Valério, Bianca P. ¹ ; Bernardi, Leopoldo F. O. ² ; Haddi, Khalid ³ and Ataide, Livia M. S. ⁴

¹Department of Entomology, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
²Department of Entomology, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
³Department of Entomology, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
⁴✉ Department of Entomology, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

2024 - Volume: 64 Issue: 3 pages: 989-993

Short note

Keywords

Abstract

In the egg production industry, the high density of chickens housed in restricted spaces can lead to the accumulation of faeces resulting in a suitable substrate for fly development (Geden et al. 2021; Axtell 1986). More than 90% of the flies captured in poultry houses are houseflies (M. domestica (L.) (Muscidae)) (Valério et al. 2023), synanthropic insects that can negatively impact egg production when their population increase significantly (Geden et al. 2021). Problems associated with the high density of flies in poultry units are generally related to the inadequate management of their faeces. Interestingly, this substrate can also function as a habitat for several beneficial arthropods, some of which undergo partial development or complete their entire life cycle within it. These arthropods can serve as natural enemies of houseflies and other synanthropic flies found in the surrounding environment. For instance, mites of the family Macrochelidae are important predators of flies living in chicken faeces (Gerson, Smiley and Ochoa 2003; de Azevedo et al. 2015). Some of these predatory mite species exhibit phoretic behaviour, i.e., they attach themselves to adult flies and use them as vectors to disperse (Ho 1990), promoting colonization of new sites (Athias-Binche 1993). Since these predatory mites spend their entire life cycle in soil environments, such as chicken faeces, this phoretic behaviour can promote mite dispersal throughout the poultry house. Enhancing the spatial distribution of beneficial organisms within the poultry house has the potential to increase the efficiency of their biological control services. Incorporating the conservation or introduction of predatory mites into integrated pest management (IPM) strategies can be a valuable and effective approach. Therefore, understanding the diversity of natural enemies present in this given environment is of fundamental importance. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of predatory and phoretic mite species associated with flies in laying hens poultry houses. To this end, we evaluated diversity and abundance of macrochelids, and other mites attacked to adult flies captured in two poultry houses, located in Minas Gerais, Brazil. The first was a conventional vertical laying poultry house, operated with a vertical automated/manual Californian system, hereafter ASA. The property has nine units (sheds) and 360,000 laying hens, located in the municipality of Nepomuceno (latitude: 21°12′17.8″ S, longitude: 45°14′24.3″ W). The second site was a conventional laying poultry house, hereafter GSJ. The property has six units (sheds) and currently has a total of 35,000 laying hens, located in the municipality of Lavras (latitude: 21°13′30.0″ S, longitude: 45°02′55.8″ W).

For the collection of flies and their associated mites, 24 white pan traps were placed randomly in a radius of 200 metres from the sheds of each poultry house, following the procedure described at Valerio et al. (2023). Each trap (1 L), filled with 400 mL of a mixture of water with detergent and salt, was left in the field for five consecutive days, and on the last day, the entire contents were stored in glass jars (300 mL) and taken to the laboratory. The flies and mites were stored in a Falcon tube (50 mL) containing ethanol (99%). Three collections were performed over time, between March and April 2021. The flies and mites collected were identified in the laboratory using a stereomicroscope (Nikon® SMZ1270, New York, USA). The identification of the flies was based on the identification keys proposed by Grella (2011) and Carvalho and Mello-Patiu (2008), and the identification of mites was based on Krantz and Walter (2009), Takaku et al. (2012), Hyatt (1980), Trach and Tolstikov (2016), Felska et al. (2018), Mineiro and De Moraes (2002).

