بررسی تنوع گونه ای کنه‌های شکارگر خانواده فیتوزئیده (Acari: Phytoseiidae) در اکوسیستم‌های مختلف شهرستان ساری

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری

چکیده

چکیده
هدف از این تحقیق تعیین تنوع گونه ای کنه های شکارگر خانواده فیتوزئیده و امکان دستیابی به کنه های شکارگر موثر در کنترل بیولوژیک کنه های زیان آور گیاهی در شهرستان ساری مرکز استان مازندران بود. تعداد 80 گونه گیاهی از 46 خانواده مختلف در قالب سه اکوسیستم درختان جنگلی، درختان میوه و گیاهان زراعی از مهر ماه 90 لغایت آبانماه 1391 مورد بازدید و نمونه برداری قرار گرفت. در مجموع تعداد 946 اسلاید میکروسکپی مربوط به 19 گونه مختلف از کنه های شکارگر خانواده فیتوزئیده متعلق به 8 جنس و سه زیرخانواده Amblyseiinae، Typhlodrominae و Phytoseiinae تهیه شد. تعداد 475 نمونه تهیه شده (74%) و 12 گونه جمع آوری شده (63%) از زیرخانواده Amblyseiinae بود. در مجموع 68% کنه های این زیر خانواده را گونه Transeius caspiansis و 13% آنرا گونه Euseius amissibilis تشکیل داد. کنه Phytoseius plumifer تنها گونه زیر خانواده Phytoseiinae حدود 16 % و گونه های زیر خانواده Typhlodrominae حدود 10% جمعیت کنه های جمع آوری شده را تشکیل دادند. به طور کلی سه گونه Transeius caspiansis ، Euseius amissibilis و Phytoseius plumifer حدود 76% جمعیت کنه های شکارگر جمع آوری شده را تشکیل دادند. روی هم رفته شاخص های تنوع زیستی شامل شاخص غنای مارگالف برای کنه های شکارگر فیتوزئید 656/1، شاخص تنوع سیمپسون 69/0، شاخص شانون - وینر 546/1 و شاخص یکنواختی پیلو 773/0 بدست آمد که نشان می دهد منطقه از تنوع نسبتاً بالایی برخوردار است. دو گونه Neoseiulus barkeri و Typhlodromus athiasae از نظر مبارزه بیولوژیک حائز اهمیت بوده و در نقاط مختلف جهان پرورش یافته و به فروش می رسند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Species diversity of phytoseiid mites on different ecosystems in Sari district

نویسندگان [English]

  • Javad Omidi
  • Alireza Hadizadeh
  • Mahmoud Mohammadi Sharif
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Mites of the Phytoseiidae family have been extensively studied as biological control agents of different mites and insect pests. Some species also feed on nematodes, fungal spores, pollen and exudates from plants and insects. About 2,300 phytoseiid species belonging to 90 genera have been described in this family (Chant and McMurtry 2007). Considerable efforts have been made in recent years to the collection and identification of the predaceous phytoseiid mites in Iran (Rahmani et al. 2010). Despite some studies on phytoseiid mites in Iran, our knowledge remains limited about their fauna and diversity in Mazandaran province. The data of these studies showed that until recently, only 75 species were reported from Iran. The objective of this study was to evaluate the species diversity of Phytoseiidae and access to effective predatory mites for biological control of injurious mite pests in Sari, the center of Mazandaran province (Southern coast of the Caspian Sea, 35 ° 47'-36 ° 35' N, 50 ° 34'-54 ° 10' E)

Materials and methods
Samples were taken from 80 plant species belonging to 46 plant families including forest trees, orchards and farm crops representing three types of ecosystems from September 2011 to October 2012. Harvested samples of each plant were separately collected in plastic bags and labeled with region and date of collection. The bags were transported to the laboratory on the same day and stored in a refrigerator at about 4°C for up to a week, until the materials washed for mite extraction. Samples were composed of leaves, stems and shoots of different ages and the number of leaves per sample varied between plant species. In order to assimilate the samples, a volume nearly equal mass of each sample were put in a two-liter water container. The mites were floated on water by adding 1.5 liters of tap water and a few droplets of detergent. The plant leaves and shoots were shaken for several times until the mites fall from the plants into water. Plant materials then removed from the solution and discarded. Mites in the solution were separated by pouring the solution through sieves of 20, 50, 200 and 400 meshes. Mites transferred into a labeled glass jar for further processing and identification in the laboratory. The mites were cleared in Nesbitt's fluid and mounted in Hoyer’s medium on microscope slides. The slides were dried at 45 °C for 1-2 weeks. Then the edge of the coverslip was sealed with colorless nail polish to prevent absorption of the air moisture. All specimens collected were nominally identified to species level by using a Nikon phase contrast microscope (E600) and related identification keys.
The scientific names of the plants were adapted from a dictionary of Iranian plant names (Mozaffarian 1998). The ecological indices including Margalef's richness, Simpson, Shannon-Wiener and Pielou's evenness were calculated for species diversity, dominance, richness and evenness of the mites in different ecosystems. Some mite specimens were sent to Dr. E.A. Ueckermann of the ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa for identification or species confirmation.

