Medjo, Irena ¹ ; Döker, Ismail ² ; Yavaş, Hatice ³ ; Karaca, M. Mete ⁴ ; Karut, Kamil ⁵ and Kazak, Cengiz ⁶

¹✉ Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Türkiye & Institute of Pesticide and Environmental Protection, Department of Applied Entomology, Banatska 31b, P.O. Box 163, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia.
²✉ Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Türkiye.
³Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Türkiye.
⁴Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Insect Biotechnology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Türkiye.
⁵Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Insect Biotechnology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Türkiye.
⁶Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Türkiye.

2026 - Volume: 66 Issue: 1 pages: 263-270

Original research

Keywords

Abstract

This paper was presented at the 9^th meeting of the International Organisation of Biological Control (IOBC) Working Group ''Integrated Control of Plant Feeding Mites'' and appears in the abstract book of that meeting.

Introduction

Predatory mites of the family Phytoseiidae (Parasitiformes: Mesostigmata) are among the most important natural enemies used in integrated pest management (IPM) programs worldwide due to their ability to suppress populations of phytophagous mites and other small arthropod pests (McMurtry et al. 2013; Schmidt-Jeffris et al. 2021). Their ecological importance is largely attributed to their predominance on leaf surfaces, where they directly interact with phytophagous mites, as well as from their diverse feeding strategies, ranging from specialist to generalists able to utilize alternative food sources such as pollen and plant exudates (McMurtry and Croft 1997; Döker and Kazak 2020). Generalist phytoseiids are of particular interest in sustainable agriculture because their capacity to persist in agroecosystems in the absence of prey allows them to provide early and continuous biological control (Samaras et al. 2019).

Among these generalist predators, Euseius scutalis (Athias-Henriot) is considered as one of the most important predatory mite species in Mediterranean agroecosystems, especially in citrus orchards (Döker and Kazak 2020; Döker et al. 2025). This species is frequently reported as one of the dominant phytoseiid mites in both cultivated and natural habitats, where it contributes to the regulation of tetranychid and eriophyid mite populations (Kasap and Sekeroglu 2004; Papadoulis et al. 2009; Maoz et al. 2014). Its ability to feed and reproduce on pollen, as well as to survive on plant tissues without causing damage, enables E. scutalis populations to remain established without the need for repeated augmentative releases (Adar et al. 2012). In addition, this species exhibits a broad tolerance to varying temperature and humidity conditions, which may further enhance its importance under ongoing climate change scenarios characterized by increasing temperatures and fluctuating environmental conditions (Bounfour and McMurtry 1987).

Despite the ecological advantages of predatory mites, crop protection in many agricultural systems still relies heavily on chemical control to manage complex pest infestations, including insects, mites, and plant pathogens. Although broad-spectrum pesticides of earlier decades often disrupted biological control through high toxicity and environmental persistence, the development of modern pesticides with more selective modes of action has created new opportunities for integrating chemical and biological control within IPM programs (Bostanian et al. 2009; Pozzebon et al. 2011). These compounds, often referred to as selective or reduced-risk pesticides, are generally designed to be effective against target pests while minimizing adverse effects on non-target organisms, including various phytoseiid species (Gradish et al. 2011; Döker et al. 2015; Demirtas et al. 2022).

However, recent studies indicates that the effects of reduced-risk pesticides on predatory mites are highly variable and species-specific, with both lethal and sublethal effects reported even for IPM-friendly considered compounds (Bernard et al. 2010; Lefebvre et al. 2011; Döker et al. 2015; Fernández et al. 2017). Sublethal effects, such as reduced fecundity or impaired survival over time, may be particularly important for generalist predators whose long-term persistence is essential for effective biological control. Consequently, the compatibility of pesticides with predatory mites should be evaluated through experiments, specifically under laboratory conditions, where a worst-case scenario is assumed due to direct contact of the predators with pesticides in limited experimental arenas (Döker and Kazak 2019).

