Seasonal variations of mites of the suborder Mesostigmata (Acarina) from south Florida turfgrasses

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Seasonal variations of mites of the suborder Mesostigmata (Acarina) from south Florida turfgrasses
Physical Description:
xvii, 122 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Ing, Robert Tso-Ho, 1944-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parasitiformes   ( lcsh )
Mites -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Grasses -- Diseases and pests -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 115-121).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robert Tso-Ho Ing.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000012760
notis - AAB5662
oclc - 04245551
System ID:
AA00003910:00001

Full Text










SEASONAL VARIATIONS
OF
MITES OF THE SUBORDER MESOSTIGMATA (ACARINA)
FROM SOUTH FLORIDA TURFGRASSES






By

ROBERT TSO-HO ING


A DISSERTATION PRESI}IID7 TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE LNI'.'EFSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLM]nIT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DECREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1978































DEDICATION



To my Parents

Glyn T. H. Ing and Nancy C. Ing













ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


I would like to thank the members of my supervisory

committee, Dr. H. L. Cromroy, chairman, Dr. J. L. Nation,

Dr. T. C. Emmel, Dr. J. A. Reinert, and Dr. J. Reiskind, for

their supervision, guidance and help during my degree pro-

gram. I want to thank Dr. H. L. Cromroy also for his

patience and encouragement, without which this study could

not have gone on, and for his help in identification. I

thank Dr. J. A. Reinert also for conducting the survey and

providing me with specimens from which this study was made.

I want to thank Dr. S. H. Kerr, graduate student coordinator

of the Department of Entomology, for his supervision and

help in the completion of this manuscript.

I also want to thank the following persons who have

come to my assistance or rescue during the study:

Dr. T. C. Shih, for his advice, encouragement, and help

in data analysis;

Ms. Carolyn Lynn, for her help in computer operations;

Mr. Yusoh bin Salleh and Mrs. Rohani binti Ibrahim, for

their help in preparation of mounted specimens;

Mr. H. A. Denmark and Dr. G. W. Krantz, who helped me

in identifications;


iii









Mr. Duval Puckett, who showed me how this survey was

done;

Mrs. Carol Giles, for her advice and typing;

Ms. Donna Bannister, for her encouragement and proof-

reading;

Ms. Pearl Ing, who kept me company and supervised my

writing;

and my parents: Mr. Glyn T. H. Ing and Mrs. Nancy C.

Ing, who provided me with encouragement, understanding, and

loving support.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . .. vii

LIST OF FIGURES . . .. xi

ABSTRACT . . .. . xvi

I:IT 'II1T . . .. .... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW . . 5

METHODS AND MATERIALS . .... 13

RESULTS . . .. ... 18

DISCUSSION . . .. . 23
Environmental Influence on Mite Populations .. 23
Seasonal Variations of Mite Populations ... 23
Interrelationships Among Mite Groups and Arthropods 27
Evaluation of Sampling Methods . ... 28
Diversity . . .. 30
Discussions of Biological and Ecological Informations 30

CONCLUSION . . ... 47

TABLES . . ... . 50

FIGUIPfS . . .. . 76

APPENDICES . ... 105

APPENDIX I
TURF MITE.iUF'..',' PLOTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
FT. L.F'.iEF 'ALE, FLrIOFlD ............. 106

APPENDIX II
MONTHLY MEAN :lM'BEPS OF MITES AND MAJOR GROUPS
OF INSECTS FROM BERLESE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
IHPLE SPECIES OF TURFGRASS IN FT. LAUDERDALE,
FLORIDA . . .. 107

v










TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

Page

APPENDIX III
MEAN NUMBERS OF MAJOR ARTHROPOD GROUPS FROM
BERLESE SAMPLES AND MITE SUBORDERS FROM SLIDE
SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THREE SPECIES OF SOUTH
FLORIDA TURFGRASS, COMPARED BY GRASS SPECIES
AND SEASONS ..... .. . 108

APPENDIX IV
MONTHLY MEAN UIIJlBEPS OF FOUR MITE SUBORDERS
FROM SLIDE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THREE
SPECIES OF TURFGRASS IN FT. LAUDERDALE,
FLORIDA . ... 110

APPENDIX V
MONTHLY MEAN NUMBERS OF MAJOR FAMILIES OF
MESOSTIGMATA FROM SLIDE SAMPLES COLLECTED
FROM THREE SPECIES OF TURFGRASS IN FT.
LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA . ... 111

APPENDIX VI
MONTHLY MEAN NUMBERS OF MAJOR ENIEPA AND
SPECIES OF MESOSTIGMATA FROM SLIDE SAMPLES
COLLECTED FROM THREE SPECIES OF TURFGRASS
IN FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA . .. 112

APPENDIX VII
MONTHLY MEAN VALUES OF SHANNON-WIENER
INDEX FOR FAMILIES (H ) AND SPECIES (Hspp)
OF MESOSTIGMATA FROM SLIDE SAMPLES COLLEC-
TED FROM THREE SPECIES OF TURFGRASS IN FT.
LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA . .. 113

APPENDIX VIII
MONTHLY MEAN NUMBERS OF FOUR MITE SUBORDERS
FROM DROP SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THREE SPE-
CIES OF TURFGRASS IN FT. LAlUDEI-ALE, FLORIDA 114

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . ... ..... 115

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . ... .. 122















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Mean Number of Mites and Major Groups of
Insects from Berlese Samples Collected
from Each of Three Species of Turfgrass
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida . ... 50

2 Mean Numbers of Four Mite Suborders from
Slide Samples Collected from Each of
Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauder-
dale, Florida . ... 51

3 Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites
from Slide Samples Collected from Three
Species of South Florida Turfgrass, Com-
pared by Month ... . 52

4 Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites
from Slide Samples Collected from Three
Species of South Florida Turfgrass, Com-
pared by Grass Species. . 53

5 Families and Species of Suborder Meso-
stigmata Found in Slide Samples Collected
Every Other Week from Three Plots Each
of Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Included are Total
Numbers of Specimens Found, Occurrances
in Each Species of Turfgrass, Seasonal
Occurrances, and Occurrances of Sexes 54

6 Superfamilies and Families of Mites in
the Suborders Cryptostigmata, Prostigmata,
and Astigmata Found from Slide Samples
Collected from Three Species of Turfgrass
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. . ... 58

7 Mean Numbers of Major Families of Meso-
stigmata from Slide Samples Collected from
Each of Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. . ... 59


vii









LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)


Table


Mean Numbers of Major Genera and Species
of Mesostigmata from Slide Samples Col-
ected from Each of Three Species of Turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida . .

Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum
Temperature, Minimum Temperature, Preci-
pitation, and Major Arthropod Groups
from Berlese Samples Collected from
Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauder-
dale, Florida . . .

Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum
Temperature, Minimum Temperature, Pre-
cipitation, and Four Mite Suborders from
Slide Samples Collected from Three Spe-
cies of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida . . .

Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum
Temperature, Minimum Temperature, Pre-
cipitation, and Major Mesostigmatid
Families from Slide Samples Collected
from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida . .

Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum
Temperature, Minimum Temperature, Preci-
pitation, and Four Mite Suborders from
Drop Samples Collected from Three Species
of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida .

Mean Values of Shannon-Wiener Index for Fam-
ilies (Hp) and Species and Species (H )
of Mesostigmata from Slide Samples Col-
lected from Each of Three Species of Turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida . .

Mean Numbers of Four Mite Suborders from
Drop Samples Collected from Each of Three
Species of South Florida Turfgrass . .


60







61


65



66


viii


Page










LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)


Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites
from Drop Samples Collected from Three
Species of South Florida Turfgrass, Com-
pared by Month . .

Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites
from Drop Samples Collected from Three
Species of South Florida Turfgrass, Com-
pared by Grass Species . .

Correlation Coefficients of Mites and
Major Insect Groups from Berlese Sam-
ples Collected from Three Species of
Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida .

Correlation Coefficients of Suborders
of Mites from Slide Samples Collected
from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida . .

Correlation Coefficients of four Mite
Suborders from Drop Samples Collected
from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida . .

Correlation Coefficients of Major Fam-
ilies of Mesostigmata from Slide Sam-
ples Collected from Three Species of
Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida .

Correlation Coefficients of Ants from
Berlese Samples with Some Mesostigmatid
Species from Slide Samples Collected
from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida, and Overall Mean
Number of These Mite Species .

Correlation Coefficients of Mite Num-
bers from Berlese Samples with Total
and Suborder Mite Numbers from Drop Sam-
ples and Total Mite Numbers from Slide
Samples . . .


Table


Page


. 72







. 73










LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)


Table Page

23 Overall Means and Percentages of Four
Mite Suborders from Drop Samples and
Slide Samples Collected from Three Spe-
cies of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida . ... 75















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Monthly mean number of all mites from
Berlese samples from three species of
turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Three 20.3 cm-diameter, 9 cm-deep core
samples were taken every other week
from each grass. . . ... 76

2 Monthly mean number of Collembola from
Berlese samples from three species of
turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Three 20.3 cm-diameter, 9 cm-deep core
samples were taken every other week
from each grass. . . ... 77

3 Monthly mean number of ants from Berlese
samples from three species of turfgrass
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three 20.3
cm-diameter, 9 cm-deep core samples
were taken every other week from each
grass. . . .. 78

4 Monthly mean number of scales from Ber-
lese samples from three species of turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three
20.3 cm-diameter, 9 cm-deep core samples
were taken every other week from each
grass . . 79

5 Monthly mean number of thrips from Ber-
lese samples from three species of turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three
20.3 cm-diameter, 9 cm-deep core samples
were taken every other week from each
grass. . . ... .. .. .. 80

6 Monthly mean number of Suborder Crypto-
stigmata from slide and drop samples
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. 81










LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)


Figure Page

7 Monthly mean number of suborder Pro-
stigmata from slide and drop samples
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples
were taken every other week from each
grass. . . ... 82

8 Monthly mean number of suborder Astig-
mata from slide and drop samples from
three species of turfgrass in Ft. Lauder-
dale, Florida. Three samples were taken
every other week from each grass. ... 83

9 Monthly mean number of suborder Mesostig-
mata from slide and drop samples from
three species of turfgrass in Ft. Lauder-
dale, Florida. Three samples were taken
every other week from each grass. ... 84

10 Monthly mean number of family Macrocheli-
dae from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. ... 85

11 Monthly mean number of family Laelapidae
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. 86

12 Monthly mean number of family Phytoseii-
dae from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. ... 87

13 Monthly mean number of family Ascidae
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. 88

14 Monthly mean number of family Rhodacari-
dae from three species of turfgrass in
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples
were taken every other week from each
grass . ... .. .. 89


xii










LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)


Figure Page

15 Monthly mean number of family Uropodidae
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. ... 90

16 Monthly mean number of family Eutrachyti-
dae from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass. ... 91

17 Monthly mean number of genus Proprio-
seiopsis (Phytoseiidae) from three spe-
cies of turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. Three samples were taken
every other week from each grass. ... 92

18 Monthly mean number of genus Hypoaspis
(Laelapidae) from three species of turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three
samples were taken every other week from
each graz;s. .... . .. 93

19 Monthly mean number of genus Macrocheles
(Macrochelidae) from three species of
turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Three samples were taken every other week
from each grass. . . 94

20 Monthly mean number of genus Asca (Ascidae)
from three species of turfgrass in Ft. Lau-
derdale, Florida. Three samples were taken
every other week from each grass. ... 95

21 Monthly mean number of Hypoaspis near
claviger (Berl.) from three species of turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three
samples were taken every other week from
each grass. . .... 96

22 Monthly mean number of Pseudoparasitus
stigmatus (Fox) from three species of
turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Three samples were taken every other week
from each grass. ... . 97


xiii










LIST OF FIGUFL'S
(Continued)


Figure


23 Monthly mean number of Ololaelaps sp.
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples were
taken every other week from each grass.

