# Comparative faunistic analysis of mite species on neglected and conventional pome fruit trees in Turkey

Duygu Akyol, Rana Akyazı

► To cite this version:

Duygu Akyol, Rana Akyazı. Comparative faunistic analysis of mite species on neglected and conventional pome fruit trees in Turkey. Acarologia, 2022, 62 (4), pp.941 - 955. 10.24349/vt6l-svza. hal-03784853

HAL Id: hal-03784853

https://hal.science/hal-03784853

Submitted on 23 Sep 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Acarologia
Open Science in Acarology

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Acarologia

A quarterly journal of acarology, since 1959
Publishing on all aspects of the Acari

All information:
http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/
acarologia-contact@supagro.fr

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

Acarologia is proudly non-profit,
with no page charges and free open access

Please help us maintain this system by
encouraging your institutes to subscribe to the print version of the journal
and by sending us your high quality research on the Acari.

Subscriptions: Year 2022 (Volume 62): 450 €
http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/subscribe.php

Previous volumes (2010-2020): 250 € / year (4 issues)
Acarologia, CBGP, CS 30016, 34988 MONTFERRIER-sur-LEZ Cedex, France
ISSN 0044-586X (print), ISSN 2107-7207 (electronic)

The digitalization of Acarologia papers prior to 2000 was supported by Agropolis Fondation under the reference ID 1500-024 through the « Investissements d'avenir » programme
(Labex Agro: ANR-10-LABX-0001-01)

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Acarologia is under **free license** and distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons-BY
Acarologia

Open Science
in Acarology

# Comparative faunistic analysis of mite species on neglected and conventional pome fruit trees in Turkey

Duygu Akyol IDª, Rana Akyazı IDª

## Original research

### ABSTRACT

The paper presents the comparative faunistic analysis of leaf inhabiting mite species on neglected and conventionally grown pome fruit trees in Turkey as well as their diversity and distributions. For this purpose, twelve sampling areas were chosen in the Ordu region of Turkey. The study was carried out on four fruit tree species, apple (Malus domestica), pear (Pyrus communis), quince (Cydonia oblonga), and loquat (Eriobotrya japonica), between 2014 and 2019. In the study, a total of 42 mite species were identified from 12 families belonging to two orders. 92.43% of all species were found on the neglected trees, while 7.57% were reported in the conventional orchards. Among phytophagous mites, Cenopalpus pulcher on the neglected trees and Amphitetranychus viennensis in the conventional orchards showed the greatest overall constancy. The most abundant and common predatory species were Phytoseius finitimus on the neglected trees and Transeius wainsteini in the conventional orchards. A high faunistic similarity was found between the conventionally grown apple fruit trees and neglected apple, pear, quince, loquat trees. Considering together predatory and tetranychoid mites, the highest interspecific association index was revealed for the pair *T. wainsteini* - *C. pulcher*. Additionally, the pair *Z. mali* - *T. wainsteini* within the predatory mites and *A. viennensis* - *C. pulcher* within the tetranychoid mites had the highest index of association.

**Keywords** coefficient of constancy; diversity; Jaccard index; mite; Sorensen's index; species complexes

### Introduction

Pome fruits are members of the family Rosaceae and subfamily Pomoideae (Özçağıran et al. 2005). In the world, the total production of pome fruits is approximately 113,750,265 tons per year on 7,485,379 hectares of land (FAO 2019). In Turkey, pome fruits are grown on 211.961 hectares of the 23.199.945 hectares of agricultural land. Pome fruits with an annual production of 5,056,672 tons constitute the second group in order of importance in Turkish fruit cultivation (TUIK 2021).

Pome fruits contribute significantly to the Turkish economy. This fruit group's revenue derived from exports has been approximately 200 million US Dollars (YMS Reports 2021). Besides the significant economic importance, these fruits are intended for fresh consumption but also in processed forms. They also supply the raw material for industry (Milic et al. 2016). However, even today, world pome fruit production suffers significant losses due to plant pests, diseases and weeds, despite all scientific advances (Özsayın 2012). Phytophagous mites are potentially one of the major pest groups of pome fruits (Hoy 2011).

Many studies on mite species associated with pome fruits were conducted in various countries. For example, mite species on apple trees in England (Collyer 1956), Michigan

Received 22 April 2022
Accepted 08 September 2022
Published 16 September 2022

Corresponding author
Rana Akyazı ID:
ranaakyazi@odu.edu.tr

Academic editor
Kreiter, Serge

https://doi.org/10.24349/vt6l-svza

ISSN 0044-586X (print)
ISSN 2107-7207 (electronic)

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Akyol D. and Akyazı R.

Licensed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

OPEN ACCESS

<footnote>ª Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.</footnote>
(USA) (Strickler *et al.* 1987), Finland (Tuovinen and Rokx 1991), Israel (Palevsky *et al.* 1996), Slovakia (Praslicka and Bartekova 2008), Iran (Rahmani *et al.* 2010), Syria (Dahiah *et al.* 2011), Serbia (Stojnic *et al.* 2014) and Egypt (Hussian *et al.* 2018); pear mite fauna in Britain (Bergh and Weiss 1993), Egypt (Ismailia) (Osman and Mahmoud 2008); mite species on both apple and pear trees in Slovakia (Praslicka *et al.* 2009) and India (Singh *et al.* 2016) were determined.

Other studies detected the mite species on pome fruits in different regions of Turkey (Çobanoğlu 1993 a, b, c, d; İncekulak and Ecevit 2002; Yanar and Ecevit 2005; Kasap and Çobanoğlu 2007; Kumral and Kovancı 2007; Yanar and Ecevit 2008; Kasap *et al.* 2013; Kasap *et al.* 2015; Akyazı *et al.* 2017). However, as far as we know, no previous research has investigated mite species on apple, pear, quince and loquat in Ordu province. Although there are conventional pome fruit orchards in Ordu, fruit production is generally carried out in small gardens without using pesticides, in contrast to conventional orchards. So, our initial hypothesis is that a high diversity of mite species is expected to be found in the non-treated orchards.

The study also presents the result of a faunistic analysis of the phytophagous and predatory mite communities found in this area. Kumral and Kovancı (2007) studied the similarity indexes of mite species on apple, pear, and quince trees in conventional and agrochemical-free orchards in Bursa province of Turkey. In Serbia, the species assemblages of tetranychid and phytoseiid mites on cultivated and wild apple trees were researched by Stojnic *et al.* (2014).

Thus, the purpose of the current study is to present the comparative faunistic analysis of mite species on conventional and neglected apple, pear, quince, and loquat trees in 12 municipalities of Ordu province in Turkey as well as their diversity and distributions.

## Material and methods

### Sampled area and sampling of pome fruit species

The survey was conducted in selected neglected (naturally growing trees without using agrochemicals) and conventional pome fruit orchards (trees grown using synthetic chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and other continuous inputs). Leaf samples were collected from 12 different sampling areas (Altınordu, Fatsa, Kabadüz, Perşembe, Ulubey, Ünye, Akkuş, Çatalpınar, Çaybaşı, Çamaş, Gürgentepe and Gülyalı) in Ordu, Black Sea region (Turkey) (Figure 1). Geographical coordinates were recorded using a GPS mobile device (Garmin Etrex 30).