Although E. scutalis is widely distributed and plays an important role in pest management, information on its compatibility with commonly used modern pesticides remains limited compared with that available for commercially mass-reared phytoseiid species (Döker and Kazak 2020). Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the lethal and sublethal effects of six commonly used pesticides; four fungicides (fosetyl-Al, prothioconazole + spiroxamine, proquinazid, and tebuconazole) and two insecticides (spinetoram and spinosad), on adult females of E. scutalis under laboratory conditions.

Materials and methods

Predator rearing

The predatory mite E. scutalis used in this study was originally collected from a commercial lemon orchard (Citrus lemon L.) in Adana, Türkiye. The pesticide spray history of the orchard was unknown. Collected specimens were transferred to the laboratory and maintained at 25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 5% relative humidity, and a photoperiod of 16:8 h (L:D). Approximately 200-300 adult females were transferred to the adaxial surface of bean leaves (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) placed on water-saturated cotton wool in plastic cups. The mites were fed with cattail pollen (Typha latifolia L., Typhaceae). Small pieces of fabric were added to each rearing unit to provide shelter and suitable oviposition sites. The colony was reared for 2-3 generations prior to the experiments. Species identification was confirmed using an identification key suggested by Döker et al. (2025), for the Turkish Euseius species. To obtain same-age of cohorts for bioassays, eggs laid within a 24-h period were collected from the stock colony and transferred to fresh rearing units, where they were allowed to develop until the adulthood.

Pesticides and bioassays

Bioassays were conducted using primary bean leaf discs (3 cm in diameter) obtained from pesticide-free bean plants using a cork borer. Leaf discs were placed with their abaxial surface facing upward on water-saturated cotton pads in Petri dishes (5 cm in diameter). Six commercially available and widely used reduced-risk pesticides were evaluated for their effects on adult females of the predatory mite. These included four fungicides: fosetyl-Al 800 g kg⁻¹ (Aliette® 800 WG), prothioconazole 160 g L⁻¹ + spiroxamine 300 g L⁻¹ (Input® 460 EC), proquinazid 200 g L⁻¹ (Talendo® 200 EC), and tebuconazole 250 g kg⁻¹ (Folicur® 25 WP); and two insecticides: spinetoram 250 g L⁻¹ (Delegate® 250 WG) and spinosad 240 g L⁻¹ (Spintor® 240 SC). For compatibility bioassays, pesticides were applied at their highest recommended concentrations (HRCs) for field application to simulate a worst-case exposure scenario. Applications were performed using a thin-layer chromatography sprayer adjusted to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psi) from a distance of 30 cm, following the method proposed by Bostanian et al. (2009). The applied HRCs were 3200, 160 + 300, 50, 150, 100, and 120 mg a.i. L⁻¹ for fosetyl-Al, prothioconazole + spiroxamine, proquinazid, tebuconazole, spinetoram, and spinosad, respectively. The residue deposited on the leaf surfaces was about at 0.002 g cm⁻².

Each leaf disc contained 10–15 five days old gravid female mites which were individually transferred to the experimental units using a camel hairbrush (000) under a binocular microscope (Nikon SMZ-745T, Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) as suggested by Bostanian et al. (2009). Sufficient amount (ca. 5-7 mg) of T. latifolia pollen was used to feed phytoseiid mites, but never formed an unsprayed and protected place for the predators. The bioassays were carried out by applying pesticide treatments to primary leaf discs onto which females had been previously transferred. Each treatment was replicated ten times, with each leaf disc considered as one replicate. For each replicate, new individuals and fresh leaf discs, were used. Control units were sprayed with distilled water only. Following application, live and dead females were recorded from the same experimental units at 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h after treatment. Individuals were considered dead when no movement was observed after gentle touch with a fine camel hair brush under a stereomicroscope. Mortality was calculated as the percentage of dead females relative to the total number of treated individuals. All experimental units were maintained at 25 ± 2 °C, 70 ± 5% relative humidity, and a 16:8 h (L:D) photoperiod. In addition to mortality, female fecundity was assessed by recording the number of eggs laid per female during the observation period.