24 Monthly mean number of Macrocheles
near insignitis from three species
of turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale, Flor-
ida. Three samples were taken every
other week from each grass. .

25 Monthly mean number of Leonardiella
sp. from three species of turfgrass
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three
samples were taken every other week
from each grass. . .

26 Monthly mean number of Oplitis communis
from three species of turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples
were taken every other week from each
grass . .

27 Maximum and minimum temperatures recorded
at the University of Florida, Agricultur-
al Research Center, Ft. Lauderdale, Flor-
ida, from June, 1974, to June, 1975. .

28 Monthly cumulative precipitation recorded
at the University of Florida, Agricultur-
al Research Center, Ft. Lauderdale, Flor-
ida, from June, 1974, to June, 1975. .

29 Monthly mean values of Shannon-Wiener in-
dex for families (HF) and species (HSpp
of Mesostigmata from slide samples col-
lected from three species of turfgrass in
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Three samples
were taken every other week from each
grass. . . .


. 100


. 102




. 103


xiv


Page





























', "E xv NOT USED









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


SEASONAL VARIATIONS
OF
MITES OF THE SUBORDER MESOSTIGMATA (ACARINA)
FROM SOUTH FLORIDA TURFGRASSES

By

Robert Tso-Ho Ing

June 1978

Chairman: Harvey L. Cromroy
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology

A survey of mesostigmatid mites was conducted on experi-

mental and landscaping turfgrass plots in Ft. Lauderdale,

Florida. From three plots each of St. Augustinegrass,

bahiagrass and bermudagrass, one core sample consisting of

soil, thatch and grass was taken every other week from June,

1974, to June, 1975. Sample cores were 20 cm in diameter

and 10 cm deep. Mites were extracted with Berlese funnels

for 11-14 days and were preserved in 80 percent ethanol and

mounted on microscope slides.

The major arthropod groups collected from core samples

were mites, Collembola, ants, scales and thrips. Among the

mites collected were 13 superfamilies of Cryptostigmata, at

least 18 families of Prostigmata, two families of Astigmata,

and 14 families with 72 species of Mesostigmata. The meso-

stigmatid families and numbers of species in each family

were: Macrochelidae (5), Laelapidae (16), Phytoseiidae


xvi









(14), Ascidae (15), Macronyssidae (1), Rhodacaridae (7),

Parasitidae (2), Polyaspidae (1), Podocinidae (1), Veigaiidae

(1), Parantennulidae (1), Cercomegistidae (1), Eutrachytidae

(2), and Uropodidae (5). Populations of the arthropod

groups, mite suborders and common mesostigmatid families,

genera and species were compared according to seasons and

grass species from which they were collected. The effects

of temperature and precipitation on mite populations were

discussed. Diversity, measured by Shannon-Weiner index, was

calculated for mesostigmatid families and species and was

compared according to seasons and grass species. Biological

and ecological information on each of the mesostigmatid

species was reviewed and discussed.


xvii












INTRODUCTION


Turfgrass is important to a contemporary society for

several reasons. Aesthetically, turf provides a background

for landscaping, reduces glare and lowers temperatures of

ground and surrounding space, thus beautifying our environ-

ment and making it more comfortable in which to live. From

the utility standpoint, its use prevents soil erosion,

controls dust, and provides a clean and pleasant surface for

work and recreation (Smith 1975). Furthermore, the produc-

tion and maintenance of turfgrass is a large industry that

has a significant place in our agricultural economy. In

1970, Americans spent over a billion dollars for the estab-

lishment and maintenance of turfgrass on residential lawns

(Crockett et al. 1975). In the state of Florida, in the

year ending in June, 1974, 911,000 acres (368,676 ha) of

turfgrass were being maintained at an annual cost of 450

million dollars. An additional 73 million dollars was

invested in the establishment of 31,000 acres (12,545 ha) of

new turf. The combined cost of turf maintenance and new

turf was equal to a third of the total 1974 production

expenditures on Florida farms (Fla. Dept. Agr. and Consumer

Serv. and Fla. Crop and Livestock Reporting Serv. 1976).









Turfgrass consists of a complex of parts including the

leaves, stems and roots of the grass plant, and a composite

layer of plant debris, roots and stolen generally referred

to as thatch (Streu 1973). A large number of invertebrate

pests inhabit this environment and can cause economic damage

through their feeding activity. The major invertebrate

pests of turfgrass in Florida are southern chinch bug,

Blissus insularis Barber; sod webworms, Herpetogramma phaeop-

teralis Guenee and Crambus spp.; fall armyworm, Spodoptera

frugiperda (Smith); mole crickets, Scapteriscus acletus R.

and H. and S. vicinus Scudd.; hunting bill bug, Spenophorus

venatus vestita Chittenden; white grubs, Phyllophaga spp.,

Cotinis nitida (L.) and Cyclocephala spp.; scale insects,

Antonina graminis (Mask.) and Odonaspis ruthae Kot.; spittle

bug, Prosapia bicincta; bermudagrass mite, Eriophyes cyno-

doniensis (Sayed); ground pearls; and nematodes (Short

1976).

Turfgrass is also inhabited by a large number of non-

pests including insects, mites, and nematodes forming a

complex community which interacts with the plant and the

thatch as well as with the pest organisms. Continued and

heavy pesticide usage in turfgrass may cause reductions of

predators and decomposers and an increase in herbivore

population in the turfgrass ecosystem. These conditions in

turn will contribute to and severely aggravate thatch and









pest problems commonly associated with high-maintenance

turfgrass (Streu 1973). In establishing an effective pest

management system for turfgrass, it is essential to have a

thorough understanding of the ecosystem involved. This

knowledge enables us to speculate on the effects of cultural

practices and pesticide applications, potential secondary

pests and possible beneficial organisms, and forms the basis

of intelligent decision making.

In 1974, a comprehensive turfgrass faunal survey was

conducted by Dr. James A. Reinert at the Agricultural Re-

search Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On nine experimen-

tal plots planted in St. Augustinegrass, bahiagrass and ber-

mudagrass, core samples consisting of soil, thatch and grass

were removed biweekly to determine insect, mite and other

invertebrate fauna. In addition, 10 sweeps per plot with a

sweepnet was used for sampling insects associated with

above-ground part of the grasses. The present study is

concerned with mite species of the suborder Mesostigmata

which includes those mite families most frequently studied

in biological control of mites and insects.

The primary aim of this study was to determine the mite

species present in turfgrass untreated with pesticides as

baseline data for comparison with treated turfgrass, and,

where possible, to derive quantitative population information

such as population density, seasonal and habitat distribu-

tions, and co-relationships among the mites.





4



It is hoped that these findings will provide a back-

ground for future studies on turfgrass, and for determining

the effects of repeated use of pesticides in the environment

and their effect on the soil populations of arthropods.












LITERATURE REVIEW


A review of faunal studies on mites in the state of

Florida showed that there are surveys based on both mite

taxa and habitat or ecosystem. Among the ecosystems, the

citrus groves are the most intensively and extensively

studied. The mesostigmatid family Phytoseiidae is the best

understood among the mite taxa.

Muma (1955) listed 11 species of Phytoseiidae associated

with Florida citrus. Two of these were later placed in the

family Blattisocidae (treated as a subfamily of Ascidae in

the present study), leaving nine bonafide phytoseiids. In a

revision of the above work, Muma (1964a) expanded the list

of citrus-associated Phytoseiidae to 10 genera and 32 species.

Keys, diagnostic characters, and collection records were

provided for each genus and species.

In other families of mites found associated with citrus

in Florida, Muma (1960) recorded eight species in the family

Cunaxidae, Muma (1964b) recorded 12 species of Cheyletidae,

and Attiah (1970) described two new genera and 20 new spe-

cies of tarsonemid mites.

Muma et al. (1975) compiled a systematic list of pred-

ators and parasites of insects and mites associated with

Florida citrus. A total of 17 mite families represented by









138 species were listed. Also given were evaluations of

importance, seasonal abundance, and distribution records.

In a non-technical handbook for field identification of

common groups of mites found in citrus groves, Muma (1975)

covered more than 230 species of mites belonging to at least

49 families. Habitat, biology, and economic data were

included for many species. Keys for families and diagnostic

characters for families, genera and species were provided

for the 10X-magnifying-lens user in the field.

Some population studies of mites on Florida citrus were

conducted by Muma (1964c, 1965). In a Phytoseiidae popula-

tion study from May 1960 to February 1962, Muma (1964c) took

leaf samples from citrus groves in five growing areas in

Florida. Of the 16 species of Phytoseiidae found, eight were

sufficiently common to permit determination of a sex ratio.

Populations of these eight common species were compared

according to citrus growing areas and to seasons of the

year. The most common species in each growing area and in

each season was Amblyseius peregrinus (Muma).

Muma (1965) conducted a three-year study on mite popula-

tion in 15 essentially untreated, widely distributed citrus

groves. Mite samples were collected from fruit, leaves,

bark and litter four times a year, and mean populations were

recorded for each strata, grove, season, and geographic

area. Seventeen species or species complexes were









sufficiently common or abundant to be of possible importance

to the development of other mite populations in citrus

groves. These were discussed as either injurious, predatory,

or scavenger species. Also discussed were the host-predator

associations possibly important in the economy of injurious

species.

The population of Phytoseiidae from sand-pine litter in

Florida was studied by Muma (1968). He collected 18 species

of phytoseiids, all belonging to the subfamily Amblyseiinae.

The seasonal and geographical distributions of the most

common species were studied, and a comparison was made of

the common litter phytoseiids from litter of sand-pine,

citrus, and mixed mesophytic hardwood hammocks composed

primarily of oaks, sweet gum, and hickories.

Muma and Denmark (1971) reviewed the Phytoseiidae in

Florida. Eighty-six species were recorded and their diag-

noses, type data, habitats, biology, and distribution were

provided. Also included were diagnostic keys and distribu-

tional maps.

In a series of papers on some Oribatei mites of Florida,

Jacot (1933, 1935, 1936, 1938) recorded and described 18

genera and 42 species of mites belonging to the family

Phthiracaridae and subfamily Galumninae.

In mite fauna of lychee in Florida, Dekle (1954) re-

corded three species of tetranychid mites. DeLeon (1956)









recorded an additional five mite species and described two

new genera and five new species of Tarsonemidae.

Gladiolus was reported (Kelsheimer 1956) to be attacked

by two species of spider mites in Florida. Seven species of

mites were found to be associated with gladiolus corms

(Engelhard 1969, Poe 1971). At least one of these mites,

Lasioseius subterraneous Chant, was reported as a predator.

From an experimental red worm bed in the Quincy area,

Tappan (1959) collected two species each in the families

Macrochelidae and Uropodidae. One of the uropodids, Fuscur-

opoda agitans (Banks) was reported eating worm's food. The

other, F. marginata (Koch), however, was a predator of F.

agitans.

In a preliminary survey of ectoparasitic mites of the

house sparrow and mockingbird in Florida, Phillis and Cromroy

(1972) recorded three species of Macronyssidae. Phillis et

al. (1976) recorded new host and distribution records for

the above species, an additional species of Macronyssidae,

and a species of Dermanyssidae.

