This article was downloaded by: [University of Winnipeg]On: 15 September 2014, At: 21:57Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of AcarologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taca20

Infestation of grasses by eriophyoid mites (Acari:Eriophyoidea) in TurkeyAgnieszka Kiedrowicza, Brian Rectorb, Evsel Denizhanc, Wiktoria Szydłoa & Anna

Skorackaa

a Department of Animal Taxonomy and Ecology, Institute of Environmental Biology, AdamMickiewicz University, Poznań, Polandb USDA-ARS, Great Basin Rangelands Research Unit, Reno, USAc Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van,TurkeyPublished online: 15 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Agnieszka Kiedrowicz, Brian Rector, Evsel Denizhan, Wiktoria Szydło & Anna Skoracka (2014)Infestation of grasses by eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) in Turkey, International Journal of Acarology, 40:6,421-427, DOI: 10.1080/01647954.2014.941004

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2014.941004

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Infestation of grasses by eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) in Turkey

Agnieszka Kiedrowicza, Brian Rectorb, Evsel Denizhanc, Wiktoria Szydłoa and Anna Skorackaa

aDepartment of Animal Taxonomy and Ecology, Institute of Environmental Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland(emails: kiedrowicz.agnieszka@gmail.com; wiktoria.szydlo@amu.edu.pl; anna.skoracka@amu.edu.pl); bUSDA-ARS, Great BasinRangelands Research Unit, Reno, USA (email: brian.rector@ars.usda.gov); cDepartment of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory,Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van, Turkey (email: evsel_denizhan@hotmail.com)

(Received 3 May 2014; accepted 27 June 2014; published online 15 August 2014)

Despite the economic importance of eriophyoid mites as agricultural pests, especially of cereal crops, knowledge of theeriophyoid fauna in Turkey remains incomplete. This article presents the results of a 3-year study on grass-infesting eriophyoidmites in Turkey. The aim of this study was to collect and identify eriophyoid species infesting wild and cultivated grasses andto estimate the degree of overall mite infestation on grasses. The study involved both qualitative samples (to record thepresence or absence of mites) and quantitative samples (to investigate the parameters of mite infestation: viz. prevalence,intensity and density). Seven eriophyoid species – Aceria tosichella (Keifer, 1969), Abacarus hystrix (Nalepa, 1896), Abacaruslolii Skoracka, 2009, Aculodes holcusi Skoracka, 2004, Aculodes dubius (Nalepa, 1891), Abacarus longilobus Skoracka, 2002,Aculodes sp. nov. – were collected from grasses in the course of this study. Quantitative data were available for the first four ofthese species, and parameters of infestation differed greatly among the hosts. Aceria tosichella was the species infesting thelargest number of grass species, and A. hystrix was the species with the highest values of prevalence and density on wheat.New host species for A. tosichella were reported, including Dactylis glomerata, Bromus sclerophyllus, Eremopyrum orientale,Lolium temulentum and Poa bulbosa, all for the first time in Turkey.

Keywords: Acari; Eriophyoidea; prevalence; density; intensity of infestation; new host records

Introduction

Eriophyoid mites are arthropods that infest plant hosts,including crops, all over the world (Lindquist et al. 1996).Noticeable plant damage may be caused directly by mitefeeding or by transmission of plant pathogens (Oldfield andProeseler 1996); therefore many species are pests of greateconomic importance. Crops with significant eriophyoidpests include citrus, apple, grape, hazelnut, coconut, tomato,corn and wheat (Van Leeuwen, Witters et al. 2010; Naviaet al. 2013), while a number of eriophyoid species are con-sidered as invasive and pose a quarantine threat to severalcountries (Duso et al. 2010; Navia et al. 2013).

Amongst all eriophyoid species described thus far(>4300), there are more than 200 species inhabitinggrasses, including cereals (E. de Lillo and J. Amrine,pers. comm., and online database of world eriophyoidspecies, 4 January 2014). Most of the grass-infesting spe-cies cause little direct damage to their hosts, althoughsome of them can cause discoloration, deformation orcurling of leaves, gall induction, growth inhibition andplant sterility (Westphal and Manson 1996; Petanovićand Kielkiewicz 2010). Two grass-infesting eriophyoidspecies [viz. wheat curl mite (WCM), Aceria tosichellaKeifer, 1938 and cereal rust mite, Abacarus hystrix(Nalepa, 1896)] are well-known cereal pests that cancause extreme reduction in crop yield (Styer and Nault1996; Navia et al. 2013). Damage to cereal crops by WCMis caused mainly by viral diseases that are vectored by themite, e.g. wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), triticummosaic virus (Seifers et al. 2008, 2009) and wheat mosaic

virus (formerly known as High Plains virus) (Slykhuis1955; Seifers et al. 1997; Navia et al. 2013). By contrast,a number of eriophyoid species also have great potentialfor use as biological control agents of weeds because oftheir high host specificity and their ability to significantlyreduce the target weeds’ fitness (Smith et al. 2010).