Data analysis

Mortality and fecundity data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and treatment means were separated using the Student–Newman–Keuls test. Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05. Prior to analysis, normality and homogeneity of variance were assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk and Levene's tests, respectively. As these assumptions were not met, mortality data were arcsine square root transformed, and fecundity data were log-transformed [log10 (x + 1)] as suggested by Döker and Kazak (2019). Untransformed means are presented in the results section.

Results

All pesticide treatments resulted in significantly higher mortality of E. scutalis adult females compared to the control group throughout the observation period (24–120 h) (Table 1). Mortality generally increased with exposure time for all treatments. The highest toxic effects were observed for the insecticides spinosad and spinetoram. Spinosad caused rapid and severe mortality, reaching 94.66% at 24 h and 100.00% at 96 h. Similarly, spinetoram induced high mortality, increasing from 64.44% at 24 h to 100.00% at 120 h. The fungicide prothioconazole + spiroxamine also exhibited pronounced toxicity, causing more than 68.66% mortality at 24 h and reaching 74.00% at 120 h. In contrast, the rest three fungicides caused similar moderate mortality, which increased gradually over time, reaching 52.00% for proquinazid, 59.33% for tebuconazole, and 47.33% for fosetyl-Al at 120 hours, although fosetyl-Al exhibited the lowest toxicity among them. Mortality in the control group remained low throughout the experiment, not exceeding 10.66% at 120 hours.

The fecundity was significantly affected by all pesticide treatments compared to the control group (Table 2). No eggs were recorded at 120 h following spinetoram and spinosad applications, reflecting their severe toxic effects on adult females. Prothioconazole + spiroxamine also caused a marked reduction in fecundity, with mean egg production remaining consistently low (≤0.68 eggs/female/day) and declining to 0.50 eggs/female/day at 120 h.

In contrast, relatively higher egg production was observed in fosetyl-Al, proquinazid, and tebuconazole treatments. Mean egg numbers in these treatments ranged between 1.46 and 1.77 eggs/female/day at 120 h, although these values were still lower than those recorded in the control group (1.83 eggs/female/day).

Discussion

Predatory mites constitute a cornerstone of integrated pest management (IPM) programs; however, information on the non-target effects of reduced-risk pesticides remains limited for many phytoseiid species (Döker et al. 2015, 2025; Bergeron and Schmidt-Jeffris 2020). Previous studies have clearly demonstrated that the susceptibility of phytoseiid mites to pesticides is highly species-specific and may also vary among populations of the same species (Bostanian et al. 2009; Lefebvre et al. 2011; Tirello et al. 2013; Zhao et al. 2013; Döker et al. 2016; 2025; Fernández et al. 2017; Bergeron and Schmidt-Jeffris 2020; Döker and Kazak 2020). Such inter- and intraspecific variability warrants the necessity of evaluating pesticide compatibility separately for each predatory mite species prior to their use in IPM programs.

Among the tested compounds, the insecticides spinetoram and spinosad exhibited the highest toxicity to E. scutalis, causing rapid and complete mortality within 120 h after treatment, accompanied by a total suppression of egg production. These results are consistent with earlier studies reporting severe toxic effects of spinetoram for Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot, Amblydromella caudiglans (Schuster), Galendromus occidentalis (Nesbitt), Neoseiulus barkeri Hughes, N. californicus (McGregor) and N. fallacis (Garman), Euseius sojaensis (Ehara) (Lefebvre et al. 2011, 2012; Schmidt-Jeffris and Beers 2015; Kishimoto et al. 2018; Yoshimura et al. 2022; Yoshizaki et al. 2022; Döker et al. 2024). Similarly, spinosad also reported to be harmful for a series of phytoseiid species, such as A. swirskii, N. cucumeris (Oudemans), Transeius montdorensis (Schicha), and I. degenerans (Rahman et al. 2011; Döker et al. 2016, 2024; Fernández et al. 2017). Likewise, disruptions of biological control due to spinosad exposure have also been documented in thrips management systems, where its application negatively affected the performance of predatory mites despite effective pest suppression (Cuthbertson et al. 2012). Collectively, these findings indicate that spinetoram and spinosad are incompatible with conservation or augmentation strategies involving E. scutalis in IPM programs.

The fungicide prothioconazole + spiroxamine also demonstrated considerable toxicity to E. scutalis, resulting in more than 60% mortality and a marked reduction in fecundity. Although fungicides are often assumed to be relatively safe for predatory mites, growing evidence suggests that certain fungicides can exert substantial lethal and sublethal effects on phytoseiids (Perdikis et al. 2020; Döker et al. 2024). In contrast, Bernard et al. (2010) demonstrated that spiroxamine exhibits low toxicity to Euseius victoriensis (Womersley), with adult female mortality limited to about 25% and fecundity remaining unaffected. Prothioconazole acts as a sterol biosynthesis inhibitor through inhibition of CYP51, while spiroxamine interferes with ergosterol production via a different biochemical pathway (Parker et al. 2013; EFSA et al. 2021; FRAC 2024). The combined action of these compounds may explain the pronounced adverse effects observed on E. scutalis, although detailed physiological mechanisms remain to be clarified.

In contrast, fosetyl-Al, proquinazid, and tebuconazole induced moderate levels of adult mortality (>60%), while showing relatively low toxicity on reproduction. Among these compounds, fosetyl-Al exhibited the lowest toxicity, with comparatively limited effects on both survival and fecundity. Similar low to moderate side effects of fosetyl-Al have been reported for other predatory mites, including A. swirskii, I. degenerans and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Cabrera et al. 2004; Perdikis et al. 2020; Döker et al. 2024). These findings suggest that fosetyl-Al, proquinazid, and tebuconazole may be compatible with E. scutalis within IPM programs, particularly when applications are carefully timed to minimize direct exposure of the predator. This compatibility may be improved when applications are performed during periods of low predator presence, thereby reducing direct exposure.

In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the lethal and sublethal effects of spinetoram, spinosad, and prothioconazole + spiroxamine indicate that their use should be carefully considered in cropping systems where E. scutalis plays an important role as a biological control agent. Nevertheless, further semi-field and field studies are required to determine whether the toxic effects observed under laboratory conditions persist under more realistic exposure scenarios (e.g field conditions) and to refine pesticide selection strategies for sustainable IPM programs. In contrast, fosetyl-Al, proquinazid, and tebuconazole appear to be relatively safer options for systems aiming to conserve or augment E. scutalis.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) program number 2221 Fellowships for Visiting Scientists for the visit of Dr. Irena Medjo at Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, Adana, Türkiye. The study was also supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia, grant number: 451-03-33/2026-03/200214. We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

1. Adar, E., Inbar, M., Gal, S., Doron, N., Zhang, Z.Q., Palevsky, E. 2012. Plant-feeding and non-plant feeding phytoseiids: differences in behavior and cheliceral morphology. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 58, 341-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-012-9589-y
2. Bergeron, P.E., Schmidt-Jeffris, R.A. 2020. Not all predators are equal: miticide non-target effects and differential selectivity. Pest Manag. Sci. 76, 2170-2179 . https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5754
3. Bernard, M.B., Cole, P., Kobelt, A., Horne, P.A., Altmann, J., Wratten, S.D., Yen, A.L. 2010. Reducing the impact of pesticides on biological control in Australian vineyards: pesticide mortality and fecundity effects on an indicator species, the predatory mite Euseius victoriensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 103, 2061-2071. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC09357
4. Bostanian, N.J., Beudjekian, S., McGregor, E., Racette, G. 2009. A modified excised leaf disc method to estimate the toxicity of slow- and fast-acting reduced-risk acaricides to mites. J. Econ. Entomol. 102, 2084-2089. https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0610
5. Bounfour, M., McMurtry, J.A. 1987. Biology and ecology of Euseius scutalis (Athias-Henriot) (Acarina: phytoseiidae). Hilgardia, 55, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3733/hilg.v55n05p023
6. Cabrera, A.R., Cloyd, R.A., Zaborski, E.R. 2004. Effects of greenhouse pesticides on the soil-dwelling predatory mite Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Mesostigmata: Laelapidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 793-799. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/97.3.793
7. Cuthbertson, A.G., Mathers, J.J., Croft, P., Nattriss, N., Blackburn, L.F., Luo, W., Northing, P., Murai, T., Jacobson, R.J., Walters, K.F. 2012. Prey consumption rates and compatibility with pesticides of four predatory mites from the family Phytoseiidae attacking Thrips palmi Karny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 68, 1289-1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3296
8. Demirtas, B., Birgücü, A.K., Ay, R. 2022. Acute and chronic effects of two insecticide-acaricides on the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot. Int. J. Acarol. 48, 324-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2022.2070668
9. Döker, İ., Kazak, C. 2019. Non-target effects of five acaricides on a native population of Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Int. J. Acarol. 45, 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2018.1542457
10. Döker, İ., Kazak, C. 2020. Toxicity and risk assessment of acaricides on the predatory mite, Euseius scutalis (Athias-Henriot) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) under laboratory conditions. Chemosphere. 261, 127760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127760
11. Döker, I., Celik, S.O., Karaca, M.M. 2025. Review of Euseius Wainstein (Parasitiformes: Phytoseiidae) in Türkiye: An integrative taxonomic approach using morphological and molecular data with a new combination Euseius degenerans (Berlese). Syst. Appl. Acarol. 30, 560-591. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.30.3.6
12. Döker, İ., Öz, H., Kaya, H. Y., Kazak, C. 2016. Effects of six different pesticides used in citrus production on the predatory mite Iphiseius degenerans (Berlese) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Turk. J. Biol. Cont. 7, 43-54.
13. Döker, I., Pappas, M.L., Samaras, K., Triantafyllou, A., Kazak, C., Broufas, G.D. 2015. Compatibility of reduced‐risk insecticides with the non‐target predatory mite Iphiseius degenerans (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 71, 1267-1273. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3921
14. Döker, I. Yavaş, H., Shirvani, Z., Karaca, M.M., Karut, K., Marčić, D., Kazak, C. 2024. Toxicity and risk assessment of pesticides on the predatory mite, Amblyseius swirskii Athias Henriot (Acari: Phytoseiidae) under laboratory conditions. Phytoparasitica, 52, 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-024-01217-8
15. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Ippolito, A., Kardassi, D., Lythgo, C., Tiramani, M. 2021. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substance spiroxamine in light of confirmatory data submitted. EFSA J. 19, 6385. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6385
16. Fernández, M.M., Medina, P., Wanumen, A.M., Del Estal, P., Smagghe, G., Vinuela, E. 2017. Compatibility of sulfoxaflor and other modern pesticides with adults of the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii. Residual contact and persistence studies. Biocontrol 62, 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9784-1
17. FRAC, 2024. Fungicide resistance action committee. Access: 20 December 2025. Available from: https://www.frac.info/fungicide-resistance-management/by-frac-mode-of-action-group.
18. Gradish, A.E., Scott-Dupree, C.D., Shipp, L., Harris, C.R., Ferguson, G. 2011. Effect of reduced risk pesticides on greenhouse vegetable arthropod biological control agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 67, 82-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2036