Dohany and Cromroy (1976) recorded eight species of

chiggers (larvae of Trombiculidae) in Florida from litter

samples and tree holes, and with black plates. Of these

species, six were new to the state of Florida and two species

were recorded from their hosts for the first time. Ibrahim

(1976) recorded two additional chigger species and described

a new species from north central Florida.









In an acarine survey on six species of ornamental

plants in Gainesville, Florida, Yusoh (1976) found mites

belonging to 16 families, 36 genera and 45 species. The

mite families were categorized into phytophagous, predaceous,

and saprophytic groups and the populations of these groups

were compared for each host plant.

Our knowledge of mites on turfgrass is meager compared

to that on citrus. Wolfenbarger (1953) collected two species

of mites from St. Augustinegrass. They are Paratetranychus

stickneyi McGregor and a new species, with the former also

feeding on bermudagrass. He described the symptoms of mite

infestation and stated that the use of sulfur seemed to

provide effective control. A special grass survey (Link et

al. 1955) was conducted in Monroe, Dade and Broward counties

of Florida from July 1954 through March 1955. The purpose

of the survey was to collect, identify, and record all

arthropods found on turf. However, only four mite species

were found, together with other arthropods. These are

Cunaxoides andrei Baker and Hoffman, Amblyseius sp., Galumna

sp., and Scheloribates laevigatus (Koch). In a survey on

predaceous mites associated with bermudagrass mite, Eriophyes

cynodoniensis (Sayed), Johnson (1975) collected samples of

crown, stem and leaves of bermudagrass. The most common

mites he found belonged to the family Uropodidae. He re-

corded the following predaceous species:









Cunaxidae: Neocunaxoides andrei (Baker and Hoffman)

Cunaxa simplex (Ewing)

Dactyloseious sp.

Eupodidae: Eupodes near ocellatus

Tydeidae: Tydeus pertydeus tuttlei Baker

Paralorryia near italica

Macrochelidae: Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scapoli)

M. near rothamstedensis

Phytoseiidae



Outside the state of Florida, there is also very little

work done on mites associated with turfgrass. Tuttle (1963)

recorded the following mites from bermudagrass in Arizona:

Laelaptidae: Cosmolaelaps sp.

Aceosejidae: Proctolaelaps sp.

Phytoseiidae: Typhlodromus (A.) obtusus group

Amblyseiopsis n. sp.

Uropodidae: Leiodinychus sp.

Tarsonemidae: Stenotarsonemus spirifex (Marchal)

Tydeidae: several spp.

Cunaxidae: Cunaxoides andrei Baker and Hoffman

Cunaxoides n. sp.

Caligonellidae: Molothrognathus crucis Summers and

Schlinger

Molothrognathus n. sp.

Tetrarychidae: Petrobia latens (Muller)








Schizotetranychus eremophilus McGregor

Oligonychus pratensis (Banks)

Oligonychus stickneyi (McGregor)

Cheyletidae: Paracheyletia wellsi (Baker)

Eriophyidae: Aceria neocynodonis Keifer

Erythraeidae: Balaustium sp.

Leptus sp.

Ephilohomanniidae: Ephilohomannia cylindrica (Berlese)

Carabodidae: Tectocepheus sp.

Oribatulidae: Zygoribatula sp.



In a study on predators of the hairy chinch bug, Blissus

leucopterus hirtus Montadon, from bluegrass in New Jersey,

C. Cruz and H. T. Streu (unpublished manuscript) studied the

predation of several mite species on chinch bugs and Collem-

bola in the laboratory, and population densities of Mesostig-

mata in relation to chinch bug populations, and discussed

the effects of application of chlordane on mesostigmatid

mites. They recorded the following mites:

Erythraeidae: Balaustium spp.

Erythraeus spp.

Parasitidae: Parasitus sp.

Eugamasus sp.

Pergamasus sp.









Phytoseiidae: Amblyseius sp.

Neoseiulus setulus (Fox)

N. gracilis (Muma)

Fundiseius spp.

Proprioseiopsis spp.

Ascidae: Asca nova Willmann

Lasioseius mcgregori (Chant)

other Lasioseius species

Macrochelidae: Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scopoli)













METHODS AND MATERIALS


This survey was conducted on the experimental and

landscaping turfgrass plots located within the University of

Florida Agricultural Research Center at Fort Lauderdale,

Florida.

Mites were collected from nine plots of grasses ranging
2 2
in area from about 115 m to about 800 m. The three grass

species most commonly cultivated in south Florida were

sampled. There were three plots each of St. Augustinegrass,

Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walt.) Kuntze; bahiagrass, Paspalum

notatum Flugge; and bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.)

Pers. The layout of the survey plots and the grass species

and varieties are presented in Appendix I. All the turf

plots were under a low-maintenance program and no pesticide

was applied during the survey. Two plots of St. Augustine-

grass and one plot of bahiagrass (plots 2, 3 and 4) were

marked off from landscape lawns. These were watered about

two or three times per week. The remainder of the plots

were experimental turf plots that received approximately 3

mm of water per day. All watering was in the form of over-

head sprinkling.

One core sample consisting of soil, thatch and grass

was taken from each plot every other week from June, 1974, to









June, 1975. The samples were taken at random from within an

approximately 6 m x 6 m area situated in the middle of each

plot, in late morning or early afternoon after the dew had

dried. Sample cores were taken with a soil of corer 20.3 cm

inside diameter and about 10 cm deep. The plugs were then

placed up-side-down into Tullgren's modification of Berlese

funnels so that the grasses were against the double layer of

cheese cloth in the bottom of funnels, while the soil was

exposed to the 40W incandescent bulbs. This was done accord-

ing to the belief that soil animals can escape through soil

surface more easily than they can to deeper soil layers.

The funnels were run for 14 days for moist samples and 11

days for drier samples. The soil and grass animals were

collected and preserved in 80 percent ethanol in 1-pint

mason jars (476 ml). Mites were separated from other animals

under 20X of a binocular dissecting scope. The numbers of

mites and common groups of insects from each sample were

counted. These insects are Collembola, ants, scale insects,

and thrips. The sorted mites were preserved in 80 percent

ethanol in 8 ml screw-cap glass shell-vials. Approximately

100 mites were randomly extracted from each sample vial with

a flattened dissecting needle. These were mounted in Hoyer's

modified Berlese medium on microscope slides. After drying

the slides at 500C for four days the coverslips were ringed

with Glyptal or pink finger-nail polish. The specimens were









identified by use of a phase-contrast microscope with magni-

fications of 100X, 200X, 450X, or 1,000X. During a prelimi-

nary sorting, mites of the suborders Astigmata, Prostigmata,

Cryptostigmata, and Mesostigmata were separated. Notes were

kept on the families of Astigmata and Prostigmata, and

superfamilies of Cryptostigmata. Mesostigmatid mites were

identified to families, genera, and species.

During the time of this survey, climatic data were re-

corded daily with the standard meteorology station equipment

located within the Agricultural Research Center. Maximum

and'minimum temperatures, precipitation, and evaporation of

the previous day were logged at around 8 AM each day.

The stability of an ecosystem is often thought to

depend on the diversity of its component species of producers

and consumers (Price 1975, Wilson and Bossert 1971). Diver-

sity in this case refers to not only the number of species

but also the relative abundance of each. The most commonly

used measurement for diversity is the Shannon-Wiener index

H', where

H' = -X Pi loge Pi

and Pi is the proportion of the ith species or group of

species in the total sample. Diversity in a community

increases when there is an increase in the number of species

and also when species become more evenly distributed in

abundance.









Using the Shannon-Wiener index, a comparison was made

of the diversity of major groups of mesostigmatid mites

among the months of the survey year, and among the grass

species.

In order to estimate the ratio of mites in the four

suborders, a drop-sampling method was devised. The tip of an

eyedropper was filed down so that the opening was enlarged

to an inside diameter of about 3 mm. This was to insure

that the largest mites in the samples could freely pass

through. The glass tube of the eyedropper was calibrated

and marked at 1/8 ml intervals.

A vial containing mites from a complete sample was un-

capped and the 80 percent ethanol in the vial was filled to

neck level (8 ml). The vial was stopped-up with a thumb,

turned up-side-down, shaken vigorously 10 times, and turned

immediately right-side-up. The tip of the eyedropper was

inserted into the middle of the vial. Within 1 sec. after

cessation of shaking of the vial, before the mites could

settle again, a measured amount of 1/8 ml of liquid with

mites was sucked into the eyedropper. The eyedropper

was then held upright for 1 min., at the end of which all

the mites in the dropper will have settled to around the

opening. One to two drops of the liquid with all the mites

were then placed into the well of a cavity slide, covered

with a glass coverslip, and examined under 100X of a





17



phase-contrast microscope. The number of mites in the

suborders Astigmata, Prostigmata, Cryptostigmata, and Meso-

stigmata were counted. This whole procedure was repeated

three more times for each vial without replenishing the

ethanol taken out each time. The means derived from the

four drop-samples for each sample vial were used for esti-

mating the ratio of the four mite suborders.













RESULTS


The major groups of arthropods collected from Berlese

funnel samples are mites, Collembola, ants, scales and

thrips. The mean numbers of these groups of animals collec-

ted in each month of the survey year are presented in Appen-

dix II and Figures 1-5. The mean numbers of these animals

collected from each of three species of turfgrass are pre-

sented in Table 1. As a further breakdown of the above data,

the mean numbers of specimens for each month and for each

grass species are shown in Appendix III.

Mites from four suborders were found in the slide sam-

ples. These are Cryptostigmata, Prostigmata, Astigmata, and

Mesostigmata. The mean numbers of these four suborders of

mites are shown for each month of the survey year (Appendix IV

and Figure 6-9), for each species of turfgrass (Table 2), and

for each month and each species of turfgrass (Appendix III).

The means were transformed into percentages of total mites.

Percentages of four mite orders in slide samples are shown

for each month (Table 3) and for each grass species (Table

4). Owing to the scope of the present study, only specimens

of the suborder Mesostigmata were identified to species and

their numbers and occurrences were recorded (Table 5). A

total of 14 families and 72 species of mesostigmatid mites









were identified. The remaining suborders were sorted out

and the occurrences of families or superfamilies were re-

corded, but their occurrences by seasons and plots were not

recorded. A list of superfamilies of Cryptostigmata and

families of Prostigmata and Astigmata found in slide samples

is shown in Table 6.

Among the 14 families of Mesostigmata recorded from

slide samples, only seven were numerous enough to warrant

any kind of population study. These were termed major

families of Mesostigmata. They are Macrochelidae, Laelapidae,

Phytoseiidae, Ascidae, Rhodacaridae, Uropodidae, and Eutra-

chytidae. The mean numbers of these major families in each

month are shown in Appendix V and Figures 10-16. The mean

numbers from each grass species are shown in Table 7.

The genera and species of Mesostigmata with an overall

average of one or more specimens per sample were termed

major genera and species. The genus Proprioseiopsis of

Phytoseiidae was also included as a major genus although its

mean specimen number was below one. This was because of the

high number of species (eight) in the genus. The major

genera were Proprioseiopsis, Hypoaspis, Macrocheles, and

Asca. The major species were Hypoaspis near claviger (Berl.),

Pseudoparasitus stigmatus (Fox), Ololaelaps sp., Macrocheles

near insignitis Berl., Leonardiella sp., and Oplitis communis

Hunter and Farrier. The mean numbers of these major genera









and species in each month are shown in Appendix VI and

Figures 17-26. The means in each grass species are shown in

Table 8.

Climatic data recorded daily during the survey were

organized by each month of the survey year. Maximum and

minimum temperatures are averages of daily recordings over

each month, and are shown in Figure 27. Precipitation is

the cumulative amount in each month, and is shown in Figure

28. Evaporation measurements were hampered by equipment

breakdowns which occurred several times during the survey.