Despite the economic importance of Eriophyoidea,knowledge of the eriophyoid fauna worldwide remainsincomplete. Turkey is an example of a country with anunderstudied eriophyoid fauna (Denizhan et al. 2006,2013). To date, 130 species of eriophyoid mites havebeen recorded from Turkey, and for 16 of them this coun-try was reported as the type locality (E. Denizhan pers.comm.). However, there are about 9300 vascular plantspecies reported from Turkey (Güner et al. 2000), andonly 1.2% of Turkish plant species are currently reportedto be infested by eriophyoid mites (Denizhan et al. 2013).Studies on grass-infesting eriophyoids in Turkey havebeen especially vague. Ilbaği et al. (2005) analysed theoccurrence of viral infections of cereal crops in Turkeyand reported the presence of WSMV on wheat, a viruswhose only known vector is A. tosichella Keifer (Naviaet al. 2013).

Denizhan and Çobanoğlu (2010a) surveyedEriophyoidea in the Lake Van Basin in the eastern partof Anatolia (Turkey) where they found 25 eriophyoidsspecies, but only one of them was collected from grasses,viz. the well-known pest A. hystrix. This was a new recordfor the Turkish eriophyoid fauna despite the virtuallycosmopolitan distribution of A. hystrix (Oldfield and

International Journal of Acarology, 2014Vol. 40, No. 6, 421–427, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2014.941004

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Proeseler 1996). A recent study indicated the presence ofsix grass-associated eriophyoids in Turkey: A. tosichella,A. hystrix, Abacarus lolii Skoracka, 2009, Abacarus long-ilobus Skoracka, 2002, Aculodes dubius (Nalepa, 1891)and Aculodes holcusi Skoracka, 2004 (Denizhan et al.2013). As mentioned above, two of these species (viz. A.tosichella and A. hystrix) are important pests of cerealsworldwide (Oldfield and Proeseler 1996; Westphal andManson 1996) but had received very little notice inTurkey. Given that Turkey is known to be part of thehistorical region of wheat domestication (Badr et al.2000; Lev-Yadun et al. 2000; Dvorak et al. 2011), it isimportant to study the eriophyoid fauna of Turkey asso-ciated with grasses in order to develop an improved under-standing of the origin and evolution of pest speciesassociated with wheat (e.g. A. tosichella) and other cerealspecies native to this region, as well as their wild grassprogenitors.

Due to its geographical location and botanical history(Ekim and Guner 2000; Karagöz 2003), Turkey is likely tocontain a potentially rich diversity of eriophyoid mites.Previous studies on eriophyoid mites in Turkey were basedmainly on faunistic and taxonomic records, while no stu-dies to date have made quantitative analyses of ecologicaland other relevant parameters. Knowledge of a herbivore’shost specificity is necessary to develop effective controlstrategies and is fundamental to the application of herbi-vores as biological control agents of weeds (Smith et al.2010). To determine the host specificity of herbivores andto understand the role of each host species in the biologyof the herbivore, information on the level of infestation ofa pest on a particular host species is required (e.g. Walterand Benfield 1994; Skoracka and Kuczyński 2012).

This article presents the results of a 3-year study ongrass-infesting eriophyoid mites in eastern Turkey. It willbe important to determine whether grass-infesting erio-phyoid species that occur in Turkey may become impor-tant pests of cereals outside of Turkey and perhaps alsovector plant viruses. The aim of this study was to collectand identify eriophyoid species infesting wild and culti-vated grasses and to estimate the degree of overall miteinfestation on grasses.

Material and methods

Field samples were collected at 26 sites in Turkey betweenJune 2009 and September 2011 (Table 1). Shoots of grassspecies were cut just above the ground and transported tothe laboratory in plastic bags. Both qualitative and quanti-tative samples were collected. Qualitative samples con-tained several (from 4 to 10) shoots and were scored forthe presence or absence of any eriophyoid species. Eachquantitative sample consisted of 7 to 10 shoots of a givengrass species collected from a single locality, with infor-mation recorded for the presence or absence, as well asabundance, of eriophyoid species. Quantitative samplescomprised a total of 1560 grass shoots of 19 species. Inthe laboratory, shoots were examined under a stereo-

microscope and mite specimens were counted (for quanti-tative samples) and mounted on slides in a Keifer (1975)medium for identification with a phase-contrast micro-scope. Generic classifications followed Amrine et al.(2003), and species identifications were based on the ori-ginal descriptions (Nalepa 1891, 1896; Keifer 1969;Skoracka 2002, 2004, 2009). The taxonomic nomenclatureof grass species followed The Plant List (2013, http://www.theplantlist.org/). The examined material resides inthe collection of Department of Animal Taxonomy andEcology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.

