Share this article    

              

       

Proprioseiopsis zaheri n. sp. (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from Egypt with a key to the Proprioseiopsis species reported from the country

Sanad, Ahmad Said ¹ and Abo-Shnaf, Reham ²

¹✉ Vegetable and Aromatic Plant Mites Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre, 12611 Dokii, Giza, Egypt.
²Vegetable and Aromatic Plant Mites Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre, 12611 Dokii, Giza, Egypt.

2024 - Volume: 64 Issue: 1 pages: 213-220

https://doi.org/10.24349/m6nx-xe6j
ZooBank LSID: 98208AB1-DC84-46EF-9923-F43901574944

---

Original research

Keywords

taxonomy Proprioseiopsina predators giant reed plant

Abstract

---

Introduction

Arundo donax L. (Poaceae), known as giant reed, is native to the Mediterranean region and has been cultivated throughout the world for a long time, to make mats, roofs, for erosion control and as an ornamental (Neal 1965; Wagner et al. 1999). In Egypt, this plant is commonly found and can be identified in ancient temple drawings (Neal 1965). It has been mentioned to act as a banker plant for many species of predacious mites (Metwally et al. 2013).

Phytoseiidae is a mite family of plant inhabiting predators cited as biological control agents of several agricultural arthropod pests (Gerson et al. 2003; McMurtry et al. 2013, 2015). Some species of this family have been extensively used as biological control agents of these pests (Sanad and Hassan 2019; Elhalawany et al. 2019, 2021; Lopez 2023).

Proprioseiopsis Muma is a phytoseiid genus that contains about 168 valid species worldwide (Demite et al. 2014, 2023). Ten species of this genus have been reported from Egypt to date, including the new species here described (Nasr and Abou-Awad 1985; Zaher 1986; El-Halawany and Abdel-Samad 1990; Basha and Yousef 2000; Abo-Shnaf and Moraes 2014; Abo-Shnaf et al. 2019; Abo-Shnaf and Zaki 2022). Some Proprioseiopsis species have been studied to assess their possible role as bio-control agents, e.g., Proprioseiopsis asetus (Chant), P. rotundus (Muma), P. messor (Wainstein), P. cabonus (Schicha & Elshafie), and P. badryi (El-Borolossy) (Abou-setta et al. 1997; Fouly 1997; Abou-Awad et al. 1998; El-Hady 2005; Momen et al. 2011; Abdel-Khalek and Momen 2022).

The objective of the present study is to describe a new Proprioseiopsis species based on adult females and provide an updated identification key to the species of this genus recorded from Egypt.

Material and methods

Leaf samples of A. donax were collected at Al Khatatbah, Monufia governorate, Egypt, and transported to a laboratory for examination under a dissecting microscope. The phytoseiids found were mounted on microscopic slides in Hoyer's medium and examined under a phase contrast (Olympus, BHA) microscope. Taxonomically important structures were illustrated with the help of a drawing tube attached to the microscope, and measured with a graded eyepiece. Measurements are given in micrometers, representing the average followed, in parentheses, by the respective ranges. The values shown as widths of the dorsal shield refer to maximum width (immediately posterior to the level of setae s4). The indicated numbers of teeth on the cheliceral digits do not include the respective apical hook. Mite identification at the generic level was based on Chant and McMurtry (2007). Setal nomenclature follows Rowell et al. (1978) and Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1991) respectively for the dorsal and the ventral surfaces of the idiosoma. Idiosomal setal pattern follows Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1992). The notation of solenostomes and poroids follows that of Athias-Henriot (1975). Coordinates provided are approximate, as these were not taken at the time the samples were collected. All mite specimens were collected by the senior author of this work.

Results and discussion

Systematics

Tribe Amblyseiini Muma

Subtribe Proprioseiopsina Chant & McMurtry, 2004: 219, 2007: 85

Proprioseiopsis Muma, 1961: 277; Chant and McMurtry 2005: 9, 2007: 87.

sandersi group, Chant, 1959: 102.

belizensis species group, Chant & McMurtry, 2005: 13.

belizensis species subgroup, Chant & McMurtry, 2005: 13.

Proprioseiopsis zaheri n. sp.

ZOOBANK: 256848A2-2C36-4471-BAB3-4174CADDA849

Figure 1 (a-e)

Diagnosis

Females of this new species have seta S2 about twice as long as Z1, setae S4 and S5 about half as long as s4, ratio setae s4: Z1 \textgreater3, seta z4 about 1.7 as long as z2, seta Z4 slightly shorter than Z5, and seta S2 > S4 > S5, all setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5, slightly serrate; peritreme reaching level of j1; ventrianal shield subpentagonal, longer than wide; calyx of spermatheca saccular; fixed cheliceral digit with two teeth, movable digit with one tooth; leg IV with three sharp-tipped macrosetae, macrosetae on other legs quite short (genua II and III, and tibia III), chaetotaxy of genua I-IV: 2,2/1, 2/1,2; 2,2/1, 2/0,1; 1,2/1,2/0,1; 1,2/1, 2/0,1.

Female (n = three specimens measured)

Gnathosoma (Fig. 1a) — Corniculi convergent; about 18 (16–21) long, basal width of corniculus 4 (4–5). Fixed cheliceral digit 31 (29–34) long, with two subapical teeth and pilus dentilis; movable digit 32 (31–34) long, with one tooth; dorsal and antiaxial lyrifissures distinct.

Dorsum (Fig. 1b) — Dorsal shield oval with a slight constriction at level of R1; smooth, except few anterolateral striae, and a pair of patches of scant reticulation mediad S2; length of dorsal shield 404 (382–432), width 272 (255–283). Dorsal setal pattern 10A:8E, with 16 pairs of setae on the dorsal shield (r3 and R1 off the shield), twelve pairs of poroids (id1, id4, idm1-idm3, idm5, idm6, idl1, idl3, idl4, is1, and idx), and seven pairs of solenostomes (gd1, gd2, gd4-gd6, gd8, and gd9). Length of dorsal setae as follows: j1 30 (27–31), j3 55 (55–56), j4 9, j5 10 (9–10), j6 15 (13–16), J5 13, z2 39 (34–43), z4 64 (61–68), z5 7 (7–8), Z1 26 (26–27), Z4 80 (73–85), Z5 87 (81–94), s4 77 (73–82), S2 47 (36–53), S4 35 (27–40), S5 31 (30–33), r3 28 (27–29), and R1 26 (25–27). All dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5, slightly serrate. Peritreme extending anteriorly to level of j1.

Venter (Fig 1c) — Ventral setal pattern JV-3:ZV. Pre-sternal region slightly striate. Sternal shield slightly reticulate anterolaterally, smooth elsewhere; fused with endopodal plates, with distinct lateral extensions between coxae I-II bearing a solenostome (gst1) on each distal end; with three pairs of setae (st1-st3) and two pairs of poroids (iv1 and iv2); posterior margin slightly concave, with tiny teeth. Seta st4 and poroid (iv3) on roundish punctate metasternal platelets. Distances st1-st1 56 (56–57), st2-st2 78 (77–79), st3-st3 87 (82–91), st4-st4 85 (77–93), st1-st3 69 (66–70). Genital shield smooth; distance st5-st5 92 (86–96); iv5 posterolaterad st5. Ventrianal shield subpentagonal, reticulate; 148 (146–151) long, width at level of ZV2 140 (133–147) and width at level of anus 109 (107–112); bearing three pairs of pre-anal setae (JV1, JV2, and ZV2), the circumanal setae, and a pair of small rounded solenostomes (gv3) posteromesad JV2. With four transversely elongate punctate platelets between genital and ventrianal shields; with four pairs of setae (JV4, JV5, ZV1, and ZV3), a pair of tiny platelets, and four pairs of poroids (ivo and ivp) on integument surrounding ventrianal shield. Seta JV5 smooth, much longer than other ventral setae 69 (66–72) long. Two pairs of punctate metapodal plates, anterior plate 17 (16–20) long and 3 wide, posterior plate 29 (27–31) long and 6 (5–7) wide.

Spermatheca (Fig. 1d) — Calyx saccular, flaring slightly near vesicle, 12 (10–13) long; atrium distinct, elongate.

Legs (Fig. 1e) — Macrosetae sharp-tipped: Sge II 26 (23–29), Sge III 27 (23–29), Sti III 28 (25–29), Sge IV 49 (47–52), Sti IV 33 (31–34), St IV 94 (90–98); chaetotaxy of genu II 2, 2/1, 2/0, 1; genu III 1, 2/1, 2/0, 1.

Type specimens

Holotype female and two paratype females collected from leaves of A. donax, at Al Khatatbah (30°49′13.19″E, 30°21′34.38″N), Monufia governorate, Egypt, in Mar. 2023; all deposited at the mite reference collection of the Egyptian Society of Acarology Museum (ESAM), Zoology and Agricultural Nematology Department, the Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza governorate, Egypt.

Etymology

The specific name ''zaheri'' is used in honour of late Professor M.A. Zaher, a pioneer Egyptian acarologist.

Remarks

The new species belongs to the belizensis species subgroup (for the saccular spermathecal calyx) of the belizensis species group (for lacking macroseta on genu I) of Chant and McMurtry (2005). Within this subgroup, it is most similar to Proprioseiopsis badryi (El-Borolossy, in Nasr and Abou-Awad 1985), P. beatus (Chaudhri, 1968), P. campanulus Karg, 1979, P. dacus (Wainstein, 1973), P. dentatus Chaudhri, Akbar & Rasool, 1979, and P. okanagensis (Chant, 1957). The main differences between P. zaheri and those species are shown in Table 1.

In P. beatus, the ventrianal shield is triangular; P. dentatus has longer Z1 and s4 (39 and 83, respectively), and ventrianal shield wider than long; P. badryi has most dorsal setae serrate and seta Z4 longer than Z5, S4 longer and S5 shorter (50 and 19, respectively), and ventrianal shield subtriangular; P. campanulus has seta z2 half as long and S2 twice as long (20 and 100, respectively), ventrianal shield subtriangular, and spermatheca saccular with enlarged atrium; P. dacus has setae j1 and S5 half as long, and S4 0.3 as long (16, 15, and 10, respectively); and P. okanagensis has setae S4 and S5 of similar lengths, both less than half as long as in the new species; additionally, females of P. okanagensis has about eight teeth in the fixed cheliceral digit.

Differently from what was mentioned by Evans (1963) for the phytoseiids, genu II of the new species here described has eight setae (av present: 2,2/1, 2/0,1), as also reported for many other Proprioseiopsis species.

Key to species of Proprioseiopsis reported from Egypt

According to the original description, seta r3 of P. sharkiensis Basha & Yousef, 2000, is inserted on the dorsal shield, as considered in this key. However, there is a chance it is actually in the unsclerotized cuticle, as the margin of the shield is mentioned by the authors of the species to be folded in the holotype. Unfortunately, we could not examine the holotype or additional specimens.

1. Seta r3 off dorsal shield
...... 2

— Seta r3 on dorsal shield
...... 9

2. Seta z2 < z4 or z2 > z4
...... 3

— Setae z2 and z4 subequal in lengt
...... P. ismailiaensis Abo-Shnaf & Moraes, 2014

3. Seta z2 > z4
...... 4

— Seta z2 < z4
...... 6

4. Seta Z4 > Z5
...... 5

— Seta Z4 < Z5
...... 7

5. Fixed digit of chelicera with seven teeth
...... P. salviae Abo-Shnaf & Zaki, 2022

— Fixed digit of chelicera with 3–4 teeth
...... P. ovatus (Garman, 1958)

6. Spermathecal calyx bell-shaped; setae j3, z2, z4, s4, S2, S4, Z4, and Z5 serrate; seta S4 about 1.7 times as long as S5
...... P. badryi (El-Borolossy, in Nasr and Abou-Awad 1985)

— Spermathecal calyx saccular; only Z4 and Z5 slightly serrate; seta S4 about 1.1 times as long as S5
...... P. zaheri n. sp.

7. Fixed cheliceral digit with ten teeth; spermathecal calyx pocular
...... P. aegypticus Abo-Shnaf, Momen & Lamlom, in Abo-Shnaf et al. 2019

— Fixed cheliceral digit with at most three teeth; spermathecal calyx not pocular
...... 8

8. Fixed digit of chelicera with one tooth; calyx of spermatheca saccular (over twice as long as diameter next to vesicle)
...... P. kadii (El-Halawany & Abdel-Samad, 1990)

— Fixed digit of chelicera with tree teeth; calyx bell-shaped (less than twice as long as diameter next to vesicle)
...... P. messor (Wainstein, 1960)

9. Seta Z4 about 1.2 as long as Z5
...... P. gizaensis Abo-Shnaf, Hassan & Lamlom, in Abo-Shnaf et al. 2019

— Seta Z4 about 0.7 as long as Z5
...... P. sharkiensis Basha & Yousef, 2000

Acknowledgements

To Dr Sally F. M. Allam (Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Egypt) for providing some facilities to complete the current study. To the reviewers of this manuscript for the effort they did to improve the quality of the work.

---

References

1. Abdel-Khalek A.A., Momen F.M. 2022. Biology and life table parameters of Proprioseiopsis lindquisti on three eriophyid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae: Eriophyidae). Persian J. Acarol., 11 (1): 59-69. https://doi.org/10.22073/pja.v11i1.68574
2. Abo-Shnaf R., Momen F.M., Hassan M.F., Lamlom M. 2019. Two new species of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Egypt, with a key to the Egyptian species of Proprioseiopsis Muma, Int. J. Acarol., 45 (8): 450-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2019.1671490
3. Abo-Shnaf R., Moraes G.J.de. 2014. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from Egypt, with new records, descriptions of new species, and a key to species. Zootaxa, 3865 (1): 1-71. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3865.1.1
4. Abo-Shnaf R., Zaki A.Y. 2022. A new species of Proprioseiopsis (Mesostigmata, Phytoseiidae), with a dichotomous key to reported species from Egypt. Acarologia, 62 (2): 352-358. https://doi.org/10.24349/inzn-l21b
5. Abou-Awad B.A., El-Sherif A.A., Hassan M.F., Abou-Elela M.M. 1998. Life history and life table of Amblyseius badryi, as a specific predator of eriophyid grass mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae: Eriophyidae). Z. Pflanzenk. Pflanzen., 105 (4): 422-428.
6. Abou-Setta M.M., Fouly A.H., Childers C.C. 1997. Biology of Proprioseiopsis rotundus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) reared on Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) or pollen. Fl. Entomol., 80 (1): 27-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495973
7. Athias-Henriot C. 1975. Nouvelles notes sur les Amblyseiini. II - Le relevé organotaxique de la face dorsale adulte (Gamasides protoadéniques, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 17 (1): 20-29.
8. Basha A.E., Yousef A.A. 2000. Two new species of the family Phytoseiidae from Egypt (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 40 (3): 231-235.
9. Chant D.A. 1957. Descriptions of some phytoseiid mites (Acarina, Phytoseiidae). Part I. Nine new species from British Columbia with keys to the species of British Columbia. Part II. Redescriptions of eight species described by Berlese. Can. Entomol., 89: 289-308. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent89289-7
10. Chant D.A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Part II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of 38 new species. Can. Entomol., Suppl., 12: 45-166. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm9112fv
11. Chant D.A., Hansell R.I.C. 1971. The genus Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Canada and Alaska. Can. J. Zool., 49 (5): 703-758. https://doi.org/10.1139/z71-110
12. Chant D.A, McMurtry J.A. 2004. A review of the subfamily Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae): Part III. The tribe Amblyseiini Wainstein, subtribe Amblyseiina n. subtribe. Int. J. Acarol., 30 (3): 171-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950408684388
13. Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2005. A review of the subfamily Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae): Part V. tribe Amblyseiini, subtribe Proprioseiopsina Chant & McMurtry. Int. J. Acarol., 31 (1): 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950508684412
14. Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2007. Illustrated keys and diagnoses for the genera and subgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the world (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, USA. 220 pp.
15. Chant D.A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1991. Adult ventral setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Gamasina). Int. J. Acarol., 17: 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959108683906
16. Chant D.A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1992. Adult idiosomal setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Gamasina). Int. J. Acarol., 18: 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959208683949
17. Chaudhri W.M. 1968. Six new species of mites of the genus Amblyseius (Phytoseiidae) from Pakistan. Acarologia, 10 (4): 550-562.
18. Chaudhri W.M., Akbar S., Rasool A. 1979. Studies on the predatory leaf inhabiting mites of Pakistan. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. 234 pp.
19. Demite P.R., McMurtry J.A., Moraes G.J.de. 2014. Phytoseiidae Database: a website for taxonomic and distributional information on phytoseiid mites (Acari). Zootaxa, 3795: 571-577. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3795.5.6
20. Demite P.R., Moraes G.J.de, McMurtry J.A., Denmark H.A., Castilho R.C. 2023. Phytoseiidae Database. Available from: http://www.lea.esalq.usp.br/Phytoseiidae (Accessed 12 Oct. 2023).
21. EL-Hady M.M. 2005. Effect of different prey species and non-prey food on the development of the predaceous mite Proprioseiopsis lindquisti (Acari -Phytoseidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Cont., 15 (2): 157-158.