Results and discussion
A total number of 946 mites of 19 species belonging to 8 genera of three phytoseiid subfamilies namely Amblyseiinae, Typhlodrominae and Phytoseiinae were identified (Table 1). Most individual mites collected in this study, 698 mites in total (73%), belonged to 12 species of the Amblyseiinae which 68% of them (475 in total) were Transeius caspiansis and 13% (90 mites in total) were Euseius amissibilis. Phytoseius plumifer, the single species of the Phytoseiinae and the species of Typhlodrominae amounted to 16% (152 in total) and 10% (96 in totals) of the collected mites, respectively. In this study Amblyseiinae also had the highest proportion of species (63%), while Typhlodrominae and Phytoseiinae had 31% and 5% of the species, respectively. Most phytoseiids collected in this study were mentioned above species that formed 76% (a total of 717) of the whole collected mites. These species were the most frequently found predators on varieties of plants. They were found on plants associated with tetranychid, tenuipalpid and eriophyid mites and small insect pests such as thrips and whiteflies. They were very common and were examined from 80 plant species, they observed on 59, 22 and 26 plants, respectively. It was interesting to observe these predators on some plants that there were not phytophagous mites. Therefore these species are generalist predators and are known to feed on pollen and exudates of plants and insects. Overall, mean mite's biodiversity indices of Margalef's richness, Simpson, Shannon-Wiener and Pielou's evenness were 1.656, 0.69, 1.546 and 0.525, respectively. Actually, when a community has many about equally abundant species, it is said to have high species diversity. But when a few species are present or like this study only a few species are abundant, then species diversity is low. The low Shannon-Wiener and Pielou's evenness indices also showed relatively low biodiversity in the area.

Conclusion
Despite that 19 phytoseiids species were found in Sari, the present study revealed a low diversity of phytoseiid mites in this region. Most phytoseiids collected in this area belonged to Transeius caspiansis, Euseius amissibilis and Phytoseius plumifer (a total of 717) species. However, it was expected that many additional species could be found by similar studies in the same area, especially when other plant species were sampled. The diversity of plants in the forest, orchards and farm crops were far greater than the number of plant species sampled in this study.

Acknowledgments
This paper is a part of MSc thesis of the senior author which was financially supported by Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Sari, Iran. Also thanks are extended to Dr. E. A. Ueckermann (Plant Protection Institute, Pretoria, South Africa who helped with the confirmation and identification of mite specimens. We also thank our colleague Dr. H. Zali for identification of some plant species.

Keywords: Biodiversity indices, Biological control, Mazandaran province, Phytoseiidae