The differences in the relative abundance of mites attached to the flies between the two poultry houses were analysed using Wilcoxon-signed rank test using the wilcox.test function of the R program (R Core Team 2022). Our findings revealed significant variations in the abundance (W= 1388.5; d.f= 1; P < 0.001) and diversity of mite species associated with flies between poultry houses (Table 1). In addition, M. domestica was found to be the most abundant fly species in both poultry houses. Identifying mites to species level was challenging due to absence of males, adult stages, and inadequate knowledge of the Brazilian fauna and they were identified to its genus level. Regarding the biology and ecology of those mites, the deutonymphs of Prodinychus sp.1 exhibit phoretic behaviour, and it is likely that their females are mycophagous (Flechtmann 1968). The deutonymphs of Parasitus sp.1 commonly engage in phoretic interactions with insects, while the adults occupy transient habitats, such as soil, small mammals, and bird nests, among others (Hrúzová and Fenďa 2018; Hyatt 1980). Nothridae and Eupodes sp.1 mites are soil-dwelling mites, primarily found in environments with high organic matter content, where they are typically saprophagous and mycophagous. Their association with flies is probably accidental in nature (Mineiro and Moraes 2002; Norton and Behan-Pelletier 2009). The species Callidosoma sp.1 and Trichotrombidium sp.1 collected in this study are the larval stage of new species records in Minas Gerais, Brazil and will be described in a separate manuscript. Callidosoma and Trichotrombidium, both belonging to the suborder Prostigmata, share a similar life cycle. In this mite subgroup, with only rare exceptions, the larvae act as parasites of either vertebrates or invertebrates while the deutonymph and the adult stages exhibit predatory behaviour, inhabiting the soil and preying on larvae or small invertebrates (Wohltmann 2000). Mites of the genus Sejus are predators of small invertebrates and worms, and their deutonymphs and adults are phoretic on small invertebrates (Walter and Proctor 1998; Krantz and Walter 2009). Macrocheles mites are predominantly predators, with many species preying on various fly species. Their demonstrated ability to prey on eggs and larval stages of M. domestica underscores their potential as biological control agents of this pest across various environments (Azevedo et al. 2018; Perotti 2001). They develop in dung accumulations and adults exhibit a remarkable ability for phoresy (Krantz 1998). It is possible that these mites are actively contributing to housefly control within poultry houses, but their role as biological agents remain to be tested.

Finally, the low presence of mites attached to flies in the ASA poultry house suggests some major factors disrupting mite occurrence. Mites, as well as other soil invertebrates, are sensitive to several abiotic and/or biotic factors, such as food availability, temperature, humidity, presence of other organisms, latitude, and longitude. The two poultry houses chosen in this study are located 30 kilometres away from each other, which means that factors such as topography, humidity, and temperature are relatively similar. However, none of these factors were monitored during the study but they may have influenced the diversity and abundance of mites in the poultry houses.

Acknowledgements

We thank Granja São Jorge, Mr. Galeno, Mr. Elias M. Castro, and Dr. Stephan Malfitano Carvalho for their assistance in the execution of the experiments. BPV and LFOB thanks the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the scholarships.

References

1. Athias-Binche F. 1993. From phoresy to parasitism: the example of mites and nematodes. Res. Rev. Parasitol., 53: 73-79.
2. Axtell R. 1986. Fly management in poultry production: cultural, biological, and chemical. Poultry Science, 65(4): 657-667. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0650657
3. Azevedo L.H., Emberson R.M., Esteca F. de C., de Moraes G.J. 2015 . Macrochelid mites (Mesostigmata: Macrochelidae) as biological control agents. Prospects for biological control of plant feeding mites and other harmful organisms,: 103-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15042-0_4
4. Azevedo L.H., Ferreira M.P., Castilho R. de C., Cançado P.H.D., de Moraes G.J. 2018. Potential of Macrocheles species (Acari: Mesostigmata: Macrochelidae) as control agents of harmful flies (Diptera) and biology of Macrocheles embersoni Azevedo, Castilho and Berto on Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) and Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Biological Control, 123: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.04.013
5. Carvalho C.J.B. de, Mello-Patiu C.A. de 2008. Key to the adults of the most common forensic species of Diptera in South America. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 52: 390-406. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0085-56262008000300012
6. Felska M., Wohltmann A., Mąkol J. 2018. A synopsis of host-parasite associations between Trombidioidea (Trombidiformes: Prostigmata, Parasitengona) and arthropod hosts. Systematic and Applied Acarology, 23(7): 1375-1479. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.23.7.14
7. Flechtmann C.H. 1968. Sobre alguns ácaros associados a um sauveiro. Anais da Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, 25: 171-172. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0071-12761968000100015
8. Geden C.J., Nayduch D., Scott J.G., Burgess IV E.R., Gerry A.C., Kaufman P.E., Thomson J., Pickens V., Machtinger E.T. 2021. House fly (Diptera: Muscidae): biology, pest status, current management prospects, and research needs. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 12(1): 39. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmaa021
9. Gerson U., Smiley R.L., Ochoa R. 2003. Mites (Acari) for pest control. Wiley Online Library. pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470750995
10. Grella M.D. 2011. Chave taxonômica interativa para espécies de dípteros califorídeos (Infraordem: Muscomorpha) do Brasil.
11. Ho T. 1990. Phoretic association between Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Acari: Macrochelidae) and flies inhabiting poultry manure in Peninsular Malaysia. Experimental & applied Acarology, 10: 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01193974
12. Hrúzová K., Fenďa P. 2018. The family Parasitidae (Acari: Mesostigmata)-history, current problems and challenges. Acarologia, 58(Suppl): 25-42. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20184280
13. Hyatt K.H. 1980. Mites Of the Subfamily. Parasitinae (Mesostigurata: Parasitidae) In the British Isles. https://doi.org/10.5962/p.12620
14. Krantz G. 1998 Review reflections on the biology, morphology and ecology of the Macrochelidae. Experimental & applied Acarology, 22: 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006097811592
15. Krantz G., Walter D. 2009. A Manual of Acarology. 3rd ed. Lubbock (Texas): Texas Tech University Press. pp. 807.
16. Mineiro J.L., Moraes G.J. 2002. Edaphic Actinedida e Acaridida (Arachnida: Acari) from Piracicaba, State of São Paulo, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, 31: 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2002000100010
17. Norton R.A., Behan-Pelletier V.M. 2009. Suborder Oribatida. In: A manual of Acarology, Lubbock (Texas): Texas Tech University Press. pp.
18. Perotti A. 2001. Prey location and predation rates of predatory mites (Acari: Macrochelidae) on immature stages of pest flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Systematic and Applied Acarology, 6(1): 27-33. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.6.1.5
19. R Core Team 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. pp.
20. Takaku G., Hartini S., Dwibadra D., Corpuz-raros L.A. 2012. Macrochelid mites (Acari: Gamasina: Macrochelidae) in the Philippines. Journal of the Acarological Society of Japan, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.2300/acari.21.95
21. Trach V.A., Tolstikov A.V. 2016. Description of larva of Sejus hinangensis (Acari: Mesostigmata: Sejidae) from the far east of Russia. Acarina, 24(2): 175-179. https://doi.org/10.21684/0132-8077-2016-24-2-175-179
22. Valério B.P., Nunes B.S., Alvarenga T.M., Carvalho C.F., Bernardi L.F., Carvalho S.M., Ataíde L.M. 2023. An efficient method to sample Musca domestica (Linnaeus, 1758)(Diptera: Muscidae) using coloured pan-traps in a cage poultry facility. Entomological Communications, 5: ec05005-ec05005. https://doi.org/10.37486/2675-1305.ec05005
23. Walter D.E., Proctor H.C. 1998. Feeding behaviour and phylogeny: observations on early derivative Acari. Experimental & applied acarology, 22: 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006033407957
24. Wohltmann A. 2000. The evolution of life histories in Parasitengona (Acari: Prostigmata). Acarologia, 41(1/2): 145-204.

instructions