Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2005 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/11449/194637 |
Resumo: | The objective of this study was to determine weed species of rubber tree cultivation areas that could serve as reservoirs of predatory mites. The work was conducted in Olimpia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, in two rubber tree plantations. Every three months, about 1.000 cm(3) of leaves of each one of the five dominant weeds in each plantation was taken to determine the phytoseiids. As the dominant weeds varied during the study, a total of 20 species were evaluated. Only Cecropia sp. was a dominant weed throughout the study, in both plantations. A total of 336 phytoseiids of the following species were found: Euseius citrifolius Denmark & Muma, 1970, E. concordis (Chant, 1959), Galendromus annectens (DeLeon, 1958), Iphiseiodes zuluagai Denmark & Muma, 1972, Neoseiulus anonymus (Chant & Baker, 1965) and N. tunus (DeLeon,1967). E. citrifolius (189 specimens) and N. tunus (138 specimens) were the most abundant species. The highest abundance (231 specimens) and diversity (5 species) were observed on Cecropia sp. On this plant was found the largest number of mites per sample (29 specimens), followed by Piper duncum Linnaeus (22), Guarea sp. (18) and Ageratum conyzoides Linnaeus (12). E. citrifolius has been determined as the most abundant predatory mite on rubber trees in the region where this work was conducted. Cecropia sp. seems to be the most important of the weeds considered as reservoir of E citrifolius because it is continuously present in the plantations. Complementary studies could indicate the viability of managing this weed in or around rubber tree plantations to promote the biological control of mite pests on that crop. |
id |
UNSP_d6fd8f12aaa89662bac8cfd56797413e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/194637 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivationThe objective of this study was to determine weed species of rubber tree cultivation areas that could serve as reservoirs of predatory mites. The work was conducted in Olimpia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, in two rubber tree plantations. Every three months, about 1.000 cm(3) of leaves of each one of the five dominant weeds in each plantation was taken to determine the phytoseiids. As the dominant weeds varied during the study, a total of 20 species were evaluated. Only Cecropia sp. was a dominant weed throughout the study, in both plantations. A total of 336 phytoseiids of the following species were found: Euseius citrifolius Denmark & Muma, 1970, E. concordis (Chant, 1959), Galendromus annectens (DeLeon, 1958), Iphiseiodes zuluagai Denmark & Muma, 1972, Neoseiulus anonymus (Chant & Baker, 1965) and N. tunus (DeLeon,1967). E. citrifolius (189 specimens) and N. tunus (138 specimens) were the most abundant species. The highest abundance (231 specimens) and diversity (5 species) were observed on Cecropia sp. On this plant was found the largest number of mites per sample (29 specimens), followed by Piper duncum Linnaeus (22), Guarea sp. (18) and Ageratum conyzoides Linnaeus (12). E. citrifolius has been determined as the most abundant predatory mite on rubber trees in the region where this work was conducted. Cecropia sp. seems to be the most important of the weeds considered as reservoir of E citrifolius because it is continuously present in the plantations. Complementary studies could indicate the viability of managing this weed in or around rubber tree plantations to promote the biological control of mite pests on that crop.Soc Brasileira Zoologia, Univ Federal ParanaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)[Anonymous]2020-12-10T16:32:44Z2020-12-10T16:32:44Z2005-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article35-42Revista Brasileira De Zoologia. Curitiba: Soc Brasileira Zoologia, Univ Federal Parana, v. 22, n. 1, p. 35-42, 2005.0101-8175http://hdl.handle.net/11449/194637WOS:000228173100005Web of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPporRevista Brasileira De Zoologiainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2021-10-22T19:11:00Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/194637Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462021-10-22T19:11Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
title |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
spellingShingle |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation [Anonymous] |
title_short |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
title_full |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
title_fullStr |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
title_sort |
Weeds as alternative substrates to phytoseiids (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in rubbertree Hevea brasilienis, Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) cultivation |
author |
[Anonymous] |
author_facet |
[Anonymous] |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
[Anonymous] |
description |
The objective of this study was to determine weed species of rubber tree cultivation areas that could serve as reservoirs of predatory mites. The work was conducted in Olimpia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, in two rubber tree plantations. Every three months, about 1.000 cm(3) of leaves of each one of the five dominant weeds in each plantation was taken to determine the phytoseiids. As the dominant weeds varied during the study, a total of 20 species were evaluated. Only Cecropia sp. was a dominant weed throughout the study, in both plantations. A total of 336 phytoseiids of the following species were found: Euseius citrifolius Denmark & Muma, 1970, E. concordis (Chant, 1959), Galendromus annectens (DeLeon, 1958), Iphiseiodes zuluagai Denmark & Muma, 1972, Neoseiulus anonymus (Chant & Baker, 1965) and N. tunus (DeLeon,1967). E. citrifolius (189 specimens) and N. tunus (138 specimens) were the most abundant species. The highest abundance (231 specimens) and diversity (5 species) were observed on Cecropia sp. On this plant was found the largest number of mites per sample (29 specimens), followed by Piper duncum Linnaeus (22), Guarea sp. (18) and Ageratum conyzoides Linnaeus (12). E. citrifolius has been determined as the most abundant predatory mite on rubber trees in the region where this work was conducted. Cecropia sp. seems to be the most important of the weeds considered as reservoir of E citrifolius because it is continuously present in the plantations. Complementary studies could indicate the viability of managing this weed in or around rubber tree plantations to promote the biological control of mite pests on that crop. |
publishDate |
2005 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2005-03-01 2020-12-10T16:32:44Z 2020-12-10T16:32:44Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira De Zoologia. Curitiba: Soc Brasileira Zoologia, Univ Federal Parana, v. 22, n. 1, p. 35-42, 2005. 0101-8175 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/194637 WOS:000228173100005 |
identifier_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira De Zoologia. Curitiba: Soc Brasileira Zoologia, Univ Federal Parana, v. 22, n. 1, p. 35-42, 2005. 0101-8175 WOS:000228173100005 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/194637 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira De Zoologia |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
35-42 |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Soc Brasileira Zoologia, Univ Federal Parana |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Soc Brasileira Zoologia, Univ Federal Parana |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Web of Science reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1803650014841405440 |