Comparison of Different Methods for Control of Gladiolus Bulb Mite Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze & Robin) (Astigmata: Acaridae) under Greenhouse Conditions

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 5, Volume 32, Issue 4 - Serial Number 42, December 2019, Pages 509-519   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v32i4.68661

Authors

asghar hoseini nia¹; saeid javadi khederi^{* 2}; Mohammad Khanjani³; Ahmad Heidari⁴; Mohammad-kazem Ramezani⁵; Hadi Mosallanejad⁶

¹ط

²Bu ali sina

³Department of Plant protection, Faculty of Agricultur, University of Bu-Ali Sina, Hamedan,

⁴3 Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection

⁵Institue of Plant Protectionch

⁶Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection

Abstract

Introduction: Bulb mites of genus Rhizoglyphus (Acari: Acaridae) have been identified as pest of many crops in storage, greenhouse, and field. The most important hosts are species of family Liliaceae (e.g. Allium spp.) Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze & Robin) (Astigmata: Acaridae) is one of the most important pest of gladiolus corms in Mahallat. The mites infest bulbs and corms by penetrating through the basal plate or outer skin layers. Bulb mites may establish in the inner layers, which makes control extremely difficult. Feeding wounds created by bulb mites provide entry sites for soil-borne fungal pathogens such as pythium, rhizoctonia and fusarium. Despite their economic importance and broad distribution, the control of R. echinopus remains in a state of confusion and needs a thorough evaluation. In addition, the field biology and ecology of this mite is not well studied, and methods for sampling, monitoring and assessment are limited. Management of bulb mites is complicated because of their short generation time, high reproductive potential, broad food niche, interactions with other pests and pathogens, and unique adaptations for dispersal. Historically, these pests have been controlled by synthetic acaricides and insecticides, which are now limited due to their resistance. Alternative control strategies, including cultural and biological control, have shown limited success, but need to be further developed and implemented.
Materials and Methods: We evaluated the capacity of the soil-dwelling predatory mite, Hypoaspis (Geolaelaps) aculeifer (Canestrini) (Mesostigmata: Laelapidae), as well as disinfestations of corms to control attacking bulbs mite. The experiment was performed in 24 treatments and 3 replicates in randomized complete block design. Each plot was separated with plastic and its soil was sterilized by solarization. In addition, 30 gladiolus corms were cultivated in each plot. Disinfestations treatments (corms were soaked in poison solution for 25 minute) include: 1, 2 & 3- abamectin (0.4, 0.8, 1.2 ml/lit); 4, 5 & 6- ethion (1, 1.5, 2 ml/lit); 7, 8 & 9- fenazaquin (0.5, 1, 1.5 ml/lit); 10, 11 & 12- hot water (45°C for 25, 50 and 75 min); 13, 14 & 15- release of predator mite H. (Gaeolaelaps) aculeifer 10, 20 and 30 predator for every 100 Gladiolus bulb (previously infested with bulb mites); 16, 17 & 18- release of 100, 250 and 500 predator mites  in square meter 15 days after planting; 19, 20 & 21- tap water as control treatments (30°C for 25, 50 and 75 min); 22- hot water (45°C for 25 min) and release 10 predator for every 100 gladiolus bulb; 23- hot water (45°C for 25 min) and release of 100 predator mites per square meter; 24- hot water (45°C for 25 min) and release 10 predator for every 100 gladiolus bulb and release of 100 predator mites per square meter 15 day after planting.
Result and Discussion: Significant differences were found among treatments and with control (α= 0.5). In all cases, the population of predatory mites increased as long as bulb mite densities were not too low. Experiments in the greenhouse showed that in the absence of predatory mite, populations of the bulb mite, R. echinopus, on gladiolus corms increased, whereas population growth of bulb mite was slowed down as the predatory mite were released. The highest infestation severity was observed in treatments 19, 20 and 21 (control), while the lowest percentage of corms infestation were recorded in treatments 24, 23 and 22. The highest frequency of corms was produced in treatment 24, also the highest inflorescence length was found in treatments 13 and 24. The height length mean of gladiolus stem was observed in treatments 24, 23 and 13, respectively. The flowers in treatments 7, 14, 17 and 23 lived the greatest. The fastest germination rate was recorded in corms in treatments 24, 23, 22, 14, 15, 13 and 10, respectively. But the number of buds was statistically located in the same group and their differences were not significant. Based on the results and with respect to the gladiolus features, biological and integrated pest control methods could be recommended for reducing R. echinopus infestation.

Keywords

Gladiolus; R. echinopus; H. aculeifer; integrated pest management

References

1. Ali W., George D.R., Shiel R.S. Sparagano O.A.E. and Guy J.H. 2012. Laboratory screening of potential predators of the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae and assessment of Hypoaspis miles performance under varying biotic and abiotic conditions. Veterinary Parasitology, 187: 341-344.

2. Amin M.R., Khanjani M., and Zahiri B. 2014. Life table parameters of Hypoaspis aculeifer (Acari: aelapidae) in feeding on Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Acari: Acaridae). Agricultural Pest Management, 1(1): 10-22.

3. Amin M.R., Khanjani M. and Zahiri B. 2014. Preimaginal development and fecundity of Gaeolaelaps aculeifer (Acari: Laelapidae) feeding on Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Acari: Acaridae) at constant temperatures. Journal of Crop Protection, 3: 581-587.

4. ‌Anonymous. 2009. New predator for the control of the bulb mite. http://Aculeifer-system-Biologicalsystem.htm. Received 2016, Accessed 12 March, 2012.

5. Baradaran P., Arbabi M., Hosseininia A., and Emami M.S. 2008. Study and importance of fauna mites of ornamental in open and close environment. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology, 21(3): 509-526. (In Farsi)

6. Chen J.S. and Lo K.C. 1989. Susceptibility of two bulb mites, Rhizoglyphus robini and Rhizoglyphus setosus (Acarina: Acaridae), to some acaricides and insecticides. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 6: 55-66.

7. Conijn C.G.M. 1992. Hot water treatment and cold storage to control the bulb mite R. robini on lily bulb, Acta Horticulture 325. Flower bulb Pp: 797-808.

8. Conijn C.G.M., Lesna I., and Altena K. 1997. Biological control of the bulb mite Rhizoglyphus robini by predatory mite Hypoaspis aculiefer on lilies, Implementation in practice. Proc. Int’ symp. On flower bulb, Eds. H. Lilies-Kipnis, a Borochov Acta. Hort, 430. ISHS Pp: 619-624.

9. Diaz A., Okabe K., Eckenrode C.J., Villani M.G., and Oconnor B.M. 2000. Biology, ecology and management of the bulb mites of the genus Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Acari: Acaridae). Experimental and Applied Acarology, 24: 85-113.

10. Fan Q.H., and Zhang Z.Q. 2003. Rhizoglyphua echinopus and Rhizoglyphus robini (Acari: Acaridae) from Australia and New Zealand: Identification, host plant and geographical distribution. Systematic and Applied Acarology, 16:1-16.

11. Gerson U. Yathom S. and Katan J. 1981. A demonstration of bulb mite control by solar heating of the soil. Publication of the Agricultural Research Organization, No.144-E. 1981series Pp. 153-155.

12. Hajizadeh J., Faraji F., and Rafati Fard M. 2010. Predatory mite of the family phytoseiidae of Iran. Gilan University No. 272, first Edition. 282 p. (In Persian)

13. Hosseininia A., and Baradaran P. 2005. Introduction of Gladiolus bulb mite Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze and Robini) as potential pest of Mahallat Gladiolus farms, Abstracts of first festival and national seminar of Iran cut flowers, 55-56 (Abst.). (In Persian).

14. Kasuga S., Kanno H., and Amano H. 2006. Development, oviposition, and predation of Hypoaspis aculeifer (Acari: Laelapidae) feeding on Tyrophagus similis (Acari: Acaridae). Acarological Society of Japan, 15:139-143.

15. Khanjani M. and Hadad Irani-Nejad K. 2009. Injurious mites of agricultural crops in Iran, 2nd edn. Bu-Ali Sina University Press Center, Hamadan.

16. Lesna I., Sabelis M.W., Bolland H.R. and Conijn C.G.M. 1995. Candidate natural enemies for control of Rhizoglyphus robini Claparede (Acari: Astigmata) in lily bulb exploration in the field and pre selection in the laboratory. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 19: 655-669.

17. Qing-Hai F., and Zhi-Qiang Z. 2003. Rhizoglyphus echinopus and Rhizoglyphus robini (Acari: Acaridae) from Australia and New Zealand, identification, host plants and geographical distribution, Systematic and Applied Acarology. Special Publication, ISSN 1461-0183 16:1-16.

18. Ragusa S. and Zedan M.A. 1988. Biology and predation of Hypoaspis aculeifer (Canestrini) (Parasitiformes, Dermanyssidae) on Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fum. and Rob.) (Acariformes, Acaridae). Redia, 71: 213-225.

19. Rahimi H., and Arbabi M. 2006. Effectt of corm and soil acaricide treatement on the control of bulb mites (Rizoglyphus robini Claparede (Acari: Acaridae) in saffron fields of Khorasan, Iran, 2nd International Symposium on Soffron Biology and Technology, Ferdosi Unversity, 28th -30 October 2006, Mashhad, Iran, p 19.

20. Raymond Dr., and Cloyd A. 2013. Bulb Mites: The critters from the deep, Integrated Pest Management, 77(7).

21. SAS, State of the Art Statistical Institute. 2003. JMP: a guide to statistical and data analysis, Version 6. 12, Cary, Nc.

22. Tanaka M., and Inoue K. 2009. Studies on bionomics’ and control methods of the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Fumouze and Robini) in Japanese. Japanese Society of Appled Entomolgy and Zoology, 6(1): 39-45.

23. Thoeming G. and Poehling H.M. 2006. Integrating soil-applied azadirachtin with Amblyseius cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and Hypoaspis aculeifer (Acari: Laelapidae) for the management of Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae. Environmental Entomology, 35(3): 746-756.