Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:10:10.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIVE DENSITIES OF PREDACIOUS AND PHYTOPHAGOUS MITES ON THREE VARIETIES OF APPLE TREES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. S. Downing  and
T. K. Moilliet
R. S. Downing
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Summerland, British Columbia
T. K. Moilliet
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Summerland, British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two well-kept but nonsprayed orchards, the European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch), was more numerous and caused more leaf damage to Delicious than to Spartan or McIntosh apple trees. The predacious phytoseiid mites, Metaseiulus occidentalis (Nesbitt) and Neoseiulus caudiglans (Schuster), were more numerous on both Spartan and McIntosh than on Delicious. The differences in the external structure of the leaves may be the reason for the greater abundance of phytoseiids on Spartan and McIntosh.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 99 , Issue 7 , July 1967 , pp. 738 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Collyer, E. 1958. Some insectary experiments with predaceous mites to determine their effect on the development of Metatetranychus ulmi (Koch) populations. Entomologia exp. appl. 1: 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collyer, E. 1964. The effect of an alternative food supply on the relationship between two Typhlodromus species and Panonychus ulmi (Koch) (Acarina). Entomologia exp. appl. 7: 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garman, P., and Townsend, J. F.. 1938. The European red mite and its control. Bull. Conn. agric. Exp. Stn 418.Google Scholar
Ghate, A V., and Howitt, A. J.. 1965. Mite resistance to organo-phosphorous compounds and the response of apple varieties to mites in Michigan. Mich. agric. Exp. Stn Quart. Bull. 47(3): 322–350.Google Scholar
Groves, J. R. 1951. A synopsis of the world literature on the fruit tree red spider mite Metatetranychus ulmi (C. L. Koch, 1835) and its predators. Commonw. Inst. Ent., London, England.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. F., and McBurnie, H. Y.. 1943. Sampling technique for determining populations of citrus red mite and its predators. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. 671.Google Scholar
Lord, F. T., Herbert, H. J., and MacPhee, A. W.. 1958. The natural control of phytophagous mites on apple trees in Nova Scotia. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent., Montreal (1956). Vol. 4. pp. 617–622.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. V. G. et al. 1955. Methods for estimating orchard mite populations, especially with the mite brushing machine. Can. Ent. 87: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, W. L., and Herne, D. H. C.. 1964. Relations between Typhlodromus caudiglans Schuster (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can. Ent. 96: 925–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, R. O., and Pritchard, A. E.. 1963. Phytoseiid mites of California. Hilgardia 34: 191–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar