Mite Composition, Carrier, Method for Rearing Mites and Uses Related Thereto

Abstract

The present invention in general relates to the field of rearing of commercially relevant mites. More particularly the present invention relates to a mite composition, suitable for the commercial rearing of mites, a method for rearing mites and a rearing device using the composition of the invention, a method for crop protection using the composition according to the invention wherein the mite is selected as a predatory mite, and the use of a carrier material for rearing a mite species.

Claims

1. Mite composition comprising: a population of individuals of a mite species, preferably a mite species selected from Mesostigmatid mite species or Prostigmatid mite species; a food source for the mite individuals; and a carrier for the individuals of the mite species comprising carrier elements, preferably carrier elements having a longest axis of about 1.0-15.0 mm, such as 3.0-9.0 mm; wherein the stacking of the carrier elements comprises shelters for mite individuals.

2. Composition according to claim 1, wherein the shelters comprise areas where the material of the carrier element shields a mite individual, when located in this area, from its surroundings in at least 3 directions having orthogonal or reversed relations, preferably in at least 4 of such directions, most preferably in at least 5 of such directions.

3. Composition according to claim 1, wherein the shelters comprise voids, such as voids formed by coves, recesses, pores, chambers, cavities, niches, pits, pockets, tubes and alike structures.

4. Composition according to claim 1, wherein carrier elements are derived from chaff, preferably chaff from a grass species (Poaceae), most preferably chaff from a cereal species, such as chaff from wheat, an oryza species, rye, oats or millet, in particular chaff from millet.

5. Composition according to claim 1, wherein the mite species is selected from: Mesostigmatid mite species such as selected from: i) Phytoseiidae such as from: the subfamily of the Amblyseiinae, such as from the genus Amblyseius, e.g. Amblyseius andersoni, Amblyseius aerialis, Amblyseius swirskii, Amblyseius herbicolus or Amblyseius largoensis, from the genus Euseius e.g. Euseius finlandicus, Euseius hibisci, Euseius ovalis, Euseius victoriensis, Euseius stipulatus, Euseius scutalis, Euseius tularensis, Euseius addoensis, Euseius concordis, Euseius ho or Euseius citri, from the genus Neoseiulus e.g. Neoseiulus barkeri, Neoseiulus californicus, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Neoseiulus longispinosus, Neoseiulus womersleyi, Neoseiulus idaeus, Neoseiulus anonymus, Neoseiulus paspalivorus, Neoseiulus reductus or Neoseiulus fallacis, from the genus Amblydrornalus e.g. Amblydromalus limonicus from the genus Typhlodromalus e.g. Typhlodromalus aripo, Typhlodromalus laila or Typhlodromalus peregrinus from the genus Typhlodromips e.g. Typhlodromips montdorensis, from the genus Phytoseiulus, e.g. Phytoseiulus persimilis, Phytoseiulus macropilis, Phytoseiulus longipes, Phytoseiulus fragariae; the subfamily of the Typhlodrominae, such as from the genus Galendromus e.g. Galendromus occidentalis, from the genus Typhlodromus e.g. Typhlodromus pyri, Typhlodromus doreenae or Typhlodromus athiasae; ii) Ascidae such as from the genus Proctolaelaps, such as Proctolaelaps pygmaeus (Muller); from the genus Blattisocius e.g. Blattisocius tarsalis (Berlese), Blattisocius keegani (Fox); from the genus Lasioseius e.g. Lasioseius fimetorum Karg, Lasioseius floridensis Berlese, Lasioseius bispinosus Evans, Lasioseius dentatus Fox, Lasioseius scapulatus (Kenett), Lasioseius athiasae Nawar & Nasr; from the genus Arctoseius e.g. Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese); from the genus Protogamasellus e.g. Protogamasellus dioscorus Manson; iii) Laelapidae such as from the genus Stratiolaelaps e.g. Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Womersley) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Geolaelaps e.g. Geolaelaps aculeifer (Canestrini) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Androlaelaps e.g. Androlaelaps casalis casalis (Berlese); iv) Macrochelidae such as from the genus Macrocheles e.g. Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese), Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scopoli), Macrocheles matrius (Hull); v) Parasitidae such as from the genus Pergamasus e.g. Pergamasusquisquiliarum Canestrini; Parasitus e.g. Parasitusfimetorum (Berlese), Parasitus bituberosus Karg; Prostigmatid mite species such as from: vi) Tydeidae such as from the genus Homeopronematus e.g. Homeopronematus anconai (Baker); from the genus Tydeus e.g. Tydeus lambi (Baker), Tydeus caudatus (Dugés), Tydeus lambi (Baker); from the genus Pronematus e.g. Pronematus ubiquitous (McGregor); vii) Cheyletidae such as from the genus Cheyletus e.g. Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank), Cheyletus malaccensis Oudemans; viii) Cunaxidae such as from the genus Coleoscirus e.g. Coleoscirus simplex (Ewing), from the genus Cunaxa e.g. Cunaxa setirostris (Hermann); ix) Erythraeidae such as from the genus Balaustium e.g. Balaustium putmani Smiley, Balaustium medicagoense Meyer & Ryke, Balaustium murorum (Hermann); x) Stigmaeidae such as from the genus Agistemus e.g. Agistemus exsertus Gonzalez; such as from the genus Zetzellia e.g. Zetzelliamali (Ewing).

6. Composition according to claim 1 wherein the mite species is a Phytoseiid species, preferably a Phytoseiid species selected from Amblyseius swirskii, Amblysieus aerialis, Amblyseius andersoni, Neoseiulus barkeri, Neoseiulus californicus, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Neoseiulus fallacis, Typhlodromips montdorensis or Amblydromalus limonicus.

7. Method for rearing a population of a mite species comprising: (i) providing a composition according to claim 1; (ii) allowing individuals of the mite population to feed on the food source.

8. Method for biological pest control in a crop comprising, providing to said crop a composition according to claim 1, wherein the mite species is selected as a predatory mite species, such as a predatory mite species selected from selected from: Mesostigmatid mite species such as selected from: i) Phytoseiidae such as from: the subfamily of the Amblyseiinae, such as from the genus Amblyseius, e.g. Amblyseius andersoni, Amblyseius aerialis, Amblyseius swirskii, Amblyseius herbicolus or Amblyseius largoensis, from the genus Euseius e.g. Euseius finlandicus, Euseius hibisci, Euseius ovalis, Euseius victoriensis, Euseius stipulatus, Euseius scutalis, Euseius tularensis, Euseius addoensis, Euseius concordis, Euseius ho or Euseius citri, from the genus Neoseiulus e.g. Neoseiulus barkeri, Neoseiulus californicus, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Neoseiulus longispinosus, Neoseiulus womersleyi, Neoseiulus idaeus, Neoseiulus anonymus, Neoseiulus paspalivorus, Neoseiulus reductus or Neoseiulus fallacis, from the genus Amblydromalus e.g. Amblydromalus limonicus from the genus Typhlodromalus e.g. Typhlodromalus aripo, Typhlodromalus laila or Typhlodromalus peregrinus from the genus Typhlodromips e.g. Typhlodromips montdorensis, from the genus Phytoseiulus, e.g. Phytoseiulus persimilis, Phytoseiulus macropilis, Phytoseiulus longipes, Phytoseiulus fragariae; the subfamily of the Typhlodrominae, such as from the genus Galendromus e.g. Galendromus occidentalis, from the genus Typhlodromus e.g. Typhlodromus pyri, Typhlodromus doreenae or Typhlodromus athiasae; ii) Ascidae such as from the genus Proctolaelaps, such as Proctolaelaps pygmaeus (Muller); from the genus Blattisocius e.g. Blattisocius tarsalis (Berlese), Blattisocius keegani (Fox); from the genus Lasioseius e.g. Lasioseius fimetorum Karg, Lasioseius floridensis Berlese, Lasioseius bispinosus Evans, Lasioseius dentatus Fox, Lasioseius scapulatus (Kenett), Lasioseius athiasae Nawar & Nasr; from the genus Arctoseius e.g. Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese); from the genus Protogamasellus e.g. Protogamasellus dioscorus Manson; iii) Laelapidae such as from the genus Stratiolaelaps e.g. Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Womersley) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Geolaelaps e.g. Geolaelaps aculeifer (Canestrini) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Androlaelaps e.g. Androlaelaps casalis casalis (Berlese); iv) Macrochelidae such as from the genus Macrocheles e.g. Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese), Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scopoli), Macrocheles matrius (Hull); v) Parasitidae such as from the genus Pergamasus e.g. Pergamasusquisquiliarum Canestrini; Parasitus e.g. Parasitusfimetorum (Berlese), Parasitus bituberosus Karg; Prostigmatid mite species such as from: vi) Tydeidae such as from the genus Homeopronematus e.g. Homeopronematus anconai (Baker); from the genus Tydeus e.g. Tydeus lambi (Baker), Tydeus caudatus (Dugés), Tydeus lambi (Baker); from the genus Pronematus e.g. Pronematus ubiquitous (McGregor); vii) Cheyletidae such as from the genus Cheyletus e.g. Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank), Cheyletus malaccensis Oudemans; viii) Cunaxidae such as from the genus Coleoscirus e.g. Coleoscirus simplex (Ewing), from the genus Cunaxa e.g. Cunaxa setirostris (Hermann); ix) Erythraeidae such as from the genus Balaustium e.g. Balaustium putmani Smiley, Balaustium medicagoense Meyer & Ryke, Balaustium murorum (Hermann); x) Stigmaeidae such as from the genus Agistemus e.g. Agistemus exsertus Gonzalez; such as from the genus Zetzellia e.g. Zetzelliamali (Ewing).

9. Rearing device for rearing a mite species, said device comprising a container holding the composition according to claim 1, preferably a container comprising an exit for at least one motile life stage of the mite species, more preferably an exit suitable for providing a sustained release of said at least one motile life stage.

10. Use for crop protection of a composition according to claim 1, wherein the mite species is selected as a predatory mite species, such as a predatory mite species selected from selected from: Mesostigmatid mite species such as selected from: i) Phytoseiidae such as from: the subfamily of the Amblyseiinae, such as from the genus Amblyseius, e.g. Amblyseius andersoni, Amblyseius aerialis, Amblyseius swirskii, Amblyseius herbicolus or Amblyseius largoensis, from the genus Euseius e.g. Euseius finlandicus, Euseius hibisci, Euseius ovalis, Euseius victoriensis, Euseius stipulatus, Euseius scutalis, Euseius tularensis, Euseius addoensis, Euseius concordis, Euseius ho or Euseius citri, from the genus Neoseiulus e.g. Neoseiulus barkeri, Neoseiulus californicus, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Neoseiulus longispinosus, Neoseiulus womersleyi, Neoseiulus idaeus, Neoseiulus anonymus, Neoseiulus paspalivorus, Neoseiulus reductus or Neoseiulus fallacis, from the genus Amblydromalus e.g. Amblydromalus limonicus from the genus Typhlodromalus e.g. Typhlodromalus aripo, Typhlodromalus laila or Typhlodromalus peregrinus from the genus Typhlodromips e.g. Typhlodromips montdorensis, from the genus Phytoseiulus, e.g. Phytoseiulus persimilis, Phytoseiulus macropilis, Phytoseiulus longipes, Phytoseiulus fragariae; the subfamily of the Typhlodrominae, such as from the genus Galendromus e.g. Galendromus occidentalis, from the genus Typhlodromus e.g. Typhlodromus pyri, Typhlodromus doreenae or Typhlodromus athiasae; ii) Ascidae such as from the genus Proctolaelaps, such as Proctolaelaps pygmaeus (Muller); from the genus Blattisocius e.g. Blattisocius tarsalis (Berlese), Blattisocius keegani (Fox); from the genus Lasioseius e.g. Lasioseius fimetorum Karg, Lasioseius floridensis Berlese, Lasioseius bispinosus Evans, Lasioseius dentatus Fox, Lasioseius scapulatus (Kenett), Lasioseius athiasae Nawar & Nasr; from the genus Arctoseius e.g. Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese); from the genus Protogamasellus e.g. Protogamasellus dioscorus Manson; iii) Laelapidae such as from the genus Stratiolaelaps e.g. Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Womersley) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Geolaelaps e.g. Geolaelaps aculeifer (Canestrini) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Androlaelaps e.g. Androlaelaps casalis casalis (Berlese); iv) Macrochelidae such as from the genus Macrocheles e.g. Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese), Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scopoli), Macrocheles matrius (Hull); v) Parasitidae such as from the genus Pergamasus e.g. Pergamasusquisquiliarum Canestrini; Parasitus e.g. Parasitusfimetorum (Berlese), Parasitus bituberosus Karg; Prostigmatid mite species such as from: vi) Tydeidae such as from the genus Homeopronematus e.g. Homeopronematus anconai (Baker); from the genus Tydeus e.g. Tydeus lambi (Baker), Tydeus caudatus (Dugés), Tydeus lambi (Baker); from the genus Pronematus e.g. Pronematus ubiquitous (McGregor); vii) Cheyletidae such as from the genus Cheyletus e.g. Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank), Cheyletus malaccensis Oudemans; viii) Cunaxidae such as from the genus Coleoscirus e.g. Coleoscirus simplex (Ewing), from the genus Cunaxa e.g. Cunaxa setirostris (Hermann); ix) Erythraeidae such as from the genus Balaustium e.g. Balaustium putmani Smiley, Balaustium medicagoense Meyer & Ryke, Balaustium murorum (Hermann); x) Stigmaeidae such as from the genus Agistemus e.g. Agistemus exsertus Gonzalez; such as from the genus Zetzellia e.g. Zetzelliamali (Ewing).

11. Use of a carrier material comprising carrier elements, preferably carrier elements having a longest axis of about 1.0-15.0 mm , such as 3.0-9.0 mm, for rearing a population of a mite species selected from Mesostigmatid mite species or Prostigmatid mite species, wherein the stacking of the carrier elements comprises shelters for mite individuals.

12. Use according to claim 11, wherein the shelters comprise areas where the carrier material of the carrier element shields a mite individual, when located in this area, from its surroundings in at least 3 directions having orthogonal or reversed relations, preferably in at least 4 directions of such directions, most preferably in at least 5 of such directions.

13. Use according to claim 11, wherein the shelters comprise voids, such as voids formed by coves, recesses, pores, chambers, cavities, niches, pits, pockets, tubes and alike structures.

14. Use according to claim 11, wherein carrier elements are derived from chaff, preferably chaff from a grass species (Poaceae), most preferably chaff from a cereal species, such as chaff from wheat, oryza species, rye, oats or millet, in particular chaff from millet.

