KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023

KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi. 938969

Diyarbakır, Elazığ ve MuĢ Ġlleri (Türkiye) Sebze Alanlarında Saptanan Predatör Akar (Acari:
Phytoseiidae) Türleri

Berna KAYMAK KARA1 , Sultan ÇOBANOĞLU2, Selime ÖLMEZ BAYHAN3
1Alata Horticultural Research Institute, 33740, Erdemli, Mersin, 2Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection,
06110 DıĢkapı, Ankara, 3Dicle University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, 21200, Sur, Diyarbakır
1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3855-7926 2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-1548 3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2285-6518

: kaymakbr@gmail.com

ÖZET Bitki Koruma

Bu çalıĢma Diyarbakır, Elazığ ve MuĢ illerinde 2018-2019 yıllarında;
biber, domates, fasulye, hıyar, kabak, karpuz, kavun ve patlıcan AraĢtırma Makalesi
yapraklarından predatör akar türlerini tespit etmek amacı ile
yapılmıĢtır. Sebzelerden alınan 1063 adet bitki örneğinin 676 adedi Makale Tarihçesi
akarlar ile bulaĢık olarak tespit edilmiĢtir. Bu bitki örneklerinin GeliĢ Tarihi : 18.05.2021
%10,65' nde ise Phytoseiidae familyasına ait predatör akar türleri tespit Kabul Tarihi : 16.02.2022
edilmiĢtir. Tespit edilen faydalı akarlar; Neoseiulus barkeri Hughes,
Neoseiulus bicaudus Wainstein, Neoseiulus marginatus (Wainstein), Anahtar Kelimeler
Neoseiulus zwoelferi (Dosse), Neoseiulus sp., Phytoseius finitimus Predatör akar
Ribaga, Proprioseiopsis messor (Wainstein), Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) Neoseiulus
rhenanus (Oudemans) ve Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) recki (Wainstein) Typhlodromus
türleridir. Neoseiulus barkeri ise bu türler içerisinde %57.44 oranı ile Diyarbakır
tespit edilen en yaygın tür olmuĢtur. AraĢtırmada Phytoseiidae Cucumis sativus
akarlarının en çok saptandığı kültür bitkileri ise %60,59 ve %15.94 ile
sırasıyla Cucumis sativus ve ve Solanum melongena L.’ dır. En az akar
saptanan sebze ise % 1.06 ile Capsicum annuum L.' dur.

Predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on Vegetable Fields in Diyarbakır, Elazığ and MuĢ Provinces,
Turkey
ABSTRACT Plant Protection
This study was conducted to identify predatory mite species on pepper,
tomato, bean, cucumber, pumpkin, watermelon, melon, and eggplant Research Article
plant leaves between 2018 and 2019 Diyarbakır, Elazığ, and MuĢ
provinces. 1063 plant samples were collected and 676 of these samples Article History
which were observed with mite species. Predatory mite species were Received : 18.05.2021
identified belonging to the Phytoseiidae family, which constitues 10.65% Accepted : 16.02.2022
of 676 plant samples. The identified predatory mites were listed as Keywords
Neoseiulus barkeri Hughes, Neoseiulus bicaudus Wainstein, Neoseiulus Predatory mite
marginatus (Wainstein), Neoseiulus zwoelferi (Dosse), Neoseiulus sp., Neoseiulus
Phytoseius finitimus Ribaga, Proprioseiopsis messor (Wainstein), Typhlodromus
Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) bagdasarjani Wainstein and Arutunjan, Diyarbakir
Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) rhenanus (Oudemans) and Typhlodromus Cucumis sativus
(Anthoseius) recki (Wainstein) in this study. Neoseiulus barkeri
wasdetected as the most common species with 57.44% total number of
individuals in the three provinces. The most detected host plants were
Cucumis sativus L. at 60.59%; Solanum melongena L. (Family name) at
15.94% while the least detected vegetable was Capsicum annuum L. at
1.06% percentages.
Atıf ġekli: Kaymak Kara, B., Çobanoğlu, S. & Ölmez Bayhan, S. (2023). Diyarbakır, Elazığ ve MuĢ Ġlleri (Türkiye) Sebze
Alanlarında Saptanan Predatör Akar (Acari: Phytoseiidae) Türleri. KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46.
https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarim doga.vi.938969
To Cite : Kaymak Kara, B., Çobanoğlu, S. & Ölmez Bayhan, S. (2023). Predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on
Vegetable Fields in Diyarbakır, Elazığ and MuĢ Provinces, Turkey. KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46.
https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.938969

INTRODUCTION in the 592.937 hectares based on the Turkish

The vegetable yield in Turkey was 25,041,025 tonnes Statistical Institute (TUIK) in 2019. Specifically,
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

