. The predatorswere applied either one day (preventivecontrol) or nine days after (curative control)exposing the pots to the flies in thegreenhouse. Based on the number of flies thatemerged from the pots, the control efficacy of preventive H. aculeifer treatments at therate of 36 mites per pot was 84–100% and 92–97% (range over four replicate blocks)after two and three weeks, respectively, fromthe application. The control efficacy ofcurative treatments was 93–100% and 83–94% after two and three weeks, respectively,from the application. Preventive treatmentswith H. miles applied at the rate of 36per pot controlled the flies by 92–100% and 68–97% two and three weeks, respectively, afterthe application. Curative treatments with 36H. miles per pot were less effective (−53–68% and −16–65%, respectively). All treatments with lower mite rates with eitherspecies were ineffective. Due to moreconsistent reduction of fly numbers by Hypoaspis aculeifer, the species was concluded to be a better biocontrol agent ofshore flies in short-term greenhouse cropsgrown in peat pots, probably due to its higherpredation capacity in comparison to H. miles.

biological control Chlamydomonas sp. Cyanophyceae greenhouse crops Hypoaspis aculeifer Hypoaspis miles Scatella tenuicosta shore fly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Enkegaard, A., H.F. Brodsgaard and M.A. Sardar, 1995. Hypoaspis miles-a polyphagous predatory mite for control of soil-dwelling pest: Biology and food preference. 12th. Danish Plant Prot. Conf., Pests and Dis., SP Rapp. Nr. 4: 247–256.Google Scholar
  2. Enkegaard, A., M.A. Sardar and H.F. Brodsgaard, 1997. The predatory mite Hypoaspis miles: biological and demographic characteristics on two prey species, the mushroom sciarid fly, Lycoriella solani, and the mould mite, Tyrophagus putrescentiae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 82: 135–146.Google Scholar
  3. Goldberg, N.P. and M.E. Stanghellini, 1991. Ingestion-egestion and aerial transmission of Pythium aphanidermatum by shore flies (Ephydridae: Scatella stagnalis). Phytopathol. 80: 1244–1246.Google Scholar
  4. Gripwall, E., 1995. Hypoaspis miles-ett rovkvalster för bekämpning av sorgmyggor. Viola Nr. 4, Februari 1995: 8 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  5. Lindquist, R. and M. Casey, 1994a. Pesticide evaluations against sweetpotato whiteflies and shore flies. Part I. Ohio Florists' Assoc. Bull. 772: 6–8.Google Scholar
  6. Lindquist, R. and M. Casey, 1994b. Integrated management of fungus gnats and shore flies. Ohio Florists' Assoc. Bull. 775: 3–5.Google Scholar
  7. Lindquist, R., J. Buxton and J. Piatkowski, 1994. Biological control of sciarid flies and shore flies in glasshouses. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Pests and Diseases 3: 1067–1072.Google Scholar
  8. Lobbes, P. and C. Schotten, 1980. Capacities of increase of the soil mite Hypoaspis aculeifer Canestrini (Mesostigmata: Laelapidae). Z. fur angew. Entomol. 90: 9–22.Google Scholar
  9. MacFadyen, A., 1961: Improved funnel-type extractors for soil arthropods. J. Anim. Ecol. 30: 171–184.Google Scholar
  10. SAS Institute Inc., 1990. SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1989. 890 pp.Google Scholar
  11. SAS Institute Inc., 1996. SAS system for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1996. 633 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Stanghellini, M.E., S.L. Rasmussen and D.H. Kim, 1999. Aerial transmission of Thielaviopsis basicola, a pathogen of corn-salad, by adult shore flies. Phytopathology 89: 476–479.Google Scholar
  13. Vänninen, I., 2001. Biology of the shore fly Scatella stagnalis in rockwool under greenhouse conditions. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 98: 317–328.Google Scholar
  14. Vänninen, I. and H. Koskula, 1998. Effect of hydrogen peroxide on algal growth, cucumber seedlings and the reproduction of shore flies (Scatella stagnalis, Diptera, Ephydridae) in rockwool. Crop Prot. 17(6): 547–553.Google Scholar
  15. Vänninen, I. and H. Koskula, 2003. Biological control of the shore fly (Scatella tenuicosta) with steinernematid nematodes and Bacillus thuringiensis var. thuringiensis in peat and rockwool. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 15: 51–67.Google Scholar
  16. Wright, E.M. and R.J. Chambers, 1994. The biology of the predatory mite Hypoaspis miles (Acari: Laelapidae), a potential biocontrol agent of Bradysia paupera (Dipt.:Sciaridae). Entomophaga 39: 225–235.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Vänninen
    • 1
  • Heini Koskula
    • 1
  1. 1.Agriculture Research Finland (MTT), Plant Production Research, Plant ProtectionJokioinenFinland;

Personalised recommendations