Advertisement

Survey of predacious soil mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) in citrus orchards of the Nile Delta and Middle Egypt with notes on the abundance of the citrus parasitic nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans (Tylenchida: Tylenchulidae)

  • E. M. El-BanhawyEmail author
  • A. K. Nasr
  • S. I. Afia
Article

Abstract

Citrus orchards in the Nile Delta and middle Egypt were surveyed for predacious soil mites and parasitic nematodes. There were 16 species of predacious mites and the citrus parasitic nematode, Tylenchulus semipenetrans Cobb. was recorded everywhere. In the medium-heavy soil of the Nile Delta orchards, the general predators or decomposer mites like uropodids were most common. In the light-medium soil of El-Fayoum in middle Egypt, the specialized predator mites like gamasids were most common. In localities where gamasids were common, negligible infestations of citrus parasitic nematodes were reported. Regarding Egypt as a whole, the uropodid mites Uroobovella krantzi (Zaher & Afifi) and Nenteria hypotrichus (El-Borolossy & El-Banhawy) represented about 50% of the sampled mites. The remaining mites were represented by 14 mesostigmatid species, the most common being Gamasiphis pulchellus (Berlese). At least 6% of orchards suffered injurious nematode infestations, 13% critical infestations and 22% moderate infestations, and the remaining 59% were free or with negligible infestations.

Key Words

soil mites parasitic nematodes citrus Tylenchulus semipenetrans natural enemies uropodid mesostigmatid mites 

Résumé

Une enquête a été conduite sur les acariens prédateurs du sol et les nématodes parasites dans les vergers de citrus du delta du Nil et de la moyenne Egypte. On a dénombré 16 espèces d’acariens prédateurs et le nématode parasite des citrus a été trouvé partout. Dans le sol mi-lourd des vergers du delta du Nil, les acariens prédateurs généralistes ou décomposeurs tels que les uropodides sont les plus communs. Dans les sols moyennement légers de El-fayoum en Moyenne Egypte, les acariens prédateurs spécialisés tels que les gamasides sont plus communs. Dans les localités où les gamasides sont communs, on a constaté que les infestations par les nématodes parasites sont négligeables. Si l’on considère l’Egypte dans son ensemble, les acariens uropodides Uroobovella krantzi (Zaher & Afifi) et Nenteria hypotrichus (El-Borolossy & El-Banhawy) constituent près de 50% des acariens récoltés. Le reste est représenté par 14 espèces de mesostigmatides, la plus commune étant Gamasiphis pulchellus (Berlese). Au moins 6% des vergers souffrent de très fortes attaques, 13% d’attaques critiques et 22% d’attaques modérées, et les 59% restant ne sont pas attaquées ou alors de façon négligeable.