22. Elhalawany A.S., Abo-Shnaf R., Sanad A.S. 2021. Release of predatory mite, Neoseiulus barkeri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) for its suppression two species of eriophyid mites (Acari: Eriophyidae) on olive seedlings in Egypt. Int. J. Acarol., 47 (1): 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2020.1870547
23. Elhalawany A.S., Sanad A.S., Khalil A.E. 2019. Field trials to control Thrips tabaci (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) infesting onion crop. Egypt. J. Plant Prot. Res. Inst., 2 (4): 724-733.
24. El-Halawany M.E., Abdel-Samad M.A. 1990. Three new phytoseiid species. Agric. Res. Rev., 68: 87-96.
25. Evans G.O. 1963. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acari : Mesostigrnata). Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool., 10 (5): 276-303. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.20528
26. Fouly A.H. 1997. Effects of prey mites and pollen on the biology and life tables of Proprioseiupsis asetus (Chant) (Acari, Phytoseiidae). J. Appl. Entomol., 121: 435-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1997.tb01431.x
27. Garman P. 1958. New species belonging to the genera Amblyseius and Amblyseiopsis with keys to Amblyseius, Amblyseiopsis, and Phytoseiulus. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 51: 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/51.1.69
28. Gerson U., Smiley R.L., Ochoa R. 2003. Mites (Acari) for pest control. Blackwell Publishing. 539 pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470750995
29. Karg W. 1979. Zur Kenntnis der Milbengattungen Lasioseius Berlese, 1916, Proprioseiopsis Muma, 1961, Podocinum Berlese, 1882 und Proctolaelaps Berlese, 1923 (Acarina, Parasitiformes). Dtsch. ent. Z., 26 (1-3): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mmnd.4800260102
30. Lopez L. 2023. Meet Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae): a commonly used predatory mite in vegetable crops. J. Int. Pest Manag., 14 (1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmad018
31. McMurtry J.A., Famah Sourassou N., Demite P.R. 2015. The Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) as biological control agents. In: Carrilo D., Moraes G.J.de, Pena J.E. (Eds). Prospects for biological control of plant feeding mites and other harmful organisms. Cham (CH): Springer International Publishing. p. 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15042-0_5
32. McMurtry J.A., Moraes G.J.de, Famah Sourassou N. 2013. Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 18: 297-320. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.18.4.1
33. Metwally A.M., El Khateeb H.M., Sanad A.S. 2013. Occurrence of some predaceous mites associated with plants free from chemical pesticides. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 91 (3): 949-958. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejar.2013.167056
34. Momen F.M. 2011. Life tables and feeding habits of Proprioseiopsis cabonus, a specific predator of tydeid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae and Tydeidae). Acarina, 19 (1):103-109.
35. Muma M.H. 1961. Subfamilies, genera, and species of Phytoseiidae. Bull. Fl. State Mus., Biol. Sci., 5 (7): 267-302.
36. Nasr A.K., Abou-Awad B.A. 1985 (1984-1985). A new species of genus Amblyseius Berlese from Egypt (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Bull. Soc. Entomol. d'Egypte, 65: 245-249.
37. Neal M.C. 1965. In gardens of Hawaii. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication 50, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 924 pp.
38. Rowell H.J., Chant D.A., Hansell R.I.C. 1978. The determination of setal homologies and setal patterns on the dorsal shield in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Can. Entomol., 110: 859-876. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent110859-8
39. Sanad A.S., Hassan G.M. 2019. Controlling the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) by releasing the predatory phytoseiid mites and pesticides on pepper in a greenhouse. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Cont., 29 (95): 690-697. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-019-0186-9
40. Wagner W.L., Herbst D.R., Sohmer S.H. 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication 83, University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu, Hawai'i. 1952 pp.
41. Wainstein B.A. 1960. New species and subspecies of the genus Typhlodromus Scheuten (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae) of the USSR fauna. Zool. Zhurnal, 39: 683-690.
42. Wainstein B.A. 1973. Predatory mites of the family Phytoseiidae (Parasitiformes) of the fauna of the Moldavian SSR. Fauna i Biologiya Nasekomykh Moldavii, Akademiya Nauk Moldavskoy SSR, Institut Zoologii, 12: 176-180. [in Russian]
43. Zaher M.A. 1986. Survey and ecological studies on phytophagous, predaceous and soil mites in Egypt. II-A: Predaceous and nonphytophagous mites (Nile Valley and Delta). Text. PL 480 Programme U.S.A., Project No. EG-ARS-30, Grant No. FG-EG-139. 567 pp.

---

Please read and follow the instructions to post any comment or correction.