19. Kasap, I., Sekeroglu, E. 2004. Life history of Euseius scutalis feeding on citrus red mite Panonychus citri at various temperatures. Biocontrol, 49, 645-654. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BICO.0000046733.53887.2b
20. Kishimoto, H., Yaginuma, K., Toyama, M. 2018. Effects of pesticides on four native generalist phytoseiid species (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Z. 62, 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1303/jjaez.2018.29
21. Lefebvre, M., Bostanian, N.J., Thistlewood, H.M.A., Mauffette, Y., Racette, G. 2011. A laboratory assessment of the toxic attributes of six ′reduced-risk insecticides' on Galendromus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Chemosphere 84, 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.02.090
22. Lefebvre, M., Bostanian, N.J., Mauffette, Y., Racette, G., Thistlewood, H.A., Hardman, J.M. 2012. Laboratory-based toxicological assessments of new insecticides on mortality and fecundity of Neoseiulus fallacis (Acari: phytoseiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 105, 866-871. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC11260
23. Maoz, Y., Gal, S., Argov, Y., Domeratzky, S., Melamed, E., Gan-Mor, S., Coll, M., Palevsky, E. 2014. Efficacy of indigenous predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) against the citrus rust mite Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Acari: Eriophyidae): augmentation and conservation biological control in Israeli citrus orchards. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 63, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-014-9786-y
24. McMurtry, J.A., Croft, B.A. 1997. Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42, 291-321. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.291
25. McMurtry, J.A., de Moraes, G.J., 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
26. Papadoulis, G.Th., Emmanouel, N.G., Kapaxidi, E.V. 2009. Phytoseiidae of Greece and Cyprus (Acari: Mesostigmata). West Bloomfield, Michigan, Indira Publishing House, 200 pp.
27. Parker, J.E., Warrilow, A.G., Cools, H.J., Fraaije, B.A., Lucas, J.A., Rigdova, K., Griffiths, W.J., Kelly, D.E., Kelly, S.L. 2013. Prothioconazole and prothioconazole-desthio activities against Candida albicans sterol 14-α-demethylase. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 1639-1645. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03246-12
28. Perdikis, D., Stavroula, P., Papadoulis, G. 2020. Compatibility of Nesidiocoris tenuis and Iphiseius degenerans with insecticides, miticides and fungicides used in tomato crops. Bull. Insectology 73, 181-192.
29. Pozzebon, A., Duso, C., Tirello, P., Ortiz, P.B. 2011. Toxicity of thiamethoxam to Tetranychus urticae Koch and Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acari Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) through different routes ofexposure. Pest Manag. Sci. 67, 352-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2072
30. Rahman, T., Spafford, H., Broughton, S. 2011. Compatibility of spinosad with predaceous mites (Acari) used to control Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 67, 993-1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2144
31. Samaras, K., Pappas, M.L., Fytas, E., Broufas, G.D. 2019. Pollen Provisioning enhances the performance of Amblydromalus limonicus on an unsuitable prey. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00122
32. Schmidt-Jeffris, R.A., Beers, E.H. 2015. Comparative biology and pesticide susceptibility of Amblydromella caudiglans and Galendromus occidentalis as spider mite predators in apple orchards. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 67, 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-015-9931-2
33. Schmidt-Jeffris, R.A., Beers, E.H., Sater, C. 2021. Meta-analysis and review of pesticide non-target effects on phytoseiids, key biological control agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 4848-4862. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6531
34. Tirello, P., Pozzebon, A., Duso, C. 2013. The effect of insecticides on the non-target predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans: Laboratory studies. Chemosphere 93, 1139-1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.046
35. Yoshimura, T., Mori, K., Kishimoto, H., Toyama, M., Miyazaki, H., Igarashi, K. 2022. Side effects of pesticides on Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) - A comprehensive evaluation combined with directly exposed and residual toxicity. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. 66, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1303/jjaez.2022.31
36. Yoshizaki, S., Doi, M., Saito, C. 2022. Effects of insecticides and fungicides on Neoseiulus barkeri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) collected from melon and gerbera greenhouses. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. 66, 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1303/jjaez.2022.75
37. Zhao, H.M., Yi, X., Deng, Y.Y., Hu, M.Y., Zhong, G.H., Wang, P.D. 2013. Resistance to fenpropathrin, chlorpyriphos and abamectin in different populations of Amblyseius longispinosus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from vegetable crops in South China. Biol. Control 67, 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.07.007

instructions