Evaluation of Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) for controlling the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae)

Yang, Si-Hua; Wang, Dan; Chun, Changhoo; Xu, Chunling; Xie, Hui

doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62643-2

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It also showed good control of the root knot nematode M. incognita in pots with water spinach plants ( Ipomoea aquatica , Xu et al 2014 ; Table 1 ). Stratiolaelaps scimitus also controlled M. incognita in potted spinach plants (Yang et al 2020 ; Table 1 ) and in tomato plants with free-living nematodes ( Rhabditella axei ) as alternative food (Azevedo et al 2020 ; Table 1 ).…”

Section: Predator-prey Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Table reference list: 1 Ajvad et al ( 2018 ); 2 Al-Azzazy and Al-Rehiayani ( 2022 ); 3 Azevedo et al ( 2020 ); 4 Baatrup et al ( 2006 ); 5 Beaulieu ( 2009 ); 6 Berndt et al ( 2004a ); 7 Berndt et al ( 2004b ); 8 Castilho et al ( 2009 ); 9 Castro-López and Martínez-Osorio ( 2021 ); 10 Chambers et al ( 1993 ); 11 Chen et al ( 2013 ); 12 Enkegaard and Brødsgaard ( 2000 ); 13 Freire et al ( 2007 ); 14 Gillespie and Quiring ( 1990 ); 15 Glockemann ( 1992 ); 16 Jensen et al ( 2019 ); 17 Jess and Bingham ( 2004 ); 18 Kasuga et al ( 2006 ); 19 Lesna et al ( 1996 ); 20 Lesna et al ( 2000 ); 21 Lesna et al ( 2014 ); 22 Messelink and van Wensveen ( 2003 ); 23 Messelink and van Slooten ( 2004 ); 24 Messelink and van Holstein-Saj ( 2006 ); 25 Messelink et al ( 2008 ); 26 Moreira et al ( 2015 ); 27 Muñoz-Cárdenas et al ( 2014 ); 28 Muñoz-Cárdenas ( 2017 ); 29 Navarro-Campos et al ( 2016 ); 30 Navarro-Campos et al ( 2020 ); 31 Pozzebon et al ( 2015 ); 32 Rahman et al ( 2012 ); 33 Sabelis et al ( 2008 ); 34 Wright and Chambers ( 1994 ); 35 Wu et al ( 2014 ); 36 Wu et al ( 2016 ); 37 Xu et al ( 2014 ); 38 Yan et al ( 2022 ); 39 Yang et al ( 2020 ); 40 Zhang et al ( 2021 ) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Campos et al (2020); 31Pozzebon et al (2015); 32Rahman et al (2012); 33Sabelis et al (2008); 34Wright and Chambers (1994); 35Wu et al (2014); 36Wu et al (2016); 37Xu et al (2014); 38Yan et al (2022); 39Yang et al (2020); 40Zhang et al (2021) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological pest control is becoming increasingly important for sustainable agriculture. Although many species of natural enemies are already being used commercially, efficient biological control of various pests is still lacking, and there is a need for more biocontrol agents. In this review, we focus on predatory soil mites, their role as natural enemies, and their biocontrol potential, mainly in vegetable and ornamental crops, with an emphasis on greenhouse systems. These predators are still underrepresented in biological control, but have several advantages compared to predators living on above-ground plant parts. For example, predatory soil mites are often easy and affordable to mass rear, as most of them are generalist predators, which also means that they may be used against various pests and can survive periods of pest scarcity by feeding on alternative prey or food. Many of them can also endure unfavourable conditions, making it easier for them to establish in various crops. Based on the current literature, we show that they have potential to control a variety of pests, both in greenhouses and in the field. However, more research is needed to fully understand and appreciate their potential as biocontrol agents. We review and discuss several methods to increase their efficiency, such as supplying them with alternative food and changing soil/litter structure to enable persistence of their populations. We conclude that predatory soil mites deserve more attention in future studies to increase their application in agricultural crops.

show abstract

Section: Predator-prey Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For examples, the laelapid species Gaeolaelaps aculeifer (Canestrini, 1884) and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Womersley, 1956) (Mesostigmata: Laelapidae), have been considered as potential BCAs of various species of thrips pests of greenhouses (Berndt et al 2004;Park et al 2021;Rueda-Ramírez 2018;Rueda-Ramírez et al 2021), citrus orchards (Navarro-Campos et al 2020) and open fields (Castro-López & Martínez-Osorio 2021;. Both have also been released for the control of shore flies (Diptera: Ephydriidae) (Vänninen & Koskula 2004) in greenhouses, fungus gnats (Diptera: Sciaridae) in green houses and mushroom cultivation (Freire et al 2007;Acharya et al 2019;Tavoosi Ajvad et al 2020) and for phytonematodes (Salehi et al 2014;Azevedo et al 2020;Yang et al 2020). Additionally, G. aculeifer was assessed as a BCA for the bulb mite Rhizoglyphus robini Claparède, 1869 (Astigmatina: Acaridae) under greenhouse and field conditions (Lesna et al 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In memory of Gary Bauchan: Integrated taxonomy of soil mites in farming systems

Rueda-Ramírez

Carta²,

Mowery

et al. 2022

saa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current and future legislation requiring the reduction of pesticides use, coupled with global initiatives for the promotion of soil health and conservation of soil biodiversity are creating opportunities for studies aimed at highlighting ecosystem services provided by functioning soil food webs in agricultural systems, including soil predatory mites. However, the key personnel for performing such studies are expert taxonomists, who are already spread very thin. To meet this demand, we propose an integrative approach where scientists (without expertise in taxonomy) play a significant role in supporting expert taxonomists. Soil samples were collected at the USDA ARS Farming Systems Project (FSP) at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, either incubated or not, followed by extraction of mites and nematodes. Improved modified Berlese funnels and an extraction protocol were utilized to improve sequencing success. Incubation dramatically enhanced the number of extracted individuals per sample whilst the daily freezing of extracted mites substantially improved the sequencing success rate compared to previous studies. Taken together, this led to the addition of records for eight Mesostigmata and ten Oribatida BINs to BOLD (Barcode of Life Datasystem). Fifteen species of Mesostigmata species were found, with three dominant species, Cycetogamasus diviortus (Athias-Henriot, 1967) (Parasitidae), Lasioseius youcefi Athias-Henriot 1959 (Blattisociidae) and a new species of Gamasellodes (Ascidae). LTSEM imaging followed by molecular identification contributed further details to the published descriptions of C. diviortus and L. youcefi. In line with our general aim, collecting, extracting, identification to morpho-species, sample preparation for DNA barcoding and uploading relevant information to BOLD was performed by trained personnel, but without taxonomic expertise. Whereas our skilled taxonomists focused on the morphological identifications using light microscopy, expanding on existing descriptions using LTSEM images and in a subsequent manuscript the description of a new species. We believe this division of tasks and labor will set the stage for further collaborative integrated studies between ecologists, biocontrol specialists and expert taxonomists for the identification, evaluation, and description of known and novel soil acarine biological control agents (BCAs).

show abstract

“…For example, the mesostigmatid mite Protogamasellus mica was shown to consume bactivorous, fungi vorous, and phytophagous nematode species at approximately the same rate regardless of the size or motility of its prey (Stirling et al, 2017). As such, microarthropods are among a diverse guild of soil organisms that attenuates processes such as crop loss to plant parasitic nematodes (Joharchi et al, 2015;Yang et al, 2020) and biological control of crop pests by entomopathogenic nematodes (Poinar, 1979;Epsky et al, 1988;Walter and Ikonen, 1989;Karagoz et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing for taxonomic coverage: a comparison of methods to recover mesofauna from soil

Dritsoulas

Duncan

2020

Journal of Nematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manipulating soil properties to modify the dynamics between nematodes and their natural enemies has been proposed to conserve services such as the biological control of insect pests by entomopathogenic nematodes. Many soil microarthropods including acari mites and collembola are natural enemies of nematodes; however, little is known about the naturally occurring assemblages of these two soil dwelling groups and how they might be influenced by soil conditions. A method to efficiently recover both nematodes and microarthropods from environmental samples would be helpful to characterize communities of these two groups in different habitats. Because samples of nematodes extracted from soil by sucrose centrifugation (SC) also contain soil mites, collembola, protozoans, and fungal and bacterial propagules, the efficiency of SC to recover microarthropods was compared to more conventional methods of microarthropod recovery such as heptane flotation (HF), Berlese funnels (BF), and a modified flotation Berlese method (FBF). Microarthropods were identified using an inverted microscope to class in one experiment and to order in a second. Significantly more microarthropods of all taxa were recovered by SC than with either Berlese method (BF or FBF). In total, 40% more microarthropods comprising seven orders were recovered by HF compared to SC, but the difference was not significant. Ecological indices (diversity, richness, and evenness) derived from HF and SC were congruent and significantly higher than those derived from BF. Excessive organic matter in the HF extractions, compared to those of SC, BF, and FBF, made mite detection and identification difficult and time consuming. Moreover, unlike SC, neither HF nor any Berlese method recovered nematodes. Accordingly, we found SC to be the most efficient method for microarthropod extraction, making it an ideal method for studies of communities of nematodes and many of their natural enemies in the soil.

show abstract

Evaluation of Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) for controlling the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae)

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

In memory of Gary Bauchan: Integrated taxonomy of soil mites in farming systems

Optimizing for taxonomic coverage: a comparison of methods to recover mesofauna from soil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About