Phytoseius finitimus Ribaga 1904
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.24349/9lvs-4bzy |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB878E-9F7D-FFF2-6280-23E4FD9CFBBC |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe (2025-01-16 05:42:00, last updated 2025-01-16 07:48:40) |
|
scientific name |
Phytoseius finitimus Ribaga 1904 |
| status |
|
Phytoseius finitimus Ribaga 1904 View in CoL
Material examined — 9 ♀♀. 1 ♀ (Altınordu, N40°56′40.11″ E37°47′7.66″, 366 m, 02. IX.2019), 1 ♀ (Fatsa, N40°57′29.03″ E37°37′33.74″, 163 m, 06. VIII.2018), 1 ♀ (Gülyalı, N40°58′18.10″ E38° 2′11.96″, 0 m, 18. IX.2019), 1 ♀ (Gülyalı, N40°58′37.75″ E37°59′56.64″,
4 m, 02. IX.2019), 1 ♀ (İkizce, N41°4′29.84″ E37°0′40.80″, 490 m, 31. VII.2019), 1 ♀
(Perşembe, N40°59′39.76″ E37°48′54.06″, 15 m, 26. VII.2018), 1 ♀ (Perşembe, N40°59′32.68″ E37°48′47.75″, 16 m, 26. VII.2018), 2 ♀♀ (Ünye, N41°5′56.20″ E37°22′27.90″, 37 m,
18. VII.2018)
Remarks — Phytoseius finitimus was first discovered on Buddleja madagascariensis Lamarck ( Scrophulariaceae ) in Italy by Ribaga (1904). It is a widely distributed predatory species found in 18 countries worldwide ( Demite et al. 2023). It is also a very common predatory species in Türkiye ( İncekulak and Ecevit 2002 ; Akyazı and Ecevit 2003 ; Faraji et al. 2011 ; Gençer Gökçe et al. 2022 ; Miroğlu and Çıkman 2022). In the current study area, it was previously collected from various habitats including persimmon trees ( Akyazı et al. 2017), vegetables ( Soysal and Akyazı 2018), stone ( Altunç and Akyazı 2019), and pome ( Akyol and Akyazı 2022) fruits. It belongs to subtype III-a, which are generalist predators that live on pubescent leaves (leaves with trichomes) ( McMurtry et al. 2013). The species’ small, compressed idiosoma aids in moving between trichomes ( Kreiter et al. 2003 ; Tixier et al. 2007). It was found that the species is commonly found on hairy plants ( Pappas et al. 2013). Phytoseius finitimus has stout, usually serrate setae on its dorsal shield. It can colonize microhabitats that larger phytoseiids cannot, avoiding competition and escaping predation (Seelman et al. 2007). It takes advantage of the presence of prey that also prefer the same microhabitat. In addition, Duso and Vettorazzo (1999) indicated that P. finitimus could be potentially effective in controlling P. ulmi on grape plants. Pappas et al. (2013) also declared that the species is a natural enemy of both tetranychid and eriophyid mites. It can feed on pollen.
Akyazi F., Ecevit O. 2003. Determination of mite species in hazelnut orchards in Samsun, Ordu and Giresun provinces. Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, 18 (3): 39 - 45.
Akyazi R., Ueckermann E. A., Akyol D., Soysal M. 2017. Distribution of mite species (Acari) on persimmon trees in Turkey (Ordu), with one newly recorded mite species and one re-described species. Int. J. Acarol., 43 (8): 563 - 581. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 01647954.2017.1373149
Akyol D., Akyazi R. 2022. Comparative faunistic analysis of mite species on neglected and conventional pome fruit trees in Turkey. Acarologia, 62 (4): 941 - 955. https: // doi. org / 10.24349 / vt 6 l-svza
Altunc Y. E., Akyazi R. 2019. Ordu ilinde sert cekirdekli meyve agaclarinda bulunan akar turleri. Anadolu Tarim Bilim. Derg., 34 (1): 18 - 34. https: // doi. org / 10.7161 / omuanajas. 441274
Demite P. R., Moraes G. J. de, McMurtry J. A., Denmark H. A., Castilho R. C. 2023. Phytoseiidae database [Internet]. [5 Mar 2023]. Available from: <www. lea. esalq. usp. br / phytoseiidae>
Duso C., Vettorazzo E. 1999. Mite population dynamics on different grape varieties with or without phytoseiids relased (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol., 23 (9): 741 - 763. https: // doi. org / 10.1023 / A: 1006297225577
Faraji F., Cobanoglu S., Cakmak I. 2011. A checklist and a key for the Phytoseiidae species of
Gencer Gokce P., Kilic N., Cobanoglu S. 2022. Tekirdag ili park ve sus bitkilerinde akar (Acari)
Incekulak R., Ecevit O. 2002. Amasya Elma bahcelerinde bulunan akar turleri ve populasyon dinamiklerinin belirlenmesi. Turkiye 5. Biyolojik Mucadele Kongresi Bildirileri, p. 297 - 314.
Kreiter S., Tixier M. S., Bourgeois T. 2003. Do generalist phytoseiid mites (Gamasida: Phytoseiidae) have interactions with their host plants? Int. J. Trop. Insect. Sci., 23 (1): 35 - 50. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 1742758400012236
McMurtry J. A., de Moraes G. J., Famah-Sourassou N. 2013. Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 18 (4): 297 - 320. https: // doi. org / 10.11158 / saa. 18.4.1
Miroglu M., Cikman E. 2022. Beneficial mite fauna of Hevsel Gardens-Diyarbakir. Bit. Kor. Bul., 62 (1): 34 - 45. https: // doi. org / 10.16955 / bitkorb. 985322
Pappas M. L., Xanthis C., Samaras K., Koveos D. S., Broufas G. D. 2013. Potential of the predatory mite Phytoseius finitimus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to feed and reproduce on greenhouse pests. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 61 (4): 387 - 401. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / s 10493 - 013 - 9711 - 9
Ribaga C. 1904. Gamasidi planticoli. Riv. Patol. Veg., 10: 175 - 178.
Soysal M., Akyazi R. 2018. Mite species of the vegetable crops in Ordu province with first report of Amblyseius rademacheri Dosse, 1958 (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) in Turkey. Turk. J. Entomol.,
Tixier M. S., Kreiter S., Bourgeois T., Cheval B. 2007. Factors affecting density and diversity of phytoseiid mite communities in two arboreta in the South of France. J. Egypt. Soc. Parasitol., 37 (2): 493 - 510.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
|
Kingdom |
|
|
Phylum |
|
|
Class |
|
|
Order |
|
|
Family |
|
|
Genus |