Eriophyoid mites as weed biological control agent

1. Eriophyoid Mites as Weed Biological Control Agents
Presented By
Eid Muhammad Khan
Ph. D. Student
Seminar-I
PLPT-694
Date; 28/12/2020
1

2. Introduction
2
 Compete with main crop for natural resources
 Noxious, alternate host, yield loss
 Difficult to control due to rapid growth and
reproduction
 Major task for farmer to manage
Robbins et al., 1952; Fuente et al., 2010; Armengot et al., 2011

3. 3
Biological Control of Weeds
 Aim of biological control
Reduce competition between weeds and crops, in favour of
crops against weeds
Sustainable control of weed by natural enemies
 Biological Control Agents (BCA)
Mites (Eriophyidae, Tetranychidae, and Oribatida)
Insects (Lepidoptera, Coleoptera)
Pathogens (Virus, Fungus, Bacteria)
 Classical Biological Control Program
Import and release of host specific natural enemies
BCA Reproduce and supress weeds populations gradually
Aceria malherbae
McFadden, 1998; Gerson et al., 2003; Sayed, 2005

4. 1) Ideal Biological Control Agent
a) High potential to control weeds
- Host Specific (80% host species specific)
b) Reduce Fitness of target weed
- Feeding on Reproductive (seedling) parts
- Vegetative (leaves, stem) parts
3) Transmit virus to the weed
4) High Dispersal & Reproduction rate
4
Why Eriophyid Mites as Weed Biocontrol Agent
Gall on Chondrilla juncea
by Aceria chondrillae
Bermuda grass damaged by
Eriophyes cynodoniensis
Lindquist et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2010; Hoy, 2011

5. Eriophyoidea
Eriophyidae
(227 Gen., 3790 sp.,)
Phytoptidae
(21 Gen., 164 sp.,)
Diptilomiopidae
(53 Gen., 450 sp.,)
Amrine et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2009; Weyl et al., 2019
5
4404 spp.
358 gen.
3
 51 sp., belonging 8 gen., are considered as weed bio
agents (Since, 1970-2016)
 13 species are Released and Evaluated
 3 sp., Released & Established
Why Eriophyoid as Weed Biocontrol Agent (Cont..)

6. 6
Where Eriophyoid mites Stand as BCA

7. Genera Species Common Name Targeted Weed Released Country
Aceria chondrillae Chondrilla gall mite/
skeleton weed gall mite
Chondrilla junceae
(Rush skeleton weed)
Australia, Argentina &
United State
malherbae Bindweed gall mite Convolvulus arvensis
(Field bind weed)
United State
Aculus hyperici - Hypericum perforatum
(Saint John's wort)
Australia
Smith et al., 2009; Weyl et al., 2019 7
Continue…..

8. • Acres infested in California & North-western United States
& South-western Australia
• Noxious perennial deep rooted compete with wheat
• Nutrients, moisture and hurdles for harvesting
machinery
• Reduce yield 50%
Chondrilla juncea (skeleton weed)
8
Skeleton weed distribution in Australia
Parsons & Cuthbertson,1992; Jacobs et al., 2009

9. • Native; Europe
• Introduced; Australia, Argentina & United State
• Most promising control agent than rust fungus and gall midges
• Significant affect on the growth and reproduction
• Reduction in seed formation and block shoot development
• Form clusters of leaf and hyperplastic gall on vegetative and flower
buds
Aceria chondrillae Control Chondrilla juncea
Skeleton weed gall mite
Damaged caused by A.
chondrillae
9
Cullen and Briese, 2001; Piper et al., 2004

10. 10
• In California, Oregon, Washington widespread and Established
• 50-90% flowering and seed production reduction
• Introduced; 1971 south-eastern Australia
• Widely established & extremely damaged by reducing seed
production
• >500 mite noticed in one galls (in the green house)
• Reduced viable flowers from 73.6-95.6% (10 mites per plants)
• Caused plant death within two year
Continue…..
Damage caused by A. chondrillae
Smith et al., 2009; Piper et al., 2004

11. • Aggressive perennial weed distributed in temperate regions
of the world
• Compete and found in sweet potato, wheat and many others
cash crops
• Extensive root system, long lived seed, expensive to control
with chemical
• Also, harmful to livestock
Convolvulus arvensis (Bindweed)
11
Convolvulus arvensis
Nesterov & Chukanova, 1981; Black et al., 1994

12. • Native country; Europe
• Introduced; Canada, South Africa & USA
• Attack on upper surface of young leaves
• Leaf fold, curl, and fuse hypertrophic forming papillae (galls)
• Yellowish to golden brown grainy or mealy appearance
• Over 95% reduction of target weed population
• Reduced root (50%) & shoot (37%) biomass
Aceria malherbae control Convolvulus arvensis
Aceria malherbae
Convolvulus arvensis
12
Littlefield, 2004; Smith et al., 2009

13. • Introduced; in 1989 USA (Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Washington,
Oregon)
• Widely distributed and well established but variable impact on host
• More prominent symptoms observed in drought conditions
• Successful in pastures and alfalfa field, 90% galls formation
• In central Montana release after 8 years infestation rang 22-49% and
100% in individual plots
• In Oregon, established in dry rangeland and reduced 90% biomass
• In Canada, after 5 years of release slight to extensive damage level
Continue…..
Aceria malherbae
13
McClay et al. 1999; Smith et al., 2009

14. • Perennial weed, poison to livestock and
compete with favourable pastures, reduce
property value
• Native to Europe, distributed to Asia and
North Africa, Australia
Hypericum perforatum / Saint John's wort
14
H. Perforatum distribution in Australia
Spies, 1991; Ernst, 2003

15. • Native Country; Europe
• Introduced; Australia
• Establishment of mites population in field and controlled
condition
• Varied result’s noticed on the site and plants
• In 1994, released 245 site in New South Wale and Victoria
• Established at 108 sites, significant impact on root and
shoot biomass of target weed
Aculus hyperici control Hypericum perforatum
15
Aculus hyperici
McCaffrey et al., 1995; Briese and Cullen, 2001; Smith et al., 2009

16. • Fast reproduction on H. perforatum but can multiply on
other four species of Hypericum
• Mite populations persist longest on H. perforatum and H.
gramineum
• Less effective on weed population in the field
• Reduce reproduction and dispersal of weed in field
• In USA, weed was controlled by beetles
Continue…….
16
McCaffrey et al., 1995; Briese and Cullen, 2001; Smith et al., 2009

17. • Natural enemies
Predators and Pathogens
• Host plant resistance
Genotypes resistance and tolerance
• Adverse abiotic conditions
Climatic factors and soil characteristic
Factors affecting their Potential
17
Smith, 2004; Smith et al., 2009

18. • High degree of host plant specificity of eriophyoid are
advantageous
• Few recommended species potentially control the target weed
• Much ability to suppress plant growth and reproduction
• Attack on tissue and active on different time of the year
• Plant genotypes are resistant to associated species
Conclusion
18

19. 19
Future Prospects / Take Home Message
• Effects of weather stresses on physiology, behavior and
population dynamic
• Field trial to confirm host specificity
• Native and invasive weeds associated mites should be
explored and identified test their potential level
• Survivorship both on and off the host plant, and under
different environmental conditions

20. 20
Value to the Kingdom / What We Can
• Many native and invasive problematic weeds
species are identified from KSA
• No mites associate weeds studies conducted
previously
• Native invasive weeds associated mites species
should be identified and test host specificity
• Study Cytological and histological changes caused
by Eriophyoid mites
Intensive
Research
Needed

21. References
• Amrine, J. W., & Stasny, T. A. (1994). Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina: Prostigmata) of the world. Indira Publishing House.
• Briese DT, Cullen JM (2001) The use and usefulness of mites in biological control of weeds. In: Halliday RB, Walter DE, Proctor HC,
Norton RA, Colloff MJ (eds). Acarology: Proceedings of the 10th international congress. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp
453-463
• Smith, L., De Lillo, E., & Amrine, J. W. (2009). Effectiveness of eriophyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges
for future research. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 51(1-3), 115-149.
• Lindquist, E. E., Bruin, J., & Sabelis, M. W. (Eds.). (1996). Eriophyoid mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier.
• Boczek, J., & Petanovic, R. A. D. M. I. L. A. (1996, January). Eriophyid mites as agents for the biological control of weeds. In
Proceedings of the IX international symposium on biological control of weeds (pp. 19-26). University of Cape Town Cape Town, South
Africa.
• McClay AS, Littlefield JL, Kashefi J (1999) Establishment of Aceria malherbae (Acari: Eriophyidae) as a biological control agent for
field bindweed (Convolvulaceae) in the northern Great Plains. Can Entomol 131(4):541 547
• Weyl, P., Cristofaro, M., Smith, L., Schaffner, U., Vidović, B., Petanović, R., ... & Stutz, S. (2018). Eriophyid mites and weed biological
control: does every silver lining have a cloud?. In Proceedings of the XV International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds,
Engelberg, Switzerland, 26-31 August 2018. (pp. 9-11). Organising Committee, XV International Symposium on Biological Control of
Weeds 2018.
• Hoy, M. A. (2011). Agricultural acarology: introduction to integrated mite management (Vol. 7). CRC press.
• Littlefield, J. L. (2004). Spatial distribution and seasonal life history of Aceria malherbae (Acari: Eriophyidae) on Convolvulus arvensis
in Montana, USA. In XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (p. 607).
• Rosenthal, S. S. (1996). Biological control of weeds 4.1. 1 Aceria, epitrimerus and Aculus species and biological control of weeds.
In World crop pests (Vol. 6, pp. 729-739). Elsevier.
21

22. References
• Armengot, L., José-María, L., Blanco-Moreno, J. M., Romero-Puente, A., & Sans, F. X. (2011). Landscape and land-use effects on
weed flora in Mediterranean cereal fields. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 142(3-4), 311-317.
• Robbins, W. W., Crafts, A. S., & Ray-nor, R. N. (1942). Weed control. A textbook and manual. Weed control. A textbook and manual.
• de la Fuente, E. B., Perelman, S., & Ghersa, C. M. (2010). Weed and arthropod communities in soyabean as related to crop productivity
and land use in the Rolling Pampa, Argentina. Weed research, 50(6), 561-571.
• El-Sayed, W. (2005). Biological control of weeds with pathogens: Current status and future trends/Biologische
Schadpflanzenbekämpfung mit Pathogenen: Aktueller Status und Trends von morgen. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Pflanzenschutz/Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 209-221.
• McFadden, R. E. C. (1998). Biological control of weeds. Annual review of entomology, 43(1), 369-393.
• Gerson, U., Smiley, R. L., & Ochoa, R. (2003). Mites (Acari) for pest control (Vol. 558). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
• Jacobs, J., Goodwin, K., & Ogle, D. (2009). Plant guide for rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea L). Bozeman, MT: US Department of
Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service Plant Guide.
• Parsons, W. T., & Cuthbertson, E. G. (1992). Noxious Weeds of Australia Inkata Press. Melbourne/Sydney.
• Black, I. D., Matic, R., & Dyson, C. B. (1994). Competitive effects of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) in wheat, barley and
field peas. Plant Protection Quarterly, 9(1), 12-14.
• NesterovA, O. A., & Chukanova, O. V. (1981). The harmfulness of the predominant weed species in wheat. Sibirskiĭ Vestnik
Sel'skokhozyaĭstvennoĭ Nauki, (5), 9-13.
• Ernst, E. (Ed.). (2003). Hypericum: the genus Hypericum. CRC Press.
• Spies, T. A. (1991). Plant species diversity and occurrence in young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon and
Washington. USDA Forest Service general technical report PNW-GTR-Pacific Northwest Research Station (USA).
22

23. 23