Advertisement

Mites as Models

  • David Evans Walter
  • Heather C. Proctor
Chapter

Abstract

In 2010 for the 50th Anniversary issue of Acarologia, the first scientific journal devoted to the study of mites, Walter and Proctor (yes, that’s us) compared the use of spiders and mites in the scientific literature. Although there were 2–3 times as many citations for mites overall, when only a select subset of high profile journals with broad readerships were searched, spiders came out ahead in every single one, usually by at least twice as many papers (Walter & Proctor 2010). Ecology, genetics and agriculture were the dominant topics in papers involving mites: behaviour, morphology and materials science dominated in those involving spiders. In the latter, the structure of spider webs was the main theme, and there were no papers at all involving mites or mite silk. Even ticks were poorly represented with most papers being devoted to the disease-causing microbes they vector and little on the biology of the ticks themselves. Many of the high-profile journal articles on spiders highlighted fascinating aspects of their behaviour and morphology: courtship behaviour, male ornamentation, male and female genitalic extravagances; maternal care and social behaviour; predatory behaviour and web structure. If you’ve read the preceding chapters of this book, you know that mites have equally fascinating behaviours and morphologies, but you would never know that from reading the pages of Nature, Science, Ecology, Evolution, and the Proceedings of national societies.

Keywords

Lyme Disease Oribatid Mite Short Generation Time Phytoseiid Mite Local Mate Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., Mersey, B., & Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471, 51–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belliure, B., Montserrat, M., & Magalhães, S. (2010). Mites as models for experimental evolution studies. Acarologia, 50, 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borrello, M. E. (2010). Evolutionary restraints: The contentious history of group selection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron, E. K., Knysh, K. M., Proctor, H. C., & Bayne, E. M. (2012). Influence of two exotic earthworm species with different strategies on abundance and composition of boreal microarthropods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 57, 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron, E. K., Proctor, H. C., & Bayne, E. M. (2013). Effects of an ecosystem engineer on belowground movement of microarthropods. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. R. (1996). Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology, 77, 677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson, H. L. (1997). Sexual selection: A driver of genetic change in Hawaiian Drosophila. Journal of Heredity, 88, 343–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chisholm, C., Lindo, Z., & Gonzalez, A. (2011). Metacommunity diversity depends on connectivity and patch arrangement in heterogeneous habitat networks. Ecography, 34, 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton, D. H., & Tompkins, D. M. (1995). Comparative effects of mites and lice on the reproductive success of rock doves (Columba livia). Parasitology, 110, 195–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eberhard, W. G., & Wcislo, W. T. (2012). Plenty of room at the bottom? Tiny animals solve problems of housing and maintaining oversized brains, shedding new light on nervous-system evolution. American Scientist, 100, 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebert, D., & Herre, E. A. (1996). The evolution of parasitic diseases. Parasitology Today, 12, 96–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fortey, R. (1997). Life: An unauthorised biography. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  13. Garrett, L. (1994). The coming plague, newly emerging diseases in a world out of balance. Victoria: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Gross, M. R., & Repka, J. (1998). Stability with inheritance in the conditional strategy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 192, 445–453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heylen, D. J. A., & Matthysen, E. (2011). Differential virulence in two congeneric ticks infesting songbird nestlings. Parasitology, 138, 1011–1021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland, B., & Rice, W. R. (1998). Perspective: Chase-away sexual selection: Antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huffaker, C. B. (1958). Experimental studies on predation: Dispersion factors and predator–prey oscillations. Hilgardia, 27, 343–383.Google Scholar