The surveys were carried out on four different pome fruit species; apple (*Malus domestica* Borkhausen), pear (*Pyrus communis* L.), quince (*Cydonia oblonga* Miller), and loquat [*Eriobotrya japonica* (Thunberg) Lindley] (Rosaceae). The samples were collected from 271 different coordinate points located at 176 villages. A total of 2.141 samples were collected: 1.077 conventional trees and 1.064 neglected trees.

Samplings were carried out between April and November each year at 10-15 day intervals from 2014 to 2016. The number of sampled trees per site was determined according to the total number of trees in each orchard (Table 1). On each sampling date, approximately 20 leaves per tree were taken from different parts of the tree canopy, i.e., lower, middle, and upper canopy. The samples were put into paper bags placed inside plastic bags, labeled, and transferred to the laboratory, where they were kept in a refrigerator at 4 °C for future examination.

### Extraction, mounting, and identification of mite specimens

Mites found on the adaxial and abaxial surfaces of the leaves were collected with a paintbrush (5/0) under a stereomicroscope (Leica S8 APO). Subsequently, the leaf samples were also placed in Berlese-Tullgren funnels for 24 hours to extract all mites. The specimens were preserved in vials containing 70% ethanol. All mites were cleared in a Lacto-phenol medium.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Twelve sampled areas in Turkey (Black Sea Region, Ordu).</figcaption></figure>

Each mite was mounted in a drop of Hoyer's medium on microscope slides according to the method of Krantz and Walter (2009). On the other hand, the eriophyoid specimens were cleared in Keifer's booster medium and mounted using an "F" medium as suggested by Amrine and Manson (1996). The slides were dried in an oven (Ecocell EC111) at 50 °C for 5-7 days.

The identification of mites was performed using a light microscope equipped with phase contrast (Leica DM 2500, Heerbrugg, Switzerland). The species identifications were confirmed by Dr. Farid Faraji (Phytoseiidae), Prof. Dr. Serge Kreiter (Phytoseiidae), Prof. Dr. Eddie A. Ueckermann (Tydeidae, Stigmaeidae, Iolinidae, Triophtydeidae, Cunaxidae, Cheyletidae, Blattisociidae), Prof. Dr. Owen Seeman (Tenuipalpidae), Dr. Philippe Auger (Tetranychidae), Dr. Mariusz Lewandowski (Eriophyidae), and Prof. Dr. Antonio C. Lofego (Tarsonemidae).

## Data analysis

The percentage of each species detected during the sampling period was calculated according to Yu *et al.* (2015) as follows:

$$ \textit{Percentage of each species (\%)} = \left( \frac{\textit{Number of each mite species}}{\textit{Total number of collected mites}} \right) \times 100 $$

For the faunistic analysis of the similarity between the mite communities on pome fruits and to evaluate β-diversity, Sorensen's index (QS) or similarity coefficient was used. The value

<table><caption>**Table 1** The number of sampled trees according to the total number of trees in each sampling area (Madanlar 1991).</caption><thead><tr><td>Total number of trees in each sampling location</td><td>The number of sampled trees</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0-50</td><td>All trees</td></tr><tr><td>51-200</td><td>50 trees</td></tr><tr><td>201-400</td><td>60 trees</td></tr><tr><td>More than 400</td><td>20% of the total number of trees</td></tr></tbody></table>
of Sorensen's index ranges from 0 to 1. Sorensen's index was calculated using the following formula (Southwood 1968):

$$QS = 2j / [a + b]$$

a = the number of species in habitat A

b = the number of species in habitat B

j: the number of common species in both habitats

To determine the frequency of mite species in individual sites, the coefficient of constancy (frequency of occurrence) index (C%) (Dajoz 1977) was used. According to C indexes, the species were classified as accidental, accessory, constant, euconstant, or close species associated with the considered habitat. C index values greater than 50% represent a close species associated with the considered habitat while those with values less than 25% represent accidental, 25.1–50% represent accessory, 50.1–75% for constant, and 75.1–100% euconstant species. C value was calculated using the following formula:

$$C = (Na / n) 100$$

Na = The number of samples containing species A

n = The total number of samples of all species

Jaccard index (JI) (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) was used to determine the association for each pair of species (A and B). Interspecific associations between the 10 most predominant predaceous and phytophagous mite species were examined. The index was calculated using the following formula:

$$JI: a / (a + b + c)$$

a = number of samples in which both species occur

b = number of samples in which only species A occur

c = number of samples in which only species B occur

d = number of samples in which neither A nor B occur

To examine the significance of obtained JI values, the Chi-square test was used. According to Ludwig and Reynolds (1988), if $\chi^2 > 3.84$, species A and B are significantly associated (*), if $\chi^2 > 6.64$, species A and B are very significantly associated (**). Chi-square values were calculated using the following formula (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988):

$$\chi^2 = N(ad-bc)^2 / mnrs$$

m = a+b; n =c+d; r = a+c; s = b+d

N = total number of samples (a + b + c + d)

The expected frequency of both species in the samples was calculated using the following formula (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988):

$$E(a) = f(B) (a+b) = F(A) (a+c)$$

$$F(A) = (a+b)/N$$

$$F(B) = (a+c)/N$$

There is a negative association when $E(a) > c$; a positive association when $E(a) < c$ and no association when $E(a) = c$. JI (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988).

By association, it is meant the propensity of any pair of species to be found on the same leaf together. Any pair of species is positively associated if they occupy together more leaves than expected from random chance. On the contrary, any pair of species is negatively associated if they occupy together fewer leaves than expected from random chance.

## Results

During the study, a total of 3407 mite specimens were collected. A total of 42 species belonging to two super-orders were detected (Table 2). The mites were grouped into 2 orders, 12 families and 30 genera. Member of the family Phytoseiidae (16 species, 40.56%) were the most abundant mites collected, followed by Tenuipalpidae (1 species, 20.37%), Tetranychidae (4 species, 19.58%), Tydeidae (5 species, 5.58%), Stigmaeidae (2 species, 4.93%), Triophtydeidae (1 species, 2.76%), Iolinidae (3 species, 2.03%), Cunaxidae (2 species, 1.41%), Tarsonemidae
<table><caption>**Table 2** Mite species collected from pome fruit trees during the 2014–2016 growing season in the 12 different sampling areas in Ordu, Black Sea Region (Turkey).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Superorder</th><th rowspan="3">Order/Family/Species</th><th colspan="4">Abundance</th><th colspan="4">Percentage of mites</th></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Neglected trees (N)</th><th colspan="3">Conventional Trees (C)</th><th rowspan="2">N+C (GT)</th><th rowspan="2">PN (%)</th><th rowspan="2">PC (%)</th><th rowspan="2">GP (%)</th></tr><tr><th>♀</th><th>♂</th><th>TN</th><th>♀</th><th>♂</th><th>TC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="20">Acariformes</td><td>Trombidiformes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>584</td><td></td><td></td><td>83</td><td>667</td><td>18.55</td><td>32.17</td><td>19.58</td></tr><tr><td>Amphitetranychus viennensis</td><td>275</td><td>15</td><td>290</td><td>50</td><td>5</td><td>55</td><td>345</td><td>9.21</td><td>21.32</td><td>10.13</td></tr><tr><td>Bryobia rubrioculus</td><td>96</td><td>-</td><td>96</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>98</td><td>3.05</td><td>0.78</td><td>2.88</td></tr><tr><td>Panonychus ulmi</td><td>21</td><td>1</td><td>22</td><td>26</td><td>-</td><td>26</td><td>48</td><td>0.7</td><td>10.08</td><td>1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus urticae</td><td>173</td><td>3</td><td>176</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>176</td><td>5.59</td><td>0</td><td>5.17</td></tr><tr><td>Tenuipalpidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>678</td><td></td><td></td><td>16</td><td>694</td><td>21.53</td><td>6.2</td><td>20.37</td></tr><tr><td>Cenopalpus pulcher</td><td>678</td><td>-</td><td>678</td><td>16</td><td>-</td><td>16</td><td>694</td><td>21.53</td><td>6.2</td><td>20.37</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>36</td><td></td><td></td><td>7</td><td>43</td><td>1.14</td><td>2.71</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus confuses</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus hermes</td><td>9</td><td>-</td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>10</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus rakowiensis</td><td>20</td><td>-</td><td>20</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>0.64</td><td>1.55</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus stammeri</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.03</td><td>0</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus waitei</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.06</td><td>0</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>Eriophyidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>19</td><td></td><td></td><td>11</td><td>30</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.26</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>Epitrimerus pyri</td><td>19</td><td>-</td><td>19</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>11</td><td>30</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.26</td><td>0.88</td></tr><tr><td>Cheyletidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>15</td><td></td><td></td><td>0</td><td>15</td><td>0.48</td><td>0</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Cheletomimus berlesei</td><td>15</td><td>-</td><td>15</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>15</td><td>0.48</td><td>0</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Stigmaeidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>140</td><td></td><td></td><td>28</td><td>168</td><td>4.45</td><td>10.85</td><td>4.93</td></tr><tr><td>Agistemus sp.</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>20</td><td>0.38</td><td>3.1</td><td>0.59</td></tr><tr><td>Zetzellia mali</td><td>86</td><td>42</td><td>128</td><td>15</td><td>5</td><td>20</td><td>148</td><td>4.06</td><td>7.75</td><td>4.34</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>41</td><td></td><td></td><td>7</td><td>48</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.71</td><td>1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxa sp.</td><td>9</td><td>-</td><td>9</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>0.29</td><td>0</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxoides sp.</td><td>32</td><td>-</td><td>32</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>39</td><td>1.02</td><td>2.71</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>181</td><td></td><td></td><td>9</td><td>190</td><td>5.75</td><td>3.49</td><td>5.58</td></tr><tr><td>Brachytydeus sp.</td><td>18</td><td>-</td><td>18</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.59</td></tr><tr><td>Brachytydeus paraobliqua</td><td>42</td><td>-</td><td>42</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>43</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.39</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus sp.</td><td>31</td><td>-</td><td>31</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>32</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus californicus</td><td>48</td><td>-</td><td>48</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>52</td><td>1.52</td><td>1.55</td><td>1.53</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus goetzi</td><td>42</td><td>-</td><td>42</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>43</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.39</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td>Triophtydeidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>90</td><td></td><td></td><td>4</td><td>94</td><td>2.86</td><td>1.55</td><td>2.76</td></tr><tr><td>Triophtydeus triophthalmus</td><td>90</td><td>-</td><td>90</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>94</td><td>2.86</td><td>1.55</td><td>2.76</td></tr><tr><td>Iolinidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>64</td><td></td><td></td><td>5</td><td>69</td><td>2.03</td><td>1.94</td><td>2.03</td></tr><tr><td>Homeopronematus anconai</td><td>62</td><td>-</td><td>62</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>67</td><td>1.97</td><td>1.94</td><td>1.97</td></tr><tr><td>Neopronematus sp.</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.03</td><td>0</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Pronematus ubiquitous</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.03</td><td>0</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="20">Parasitiformes</td><td>Mesostigmata</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseiidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>1294</td><td></td><td></td><td>88</td><td>1382</td><td>41.09</td><td>34.11</td><td>40.56</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius bryophilus</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>0.38</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius herbicolus</td><td>16</td><td>-</td><td>16</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>16</td><td>0.51</td><td>0</td><td>0.47</td></tr><tr><td>Aristadromips masseei</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.03</td><td>0</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Euseius finlandicus</td><td>56</td><td>5</td><td>61</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>68</td><td>1.94</td><td>2.71</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Euseius stipulates</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Galendromus longipilus</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Kampimodromus aberrans</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>10</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>0.32</td><td>0</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulella tiliarum</td><td>12</td><td>-</td><td>12</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>0.38</td><td>0</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulus californicus</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Paraseiulus triporus</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.03</td><td>0</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius echinus</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>18</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius finitimus</td><td>615</td><td>71</td><td>686</td><td>23</td><td>8</td><td>31</td><td>717</td><td>21.78</td><td>12.02</td><td>21.04</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius salicis</td><td>27</td><td>-</td><td>27</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>27</td><td>0.86</td><td>0</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>Transetus wainsteini</td><td>299</td><td>68</td><td>367</td><td>34</td><td>3</td><td>37</td><td>404</td><td>11.65</td><td>14.34</td><td>11.86</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromus rapidus</td><td>58</td><td>4</td><td>62</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>62</td><td>1.97</td><td>0</td><td>1.82</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromus tiliae</td><td>17</td><td>-</td><td>17</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>20</td><td>0.54</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.59</td></tr><tr><td>Blattisociidae</td><td></td><td></td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.22</td><td>0</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Lasioseius sp.</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.22</td><td>0</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>2930</td><td>219</td><td>3149</td><td>232</td><td>26</td><td>258</td><td>3407</td><td>92.43</td><td>7.57</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

TN: Total number of collected mites from neglected trees; TC: Total number of mites from commercial trees; GT: Total number of mites from neglected and commercial trees

PN: Percentage of mites from neglected trees; PC: Percentage of mites from commercial trees GP: General percentage of all collected mites
<table><caption>Table 3 Mite species according to pome fruit species in neglected and conventional sites.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Species</th><th colspan="6">Neglected</th><th colspan="6">Conventional</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">Apple</th><th colspan="2">Pear</th><th colspan="2">Quince</th><th colspan="2">Loquat</th><th colspan="2">Apple</th><th colspan="2">Pear</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Amphitetranychus viennensis</td><td>240</td><td>12.75</td><td>45</td><td>8.70</td><td>5</td><td>1.13</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>49</td><td>21.12</td><td>6</td><td>23.08</td></tr><tr><td>Bryobia rubrioculus</td><td>91</td><td>4.83</td><td>5</td><td>0.97</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.86</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Panonychus ulmi</td><td>17</td><td>0.90</td><td>4</td><td>0.77</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>26</td><td>11.21</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus urticae</td><td>159</td><td>8.44</td><td>17</td><td>3.29</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Cenopalpus pulcher</td><td>428</td><td>22.73</td><td>181</td><td>35.04</td><td>45</td><td>10.20</td><td>24</td><td>7.79</td><td>14</td><td>6.03</td><td>2</td><td>7.69</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus confusus</td><td>2</td><td>0.11</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.86</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus hermes</td><td>7</td><td>0.37</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus rakowiensis</td><td>15</td><td>0.80</td><td>4</td><td>0.77</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.86</td><td>2</td><td>7.69</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus stammeri</td><td>1</td><td>0.05</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus waitei</td><td>1</td><td>0.05</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Epitrimerus pyri</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>19</td><td>3.68</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>11</td><td>42.31</td></tr><tr><td>Cheletomimus berlesei</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>15</td><td>4.87</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Agistemus sp.</td><td>6</td><td>0.32</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.45</td><td>4</td><td>1.30</td><td>8</td><td>3.45</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Zetzellia mali</td><td>114</td><td>6.05</td><td>4</td><td>0.77</td><td>7</td><td>1.59</td><td>3</td><td>0.97</td><td>20</td><td>8.62</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxa sp.</td><td>1</td><td>0.05</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>3</td><td>0.68</td><td>5</td><td>1.62</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxoides sp.</td><td>23</td><td>1.22</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>8</td><td>1.81</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>7</td><td>3.02</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Brachytydeus sp.</td><td>2</td><td>0.11</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>7</td><td>1.59</td><td>9</td><td>2.92</td><td>2</td><td>0.86</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Brachytydeus paraobliqua</td><td>20</td><td>1.06</td><td>21</td><td>4.06</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus sp.</td><td>14</td><td>0.74</td><td>5</td><td>0.97</td><td>6</td><td>1.36</td><td>6</td><td>1.95</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus californicus</td><td>18</td><td>0.96</td><td>23</td><td>4.45</td><td>5</td><td>1.13</td><td>2</td><td>0.65</td><td>4</td><td>1.72</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus goetzi</td><td>10</td><td>0.53</td><td>23</td><td>4.45</td><td>6</td><td>1.36</td><td>3</td><td>0.97</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Triophydeus triophthalmus</td><td>42</td><td>2.23</td><td>4</td><td>0.77</td><td>43</td><td>9.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.32</td><td>3</td><td>1.29</td><td>1</td><td>3.85</td></tr><tr><td>Homeopronematus anconai</td><td>25</td><td>1.33</td><td>25</td><td>4.84</td><td>12</td><td>2.72</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>4</td><td>15.38</td></tr><tr><td>Neopronematus sp.</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Pronematus ubiquitus</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius bryophilus</td><td>12</td><td>0.64</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>3</td><td>1.29</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius herbicolus</td><td>3</td><td>0.16</td><td>7</td><td>1.35</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td><td>5</td><td>1.62</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Aristadromips masseei</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.32</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Euseius finlandicus</td><td>32</td><td>1.70</td><td>12</td><td>2.32</td><td>9</td><td>2.04</td><td>8</td><td>2.60</td><td>7</td><td>3.02</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Euseius stipulatus</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>3</td><td>1.29</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Galendromus longipilus</td><td>3</td><td>0.16</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Kampimodromus aberrans</td><td>6</td><td>0.32</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>4</td><td>0.91</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulella tiliarum</td><td>6</td><td>0.32</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>6</td><td>1.36</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulus californicus</td><td>0</td><td>0.05</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.86</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Paraseiulus triporus</td><td>1</td><td>0.05</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius echinus</td><td>17</td><td>0.90</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius finitimus</td><td>257</td><td>13.65</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>216</td><td>48.98</td><td>212</td><td>68.83</td><td>31</td><td>13.36</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius salicis</td><td>27</td><td>1.43</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Transeius wainsteini</td><td>227</td><td>12.06</td><td>91</td><td>17.60</td><td>39</td><td>8.84</td><td>10</td><td>3.25</td><td>37</td><td>15.95</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromus rapidus</td><td>37</td><td>1.96</td><td>18</td><td>3.48</td><td>7</td><td>1.59</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromus tiliae</td><td>14</td><td>0.74</td><td>1</td><td>0.19</td><td>2</td><td>0.45</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>3</td><td>1.29</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Lasioseius sp.</td><td>4</td><td>0.21</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>3</td><td>0.68</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td><td>0</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>1883</td><td>517</td><td>441</td><td>308</td><td>232</td><td>26</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>%</td><td>55.27</td><td>15.17</td><td>12.94</td><td>9.04</td><td>6.81</td><td>0.76</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
(5 species, 1.26%), Eriophyidae (1 species, 0.88%), Cheyletidae (1 species, 0.44%) and Blattisociidae (1 species, 0.21%) (Table 2).

A total of 92.43% of all species were found on the neglected trees, while 7.57% were collected from the conventional orchards. Twenty-six species were found both on the neglected and conventional trees, 15 species were reported only on the neglected trees and only one species, *Euseius stipulatus* (Athias-Henriot) (Phytoseiidae), was found in just the conventional orchards (Table 2).

On neglected trees, the highest number of mites were found on apple (1883; 55.27%) followed by pear (517; 15.17%), quince (441; 12.94%), and loquat (308; 9.04%) (Table 3). In conventional orchards, the number of mites on apples (232; 6.81%) was higher than on pears (26; 0.76%) (Table 3).

The highest faunistic similarity was detected between the mite species on apple and quince in the neglected trees ($QS_{An/Qn} = 0.825$), and the lowest was found between pear and loquat ($QS_{Pn/Ln} = 0.476$). On the other hand, there was a low faunistic similarity between the mite complexes on apple and pear trees in the conventional orchards ($QS_{Ac/Pc} = 0.313$). When the conventional and neglected trees were compared, it can be clearly seen that there was a high faunistic similarity between the conventional apple trees and neglected apple, pear, quince, and loquat trees ($QS_{Ac/An, Pn, Qn, Ln} = 0.537-0.794$) (Table 4).

<table><caption>**Table 4** The Sorensen's Index (QS) of faunistic similarity between the mite communities on neglected and conventional pome fruit trees in Ordu (Black Sea Region, Turkey).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">Neglected Trees</th><th colspan="2">Conventional Trees</th></tr><tr><th>A</th><th>P</th><th>Q</th><th>L</th><th>A</th><th>P</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Neglected Trees</td><td>A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>0.750</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Q</td><td>0.825</td><td>0.755</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>L</td><td>0.500</td><td>0.476</td><td>0.634</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Conventional Trees</td><td>A</td><td>0.794</td><td>0.755</td><td>0.769</td><td>0.537</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>0.279</td><td>0.364</td><td>0.313</td><td>0.190</td><td>0.313</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(A: apple; P: pear; Q: quince; L: loquat)

Among phytophagous mites, *Amphitetranychus viennensis* (Zacher) (Tetranychidae) was the predominant (21.32%) and most frequent (45%) species in the conventional orchards, whereas the second most abundant (9.21%) and common (15.5%) on the neglected trees (Tables 2, 5). It was a constant species (60%) in the conventional pear orchards, an accessory species on the neglected (34.2%), and conventional (40%) apple trees (Table 5). It was found on all pome fruit species sampled except loquat (Table 3).