Mots Clés

acariens du sol nématodes parasites citrus Tylenchulus semipenetrans ennemis naturels uropodides mesostigmatides 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdel-Gawad M. M., Youssef M. M. and Shams Ei-Deen M. M. (1994) Observations on the population fluctuations of the citrus nematode on calamondin orange in Egypt. Journal ofNematology 12, 87–94.Google Scholar
  2. Afia S. I. (2002) Effect of fertilization regime on the behaviour of predacious mites toward pest management in citrus orchards. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University. 159 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharyya S. K. (1962) Laboratory studies on the feeding habits and life cycles of soil inhabiting mites. Pedobiologia, Bd 1, 291–298.Google Scholar
  4. El-Badry E. A. (1972) Observations on the biology of Pergamasus crassipes (L.), a predacious gamasid mite inhabiting forest soils in Bavaria (Acarina: Mesostigmata: Parasitidae). Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie-Journal of Applied Entomology 71, 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. El-Banhawy E. M., Carter N. and Wynne I. R. (1993) Preliminary observations on the population development of anystid and free-living mesostigmatic mites in a cereal field in South England. Experimental and Applied Acarology 17, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Banhawy E. M., El-Borolossy M. A., El-Sawaf B. M. and Afia S. I. (1997a) Biological aspects and feeding behaviour of the soil predacious mite Nenteria hypotrichus (Uropodina: Uropodidae). Acarologia 38, 357–360.Google Scholar
  7. El-Banhawy E. M., Osman H. A., El-Sawaf B. M. and Afia S. I. (1997b) Interaction of soil predacious mites and citrus nematodes (parasitic and saprophytic) in citrus orchard under different regime of fertilizers. The effect on the population densities and citrus yield. Anzeiger fur Schädlingskunde Pflazenschutz Unweltshutz 70, 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Banhawy E. M., El-Borolossy M. A. and Afia S. I. (1998a) Effect of the nematicide carbofuran on the population development of the citrus parasitic nematode. Tylenchulus semipenetrans and predacious soil mites in citrus orchard under organic manure regime of fertilization. Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde Pflazenschutz Unweltshutz 71, 69–71.Google Scholar
  9. El-Banhawy E. M., El-Borolossy M. A., El-Sawaf B. M. and Afia S. I. (1998b) Effect of organic and chemical fertilization on the distribution of predacious soil mites and nematodes (parasitic and saprophytic) in citrus orchard. Egyptian Journal of Biological Control 8, 89–96.Google Scholar
  10. El-Banhawy E. M., El-Sawaf B. M., Osman H. A. and Afia S. I. (1999) Effect of type of prey on the life parameters of the soil predacious mite. Gamasiphis tylophagous (Mesostigmata: Ologamasidae), a predator of the citrus parasitic nematode, Tylenchulus semipenetrans (Tylenchida: Tylenchulidae). Acarologia 40, 25–28.Google Scholar
  11. Evans G. O. and Till W. M. (1979) Mesostigmatic mites of Britain and Ireland (Chelicerata: Acari: Parasitiformes). An introduction to their external morphology and classifications. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 35, 139–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Habeersaat U. (1989) The importance of predatory soil mites as predators of agricultural pests, with special reference to Hypoaspis angusta Karg, 1965 (Acari: Gamasina). Doctoral Thesis, Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  13. Jenkins W. R. (1964) A rapid centrifugal-flotation technique for separating nematodes from soil. Plant Disease Reporter 48, 692.Google Scholar
  14. Karg W. (1983) Vebreitung und Bedeutung von Raubmilben der Cohors Gamasina Als Antagonisten von Nematoden. Pedobiologia 25, 419–432.Google Scholar
  15. Karg W. (1986) Vorkommen und Ernahrung der Milben Cohors Uropodina (Schildkrotenmilben) Sowie ihre Eignung als Indikatoren in Agrookosystemen. Pedobiologia 29, 285–295.Google Scholar
  16. Krantz G. W. (1978) A Manual of Acarology (2nd edn). Oregon State University, Bookstores, Inc, Corvallis, 509 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer M. K. P. and Ueckermann E. A. (1987) A taxonomic study of some Anystidae (Acari: Prostigmata). Entomological Memoirs Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, Republic of South Africa. Number 68, 37 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Morris H. M. (1922) The insects and other invertebrate fauna of arable land at Rothamsted. Annals of Applied Biology 9, 282–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharma R. D. (1971) Studies on the plant parasitic nematode, Tylenchorhynchus dubius. Mededelingen, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 71, 1–154.Google Scholar
  20. Walter D. E. and Ikonen E. K. (1989) Species, guilds and functional groups: Taxonomy and behaviour in nematophagous arthropods. Journal of Nematology 21, 315–327.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Walter D. E. and Lindquist E. E. (1989) Life history and behaviour of mites in the genus Lasioseius (Acari: Mesostigmata: Ascidae) from grassland soils in Colorado, with taxonomic notes and description of a new species. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67, 2797–2813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zaher M. A. (1986) Survey and ecological studies on phytophagous, predacious and soil mites in Egypt. II A: Predacious and non-phytophagous mites (Nile Valley and Delta). Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University. 567 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Protection DepartmentNational Research CentreDokki, CairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations