Next Article in Journal
Effects of Rearing Density on Survival, Growth, and Development of the Ladybird Coleomegilla maculata in Culture
Next Article in Special Issue
Antagonistic Interactions between the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda and the Parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci Potentially Limits Suppression of the Invasive Mealybug Rastrococcus iceryoides
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Mechanism Underlying the Entomotoxic Effect of Colocasia esculenta Tuber Agglutinin against Dysdercus cingulatus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Integrated Fruit Production and Pest Management in Europe: The Apple Case Study and How Far We Are From the Original Concept?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/insects6040847
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Fundamental Step in IPM on Grapevine: Evaluating the Side Effects of Pesticides on Predatory Mites

by
Alberto Pozzebon
,
Paola Tirello
,
Renzo Moret
,
Marco Pederiva
and
Carlo Duso
*
Department of Agronomy, Food, Animals, Natural Resources and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, Legnaro-Padova 35020, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2015, 6(4), 847-857; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6040847
Submission received: 24 August 2015 / Revised: 17 September 2015 / Accepted: 28 September 2015 / Published: 9 October 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integrated Pest Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Knowledge on side effects of pesticides on non-target beneficial arthropods is a key point in Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Here we present the results of four experiments conducted in vineyards where the effects of chlorpyrifos, thiamethoxam, indoxacarb, flufenoxuron, and tebufenozide were evaluated on the generalist predatory mites Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant), key biocontrol agents of herbivorous mites on grapevines. Results show that indoxacarb and tebufenozide had a low impact on the predatory mites considered here, while a significant impact was observed for chlorpyrifos, flufenoxuron, and thiamethoxam. The information obtained here should be considered in the design of IPM strategies on grapevine.

1. Introduction

Knowledge of the impact of pesticides on beneficial arthropods is critical in Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The authorization of a new pesticide in Europe is subjected to the evaluation of its effects on non-target organisms, including a number of beneficials. These evaluations can be made at different levels (e.g., laboratory, semi-field, and field) obtaining complementary information [1,2]. Most of the data in the specific literature come from laboratory and semi-field studies as they are less time-consuming and expensive than field tests. However, field tests are useful for evaluation of the pesticides’ impact in realistic use conditions, especially for pesticides having a significant impact in laboratory or semi-field studies [3,4,5]. Predatory mites belonging to the Phytoseiidae family, particularly generalists sensu McMurtry and Croft [6], have been widely considered in field evaluations of pesticide side-effects (e.g., [2,7,8,9]). Generalist predatory mites can persist on perennial crops when prey is scarce by feeding on alternative foods and prevent herbivore mite outbreaks for a long time [10,11,12]. Thus, the assessment of pesticide impact on them can be performed excluding potential effects mediated by their prey [13]. At the same time, plant-pathogens, especially those involved in fungal diseases, can represent alternative or supplemental food resources for various predatory mites and their presence can alter the outcome of trials aimed at assessing the impact of pesticides [14,15,16]. Field experiments should therefore be conducted where symptoms caused by fungal diseases are negligible to low.
There is an abundant literature on the side-effects of pesticides on predatory mites but the variability of environmental factors, experimental methods, target species, and pesticide formulates makes comparison of these data difficult. An attempt to summarize the results conducted using standardized methods is reported in the IOBC Pesticide Side Effect Database published by the International Organisation for Biological and Integrated Control/West Palearctic Regional Section (IOBC/WPRS) [17]. Pesticides are classified according their overall effects (Classes 1–4, from harmless to harmful), providing selectivity rates to people involved in IPM. When studied, lethal and sub-lethal effects are combined and, thus, cited publications should be examined by those interested in investigating these aspects. Nevertheless, results presented in reports used in regulatory procedures for pesticides’ use authorization are often reported giving useful information to IPM practitioners.
In this paper we summarize the results of a number of experiments conducted in vineyards to evaluate the effects of a number of insecticides on the generalist predatory mites Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant). These species are key biocontrol agents of herbivorous mites [11,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The choice of insecticides was based on their importance in pest control strategies in viticulture. For some insecticides, it was possible to compare our results with those reported in the IOBC Pesticide Side Effect Database. For other pesticides, records could integrate gaps in the above-mentioned database.