*Cenopalpus pulcher* (Camestrini & Fanzago) was the only species identified from the family Tenuipalpidae. It was the most abundant (21.53%) and common (24.4%) phytophagous species on the neglected trees and the third most abundant (6.20%) and second most frequent (25%) in the conventional orchards (Tables 2, 5). It was an accessory species on the neglected (39.2%) and conventional (26.7%) apple trees (Table 5).

Other phytophagous mite species from the families Tarsonemidae and Eriophyidae showed highly overall lower abundance and frequency on pome fruit trees (Tables 2, 5). A total of three predatory mite species belonging to three genera of the family Stigmaeidae were detected. The most dominant (4.34%) and frequent (9%) species was *Zetzellia mali* (Ewing). It was the accessory species (53.3%) in the conventional apple orchards while it was proportionally less frequent on the neglected apple (20.6%). This predatory mite held less importance in terms of frequency (1.1–2.5%) on the other sampled neglected and conventional fruit trees. Moreover, it was not found in conventional pear orchards (Table 2, 5). Regarding the mite species from the family Phytoseiidae, the most abundant species, *Phytoseius finitimus* Ribaga and *Transeius wainsteini* (Gomelauri), (Table 2) showed the greatest overall constancy on pome fruits (Table
5). Both species were found on the neglected apple, pear, quince, loquat, and conventional apple trees, but not in the conventional pear orchards. *Phytoseius finitimus* was accessory species on the neglected apple (27.1%), loquat (48.9%), and conventional apple (40%) trees. *Transeius wainsteini* was constant in the conventional apple orchards (53.3%) and accessory on the neglected apple trees (38.7%). The rest of phytoseiids were less common (Table 5).

<table><caption>**Table 5** Constancy (C%) of leaf inhabiting mite species on the neglected and conventional pome fruit trees in Ordu (Black Sea Region, Turkey).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Mite Species</th><th colspan="10">The coefficient of constancy index (C %) *</th></tr><tr><th colspan="5">Neglected Trees</th><th colspan="5">Conventional Trees</th></tr><tr><th>A</th><th>P</th><th>Q</th><th>L</th><th>ΣN</th><th>A</th><th>P</th><th>ΣC</th><th>Σ (N+C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Amphitetranychus viennensis</td><td>34.2</td><td>11.6</td><td>2.5</td><td>0</td><td>15.5</td><td>40</td><td>60</td><td>45</td><td>16.4</td></tr><tr><td>Bryobia rubrioculus</td><td>17.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>0</td><td>7.1</td><td>13.3</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Panonychus ulmi</td><td>4</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>1.9</td><td>26.7</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus urticae</td><td>19.6</td><td>7.7</td><td>2.5</td><td>0</td><td>9.4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>Cenopalpus pulcher</td><td>39.2</td><td>23.8</td><td>14.8</td><td>6.5</td><td>24.4</td><td>26.7</td><td>20</td><td>25</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus confuses</td><td>1</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus hermes</td><td>2</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus rakowiensis</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td><td>13.3</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus stammeri</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus waitei</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Epitrimerus pyri</td><td>0</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>5</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Cheletomimus berlesei</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4.3</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Agistemus sp.</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Zetzellia mali</td><td>20.6</td><td>1.1</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>7.9</td><td>53.3</td><td>0</td><td>40</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxa sp.</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>1.6</td><td>3.3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Cunaxoides sp.</td><td>6</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>26.7</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Brachytydeus sp.</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>1</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Brachytydeus paraobliqua</td><td>7.5</td><td>5</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>4.2</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus sp.</td><td>4</td><td>1.7</td><td>3.3</td><td>3.3</td><td>3</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus californicus</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.1</td><td>2.7</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Tydeus goetzi</td><td>2.5</td><td>4.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>2.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Triophtydeus triophthalmus</td><td>9</td><td>2.2</td><td>15.6</td><td>1.1</td><td>7.1</td><td>13.3</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>7.3</td></tr><tr><td>Homeopronematus anconai</td><td>5.5</td><td>3.9</td><td>5.7</td><td>0</td><td>4.2</td><td>6.7</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Neopronematus sp.</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Pronematus ubiquitous</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius bryophilus</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>13.3</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius herbicolus</td><td>1</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.8</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Aristadromips masseei</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Euseius finlandicus</td><td>5.5</td><td>4.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>1.1</td><td>4</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Euseius stipulatus</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Galendromus longipilus</td><td>1</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Kampimodromus aberrans</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulella tiliarum</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulus californicus</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Neoseiulus cucumeris</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Paraseiulus triporus</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius echinus</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius finitimus</td><td>27.1</td><td>22.7</td><td>2.5</td><td>48.9</td><td>24.1</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>30</td><td>24.3</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius salicis</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Transeius wainsteini</td><td>38.7</td><td>19.9</td><td>14.8</td><td>4.3</td><td>22.7</td><td>53.3</td><td>0</td><td>40</td><td>23.3</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromus rapidus</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.4</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>3.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromus tiliae</td><td>2</td><td>0.6</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>1.2</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Lasioseius sp.</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*C < 25% represent accidental species; C = 25.1-50% represent accessory species; C = 50.1-75% represent constant species; C = 75.1-100% represent euconstant species.</footnote>

<footnote>(A: apple; P: pear; Q: quince; L: loquat; N: Neglected; C: Conventional)</footnote>
Other predatory species from the families Cunaxidae and Cheyletidae were also considerably less abundant and common on pome fruit trees.

Among tydeoid mites, the accidental species *Tydeus triophthalmus* (Oudemans) (20%) and *Homeopronematus anconai* (Baker) (20%) in the conventional pear orchards had the highest coefficient of constancy. Interestingly, any other tydeoid mite was not observed in these orchards. All other species held less importance on all sampled neglected and conventional trees (Table 5).

Associations between the ten most predominant predaceous and phytophagous mite species were examined (Table 6). A very highly significant positive association was obtained in sixteen pairs of species whereas a significant association was detected for seven pairs. Associations were found in the pair of eleven species of tetranychoid and predatory mites, pairs of six tetranychoid mite species, and pairs of six predatory mite species.

The pair of *T. wainsteini-C. pulcher* (JI = 0.289**) within predatory and tetranychoid mites, *T. wainsteini* - *Z. mali* (JI = 0.192**) within the predatory species, and *A. viennensis-C. pulcher* (JI = 0.195**) within the tetranychoid mites had the highest interspecific association index (Table 6).

<table><caption>**Table 6** Interspecific association of pair of predaceous (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Stigmaeidae) and phytophagous (Acari: Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae) mite species found on apple, pear, quince, and loblust trees in Ordu (Black Sea Region, Turkey).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Species</th><th colspan="5">Predaceous Mites</th><th colspan="5">Phytophagous Mites</th></tr><tr><th>EF</th><th>PF</th><th>TW</th><th>TR</th><th>ZM</th><th>AV</th><th>BR</th><th>PU</th><th>TU</th><th>CP</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>EF</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PF</td><td>0,024</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TW</td><td><strong>0,070*</strong></td><td><strong>0,090*</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TR</td><td><strong>0,100**</strong></td><td>0,000</td><td>0,019</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ZM</td><td><strong>0,067*</strong></td><td>0,086</td><td><strong>0,192**</strong></td><td><strong>0,072**</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AV</td><td>0,050</td><td>0,093</td><td><strong>0,200**</strong></td><td><strong>0,062*</strong></td><td><strong>0,191**</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BR</td><td><strong>0,117**</strong></td><td>0,080</td><td>0,081</td><td><strong>0,070*</strong></td><td><strong>0,102**</strong></td><td><strong>0,144**</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PU</td><td>0,026</td><td><strong>0,045*</strong></td><td>0,032</td><td>0,000</td><td>0,061</td><td><strong>0,064**</strong></td><td>0,018</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TU</td><td>0,040</td><td>0,058</td><td><strong>0,166**</strong></td><td>0,029</td><td><strong>0,113**</strong></td><td>0,069</td><td><strong>0,092*</strong></td><td>0,015</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CP</td><td>0,061</td><td>0,169</td><td><strong>0,289**</strong></td><td>0,050</td><td><strong>0,192**</strong></td><td><strong>0,195**</strong></td><td><strong>0,129**</strong></td><td>0,019</td><td><strong>0,134**</strong></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

*: Significantly associated (χ² > 3.84); **: Very significantly associated (χ² > 6.64); Significant and very significant values were bolded.

EF: *Euseius finlandicus*, PF: *Phytoseius finitimus*, TW: *Transeius wainsteini*, TR: *Typhlodromus rapidus*, ZM: *Zetzelia mali*, AV: *Amphitetranychus viennensis*, BR: *Bryobia rubrioculus*, PU: *Panonychus ulmi*, TU: *Tetranychus urticae*, CP: *Cenopalpus pulcher*

## Discussion

All the species detected during the current study were collected from different habitats in previous research in different regions of Turkey (Öksüz and Özman, 1999; Çobanoğlu 2000; 2004, Özman and Çobanoğlu 2001; İncekulak and Ecevit 2002; Akyazı and Ecevit 2003; Yanar and Ecevit 2005; 2008; Kasap and Çobanoğlu 2007; Kumral and Kovancı 2007; Kasap *et al.* 2013; Kasap *et al.* 2015; Kumral and Çobanoğlu 2015; Akyazı *et al.* 2017; 2022; Denizhan 2018; Soysal and Akyazı 2018; Altunç and Akyazı 2019; Çobanoğlu *et al.*, 2020). Our results showed that pome fruits growing in agrochemical-free sites of Ordu were extremely rich in beneficial mite fauna, especially phytoseiids. İncekulak and Ecevit (2002) reported that spider mite populations were suppressed by predators in unsprayed apple orchards in Turkey (Amasya). Szabo *et al.* (2014) noted that phytoseiid mites were generally absent on nursery trees due to excessive use of insecticides and fungicides. Kasap (2011) and Kasap *et al.* (2019) indicated that in unsprayed apple orchards, the density of spider mites was very low because of the presence of predatory mites. Our results also are in agreement with Van de Vrie (1985), Amano and Chant (1990), Hardman *et al.* (1997), and Yanar and Ecevit (2008).

A high faunistic similarity indicates a non-selective distribution of mite species within pome fruit species. Unlike the conventional orchards, neglected trees generally exhibited
strong and medium similarities in terms of mite fauna distribution. Contrary to conventional pear orchards, there was a high faunistic similarity between the conventional apple trees and all neglected trees. Stojnic et al. (2014) also found a great similarity between the cultivated and neglected apple orchards in Serbia. They added that the lowest similarity was found between the cultivated apple orchards and wild apples. Kumral and Kovancı (2007) found that the diversity of mites in conventional pome fruit orchards weakly resembled the diversity of agrochemical-free orchards in Turkey (Bursa). There were strong and medium relations among agrochemical-free orchards. Conventional orchards also generally exhibited strong and medium similarities in terms of mite fauna distribution.

The dominant phytophagous species in the conventional orchards was *A. viennensis* followed by *Panonychus ulmi* (Koch) (Tetranychidae) and *C. pulcher*, while in the agrochemical-free sites the predominant species was *C. pulcher* followed by *A. viennensis* and *Tetranychus urticae* Koch (Tetranychidae). Yanar and Ecevit (2008) found that the dominant phytophagous mites in the sprayed apple orchard were *A. viennensis* and *P. ulmi*, whereas *C. pulcher* and also *Eotetranychus uncatus* Garman (Tetranychidae) were abundant in the unsprayed apple orchard in Turkey (Tokat). İncekulak and Ecevit (2002) also observed that the population of *C. pulcher* was able to reach high densities only in pesticide-free apple orchards in Turkey (Amasya). It was absent or its density was extremely low in the sprayed orchards. These data are confirmed by Çiftçi et al. (1985) who state that *C. pulcher* is very sensitive to pesticides. Contrary to our findings, Kumral and Kovancı (2007) found that *A. viennensis* was most frequently collected in the agrochemical-free deciduous orchard whereas *P. ulmi* and *T. urticae* were dominant in the conventional orchards in Turkey (Bursa). On the other hand, they noted that *C. pulcher* also was the dominant pest mite of agrochemical-free sites. In Serbia, it had been already mentioned that *P. ulmi* was the dominant pest mite species in cultivated and neglected apple orchards (Stojnic 2001). Kishimoto (2002) demonstrated that the dominant pest mites were *A. viennensis* in the agrochemical-free pear orchard, *Panonychus citri* (McGregor) (Tetranychidae) in the pesticide-free orchard, and *T. urticae* in the conventionally controlled pear orchard in Japan. Stojnic et al. (2014) declared that *A. viennensis* was accidental in the neglected apple orchards and accessory on wild apple trees.

Moreover, it was not determined any tetranychid mite species except *A. viennensis* in the conventional pear orchards in the current study. Stojnic et al. (2014) did not detect *A. viennensis* in the cultivated apple orchards. Interestingly, it was not detected any plant-parasitic mite species except *C. pulcher* on the neglected loquat trees in the current study. Hatzinikolis and Emmanuelu (1987) reported loquat as a host for *C. pulcher*. It was also noted that this mite is an important pest on apple, quince, loquat, and pear by NAPPO (2008), Biosecurity Australia (2009), Beard et al (2012).

*Phytoseius finitimus* was the most abundant and common predatory species on pome fruits, followed by *T. wainsteini* and *Z. mali*. It is a very common phytoseiid species on pome fruit trees in Turkey. It was detected on apple trees in Sakarya, Giresun (Swirski and Amitai 1982), Ankara, Adapazarı, Niğde, Tokat, Burdur (Düzgüneş and Kılıç 1983), Gümüşhane, Bursa, İstanbul, Nevşehir, Isparta, Konya, Tokat (Çobanoğlu 1993d) and Amasya (İncekulak and Ecevit 2002), on apple, quince, medlar in Çanakkale and Balıkesir (Kasap et al. 2013), on persimmon in Ordu (Akyazı et al. 2017) in Turkey. It was also found commonly in Europe's apple orchards. (Nicotina 1996; Papaioannou-Souliotis et al. 1999; Kreiter et al. 2000; Ragusa and Tsolakis 2000). In the present study, it was generally collected from agro-chemical free sites. Moreover, it was not detected in conventional apple orchards. These data are in agreement with those of Duso and Vettorazzo (1999), who declared that *P. finitimus* proved to be susceptible to various pesticides.

Our findings showed that *T. wainsteini* was generally found on the neglected trees, especially apple, rather than in conventional sites. So far, *T. wainsteini* has been detected on rosehip (Faraji et al. 2011), persimmon (Akyazı et al. 2016), some vegetables (Soysal and Akyazı 2018) and stone fruits (Altunç and Akyazı 2019) in Turkey. Rahmani et al. (2010) found it on wild apple (Malus sp.) in Fandogloo. Tajmiri et al. (2014) detected *T. wainsteini* as dominant species in
the plum orchards, adjacent raspberry hedgerows, and dominant orchard floor vegetation in
Northern Iran (Guilan province).

The third most abundant and common predatory mite, *Z. mali*, was found in lower proportion
on the agrochemical-free sites. Our result is in agreement with Kasap and Çobanoğlu (2006)
and Kasap *et al.* (2019). They detected that *Z. mali* was the most abundant predatory mite
species associated with *B. rubrioculus* in Van (Turkey) and with *P. ulmi* in Çanakkale (Turkey)
in sprayed apple orchards. Abroad, it was found in the sprayed and unsprayed orchards
(Woolhouse and Harmsen 1985; Strickler *et al.* 1987; Thistlewood 1991; Croft 1993). Santos
(1976) and Clements and Harmsen (1993) found that *Z. mali* can have a high reproduction rate
on *P. ulmi*.

Considering together phytoseiid and tetranychoid species, it was detected that *T. wainsteini*
had a greater tendency to be found together with *C. pulcher*, *A. viennensis* and *T. urticae*
(positive association). The pair of *E. finlandicus* – *B. rubrioculus* was also found very
significantly associated. Significant positive associations were also found for the pairs of
*Typhlodromus rapidus* Wainstein & Arutunjan (Phytoseiidae) – *Bryobia*. *rubricolus* (Scheuten)
(Tetranychidae), *T. rapidus* – *A. viennensis*, and *P. finitimus* – *P. ulmi*. *Transeius wainsteini* was
collected among the *P. ulmi* and *Aceria* sp. (Eriophyidae) populations on wild apple trees by
Rahmani *et al.* (2010). On the other hand, it was found associated with *T. urticae* in hazelnut
orchards and sunflowers by them. *Euseius* spp. are classified as Type IV Lifestyle – pollen
feeding generalist predators by McMurtry *et al.* (2013). *Euseius finlandicus* is known to feed on
tetranychid, eriophyid, tyroglyphid and tarsonemid species, pollen, fungal hyphae and spores,
eggs and larvae of insects, honeydew, and plant liquids (Schausberger 1992; Kostiainen and
Hoy 1994; Abdallah *et al.* 2001). *Typhlodromus rapidus* Wainstein & Arutunjan was detected
on apple and oak trees in Russia (Wainstein and Arutunjan 1968), *Betula* spp., and *Quercus*
spp. in Latvia (Salmane and Petrova 2002), *Corylus* sp. in İzmit (Çobanoğlu 1997) and walnut
trees in Samsun in Turkey. Species in the genus *Typhlodromus* are classified as Subtype III-a –
generalist predators living on pubescent leaves by McMurtry *et al.* (2013). *Phytoseius finitimus*
had also positive and very significant associations with *P. ulmi*. It is a generalist phytoseiid
mite (Pappas *et al.* 2013; Tixier *et al.* 2017). Its food range includes tetranychids, eriophyoids,
and pollen (Nomikou *et al.* 2001; Momen and El-Borolossy 2010).

Within predatory species complex, the pair of *Z. mali* – *T. wainsteini* had the greatest tendency to be found together. The pairs of *E. finlandicus* – *T. rapidus* and *T. rapidus* – *Z. mali* had also very highly positive associations. It is known that *Z. mali* may feed on other predator mite eggs (Kain and Nyrop 1995). Croft (1993) noted that it can prey on eggs of the predatory phytoseiid mites *Galendromus* (*Galendromus*) *occidentalis* (Nesbitt) and *Typhlodromus* (*Typhlodromus*) *pyri* Scheuten and other *Z. mali*. Schausberger (1997) declared that *E. finlandicus* showed the great tendency to interspecific predation on motile immatures of *T. pyri* and *Kampimodromus aberrans* (Oudemans) (Phytoseiidae).

Considering only the tetranychoid mites, positive and very significant associations were
observed for the pair *A. viennensis* – *B. rubrioculus*, *A. viennensis* – *P. ulmi*, *C. pulcher* – *A.
viennensis*, *C. pulcher* – *B. rubrioculus*, and *C. pulcher* – *T. urticae*. As far as we know, these
are previously unstudied.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate a strong effect of agrochemicals on the diversity and distribution
of mite species. The main conclusion can be drawn that richer beneficial mite fauna occurs
on pome fruit trees in the agrochemical-free sites compared to the conventional orchards.
In addition, dominant phytophagous and predatory species of agrochemical-free sites and
conventional orchards were different. Moreover, some species could only be found in the
commercial orchards, whereas some only in neglected ones, and some in both areas. Very
significantly positive association indexes were found for mite pairs within the predatory and
phytophagous species complex. The finding may help to determine the potential predatory species for the applied biological control approaches of phytophagous mites in the pome fruit orchards. Finally, the economic importance of phytophagous mites detected on the pome fruit trees in the Ordu region can be considered to be negligible because these mites are vulnerable to predatory mites and pesticides.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the financial support of this work to the Ordu University Scientific Research Project Coordination Unit (ODUBAP) (Project No: TF-1510). The authors also very much appreciate the help of Dr. Farid Faraji (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Prof. Dr Serge Kreiter (Institut Agro Montpellier, UMR CBGP, France), Prof. Dr Eddie A. Ueckermann (North-West University, South Africa), Prof. Dr Owen Seeman (Collection Arachnida Queensland Museum, Australia), Dr. Philippe Auger (French National Institute for Agricultural Research, France), Dr. Mariusz Lewandowski (Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland), and Prof. Dr Antonio C. Lofego (Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brazil) in the confirmation of species identifications.

Part of this research was presented at the 8th Plant Protection Congress with international participation held between 24-28 August 2021 in Turkey and published as an abstract in the abstracts book. This manuscript is a part of the first author's M. Sc. thesis.

## ORCID

Duygu Akyol https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1200-6306

Rana Akyazi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0054-4222

## References

Abdallah A.A., Zhang Z.Q., Masters G.J., McNeill S. 2001. *Euseius finlandicus* (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as a potential biocontrol agent against *Tetranychus urticae* (Acari: Tetranychidae): life history and feeding habits on three different types of food. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 25: 833-847. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020431531446

Akyazi F., Ecevit O. 2003. Determination of Mite Species in Hazelnut Orchards in Samsun, Ordu and Giresun Provinces, Turkey. J. of Fac. of Agric., OMU, 18(3): 39-45.