These measurements are not used in the present study. An

attempt was made to find the level of association of popula-

tions of mites and other arthropods with temperature and

precipitation. Correlation coefficients were calculated

from Berlese samples for the major arthropod groups (Table

9), from slide samples for mite suborders and major families

(Tables 10 and 11), and from drop samples for mite suborders

(Table 12).

Comparison of diversity of mesostigmatid mites was made

at two different levels; one at the family level and the

other at the species level. The Shannon-Wiener index (H)

was calculated separately for the 14 families and the 72

species found in suborder Mesostigmata. At both levels,

diversities were compared among the species of turfgrass

(Table 13) and among the months of the survey year (Appendix

VII and Figure 29).









From drop samples, mean numbers of mites in each of the

four suborders are shown for each grass species (Table 14)

and for each month (Appendix VIII and Figures 6-9). For

purpose of comparison, these means were transformed into

percentages of total mites. Shown in Table 15 are percent-

ages of four mite suborders in drop samples compared by

month. In Table 16 they are compared by grass species.

In order to find the levels of association and inter-

relationships among the arthropod and mite groups, correla-

tion coefficients were calculated for these groups. Correla-

tion coefficients of the major arthropod groups from Berlese

samples are shown in Table 17. Correlation coefficients of

the four mite suborders from slide samples are shown in

Table 18. Correlation coefficients of the four mite sub-

orders from drop samples are shown in Table 19. Correlation

coefficients of the major families are shown in Table 20.

Many mite species have been found to be associated with

ants. Some species in the superfamily Parasitoidea are

scavengers of bodies, exuvia, and other debris in ant nests.

Many genera of Uropodoidea are also myrmecophilous and

probably feed on the mycelia and spores of fungi, and on

organic detritus (Hughes 1959). Since a large number of

ants have been found in the turf samples of this survey, it

is likely that some of the mite species recorded may in some

way be associated with ants. To find this possible




22



association, correlation coefficients were calculated for

ants with all mesostigmatid mite species found in this

survey. Species with correlation coefficient values higher

than 0.1 are listed in Table 21.

To facilitate comparison, data compared by month were

further compared by the four seasons: summer (July, August,

September), fall (October, November, December), Winter

(January, February, March), and spring (April, May, June).













DISCUSSION


Environmental Influence on Mite Populations

The correlation coefficients for precipitation and

population numbers were low in all the groups, indicating

low level of influence by precipitation on population (Tables

9-12). This is to be expected because of the regular water-

ing the turf plots received during the survey. However, the

association between temperature and population numbers was,

in most cases, also weak. Most correlation coefficients

were either negative or positive with very low values. The

low values may be due to the warm climate in Ft. Lauderdale,

Florida, where winter temperatures never reached freezing

during the survey. Only twice did the daily minimum temper-

ature dip below 4C. Only Collembola from Berlese samples

and mesostigmatids from slide samples have correlation

coefficients with temperatures with numerical values higher

than 0.3 (Tables 9 and 10). The fact that these coefficients

are negative suggests the possibility that, in Ft. Lauder-

dale's hot summer and warm winter, the Collembola and meso-

stigmatid mites are more numerous during the cooler seasons.


Seasonal Variations of Mite Populations

From Berlese samples (Figs. 2-6), all arthropod groups

except ants reached their lowest mean numbers in the summer.









All except Collembola had means with two major peaks in the

fall and spring. In Collembola the peaks are in the fall

and winter.

From slide samples, the mean number of mites in the

suborder Cryptostigmata is rather evenly distributed through-

out the year, except for a very low point in early summer

(Fig. 7). In Prostigmata the means reached a lower peak in

early fall, then a higher peak in spring (Fig. 8). In

Astigmata the means reached the highest peak in the fall

(Fig. 9). However, the numbers of Astigmata in the samples

are far too low for a population trend study. The mean

number of mesostigmatids remained high from early fall to

early spring, with lowest point between spring and summer

(Fig. 10).

From drop samples, mean numbers of the suborders Astig-

mata and Mesostigmata are consistently even throughout the

survey year (Figs. 9 and 10). Cryptostigmata exhibit a high

fall and winter population (Fig. 7). In a survey of hemlock-

yellow beech forest soil mites in Michigan, Wallwork (1959)

found that population number of cryptostigmatid mites was

low in summer and highest in winter, but was reduced in late

winter. The population changes in his survey were much more

drastic than in the present study. This may have been due

to the much greater temperature variation in Michigan, where

ground litter was completely frozen for the greater part of









the winter. Wallwork suggested from laboratory observations

that one of the causes for this late-winter reduction could

be the predation on juvenile cryptostigmatids by other

mites. The Collembola population in Wallwork's survey was

also low in summer and increased greatly in winter, and

followed closely the pattern of juvenile cryptostigmatid

mites. Since Collembola are subjected to attack by predatory

mites in the same way as juvenile cryptostigmatids, Wallwork

(1959) suggested that their populations may have been

affected by some of the same factors influencing population

size of juvenile cryptostigmatids. The means of Prostigmata

exhibit the same trend as those in slide samples (Fig. 8).

The major families, Macrochelidae, Ascidae, and Phyto-

seiidae (Figs. 13, 15 and 16) have the most specimens present

in the fall and winter. Muma found that all the common

phytoseiids from citrus leaves (1964a) and litter (1964c) in

Florida and most of the common species from Florida sand-

pine litter (1968) exhibited a spring or winter-spring peak

abundance. However, Muma's definition of winter includes

the months December, January and February, and spring in-

cludes March, April and May. Proprioseiopsis gracilisetae

(Muma), the dominant phytoseiid species in the present

study, was most numerous in the fall and winter. This

species from sand-pine litter in Oviedo, Florida attained

peak populations in the spring and summer (Muma 1968). This









difference in seasonal abundance could be due to the fact

that Oviedo is located in central Florida, about 170 miles

north of Ft. Lauderdale.

All major genera and most of the major species exhibit

similar population trends to the families to which they

belong (Figs. 20-29). Exceptions are Pseudoparasitus stig-

matus and Ololaelaps sp. P. stigmatus was most numerous in

fall and winter to early spring (Fig. 25). Ololaelaps sp.

was most numerous in winter and spring (Fig. 25). Both

species were similar to Hypoaspis near claviger in that the

populations were lowest in late spring and early summer.

A glance through Table 5 revealed that among the rela-

tively common species of Mesostigmata with 50 or more speci-

mens collected in slide samples, the majority showed peak

abundance in fall or winter. Exceptions are Leonardiella

sp., with peak population in spring; Oplitis communis,

abundant in fall, winter and spring; Gamasiphis sp. 1, which

is equally abundant throughout the year; and Hypoaspis near

vacua sp. 1, which is more abundant in summer and fall. Of

the four species, Oplitis communis is myrmecophilous (Hunter

and Farrier 1975) and probably is subterranean in habitat;

Leonardiella sp. is probably also myrmecophilous (Table 21);

Gamasiphis sp. 1 is probably a soil mite; the habitat of

Hypoaspis near vacua sp. 1 is unknown, while H. vacua

(Michael) has been recorded from moss and ant nests (Evans









and Till 1966). It is conceivable that subterranean mites

would be influenced by seasonal temperatures differently

from mites living above the ground.


Interrelationships Among Mite Groups and Arthropods

Among the mean numbers of arthropod groups, only thrips

have a moderately high correlation coefficient (0.41) with

mites (Table 17) indicating that some of the mites may be

predators of thrips. Many mite species are predators of

Collembola (C. Cruz and H. T. Streu, unpublished manuscript;

Sheals 1957). The low value of correlation coefficient

between mites and Collembola (0.18) does not suggest this

relationship, and is most likely due to the fact that the

majority of mite species from this survey are not Collembola

predators. In slide samples, none of the mite suborders have

a strong relationship with one another (Table 18). Among

the mite suborders from drop samples, moderate positive

correlationships are found between Cryptostigmata and Pro-

stigmata (0.47), and between Prostigmata and Mesostigmata

(0.33) (Table 19). None of the major families has high

correlation coefficients with each other (Table 20).

Among all the mesostigmatid species, 10 have correlation

coefficients with ants higher than 0.1 in absolute values

(Table 21). Only two of the 10 species are over one in

overall mean specimen numbers. These are Hypoaspis near

claviger and Leonardiella sp. Of the 10, only Leonardiella









sp. has a moderately high correlation coefficient with ants

(0.43). This merely suggests that this mite is probably

associated with ants. It does not preclude the possibility

that other mite species may also be myrmecophilous. A high

or low correlation coefficient only indicates a numerical

relationship. Many of the mite species were not numerous

enough to be present in most of the Berlese samples, and

their relationship with ants can only be observed through

biological studies and not from statistical analysis. It is

interesting to note that Oplitis communis, which is one of

the major species, and is known as an ant-associate (Hunter

and Farrier 1975), has such a low correlation coefficient

with ants (-0.04).


Evaluation of Sampling Methods

The purpose for taking drop samples was to estimate the

total numbers and the proportions of the four suborders of

mites collected from Berlese samples. The purpose of taking

slide samples was for identification of mite species and

also for estimating proportions of mite groups. Both of

these are subsamples of Berlese samples. The total mite

numbers from each slide and drop samples were compared with

mite numbers from the Berlese sample from which they were

taken in order to determine the accuracy of these sampling

methods. Table 22 shows the correlation coefficients of

total mite numbers of slide and drop samples with those from









whole Berlese samples. The correlation coefficient between

mite number from drop samples and Berlese samples is 0.79,

which indicates a strong positive relationship between the

two. This shows that the drop sampling method is adequate

for its purpose. On the other hand, the corresponding

number between slide and Berlese samples is only 0.12,

indicating a weak relationship. This is to be expected

since slide sampling was not designed for estimating total

mite numbers.

A comparison was made of overall means and percentages

of the four suborders from both drop and slide samples

(Table 23). It is apparent that there is a much higher

percentage of mesostigmatid mites in the slide samples.

Since drop samples were taken with a mechanical device, they

should be less influenced by human bias, which can easily

occur during sorting for slide mounting. The discrepency

between the results of the sampling methods may be due to

the comparatively larger physical sizes of mesostigmatids

and their well-developed body shields and leg segmentation,

making them more conspicuous and easier to be picked out

than other mites.

The above comparisons have shown that population esti-

mates ought to be made from Berlese samples for the arthropod

groups, and from drop samples for the mite suborders. In

order for slide sampling to yield more valid estimates of









population numbers, it should include all or a fixed propor-

tion of the mites in the Berlese samples.

Ibarra et al. (1965) found that natural populations of

free-living soil mites and Collembola exhibit a contagious

(clustered) distribution and tend to aggregate in areas of

choice food and favorable microclimatic conditions. They

warned that caution must be used in estimating the population

of a whole field from a few samples taken. However, in a

turfgrass environment, where maintenance practices keep

conditions rather homogeneous, arthropod populations may

have less tendency to aggregate as in cattle and sheep

pastures where Ibarra et al. did their study.


Diversity

Diversities of mesostigmatid families and species were

both significantly higher in St. Augustinegrass than in the

other two grass species (Table 13). When compared by month

(Appendix VI and Fig. 30), both diversities were higher

during fall and winter, with family diversity peaking in the

fall and species diversity peaking in early winter.


Discussions of Biological and Ecological Information

Only those species that have been identified to the

species level and with known biological or ecological infor-

mation are discussed individually. Species identified only

to genera or families are discussed collectively at these

levels.









Family Macrochelidae

Mites of this family are widely distributed in a variety

of habitats, such as in humus, soil, decaying wood, and

on insects (Evans 1957). Five species were collected

in the present survey.


Macrocheles near insignitis Berl.

This was the most common macrochelid mite and was

abundant in all three grasses. Evans and Browning

(1956) collected one female of M. insignitis from 'a

hot bed.' Muma et al. (1975) collected M. insignitis

from citrus litter in Florida.



Macrocheles near mammifer (Berl.)

This species was common in bermudagrass, but was very

rare or absent in the other grasses. The species M.

mammifer has been recorded from cattle and sheep pas-

tures of bluegrass in Kentucky (Rodriguez and Ibarra

1967).


Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Scopoli)

This mite was similar to the preceding species in that

it was common in bermudagrass but was rare or absent in

other grasses. This species is cosmopolitan in distri-

bution (Evans and Browning 1956). It is common in ma-

nure heaps (Axtell 1963, Costa 1966a) and was recorded

in cattle and sheep pastures in Kentucky (Rodriguez and

Ibarra 1967). Commonly found phoretic on house fly,









Musca domestic Linn., and other flies (Costa 1966a,

Evans and Browning 1956), this mite is capable of

harming the adult fly by biting through the intersegmen-

tal membranes (Jalil and Rodriguez 1970). M. muscae-

domesticae feeds on eggs and first larval instar of the

house fly and has been investigated as a possible

biocontrol agent for the housefly (Filipponi 1955,

Rodriguez and Wade 1961, Wade and Rodriguez 1961).

Rodriguez et al. (1962) observed this mite feeding on

the free-living nematode, Rhabditella leptura (Cobb)

Chitwood, in the laboratory. Given equal choice, adult

mites preferred house fly eggs over nematodes while

nymphal mites preferred the nematodes. Ishikawa

(1968) collected five females of M. muscaedomesticae on

last larval instar of silkworm, Bombyx mori Linn., in

Japan. Bregotova and Koroleva (1960) recorded this

mite from rodents as well as from various Diptera in

the U.S.S.R. C. Cruz and H. T. Streu (unpublished

manuscript) regarded this mite, commonly found in

turfgrass in New Jersey, as a predator of chinch bug

eggs.


Glyptholaspis americana (Berl.)

This mite was reported by Costa (1966a) to be common in

manure heaps in Israel. Muma et al. (1975) collected

it from citrus litter in Florida.









Holostaspella bifoliata (Tragardh)

Only one specimen was collected from bermudagrass.

This mite is world-wide in distribution, and has been

recorded from soil, litter, earthworm culture, and from

litter and bark of citrus in Florida. It has been

found as a phonetic associate of Trox spp. in Florida,

and is also associated with Dichotomius carolinus

(Linn.), Peromyscus leucopus, Taurocopris mimas Linn.,

and Phanaeus corythus Har. It fed on nematodes

(Rhabditis sp.) in artificial cultures, and may be

expected to be a predator in its natural habitat (Krantz

1967).


Family Phytoseiidae

Phytoseiid mites are cosmopolitan in distribution. They

are abundant in ground surface litter and on vegetation,

and are also found in stored products, animal nests, and

soil. Food habits include pollenophagus, and facul-

tative and obligatory predators. Their food includes

nectars, fungi, pollen, leaf hairs, insects, mites, and

nematodes. However, since only a minority of species

have been studied, our knowledge of phytoseiid food

habits is still fragmentary (Muma 1971). All 14

phytoseiid species from this survey belong in the

subfamily Amblyseiinae. Muma (1968) studied the









sand-pine litter fauna in Florida and found that sand-pine

litter phytoseiids were all amblyseiine mites. A study of

phytoseiids in North Carolina forest litter also demonstrated

an amblyseiine litter population (Muma et al. 1967). Muma

(1968) stated that it is possible that other similarly

restricted habitats will prove to be occupied by a single

subfamily of phytoseiids. However, leaves of plants from

sand-pine communities and Florida citrus plants and litter

yielded both Amblyseiinae and Phytoseiinae (Muma 1968).

Biology and food habits of all 14 species from this survey

are unknown. The genus Proprioseiopsis that are found in

litter live either on saprophagus or fungivorus mites or on

fungus or non-living organic material (Muma 1971). None of

the species were abundant in this survey.


Proprioseiopsis gracilisetae (Muma)

This species has been collected from hardwood and pine

litter (Muma and Denmark 1971) and on Rhododendron

obtusum (Lindl.) Planch. and Podocarpus macrophyllus

(Thunb.) D. Don in Florida (Yusoh 1976).



Proprioseiopsis mexicanus (Garmen)

This species was described from Zinnia from Mexico. It

has been recorded from litter of citrus, hardwood and

pine in Florida (Muma et al. 1967). It has also been

found in bermudagrass debris and St. Augustinegrass sod

and on other plants (Muma and Denmark 1971).









Proprioseiopsis sarraceniae (Muma)

This mite was previously known only from leaf cups of

Sarracenia (Muma and Denmark 1971).


Prorioseiopsis citri (Muma)

Muma (1964a) recorded this mite from bark and litter of

citrus.


Proprioseiopsis cannaensis (Muma)

This mite has been recorded from bark and litter of

citrus, morning glory leaves, Canna leaves, and Pinus

clausa (Engelm.) Sarg. litter. All living specimens

collected have been associated with Brevipalpus spp.

infestations (Muma 1964a, Muma and Denmark 1971).


Proprioseiopsis rotundus (Muma)

This species has been recorded from bark and litter of

citrus, fescuegrass (Muma 1964a), bahiagrass, Spanish

moss, Tillandsia usneoides Linn., and other plants

(Muma and Denmark 1971).


Proprioseiopsis asetus (Chant)

This mite has been recorded from citrus plants and

litter, Pinus clausa, Senecio confusus (DC.) Britten

and Spanish moss (Muma and Denmark 1971).









Neoseiulus planatus (Muma)

This mite has been recorded from Citrus litter, fruit

and bark (Muma 1964a), Pisum sp., and unidentified

litter (Muma and Denmark 1971).


Neoseiulus paspalivorus (DeLeon)

This mite has been recorded from bermudagrass and

bahiagrass (Muma and Denmark 1971).


Neoseiulus marinellus (Muma)

Only one specimen was found in a preliminary survey on

the grass plots. It has been recorded from citrus

fruit, bark and litter, from bermudagrass, bahiagrass,

and other plants (Muma and Denmark 1971).


Chelaseius floridanus (Muma)

This species has been recorded from citrus leaves, bark

and litter, and pine and oak litters (Muma and Denmark

1971).


Amblyseius rhabdus Denmark

This species has been recorded from St. Augustinegrass,

Sarracenia sp., and Spanish moss on the ground (Muma

and Denmark 1971). From studies of two other species,

Muma (1971) concluded that mites in the genus Amblyseius

are probably general predators.









Typhlodromips digitulus Denmark

This species has been recorded from bermudagrass,

bahiagrass, and Spanish moss (Muma and Denmark 1971).

From studying three other species in this genus, Muma

(1971) concluded that species of Typhlodromips are

facultative general predators that can survive on plant

and non-living organic materials.


Family Laelapidae

Laelapid mites are found in a variety of habitats, in-

cluding moss, humus, on small animals and in debris of

their nests (Evans 1957). A total of 16 species in

this family were collected in this survey, 13 of these

are in the genus Hypoaspis. Members of the genus

Hypoaspis have been collected from soils, stored pro-

ducts, insect nests, mammals and invertebrayes

(Strandtmann and Crossley 1962).


Hypoaspis near claviger (Berl.)

This was the most common mite in this survey and was

found in all the grasses. H. claviger has been recorded

from various types of litter (Costa 1968), soil and

rotting wood, and is probably predacious (Evans and

Till 1966).


Hypoaspis near vacua (Michael) spp. 1 and 2

Two undetermined species from this survey are close to

H. vacua. H. vacua has been recorded from moss and ant









nests in Britain, and from ant nests in Australia and

Italy (Evans and Till 1966).


Hypoaspis near praesternalis Willmann spp. 1, 2 and 3

Three species of Hypoaspis are close to H. praesternalis.

H. praesternalis has been recorded from soil, grassland

and marshes in Britain and Europe (Evans and Till

1966), and from litter, soil and sheep's fold in South

Africa (Ryke 1963).


Hypoaspis near aculeifer (Canestrini)

All except two specimens of this species were collected

from St. Augustinegrass. H. aculeifer is common in

soil and litter, and has been recorded from the nest of

Riparia riparia (Linn.) in Britain, from the nest of

Spalex ehrenbergi Nehring in Israel, and the nests of a

variety of rodents in the USSR (Costa 1966a, Evan and

Till 1966).


Hypoaspis (Laelaspis) near piloscutuli Hunter

Hunter (1961) recorded H. piloscutuli from orchid

plants imported from Mexico and from colonies of ants,

Eciton burchelli and Neivamyrmex gibbatus, in Panama.


Hypoaspis queenslandicus (Womersley)

This species has been recorded from leaf debris in

Australia (Womersley 1956), from pineapple field cores

in South Africa (Ryke 1963), from donkey manure heap,









sand, soil and litter in Israel (Costa 1966b), and from

citrus litter in Florida (Muma et al. 1975).


Androlaelaps sp.

Muma et al. (1975) recorded four species of Androlae-

laps from citrus leaves, bark and litter in Florida.


Pseudoparasitus stigmatus (Fox)

This common mite has been collected from rats in Puerto

Rico and roots of tomato plants. It has been recorded

from Cuba, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, Mexico,

Florida and southern Georgia (Hunter 1966).


Ololaelaps sp.

Rodriguez and Ibarra (1967) collected 0. hemisphaera

Berl. in sheep pasture. Hurlbutt (1958) observed 0.

placentula Berl. feeding on two-spotted spider mites in

laboratory. Muma et al. (1975) collected two species

of this genus from citrus litter in Florida.


Family Ascidae

Species of Arctoseiinae are free-living inhabitants of

the litter and humus layers of soils. The Platyseiinae

inhabit a variety of subaquatic surface habitats,

grasslands, and forest litters. Most species of Ascinae

are free-living predators of the meiofauna of ground

habitats. A few species of Lasioseius and Proctolaelaps









regularly coinhabit the nests and shelters of certain

vertebrates and arthropods (Lindquist and Evans 1965).

Fifteen species of ascid mites were recorded in this

survey.


Asca quinquesetosa Wharton

This species has been recorded from booby nests on

Clipperton Island, and from litter, Theretia peruviana,

and Stephanotis floribundus in Hawaii (Hurlbutt 1963).


Asca garmani Hurlbutt

This mite has been recorded from North and Central

America. It has been collected from moss, forest

litter, citrus litter, orchard sod, Peromyscus nests,

in Narcissus bulb, on Portugese cypress, and in other

organic materials (Hurlbutt 1963, 1968; Muma 1965).

Hurlbutt (1968) found this species in coexistence with

A. aphidioides (Linn.) and A. neopallia Hurlbutt in

forest litter in Maryland. Hurlbutt (1963) observed

females feeding on small Collembola, probably isotomids.

He stated that specimens from Florida are smaller and

have shorter setae than those from farther north.


Asca brachychaeta Hurlbutt

This species has been recorded from orchard sod, alfalfa

stem, Peromyscus nests, grass, and on Sarracenia, the

last in Florida (Hurlbutt 1963, 1968). It has been









found in forest litter samples containing A. aphidioides,

A. garmani, A. nova Willmann, and A. nesoica Athias-

Henriot in Maryland. As in A. garmani, individuals

from Florida are smaller and have shorter setae than

those from farther north.