2. Experimental Section

The effects of insecticides on predatory mites were investigated in four vineyards located in the Veneto region (Northeastern Italy), two comprising cultivar Glera grapevine (experiments 1 and 2; Miane and San Pietro di Feletto, respectively, province of Treviso; Table 1), one with cultivar Merlot (experiment 3; Spresiano, province of Treviso; Table 1), and one with cultivar Cabernet Sauvignon (experiment 4; Spresiano, province of Treviso; Table 1). These vineyards were inhabited by predatory mites (T. pyri and A. andersoni) that are considered key biocontrol agents of herbivore mites as well as target beneficials in the evaluation of pesticide side effects. The impact of insecticides was compared in four field experiments where an untreated control treatment was also included (Table 1). Experimental design was a randomized block with four replicates per treatment. Timing of applications was determined by the mode of action of different insecticides and the phenology of main target pests for each vineyard. In particular, from preliminary observations, Empoasca vitis (Goethe) (Hemiptera Cicadellidae) was the target pest in experiments 1 and 2, while Lobesia botrana (Denis and Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera Tortricidae) was the target pest in experiments 3 and 4 (Table 1). Preliminary observations revealed that T. pyri was the dominant species in the vineyards of experiments 1 and 2, while A. andersoni was dominant in the vineyards of experiments 3 and 4. Regarding insecticide use in previous years, all these vineyards had been treated with organophosphates, carbamates, and chitin-inhibitors. Therefore, the dominance of these predatory mite species was likely be due to their adaptation to specific environmental conditions rather than pesticide history: experimental sites 1 and 2 were located in hilly areas whereas experimental sites 3 and 4 were in lowland areas. The experiments were performed in mid-summer and the climatic conditions were typical for the area where the experimental sites were located. Samplings were conducted before and approximately every week after insecticide applications for about one month. A total of 100 leaves per treatment (25 leaves per replicate) were removed and transferred to the laboratory where predatory mite individuals were counted under a dissecting microscope; a number of females were mounted on slides, in Hoyer’s medium, and identified under a phase contrast microscope using current keys [24]. Data were analyzed with a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) repeated measures model. Mite densities were considered as response variables with repeated measures made at different times, i.e., sampling dates. Using an F test (α = 0.05), we evaluated the effect of insecticide application, time, and their interaction. Contrasts (α = 0.05) were designed for pairwise comparison between treatments before and after insecticide applications. Degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger method [25]. According to Akaike’s Information Criterion, first-order autoregressive was chosen as best fitting covariance structure for correlating different sampling dates [25]. Data were checked for analysis assumptions before analyses and log(x + 1) transformation was applied when necessary. The effect (E) of insecticides was estimated using the Henderson and Tilton’s formula [26].
Table
Table 1. Experimental design and insecticides applied in the four experiments.
Table 1. Experimental design and insecticides applied in the four experiments.
TreatmentsActive IngredientsCommercial Products (a.i. Concentration)DoseTiming of Application (Days from First Application)
Experiment 1
control- --
chlorpyrifoschlorpyrifosDursban 75 WG (75%)70 g/hL0 days
thiamethoxamthiamethoxamActara 25 WG (25%)25 g/hL0 days
indoxacarbindoxacarbSteward EC (30%)15 g/hL0 days
Experiment 2
control- --
chlorpyrifoschlorpyrifosDursban 75 WG (75%)70 g/hL0 days
thiamethoxamthiamethoxamActara 25 WG (25%)25 g/hL0 days
flufenoxuronflufenoxuronCascade 50 DC (4.7%)100 mL/hL0 days
Experiment 3
control- --
chlorpyrifoschlorpyrifosDursban 75 WG (75%)70 g/hL10 days
flufenoxuronflufenoxuronCascade 50 DC (4.7%)100 mL/hL0 days
Experiment 4
control- --
chlorpyrifoschlorpyrifosDursban 75 WG (75%)70 g/hL10 days
flufenoxuronflufenoxuronCascade 50 DC (4.7%)150 mL/hL0 days
indoxacarbindoxacarbSteward EC (30%)15 g/hL4 days
tebufenozidetebufenozideMimic (23%)60 mL/hL0 days

