Diversity and abundance of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) in three crop management strategies of citrus orchards in Tunisia H. Sahraoui, M. S. Tixier, K. Lebdi-Grissa, S. Kreiter To cite this version: H. Sahraoui, M. S. Tixier, K. Lebdi-Grissa, S. Kreiter. Diversity and abundance of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) in three crop management strategies of citrus orchards in Tunisia. Acarologia, Acarologia, 2014, 54 (2), pp.155-169. 10.1051/acarologia/20142123. hal-01565262 HAL Id: hal-01565262 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01565262 Submitted on 19 Jul 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International License ACAROLOGIA A quarterly journal of acarology, since 1959 Publishing on all aspects of the Acari All information: http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/ [email protected] Acarologia is proudly non-profit, with no page charges and free open access Please help us maintain this system by encouraging your institutes to subscribe to the print version of the journal and by sending us your high quality research on the Acari. Subscriptions: Year 2017 (Volume 57): 380 € http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/subscribe.php Previous volumes (2010-2015): 250 € / year (4 issues) Acarologia, CBGP, CS 30016, 34988 MONTFERRIER-sur-LEZ Cedex, France The digitalization of Acarologia papers prior to 2000 was supported by Agropolis Fondation under the reference ID 1500-024 through the « Investissements d’avenir » programme (Labex Agro: ANR-10-LABX-0001-01) Acarologia is under free license and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons-BY-NC-ND which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Acarologia 54(2): 155–169 (2014) DOI: 10.1051/acarologia/20142123 DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF PHYTOSEIIDAE (ACARI: MESOSTIGMATA) IN THREE CROP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF CITRUS ORCHARDS IN TUNISIA Hajer SAHRAOUI1,2, Marie-Stéphane TIXIER2, Kaouthar LEBDI-GRISSA1 and Serge KREITER2 (Received 23 November 2013; accepted 16 January 2014; published online 30 June 2014) 1 Institut National Agronomique de Tunisie, Laboratoire de protection des plantes, 43 avenue Charles Nicolle, 1082 Tunis- Mahrajène, Tunisie. [email protected], [email protected] 2 Montpellier SupAgro, Unité Mixte de Recherche CBGP (INRA/ IRD/ CIRAD/ SupAgro), Campus International de Baillarguet, CS 30 016, 34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez cedex, France. [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT — Surveys of Phytoseiidae were carried out in three Tunisian citrus orchards; the first was conducted ac- cording to organic farming practices; the second was conducted according to integrated pest management; the third was conventionally conducted with an intensive use of pesticides. The aim of the present study was to assess Phytoseiidae diversity and densities in these orchards both on trees and weeds. The highest Phytoseiidae diversity on citrus and weeds was observed in the organic citrus orchard (eight species on citrus and eight species on weeds). In the conventionally managed orchard, only three and four species of Phytoseiidae were found on weeds and trees, respectively. The same species, Euseius stipulatus, was dominant on citrus in the three orchards, whereas it was observed only on some weeds. The prevalent Phytoseiidae species were different according to the orchards (Typhlodromus [Typhlodromus] phialatus in or- ganic farmed plot, Neoseiulus californicus in integrated managed plot and Phytoseiulus persimilis in the conventional one). Prevalence of such species was due to their high abundance on some plants (i.e. Phaseolus vulgaris for P. persimilis). No clear impact of weed management on citrus Phytoseiidae fauna was observed. However, pesticide use seems to affect densities and diversity of Phytoseiidae. Even if no clear correlation between E. stipulatus and Tetranychus sp. was ob- served, it seems that E. stipulatus could feed on Tetranychus sp. but cannot quickly and efficiently control high densities of these pests. KEYWORDS — citrus; Phytoseiidae; weed management; pesticide; diversity; dynamic; organic; conventional INTRODUCTION cause of environmental problems caused by spray- ing, alternative solutions especially biological con- Eight species of phytophagous mites, belonging trol strategies are investigated (Reis et al., 2000; to families Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae, Eriophyi- Aceujo et al., 2003; Gerson et al., 