15. Use according to claim 11, wherein the mite species is a predatory mite species, such as a predatory mite species selected from: Mesostigmatid mite species such as selected from: i) Phytoseiidae such as from: the subfamily of the Amblyseiinae, such as from the genus Amblyseius, e.g. Amblyseius andersoni, Amblyseius aerialis, Amblyseius swirskii, Amblyseius herbicolus or Amblyseius largoensis, from the genus Euseius e.g. Euseius finlandicus, Euseius hibisci, Euseius ovalis, Euseius victoriensis, Euseius stipulatus, Euseius scutalis, Euseius tularensis, Euseius addoensis, Euseius concordis, Euseius ho or Euseius citri, from the genus Neoseiulus e.g. Neoseiulus barkeri, Neoseiulus californicus, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Neoseiulus longispinosus, Neoseiulus womersleyi, Neoseiulus idaeus, Neoseiulus anonymus, Neoseiulus paspalivorus, Neoseiulus reductus or Neoseiulus fallacis, from the genus Amblydromalus e.g. Amblydromalus limonicus from the genus Typhlodromalus e.g. Typhlodromalus aripo, Typhlodromalus laila or Typhlodromalus peregrinus from the genus Typhlodromips e.g. Typhlodromips montdorensis, from the genus Phytoseiulus, e.g. Phytoseiulus persimilis, Phytoseiulus macropilis, Phytoseiulus longipes, Phytoseiulus fragariae; the subfamily of the Typhlodrominae, such as from the genus Galendromus e.g. Galendromus occidentalis, from the genus Typhlodromus e.g. Typhlodromus pyri, Typhlodromus doreenae or Typhlodromus athiasae; ii) Ascidae such as from the genus Proctolaelaps, such as Proctolaelaps pygmaeus (Muller); from the genus Blattisocius e.g. Blattisocius tarsalis (Berlese), Blattisocius keegani (Fox); from the genus Lasioseius e.g. Lasioseius fimetorum Karg, Lasioseius floridensis Berlese, Lasioseius bispinosus Evans, Lasioseius dentatus Fox, Lasioseius scapulatus (Kenett), Lasioseius athiasae Nawar & Nasr; from the genus Arctoseius e.g. Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese); from the genus Protogamasellus e.g. Protogamasellus dioscorus Manson; iii) Laelapidae such as from the genus Stratiolaelaps e.g. Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Womersley) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Geolaelaps e.g. Geolaelaps aculeifer (Canestrini) (also placed in the genus Hypoaspis); Androlaelaps e.g. Androlaelaps casalis casalis (Berlese); iv) Macrochelidae such as from the genus Macrocheles e.g. Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese), Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scopoli), Macrocheles matrius (Hull); v) Parasitidae such as from the genus Pergamasus e.g. Pergamasusquisquiliarum Canestrini; Parasitus e.g. Parasitusfimetorum (Berlese), Parasitus bituberosus Karg; Prostigmatid mite species such as from: vi) Tydeidae such as from the genus Homeopronematus e.g. Homeopronematus anconai (Baker); from the genus Tydeus e.g. Tydeus lambi (Baker), Tydeus caudatus (Dugés), Tydeus lambi (Baker); from the genus Pronematus e.g. Pronematus ubiquitous (McGregor); vii) Cheyletidae such as from the genus Cheyletus e.g. Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank), Cheyletus malaccensis Oudemans; viii) Cunaxidae such as from the genus Coleoscirus e.g. Coleoscirus simplex (Ewing), from the genus Cunaxa e.g. Cunaxa setirostris (Hermann); ix) Erythraeidae such as from the genus Balaustium e.g. Balaustium putmani Smiley, Balaustium medicagoense Meyer & Ryke, Balaustium murorum (Hermann); x) Stigmaeidae such as from the genus Agistemus e.g. Agistemus exsertus Gonzalez; such as from the genus Zetzellia e.g. Zetzelliamali (Ewing).

Description

EXAMPLE I

Setup

[0068] Two species of predatory mites, A. swirskii and A. limonicus, were tested with respect to their preference for different carrier types, Mature females were collected approximately 10 days after the start of rearing from the egg stage. The 3 offered carriers were millet chaff, a carrier according to the invention, wheat bran, standard carrier and vermicullite (fine grain, all particles <2 mm), also a standard carrier. All carriers were simultaneously offered in a moist form (15 ml water/100 g added). Of each carrier 2 portions were placed opposite one another on a fixed distance from the release point (4 cm). The tested substrates were all offered in the same volume of 0.5 cc (divided in 2 portions per arena). At the start of the test, 10 females and 2 males of each species were placed in the middle of each plastic choice arena (Ø=12 cm). The arena was placed on moist cotton wool to offer water for the predatory mites and to prevent escape. Typha pollen was placed as a food source at the release point. The number of replicates was 3 and each subsequent arena was orientated with another substrate at top position (12 o'clock).

[0069] The test was performed in a climate room with conditions of 25° C., 75% RH and 16:8 (L:D) light regime and the RH on the arena was around 85%. After 2 days the number of predator eggs per substrate and the number of adults present were counted (male individuals were excluded from the statistics). For this all carrier particles were scrutinized individually and also checked 2 days later after extra food was added. The results per substrate per species were statistically analysed using the Chi-square Goodness of Fit Test (one variable).

Results

[0070] The total number of females found in each substrate (after 3 replicates) is presented in FIG. 5 (panel A). Of all start-up females (30) a large fraction of individuals was retrieved from the substrates, i.e. 87% (26 individuals) of all A. limonicus and 60% (18 individuals) of all A. swirskii. Thus even though the material was clearly separated from the food source, the majority of female mites were found in this carrier. Both tests showed a significant difference between carrier materials (p=0.000).

[0071] The total number of eggs (and hatchlings) found in each carrier (after 3 replicates) is shown in panel B of FIG. 5. It is clear that the occurrence of female mites correlates with the number of eggs laid on the carriers. Both tests showed a significant difference between carrier materials (p=0.000).

[0072] The results indicate that carrier materials providing mite shelters, as represented by the millet chaff in this experiment, are a highly preferred for mite species, such as predatory mite species, in particular Phytoseiid species.

EXAMPLE II

Setup

[0073] Thick layers of medium were prepared to simulate a mass-rearing unit. Either bran or millet chaff (both moistened) were used as the carrier material. Bran is the standard carrier used in commercial mite rearing. Chaff is a representative for carriers according to the invention with mite shelters. Two food types (A and B), both comprising Carpoglyphus lactis in frozen form were used. In a start-up rearing the predator mite, A. limonicus, was reared for >2 generations on the test medium in thin layers. The subsequent rearing was performed in layers of 6-7 cm high in ventilated boxes (L×W×H=15×15×8 cm) during 2 weeks. Sampling, feeding and mixing was done twice a week. The test was performed in duplo at 21° C. and 93% RH. Each week the number of live predator and prey mites were counted from the sample.

Results

[0074] The results are presented in FIG. 6. The predator densities in the chaff rearings are increasing in the first and second week, on both food types. In the bran mixes, the rearings are keeping up in the first week, but collapse in the second week. The decrease of predator numbers is followed by an increase of prey mite numbers and this makes continuity of these rearing mixes troublesome. The test shows a net result that is positive for the chaff carrier as compared to the standard bran carrier.

REFERENCES

[0075] Solomon, M. E. and Cunnington, A. M., 1963, Rearing acaroid mites, Agricultural Research Council, Pest Infestation Laboratory, Slough, England, pp 399-403.

[0076] Parkinson, C. L., 1992, “Culturing free-living astigmatid mites.” Arachnida: Proceedings of a one day symposium on spiders and their allies held on Saturday 21 Nov. 1987 at the Zoological Society of London, eds. Cooper, J. E., Pearce-Kelly, P, Wiiliams, D. L., p. 62-70.

[0077] Hughes, A. M., 1977. The mites of stored food and houses. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Technical Bulletin No. 9: 400 pp

[0078] De Moraes. G. J., McMurtry, J. A., Denmark, H. A. & Campos, C. B., 2004. A revised catalog of the mite family Phytoseiidae. Magnolia Press Auckland New Zealand 494 pp.