3. Results

3.1. Experiment 1

Typhlodromus pyri was the dominant species in this vineyard, and its density was influenced by treatment and time, while their interaction was not significant (F3, 11.5 = 11.70; p = 0.001; F3, 26.7 = 8.67; p < 0.001; F9, 27.7 = 1.05; p = 0.427; respectively; Figure 1). The occurrence of herbivorous mites (e.g., tetranychids and eriophyids) was negligible. Prior to insecticide applications, T. pyri densities were similar among plots (F3, 42.6 = 1.35; p = 0.269). After applications, T. pyri densities were lower with thiamethoxam and chlorpyrifos as compared to the untreated control (F1, 13.8 = 25.35; p < 0.001; E = 31.45; F1, 13.8 = 21.72; p < 0.001; E = 44.21; respectively). No effects were observed for indoxacarb (F1, 13.8 = 2.24; p = 0.157; E = 6.58; respectively). Among insecticide treatments, predatory mite densities were lower with thiamethoxam and chlorpyrifos than indoxacarb (F1, 13.8 = 10.02; p = 0.007; F1, 13.8 = 7.94; p = 0.013; respectively). No differences were observed between chlorpyrifos and thiamethoxam (F1, 13.8 = 0.14; p = 0.71).
Insects 06 00847 g001 1024
Figure 1. Population dynamics of Typhlodromus pyri (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 1. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Figure 1. Population dynamics of Typhlodromus pyri (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 1. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Insects 06 00847 g001

3.2. Experiment 2

Typhlodromus pyri was dominant among predatory mites in this vineyard. Its abundance was influenced by treatment, time, and their interaction (F3, 24.3 = 9.61; p < 0.001; F4, 46.3 = 7.72; p < 0.001; F12, 46.7 = 2.40; p = 0.016; respectively; Figure 2). Herbivorous mite populations occurred at negligible levels. In pre-treatment observations, T. pyri densities were similar among plots (F3, 57 = 0.35; P = 0.789). Following insecticide applications, T. pyri numbers were lower where insecticides were applied as compared to the control (thiamethoxam: F1, 28.1 = 15.56; p < 0.001; E = 27.20; flufenoxuron: F1, 28.1 = 22.29; p < 0.001; E = 34.85; chlorpyrifos: F1, 28.1 = 22.94; p < 0.001; E = 34.82). No differences emerged among plots with insecticide applications (thiamethoxam vs. flufenoxuron: F1, 28.1 = 0.73; p = 0.402; thiamethoxam vs. chlorpyrifos: F1, 28.1 = 0.51; p = 0.479; chlorpyrifos vs. flufenoxuron: F1, 28.1 = 0.02; p = 0.893).
Insects 06 00847 g002 1024
Figure 2. Population dynamics of Typhlodromus pyri (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 2. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Figure 2. Population dynamics of Typhlodromus pyri (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 2. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Insects 06 00847 g002

3.3. Experiment 3

In this experiment, the predatory mite Amblyseius andersoni was commonly observed on grape leaves. Its population dynamics were influenced by treatment and time, while no effect was found of the interaction “treatment × time” (F2, 17.9 = 5.94; p = 0.011; F4, 34.2 = 5.93; p = 0.001; F8, 34.9 =1.02; p = 0.436; respectively; Figure 3). The occurrence of herbivorous mites was very low. Prior to insecticide application, no differences were observed among treatments (F2, 44.8 = 0.37; p = 0.691). Later, predatory mite numbers were higher in the control than in flufenoxuron and chlorpyrifos plots (flufenoxuron: F1, 19.3 = 12.50; p = 0.002; E = 58.95; chlorpyrifos: F1, 22 = 5.01; p = 0.003; E = 55.43). No differences emerged between the insecticide-treated plots (F1, 22 = 0.20; p = 0.656).
Insects 06 00847 g003 1024
Figure 3. Population dynamics of Amblyseius andersoni (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 3. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Figure 3. Population dynamics of Amblyseius andersoni (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 3. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Insects 06 00847 g003

