Phoresy: an acarological journey from its purest form to its peculiar fringes
2026 - Volume: 66 Issue: Suppl pages: 68
https://doi.org/10.24349/hiui-bwd5
ICA 2026 - XVII International Congress of Acarology, 20-24 July 2026, Montpellier
Keywords
Dispersal
Migration
Symbiosis
Transitions
Diversity
Abstract
Phoresy is typically a fleeting yet highly significant relationship between one life stage of a mite and a larger carrier, usually an insect, on which a mite depends for transport. In its strictest and most easily defined form, this dalliance is regimented: a mite seeks a preferred carrier, attaches to a specific site, and ceases all activity (especially feeding) while on a brief odyssey from one resource patch to another. Yet many mite species defy strict definitions of phoresy. Most commonly, the requirement of ceasing activity is challenged repeatedly, especially their flagrant disregard of the “no food and drink on the bus rule”. I emphasise that phoresy is a temporary relationship. For some mites, a short journey is the extent of their interaction, but for most the natal habitat of the mite is also that of their carrier. Notions that the overall symbiosis should be commensal or mutualistic are false: several examples show mites can have exploitative relationships with their carriers, and some relationships are complex, swaying between negative or positive depending on prevailing conditions. I also explore two hypotheses for which phoresy is central. First, that phoresy is a proposed transitionary relationship towards parasitism: i.e., phoretic stages should transition to feeding phoretic stages, then evolve other parasitic stages, and eventually a permanent parasitic association. This idea is increasingly testable with improved phylogenetic data, and although the prevalence of phoresy clouds conclusions, I suggest that the evidence is weak. The second hypothesis is that the diversity of insect-associated mites should match that of all insects due to the ubiquitous nature of insect-mite associations and high host specificity. I regard this hypothesis as false: phoretic mites show highly biased preferences for certain types of insects, a preference for larger insects, and are not always host-specific. Instead, habitat is probably more important than the carrier, with specific phoretic relationships evolving in natal habitats closely aligned with their carriers (e.g. nests). No doubt phoresy is vital, yet as a momentary part of many mites’ lives, where they feed and breed is where many critical interactions play out.
Comments
Please read and follow the
instructions
to post any comment or correction.