Diyarbakır, Elazığ, and MuĢ provinces sustained recognized species, comprising the more significant
21.409 hectares of production areas and 667,755 tons’ part of the whole arthropod biocontrol agent market
yield (TUIK 2019). These locations meet 2.66% of the (Knapp et al. 2018).
country’s overall demand. The production of vegetable Biocontrol-based studies show that Phytoseiidae
is ordinarily carried out the in backyard of houses as sustains excellent potential for being used against
a small business. Also, Diyarbakir is one of the most Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae),
popular cities in Turkey concerning watermelon (Sarwar et al. 2011). Neoseiulus species are also
production (TUIK 2019). promising predators as a part of such programs
The growers generally prefer the application of the (Döker 2019). One of the most notable factors for
chemicals because of getting higher yields in a short suppressing phytophagous mites is Phytoseiidae
time. As known, the side effects of the chemical species which was detailed by many researchers
applications are harmful on non-target organisms, (DüzgüneĢ 1963; Çobanoğlu 1989; Çobanoğlu 2002;
such as humans, animals, other beneficial pests and Zhang 2003; Kasap 2020; YeĢilayer & Çobanoğlu,
the environment. Therefore, the growers should be 2011). In Turkey, 19 genera belonging to
guided about management strategies in order to not Amblyseiinae, Phytoseiinae, and Typhlodrominae
disrupt the natural balance. Biological control is one subfamilies, and three sub-genera belonging to 85
of management strategies that is susceptible to phytoseiid mite species were determined (Döker et al.
environmental, human, and animal health. Besides, it 2014; 2015). The number of species has exceeded 90
is a suitable method for sustainable agriculture up until now (Döker 2019).
techniques. The main biocontrol agents for pest Objective of this study was to determine the
control are entomopathogens, predators, and phytoseiid species feeding on phytophagous mites in
parasitoids (Kılınçer et al. 2010). For this purpose, vegetable fields of Diyarbakır, Elazığ, and MuĢ
the Phytoseiidae predatory mites should be revealed territories. The samples collected sites and
and studied to increase their efficiency. coordinates are shown in Table (1). The use of
There are 2,692 identified species (including pesticides was rare, except some commercial
synonyms) belonging to the Phytoseiidae family so far production areas of MuĢ province. In general, farming
(Demite et al. 2014). These species are included in the wascarried out in the backyard of the houses. Which
integrated pest management programs as a promising were considered valuable place for a comprehensive
alternative source for pesticides. Phytoseiidae species study on predatory mites for the first time in Elazığ,
are the largest group in commercially possible mite and MuĢ provinces.
biocontrol agents, about 20 species offered globally. There has been no study directly targeting predator
Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot (Acari: mites in vegetable areas in related region. Yaman et
Phytoseiidae), Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot al. (2018) identified Phytoseius finitimus (Ribaga)
(Acari: Phytoseiidae), Neoseiulus cucumeris (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) in the vegetable areas
(Oudemans) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), and N. californicus of Diyarbakır and Mardin provinces.
(McGregor) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) are the most

Table 1. The Coordinates of the studied locations of the Diyarbakır, Elazığ, and MuĢ provinces.
Çizelge 1. ÇalıĢmanın yapıldığı Diyarbakır, Elazığ ve MuĢ illeri’ nin koordinatları.
Province Location Geographic coordinates (N and E) Altitude (m)
Diyarbakır Bismil 37° 50´ 58´´ 40° 40´ 07´´ 546
Çermik 38° 08´ 06´´ 39° 27´ 21´´ 688
Çınar 37° 40´ 06´´ 40° 16´ 19´´ 806
Eğil 38° 15´ 26´´ 40° 04´ 51´´ 848
Ergani 38° 16´ 04´´ 39° 45´ 42´´ 932
Central district 37° 55´ 29´´ 40° 12´ 39´´ 688
Elazığ Baskil 38° 32´ 06´´ 38° 39´ 12´´ 1.276
Maden 38° 26´ 39´´ 39° 37´ 37´´ 1.155
Sivrice 38° 26´ 49´´ 39° 18´ 33´´ 1.274
Central district 38° 40´ 28´´ 39° 13´ 21´´ 1.060
MuĢ Hasköy 38° 41´ 00´´ 41° 41´ 26´´ 1.278
Korkut 38° 44´ 18´´ 41° 47´ 08´´ 1.312
Central district 38° 44´ 04´´ 41° 29´ 28´´ 1.396

MATERIALS and METHODS (Cucurbitales: Cucurbitaceae), Cucumis melo L.

The materials of this study were Capsicum annuum (Cucurbitales: Cucurbitaceae), Cucurbita pepo L.
L. (Solanales: Solanaceae), Cucumis sativus L. (Cucurbitales: Cucurbitaceae), Citrullus lanatus

39
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

(Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai (Cucurbitales: Regardless of whether they were infected with T.
Cucurbitaceae), Solanum melongena L. (Solanales: urticae during the sampling. Mite species were
Solanaceae), Solanum lycopersicum L. (Solanales: identified with help of Prof. Dr. Sultan ÇOBANOĞLU
Solanaceae) and Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabales: at the Department of Plant Protection, Ankara
Fabaceae) fields in Diyarbakır, Elazığ and MuĢ University. Literatures were used in diagnoses:
provinces (Figure 1). Kolodochka (1978); Çobanoğlu (1993 a,b,c); Moraes et
Samples were taken randomly from related areas. al. (2004); Chant & McMurtry (2007); Papadoulis et
The primary material in this study was Phytoseiidae al. (2009); Faraji et al. (2011).
family predators collected from the vegetable leaves.

Figure 1. Sampling areas in Diyarbakır, Elazığ and MuĢ provinces ( Sampling districts , Phytoseiidae found
districts).
ġekil 1: Diyarbakır, Elazığ ve MuĢ illerindeki örnekleme alanları ( Örneklenen ilçeler, Phytoseiidae
bulunan ilçeler).

The samples were collected during a 14 day first examination with stereoscopic microscope,
vegetation period between April and October of 2018- overlooked leaf samples were transferred into Berlese
2019. system for extraction. The Acari class species were
The leaves were taken different level and direction of kept 70% ethyl alcohol until microscopic slides. Then,
the plants including, lower, middle, and top of the the individuals were transferred into Lactophenol
host plants. If the plant morphology was consisted of solution for cleaning (Çobanoğlu & Kumral 2014;
the small plates, 50 or 60 samples were taken for each Kasap & Çobanoğlu 2009). After cleaning they were
0.1-hectare area. On the other hand, if plants have prepared with in Hoyer’s medium and placed on the
big leaves such as eggplant and cucumber, 20 or 30 slides and incubated at 50-60 ºC’ for 48 hours. The
leaves were taken for a 0.1-hectare area (Bora & slides were sealed by nail polish to prevent possible
Karaca 1970; Can & Çobanoğlu 2010; Çobanoğlu & air escape (DüzgüneĢ 1980).
Kumral 2014). Collected samples were first placed
paper and then polyethylene bags and delivered to RESULT and DISCUSSION
the Diyarbakır Plant Protection Research Institute In this study ten predatory mites including
laboratory (Diyarbakır) in the iceboxes. The plant Neoseiulus barkeri Hughes (Acari: Phytoseiidae), N.
materials were examined under the stereoscopic bicaudus Wainstein (Acari: Phytoseiidae), N.
microscope to collect phytoseiid mite species. After marginatus (Wainstein) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), N.

40
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

zwoelferi (Dosse) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), Neoseiulus sp. (Table 2)., N. barkeri was detected as the most
(Acari: Phytoseiidae), P. finitimus, Proprioseiopsis common species with 57.44% total number of
messor (Wainstein) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), T. (A.) individuals in the three provinces. Neoseiulus
bagdasarjani Wainstein and Arutunjan (Acari: bicaudus was the second most common species with
Phytoseiidae), T. (A.) rhenanus (Oudemans) (Acari: an 11.17%. The following percentages of species are
Phytoseiidae) and T. (A.) recki (Wainstein) (Acari: N. marginatus 10.10%, T. (A.) recki 5.31%, Phytoseius
Phytoseiidae) were identified (Table 2). The presence finitimus 4.78%, Neoseiulus sp. 4.78%, N. zwoelferi
rate of the Phytoseiidae mites were calculated on 3.72%, T. (A.) rhenanus 1.59%, P. messor 0.53%, and
randomly collected samples and formulated as bellow; T. (A.) bagdasarjani 0.53% in table 2. The table 2
The presence rate= the individual numbers of shows that the most common host plant is C. sativus
Phytoseiidae species X 100 / Total number of with 114 specimens, while the least preferred host is
individuals. C. annuum with two samples. Also, the most common
phytoseiid species is N. barkeri, with a 57.44 % ratio.
Also, five species relate to Neoseiulus, and three
Conversely, the rarest seen species are T. (A.)
species relating to T. (Anthoseius) genera were
bagdasarjani, and P. messor 0.53% ratio.
identified as the most beneficial predatory mites

Table 2. Phytoseiid mite species and range of the host plants.

Çizelge 2. Phytoseiidae akar türleri ve kültür bitkilerinde bulunma oranları.
Genera In Mite Species Host Plants* Total Ratio (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Neoseiulus barkeri 76 14 1 - 1 11 - 5 108 57.44
Neoseiulus bicaudus - 13 - - 6 - 2 - 21 11.17
Neoseiulus marginatus 17 - - - - - 2 - 19 10.10
Neoseiulus zwoelferi 7 - - - - - - - 7 3.72
Neoseiulus sp. 4 2 - - - 1 2 - 9 4.78
Phytoseiidae
Typhlodromus (A.) bagdasarjani 1 - - - - - - - 1 0.53
Typhlodromus (A.) recki 7 - - - 3 - - - 10 5.31
Typhlodromus (A.) rhenanus - - - - 2 1 - - 3 1.59
Phytoseius finitimus 2 1 1 - 5 - - - 9 4.78
Proprioseiopsis messor - - - - 1 - - - 1 0.53
In Total 114 30 2 0 18 13 6 5 188 100
*1. C. sativus 2. S. melongena 3. C. annuum 4. S. lycopersicum 5. C. pepo 6. P. vulgaris 7. C. lanatus 8. C. melo

Family: PHYTOSEIIDAE Aydın, Bursa, Çanakkale, Diyarbakır, Edirne,

Subfamily: AMBLYSEIINAE MUMA Istanbul, Izmir, Ordu, Samsun, ġanlıurfa (Çıkman
1995; Ġnal 2005; Faraji et al. 2011; Kılıç et al. 2012;
Genus: Neoseiulus Hughes
Kasap et al. 2013; Çobanoğlu & Kumral 2014; Ölmez
Species: Neoseiulus barkeri Hughes et al. 2015; Kutlu 2016; Soysal & Akyazı 2018).
Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Bismil, 5.07.2018, Distribution the World: Algeria, Argentina, Australia,
P. vulgaris (1♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 5.07.2018, S. Benin, Brazil, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chile, Canary
melongena (1♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, C. sativus (5♀♀ Islands, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, France,
2♂♂); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, S. melongena former USSR (Georgia, Ukraine), England, London
(4♀♀ 1♂); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, C. melo Dock, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hawaii, Iran
(1♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, C. sativus , Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar,
(5♀♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 9.10.2018, C. annuum Netherlands, Latvia, Malawi, Mayotte Island,
(1♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 2.08.2019, C. sativus (11♀♀ Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Portugal, Kenya,
3♂♂); Diyarbakır: Central District, 04.10.2018, S. Japan, Norway, Nigeria, South Korea, South Africa,
melongena (2♀♀); Diyarbakır: Çınar, 5.07.2018, C. Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Yemen, Tunisia, Thailand,
sativus (15♀♀ 2♂); Diyarbakır: Çınar, 5.07.2018, C. North Africa, New Jersey, Senegal, Rodriguez Island,
melo (4♀); Diyarbakır: Çınar, 5.07.2018, S. melongena Syria and the United States (California) (Athias-
(6♀♀); Diyarbakır: Çınar, 01.08.2018, C. sativus (3♀♀ Henriot 1966; Hughes 1976; Papadoulis et al. 2009;
1♂); Diyarbakır: Çınar, 15.10.2018, C. sativus (26♀♀ Demite et al. 2020).
3♂♂); Diyarbakır: Ergani, 21.06.2018, P. vulgaris (6
Species: Neoseiulus bicaudus Wainstein
♀♀); Diyarbakır: Ergani, 12.09.2018, P. vulgaris (1♀);
Elazığ: Baskil, 07.08.2018, C. pepo (1♀); MuĢ: Central Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Çınar, 3.06.2018, S.
District, 10.09.2019, P. vulgaris (2♀♀ 1♂). melongena (11♀♀ 2♂♂); Elazığ: Baskil, 17.08.2018, C.
pepo (5♀♀ 1♂); Elazığ: Maden, 30.07.2019, C. lanatus
Distribution of Turkey: Adapazarı, Ankara, Antalya,

41
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

(2♀♀). Çanakkale, Izmir (Faraji et al. 2011; Kasap et al.

Distribution of Turkey: Ankara, Aydın, Bursa, Izmir, 2013; Çobanoğlu & Kumral 2014).
Ordu, Samsun, Yalova (Ġnal 2005; Faraji et al. 2011; Distribution the World: Algeria, Argentina, Australia,
Çobanoğlu & Kumral 2014; Soysal & Akyazı 2018). former USSR (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Distribution the World: France, former USSR Turkmenistan, Ukraine), France, Egypt, New South
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Caucasus Region, Wales, Gaza Strip, Germany, Canary Islands, Greece,
Kazakhstan, Moldova, Krasnodar region), Greece, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Morocco,
Hungary, Iran, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Morocco, New
Norway, Chile, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Syria, Turkey and the
Spain, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, United States. (Papadoulis et al. 2009; Demite et al.
Turkey and the United States (Papadoulis et al. 2009; 2020).
Demite et al. 2020). Subfamily: PHYTOSEIINAE
Species: Neoseiulus marginatus (Wainstein) Genus: Phytoseius
Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, Species: Phytoseius finitimus Ribaga, 1904
C. sativus (2♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, C. Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Bismil, 9.10.2018,
sativus (1♀); Diyarbakır: Central District, 18.07.2019, S. melongena (1♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 9.10.2018, C.
C. sativus (1♀); Diyarbakır: Çınar, 15.10.2018, C. annuum (1♀); Diyarbakır: Eğil, 24.07.2019, C. pepo
lanatus (1♀); Elazığ: Baskil, 17.08.2018, C. lanatus (2♀♀); Elazığ: Baskil, 17.09.2019, C. pepo (2♀♀ 1♂);
(1♀); Elazığ: Central District, 16.07.2018, C. sativus MuĢ: Central District, 10.08.2018, C. sativus (2♀♀).
(7♀♀ 3♂♂); Elazığ: Central District, 11.10.2018, C.
Distribution of Turkey: Adana, Adapazarı, Amasya,
sativus (2♀♀); Elazığ: Maden, 23.07.2018, C. sativus
Ankara, Antalya, Amasya, Aydın, Balıkesir, Bolu,
(1♀).
Burdur, Bursa, Çanakkale, Diyarbakır, Edirne,
Distribution of Turkey: Ankara (Faraji et al. 2011). Erzincan, Giresun, GümüĢhane, Hakkâri, Icel,
Distribution the World: Algeria, The Former Soviet Isparta, Istanbul, Izmir, KahramanmaraĢ,
Union (Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kastamonu, Konya, Muğla, Niğde, Ordu, Rize,
Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Yaroslavl province, Samsun, Tekirdağ, Tokat (Ġnal 2005; Faraji et al.
Ukraine), France, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Israel, 2011; ÖzĢiĢli & Çobanoğlu 2011; Kasap et al. 2013;
Moldova, Moscow, Serbia, Turkey, Latvia and Kenya Çobanoğlu & Kumral 2014; Soysal & Akyazı 2018;
(Papadoulis et al. 2009). Yaman et al. 2018).
Species: Neoseiulus zwoelferi (Dosse) Distribution the World: Algeria, the Azores, Egypt,
Examined Materials: MuĢ: Central District, France, Greece, Iran, Israel, Italy, Montenegro,
18.06.2019, C. sativus (6♀♀ 1♂). Morocco, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia,
Turkey and the United States - California (Demite et
Distribution of Turkey: Ankara, Erzurum, Hakkâri,
al. 2020).
Samsun (Ġnal, 2005; Faraji et al., 2011).
Subfamily: TYPHLODROMINAE
Distribution the World: Finland, the former USSR
(Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Yaroslavl Genus: Typhlodromus (Anthoseius)
province, Russia, Moscow), the former Yugoslavia, Species:
Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) bagdasarjani Wainstein
Montenegro, Iran, Israel, Norway, Sweden, and Arutunjan
Switzerland, Turkey and the United States (Arizona, Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Ergani,15.08.2018,
California, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and C. sativus (1♀).
Wiskonsin) (Papadoulis et al. 2009; Demite et al.
Distribution of Turkey: Ankara, Hakkâri, Istanbul,
2020).
Muğla, Van Lake (around). (Bayram & Çobanoğlu
Species: Neoseiulus sp. 2007; Inak & Çobanoğlu 2018; Kasap & Çobanoğlu
Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Bismil, 5.07.2018, 2009; Faraji et al. 2011; Özsisli & Çobanoğlu
S. melongena (2♀♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, 2011; Yesilayer & Çobanoğlu 2011)
C. sativus (3♀♀1♂); Diyarbakır: Eğil, 4.09.2018, C. Distribution the World: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran,
lanatus (2♀♀); Elazığ: Central District, 19.06.2018, P. Turkey, Turkmenistan (Demite et al. 2020).
vulgaris (1♀).
Species: Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) recki Wainstein,
Genus: Proprioseiopsis Muma 1958
Species: Proprioseiopsis messor (Wainstein, 1960) Examined Materials: Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018,
Examined Materials: Elazığ: Sivrice, 10.09.2018, C. C. pepo (3♀♀); Diyarbakır: Bismil, 19.07.2018, C.
pepo (1♀). sativus (2♀♀), Elazığ: Maden, 28.08.2018, C. sativus
Distribution of Turkey: Adapazarı, Aydin, Bursa, (1♀); Elazığ: Sivrice, 10.09.2018, C. sativus (3♀♀ 1♂).

42
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

Distribution of Turkey: Adapazarı, Amasya, Ankara, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, England, Finland,
Amasya, Balıkesir, Burdur, Bursa, Çanakkale, France, former USSR (Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Edirne, GümüĢhane, Içel, Isparta, Istanbul, Izmir, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine), former
Kars, Kastamonu, Konya, Muğla, NevĢehir, Niğde, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Germany, Greece, India, Iran,
Samsun, Tekirdağ, Tokat, Yalova, Zonguldak (Ġnal Ireland, Italy, Israel, Latvia, the Netherlands,
2005; Faraji et al. 2011; Kasap et al. 2013; Çobanoğlu Norway, Northern Ireland, Madeira Island, Portugal,
& Kumral 2014; Kumral & Çobanoğlu 2015). Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Distribution the World: Algeria, Cyprus, former Spain, Syria, Turkey, and the USA (California,
USSR (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Caucasus Region, Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin)
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine), (Papadoulis et al. 2009; Demite et al. 2020).
Austria, Slovenia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary,
Iran, Morocco, Portugal, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, CONCLUSION
Tunisia, Syria and Turkey. (Papadoulis et al. 2009; As a result, 1063 plant samples were collected, and
Demite et al. 2020). 676 of which were observed with mite species. On
Species: Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) rhenanus seventy-two plant samples predatory mite species
(Oudemans) were identified belonging to the Phytoseiidae family,
Examined Materials: Elazığ: Sivrice, 10.09.2018, P. which constitutes 10.65% of 676 plants. This ratio
vulgaris (1♀); Elazığ: Sivrice, 10.09.2018, C. pepo differs in each of the three provinces. When examined
(2♀♀). in terms of the total number of individuals; the
distribution ratios of Phytoseiidae were 74.46%;
Distribution of Turkey: Antalya, Adapazarı, Erzurum 19.14%, and 6.38 % for Diyarbakır, Elazığ and MuĢ
(Faraji et al. 2011). provinces, respectively (Table 3).
Distribution the World: Algeria, Belgium, Brazil,

Table 3. Number of individuals of phytoseiid mite species in different Provinces in 2018 and 2019.
Çizelge 3. Phytoseiidae akar türlerinin 2018 ve 2019 yıllarında illerdeki birey sayıları.
Provinces Years 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total number of individuals Ratio(%)
Diyarbakır 2018 90 13 4 - 8 1 5 - 2 - 123 74.46
2019 14 - 1 - - - - - 2 - 17
Elazığ 2018 1 6 14 - 1 - 5 3 - 1 31 19.14
2019 - 2 - - - - - - 3 - 5
MuĢ 2018 - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 6.38
2019 3 - - 7 - - - - - - 10
In Total 108 21 19 7 9 1 10 3 9 1 188 100
*1. N. barkeri 2. N. bicaudus 3. N. marginatus 4. N. zwoelferi 5. Neoseiulus sp. 6. T. (A.) bagdasarjani 7. T. (A.) recki 8. T.
(A.) rhenanus 9. P. finitimus 10. P. messor

Overall, the host plants have a critical place in the common predatory mite species were described as N.
study meaning that. Phytoseiidae species prefer californicus with a 42.15% appearance rate. Soysal &
different cultivated plants. At the same time, the rate Akyazı (2018) identified 15 phytoseiid species and
of host plant preference reveals different numbers. three predatory mite species including N. barkeri, N.
For instance, C. sativus, with a 60.59% ratio, is the bicaudus, P. finitimus in the vegetable fields in Ordu
most preferred host plant. It is followed by; S. province. They indicated that predatory mites they
melongena 15.94%; C. pepo 8.96%; P. vulgaris 6.90%; found were comprise 21.8% of the general mite
C. melo 3.18%; C. lanatus 2.65% and C. annuum is fauna.
1.06 %(Figure 2). Interestingly, Phytoseiidae was not Çobanoğlu (1989) reported Amblyseius umbraticus
observed on the Solanum lycopersicum plants. (Chant) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vegetable fields for
There is no other research for the identification of the first time in Antalya. Neoseiulus barkeri and T.
Phytoseiidae mite species in the region. However, (Anthoseius) rhenanus species were also reported for
some general fauna studies were completed the first-time in Turkey in the same study. ÖzĢiĢli &
prevously, such as Yaman et al. (2018); P. finitimus in Çobanoğlu (2011) were performed a Fauna study in
Diyarbakır province, Ölmez-Bayhan et al. (2015); N. vegetable and fruit fields in Kahramanmaras to
barkeri and P. persimilis in Diyarbakır province. extend their study. Amblyseius andersoni (Chant)
Moreover, Kutlu (2016) was identified a related (Acari: Phytoseiidae), E. finlandicus, Paraseiulus
Phytoseiidae family since P. finitimus, N. triporus (Chant and Yoshida-Shaul) (Acari:
barkeri, Euseius finlandicus Oudemans (Acari: Phytoseiidae), P. soleiger (Ribaga) (Acari:
Phytoseiidae) ve N. californicus in vegetable fields in Phytoseiidae), Kampimodromus aberrans
Edirne, Turkey. Based on this study, the most (Oudemans) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), P. subsoleiger

43
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

Wainstein (Acari: Phytoseiidae), T. (A.) bagdasarjani, orchards. The same research has also shown that the
P. finitimus, and T. (A.) intercalaris (Livshitz- phytoseiid mite fauna in KahramanmaraĢ will
Kuznetsov) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) predatory species contribute to future integrated management
were reported. Based on this study, E. finlandicus activities.
was observed as the most common species in

3.18%
2.65% 1.06%
6.90%
Cucumis sativus L.
8.96%
Solanum melongena L.
Cucurbita pepo L.
Phaseolus vulgaris L.

60.59% Cucumis melo L.

15.94%
Citrullus lanatus
Capsicum annuum L.

Figure 2. The host plants detected of Phytoseiidae species.

ġekil 2. Phytoseiidae türlerinin saptandığı kültür bitkileri.

This research proved that the predatory mite species Ilçesinde Sebze Üretimi Yapılan Seralarda
are very promising for future biological management Bulunan Akar (Acari) Türlerinin Tanımı ve
strategies, and these locations have significant Konukçuları Üzerinde ÇalıĢmalar. Akdeniz
predatory mite potential. Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 23 (2), 87-
92.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Chant, D.A. & McMurtry, J.A. (2007). Illustrated
Keys and Diagnoses for The Genera and
This study was financed by the General Directorate of Subgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the World (Acari:
Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM) as a Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, 220 sy.
Doctoral Project with TAGEM/BSAD/A/19/A2/P5/1361 Çıkman, E. (1995). ġanlıurfa Ili Sebze Alanlarında
project number. Bulunan Akar Türleri YayılıĢları ve Konukçuları
Üzerinde AraĢtırmalar. (Doctoral dissertation), 98
Authors Contributions sy.
The authors declare that they have contributed Çobanoğlu, S. (1989). Antalya Ili Sebze Alanlarında
equally to the article. Tespit Edilen Phytoseiidae Berlese, 1915 (Acarina:
Mesostigmata) Türleri. Bitki Koruma Bülteni, 29
Statement of Conflict of Interest (1-2), 47-64.
None of the authors had any financial or personal Çobanoğlu, S. (1993a). Türkiye’nin Önemli Elma
relationships with other individuals or organizations Bölgelerinde Bulunan Phytoseiidae
that might inappropriately influence their work (Parasitiformis) Türleri Üzerinde Sistematik
during the submission process. Çalısmalar. IV. Türkiye Entomoloji Dergisi, 17 (4),
239-255.
Çobanoğlu, S. (1993b). Türkiye’ nin Önemli Elma
REFERENCES
Bahçelerinde Bulunan Phytoseiidae
Athias-Henriot, C. (1966). Contribution a l'etude des
(Parasitiformes) Türleri Üzerinde Sistematik
Amblyseius palearctiques (Acariens
ÇalıĢmalar. II. Türkiye Entomoloji Dergisi, 17 (2),
anactinoriches, Phytoseiidae). Bulletin scientifique
99-116.
de Bourgogne, 24, 181-230.
Çobanoğlu, S. (1993c). Türkiye’nin Önemli Elma
Bayram, S. & Çobanoğlu, S. (2007). Mite Fauna
Bölgelerinde Bulunan Phytoseiidae
(Acari: Prostigmata, Mesostigmata, Astigmata) of
(Parasitiformis) Türleri Üzerinde Sistematik
Coniferous Plants in Turkey. Turk. Entomol. Derg.
ÇalıĢmalar. III. Türkiye Entomoloji Dergisi, 17 (3),
31, 279–290.
175-192.
Bora, T. & Karaca, Ġ. (1970). Kültür Bitkilerinde
Çobanoğlu, S. (2002). Amblyseius astutus (Beglarov,
Hastalık ve Zararın Ölçülmesi. Ege Üni. Ziraat
1960) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae), a New Record for
Fak. Yard. Ders Kitabı, Yayın, 167, 43 sy.
the Predatory Mite Fauna of Turkey. Türkiye
Can, M. & Çobanoğlu, S. (2010). Kumluca (Antalya)

44
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

Entomoloji Dergisi, 26 (2), 115-120. Mites Injurious to Economic Plants. University of

Çobanoğlu, S. & Kumral, N.A. (2014). Ankara, Bursa California Press, Berkely, 646 sy.
ve Yalova Illerinde Domates YetiĢtirilen Alanlarda Kasap, I. & Çobanoğlu, S. (2009). Phytoseiid Mites of
Zararlı ve Faydalı Akar (Acari) Biyolojik ÇeĢitliliği Hakkâri Province, with Typhlodromus
ve Popülasyon Dalgalanması. Türkiye Entomoloji (Anthoseius) tamaricis Kolodochka, 1982 (Acari:
Dergisi, 38 (2), 197-214. Phytoseidae), a New Record for the Predatory Mite
Demite, P.R., McMurtry, J.A. & de-Moraes, G.J. Fauna of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 33
(2014). Phytoseiidae Database: A Website for (3), 301-308.
Taxonomic and Distributional Information on Kasap, Ġ., Çobanoğlu, S. & Pehlivan, S. (2013).
Phytoseiid Mites (Acari). Zootaxa, 3795 (5), 571- Çanakkale ve Balıkesir Illeri YumuĢak Çekirdekli
577. https://www.biotaxa.org/ Zootaxa/article/view/ Meyve Ağaçları ve Yabancı Otlar Üzerinde
zootaxa.3795.5.6/55457 (EriĢim tarihi: 02.04.2021). Bulunan Predatör Akar Türleri. Türkiye Biyolojik
Demite, P.R., de Moraes, G.J., McMurtry, J.A., Mücadele Dergisi, 4 (2), 109-124.
Denmark, H.A. & Castilho, R.C. (2020). Kasap, Ġ. (2020). Çanakkale Ili Sebze Alanlarında
Phytoseiidae Database. http://www.lea.esalq.usp. Görülen Avcı Akar Türleri. Türkiye Biyolojik
br/phytoseiidae/ (EriĢim tarihi: 02.04.2021). Mücadele Dergisi, 11 (2), 245-251.
Döker, I., Stathakis, T.I., Kazak, C., Karut, K. & Kılıç, T., Çobanoğlu, S., YoldaĢ, Z. & Madanlar, N.
Papadoulis, G.T. (2014). Four New Records and (2012). Ġzmir Ilinde Taze Soğan Tarlalarında
Two New Species of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Bulunan Akar (Acari) Türleri. Türkiye Entomoloji
Mesostigmata) From Turkey, With a Key to the Dergisi, 36 (3), 401-411.
Turkish Species. Zootaxa, 3827 (3), 331-342. Kılınçer, N., Yiğit, A., Kazak, C., Er, M.K., KurtuluĢ,
Döker, Ġ., Yalçın, K. & Kazak, C. (2015). Phytoseiidae A. & Uygun, N. (2010). Teoriden Pratiğe
(Acari: Mesostigmata). https://www.researchgate. Zararlılarla Biyolojik Mücadele. Türkiye Biyolojik
net/ profile/Ismail_Doeker/publication/286321819_ Mücadele Dergisi, 1(1), 15-60.
Phytoseiidae_Acari_Mesostigmata/links/5667c24a0 Knapp, M., van Houten, Y., van Baal, E. & Groot, T.
8aea62726 ee99f4.pdf. (EriĢim tarihi: 02.04.2021). (2018). Use of Predatory Mites in Commercial
Döker, Ġ. (2019). Neoseiulus cinctutus (Livshitz & Biocontrol: Current Status and Future Prospects.
Kuznetsov)’Un Türkiye Için Ilk Kaydı ile Acarologia, 58, 72-82.
Türkiye’de Neoseiulus Hughes (Acari: Kolodochka, L.A. (1978). Manual for the Identification
Phytoseiidae) Cinsi Türlerinin Tanı of Plant-Inhabiting Phytoseiid Mites. Akademia
Anahtarı. Türkiye Biyolojik Mücadele Dergisi, 10 Nauk SSSR, Zoological Institute. Naukova Dumka
(1), 73-81. Kiev, 78 sy.
DüzgüneĢ, Z. (1963). The Mite Species Newly Found Kutlu, S. (2016). Edirne Ġli Sebze Alanlarında
in Turkey. Bitki Koruma Bülteni, 3 (4), 237-246. Bulunan Fitofag ve Predatör Akar Türlerinin
DüzgüneĢ, Z. (1980). Küçük Arthropodların Belirlenmesi. Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Fen
Toplanması, Saklanması ve Mikroskopik Bilimleri Enstitüsü, (BasılmamıĢ) Yüksek Lisans
Preparatlarının Hazırlanması. T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Tezi, Edirne, 93 sy.
Hayvancılık Bakanlığı Zirai Mücadele ve Zirai Moraes, G.J., McMurtry, J.A., Denmark, H.A. &
Karantina Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. 77 sy. Campos, C.B. (2004). A Revised Catalog of the
Faraji, F., Çobanoğlu, S. & Çakmak, I. (2011). A Mite Family Phytoseiidae. Zootaxa 434, 1-494.
Checklist and a Key for the Phytoseiidae Species of Ölmez-Bayhan, S., Bayhan, E. & Kaplan, M. (2015).
Turkey with Two New Species Records (Acari: ‘Diyarbakır Ġlindeki Sebzelerde Bulunan Fitofag
Mesostigmata). International Journal of ve Predatör Akar Türlerinin Belirlenmesi’. XII
Acarology, 37, 221-243. Ulusal Ekoloji ve Çevre Kongresi, 14-17 Eylül
Hughes, A.M. (1976). The Mites of Stored Food and 2015, Muğla. Bildiri Özet Kitabı, 193 sy.
Houses (No. 2nd edition). Her Majesty's Stationery Özsisli, T. & Çobanoğlu, S. (2011). Mite (Acari) Fauna
Office, London, 400 sy. of Some Cultivated Plants from Kahramanmaras,
Inak, E. & Çobanoğlu, S. (2018). Determination of Turkey. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10 (11),
Mite Species on Vineyards of Ankara, 2149-2155.
Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27 (2), Papadoulis, G.T., Emmanouel, N.G. & Kapaxidi, E.V.
1232-1239. (2009). Phytoseiidae of Greece and Cyprus (Acari:
Ġnal, B. (2005). Bafra ve ÇarĢamba Ovalarında ÇeĢitli Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West
Kültür Bitkisi Alanlarında Bulunan Acarina Bloomfield, Michigan, USA, 200 sy.
Türleri Üzerinde Faunistik ÇalıĢmalar. Yüksek Sarwar, M., Kongming, W., Xuenong, X. & Endong,
Lisans Tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Fen W. (2011). Evaluations of Four Mite Predators
Bilimleri Enstitüsü Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı, (Acari: Phytosiidae) Released for Suppression of
Samsun, 100 sy. Spider Mite Infesting Protected Crop of Sweet
Jeppson, L.R., Keifer, H.H. & Baker, E.W. (1975). Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). African Journal of

45
KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 AraĢtırma Makalesi
KSU J. Agric Nat 26 (1), 38-46, 2023 Research Article

Agricultural Research, 6 (15), 3509-3514. Provinces, Turkey. In XXX International

Soysal, M. & Akyazi, R. (2018). Mite Species of the Horticultural Congress IHC2018: II International
Vegetable Crops in Ordu Province with First Symposium on Innovative Plant Protection in
Report of Amblyseius rademacheri Dosse, 1958 Horticulture, 169-176.
(Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) in Turkey. Türkiye YeĢilayer, A. & Çobanoğlu, S. (2011). The
Entomoloji Dergisi, 42 (4), 265-286. Distribution of Predatory Mite Species (Acari:
TUIK, (2019). https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/? Phytoseiidae) on Ornamental Plants and Parks of
kn=92&locale=tr, (EriĢim tarihi: 15.02.2021). Istanbul, Turkey. Türkiye Entomoloji Dergisi, 1(3),
Yaman, B., Öğreten, A., Bayram, Y. & Çobanoğlu, S. 135-143.
(2018). Spider mite [T. urticae (Acari: Zhang, Z.Q. (2003). Mites of Greenhouses:
Tetranychidae)] Population Development in Identification, Biology, and Control. CABI
Vegetable Crops in Diyarbakır and Mardin Publishing, Wallingford. 244 sy.

46