3.4. Experiment 4

In this vineyard A. andersoni was dominant among predatory mites. Its abundance was influenced by treatment and time, while no effect of their interaction was found (F4, 35.7 = 3.36; p = 0.012; F5, 65 = 15.64; p < 0.001; F20, 68.4 = 0.97; p = 0.510; respectively; Figure 4). The occurrence of herbivorous mites was negligible. Before insecticide application, the abundance of A. andersoni was similar among plots (F4, 87 = 0.91; p = 0.462). After insecticide applications, lower predatory mite numbers were found in flufenoxuron and chlorpyrifos than in control plots (flufenoxuron: F1, 37.5 = 9.46; p = 0.004; E = 41.50; chlorpyrifos: F1, 40.5 = 8.58; p = 0.006; E = 55.52). No significant effects were observed for indoxacarb and tebufenozide (F1, 37.5 = 3.50; p = 0.069; E = 29.09; F1, 37.5 = 1.13; p = 0.295; E = −6.89; respectively). However, it should be noted that predatory mite population densities decreased to zero after 21 days from indoxacarb application and increased thereafter (Figure 4). No differences were observed among insecticides (flufenoxuron vs. chlorpyrifos: F1, 40.5 = 0.19; p = 0.664; flufenoxuron vs. tebufenozide: F1, 37.5 = 4.06; p = 0.051; flufenoxuron vs. indoxacarb: F1, 37.5 = 1.45; p = 0.235; chlorpyrifos vs. tebufenozide: F1, 40.5 = 2.45; p = 0.125; chlorpyrifos vs. indoxacarb: F1, 40.5 = 0.70; p = 0.408; tebufenozide vs. indoxacarb: F1, 37.5 = 0.66; p = 0.423).
Insects 06 00847 g004 1024
Figure 4. Population dynamics of Amblyseius andersoni (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 4. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Figure 4. Population dynamics of Amblyseius andersoni (mean ± std. err.) observed in different treatments during experiment 4. On the X-axis, days after insecticide application are reported.
Insects 06 00847 g004

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The statistical analyses revealed a significant impact of insecticides with E-values exceeding 27%, with the exception of indoxacarb in the fourth experiment (E = 29.1%). In the traditional IOBC classification [2], pesticides that have an overall effect (E) lower than 25% for field trials and 30% for laboratory trials are considered harmless. Pesticides with an effect range from 25% to 49% are considered slightly harmful. Boller et al. [27] condensed the first two toxicity classes obtained in field and semi-field tests in one class (N = harmless or slightly harmful), probably to mark the distinction between non-hazardous and hazardous pesticides. Most of the results obtained here fit with records reported in the IOBC Pesticide Side Effect Database while others increase the information available to people involved in IPM strategies.
Chlorpyrifos has been considered harmful for T. pyri and A. andersoni in both the laboratory and field [28]. Similar effects are reported for other predatory mites such as Euseius finlandicus (Oudemans) (IOBC Pesticide Side Effect Database). Chlorpyrifos has been reported as moderately harmful for Kampimodromus aberrans (Oudemans) in field conditions [29]. In other trials chlorpyrifos did not significantly affect predatory mite populations (e.g., [30]). Pesticide history and the appearance of resistance can explain the variability in toxicity encountered in other studies. Barbar et al. [31] evaluated the susceptibility to chlorpyrifos by predatory mites (Typhlodromus exhilaratus Ragusa) occurring on a vine crop exposed to the pesticide or originating from an unsprayed orchard. As expected, the strain of T. exhilaratus