Lasioseius near youcefi Athias-Henriot

L. youcefi prefers wet places, and has been recorded

from soil under stone, wet moss, and garden soil in

Algeria (Athias-Henriot 1961).


Lasioseius scapulatus Kennett

This species has been recorded from compost, wet humus

in a rock crevice, soil, citrus leaves and litter,

strawberry, on Paria eggs on strawberry, and on Gramin-

eae. It has been reported from California, Algeria,

and Israel (Athias-Henriot 1961; Costa 1966a; Kennett

1958; Muma et al. 1975).


Proctolaelaps sp.

Mites of this genus are found in nests of small mammals,

in decaying vegetation in soil, in stored food products

feeding on tyroglyphids, and associated with bark

beetles (Evans 1958). Tuttle (1963) recorded a species

from bermudagrass in Arizona. Muma et al. (1975)

recorded six species from citrus plants and litter in

Florida.









Cheiroseius cassiteridum Evans and Hyatt

Evans and Hyatt (1960) recorded this mite in England as

occurring with Platyseius subglaber (Oudemans) in the

roots of rushes and in Sphagnum. Athias-Henriot (1961)

recorded it from wet soil in Algeria. Other members of

this genus were found from moss, litter, soil, dung,

and on plants (Evans and Hyatt 1960).


Melichares sp.

Some mites of this genus are associated with tyrogly-

phids in dried fruit (Evans 1958) and with bark beetles

(McGraw and Farrier 1969).


Protogamasellus massula (Athias-Henriot)

This species has been collected in forests of Quercus

suber Linn. in Algeria (Athias-Henriot 1961). Muma et

al. (1975) recorded specimens near this species from

citrus litter in Florida.


Protogamasellus primitivus Karg

Muma et al. (1975) recorded this species from citrus

litter in Florida. Hurlbutt (1971) recorded a subspe-

cies, P. primitivus similis Genis, Loot and Ryke in

Tanzania, from under Lantana bushes, from soil, leaf

mold and litter.









Family Macronyssidae


Ornithonyssus sp.

Many mites of this genus are among the most important

acarine parasites of mammals and birds. 0. bacoti

(Hirst) readily attacks man and has been implicated as

a disease transmitter; it also acts as the vector of

filarial worm in cotton rats. 0. bursa (Berl.) and 0.

sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago) may become so abun-

dant in bird nests that they kill the young birds by

exanguination (Strandtmann and Wharton 1958).


Family Rhodacaridae

The Rhodacaridae is a group of mainly free-living pre-

datory mites occurring in ground habitats. Species of

Rhodacarus are found in plant litter and soil. Rhoda-

carellus species are also found in plant litter and

soil, particularly deeper layers below three inches.

Gamasiphis species are found in moss, plant litter and

upper soil layers (Lee 1970). Muma et al. (1975)

recorded three species of Rhodacarus and Rhodacarellus

associated with Florida Citrus.


Rhodacarus near denticulatus Berl.

Athias-Henriot (1961) recorded R. denticulatus in soil

from garden and orchard in Algeria.









Family Parasitidae

Evans (1957) regards this family as the most common and

widely distributed of the parasitoids found in litter

and humus. Immature stages are commonly found phoretic

on beetles and other insects. Muma et al. (1975) found

five species of Parasitus associated with citrus in

Florida. C. Cruz and H. T. Streu (unpublished manu-

script) collected a Parasitus species from pitfall

traps and soil cores from turfgrass in New Jersey. It

was observed to feed on the early instars of the hairy

chinch bug, Blissus leucopterus hirtus, and also on

Proisotoma sp. and Entomobrya marginata Tullberg, but

not on chinch bug eggs.


Family Polyaspidae


Polyaspis sp.

Nymphs of some species are phoretic on blattids, passa-

lids, and other insects (Johnston 1961).


Family Podocinidae


Podocinum jamaicense Evans and Hyatt

This mite has been collected from damp woody earth in

Jamaica, in soil on bromeliad imported from Peru, on

oak at Vero Beach, Florida, and on orchid plants im-

ported from Mexico (DeLeon 1964, Evans and Hyatt 1957).









Family Veigaiidae


Gamasolaelaps subcorticalis McGraw and Farrier

This mite has been recorded from bark-beetle-killed

Pinus taeda Linn. in Virginia, from under bark of Pinus

engelmannii Carriere infested with Ips lecontei Swaine

in Mexico, and in association with Dendroctonus fron-

talis Zimmerman, Ips avulsus (Eichhoff), I. calligraphus

(Germar) attacking Pinus taeda in Louisiana and Missis-

sippi (McGraw and Farrier 1969).


Family Parantennulidae


Micromegistus bakeri Tragardh

Nickel and Elzinga (1970) found this mite on three cara-

bids: Scarites subterraneus Fabricius, Evarthrus sodalis

colossus LeConte, and Patrobus longicornis (Say). S.

subterraneus had 46.4% incidence of infestation. The

female is viviparous and all stages of the mite life

cycle occur on its host. M. bakeri is not parasitic,

but is a commensal feeding on organic debris such as

food remnants of the host. Its diet may be supplemented

by feeding on the host's external secretions without

measurable injury to the beetle.


Family Cercomegistidae

Cercomegistid mites are usually predators of various

insects, especially the beetles (Camin and Gorirossi









1955). Known species of the genus Cercomegistus are C.

bruckianus Berl., found under barks, C. simplicior

Vitzthum, collected from dead fern stems, and C.

evonicus Kinn, occurred under the bark of Pinus mono-

phylla Torr. and Fr6m. killed by Ips confusus (Lec.)

and in galleries of the beetle (Kinn 1967). The Cerco-

megistus sp. collected in this survey does not belong

to the above three species, although it is closer in

external morphology to C. bruckianus than to the other

two species.


Family Uropodidae


Oplitis communis Hunter and Farrier

This mite has been found in nests of Solenopsis invicta

Buren and S. geminata (Fabricius), also in moss and

leaf litter. It has been recorded from North and South

Carolina and Florida (Hunter and Farrier 1975).












CONCLUSION


This research, which was one of the first detailed

analyses of a suborder of mites from a specific ecological

habitat, has indicated the following:

1. There appears to be considerable species diversity in

the seemingly homogeneous habitat of turfgrass. This

is shown by the numbers of taxa in the mite suborders:

14 families and 72 species in Mesostigmata; 13 super-

families in Cryptostigmata; two families in Astigmata;

and at least 18 families in Prostigmata.

2. The most numerous species found were:

Hypoaspis near claviger

Oplitis communis

Pseudoparasitus stigmatus

Leonardiella sp.

Macrocheles near insignitis

Ololaelaps sp.

Although these mites represent different families and

genera, they would appear to be likely candidates for

indicator species in turfgrass situations. Representa-

tives of the same genera have been reported all over

the world in soil and litter. The verification of

these six species as biological indicators would be of









major value in future research and is an area that

should be pursued.

3. I believe sufficient information has been obtained so

that future research in turfgrass areas where pesticides

have been used can be compared with this work in an

evaluation of pesticide effects on soil mite populations.

Ultimately, these various threads of research, when

drawn together, will enable us to better understand the

effects of repeated pesticide use in the environment,

and will offer new avenues for intelligently redesigning

current agricultural practices in order to live more

harmoniously with nature.

4. The majority of the common mites tend to have a fall

and winter population peak in south Florida. This

would suggest that collection of data might be intensi-

fied in this period to get sufficient numbers for

quantitative population density studies. It would also

suggest that when studying a turf area which had been

heavily treated with pesticides and where mite numbers

had been reduced, that these seasons would be the best

for sample collections for any indications of effects

on general soil mite populations.

5. The study indicated how little is known of soil mite

fauna since the majority of species collected had never

been described previously.









6. Diversity of mesostigmatid mites is greatest in St.

Augustinegrass.

7. In the family Phytoseiidae, only the subfamily Ambly-

seiinae is found associated with turfgrasses. This

supports Muma's (1968) theory that in some restricted

habitats, such as Florida sand-pine litter,only one

subfamily of Phytoseiidae may be found.

8. Statistical analysis in this study apparently provides

no reliable indication of whether a mite species is

associated with ants. A more detailed biological study

.is needed to obtain this type of information.

9. When estimating population trends with samples obtained

from Berlese funnels, greater confidence can be placed

on drop samples than on slide mount samples, the latter

being subject to more human error and tending to show

excessively high proportion of Mesostigmata.










Table 1. Mean Numbers of Mites and Major Groups of Insects from Berlese
Samples* Collected from Each of Three Species of Turfgrass in
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.



Mean Number of Specimens
Grass species Mites Collembola Ants Scales Thrips

St. Augustine 3003.4b 853.7a 97.6a 78.9a 19.5a

Bahia 5140.7a 382.0b 135.8a 144.9a 27.3a

Bermuda 3038.1b 859.9a 97.9a 164.6a 3.0b


*Three 20.3 cm-diameter, 10 cm-deep plug samples of grass, thatch, and
soil were taken every other week from each grass.

**Means followed by same letter within a column do not differ signifi-
cantly (1%) by Least Significant Difference test.











Table 2. Mean Numbers of Four Mite Suborders from Slide Samples*
Collected from Each of Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.


Grass species

St. Augustine

Bahia

Bermuda


Crypto-
stigmata

33. a**"

37.9ab

41. lb


Mean

Prostig-
mata

24.2a

26. 0a

22.7a


Number of

Astig-
mata

0.6a

0.8a

1.8a


Mites

Meso-
stigmata

27.la

23.6ab

20.7b


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.

**Means followed by same letter within a column do not differ signifi-
cantly (1%) by Least Significant Difference test.


TOTAL

85.0

88.3

86.4










Table 3. Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites from Slide Samples*
Collected from Three Species of South Florida Turfgrass,
Compared by Month.



Percent of Total Mites
Month Cryptostigmata Prostigmata Astigmata Mesostigmata


JUN 40.18 29.45 1.23 29.14

Summer JUL 51.31 13.28 1.49 33.93

AUG 43.86 25.08 1.46 29.59

SPT 57.27 17.99 2.61 22.17

Fall OCT 40.51 32.32 1.24 25.93

NOV 50.00 20.10 5.99 23.89

DEC 43.50 22.52 1.52 32.46

Winter JAN 47.12 25.61 0.69 26.58

FEB 43.74 19.56 0.47 36.23

MAR 35.99 32.46 0.58 30.96

Spring APR 37.80 36.66 0.48 25.06

MAY 43.46 33.69 0.58 22.27

JUN 39.32 48.74 0.24 11.70


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.










Table 4. Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites from Slide Samples*
Collected from Three Species of South Florida Turfgrass,
Compared by Grass Species.



Percent of Total Mites
Grass Species Cryptostigmata Prostigmata Astigmata Mesostigmata


St. Augustine 38.87 28.52 0.72 31.89

Bahia 42.98 29.45 0.88 26.69

Bermuda 47.59 26.32 2.14 23.95


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.
















,- O
00 a









> 0
0) ')





4 0 0




0 (
> 0








0 0
. W


O (



4U,) 4)





W m
F- 4-l)


m 10 0
U)14i










/ 0a ln


10 0




00o








ro a
0 *H
-H 0







O 4MA (



rV 4) U0















fO -i



0 X
Q0 (a
L4--

















*<(f 0 )
0 OU U

WU 00


* R

o0




o E-H












U )





mn~=
E-idZ


+++++++
+++++++
(N 0000000000000

COOOOOOOOOOOOO)Cr)
CM




O r- r-



H rO H r- rH -- r-A H 0( iO Hi


N





(H
COl o r-


H0 0 0 Z0 0









HO)(O C
N CO cr) CH










n Co 0)
r-l 0 ---




















H r-




0 0 H
r-l




o oU






C*HO 0 (
C U) r-
co a) (














0) *i (
Um '-'
U) 0 -





S (1 U) -H H
S-- 0 1 -1





-,A F=
or a m
*H --i' U)
d) F-l t-1


U) E -H H
CO U) f) 0 Cr,Q.