For the quantitative samples, an infestation index wascalculated for each grass species, as well as for individualmite species, when only one species was present in a givensample. The following parameters were used: preva-lence = the percentage of shoots infested; intensity = themean number of mite specimens per infested shoot anddensity = the mean number of mite specimens per sampledshoot. The description of the formulas of these parametersis available in Skoracka and Kuczyński (2012). For allcomputations, the S-PLUS software was used (S-PLUS7.0, Insightful Corp. 2005). Graphs were prepared usingR 3.0.2 (R Development Core Team 2013).

Results

Altogether (including qualitative and quantitative studies),eriophyoid mites were found on 30 of 48 grass samplesinspected and on 19 of 24 grass species sampled (Table 1).Among 19 grass species for which quantitative data wereavailable, the parameters of infestation differed greatlyamong the hosts (Figures 1–3, Table 2).

The highest values of eriophyoid mite prevalence anddensity were reached on wheat, Triticum aestivum (Figures1–3, Table 2). The mite density on wheat was significantlyhigher than for any other mite on a grass species in thisstudy (Figure 3), whereas the prevalence of mites on wheatwas not significantly higher than that on Hordeum mur-inum and Agropyron cristatum (Figure 1). The lowest mitepopulation density on a species that hosted mites occurredon Hordeum brevisubulatum (Figure 3, Table 2). The low-est probability of finding eriophyoid mites on mite-infested species was on H. brevisubulatum and Aegilopscylindrica (Figure 1, Table 2). Mite infestation intensitywas highest on A. cylindrica, although it did not differsignificantly from that on wheat (Figure 2, Table 2). Noeriophyoid mites were found on the following sampledgrasses: Alopecurus arundinaceus, Cynodon dactylon,Eremopyrum distans, Poa pratensis and Psathyrostachysfragilis (Table 1).

Seven eriophyoid species – A. tosichella (Keifer,1969), A. hystrix (Nalepa, 1896), A. lolii Skoracka, 2009,A. holcusi Skoracka, 2004, A. dubius (Nalepa, 1891), A.longilobus Skoracka, 2002, Aculodes sp. nov. – werecollected from grasses in the course of this study (Table1). Quantitative data were available for the first four ofthese species (Figures 1–3). On three grass species – viz.A. cylindrica, A. cristatum, H. brevisubulatum – two, two

422 A. Kiedrowicz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Table 1. Characteristics of the samples used in this study: locality, GPS coordinates, host plant species, collection date, eriophyoid speciesfound, type of sample (QL – qualitative, QN – quantitative; ATOS – Aceria tosichella, AHYS – Abacarus hystrix, AHOL – Aculodesholcusi, ALON – Abacarus longilobus, ALOL – Abacarus lolii, ADUB – Aculodes dubius, AN – Aculodes sp. nov.

Host plant Location Latitude–longitude Collection_dateEriophyoidspecies

Type ofsample

Aegilops cylindrica Host. Çatak 38°00′40′′ N, 043°03′38′′ E 1 August 2010 None QNKurubaş geçidi 38°25′32′′ N, 043°23′54′′ E 1 July 2010 None QNMuradiye 38°57′40′′ N, 043°44′41′′ E 17 June 2010 None QNVan 38°29′43′′ N, 043°20′42′′ E 4 June 2010 ATOS, AHOL QN

Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Doğubeyazıt 39°32′60′′ N, 044°04′37′′ E 9 July 2010 ATOS, AHYS QNVan, Gurpinar 38°19′09′′ N, 043°20′11′′ E 27 June 2009 ATOS QL

Alopecurus arundinaceus Poir. Kurubaş geçidi 38°24′51′′ N, 043°23′19′′ E 16 July 2010 None QNBromus armenus Boiss. Ağrı Province 39°42′22′′ N, 044°07′22′′ E 6 August 2009 AN QLBromus arvensis L. Van, Gurpinar 38°19′15′′ N, 043°19′19′′ E 3 July 2009 ATOS QLBromus erectus Huds. Hakkari 37°26′24′′ N, 043°55′12′′ E 3 July 2009 ALON QLBromus sclerophyllus Boiss. Güzeldere geçidi 38°13′20′′ N, 043°59′38′′ E 30 July 2009 ATOS QLBromus tomentellus Boiss. Güzeldere geçidi 38°11′56′′ N, 043°53′53′′ E 13 July 2009 ATOS QL

Kurubaş geçidi 38°25′32′′ N, 043°23′54′′ E 1 July 2010 None QNCynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bitlis Province 38°23′22′′ N, 042°46′55′′ E 16 July 2010 None QNDactylis glomerata L. Bitlis Province 38°23′22′′ N, 042°46′55′′ E 24 July 2009 ATOS, ALON QL

Gevaş 38°17′38′′ N, 043°07′24′′ E 16 July 2010 None QNElymus hispidus subsp.barbulatus (Schur) Melderis

Doğubeyazıt 39°32′60′′ N, 044°04′37′′ E 10 August2009

ATOS QL

Kurubaş geçidi 38°26′26′′ N, 043°24′20′′ E 30 August2009

AHYS, ATOS QL

Eremopyrum distans (K. Koch)Nevski

Kurubaş geçidi 38°24′51′′ N, 043°23′19′′ E 16 July 2010 None QN

Eremopyrum orientale (L.)Jaub. & Spach

Doğubeyazıt 39°32′60′′ N, 044°04′37′′ E 9 July 2010 ALOL QN

Kars 40°38′52′′ N, 043°08′46′′ E 25 June 2011 ATOS QLHordeum brevisubulatum (Trin.) Çatak 38°00′40′′ N, 043°03′38′′ E 1 August 2010 None QN

Doğubeyazıt 39°32′60′′ N, 044°04′37′′ E 9 July 2010 None QNKurubaş geçidi 38°25′32′′ N, 043°23′54′′ E 1 July 2010 None QNKuskunkıran 39°11′48′′ N, 043°52′39′′ E 16 July 2010 ATOS QLVan 38°29′43′′ N, 043°20′42′′ E 4 June 2010 ATOS, AHYS,

AHOLQN

Hordeum murinum L. Çatak 38°00′40′′ N, 043°03′38′′ E 1 August 2010 ATOS QNHordeum spp. Güzeldere geçidi 38°09′37′′ N, 043°57′55′′ E 26 July 2010 ATOS QNHordeum marinum subsp.gussoneanum (Parl.) Thell.

Çavuştepe,Gürpınar

38°20′32′′ N, 043°25′32′′ E 3 July 2010 ATOS QL

Kurubaş geçidi 38°25′32′′ N, 043°23′54′′ E 1 July 2010 None QNLeymus racemosus (Lam.) Tzvelev Çatak 38°00′40′′ N, 043°03′38′′ E 1 August 2010 None QN

Çavuştepe,Gürpınar

38°20′32′′ N, 043°25′32′′ E 23 June 2010 ATOS QN

Lolium temulentum L. Güzeldere geçidi 38°13′20′′ N, 043°59′38′′ E 26 July 2010 ATOS QNPoa bulbosa L. Güzeldere geçidi 38°13′20′′ N, 043°59′38′′ E 23 July 2010 None QN

Güzeldere geçidi 38°13′20′′ N, 043°59′38′′ E 26 July 2010 ATOS QLPoa pratensis L. Kurubaş geçidi 38°25′32′′ N, 043°23′54′′ E 1 July 2010 None QNPsathyrostachys fragilis (Boiss.)Nevski

Gevaş 38°17′38′′ N, 043°07′24′′ E 16 July 2010 None QN

Secale cereale L. Çatak 38°00′40′′ N, 043°03′38′′ E 1 August 2010 None QNErciş 39°00′46′′ N, 043°20′43′′ E 16 June 2010 ATOS QNKurubaş geçidi 38°25′32′′ N, 043°23′54′′ E 1 July 2010 None QN

Triticum aestivum L. Ahlat 38°45′27′′ N, 042°30′11′′ E 13 June 2011 ATOS QLDoğubeyazıt 39°32′60′′ N, 044°04′37′′ E 3 July 2010 AHYS QNDoğubeyazıt 39°33′47′′ N, 044°04′44′′ E 20 June 2011 ATOS, ADUB QLErciş 39°01′45′′ N, 043°22′31′′ E 13 June 2011 ATOS QLErciş 39°01′45′′ N, 043°22′31′′ E 18 June 2011 ATOS QLGevaş, Van 38°18′12′′ N, 043°08′31′′ E 16 July 2010 ATOS QLIgdir 39°55′91′′ N, 044°03′56′′ E 19 June 2011 ATOS QLKars 40°33′59′′ N, 043°03′16′′ E 26 September

2011ATOS QL

International Journal of Acarology 423

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

and three species of Eriophyidae, respectively, wererecorded (Figures 1–3). Although H. brevisbulatum wasthe shared host for three mite species, viz. A. tosichella, A.

hystrix and A. holcusi, these mites together reached thelowest values of prevalence and density on this host(Figures 1, 3); however, they attained relatively high

Aegilops cylindrica

Agropyron cristatum

Eremopyrum orientale

Hordeum giganteum

Hordeum murinum

Hordeum spp.

Hordeum brevisubulatum

Lolium temulentum

Secale cereale

Triticum aestivum

0 20 40 60 80

A. hystrix

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella, A. hystrix, A. holcusi

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella, A. hystrix

A. tosichella, A. holcusi

A. lolii

Prevalence (%)

Figure 1. Prevalence of eriophyoid species (right) on grass species (left). Only data for grass species for which k > 0 are presented.

Aegilops cylindrica

Agropyron cristatum

Eremopyrum orientale

Hordeum giganteum

Hordeum murinum

Hordeum spp.

Hordeum brevisubulatum

Lolium temulentum

Secale cereale

Triticum aestivum

0 5 10 15

Intensity

A. hystrix

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella, A. hystrix, A. holcusi

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella, A. hystrix

A. tosichella, A. holcusi

A. lolii

Figure 2. Intensity of eriophyoid species (right) infestation on grass species (left). Only data for grass species for which k > 0 arepresented.

A. hystrix

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella, A. hystrix, A. holcusi

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella

A. tosichella, A. hystrix

A. tosichella, A. holcusi

A. lolii

Aegilops cylindrica

Agropyron cristatum

Eremopyrum orientale

Hordeum giganteum

Hordeum murinum

Hordeum spp.

Hordeum brevisubulatum

Lolium temulentum

Secale cereale

Triticum aestivum

0 2 4 6 8

Density

Figure 3. Density of eriophyoid species (right) infestation on grass species (left). Only data for grass species for which k > 0 arepresented.

424 A. Kiedrowicz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

intensity of infestation on individual shoots (Figure 2).Aceria tosichella was the species infesting the largestnumber of grass species (17) among all eriophyoid speciesrecorded, and it was found on the majority of wheatsamples in large numbers (Table 1). Quantitative datawere not available for most of the wheat samples.Abacarus hystrix was the species with the highest valuesof prevalence and density on wheat (Figures 1, 3).

Discussion and conclusions

The eriophyoid mite fauna in Turkey remains poorly stu-died. Previous research on Turkish eriophyoids was lar-gely taxonomic or faunal studies (e.g. Denizhan et al.2006; Denizhan and Çobanoğlu 2010a). The presentstudy was the first to include both quantitative and quali-tative data in this country. Complex studies provide cluesto understanding the biology and ecology of eriophyoids,the results of which may be helpful in applying effectivecontrol of pest mite species. Several new host species forthe important cereal pest, A. tosichella (WCM), werereported as a result of this study, including Dactylis glo-merata, Bromus sclerophyllus, Eremopyrum orientale,Lolium temulentum and Poa bulbosa, all for the firsttime in Turkey. These and other grass species occurringin or adjacent to cereal cultivations could act as greenbridges for pest mite species. As such, it is important toobtain this type of knowledge on the host ranges of eco-nomically important eriophyoid mites.

One result of this preliminary survey revealed a neweriophyoid species belonging to the genus Aculodes foundon Bromus armenus. Following its taxonomic description,studies of its host range and biology are warranted. Indeed,if its host range is restricted within the genus Bromus L., itcould have promise as a biological control agent of

invasive Bromus spp. on other continents (e.g. Bromusrubens and Bromus tectorum in North America). Thisstudy suggests that new eriophyoid species with potentialeconomic impact remain to be discovered on the grassflora of Turkey.

Two eriophyoid species, viz. A. tosichella and A. hol-cusi, were found in the course of this study on A. cylin-drica, which is a weed of winter wheat in theMediterranean basin, western Asia and North America(Hegde and Waines 2004). Its phenology matches that ofwinter wheat and it reduces yields through competition forlight, water and nutrients. It also reduces crop valuethrough contamination of seed after threshing (Hegdeand Waines 2004). An eriophyoid mite with a host rangethat includes A. cylindrica but not wheat could be valuableas a biological control agent of A. cylindrica. However,such a species may be difficult to find due to the ancestralrelationship of the genus Aegilops L. to bread wheat(Dvorak et al. 1998). Aegilops cylindrica shares the Dgenome with bread wheat, and the two species can hybri-dize in the field (Hegde and Waines 2004). Nevertheless,given the economic importance of both of these species,additional searches focusing on mites attacking A. cylin-drica are warranted.

Our results have shown that the mite infestationindices differed greatly among the hosts. Bread wheatwas the most frequently and heavily infested grass species.There are several possible explanations for higher miteinfestation on wheat. First, high densities of wheat popula-tions, compared to wild grasses, could provide advanta-geous conditions for mite population growth. Second,inappropriate overuse of agricultural acaricides whichmay select for acaricide-resistant host races (VanLeeuwen, Witters et al. 2010; Van Leeuwen, Vontaset al. 2010), although none of the mite species collected

Table 2. Infestation parameters of eriophyoid mites on grass hosts in Turkey.

Host plant n k P LCI-UCI I LCI-UCI D LCI-UCI

Aegilops cylindrica 150 19 12.7 8.3–19.0 12.2 8.6–16.3 1.6 0.8–2.6Agropyron cristatum 73 42 57.5 46.1–68.2 2.6 2.2–3.1 1.5 1.1–1.9Alopecurus arundinaceus 65 0 0 0.04–5.4 0 0–0 0 0–0Bromus tomentellus 73 0 0 0.03–4.9 0 0–0 0 0–0Cynodon dactylon 34 0 0 0.07–10 0 0–0 0 0–0Dactylis glomerata 125 0 0 0.02–2.9 0 0–0 0 0–0Eremopyrum orientale 55 29 52.7 39.7–65.3 4.1 3.3–4.7 2.1 1.5–2.8Eremopyrum distans 71 0 0 0.03–5.0 0 0–0 0 0–0Hordeum marinum subsp. Gussoneanum 63 0 0 0.04–5.6 0 0–0 0 0–0Hordeum giganteum 72 27 37.5 27.2–49.1 4.9 4.1–5.7 1.8 1.3–2.5Hordeum murinum 67 40 59.7 47.7–70.6 3.6 3.0–4.1 2.1 1.7–2.7Hordeum spp. 100 40 40.0 30.9–49.8 5.8 5.1–6.4 2.3 1.8–3.0Hordeum brevisubulatum 199 24 12.6 8.3–17.3 8.5 7.8–9.3 1.03 0.7–1.5Lolium temulentum 60 29 48.3 36.1–60.7 3.6 2.9–4.38 1.7 1.2–2.3Poa bulbosa 45 0 0 0.06–7.7 0 0–0 0 0–0Poa pratensis 56 0 0 0.04–6.3 0 0–0 0 0–0Psathyrostachys fragilis 46 0 0 0.05–7.5 0 0–0 0 0–0Secale cereale 142 25 17.6 12.2–24.7 7.5 6.4–8.4 1.3 0.9–1.9Triticum aestivum 64 51 79.7 68.2–87.7 9.7 8.0–11.7 7.7 6.0–9.5

Note: n, number of all shoots of a given grass species under study; k, number of shoots of a given grass species infested by mites; P, prevalence (%); I,intensity (specimens per shoot); D, density (specimens per shoot), LCI-UCI, lower - upper confidence limits.

International Journal of Acarology 425

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

in this study are known to have developed pesticide resis-tance. In addition, given the recent emergence and narrowgenetic base of hexaploid bread wheat (Cox 1997), selec-tion for traits such as resistance to mite damage in breadwheat, whether naturally or by humans, is unlikely tooccur in the absence of genetic introgression from wildrelatives.

Among the sampled grass species infested with erio-phyoid mites, the lowest probability of finding mites wason Hordeum brevisubulatum and Aegilops cylindrica.However, mite infestation intensity on both H. brevisu-bulatum and A. cylindrica was very high. This mayindicate that these grass species are patchily distributedand difficult for mites to reach, but may also offer favour-able conditions for development. More collections arewarranted from these grass hosts to clarify this apparentparadox. Hordeum brevisubulatum was also the grassspecies with the highest number of eriophyoid speciesrecorded.

There were six grass species with no eriophyoid mitesunder qualitative or quantitative studies. However, theresults of quantitative studies indicated that four additionalgrass species were not found with eriophyoid populations:Bromus tomentellus, D. glomerata, Hordeum marinumsubsp. gussoneanum and P. bulbosa. Eriophyoid miteswere found on these grasses only under qualitative studies;therefore, it will be important to sample these grass speciesfurther to determine whether these grass species are prin-cipal, alternative or accidental hosts of eriophyoid mites.

Under this study, the mite species with the highestvalues of prevalence and density on wheat was the cerealrust mite, A. hystrix. This mite species has great eco-nomic importance and is a vector of two plant viruses:the ryegrass mosaic virus and the Agropyron mosaicvirus (AgMV). In addition to the genus AgropyronGaertn, AgMV may also infest wheat (Oldfield andProeseler 1996). Given that A. hystrix is known to be acryptic assemblage of species, including A. lolii(Skoracka 2009), further collections from Turkey, aswell as genetic and host-range tests on Abacarus spp.,are warranted.

Additional wheat samples for quantitative data analy-sis will also be necessary to assess the infestation para-meters of the WCM, A. tosichella. Information on theoccurrence and ecological parameters of these mite pestsis very important to the application of effective controlstrategies (Van Leeuwen, Witters et al. 2010). Aceriatosichella was the species found infesting the highestnumber (nine) of grass species in this study. This wasnot a surprising result, since A. tosichella was known asa highly polyphagous species recorded from 90 grassspecies all over the world (Navia et al. 2013). However,recent genetic studies have indicated that A. tosichellarepresents a complex of cryptic species with divergenthost specificity (Carew et al. 2009; Skoracka et al. 2012,2013; Miller et al. 2013). An in-depth study of WCMgenotypes on wild and cultivated grasses in Turkey is

warranted to shed light on the relationships between thisspecies complex and its hosts.

AcknowledgementsWe thank Dr Lechosław Kuczyński (Adam Mickiewicz Universityin Poznań) for preparing the graphs, Dr Fevzi Özgökҫe (Universityof Yüzüncü Yıl, Faculty of Biology) for identifying grass species,Prof. James Amrine Jr for providing valuable information and tworeviewers for their valuable remarks.

ReferencesAmrine JWJR, Stasny TA, Flechtmann CHW. 2003. Revised

keys to world genera of Eriophyoidea (Acari: Prostigmata).West Bloomfield, MI: Indira Publishing House.

Badr A, Müller K, Schäfer-Pregl R, El Rabey H, Effgen S,Ibrahim HH, Pozzi C, Rohde W, Salamini F. 2000. On theorigin and domestication history of barley (Hordeum vul-gare). Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:499–510.

Carew M, Schiffer M, Umina P, Weeks A, Hoffmann A. 2009.Molecular markers indicate that the wheat curl mite, Aceriatosichella Keifer, may represent a species complex inAustralia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 99:479–486.doi:10.1017/S0007485308006512

Cox TS. 1997. Deepening the wheat gene pool. Journal of CropProduction 1:1–25. doi:10.1300/J144v01n01_01

Denizhan E, Çobanoğlu S. 2010a. Eriophyoid mites (Acari:Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea) in Van Lake Basin fromTurkey. International Journal of Acarology 36:503–510.doi:10.1080/01647954.2010.491486

Denizhan E, Çobanoğlu S. 2010b. Van Gölu havzasında Ulmuscampestris L. (Ulmaceae) üzerinde tespit edilen eriophyoidakarlar (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea). [Eriophyoidmites on Ulmus campestris L. (Ulmaceae) in Lake Vanbasin.]. Türkiye Entomoloji Dergisi 34:543–549.

Denizhan E, Monfreda R, Cobanoglu S, De Lillo E. 2006. Threenew Aceria species (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from Turkey.International Journal of Acarology 32:179–184.doi:10.1080/01647950608684458

Denizhan E, Szydło W, Skoracka A. 2013. Eriophyoid studies inTurkey: review and perspectives. Biological Letters 50:45–54. doi:10.2478/biolet-2013-0005

Duso C, Castagnoli M, Simoni S, Angeli G. 2010. The impact oferiophyoids on crops: recent issues on Aculus schlechtendali,Calepitrimerus vitis and Aculops lycopersici. Experimentaland Applied Acarology 51:151–168. doi:10.1007/s10493-009-9300-0

Dvorak J, Luo MCH, Akhunov ED. 2011. N.I. Vavilov’s theoryof centres of diversity in the light of current understanding ofwheat diversity, domestication and evolution. Czech Journalof Genetics and Plant Breeding 47:S20–S27.

Dvorak J, Luo MCH, Yang ZL, Zhang HB. 1998. The structureof the Aegilops tauschii genepool and the evolution of hex-aploid wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 97:657–670.doi:10.1007/s001220050942

Ekim T, Guner A. 2000. Introduction: The floristic richness ofTurkey. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine 17:48–59. doi:10.1111/1467-8748.00247

Güner A, Özhatay N, Ekim T, Başer KHT. 2000. Flora of Turkeyand the East Aegean Islands. Vol. 11. Second Supplement.Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Hegde SG, Waines JG. 2004. Hybridization and introgressionbetween bread wheat and wild and weedy relatives inNorth America. Crop Science 44:1145–1155. doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1145

426 A. Kiedrowicz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Ilbaği H, Çitir A, Yorganci Ü. 2005. Occurrence of virus infec-tions on cereal crops and their identifications in the Trakyaregion of Turkey. Zeitschrift Fur Pflanzenkrankheiten UndPflanzenschutz 112:313–320.

Karagöz A. 2003. Plant genetic resources conservation in Turkey.Acta Horticulturae 598:17–25.

Keifer HH. 1969. Eriophyid studies C-3 (Special Publication).Washington: Agricultural Research Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture.

Keifer HH. 1975. Eriophyoidea Nalepa. Injurious EriophyoidMites. In: Jeppson LR, Keifer HH, Baker EW, editors.Mites injurious to economic plants. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press; p. 327–533.

Lev-Yadun S, Gopher A, Abbo S. 2000. The cradle of agriculture.Science 288:1602–1603. doi:10.1126/science.288.5471.1602

Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J. 1996. Eriophyoid mites -their biology, natural enemies and control. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science B.V.

Miller AD, Skoracka A, Navia D, Santos De Mendoncad R,Szydło W, Schultz MB, Smith CM, Truol G, HoffmannaAA. 2013. Phylogenetic analyses reveal extensive crypticspeciation and host specialization in an economically impor-tant mite taxon. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution66:928–940. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2012.11.021

Nalepa A. 1891. Genera und Species der Familie Phytoptidae.Anzeiger der kaiserlichen Akademie Wissenschaften.Mathematische Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Wien58:867–884.

Nalepa A. 1896. Callynttrotus hystrix n. sp. Neue Gallmilben.Anzeiger der kaiserlichen Akademie Wissenschaften.Mathematische Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Wien 33:110.

Navia D, De Mendonça RS, Skoracka A, Szydło W, KnihinickiD, Hein GL, Da Silva Pereira PRV, Truol G, Lau D. 2013.Wheat curl mite, Aceria tosichella, and transmitted viruses:an expanding pest complex affecting cereal crops.Experimental and Applied Acarology 59:95–143.doi:10.1007/s10493-012-9633-y

Oldfield GN, Proeseler G. 1996. Eriophyoid mites as vectors ofplant pathogens. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J,editors. Eriophyoid mites – their biology, natural enemiesand control. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.; p. 259–275.