References
Chant, D.A., McMurtry, J.A. 2007. Illustrated keys and diagnoses for the genera and subgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the world (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, Pub Michigan p. 220.
Mozaffarian, V. 1998. A dictionary of Iranian plant names, Latin, English, Persian. Farhng Moaaser publication, Tehran, Iran 671 pp.
Rahmani, H., Kamali, K. and Faraji, F. 2010. Predatory mite fauna of phytoseiid of northwest Iran (Acari: Mesostigmata). Turkish Journal Zoology 34: 497-508.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Biodiversity indices
  • Biological control
  • Mazandaran Province
  • Phytoseiidae
1- Asali Fayaz, B., Khanjani, M., Hajizadeh, J., and Ueckermann, E.A. 2009. A redescription of Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) tamaricis (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae), A first record for Iran. Acarologia 52(4): 425-431.
2- Burely, J. 2002. Forest biological diversity: An overview. Unasylva 209: 3-9.
3- Castro, T.M.M.G.De., and Moraes, G.J.De. 2007. Mite diversity on plants of different families found in the Brazilian atlantic forest. Neotropical Entomology 36: 774-782.
4- Castro, T.M.M.G.De., and Moraes, G.J.De. 2010. Diversity of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) in the Atlantic forest of São Paulo. Systematics and Biodiversity 8(2): 301-307.
5- Chant, D.D., and McMurtry, J.A. 2007. Illustrated Keys and Diagnosis for the Genera and Subgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the World (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield 220 pp.
6- Clark, S., Szlavecz, K., Cavigelli, M.A., and Purrington, F. 2006. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in organic, no-till, and chisel-till cropping systems in Maryland. Environmental Entomology 35(5): 1304-1312.
7- Collins, K.L., Boatman, N.D., Wilcox, A., and Holland, J.M. 2003. Effects of different grass treatments used to create overwintering habitat for predatory arthropods on arable farmland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 96: 59-67.
8- Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. 2nd Ed. Benjamin-Cummings Publication. New York 620 pp.
9- Daneshvar, H. 1980. Some predator mites from northern and western Iran. Entomologie et Phytopathologie Appliquees 48(15-17): 87-96. (In Persian with English Summary)
10- Daneshvar, H. 1987. Some predatory mites from Iran, with descriptions of one new genus and six new species (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Ascidae). Entomologie et Phytopathologie Appliquees 54(1-2): 13-37 (In English) 55-73 (In Persian with English Summary)
11- Daneshvar, H. 1990. Studies on the morphology and bionomics of Typhlodromips caspiansis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in North Iran. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology 57: 21-34. (In Persian with English Summary)
12- Daneshvar, H., and Denmark, H.A. 1982. Phytoseiids of Iran (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). International Journal of Acarology 8: 3-14.
13- Ejtehadi, H., Sepehri, A., and Akkafi, H. 2009. Methods of Biodiversity Measurement. Publication of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad 226 pp. (In Persian)
14- Faraji, F., Hajizadeh, J., Ueckermann, E.A., Kamali, K., and McMurtry, J.A. 2007. Two new records for Iranian phytoseiid mites with synonymy and keys to the species of Typhloseiulus Chant and McMurtry and Phytoseiidae in Iran (Acari: Mesostigmata). International Journal of Acarology 33(3): 231-239.
15- Gerson, U., Smiley, R.L., and Ochaoa, R. 2003. Mites (Acari) for pest control. Blackwell Science, UK 560 pp.
16- Hajizadeh, J. 2006a. Introducing a part of the phytoseiid (Acari: Phytoseiidae) fauna of Guilan Province, part I: Subfamily Typhlodrominae Scheuten. Agricultural Research 6: 48-63. (In Persian with English Summary)
17- Hajizadeh, J. 2006b. Phytoseiid mites fauna of Guilan province, part II: Subfamilies Amblyseiinae muma and Phytoseiinae Berlese (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Agricultural Research 7(1): 7-25 (In Persian with English Summary)
18- Hajizadeh, J., Faraji, F., and Rafati Fard, M. 2009. Predatory mite of Phytoseiidae of Iran. Guilan University Press 242 pp. (In Persian with English Summary)
19- Hajizadeh, J., Hosseini, R., and McMurtry, J.A. 2002. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) associated with eriophyid mites (Acari: Eriophyidae) in Guilan province of Iran. International Journal of Acarology 28: 373-378.
20- Hanson, W.J. 1968. The Immature Stages of the Subfamily Phlebotominae in Panama (Diptera: Psychodidae). PhD dissertation, University of Kansas 162 pp.
21- Kamali, K., Ostovan, H., and Atamehr, A. 2001. A Catalogue of Mites and Ticks (Acari) of Iran. University of Islamic Azad Scientific Publication Center 192 pp. (In Persian)
22- Khalil Manesh, B. 1973. Phytophagous mite fauna of Iran. Entomologie et Phytopathologie Appliquees 35: 30-38. (In Persian with English Summary)
23- McMurtry, J.A. 1977. Description and biology of Typhlodromus persianus, n. sp., from Iran, with notes on T. kettanehi (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 70: 563-568.
24- McMurtry, J.A., and Croft, B.A. 1997. Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 42: 291-321.
25- Moghadam, M. 2003. Ecology of Terrestrial Plants. Publication of Tehran University 701 pp. (In Persian)
26- Monetti, L.N., and Fernandez, N.A. 1995. Seasonal population dynamics of the European red mite (Panonychus ulmi) and its predator Neoseiulus californicus in a sprayed apple orchard in Argentina (Acari: Tetranychidae: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 36: 325-331.
27- Moraes, G.J., McMurtry, J.A., Denmark, H.A., and Campos, C.B. 2004. A revised catalog of the mite family Phytoseiidae. Zootaxa 434: 1-494.
28- Mozaffarian, V. 1999. A Dictionary of Iranian Plant Names. Farhang Moaser, Tehran 671pp. (In Persian)
29- Muma, M.H. 1961. The influence of cover crop cultivation on population of injurious insect and mites in Florida citrus groves. Florida Entomologist 44: 61-68.
30- Navntoft, S., Esbjerg, P., and Riedel, W. 2006. Effects of reduced pesticide dosages on carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in winter wheat. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8(1): 57-62.
31- Nohara, K., Nakao, S., and Nagatomi, A. 2000. A study of relationship between pesticide treatment and the fauna in citrus groves on Nagashima Island, Kagoshima Perfecture. Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 35(2): 271-281.
32- Ostovan, H., Faraji, F., Kamyab, F., and Khadempour, F. 2012. Notes on Neoseiulus paspalivorus (De Leon) and Proprioseiopsis messor (Wainstein) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) collected in Iran. Acarologia 52(1): 51-58.
33- Papaioannou Souliotis, P., Markoyiannaki Printziou, D., and Zeginis, G. 2000. Observation on acarofauna in four apple orchards of Central Grecee. II. Green cover and hedges as potential sources of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 41(4): 411-427.
34- Rafati Fard, M., Hajizadeh, J., and Arbabi, M. 2004. Biology of predatory mite, Typhlodromips caspiansis Denmark and Daneshvar (Acari: Phytoseiidae) feeding on two spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) in laboratory conditions. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1(1): 61-67. (In Persian with English Summary)
35- Sepasgozarian, H. 1977. The 20 years research of acarology in Iran. Journal of Iranian Society of Engineers 56: 40-50. (In Persian)
36- Ueckermann, E.A., Jalaeian, M., Saboori, A., and Seyedoslami, H. 2009. Re-description Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) khosrovensis Arutunjan, first record for Iran (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 49(1-2): 23-27.