  18. Kaneshiro, K. Y., & Boake, C. R. B. (1987). Sexual selection and speciation: Issues raised by Hawaiian Drosophila. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 7, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lesna, I., Sabelis, M. W., & Conijin, C. G. M. (1996). Biological control of the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini, by the predatory mite, Hypoaspis aculeifer, on lillies: Predator–prey interactions at various spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindo, Z., & Gonzalez, A. (2010). The bryosphere: An integral and influential component of the earth’s biosphere. Ecosystems, 13, 612–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindo, Z., Whiteley, J., & Gonzalez, A. (2012). Traits explain community disassembly and trophic contraction following experimental environmental change. Global Change Biology, 18, 2448–2457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luong, L. T., & Polak, M. (2007). Environment-dependent trade-offs between ectoparasite resistance and larval competitive ability in the DrosophilaMacrocheles system. Heredity, 99, 632–640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macke, E. S., Magalhães, F. B., & Olivieri, I. (2011). Experimental evolution of reduced sex ratio adjustment under local mate competition. Science, 334, 1127–1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maraun, M., Visser, S., & Scheu, S. (1998). Oribatid mites enhance the recovery of the microbial community after a strong disturbance. Applied Soil Ecology, 9, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. May, R. M. (1978). Diversity of insect faunas. In L. A. Mound & N. Waloff (Eds.), The dynamics and diversity of insect faunas (pp. 188–204). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  26. May, R. M. (1988). How many species are there on earth? Science, 241, 1441–1449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H., & Woodfin, R. M. (1994). Declining biodiversity can alter ecosystem performance. Nature, 368, 734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakamura, Y., Kawai, S., Yukuhiro, F., Ito, S., Gotoh, T., Kisimoto, R., Yanase, T., Matsumoto, Y., Kageyama, D., & Noda, H. (2009). Prevalence of Cardinium bacteria in planthoppers and spider mites and taxonomic revision of “Candidatus Cardinium hertigii” based on detection of a new Cardinium group from biting midges. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75, 6757–6763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norton, R. A., Kethley, J. B., Johnston, D. E., & OConnor, B. M. (1993). Phylogenetic perspectives on genetic systems and reproductive modes of mites. In D. L. Wrensch & M. A. Ebbert (Eds.), Evolution and diversity of sex ratio in insects and mites (pp. 8–99). New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Neill, S. L., Hoffmann, A. A., & Werren, J. H. (1997). Influential passengers inherited microorganisms and arthropod reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Radovsky, F. J. (1985). Evolution of mammalian mesostigmate mites. In K. C. Kim (Ed.), Coevolution of parasitic arthropods and mammals (pp. 441–568). New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  32. Radovsky, F. J. (1994). The evolution of parasitism and the distribution of some dermanyssoid mites (Mesostigmata) on vertebrate hosts. In M. A. Houck (Ed.), Mites, ecological and evolutionary analyses of life-history patterns (pp. 186–217). New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Radwan, J. (1995). Male morph determination in two species of acarid mites. Heredity, 74, 669–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruf, A. (1998). A maturity index for predatory soil mites (Mesostigmata: Gamasina) as an indicator of environmental impacts of pollution on forest soils. Applied Soil Ecology, 9, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruf, A., & Beck, L. (2005). The use of predatory soil mites in ecological soil classification and assessment concepts, with perspectives for oribatid mites. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 62, 290–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others, the evolution and psychology of unselfish behaviour. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. St. John, M. G., Wall, D. H., & Hunt, H. W. (2006). Are soil mite assemblages structured by the identity of native and invasive alien grasses? Ecology, 87, 1314–1324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Telford, M. J., & Thomas, R. H. (1998). Expression of homeobox genes shows chelicerate arthropods retain their deutocerebral segment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 10671–10675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Straalen, N. M. (1997). Community structure of soil arthropods as a bioindicator of soil health. In C. Pankhurst, B. M. Doube, & V. V. S. R. Gupta (Eds.), Biological indicators of soil health. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
  40. van Straalen, M., & Verhoef, H. A. (1992). The development of a bioindicator system for soil acidity based on arthropod pH preferences. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walter, D. E., & Proctor, H. C. (2010). Mites as modern models: Acarology in the 21st century. Acarologia, 50, 131–141. doi: 10.1051/acarologia/20101955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walter, D. E., Latonas, S., & Byers, K. (2013). Almanac of Alberta Oribatida. Part 1. Ver. 2.3. Edmonton: The Royal Alberta Museum. http://www.royalalbertamuseum.ca/natural/insects/research/research.htm.
  43. Weeks, A. R., Marec, F., & Breeuwer, J. A. J. (2001). A mite species that consists entirely of haploid females. Science, 292, 2479–2482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, D. S., & Colwell, R. K. (1981). The evolution of sex ratio in structured demes. Evolution, 35, 882–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson, D. S., & Knollenberg, W. G. (1987). Adaptive indirect effects: The fitness of burying beetles with and without their phoretic mites. Evolutionary Ecology, 1, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Evans Walter
    • 1
  • Heather C. Proctor
    • 2
  1. 1.Invertebrate ZoologyUniversity of the Sunshine Coast Royal Alberta MuseumEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations