Effect of understory and border vegetation composition on phytophagous and predatory mites in Massachusetts commercial apple orchards

Coli, William M.; Ciurlino, Randolph A.; Hosmer, Trina

doi:10.1016/0167-8809(94)90124-4

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…High densities of these predators have often been reported on native or weedy vegetation neighbouring vineyards (Boller et al 1988;Tsolakis et al 1997;Kreiter et al 2000Kreiter et al , 2006Tixier et al 2000a, b;Duso et al 2004; Barbar et al 2005) and also on herbaceous and Xowering plants (wild or cultivated) in vineyards and apple orchards (Flaherty 1969;Coli et al 1994;Nicholls et al 2001). Findings such as these have been discussed as an application of conservation biological control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Effects of agroforestry on phytoseiid mite communities (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards in the South of France

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The abundance and diversity of phytoseiid mites were surveyed from April to September 2003 to 2005 in vineyards (Grenache and Syrah cultivars) co-planted with rows of Sorbus domestica or Pinus pinea and in monoculture plots of grapes in the South of France. Densities of phytoseiid mites were different on the two tree species, with P. pinea a more suitable host than S. domestica. Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) exhilaratus was the dominant species occurring on grapes and on co-planted rows of S. domestica and P. pinea, whereas T. (T.) phialatus was the most abundant species in monoculture plots of both S. domestica and P. pinea. Factors determining the dominance of T. (T.) phialatus over T. (T.) exhilaratus in monoculture trees are discussed. In this study, agroforestry management did not affect phytoseiid diversity in vineyards, but did affect phytoseiid density, especially in 2005. The results obtained in 2003 and 2004 are not easy to discuss in this regard because of the low densities of mites observed during these 2 years (very dry climatic conditions and pesticide applications).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Effects of agroforestry on phytoseiid mite communities (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards in the South of France

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We sowed a blend of seeds of four genera of broadleaf plants {Plan-tago, Trifolium, Lychnis, and Lolium) beneath the trees in half of each test block in spring 1992. These species are favored by two-spotted spider mites and predaceous Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) (Coli et al, 1994). Our intent was to have these plants firmly established by 1994 to provide a reservoir of predaceous mites for colonizing the orchard trees.…”

Section: Components Of Second-level Ipm For Massachusetts Orchards Armentioning

confidence: 99%

Second-level integrated pest management in commercial apple orchards

et al. 1994

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As historical background helpful to understanding current concepts and practices of apple pest management, we review the origin and rise of key pests of apple in North America and the evolution of approaches to their management, culminating with the concept of integrated pest management (IPM). We propose four levels of integration of orchard pest management practices. First-level IPM integrates chemically based and biologically based management tactics for a single class of pests, such as arthropods, diseases, weeds or vertebrates. Second-level IPM, the focus of our effort here, integrates multiple management tactics across all classes of pests. We describe components of second-level IPM for Massachusetts apple orchards, which are threatened each year by an exceptionally broad range of injurious pests. We illustrate the tentative advantages and shortcomings of second-level IPM using 1993 data from six commercial orchard test blocks. Our predominant approach was to use chemically based tactics for controlling arthropods, diseases and weeds early in the growing season, and afterwards to rely exclusively (for insects) or largely (for other pests) on biologically based tactics, such as cultural, behavioral, and biological controls. Compared with nearby first-level IPM blocks, insecticide use in 1993 was reduced substantially (about 30%), with only slightly more insect injury to fruit and little difference in populations of foliar insect pests. The results for mite pests and diseases were less encouraging although summer pruning significantly reduced disease injury caused by flyspeck. We discuss how second-level IPM poses special biological or operational challenges to apple pest management practitioners. The concept has merit, but refinements are necessary before it can be recommended broadly to commercial apple growers in Massachusetts as an economical and reliable alternative to first-level IPM.

show abstract

“…The natural occurrence of these species on uncultivated plants around crops is often reported (Boller et al 1988;Tuovinen and Rokx 1991;Valentin and Kreiter 1993;Tuovinen 1994;Kreiter et al 2000Kreiter et al , 2002Tixier et al 2000aTixier et al , b, 2006aMoraes et al 2004; Barbar et al 2005). In addition, several studies have focused on the impact of the presence of herbaceous and flowering plants (wild or cultivated) in and out the crops on phytoseiid mite communities (Flaherty 1969;Boller et al 1988;Liguori and Castagnoli 1989;Coli et al 1994;Tsolakis et al 1997;Castagnoli et al 1999;Kreiter et al 2000Kreiter et al , 2002Tixier et al 2000aTixier et al , b, 2006aNicholls et al 2001;Duso et al 2004;Mailloux et al 2010). However, only few studies dealt with the effect of agroforestry management (trees and/or shrubs combined with crops) on communities of natural enemies and consequently on pest management (Altieri and Letourneau 1982;Linit and Stamps 1995;Altieri and Nicholls 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Agroforestry management and phytoseiid communities in vineyards in the South of France

Liguori

Tixier²,

Hernandes³

et al. 2011

Exp Appl Acarol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study deals with the long-term effect of agroforestry management (trees within vine crops) on communities of phytoseiid mites. Several plots were considered: vineyards co-planted with Sorbus domestica or Pinus pinea, monocultures of vines and monocultures of S. domestica or P. pinea. All vine plots included two vine cultivars, Syrah and Grenache. Phytoseiid mites have been surveyed in these plots during several years within the previous 10 years. In 2010, samplings were again carried out in these same plots, from May to September, twice a month. Significantly higher densities of Phytoseiidae were observed on the cultivar Syrah (0.85 phytoseiids per leaf) than on Grenache (0.26 phytoseiids per leaf). Furthermore, significantly higher phytoseiid mite densities were observed in the monocultural grapevine plot than in the two co-planted ones. The main species found was Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) exhilaratus in all vine plots considered. However, Kampimodromus aberrans was observed in the grapevine plots co-planted with the two trees, but never in the monocultural vine plot. Surprisingly, this phytoseiid species was not found on the co-planted trees, nor in the neighbouring uncultivated vegetation. Several hypotheses are discussed to explain such an unexpected distribution. Furthermore, contrary to what has been observed previously, agroforestry management did not seem to favour phytoseiid mite development, especially on the Grenache cultivar. Again, some hypotheses are developed to explain such observations and density modifications.

show abstract

Effect of understory and border vegetation composition on phytophagous and predatory mites in Massachusetts commercial apple orchards

Cited by 25 publications

References 35 publications

Effects of agroforestry on phytoseiid mite communities (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards in the South of France

Effects of agroforestry on phytoseiid mite communities (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards in the South of France

Second-level integrated pest management in commercial apple orchards

Agroforestry management and phytoseiid communities in vineyards in the South of France

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About