Petanović R, Kielkiewicz M. 2010. Plant-eriophyoid mite inter-actions: specific and unspecific morphological alterations.Part II. Experimental and Applied Acarology 51:81–91.doi:10.1007/s10493-009-9328-1

The Plant List [INTERNET]. 2013. Version 1.1. Available from:http://www.theplantlist.org/

R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A Language andEnvironment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: RFoundation for Statistical Computing.

Seifers DL, Harvey TL, Martin J, Jensen SG. 1997. Identificationof the wheat curl mite as the vector of the High Plains virusof corn and wheat. Plant Disease 81:1161–1166.doi:10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.10.1161

Seifers DL, Martin T, Harvey TJ, Fellers JP, Stack J, Ryba-WhiteM, Haber S, Krokhin O, Spicer V, Lovat N, et al. 2008.Triticum mosaic virus: a new virus isolated from wheat inKansas. Plant Disease 92:808–817. doi:10.1094/PDIS-92-5-0808

Seifers DL, Martin TJ, Harvey TL, Fellers JP, Michaud JP. 2009.Identification of the wheat curl mite as the vector of triticummosaic virus. Plant Disease 93:25–29. doi:10.1094/PDIS-93-1-0025

Skoracka A. 2002. Two new species of eriophyoid mites (Acari:Eriophyoidea) from grasses in Poland. Zootaxa 54:1–15.

Skoracka A. 2004. Eriophyoid mites from grasses in Poland(Acari: Eriophyoidea). Genus supplement 13:1–205.

Skoracka A. 2009. Description of Abacarus lolii n. sp. (Acari:Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea), a cryptic species within a grass-feeding Abacarus complex. International Journal ofAcarology 35:405–417. doi:10.1080/01647950903292764

Skoracka A, Kuczyński L. 2012. Measuring the host specificityof plant-feeding mites based on field data – a case study ofthe Aceria species. Biologia 67:546–560. doi:10.2478/s11756-012-0025-x

Skoracka A, Kuczyński L, De Mendonça RS, Dabert M, SzydłoW, Knihinicki D, Truol G, Navia D. 2012. Cryptic specieswithin the wheat curl mite Aceria tosichella (Keifer) (Acari :Eriophyoidea), revealed by mitochondrial, nuclear and mor-phometric data. Invertebrate Systematics 26:417–433.doi:10.1071/IS11037

Skoracka A, Kuczyński L, Szydło W, Rector B. 2013. The wheatcurl mite Aceria tosichella (Acari: Eriophyoidea) is a com-plex of cryptic lineages with divergent host ranges: evidencefrom molecular and plant bioassay data. Biological Journalof the Linnean Society 109:165–180. doi:10.1111/bij.12024

Slykhuis JT. 1955. Aceria tulipae Keifer (Acarina: Eriophyidae)in relation to the spread of wheat streak mosaic.Phytopathology 45:116–128.

Smith L, De Lillo E, Amrine JW. 2010. Effectiveness of erio-phyid mites for biological control of weedy plants and chal-lenges for future research. Experimental and AppliedAcarology 51:115–149. doi:10.1007/s10493-009-9299-2

S-PLUS 7.0. 2005. Guide to Statistics. Vol. 2. Seattle: InsightfulCorporation, WA.

Styer WE, Nault LR. 1996. Corn and grain plants. In: LindquistEE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J, editors. Eriophyoid mites – theirbiology, natural enemies and control. Amsterdam: ElsevierScience B.V.; p. 611–618.

Van Leeuwen T, Vontas J, Tsagkarakou A, Dermauw W, Tirry L.2010. Acaricide resistance mechanisms in the two-spottedspider mite Tetranychus urticae and other important Acari:a review. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology40:563–572. doi:10.1016/j.ibmb.2010.05.008

Van Leeuwen T, Witters J, Nauen R, Duso C, Tirry L. 2010. Thecontrol of eriophyoid mites: state of the art and future chal-lenges. Experimental and Applied Acarology 51:205–224.doi:10.1007/s10493-009-9312-9

Walter GH, Benfield MD. 1994. Temporal host plant use in threepolyphagous Heliothinae, with special reference toHelicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren) (Noctuidae:Lepidoptera). Australian Journal of Ecology 19:458–465.doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1994.tb00512.x

Westphal E, Manson DCM. 1996. Feeding effects on host plants:gall formation and other distortions. In: Lindquist EE,Sabelis MW, Bruin J, editors. Eriophyoid mites – their biol-ogy, natural enemies and control. Amsterdam: ElsevierScience B.V.; p. 231–242.

International Journal of Acarology 427

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inni

peg]

at 2

1:57

15

Sept

embe

r 20

14