Life-histories and Habits of the Clover Mite, Bryobia praetiosa Koch, and the Brown Mite, B. arborea M. & A., in British Columbia (Acarina: Tetranychidae)

Abstract

Bryobia praetiosa Koch (1836) was formerly regarded as a complex of closely related species or races similar in morphological characters but varying widely in life-history, host plant specificity, and habits. The authors (30) have recently shown that two species, the clover mite, B. praetiosa Koch, and the brown mite, B. arborea Morgan and Anderson, can be distinguished in British Columbia on the basis of morphological characters. This paper presents ecological data in support of the morphological evidence. Review of Literature C o m o n NamesThe common names used for the B. praetiosa complex vary with the area and the principal host plants. It is usually called the clover or the brown mite in North America (9, 26, 28, 52) and the gooseberry mite in Europe (40, 57). Other common names are: almond mite, almond red spider, apple stem mite, brown almond mite, bryobia mite, clover spider mite, gooseberry red spider, ivy red spider, red apple mite, red mite, red spider, and spiny gooseberry mite (1,2,4,12,13,24,25,32,34,43,45,48,50). Distribution and HostsThese mites are of economic importance in many countries. They occur mainly between 20 and 60 degrees in both north and south latitudes (40). A report (1 1) from the tropics (Colombia) appears to be based on a misidentification as it mentions that the mites form dense webs, particularly in dry seasons. B. praetiosa is a non-webspinning tetranychid (2, 7, 26, 39, 46, 52). The mites have been recorded from low-growing herbaceous plants and from deciduous and coniferous trees. The recorded host plants are: (40) considered that B. praetiosa originally lived on mosses and other low-growing plants and became adapted to gooseberry. It was not mentioned in the literature as a pest on gooseberry until 1890 (1). In Europe its most important hosts are ivy, Hedem spp.; gooseberry, Ribes spp.; pome fruits; and low-growing herbaceous plants snch as legumes and various species of grasses. In most parts of Europe it is considered chiefly a pest of ivy and gooseberry, yet in other parts nf the world it is seldom recorded from these hosts. In Australasia it is reported chiefly on fruit trees and to a lesser extent on legumes and grasses. Host plant preference in North America varies considerably in different areas.In the central and eastern United States praetiosa is primarily a pest on clover and grasses; in the south and southwest it is common in orchard trees and is an import-lcontribution No. 3704,

Population dynamics of some phytophagous mites and their predators on goldenrod Solidago altissima L.

“…These observations on the role of predators in the present study support the view by CHANT (1959) or ANDERSON and MORGAN (1958) which have been demonstrated to be effective in stabilizing natural, tetranychid populations (eg. HOYT, 1969;FLAHERTY and HUFFAKER, 1970;FLAHERTY and HoY, 1971), whereas also in some other species there seems to be some circumstanc[al evidences which imply their effectiveness in the field (see HUFFAKER, et al, 1970).…”

Genetic Markers Indicate a New Species Complex of Emerging Pest Mites in Australian Grains

“…The discovery of multiple cryptic Bryobia species has implications for the management of these mites in broadacre agriculture, because species differ in their biology and ecology (Mathys 1957, Anderson and Morgan 1958, Helle and Sabelis 1985, and control strategies need to be devised separately for each species. The presence of cryptic species complicating management strategies has been shown within the Penthaleus species complex.…”

Effects of Supplemental Irrigation on Populations of Clover Mite,Bryobia praetiosaKoch (Acari: Tetranychidae), and Other Arthropods in a Kentucky Bluegrass Lawn

“…Similar variation between years has been documented in past studies involving Bryobia spp. and was attributed to varying weather conditions (Anderson 1958). Abundance of other arthropods did not show any significant differences in response to irrigation treatment.…”