from the vine was more tolerant to chlorpyrifos as compared to the other strain. Resistance of predatory mites to organophosphates has spread in fruit orchard regions over the world and this provides another explanation for the variability of their impact on target species, including T. pyri [32]. K. aberrans strains resistant to chlorpyrifos have been detected in vineyards in Northeastern Italy and mechanisms of resistance have recently been studied [33,34]. The reduction in fecundity of K. aberrans females exposed to chlorpyrifos can be observed even in resistant strains [35,36]. Such sub-lethal effects have been little explored for other predatory mites. In a field study carried out in North America, chlorpyrifos applications led to higher spider mite densities in vineyards and pesticide impact on generalist phytoseiid mites was probably the key mechanism involved in mite outbreaks [21]. We can conclude that chlorpyrifos should be used with caution in IPM for its negative effects on some predatory mite species. Recent papers have demonstrated that the side effects of chlorpyrifos on predatory mites can be mitigated when they have fresh alternative food sources available [37].
In previous trials (laboratory or field tests) flufenoxuron has been classified as harmless or slightly harmful for T. pyri (e.g., [2,38]) and slightly harmful for K. aberrans [29]. In our experiments the impact of flufenoxuron on T. pyri and especially A. andersoni appeared to be more deleterious. Variability in the impact of flufenoxuron could depend on species and strain features as well as pesticide history. A laboratory study conducted on two K. aberrans strains showed low effects of flufenoxuron on the survival of predatory mite females but a significant reduction in the fecundity of females belonging to one of these strains [35].
Thiamethoxam showed some detrimental effects on T. pyri populations. In other trials where K. aberrans was involved, effects on survival were negligible to low, while thiamethoxam reduced predatory mite fecundity [35,36]. Similar effects have been reported in studies conducted with other predatory mite species [39,40]. The functional response to prey in predatory mites can be altered by neonicotinoids including thiamethoxam [41]. Moreover, the total effect of thiamethoxam on predatory mites increased with the routes of exposure involved; in particular, residual and contaminated food exposures increased pesticide effects [13]. The use of neonicotinoid insecticides in IPM programs should therefore be carefully evaluated (e.g., [42,43,44]). Little is reported about the susceptibility of predatory mites to tebufenozide. In the IOBC Pesticide Side Effect Database this insecticide is reported as harmless or slightly harmful to T. pyri. Similar effects have been reported for other predatory mites [45]. Our data refer to A. andersoni only and confirm the low impact of tebufenozide on predatory mite populations.
Indoxacarb appeared to be the most selective pesticide towards T. pyri and A. andersoni, confirming data reported for K. aberrans [35,36] and other predatory mites [45,46].
The results obtained here provide useful information for the definition of IPM strategies on grapevine. Indoxacarb and tebufenozide had a low impact on the predatory mites considered here, while the highest impact was observed for chlorpyrifos, flufenoxuron, and thiamethoxam. The use of the latter insecticides should be carefully considered in the light of the conservation of predatory mite populations on grapevine.

Author Contributions

Alberto Pozzebon and Carlo Duso conceived and designed the experiments; Alberto Pozzebon, Paola Tirello, Renzo Moret, Marco Pederiva performed the experiments; Alberto Pozzebon, and Carlo Duso analyzed the data; Carlo Duso contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Alberto Pozzebon and Carlo Duso wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bakker, F.M.; Jacas, J.A. Pesticides and phytoseiid mites: Strategies for risk assessment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1995, 32, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Sterk, G.; Hassan, S.A.; Baillod, M.; Bakker, F.; Bigler, F.; Blümel, S.; Bogenschütz, H.; Boller, E.; Bromand, B.; Brun, J.; et al. Results of the seventh joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group “Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms”. BioControl 1999, 44, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Candolfi, M.P.; Barrett, K.L.; Campbell, P.; Forster, R.; Grandy, N.; Huet, M.C.; Lewis, G.; Oomen, P.A.; Schmuck, R.; Vogt, H. Guidance Document on Regulatory Testing and Risk Assessment Procedures for Plant Protection Products with Non-Target Arthropods; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  4. Thomson, L.J.; Hoffmann, A.A. Field validation of laboratory-derived IOBC toxicity ratings for natural enemies in commercial vineyards. Biol. Control 2006, 39, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thomson, L.J.; Hoffmann, A.A. Ecologically sustainable chemical recommendations for agricultural pest control? J. Econ. Entomol. 2007, 100, 1741–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. McMurtry, J.A.; Croft, B.A. Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their role in biological control. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1997, 42, 291–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Candolfi, M.P.; Bakker, F.; Canez, V.; Miles, M.; Neumann, C.; Pilling, E.; Primiani, M.; Romijn, K.; Schmuck, R.; Storck-Weyhermüller, S.; et al. Sensitivity of non-target arthropods to plant protection products: Could Typhlodromus pyri and Aphidius spp. be used as indicator species. Chemosphere 1999, 39, 1357–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C.; Pavanetto, E. Side effects of some fungicides on phytoseiid mites (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in north-Italian vineyards. Anz. Schädlingskunde J. Pest Sci. 2002, 75, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hardman, J.M.; Franklin, J.L.; Jensen, K.I.N.; Moreau, D.L. Effects of pesticides on mite predators (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and colonization of apple trees by Tetranychus urticae. Phytoparasitica 2006, 34, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bakker, F.M.; Klein, M.E. Transtrophic interactions in cassava. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1992, 14, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Duso, C. Role of Amblyseius aberrans (Oud.), Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in vineyards. I: The effects of single or mixed phytoseiid population releases on spider mite densities (Acari, Tetranychidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 1989, 107, 474–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Walde, S.J.; Nyrop, J.P.; Hardman, J.M. Dynamics of Panonychus ulmi and Typhlodromus pyri: Factors contributing to persistence. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1992, 14, 261–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C.; Tirello, P.; Bermudez Ortiz, P. Toxicity of thiamethoxam to Tetranychus urticae Koch and Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acari Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) through different routes of exposure. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C. Grape downy mildew Plasmopara viticola, an alternative food for generalist predatory mites occurring in vineyards. Biol. Control 2008, 45, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pozzebon, A.; Loeb, G.M.; Duso, C. Grape powdery mildew as a food source for generalist predatory mites occurring in vineyards: Effects on life-history traits. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 155, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pozzebon, A.; Borgo, M.; Duso, C. The effects of fungicides on non-target mites can be mediated by plant pathogens. Chemosphere 2010, 79, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. IOBC Pesticide Side Effect Database. Available online: http://www.iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/IOBC_Pesticide_Side_Effect_Database.html (accessed on 15 September 2015).
  18. Schruft, G. Grape. In Spider Mites. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control; Helle, W., Sabelis, M.W., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 359–365. [Google Scholar]
  19. Duso, C.; de Lillo, E. Grape. In Eriophyoid Mites Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control; Lindquist, E.E., Sabelis, M.W., Bruin, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 571–582. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marshall, D.B.; Lester, P.J. The transfer of Typhlodromus pyri on grape leaves for biological control of Panonychus ulmi (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae) in vineyards in Ontario, Canada. Biol. Control 2001, 20, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Prischmann, D.A.; James, D.G.; Wright, L.C.; Teneyck, R.D.; Snyder, W.E. Effects of chlorpyrifos and sulfur on spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their natural enemies. Biol. Control 2005, 33, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Duso, C.; Pozzebon, A.; Kreiter, S.; Tixier, M.S.; Candolfi, M.P. Management of phytophagous mites in European vineyards. In Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions; Bostanian, N.J., Vincent, C., Isaacs, R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 191–217. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lorenzon, M.; Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C. Effects of potential food sources on biological and demographic parameters of the predatory mites Kampimodromus aberrans, Typhlodromus pyri and Amblyseius andersoni. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2012, 58, 259–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tixier, M.-S.; Baldassar, A.; Duso, C.; Kreiter, S. Phytoseiidae in European grape (Vitis vinifera L.): Bio-ecological aspects and keys to species (Acari: Mesostigmata). Zootaxa 2013, 3721, 101–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Littell, R.C.; Milliken, G.A.; Stroup, W.W.; Wolfinger, R.D. SAS System for Mixed Models, 2nd ed.; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2006; pp. 159–202. [Google Scholar]
  26. Henderson, C.F.; Tilton, E.W. Tests with acaricides against the brow wheat mite. J. Econ. Entomol. 1955, 48, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boller, E.F.; Vogt, H.; Ternes, P.; Malavolta, C. Working Document on Selectivity of Pesticides. IOBC/WPRS, 2005. Available online: http://www.iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/IOBC_IP_Tool_Box.html#2 (accessed on 24 August 2015).
  28. Hassan, S.A.; Bigler, F.; Bogenschütz, H.; Boller, E.; Brun, J.; Chiverton, P.; Edwards, P.; Mansour, F.; Naton, E.; Oomen, P.A.; et al. Results of the fourth joint pesticide testing programme by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group “Pesticides and Beneficial Arthropods”. J. Appl. Entomol. 1988, 105, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tirello, P.; Vettore, S.; Pozzebon, A.; Lorenzon, M.; Duso, C. Effects of some insecticides on Kampimodromus aberrans: Laboratory and fields studies. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2011, 67, 257–260. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cross, J.V.; Berrie, A.M. Effects of repeated foliar sprays of insecticides or fungicides on organophosphate-resistant strains of the orchard predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri on apple. Crop Prot. 1994, 13, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barbar, Z.; Tixier, M.S.; Kreiter, S. Assessment of pesticide susceptibility for Typhlodromus exhilaratus and Typhlodromus phialatus strains (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from vineyards in the south of France. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2007, 42, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wearing, C.H. Historical tests of the toxicity of pesticides to Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and their relevance to current pest management in New Zealand apple orchards 1. Laboratory tests with eggs and larvae. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 780–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tirello, P.; Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C. Resistance to chlorpyriphos in the predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2012, 56, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cassanelli, S.; Ahmad, S.; Duso, C.; Tirello, P.; Pozzebon, A. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the acetylcholinesterase gene of the predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae) is associated with chlorpyrifos resistance. Biol. Control 2015, 90, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tirello, P.; Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C. The effect of insecticides on the non-target predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans: Laboratory studies. Chemosphere 2013, 93, 1139–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Duso, C.; Ahmad, S.; Tirello, P.; Pozzebon, A.; Klaric, V.; Baldessari, M.; Malagnini, V.; Angeli, G. The impact of insecticides applied in apple orchards on the predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2014, 62, 391–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pozzebon, A.; Ahmad, S.; Tirello, P.; Lorenzon, M.; Duso, C. Does pollen availability mitigate the impact of pesticides on generalist predatory mites? BioControl 2014, 59, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rodrigues, R.; Gonçalves, R.; Silva, C.; Torres, L. Toxicity of five insecticides on predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards in two Portuguese regions. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2004, 27, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  39. Duso, C.; Malagnini, V.; Pozzebon, A.; Buzzetti, F.M.; Tirello, P. A method to assess the effects of pesticides on the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 1027–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Doker, I.; Pappas, M.L.; Samaras, K.; Triantafyllou, A.; Kazak, C.; Broufas, G.D. Compatibility of reduced-risk insecticides with the non-target predatory mite Iphiseius degenerans (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1267–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Poletti, M.; Maia, A.H.; Omoto, C. Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus macropilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and their impact on functional response to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Biol. Control 2007, 40, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Beers, E.H.; Brunner, J.F.; Dunley, J.E.; Doerr, M.; Granger, K. Role of neonicotinyl insecticides in Washington apple integrated pest management. Part II. Nontarget effects on integrated mite control. J. Insect Sci. 2005, 5. PMID:16341248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stavrinides, M.C.; Mills, N.J. Demographic effect of pesticides on biological control of Pacific spider mite (Tetranychus pacificus) by the western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis). Biol. Control 2008, 48, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Beers, E.H.; Schmidt, R.A. Impacts of orchard pesticides on Galendromus occidentalis: Lethal and sublethal effects. Crop Prot. 2014, 56, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bernard, M.B.; Cole, P.; Kobelt, A.; Horne, P.A.; Altmann, J.; Wratten, S.D.; Yen, A.L.; Alan, L. Reducing the impact of pesticides on biological control in Australian vineyards: Pesticide mortality and fecundity effects on an indicator species, the predatory mite Euseius victoriensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 2061–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bostanian, N.J.; Vincent, C.; Hardman, J.M.; Larocque, N. Toxicity of indoxacarb to two species of predacious mites and a predacious mirid. Pest Manag. Sci. 2004, 60, 483–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pozzebon, A.; Tirello, P.; Moret, R.; Pederiva, M.; Duso, C. A Fundamental Step in IPM on Grapevine: Evaluating the Side Effects of Pesticides on Predatory Mites. Insects 2015, 6, 847-857. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6040847

AMA Style

Pozzebon A, Tirello P, Moret R, Pederiva M, Duso C. A Fundamental Step in IPM on Grapevine: Evaluating the Side Effects of Pesticides on Predatory Mites. Insects. 2015; 6(4):847-857. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6040847

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pozzebon, Alberto, Paola Tirello, Renzo Moret, Marco Pederiva, and Carlo Duso. 2015. "A Fundamental Step in IPM on Grapevine: Evaluating the Side Effects of Pesticides on Predatory Mites" Insects 6, no. 4: 847-857. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6040847

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop