Brevipalpus phoenicis (false spider mite)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Species Vectored
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Detection and Inspection
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1936)
Preferred Common Name
- false spider mite
Other Scientific Names
- Brevipalpus macbridei Baker, 1949
- Brevipalpus papayensis Baker, 1949
- Brevipalpus pseudocuneatus Baker, 1949
- Brevipalpus yothersi Baker, 1949
- Tenuipalpus phoenicis Geijskes, 1939
International Common Names
- English: passion vine mite; red and black flat mite; red crevice mite; scarlet mite
- Spanish: agente causante de lepra explosiva en citrus; falsa aranuela roja (Argentina)
Local Common Names
- : acaro rojo de los cotricos
- Argentina: false araneula roja
- Brazil: acaro da leprose dos citros
- Netherlands: palmmijt
- BRVPPA (Brevipalpus papayensis)
- BRVPPH (Brevipalpus phoenicis)
- BRVPPS (Brevipalpus pseudocuneatus)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Chelicerata
- Class: Arachnida
- Subclass: Acari
- Superorder: Acariformes
- Suborder: Prostigmata
- Family: Tenuipalpidae
- Genus: Brevipalpus
- Species: Brevipalpus phoenicis
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page In describing this species Geijskes (1939) placed it in the genus Tenuipalpus - at this stage Brevipalpus was considered as a synonym of Tenuipalpus, until Baker (1945) reinstated it as a separate genus (see Brevipalpus). The species B. phoenicis is the only one in the genus Brevipalpus characterized to possess two sensory rods on tarsus II together with five dorsolateral hysterosoma (Pritchard and Baker, 1958).
Unaware of the extent of possible variation in certain characters of B. phoenicis, Baker (1949) named B. yothersi, B. mcbridei and B. papayensis as separate entities; this was based on the differences noticed in the size of the dorsolateral setae of the nymphs of yothersi and mcbridei and on the presence of a prominent edentation on the second palpal segment, as well as on the less-distinctive areolate pattern of the dorsum of the adults of B. papayensis. However, in later studies Pritchard and Baker (1951) found these characters to be intraspecific variations, and thus the three names were declared as synonyms of B. phoenicis.
The genus Brevipalpus Donnadieu, originally described in 1875, is separated into two major groups according to the marginal hysterosomal setae (González, 1975). The larger group has six pairs of these setae and contains 46 species including B. australis [B. californicus] (Pritchard and Baker, 1958). The other group has five pairs of these setae and contains nine species including B. phoenicis and B. obovatus. The division of this group is further based on the number of sensory rods (solenidia) on the distal part of tarsus II. Until 1975, B. phoenicis alone was known to possess a full combination of key characters, but in that year González (1975) described another four species sharing these characters. The reticulation of the dorsomedian propodosomal area and the length of the propodosomal setae distinguish B. phoenicis from the new species.
Nevertheless, the identification of this species has not been well documented, or has been outdated by the revision of Pritchard and Baker (1958) and González (1975). Hence it is desirable that this species is re-identified and redescribed.
DescriptionTop of page
B. phoenicis is a highly variable species, but can be readily distinguished in the adult stage from the other members of the genus by having five pairs of dorsolateral hysterosomal setae and two sensory rods on tarsus II. The chaetotaxy of false spider mite is described according to Haramoto (1969).
The larvae and nymphs also have five pairs of dorsolateral hysterosomal setae, but unlike the adults they have only one sensory rod, located posteriodistally on tarsus II. Morphologically, the immature stages of B. phoenicis resemble those of B. obovatus, and like the latter they are subjected to considerable variation in size and shape of some of the dorsal setae. The number and arrangement of the setae on the dorsum of idiosoma of the larva, protonymph and deutonymph conform to those of the adult and to the genus Brevipalpus (Pritchard and Baker, 1951). Twelve pairs of setae are present on the dorsum, three pairs on the propodosoma and nine pairs on the hysterosoma. Of the dorsal setae, dorsolateral hysterosomal setae I and II and dorsocentral hysterosomal seta III are the most variable in size and shape, varying from tiny and serrate to large, broadly lanceolate and serrate, similar to dorsal propodosomal setae II and III. The number of setae on the venter is not constant but increases from four pairs on the larva, five pairs on the protonymph, seven pairs on the deutonymph to eight pairs on the adult. These additions take place in the hysterosomal regions of the body. A pair of medioventral opisthosomal setae is present in the two nymphal and adult stages but not in the larval stage. The medioventral propodosomal setae, which are present in the larval, nymphal and adult stages, and the posterior medioventral metapodosomal setae, which are present only in the deutonymphal and adult stages, are filamentous and smooth. The remaining ventral setae are smooth.
In general, the size of an individual of a stage varies according to the availability of resources (Dosse, 1952). The average size (in µm) of different stages is given below according to Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna (1974b).
Body dimensions (µm):
Egg, L 90, W 59; larva, L 145, W 102; protonymph, L 192, W 115; deutonymph, L 238, W 135; adult male, L 268, W 135; adult female, L 277, W 140.
Length of legs (µm):
Larva, I 61, II 45, III 42; protonymph, I 77, II 61, III 52, IV 56; deutonymph, I 100, II 82, III 75, IV 77; adult male, I 147, II 126, III 112, IV 130; adult female, I 142, II 121, III 114, IV 121. These values reveal that the growth of this mite is rather rapid until it reaches the deutonymphal stage, and then is more or less static. The reason might be that in the adult stage most of the food consumed is utilized for the production of eggs, whereas in the earlier stages it is used for its own growth. These mites live longer than other Tetranychid mites, but are half the size.
DistributionTop of page
The false spider mite has a cosmopolitan distribution both in the continental and insular areas, and is found primarily throughout the tropics of the world (Haramoto, 1969). Although it has chiefly been found between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, it has also been recorded beyond this boundary. So far its northernmost incidence has been recorded in The Netherlands (Geijskes, 1939), and the southernmost record was in Argentina (Baker, 1949).
The few reports of recoveries of this mite from areas other than tropics probably represent temporary establishments as a result of dispersal from the generally favourable range into pockets of favourable environment (Haramoto, 1969). Hence the outbreaks of false spider mite reported in European glasshouses could be examples of such dispersal and fortuitous establishments. Since its initial description in The Netherlands in 1939, it was not observed again in Europe until 1951, when it was found infesting Phoenix canariensis in glasshouses in Vienna, Austria (Dosse, 1957). The only areas outside the tropics where it is firmly established are Florida, USA (Muma, 1958) and the Mediterranean region (Baker, 1949; Attiah, 1956; di Martino, 1960), where the climate is mild and similar to that of the tropics. Jeppson et al. (1975) reported that this mite is distributed in the following locations: The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Italy, Kenya, Tanganyika, Ethiopia, Mauritius, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Syria, USA (Hawaii, California, Texas, District of Columbia, Florida), Cuba, Trinidad, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Japan (Okinawa), Philippines and Australia. Meyer (1979) and Ochoa et al. (1996) published records of its distribution in Africa and Latin America, respectively. A distribution map of this pest has been compiled by the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London (now CABI Bioscience, Egham) (CIE, 1970).
This mite is not endemic to the type locality, and hence it is speculated that it might have a tropical origin (Haramoto, 1969). However, a critical analysis of the literature concerning its distribution reveals that, even in the tropical region, it is concentrated more in elevated areas although it may be found elsewhere in smaller numbers. Therefore it is possible that B. phoenicis originated somewhere in the Mediterranean belt and was disseminated to different parts of the world by traders.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 19 Aug 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Angola||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Burundi||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Cameroon||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Central African Republic||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Congo, Democratic Republic of the||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Egypt||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Ethiopia||Present||Jeppson et al. (1975); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Kenya||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Malawi||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Mauritania||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Mauritius||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Morocco||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Mozambique||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Nigeria||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Réunion||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Rwanda||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Saint Helena||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|South Africa||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Sudan||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Tanzania||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Tunisia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Uganda||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Zimbabwe||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Bangladesh||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|China||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Georgia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Hong Kong||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|India||Present, Widespread||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Assam||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Haryana||Present||Anupam Tagore and Putatunda (2004); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Himachal Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Jharkhand||Present||Rabindra Prasad et al. (2006); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Karnataka||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Kerala||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Madhya Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Punjab||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-West Bengal||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); Gupta and Shreya Mitra (2014); EPPO (2020)|
|Indonesia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Java||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Sumatra||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Iran||Present||Arbabi et al. (2002); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Israel||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Japan||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Ryukyu Islands||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Lebanon||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Malaysia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Sabah||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Myanmar||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Oman||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Pakistan||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Philippines||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Sri Lanka||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Syria||Present||Jeppson et al. (1975); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Taiwan||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Tajikistan||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Thailand||Present||Yano et al. (1995); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Turkey||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Yemen||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Austria||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Cyprus||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|France||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Greece||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Hungary||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Italy||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Sicily||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Netherlands||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Poland||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Portugal||Present, Localized||EPPO (2020); CABI/EPPO (2013)|
|-Azores||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Madeira||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Spain||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Canary Islands||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Ukraine||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Costa Rica||Present||Aguilar-Piedra and Solano-Guevara (2020); Aguilar and Murillo (2012); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|Cuba||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Dominican Republic||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|El Salvador||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Guadeloupe||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Guatemala||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Honduras||Present||Rodrigues et al. (2007); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Jamaica||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Mexico||Present||Rosas-Acevedo and Sampedro-Rosas (2006); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Panama||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Puerto Rico||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|United States||Present, Localized||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-California||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-District of Columbia||Present||Jeppson et al. (1975); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Florida||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Hawaii||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Maryland||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Texas||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Australia||Present, Localized||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Queensland||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Western Australia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Cook Islands||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Fiji||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|French Polynesia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|New Caledonia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|New Zealand||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Norfolk Island||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Papua New Guinea||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Samoa||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Solomon Islands||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Tonga||Present||APPPC (1987); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Argentina||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Bolivia||Present||Gómez et al. (2005); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Brazil||Present, Widespread||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Amazonas||Present||Rodrigues et al. (2008); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Bahia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Fernando de Noronha||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Goias||Present||Miranda et al. (2007); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|-Maranhao||Present||Moraes et al. (2006); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Mato Grosso||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||Spongoski et al. (2005); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Parana||Present||Maia and Buzzi (2006); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Pernambuco||Present||Rosa et al. (2005); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Rio de Janeiro||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||Moraes et al. (1995); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Rondonia||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Santa Catarina||Present||Chiaradia and Souza (2001); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Sergipe||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Tocantins||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Chile||Present||IPPC (2010); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Colombia||Present||León et al. (2006); CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Ecuador||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Guyana||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Paraguay||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|Venezuela||Present||CABI/EPPO (2013); EPPO (2020)|
Habitat ListTop of page
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
The first report of a host plant of B. phoenicis was Phoenix sp., a greenhouse palm (Geijskes, 1939). Since then, many different plants have been reported as infested by this species of mite in different parts of the world (Cromroy, 1958; Pritchard and Baker, 1958; Baker and Pritchard, 1960; de Leon, 1961; Rimoando, 1962; Haramoto, 1969; Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna, 1974a). Of these, Pritchard and Baker (1958) listed 63 host plant genera, and Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna (1974a) listed 35 genera in India alone. Jeppson et al. (1975) listed citrus, tea, coffee, peach, papaya, loquat, coconut, apple, pear, guava, olive, fig, walnut and grape as its principal hosts.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Abutilon (Indian mallow)||Malvaceae||Other|
|Acalypha hispida (Copperleaf)||Euphorbiaceae||Other|
|Ageratina adenophora (Croftonweed)||Asteraceae||Other|
|Alcea rosea (Hollyhock)||Malvaceae||Other|
|Anacardium occidentale (cashew nut)||Anacardiaceae||Other|
|Annona squamosa (sugar apple)||Annonaceae||Other|
|Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit)||Moraceae||Other|
|Bauhinia (camel's foot)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Callistemon (Bottle brush)||Myrtaceae||Other|
|Camellia sinensis (tea)||Theaceae||Main|
|Canna indica (canna lilly)||Cannaceae||Other|
|Carica papaya (pawpaw)||Caricaceae||Main|
|Citrus aurantium (sour orange)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus limon (lemon)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus medica (citron)||Rutaceae||Other|
|Citrus reticulata (mandarin)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus sinensis (navel orange)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)||Rutaceae||Other|
|Clerodendrum (Fragrant clerodendron)||Lamiaceae||Other|
|Cocos nucifera (coconut)||Arecaceae||Main|
|Coffea arabica (arabica coffee)||Rubiaceae||Main|
|Cordyline fruticosa (ti plant)||Agavaceae||Other|
|Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm)||Arecaceae||Other|
|Eriobotrya japonica (loquat)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Ficus carica (common fig)||Moraceae||Main|
|Gerbera (Barbeton daisy)||Asteraceae||Other|
|Helianthus annuus (sunflower)||Asteraceae||Other|
|Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (China-rose)||Malvaceae||Other|
|Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato)||Convolvulaceae||Other|
|Jatropha curcas (jatropha)||Euphorbiaceae||Other|
|Litchi chinensis (lichi)||Sapindaceae||Other|
|Malpighia glabra (acerola)||Malpighiaceae||Other|
|Malus domestica (apple)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Mangifera indica (mango)||Anacardiaceae||Other|
|Melicoccus bijugatus (Spanish lime)||Sapindaceae||Other|
|Mimosa (sensitive plants)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Nerium oleander (oleander)||Apocynaceae||Other|
|Olea europaea subsp. europaea (European olive)||Oleaceae||Main|
|Passiflora edulis (passionfruit)||Passifloraceae||Other|
|Phoenix (date palm)||Arecaceae||Other|
|Phoenix dactylifera (date-palm)||Arecaceae||Main|
|Prunus persica (peach)||Rosaceae||Main|
|Psidium guajava (guava)||Myrtaceae||Main|
|Pyrostegia venusta (Goldenshower)||Bignoniaceae||Other|
|Senna siamea (yellow cassia)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Senna siamea (yellow cassia)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Solanum melongena (aubergine)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Spathodea campanulata (African tulip tree)||Bignoniaceae||Other|
|Swietenia mahagoni (Cuban mahogany)||Meliaceae||Other|
|Theobroma cacao (cocoa)||Malvaceae||Other|
|Zea mays (maize)||Poaceae||Other|
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page
Although false spider mite is considered to be polyphagous, it is thought to cause serious crop losses on citrus (Muma, 1964; Knorr and Denmark, 1970), tea (Baptist and Ranaweera, 1955; Rao, 1970; Danthanarayana and Ranaweera, 1972; Kalshoven and van der Laan, 1981; Oomen, 1982) and papaya (Haramoto, 1969). Losses on citrus due to this mite can be enormous.
Mites belonging to the family Tenuipalpidae feed in the same way as the Tetranychidae, by continually punching the leaf epidermis with their chelicerae (Jeppson et al., 1975). The sap that oozes out of the wounded leaf cells is mixed with saliva and imbibed into the digestive tract of the mite (Haramoto, 1969). The necrotic spots are visible as a brownish, shaded area on the affected leaves, and the affected leaf can be seen filled with red coloured eggs and white empty moults (Oomen, 1982).
In tea, damage is caused by sucking sap from the stems and leaves, producing a characteristic necrotic brown spot extending along the midribs and borders of the leaves. The whole underside becomes brown, which may lead to defoliation and subsequently reduce the production of green tea leaves (Benjamin, 1968; Oomen, 1982). It is typical for affected bushes to have a thin canopy of maintenance leaves causing increased light penetration into the frame of the bush, which permits the growth of mosses and lichens. This is a traditional indication to planters that the tea bushes are in poor condition, although they are often not aware of the relation with false spider mite infestation.
On papaya plants, this mite usually feeds on the trunk at the level where the bottom whorl of leaves is attached. As intraspecific competition for food and space intensifies, the mites feed upwards on the trunk and outwards onto the leaf petioles and fruits, leaving a large, conspicuous, damaged area behind them. The immediate area around the feeding puncture becomes raised and blister-like, as though caused by a toxic substance. Later the affected tissue dries up, dies and becomes discoloured. As many punctures occur close together, the affected areas coalesce to form a large and continuous area which is callous-like, tannish and scaly and/or scabby. The feeding becomes pronounced when young papaya fruits are attacked, as the affected areas become sunken due to the differential growth of the injured and uninjured tissues. The mites sometimes puncture the latex glands while feeding, causing a copious outflow of a milky white liquid that mars the appearance of the fruits. All stages of the mite in the path of the flow of sticky latex are engulfed and drowned in it. The papaya stem, which normally remains green for a long time, becomes tannish and suberized in appearance, and makes spindly growth when heavily infested by B. phoenicis (Haramoto, 1969).
The damage caused by false spider mite is of a higher magnitude on citrus than any other crop plants, including tea and papaya. On citrus, it can cause Brevipalpus gall and halo scab with phoenicis blotch - a combination of fungus and mite attack (Knorr and Denmark, 1970; Carter, 1973). Plants attacked by the mite produce galls in the nodal region, which eventually the hinder the sprouting of new buds. The gall-like protuberances may be barely visible and woody. They look like axes that have proliferated to resemble a bud-studded cushion. No leaves develop at the axis occupied by these cushions, and when the buds are replaced by the cushions the trees become devoid of leaves and soon die. Gall formation follows the initial loss of leaves; adventitious buds sprout but are successively killed, producing hypertrophies at the bud loci (Knorr et al., 1960; Knorr, 1964; Jeppson et al., 1975). This type of symptom is common among seedlings, which ultimately die. The fungus Elsinoë fawcetti causes scab on sour orange without causing leaf drop; however, when scab lesions are also colonized by B. phoenicis, leaf drop is conspicuous. The combination of fungus and mite attack in the nursery could pose a serious problem. High populations of false spider mite are associated with a diffuse chlorotic spotting in orange trees. When such chlorotic spottings increase, they reduce the area of photosynthesis, ultimately reducing fruit production. As well as causing feeding damage, the mite transmits a viral disease caused by citrus leprosis rhabdovirus (Kitajima et al., 1972; Carter, 1973). A disease of oranges known in Argentina as 'lepra explosiva', originally thought to be caused by a fungus (Marchionatto, 1935) and later by a virus (Marchionatto, 1938; Blanchard, 1939), is now attributed to toxins injected by Brevipalpus obovatus in the process of feeding (Carter, 1952). B. phoenicis has also been collected from orange trees exhibiting these symptoms in Paraguay (Nickel, 1958).
In addition to these symptoms, B. phoenicis can cause pitting and splitting of the skin of orange fruits (Planes, 1954); scarring of tangerine fruits (Nickel, 1958); defoliation and vine dieback of passion fruit (Haramoto, 1969); and splitting of guava fruits (Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna, 1974b). It also transmits coffee ringspot virus disease on coffee (Chagas, 1973).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Stems / discoloration of bark|
|Stems / honeydew or sooty mould|
|Stems / mould growth on lesion|
|Whole plant / distortion; rosetting|
|Whole plant / dwarfing|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Jeppson et al. (1975) stated that mites of the family Tenuipalpidae have a long life span compared with the two other economically important families, the Tetranychidae and Eriophyiidae. Many studies of the life history of B. phoenicis (Baptist and Ranaweera, 1955; Dosse, 1957; Razoux Schultz, 1961; Haramoto, 1969; Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna, 1974b; Lal, 1979; Oomen, 1982) have found the duration of development and fecundity to vary with temperature and humidity. Reports of different life stages by the authors listed above are in the following ranges (in days): egg 8.7-21.6; larva and protochrysalis 2.8-10.4; protonymph and deutochrysalis 2.1-8.4; deutonymph and teleochrysalis 2.1-8.3; total development time 15.7-47.7.
B. phoenicis has many similarities to the other well-known false spider mites B. obovatus and B. californicus, including their polyphagous nature, parthenogenetic mode of reproduction, fairly long life cycle, and tolerance to organophosphorus insecticides and acaricides (Haramoto, 1969). However, it also possesses certain attributes that appear to be distinct for this species, the most striking being its ability to thrive only within a fairly narrow temperature range, with very little mortality occurring during the developmental stages (Manglitz and Cory, 1953; Morishita, 1954).
The mites generally follow the classic pattern of fertilization and subsequent production of male and female progeny, but may also reproduce by parthenogenesis. The general mode of reproduction of B. phoenicis is thelytokous parthenogenesis (female offspring), and it has a haploid genome. This led Haramoto (1969) to assume that the genetic composition of the mite within an area is fairly uniform. Resistance to pesticides is less likely to be selected out from such a population because the gene pool is more limited than that of sexually reproducing species such as the spider mites. Haramoto (1969) suggested that this is probably the main reason why resistance to acaricides that were once effective has not been reported for false spider mites, whereas resistance to pesticides is a notorious and serious problem in the case of spider mites (Jeppson, 1961).
Males in the population of B. phoenicis are very few and rare. Razoux Schultz (1961) estimated the proportion of males on tea as about 1.5%, and Haramoto (1969) estimated the proportion on papaya as about 1%. The significance of the rarity of males and the mechanism of sex determination is not clear (Pijnaker et al., 1980).
Although males are very scarce in nature, Haramoto (1969) and Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna (1974b) observed mating in isolated instances. In every case, the males mated with non-gravid females about 1 day old and remained in copulation for between about 15 min (Haramoto, 1969) and 24 min (Nageshchandra and Channabasavanna, 1974b). During mating, the male approaches the female from the posterior, rests his two pairs of front legs on the dorsum of the female opisthosoma, and crawls beneath the female. Simultaneously, the opisthosoma of the male is bent upward and forward in a C-shape until the tip comes into contact with the posterior end of the female's opisthosoma. This attempt lasts for a few minutes, after which the male succeeds in fixing his posterior end into the female genital opening aided by vigorous shaking movements of the body. According to Haramoto (1969), mated females produce only female progeny, as do unmated females. Oomen (1982), from a personal communication of Helle, concludes that during copulation the transfer of sperm is ineffective. Kennedy (1995) observed mating in a single, isolated incident that lasted for 20 min. The mated female lived for another 22 days but surprisingly no eggs were produced. Hence the functional response of males in the population of false spider mites remains a mystery.
Haramoto (1969) stated that the genetic composition of B. phoenicis within an area is fairly uniform because of spanandry (the occurrence of few males in a thelytokous species). Resistance to pesticides is less likely to be selected out from such a population because the gene pool is more limited than that of sexually reproducing species such as the spider mites.
Contrary to the situation for the spider mites (Tetranychidae), karyotypic information on the false spider mites (Tenuipalpidae) is scarce. Two chromosomes (n=2) have been found in the somatic cells of Brevipalpus spp. (Helle and Bolland, 1972); the reproduction of B. phoenicis is haploid thelytoky, a character unique to B. californicus, B. obovatus and B. phoenicis in the whole animal kingdom. Hence it is postulated that spanandry and the occurrence of intersexes in the population of these mites are due to a critical sex balance (Helle et al., 1980; Pijnacker et al., 1980).
Nevertheless Wrensch et al. (1994), after observing the karyotype of B. obovatus mites published by Pijnacker et al. (1981), argue that the chromosomal number is 2n=2 rather than n=2. Females showing obligate thelytoky occasionally produce spanandric males, and males can be induced by irradiation. Both sexes have the same karyotype, and their 2n=2 ploidy is exceptional, being the lowest known in animals. No cells contain just one chromosome and the two chromosomes are heterologous. Their evolutionary success, however, is in the inverted meiotic sequences of their holokinetic chromosomes. An equatorial first division permits all four meiotic nuclei to contain both the chromosomes, and no restitution of nuclei is required. The formation of a singleton bivalent is accommodated by pre-meiotic doubling of the heterologous chromosome pair.
Bolland, Helle and co-workers examined photomicrographs of chromosomes of the family Tenuipalpidae, and correlated the chromosomal number with the phylogenetic trend. The phylogenetic relationship of the genera of the family Tenuipalpidae is determined by reduction of segmentation of the pedipalps. In more primitive genera (Aegytobia and Brevipalpus) the palpus has four or five segments; in more advanced genera the number of palpal segments is reduced. For example, there are three segments in Tenuipalpus, Raoiella and Dolichotetranychus, and as an extreme the palpus has a single segment in Obuloides. On the basis of this phylogenetic trend, n=2 was considered by this group to be the primitive number and n=3 to be more advanced. Although Wrensch et al. (1994) do not claim that such low numbers of chromosomes constitute a phylogenetic clade within the Tenuipalpidae, the euryphagy and economic importance of Brevipalpus mites suggest that the evolutionary vagility of such a superficially 'dead-end' genetic system (obligate thelytoky) works because of inverted meiosis.
B. phoenicis feeds mostly on perennial plants, which provide a comparatively stable, unmanipulated environment. However, their abundance and outbreaks vary with certain abiotic and biotic factors and with human manipulation of the ecosystem.
B. phoenicis usually co-exists with B. obovatus and B. californicus. The population density has never been observed to reach a point where food and space become limiting due to intra- and inter-specific competition, but may become limiting on individual plants. Under competition conditions, many individuals of B. phoenicis die from starvation or from predation by ants, predatory mites or spiders.
Haramoto (1969) stated that abundance of host plants, a warm and humid climate, and paucity of natural enemies favour the high population density of this mite. Baptist and Ranaweera (1955) and Oomen (1982) reported that this mite is more prevalent at high altitudes. However, Haramoto (1969) recorded higher numbers of B. phoenicis in the coastal regions of Hawaii than at higher altitudes. According to Laycock and Templer (1973) and Danthanarayana and Ranaweera (1972), the incidence of this mite appears to be higher in the drier months or after a prolonged drought. Muraleedharan and Chandrasekharan (1981) stated that the mite population in tea gardens increases with conducive weather conditions, i.e. moderately high temperature (25-30°C), high relative humidity (88-92%), low precipitation (10-12 mm), and longer duration of sunshine. Among the various weather parameters, low rainfall seems to be the most important single factor affecting the numerical abundance of the mite. However, Danthanarayana and Ranaweera (1974) suggested that the red carotinoid pigment rhodoxanthin, synthesized in tea leaves during the dry months, might act as a phagostimulant or a reproductive stimulant and contribute more than the rainfall levels to increasing the population.
Pruning reduces the population to practically zero. During the first 2 years after pruning, the populations multiply slowly and more or less exponentially. It takes 2-3 years to reach a harmful level in tea, and 1 year in papaya; after this period the populations develop high densities. Pruning interrupts this constancy and determines the basic periodicity of development (Baptist and Ranaweera, 1955; Cranham, 1966b; Haramoto, 1969; Oomen, 1982; Muraleedharan, 1990).
It is widely believed that the extensive use of fungicides, normally applied in the wetter months for control of blister blight in tea plantations, increases the incidence of mites, particularly red spider mite (Oligonychus coffeae) and purple tea mite (Calacarus carinatus) in addition to Brevipalpus spp. (Cranham, 1960, 1961, 1962; Venkata Ram, 1963; Anandakrishna, 1964). Oomen (1982) reported that copper fungicides may have a cumulative effect leading to outbreaks of false spider mite. Nevertheless, Cranham (1962) speculated that population increase of the mites in US citrus plantations due to the application of copper fungicides might not be due to the copper salts per se, but to the inert diluents or the physical nature of the deposit. Oomen (1982) suggested that copper fungicides do not aid the increase of mite populations by directly stimulating reproduction, but perhaps by way of trophobiosis.
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Exothorhis caudata||India; Assam||tea|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
The search for natural enemies of this mite began as early as 1958 in citrus plantations. Muma (1958) noted a strong negative correlation between summer/autumn infestations of B. phoenicis and a complex of Typhlodromus and Amblyseiopsis on citrus in Florida, USA. In Hawaii, Haramoto (1969) reported Phytoseiulus macropilis and Amblyseius largoensis as effective predators against this mite. However, there was no evidence that these predatory mites could live and reproduce exclusively on false spider mite. A prostigmatid predatory mite, Mexecheles hawaiiensis, has been reported from Florida citrus gardens (de Leon, 1962; Muma, 1964). Oomen (1982) recorded as many as 22 predatory mites including some unidentified species feeding on false spider mite: of these, the Amblyseius group was the most promising. Oomen (1982) estimated that this group of predators could check the population of false spider mite up to 82%.
In addition to the natural enemies listed, B. phoenicis is preyed upon by a large complex of Phytoseiidae, Coccinellidae, Staphylinidae, Cecidomyiidae etc.
ImpactTop of page
The intrinsic rate of natural increase of false spider mite reared under favourable laboratory conditions is fairly low when compared with other phytophagous mites. Nevertheless, the offspring of a single population would soon attain astronomical abundance (20 billion billion in 2 years) if left unchecked (Oomen, 1982), making control measures necessary.
B. phoenicis is the main vector of Citrus leprosis virus C (CiLV-C). It is recognized as the most damaging species in citrus-producing areas where the virus has been reported (Guillermo, 2012).
Detection and InspectionTop of page
A diagnostic Lucid key to 19 species of Brevipalpus is available in Flat Mites of the World.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Pruning, one of the main cultural practices in plantations, has been reported by many authors to control the build-up of B. phoenicis populations (Baptist and Ranaweera, 1955; Cranham, 1966a; Haramoto, 1969; Oomen, 1982; Muraleedharan, 1990). Pruning (along with the developmental stage of the crop in the pruning cycle) affects the distribution of mites and the intensity of outbreaks, as it removes a large part of the foliage and stem and also the mites feeding on them. Similarly, the intensity of shade tree cover in a plantation increases the mite population; regulated shade and avoidance of alternative hosts would help prevent the incidence of mites and other sucking insects.
Most of the economically important hosts of B. phoenicis are perennial plants, and the development of a resistant variety is thus a time-consuming process. Information regarding plant resistance for this pest is scarce, and confined only to tea. Muraleedharan (1991) reported that in tea, the Chinese varieties are generally more susceptible to mites than the Assam varieties of India. Kennedy and Hance (1995) confirmed this, suggesting that genes responsible for antibiosis-based resistance are present in the varieties originating from north-east India.
Oomen (1982) stated that the differences in the abundance of false spider mite on different host plants, the levelling off of numerical increase 2 years after pruning, and numerical increase after application of copper fungicides, are probably all caused by differences or changes in the resistance of the host plant. Hence resistance is very important as a factor restricting the multiplication of false spider mite in tea.
Chemical control involves costly inputs, including pesticides, fuel, labour and spraying equipment; thus the correct choice of pesticides, their dosage, timing and methods of application are of great importance. The misuse of pesticides and the improper execution of pest control technology may result in crop loss, health hazards, environmental pollution and pest resurgence.
Many chemicals with acaricidal properties have been available, but only a few can be used against this pest due to various limitations. Some pesticides that have been proven effective for the control of the common species of spider mites (Tetranychidae) have been shown to be ineffective against false spider mites (Tenuipalpidae) (Pritchard, 1949; Hamilton, 1953; Morishita, 1954). Some of the pesticides toxic to false spider mite cannot be used on certain kinds of plants because of their phytotoxic nature (for example, most of the organic pesticides were phytotoxic to papaya; Haramoto, 1969).
Muraleedharan (1990) lists the following as effective acaricides against false spider mite - chlorinated hydrocarbons: dicofol, tetradifon; organophosphates: ethion and quinalphos.
Sulfur has been a widely used pesticide against this pest over a long period in almost all crops affected (Jeppson et al., 1975). However, Cranham (1965) indicated that since sulfur does not have an ovicidal effect, it needs to be applied many times, leaving a yellow taint on the plants. Jeppson et al. (1975) also state that this mite is susceptible to dicofol, but not to the organophosphorus and carbamate compounds. In particular, the organophosphorus compounds such as malathion, fenitrothion and dimethaote are not generally useful (Cranham, 1966a). Crow (1965) and Prebble (1972) found that dicofol and dinocap were successful against attacks by this mite in Africa. Apart from these chemicals, bromopropylate, chinomethionat and mixtures of dicofol+tetradifon were found to be useful against these mites (Das and Gope, 1983; Oliviera et al., 1983; Roman, 1983). In Africa, permethrin and dimethoate were found to be effective (Sudoi, 1990).
A number of natural enemies of false spider mite have been recorded (see Natural Enemies), although there are no records of control in the field specifically by this method.
Integrated Pest Management
Although chemicals continue to play an important role as the first line of defence, their over-use poses an acute danger of environmental contamination, pesticidal hazards, resurgence and development of resistance. Hence it has become necessary to minimize their use by other available methods.
Although the use of chemicals against this mite is presently inevitable, their use can be minimized by integrating with other available methods. Mites should be dealt with by judicious use of acaricides and by agronomic practices such as hand plucking, shade regulation, etc.
ReferencesTop of page
Aguilar H, Murillo P, 2012. New hosts and records of plant feeding mites for Costa Rica: interval 2008-2012. (Nuevos hospederos y registros de ácaros fitófagos para Costa Rica: período 2008-2012.) Agronomía Costarricense, 36(2):11-28. http://www.mag.go.cr/rev_agr/index.html
Anandakrishna NR, 1964. Report of the Entomologist. Annual Report of Tea Science Department. India: UPASI, 40-46.
APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).
Attiah HH, 1956. The genus Brevipalpus in Egypt (Acarina:Tenuipalpidae). Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Egypte, 40:433-448.
Baker EW, 1949. The genus Brevipalpus (Acarina:Pseudoleptidae). Am. Midl. Nat., 42(2):350-402.
Baker EW, Pritchard AE, 1960. The Tetranychid mites of Africa. Hilgardia, 29(11):455-574.
Baptist BA, Ranaweera DJW, 1955. The scarlet mites of the genus Brevipalpus as pest of tea in Ceylon. Tea Quarterly, 26:127-137.
Benjamin DM, 1968. Insects and mites on tea in Africa and adjacent islands. East African Agricultural and Forest Journal, 33(4):345-357.
Blanchard EE, 1939. Tres acaros daninos para los cultivos argentinos. Rev. Fac. Agron. La Plata, 24(3):11-18.
Carter W, 1952. Injuries to plants caused by insect toxins. II. Botanical Review, 18(10):680-721.
Carter W, 1973. Insect Relation to Plant Diseases. New York, USA: Wiley-Interscience.
Chiaradia LA, Souza LC, 2001. Population fluctuation of "leprosis mite" Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) in citrus orchards of the west of Santa Catarina. (Flutuação populacional do "ácaro da leprose" Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) em pomares de citros do Oeste Catarinense.) Pesquisa Agropecuária Gaúcha, 7(2):201-209.
Cranham JE, 1960. The mite pests of tea. Tea Quarterly, 31:5-9.
Cranham JE, 1961. Report of the Entomologist. Report of the Tea Research Institute, Ceylon for 1960, 58-65.
Cranham JE, 1962. Report of the Entomologist. Report of the Tea Research Institute, Ceylon for 1961, 71-80.
Cranham JE, 1965. Report of the Entomologist. Report of the Tea Research Institute, Ceylon for 1964, 74-89.
Cranham JE, 1966. Insect and mite pest of tea in Ceylon and their control. In Monographs on tea production in Ceylon No. 6. Talawakelle, Sri Lanka: Tea Research Institute.
Cranham JE, 1966. Tea pests and their control. Annual Review of Entomology, 11:491-514.
Cromroy HL, 1958. A preliminary survey of plant mites of Puerto Rico. Journal of Agricultural University of Puerto Rico, 92(2):39-144.
Crow TJ, 1965. Tea red crevice mite, Brevipalpus phoencis (Geijskes). Kenya Department of Agriculture (mimeo).
Danthanaraya W, Ranaweera DJW, 1972. The effect of rainfall and shade on the occurrence of three mite Pests of tea in Ceylon. Annals of Applied Biology, 70:1-12.
de Leon D, 1961. The genus Brevipalpus in Mexico, part II (Acarina:Tenuipalpidae). Florida Entomologist, 44(1):129-137.
de Leon D, 1962. Three new genera and seven new species of Cheyletids (Acarina:Cheyletidae). Florida Entomologist, 44(1):129-137.
di Martino E, 1960. Due nuovi acri dannosi agli agrumi in Italia. Inform. Fitopat., 9:356-358.
Dosse G, 1957. Comparative investigation on Brevipalpus phoenicis and Brevipalpus inornatus. Pflanzenschutzberuchte, 19:36-44.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Geier PW, 1966. Management of insect pests. Annual Review of Entomolgy, 11:471-490.
Geijskes DC, 1939. BeitrSge zur Knntnis der EuropSischen Soinmilben mit besonderer Berücksichitigung der MiederlSndischer Arten. Mededelingen Landbouwhoeschool, Wageningen, 42(2):1-68.
Gómez EC, Vargas MR, Rivadameira C, Locali EC, Freitas-Astua J, Astua-Monge G, Rodrigues JCV, Cobo NCM, Kitajima EW, 2005. First report of Citrus leprosis virus on citrus in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Plant Disease, 89(6):686. HTTP://www.apsnet.org
Gonzalez RH, 1975. Revision of the Brevipalpus phoenicis 'complex' with descriptions of new species from Chile and Thailand (Acarina, Tenuipalpidae). Acarologia, 17(1):81-91
Guillermo LM, 2012. Current status of the Citrus leprosis virus (CiLV-C) and its vector Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes). Agronomía Colombiana, 30(2):242-250. http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/agrocol/article/viewFile/28989/38944
IPPC, 2010. Actualización de la viligancia de Brevipalpus phoenicis. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. CHL-12/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Kennedy JS, 1995. Functional Ecology of the False Spider Mite, Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes). Dissertation doctoral, inFdit. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: UniversitF Catholique de Louvain.
Knorr LC, 1964. World citrus problems. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 12(6):35-42.
Knorr LC, Denmark HA, 1970. Injury to citrus by the mite, Brevipalpus phoenicis. Journal of Economic Entomology, 63:1996-1998.
Knorr LC, Webster BN, Malaguti G, 1960. Injuries in citrus attributed to Brevipalpus mites including Brevipalpus gall, a newly reported disorder in sour-orange seedlings. Plant Protection Bulletin, 8(12):35-42.
León G, Freitas-Astúa J, Kitajima EW, Meza NC, 2006. Detection of the cytoplasmic Citrus Leprosis virus in the eastern plains of Colombia. (Detección del virus de la leprosis de los cítricos tipo citoplasmático en los Llanos Orientales de Colombia.) Revista Corpoica, 7(2):67-72. http://www.corpoica.org.co/Revistas/Revistas.asp
Maia OMde A, Buzzi ZJ, 2006. Occurrence of Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae), Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari, Tetranychidae) and Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari, Tarsonemidae) on leaves I. cairica (Linnaeus) Sweet (Solanales, Convolvulaceae). (Ocorrência de Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae), Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari, Tetranychidae) e Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari, Tarsonemidae) sobre folhas de Ipomoea cairica (Linnaeus) Sweet (Solanales, Convolvulaceae).) Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 23(3):886-887. http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/sbz
Micherdzinski W, 1966. Histtoria Akarolgii. Probl. Postpepow Nauk Wydz. Nauk Roln. Lesn., 65:7-21.
Miranda LC, Návia D, Rodrigues JCV, 2007. Brevipalpus mites Donnadieu (Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae) associated with ornamental plants in Distrito Federal, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, 36(4):587-592. http://www.scielo.br/ne
Moraes FHR, Belo WRF, Moraes GJ, Kitajima EW, 2006. Occurrence of passion fruit green spot virus in the passion fruit crop in the State of Maranhão, Brazil. (Ocorrência do vírus da pinta verde em maracujá no Estado do Maranhão, Brasil.) Fitopatologia Brasileira, 31(1):100. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/fb/v31n1/a19v31n1.pdf
Moraes LAH de, Braun J, Menezes Porto O de, Finkler LM, Mendes Gimenez PR, Camerini CC, Oliveria Conte Mde, 1995. Chemical control of leprosis mite Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) on citrus. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Gaucha, 1(1):7-11
Morishita FS, 1954. Biology and control of Brevipalpus inornatus (Banks). Tour. Econ. Ent., 14:449-456.
Muma M, 1958. Predators and parasites of citrus mites in Florida. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Entomology, 4:633-647.
Muma M, 1964. Cheyletidae (Acarina:Trombidiformes) associated with citrus in Florida. Florida Entomologist, 47(7):239-253.
Muma MH, 1961. Mites associated with citrus in Florida. University of Florida Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin No. 640.
Muraleedharan N, 1990. Pest Management in Tea: A Guide to Field Study and Control of Tea Pests in South India. Coimbatore, India: UPASI Tea Research Institute.
Muraleedharan N, Chandrasekharan R, 1981. Observations on the seasonal variations of Acaphylla thep Keifer and Calacarus carinatus (Green) (Acarina: Eriophyidae) in a tea field at the Anamalais (South India). Pestology, 5(6):11-15
Nageshchandra N, Channabasavanna GP, 1974. Biology of guava scarlet mite, Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acarina: Tenuipalpidae). Proceedings of 4th International Congress of Acarology. 167-176.
Nageshchandra N, Channabasavanna GP, 1974. Host plants of Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acarina: Tenuipalpidae) in India. Acarology News Letter, 2:3.
Nickel JL, 1958. Agricultural insects of Paraguayan Chaco. Journal of Economic Entomology, 51(5):633-637.
Ochoa R, Aguilar H, Evans G, Vargas C, 1996. Knowledge of phytophagous mites (Prostigmata) of Central America. In: Mitchell R, Horn DJ, Needham GR, Welbourn WC, eds. Acarology IX: Volume 1, Proceedings (of the IXth International Congress of Acarology, Columbus, Ohio, July 17-22, 1994). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Biological Survey. 181-184.
Oliveira CAL de, Silva JRT da, Rigotto EL, 1983. Control of the leprosis mite Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari-Tenuipalpidae) with chemical products on citrus crops. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 12(2):221-234
Pijnacker LP, Ferwerda MA, Helle W, 1981. Cytological investigations on the female and male reproductive system of the parthenogenetic privet mite Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadieu (Phytoptipalpidae, Acari). Acarologia, 22(2):157-163
Prebble KF, 1972. Red crevice mite, Brevipalpus phoenicis. Tea in East Africa, 13:27-30.
Pritchard AE, 1949. California green house pests and their control. California Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin, 713:1-71.
Pritchard AE, Baker EW, 1958. The false spider mites (Acarina: Tenuipalpidae). University of California Publications in Entomology, 14(3):175-274.
Rao GN, 1970. Tea pests in Southern India and their control. PANS, 16:667-672.
Rimoando LC, 1962. The Tetranychid mites of Philippines. University of Philippines-College of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, 11:1-59.
Rocha Santos Veloso V da, Silva AL da, Sanchez SEM, Rocha MRda, 1988. Chemical control of the mite Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari: Tenuipalpidae), transmitter of leprosis in citrus. Anais das Escolas de Agronomia e Veterinaria (Goiania), 18(1):141-149
Rodrigues JCV, Antony LMK, Salaroli RB, Kitajima EW, 2008. Brevipalpus-associated viruses in the central Amazon Basin. Tropical Plant Pathology, 33(1):12-19. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1982-56762008000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
Rodrigues JCV, Zuniga Reyes JA, Achor DS, Childers CC, Kitajima EW, 2007. Occurrence and distribution of Citrus leprosis virus in Honduras. Plant Pathology, 56(2):344. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/ppa
Rosa AA, Gondim Júnior MGC, Fiaboe KKM, Moraes GJde, Knapp M, 2005. Predatory mites associated with Tetranychus evansi Baker & Pritchard (Acari: Tetranychidae) on native solanaceous plants of coastal Pernambuco State, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, 34(4):689-692.
Rosas-Acevedo JL, Sampedro-Rosas L, 2006. Variability of Hirsutella thompsonii strains, isolated from phytophagous mites from three terrestrial systems in the State of Colima, México. (Variabilidad de cepas de Hirsutella thompsonii, a partir de ácaros fitófagos en tres sistemas terrestres del estado de Colima, México.) Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 77(1):7-16. http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx
Sayed MT, 1938. Sur une nouvelle sous-famille et deux nouveaux generes de tétanyques (Acarines). Bulletin de Muséum Nationale d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (série 2), 10:601-610.
Sayed MT, 1942. Contribution to the knowledge of the Acarina of Egypt: II. The genus Tenuipalpus Donnadieu (Tetranychidae). Soc. Fouad 1er Ent. Bull., 26:93-113.
Sayed MT, 1946. Description of Tenuipalpus granati nov. spec. and Brevipalpus pyri nov. spec.. Bulletin de la Société Fouad 1ere d'Entomologie, 30:99-104.
Sayed MT, 1950. Description of a new genus and two species of the family Tenuipalpidae Sayed (Acarina). Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Entomology, 1018-1021.
Spongoski S, Reis PR, Zacarias MS, 2005. Acarofauna of cerrado's coffee crops in Patrocínio, Minas Gerais. (Acarofauna da cafeicultura de cerrado em Patrocínio, Minas Gerais.) Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 29(1):9-17.
Suski ZW, Naegele JA, 1963. Light responses in the two spotted mite. 2. Behaviour of the 'Sedentary' and 'Dispersal' phases. Advances in Acarology, 1:445-453.
Venkata Ram CS, 1963. Report of the Plant Pathologist. Annual Report of Tea Science Department, UPASI (South India): 29-39.
Wrensch DL, Kethley JB, Norton RA, 1994. Cytogenetics of holokinetic chromosomes and inverted meiosis:keys to the evolutionary success of mites, with generalisations on eukaryotes. In: Marilyn AH, ed. Evolutionary Analyses of Life-History Patterns. New York, USA: Chapman & Hall, 283-343.
Aguilar H, Murillo P, 2012. New hosts and records of plant feeding mites for Costa Rica: interval 2008-2012. (Nuevos hospederos y registros de ácaros fitófagos para Costa Rica: período 2008-2012.). Agronomía Costarricense. 36 (2), 11-28. http://www.mag.go.cr/rev_agr/index.html
Aguilar-Piedra H, Solano-Guevara A M, 2020. New hosts and records of plant feeding mites for Costa Rica: interval 2013-2018. (Nuevos hospederos y registros de ácaros fitófagos para Costa Rica: período 2013-2018.). Agronomía Costarricense. 44 (1), 9-28. http://www.mag.go.cr/rev_agr/v44n01_009.pdf
APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. In: Technical Document No. 135, Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Chiaradia L A, Souza L C, 2001. Population fluctuation of "leprosis mite" Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) in citrus orchards of the west of Santa Catarina. (Flutuação populacional do "ácaro da leprose" Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) em pomares de citros do Oeste Catarinense.). Pesquisa Agropecuária Gaúcha. 7 (2), 201-209.
Gómez E C, Vargas M R, Rivadameira C, Locali E C, Freitas-Astua J, Astua-Monge G, Rodrigues J C V, Cobo N C M, Kitajima E W, 2005. First report of Citrus leprosis virus on citrus in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Plant Disease. 89 (6), 686. HTTP://www.apsnet.org DOI:10.1094/PD-89-0686A
IPPC, 2010. (Actualización de la viligancia de Brevipalpus phoenicis). In: IPPC Official Pest Report, No. CHL-12/2, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
León G, Freitas-Astúa J, Kitajima E W, Meza N C, 2006. Detection of the cytoplasmic Citrus Leprosis virus in the eastern plains of Colombia. (Detección del virus de la leprosis de los cítricos tipo citoplasmático en los Llanos Orientales de Colombia.). Revista Corpoica. 7 (2), 67-72.
Maia O M de A, Buzzi Z J, 2006. Occurrence of Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae), Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari, Tetranychidae) and Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari, Tarsonemidae) on leaves I. cairica (Linnaeus) Sweet (Solanales, Convolvulaceae). (Ocorrência de Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae), Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari, Tetranychidae) e Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari, Tarsonemidae) sobre folhas de Ipomoea cairica (Linnaeus) Sweet (Solanales, Convolvulaceae).). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. 23 (3), 886-887. http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/sbz DOI:10.1590/S0101-81752006000300038
Miranda L C, Návia D, Rodrigues J C V, 2007. Brevipalpus mites Donnadieu (Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae) associated with ornamental plants in Distrito Federal, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. 36 (4), 587-592. http://www.scielo.br/ne DOI:10.1590/S1519-566X2007000400018
Moraes F H R, Belo W R F, Moraes G J, Kitajima E W, 2006. Occurrence of passion fruit green spot virus in the passion fruit crop in the State of Maranhão, Brazil. (Ocorrência do vírus da pinta verde em maracujá no Estado do Maranhão, Brasil.). Fitopatologia Brasileira. 31 (1), 100. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/fb/v31n1/a19v31n1.pdf DOI:10.1590/S0100-41582006000100019
Moraes L A H de, Braun J, Menezes Porto O de, Finkler L M, Mendes Gimenez P R, Camerini C C, Oliveria Conte M de, 1995. Chemical control of leprosis mite Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) on citrus. (Controle químico do 'ácaro de leprose' Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae) em citrus.). Pesquisa Agropecuária Gaúcha. 1 (1), 7-11.
Rodrigues J C V, Antony L M K, Salaroli R B, Kitajima E W, 2008. Brevipalpus-associated viruses in the central Amazon Basin. Tropical Plant Pathology. 33 (1), 12-19. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1982-56762008000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en DOI:10.1590/S1982-56762008000100003
Rodrigues J C V, Zuniga Reyes J A, Achor D S, Childers C C, Kitajima E W, 2007. Occurrence and distribution of Citrus leprosis virus in Honduras. Plant Pathology. 56 (2), 344. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/ppa DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01520.x
Rosa A A, Gondim Júnior M G C, Fiaboe K K M, Moraes G J de, Knapp M, 2005. Predatory mites associated with Tetranychus evansi Baker & Pritchard (Acari: Tetranychidae) on native solanaceous plants of coastal Pernambuco State, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. 34 (4), 689-692. DOI:10.1590/S1519-566X2005000400021
Rosas-Acevedo J L, Sampedro-Rosas L, 2006. Variability of Hirsutella thompsonii strains, isolated from phytophagous mites from three terrestrial systems in the State of Colima, México. (Variabilidad de cepas de Hirsutella thompsonii, a partir de ácaros fitófagos en tres sistemas terrestres del estado de Colima, México.). Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad. 77 (1), 7-16. http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx
Spongoski S, Reis P R, Zacarias M S, 2005. Acarofauna of cerrado's coffee crops in Patrocínio, Minas Gerais. (Acarofauna da cafeicultura de cerrado em Patrocínio, Minas Gerais.). Ciência e Agrotecnologia. 29 (1), 9-17. DOI:10.1590/S1413-70542005000100001
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/