Phytoseiid mites on grasses in Brazil (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

Abstract

Surveys were conduced in 16 sites in the State of São Paulo to evaluate the phytoseid mite fauna on some of the most common grass species in that State: Brachiaria decumbens Stapf., Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Stapf, Brachiaria ruziziensis R. Germ & C.V. Evrard, Melinis minutiflora Beauv., Panicum maximum Jacq. and Pennisetum purpureum Schumach. Twenty known species and one new species (Proprioseiopsis biologicus Lofego, Demite & Moraes sp. nov.) were found. Two species are reported for the first time in the American continent: Neoseiulus benjamini Schicha and Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) neobakeri Prasad . Seven of the species collected have been reported in Brazil from different crops. The largest number of specimens and of species of phytoseiids was found on M. minutiflora. The results of this study indicate that grasses may play a role in agroecosystems and pasture lands, serving as reservoirs of phytoseiids that prey upon mite pests.

Morphological, molecular and cross-breeding analysis of geographic populations of coconut-mite associated predatory mites identified as Neoseiulus baraki: evidence for cryptic species?

“…Third, the original morphological descriptions of N. cucumeris Oudemans and N. bellinus (Womersley) were similar, but behavioural observations revealed differences, that were later confirmed by the discovery of new taxonomic characters to separate the two species: the number of teeth on the fixed cheliceral digit and the setal and cheliceral lengths (Beard 1999). In the study by Lofego et al (2009) considerable variation in the number of cheliceral teeth between specimens of N. benjamini Schicha from a same plant and locality (or even between right and left chelicerae of the same individual) has been reported, but no further studies have been carried out to elucidate the cause of this variation. Other cases where an integrative approach was also used to identify cryptic species (or complex of species) have been reported in other mite taxa.…”

Phytoseiid mites of Martinique, with redescription of four species and new records (Acari: Mesostigmata)

“…60°58′O, alt. 25 m), 10 ♀♀ on N. wightii, 1 ♀ on M. atropurpureum and 1 Data from this study for Martinique, from Kreiter and Moraes (1997) for Guadeloupe, from Lofego et al (2009) for Brazil, from Moraes and McMurtry (1983) for the holotype, from Moraes and McMurtry (1983) and Moraes et al (1991) for Cuba, and from Guanilo et al (2008a) for Peru. Kreiter and Moraes (1997) for Guadeloupe, from Guanilo et al (2008a) for Peru.…”

“…25 m), 5 ♀♀ + 1 ♂ on N. wightii, 5 ♀♀ on M. atropurpureum and 26 ♀♀ on P. phaseoloides collected between 23-07-2012 and 18-09-2013. Lofego et al (2004Lofego et al ( , 2009 for Brazil (São Paulo) recalculated by the senior author of the present paper, from Guanilo et al (2008a) for Peru, from De Leon (1962Leon ( , 1965 for holotypes of Euseius sibelius collected in Florida and of Euseius subalatus, considered as a junior synonym of the former, collected in Puerto Rico.…”

Acarine biocontrol agents Neoseiulus californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) and N. barkeri Hughes (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) redescribed, their synonymies assessed, and the identity of N. californicus (McGregor) clarified based on examination of types

“…Prior to this concept, Schuster & Pritchard (1963) provided a similar species description, but it is unclear if it represents the same species as that of Athias-Henriot (see Griffiths (2015), and a section below). Redescriptions made since 1977 are all essentially compatible with Athias-Henriot's concept, including that of Tixier et al (2008) and Xu et al (2013), and many others (McMurtry, 1977;Beglyarov, 1981;Schicha, 1987;Jung et al, 2006;Guanilo et al, 2008a, b;Lofego et al, 2009;Kade et al, 2011;Abo-Shnaf & de Moraes, 2014; see also Demite et al, 2017). The male of Nc-AH was never described by Athias-Henriot; however, most features of the male were provided by Xu et al (2013); other authors provide scant redescriptions of the male, with limited illustrations and/or measurements, that are based on males associated with females that are essentially compatible with Athias-Henriot's concept (Ramírez et al, 1988;Çakmak & Çobanoglu, 2006;Guanilo et al, 2008aGuanilo et al, , 2008bPapadoulis et al, 2009;Abo-Shnaf & de Moraes, 2014).…”