HU) 4U) HU
C *l C) 10 (d

)00 U1) :4P U)
0 0 0 EriO
01 W -
OU -HO
U0 >2sCD *


L 0 0 COm 0 r0 0


SL- too in w r-i oo r -I H C> o a














oj"D 0 a a r-ioo C aH 0

M7 o) (N -i C N O H H CM o MO r-- 0 -
rl






0 d- CO ZCCr)M00 H 00O NM(NO
5




+
uo Cor M N N Lin C) (C C Cr) 0 CO H
OD r-l r CC (






LH H

U .


.- ,,
h 1 Ei bc
01 10 EC U rl (
*H OO v B

S00 0 U -- 3
UoA 0 00 M M H 0 4-'
U) 6 U) ^ yO U iO MU I
bk0 -i 3 t0A d + V. P "
0 ) 4 U H 0H -rl u



0i U) -i 0 in a (1 ) rd W O )
00E 0 e w r-l L

p *0 0 g O 4- 1 > r1| *r
*a *cP u a)3 M O 0

( -H X F2 aI a C a: I0a: )- a: 2



O4 o I C; O l r


r-H


0o r-l





I H
COH






H



co o(N
CM4

-i


,-i
Sor







)m
cr)

0 0













Ln co
r-l





(rH





,-
OF




















-ri rl
o-rH




CO
N























r< 0-
00



0H U
rO *r
Ux mi














OCN OO
H 0-



- --1- (D(N
(N co
r-l


00 H 000oo om
OOO) e


in H 0 CM H


r-H 0) -
1 ) CO
CNH


r- 0- -i0 --10 0
i 04 CMo Loo o
H N (NNII


0 -1HOO Or-H0
'H H



H coc) )N 0 Nc o
S0 rHHHH r
r-H H


H C N(l 4 C)O -
Cr)H H


00000





or CM) N H -r




04 H


O0 0 H


C) 0
H -1


0 00 0 -OoC moH~o C



oo H ~f (o
C0 HrO -1-H OrO(Nc)
CN14 -I H H-N


co C-- o r-i LO











OOCO 0
CO


OOCOOOOH c
NM CO C


Io)000000


o o C r-l r H 0
c)c- r-H


0) Y -
H(


, o "


H- -i C O cO -


-o00
Zr


o HrH C-H
10( 1


O o0000





r- 0 0
r-i r-i


0
r-o




Ho
&t 0
H H
H 0N )

C e


OH HOOO C')
Hl


LO r-Hr CHOH r-
H 0)


i 0t
ZrN





Hrl
(r.o(
Cm t~


o LniO O-OO NOHH
c") co H oH H H


Hl oo r- coo Co
00 NH-H r
HH H


U) E



S -H V 0
t'd rd (b4


Sr0 1 r 1 .
HH44 U)
*H *H 0U 0





4 :F4 1)
R8 *I I

CWO 1
U) U) (1
flRrl 0r
(U Q) OJR





0 0

00 0
CCCV


0
a) -U



4E 4
o 0

4-
t V) M
H O


E o 4
*r o M nr
u I) m M

( UH 0 4 U
lH 0


ac1 rP 1
l ,- I
~ oImI

00 MA


- a) s
U) 10


S o
A *Hl >
H MO

-1 0 4
0 r4 r.
O r- O4
0 r 0


ci)

111
'0


4-)

0 r-4
4-) 4-, .3
0


4 4- rl 0

,F O 0 IH
ll i


( 4- ::1 0 -r




0 I 0

) c l c i
oz ml o M





< <1<|1
crF-i ciU
Ill* F-
WI bf.L-
U I U


0 0C 0 D
OU) NU


c o oo) OH~ooH r-
-t cO CNO co


CO) C) t H- zt
L C0 ) H-


04

C







0r *r
0r1



0111
dOS1
ai C)




> ft


C c


4-
4-
Sa
6




< 1
0




W (
CO >


0


*rl
0)
MU
0
0


U


4-4
0
*r|







*4j
Fl

(U




H


01
9401
(0
irl







0
r-

Ifl

b0e
0,


4-
44
0
0

C) )


4-j I(0

O
(0 r
.00

H410l


0
04-

V) 4 M4

a) Ul) ci)




( a <
c)
<<


: 1 1: 1: 1: 1: I















O0 -l rO1 000




00 O~cu(NHH



Mo0 () O "04001A
co C) n 4o CM co cot n












(H1 H
C OHC4OOO


(NH


CNO
r-


(0 O


o H




cO
Cl)1C1


C( 0


co







0 0


,-H


(0 co




Co 0 0
o o O


t (N H -
- 0I



r-^ 0D Y) CT)


CN 0


0 0


rN0 O OC HO





Om L HN(0NHHO
H (N






to 0 c1 co co co C( 0 H-4
0M 0C r- (0 C4




00 (NN C 0 N ri -i
c- cocnj -


0 o


O 0


r-H 0 0


CO0 0





o0 0
CN -t


0 O



O 0


N 0Y


*t

H 4
n m

Poa ( l o *H
*^ 4*H *H f




rI H O r 0
rti 4 O p
Q-iD-


4-,
ro


>.j
U
*4j
-'i


M (
0 *H
0a F

0()* H

10 a1 l
ou *Hr -u


00 E
E0 ( Ci|4r


U)
*H





c
0


HJ

ni
I-.,


4- U
-H
0




*4 C
*:l o. rU
i, ccl
'U

CtiI


C
->,
rO
4-,



'0

0d
U]




ci
(0



W

u

C)
cr
*H




00
n j




'00
0-.
*Q
10 6H
*HO
OO C
Ot *
**-r U

O 0
O r
ano
o P-
CL


*H



-,
0

O


*1)
0.
0



urd




r4 [13
MW
d ri
n3 O


c~tirdci














0 0C (

Hr-


0co 0 r-o -o
tCO C m
NH(N


r- 00 -C O 7 0 Co 0CO
CON 0M N cO
AH CN


H C 0 (cr
CN (N
H-


To H C oH
CY)


cH CD M0



o co C O mmC -
LD -- CM



0 4 CC 0 0C-






0 COCN ( CO LO CO (M
CO (D C4 --f


CO
co













r- CO
0) -t
04


r0

0) U



P0
*r




C)
P w




4-U)
r00


0




0
) C)


C)


f4 *
M 4)

r-

< C



0 4
c0 <


0) 0
i-l M


00 Hr-1 -







_r-






to(N r-4 H
CaO


r4


C)

rl






0 0 0
rt






0 ),-


0 C 1O
0 f2, 4 CM *r




c) 0 0 -
J '0a I >.d
'0 44 0 [0 0



- 0 D H- H HE-


a)




Q)
0







C4



u
CO
0









I i


Q
0














44
a)




















C)


44
0(









0
iz;


WO







0





*C




0C





*H4

* H
(UD
-i-










Table 6. Superfamilies and Families of Mites in the Suborders Crypto-
stigmata, Prostigmata, and Astigmata Found from Slide Samples
Collected from three Species of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida.


Families of Families of Superfamilies of
Astigmata Prostigmata Cryptostigmata


Acaridae

Anoetidae


Ameronothroidea

Carabodoidea

Ceratozetoidea

Damaeoidea

Galumnoidea

Hypochthonoidea

Liacaroidea

Nothroidea

Oppioidea

Oribatelloidea

Pelopoidea

Perlohmannoidea

Phthiracaroidea


Bdellidae

Calyptostomidae

Cryptognathidae

Cunaxidae

Ereynetidae

Eriophyidae

Erythraeidae

Eupodidae

Lordalychidae

Pachygnathidae

Paratydeidae

Pyemotidae

Rhagidiidae

Scutacaridae

Stigmaeidae

Tarsonemidae

Tetranechidae

Tydeidae

(4 spp. of Hydrachnellae)










U4
0)

E-

4-1
0






U)

1)





H
O




$-1
,d





0
4-I




()


O






(i)
'U
u






C)
ra






0






ra
44


,-4
) -1
(0







0U)



S0




H-
0
n)






(n U
e o


















0 U)
0(C


10
.,i






Ct
-*





"a
44

,J
U







rd























.,-
o
0)







0








O
0



a)












rC






















-4
0
d)











il
-1
Cd


U)



Cd
'I
*H


0






(d


d rid Cd
D (D0 0

* c *


N0
H r








(0 (N
H LI)


U)

44


* m
b0 t

*H E
4 -' ( 0
V)7P


rd(a A




04 CO CO




0 nj
C) -N aC


Cd
a
c)


bo
4-i



C



41
U)

U)









*H



4-1
(l






















U) 4-4
o\O






S 1*H






0



a O
4 '
b 0
C O
S 0
0 O

n
o ,


0)



,M 4
ul 3

> 0A






0 0


U C

4 0r
4-1 3

X 0


















C3*
V U)


4 4



E He
Cd HO
0 )









H U *H
W EM

S *P

0< 0O
6 <- 0
(I) a|
W, 0
4- 0
Iu
(U 01 <
a, r 4
- f0 411
C- U :













E
0

4-1







O





oa
0)
4-




















010

r H

0u






O
0 1
H














O4-1

U)
0


rO r
U) 4U


U)





a) E-
0 (10
0
S H





OaS
*H H














4 4

0
00
U) U)
U )
'U *



o 4





























CO


*4
U >
'H aS
.4 H1

m










0
0

U)









0,


0)















vl
U)








.c










0
0







,.






*r.
c,
0*



&0


4J


0 (0
n aS a


U) U) U



CO LO C







A
m (o a






























V co 0
rO H H0

























H 0 0
Un O 4


*H
4-
U)
bO 0

S '0 E
< C 1

4U a 0)
CU) U) U


(U)
0 -0


4' U
*H E







0





*0
ci)

U )












r-4
',









O
0







U)


0)
4a










H
0
O








1-1


( a A













01T 1 1

0 C' H















* IQ *
H H H













A u (o m

H 0 oC












10 A U
c Ho0
onr1-l
cO 1-1


4-4




*H


U)
4-








oO


rl






4-1
u)













*H









0
0







o4-
U) *H



M O












0 A
4-)













o 0
>0 4

0 0



























d ,4-4
o E
3






ci)
0 *H









U J
0 0


0)














as oo
0)


ci) 0XI








O rd4-
,C *H









Table 9. Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum Temperature, Minimum
Temperature, Precipitation, and Major Arthropod Groups from
Berlese Samples* Collected from Three Species of Turfgrass
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.



Correlation Coefficients

Mites Collembola Ants Scales Thrips


Maximum
Temperature -0.21 -0.30 0.03 -0.03 -0.09

Minimum
Temperature -0.25 -0.32 -0.01 -0.02 -0.10

Precipitation -0.16 -0.11 0.02 0.14 -0.05


*Three 20.3 cm-diameter, 10 cm-deep plug samples of grass, thatch, and
soil were taken every other week from each grass.









Table 10.


Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum Temperature, Minimum
Temperature, Precipitation, and Four Mite Suborders from
Slide Samples* Collected from Three Species of Turfgrass in
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.


Correlation Coefficients

Cryptost imrta Prostigmata Astigmata Mesostigmata


Maximum
Temperature -0.22 0.03 -0.08 -0.33

Minimum
Temperature -0.17 -0.01 -0.03 -0.35

Precipitation -0.05 -0.07 0.01 -0.14


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.















4a


0 4-




00

- o
nJ P*






r. .r=
03
4-0



0
030


4





SE


S(O
















0 h
0) 0)

E rd

4 0
o 0,




















*4 'm
SO
10 ru

03










oo:
S*H ri
S030







,03+
*H *

0)







a,---








H
CU
00=
E~ V]n





0 Md

< (
*H '



*rlA -


P F
(i) B 3
() 40)

0) *l -,
-H
r.E










Table 12. Correlation Coefficients Among Maximum Temperature, Minimum
Temperature, Precipitation, and Four Mite Suborders from Drop
Samples* Collected from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.



Correlation Coefficients

Crypto- Pro- Astig- Meso-
stigmata stigmata mata stigmata


Maximum
Temperature -0.15 -0.07 -0.11 -0.09

Minimum
Temperature -0.17 -0.18 -0.04 -0.15

Precipitation -0.11 -0.22 0.13 -0.12


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.









Table 13. Mean Values of Shannon-Wiener Index for Families (HF) and
Species (H ) of Mesostigmata from Slide Samples* Collected
Spp
from Each of Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida.



Grass species HF Hs
spp


St. Augustine 0.56a** 0.80a

Bahia 0.49b 0.69b

Bermuda 0.43b 0.67b


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.

**Means followed by same letter within a column do not differ signifi-
cantly (5%) by Least Significant Difference test.














U)


0)



F)
0)
u)









U)
r'


O
41




0

U
:j



(9
a











rO


0
4













O








O







0
0
,1 4








S0




E-1





O
0











,-I
4-1
(0












U)0












H

A

4m
s H


00 Cl H>

LD CM -l)








in U) ()













II-
on. co u














I (U 0u
CO
(4











fU ,LI 0

to UO 0)
















0 (w CD










0)




bU) ro


4 *H 0
+ 10 0 )
Cf) q "I


44






44
rd







U)









ut
nl














0)
*H
CI











U)




S 4-
U)







r o








0)

o O
c 4
U) )
44








i0
o..M :
(U










0)
o o


















M 4-1
0
bw
0, 0



0) 0





A r-1a


0 0)






h4 C




H 0 *H
H



HO M
rO 0)U rO


0) oU)0
A ) OT ) )

t S Q c1









Table 15. Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites from Drop Samples*
Collected from Three Species of South Florida Turfgrass,
Compared by Month.



Percent of Total Mites

Month Cryptostigmata Prostigmata Astigmata Mesostigmata


JUN 33.99 47.11 0.47 18.41

Summer JUL 78.86 10.09 1.89 9.15

AUG 68.73 20.44 0.36 10.47

SPT 60.66 26.48 0.42 12.44

Fall OCT 64.99 27.98 0.37 6.66

NOV 50.17 36.87 0.39 12.57

DEC 58.86 28.75 0.99 11.39

Winter JAN 61.87 27.28 0.21 10.64

FEB 56.18 32.65 0.05 11.13

MAR 56.46 34.74 0.02 8.77

Spring APR 41.73 45.67 0.00 12.60

MAY 53.64 34.39 0.28 11.68

JUN 58.04 30.58 0.20 11.17


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.










Table 16.


Percentages of Four Suborders of Mites from Drop Samples*
Collected from Three Species of South Florida Turfgrass,
Compared by Grass Species.


Percent of Total Mites

Grass species Cryptostigmata Prostigmata Astigmata Mesostigmata


St. Augustine 38.63 40.53 0.22 20.62

Bahia 61.87 30.89 0.15 7.08

Bermuda 59.52 28.80 0.81 10.86


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.










Table 17.


Correlation Coefficients of Mites and Major Insect Groups
from Berlese Samples* Collected from Three Species of Turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.


Correlation Coefficients

Mites Collembola Ants Scales


Thrips 0.41 0.21 0.02 -0.04

Scales 0.08 0.01 0.16

Ants 0.04 -0.12

Collembola 0.18


*Three 20.3 cm-diameter, 10 cm-deep plug samples of grass, thatch, and
soil were taken every other week from each grass.










Table 18.


Correlation Coefficients of Suborders of Mites from Slide
Samples* Collected from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.


Correlation Coefficients

Cryptostirm~ta Prostigmata Astigmata


Mesostigmata 0.06 -0.06 -0.04

Astigmata 0.11 -0.11

Prostigmata 0.14


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.









Table 19. Correlation Coefficients of four Mite Suborders from Drop
Samples* Collected from Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.



Correlation Coefficients

Cryptostigmata Prostigmata Astigmata


Mesostigmata 0.21 0.33 0.08

Astigmata 0.13 0.02

Prostigmata 0.47


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.














4--


0
a




--I
0
*)





0)
H





0




0




4-4





0 4,
1) 0



00)
*

- 0)



04-




0


O4'
E-









(1) 0
VC)








0 O
O l



r-
0 (
'H '

d H
C'





0)0
O-4 .
0

g H




ro
4E-
0)0









H


0
TO

*H
'0







0
0,
0













0
(d
*rl
0






(U


fl)





O)
(0



0
to





















0)
*r(
0
44














TI
0)



























(I
O0
0o
^3


Co LO
0 rLl
( H

I


0)
-t Q a) 0a



4 *T) *H TI
C *. I 0 0) ) *-4
C *U ( C f Cl .--
(O 0 0 '0 0 rr
S ( '0 *H I r-H
4-4 0 0 >) (U
L H


co
CO












I-- in


0 0











0 0 0
r-l C-I C04









I I
















C' U) LO LO -
S 0 C
o C) ( C) CO



0 0 0 -


l0 0 0


CO Co
0 0

0 0
I I


U)
0








0

'>


0)
0)




V4
0















0)
o



04
0)




















0)
a c









c,

'C
0
(0









0-

(0


a,









Table 21. Correlation Coefficients of Ants from Berlese
Some Mesostigmatid Species from Slide Samples
Three Species of Turfgrass in Ft. Lauderdale,
Overall Mean Numbers of These Mite Species.


Samples* with
Collected from
Florida, and


Correlation
Mean Specimen Coefficient
'Number with
Mite Species Per Sample Ants


Hypoaspis near claviger 3.9 0.13

H. near praesternalis sp. 3 ** 0.17

H. (Laelaspis) near piloscutuli 0.22

H. (Laelaspis) sp. 1 0.10

Asca quinquesetosa 0.6 -0.14

Lasioseius near youcefi 0.6 -0.13

Cheiroseius sp. 0.1 0.14

Gamasiphis sp. 1 0.4 -0.11

Gamasiphis sp. 2 0.5 -0.14

Leonardiella sp. 1.5 0.43



*Three 20.3 cm-diameter, 10 cm-deep plug samples of grass, thatch, and
soil were taken every other week from each grass.


**Less than 0.1.










Table 22. Correlation Coefficients of Mite Numbers from Berlese Samples*
with Total and Suborder Mite Numbers from Drop Samples and
Total Mite Numbers from Slide Samples.


Correlation Coefficients

Mites from Berlese Samples


Drop Samples


Total Mites


Cryptostigmata

Prost i m..t.

Astigmata

Mesostigmata


Slide Samples


Total Mites


0.79

0.68

0.67

0.11

0.32

0.12


*Three 20.3 cm-diareter, 10 cm-deep plug samples of grass, thatch, and
soil were taken every other week from each grass.









Table 23. Overall Means and Percentages of Four Mite Suborders from Drop
Samples* and Slide Samples Collected from Three Species of Turf-
grass in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.



Mean Number of Mites (Percent of Total Mites)

Cryptostigmata Prostigmata Astigmata Mesostigmata

Drop Samples 21.5 (56.16%) 12.4 (32.49%) 0.1 (0.33%) 4.2 (11.02%)

Slide Samples 37.4 (43.19%) 24.3 (28.09%) 1.1 (1.26%) 23.8 (27.45%)


*Three samples were taken every other week from each grass.


























biJ
U
r-l




























0)
n

cn
r-



















01
1/















*H









j
r-







=1

CD


o 0 0
C0 0 0
C 0 0 0
n c o CN


z 1-4
'r: rn
(4 iz
:9


U)
t1


0 U
C1


C
u Q)







bi)O



Lk

0
w

0
WH >



'C
0(a






- 0
0 u






H I
o

) 0
a:4






oQ)


Ft
0I









0) 6
OI
ua>



















0
* N















0 "a

Oct
*tS0
:1 01





P 0



4-10










bO
h-(
4^o
0aF
Wt~
^i rt
Q> o
d=1*H
e ^ b

3 0

= r \.
in
C (0
(0 0





















































































0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CO C H 0
H Hr- -I H


4-)


0



4-1 Q- )


W 0 -4





(1 O >'
04 I4
O 0 0 4





n 4 a)








Z F= r=







F=
0
H a)













0 O
U)
S 0)
a(
rU $ .







O 4H
a4 rja)



(11


o 4-i6
a)
> r- r b
H H e




;" o 4a1






a, Eo o r 0 *
S H l






/ V W 0






aO 4 j U
C.U

00 0





~ D A bf
-Z CMi
Pl) M-

























































































0 0 C0 0 0 0 0C
01 C4 01 0 -D CN-
CN CM CN H -H -i Hi


o 0 0 0
0 00 co -
S-4


CIO



0 U

04
C)


bO
*H



r-.
C)






I




04
4-)
as


















H
C0
Cfl




;f


4-

*8 >


) 0


UO m





0

0) H
Ia>








0)



00
0)
u O






P4 1



0)


Lm
Q -i




0

U)
1) a)


m0)





0)






0




U0
UOl
a *













)0)




Q0)
ae

> *











-e^




























0
0 '
*H













a,-






,--
r~
o--






















(1)
H







Cd


C4
r-l




cn
H-


0 C 0
o 0 0
CO 0A r-i


U)
z


0 U

CO
Wn


4-;




S)>




( ,
*H -i

0)



m>
(0

o R
U)0 <

4 M
,-iP





CO










cn
,CO
0 a)








4o 0











r-M






0




C)
a) C
to






0 (t
4-1 to

0
a 0)



0(10
O



-A 0

4-1A

rd






0 )c
z "0


0




























C


f)



inO

1-1


0 ( 0 0
o (o o-1
o} { 4 --


CO
S C)


4J


*H
01
to>
M 0)

0)
4-1 4

J (4-J
4J
a0

0 )

















m
O)
0 0)















5
to










(a) +j
F r0

















01
0,0)

0: )












4E U
0*









0 0
H
a)

0)4-1
(/10)






0 0










z "
E










WCM
+ Ck


































tU-
co
HH




















r-l
,-l
*0
4


0 0 0 0 0 0
in _- co C H--


0 U
co
0-1


H ,M

U 0)

ae

4)y







4-1
aj




0)


Q0)
Cda

ma,






E (a
4l













U) rt

n: --l







OO
+J


















(0 '
0 3
















Ht
Pe
Ot
















nr.
XO

,a




00


A ^





1 *





C W



>,M
r-l4
-F,
+J *P
fl f0
04-1 Fe
S 0 b




























bO

*H






t-









r1
44














H
H



oU






0)


a)
Ul



C/O


0 0 0
PI C i-I


r)
UI)
OC
o U


4-1
0



El 0
V]4r





Q) 4-1

Q)



00
E


4-1)
OtR
) 0



,)


0 )


64-j
, a ,
S04
4-4

C.,-


(0 3







0










f:l
(bTI
4-)



U)














9 -4
bO (1


0










E0






0




4 -0
O4 0)





-w
r-1 F1