Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:30:09.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SAMPLING THE DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF AMBLYSEIUS FALLACIS (ACARINA: PHYTOSEIIDAE) IN THE GROUND COVER OF MICHIGAN APPLE ORCHARDS1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. L. McGroarty  and
B. A. Croft
D. L. McGroarty
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Pesticide Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
B. A. Croft
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Pesticide Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An extraction method, timed counts taken from broadleafed forbs, and counts taken on apple sucker leaves were evaluated as sampling methods to estimate populations of the predatory phytoseiid mite Amblyseius fallacis Garman in the ground cover of commercial apple orchards. All three gave comparable density estimates at moderate and high population levels. The extraction sample technique was most effective in measuring low population densities, however the timed vegetational procedure was deemed the most practical method for monitoring these mites for pest management purposes. With respect to predator distribution in the ground cover, mites were aggregated somewhat in the heterogeneous understory, but were almost randomly distributed on apple sucker leaves. Predators were equally likely to find prey irrespective of location beneath the tree canopy. They showed little preference for different plant species with the exception of a higher incidence than expected on apple (Malus) and possibly on grape (Vitus sp.) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 8 , 01 August 1978 , pp. 785 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

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

Croft, B.A. and Brown, A.W.A.. 1975. Responses of arthropod natural enemies to insecticides. A. Rev. Ent. 20: 285–335.Google Scholar
Croft, B.A. and McGroarty, D.L.. 1973. A model study of acaricide resistance, spider mite outbreaks, and biological control patterns in Michigan apple orchards. Environ. Ent. 2: 633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, B.A. and McGroarty, D.L.. 1977. The role of Amblyseius fallacis in Michigan apple orchards. Res. Rep. Mich. agric. Exp. Stn 333. 24 pp.Google Scholar
Croft, B.A., Welch, S.C., and Dover, M.J.. 1976. Dispersion statistics and sample size estimates for populations of the mite species Panonychus ulmi (Koch) and Amblyseius fallacis Garman on apple. Environ. Ent. 5: 227–234.Google Scholar
Iwao, S. 1968. A new regression method for analyzing the aggregation pattern of animal populations. Researches popul. Ecol. Kyoto Univ. 10: 1–20.Google Scholar
Iwao, S. and Kuno, E.. 1968. Use of the regression of mean crowding on mean density for estimating sample size and the transformation of data for the analysis of variance. Researches popul. Ecol. Kyoto Univ. 10: 210–214.Google Scholar
LeRoux, E.J. and Reimer, C.. 1959. Variation between samples of immature stages and mortalities from some factors of the eye-spotted bud moth, Spilonota ocellana (D. & S.) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae), and the pistol casebearer, Coleoptera serratella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae), on apple in Quebec. Can. Ent. 91: 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, R.H. 1974. Management of phytophagous and predatory mites in Illinois orchards. Environ. Ent. 3: 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, W.L. and Herne, D.C.. 1966. The role of predators and other biotic agents in regulating the population density of phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can. Ent. 98: 808–820.Google Scholar
Taylor, L.R. 1961. Aggregation variance, and the mean. Nature 189: 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar