2012
DOI: 10.30843/nzpp.2012.65.5429
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dispersal of the Scotch broom gall mite <i>Aceria genistae</i> implications for biocontrol

Abstract: The gall mite Aceria genistae a biological control agent of Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius was first released in New Zealand in 2007 The dispersal ability of A genistae was investigated to determine whether slow dispersal might limit its ability to control Scotch broom in forestry plantations where a rapid impact of biocontrol is required Transects were set up from the original release plants at four sites in Canterbury New Zealand and the presence or absence of galled plants was recorded at increasing distanc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several eriophyid mites are already known as biocontrol agents against weeds and semi-woody or woody plants (Smith et al 2009 ). After host range testing and other preliminary studies, Aceria genistae was introduced to New Zealand in 2007 and to Australia between 2008 and 2010, to control Cytisus scoparius (broom) (Hosking et al 2012 ; Paynter et al 2012 ). This species appeared in the Western USA and Canada without intentional introduction and now it is considered as potential regulator of Cytisus (Pratt et al 2019 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several eriophyid mites are already known as biocontrol agents against weeds and semi-woody or woody plants (Smith et al 2009 ). After host range testing and other preliminary studies, Aceria genistae was introduced to New Zealand in 2007 and to Australia between 2008 and 2010, to control Cytisus scoparius (broom) (Hosking et al 2012 ; Paynter et al 2012 ). This species appeared in the Western USA and Canada without intentional introduction and now it is considered as potential regulator of Cytisus (Pratt et al 2019 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, data on the recommended distance for surveying the RRV vector are not available. The longdistance eriophyoid mites' spread is expected to range from about 83 m (Paynter et al, 2012) to about 40 km per year (Mukwevho et al, 2017). Surveying distance in the EU should be adapted to different situations, considering whether they are performed facing outbreaks with or without the vector presence.…”
Section: Human-assisted Spreadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, even though the relevant environmental conditions were not stated, the potential exists for eriophyoid mites to travel over a long period (up to 7 weeks) via wind at temperatures close to 0°C (Valenzano et al, 2019). The distance eriophyoid mites can spread by these means is expected to range from about 83 m (like for Aceria genistae (Nalepa; Paynter et al, 2012)) to about 40 km per year (like for Aceria lantanae (Cook); Mukwevho et al, 2017).…”
Section: Natural Spreadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some observations on other eriophyoid mite species indicate that the air can transport these mites for short and medium distances (even though the efficiency appears to be quite low) (Schliesske, 1977;Zhao and Amrine, 1997). In contrast, further data indicate a reduced spread distance, and this is the case for Aceria malherbae (125 m per year in North America) and Aceria genistae (at most 83.3 m per year in forests of New Zealand) (Paynter et al, 2012).…”
Section: Dispersalmentioning
confidence: 99%