2003; Aguilar- dae and Tarsonemidae are known to cause dam- Fenollosa et al., 2011). The most efficient natu- ages in Tunisian citrus orchards (Kreiter et al., 2002). ral enemies known to control pest mites belong to Tetranychus urticae Koch is certainly the most se- the mite family Phytoseiidae (McMurtry and Croft, rious pest (Grissa and Khoufi, 2012). Pesticide 1997). Surveys carried out in Tunisian citrus or- can be used to control these pests; however be- http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/ 155 ISSN 0044-586-X (print). ISSN 2107-7207 (electronic) Sahraoui H. et al. chards showed the occurrence of eighteen Phyto- Hislop and Prokopy, 1981), vineyards (Kreiter et seiidae species (Kreiter et al., 2010; Sahraoui et al., al., 1993) and citrus orchards (Pereira et al., 2006; 2012). The most abundant are: Euseius stipula- Aguilar-Fenollosa et al., 2008, 2011; Mailloux et al., tus (Athias-Henriot), Iphiseius degenerans (Berlese), 2010). Some also shows that weeds can harbor Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor), Phytoseiulus per- Tetranychidae mites but also Phytoseiidae mites (i.e. similis Athias-Henriot, Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) Muma, 1975; Aceujo et al., 2003; Fenollosa et al., rhenanoides Athias-Henriot and Typhlodromus (Ty- 2008, 2011). phlodromus) phialatus Athias-Henriot (Sahraoui et al., The aim of the present study is to character- 2012). ize Phytoseiidae diversity and densities in three Tunisian citrus orchards managed with contrasted Species diversity and abundance of Phytoseiidae pesticide and weeding managements. are mainly affected by climate conditions, habitat stability and food resources (McMurtry and Croft, 1997). Most Phytoseiidae are able to survive and MATERIALS AND METHODS develop when preys are absent because of their Studied orchards polyphagous diet (McMurtry and Croft, 1997; Ny- rop et al., 1998). This generalist feeding habits Mite families Phytoseiidae and Tetranychidae were (pollen, fungi, and other mites) explain in part the surveyed in three citrus orchards (two in the Cap perennial presence of Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) Bon and one in Bizerte regions) from September pyri Scheuten and Kampimodromus aberrans (Oude- 2009 to August 2011. mans) in European vineyards and their ability to In the orchard (1) conducted with organic farm- control mite pests in such agrosystems (Duso, 1992; ing practices, only one insecticide (spinosad) was Lorenzon et al., 2012). Crop management could also applied in April 2011 to control aphids. The ground affect Phytoseiidae densities and diversity. Many cover was dominated by Poaceae and mechanical studies related the negative effects of pesticides on weeding was done once in April (Table 1). In Phytoseiidae (i.e. Kreiter et al., 1998; Childers et the orchard (2) conducted according to integrated al., 2001; Chen et al., 2003; Hardman et al., 2006, pest management (one insecticide: imidaclopride 2007; Bonafos et al., 2008; Meyer et al., 2009; Pev- applied in April), ground vegetation was diversi- erieri et al., 2009). In surveys comparing treated fied and was ploughed once in April (weeds on and untreated apple orchards in North Carolina, the rows were not destroyed). In the orchard (3) Farrier et al. (1980) showed that there were two- conventionally conducted eleven pesticides were fold more species on untreated trees compared to applied to control several pests and diseases (sul- treated ones. Surveys carried out by Fitzgerald and fur, abamectin, malathion, dimethoate, cyhexatin Solomon (2001) showed that Christmas tree plan- + tetradifon, methyl tiophanate, benomyl, copper, tations chemically treated had lower Phytoseiidae Bacillus thuringiensis). Herbicide (glyphosate) was densities than the untreated ones. Finally, some au- applied two times (in November and March), and thors report the positive impact of agrosystem di- ground was ploughed several times. Phaseolus vul- versification on natural enemy communities (i.e. Al- garis L. was planted in April as inter-cropping on tieri and Letourneau, 1982; Tscharntke et al., 2005). the rows under the trees (Table 1). Weeds are major components of agrosystems; some authors report that they can affect occurrence of Populations of whiteflies, thrips and scales were pests and beneficial insects (Altieri et al., 1977). present in the three orchards but only few individ- However, only few studies have focused on the ef- uals were seen during countings and the densities fect of weed management practices on Phytoseiidae remained very