Akyazi R., Ueckermann E.A., Soysal M. 2016. The new distribution of *Amblyseius herbicolus* in Turkey (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae) with a key of *Amblyseius* species found in Turkey. Acarologia, 56(2): 237-244. https://doi.org/10.1051/acarologia/20162241

Akyazi R., Ueckermann E.A., Akyol D., Soysal M. 2017. Distribution of mite species (Acari) on persimmon trees in Turkey (Ordu), with one newly recorded mite species and one re-described species. Int. J. Acarology., 43: 563-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2017.1373149

Akyazi R., Soysal M., Altunç Y.E. 2022. Species complexes of leaf-inhabiting mites on *Prunus laurocerasus* L. (Rosaceae) trees in Ordu, Turkey. Acarological Studies, 4 (1): 9-20. https://doi.org/10.47121/acarolstud.996567

Altunç Y.E., Akyazi R. 2019. Mite species on stone fruit trees in Ordu province. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 334: 18-34. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.441274

Amano H., Chant D.A. 1990. Species diversity and seasonal dynamics of Acari on abandoned apple trees in Southern Ontario, Canada. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 8: 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01193383

Amrine J.W., Manson D. 1996. Preparation, mounting and descriptive study of eriophyoid mites. In: Lindquist E.E., Sabelis M.W. (Eds.) Eriophyoid mites-their biology, natural enemies and control. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 383-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1572-4379(96)80023-6

Beard, J.J., Ochoa, R., Bauchan, G.R., Trice, M.D., Redford, A.J., Walters, T.W. and Mitter, C. 2012. Flat Mites of the World. Edition 2. Identification Technology Program, CPHST, PPQ, APHIS, USDA; Fort Collins, CO [Internet]. [10 March 2022]. Available from: http://idtools.org/id/mites/flatmites/

Bergh J.C., Weiss C.R. 1993. Pear rust mite, *Epitrimeres pyri* (Acari: Eriophyidae) oviposition and nymphal development on *Pyrus* and non-*Pyrus* hosts. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 17: 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118438

Biosecurity Australia 2009. Draft import risk analysis report for fresh apple fruit from the people's republic of China. Biosecurity Australia [Internet]. [11 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.biosecurityaustralia.gov.au
Clements D.R., Harmsen R. 1993. Prey preferences of adult and immature *Zetzellia mali* (Acari: Stigmaeidae) and *Typhlodromus caudiglans* (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Can. Entomol., 125: 967-969.
https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent125967-5

Collyer E. 1956. Notes on the biology of some predacious mites on fruit trees in Southeastern England. Bull. Entomol. Res., 47(2): 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300046654

Croft B.A. 1993. *Zetzellia mali* (Ewing) [Internet]. [29 July 2021]. Available from: http://treefruit.wsu.edu/crop-protection/opm/zmali/

Çiftçi K., Türkyılmaz N., Özkan A., Kumaş F. 1985. Preliminary studies on the important apple pests and their natural enemies in apple orchards in Antalya region. Plant Prot. Bull. 25(1-2): 59-61.

Çobanoğlu S. 1993a. Systematic studies on the Phytoseiidae (Acarina) species, found in the apple growing areas of Turkey. I. Turk J. Entomol., 17(1): 41-54.

Çobanoğlu S. 1993b. Systematic studies on the Phytoseiidae (Acarina) species, found in the apple growing areas of Turkey. II. Turk J. Entomol., 17(2): 99-116.

Çobanoğlu S. 1993c. Systematic studies on the Phytoseiidae (Acarina) species, found in the apple growing areas of Turkey. III. Turk J. Entomol., 17(3): 175-192.

Çobanoğlu S. 1993d. Systematic studies on the Phytoseiidae (Acarina) species, found in the apple growing areas of Turkey. IV. Turk J. Entomol., 17(4): 239-255.

Çobanoğlu S. 1997. New Phytoseiid mites for Turkish fauna. Turk J. Agric. For., 21: 361-370.
https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-011X.2815

Çobanoğlu S. 2000. Recent data on the knowledge of Tarsonemidae (Acarina: Heterostigmata) in Turkey. Turk J. Entomol., 24(4): 255-266.

Çobanoğlu, S. 2004. Phytoseiid mites of Thrace, Turkey. Isr. J. Entomol., 34: 83-107.

Çobanoğlu S., Akçakoyunluoğlu K., Çalmaşur Ö. 2020. Mite diversity (Acari) from ornamental plants in Erzurum in Turkey. J. Agric. Sci., 26 (2): 236-245. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.518260

Çobanoğlu S., Kazmierski A. 1999. Tydeidae and Stigmaeidae [Acari: Prostigmata] from orchards, trees, and shrubs in Turkey. Biol. Bull. Poznan, 36(1): 71-83.

Çobanoğlu S., Kumral N.A. 2014. The biodiversity and population fluctuation of plant-parasitic and beneficial mite species (Acari) in tomato fields of Ankara, Bursa, and Yalova provinces. Turk J. Entomol., 38(2): 197-214. https://doi.org/10.16970/ted.64743

Dahiah H., Barbar Z., Jamal M. 2011. Survey and taxonomy of phytoseiid predatory mites in apple orchards at the Governorate of Homs-Syria. Journal of Albaath University, 33(4): 9-34.

Dajoz R. 1977. Introduction to Ecology. London: Hodder and Stoughton. 416 pp.

Denizhan E. 2018. Eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on fruit trees in Yalova, Turkey. YYU J. Agr Sci., 28(3): 285-288. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.398096

Duso C., Vettorazzo E. 1999. Mite population dynamics on different grape varieties with or without phytoseiids released (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol., 23(9): 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006297225577

Düzgüneş Z., Kılıç S. 1983. Türkiye'nin önemli elma bölgelerinde bulunan Phytoseiidae (Acarina) türlerinin tespiti, bunlardan *Tetranychus viennensis* Zacher (Acarina: Tetranychidae) ile ilişkileri bakımından en önemli türün etkinliği üzerine araştırmalar. Doğa Bilim Dergisi, 7: 193-205.

FAO 2019. Food and agriculture data. [Internet] [2 October 2019]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

Faraji F., Çobanoğlu S., Çakmak İ. 2011. A checklist and a key for the Phytoseiidae species of Turkey with two new species records (Acari: Mesostigmata). Int. J. Acarology., 37(1): 221-243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2011.558851

Hardman I.M., Rogers M.L., Gaul S.O., Bent E.D. 1997. Insectary and initial testing in Canada of an organo-phosphate/ pyrethroid-resistant strain of the predator mite *Typhlodromus pyri* (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from New Zealand. Environ. Entomol., 26: 1424-1436. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/26.6.1424

Hatzinikolis E.N., Emmanuelou N.G. 1987. A revision of the genus *Cenopalpus* in Greece (Acari: Tenuipalpidae). Entomol Hell 5: 13-26. https://doi.org/10.12681/eh.13943

Hoy M.A. 2011. Agricultural Acarology: Introduction to Integrated Mite Management. Boca Raton Florida: CRC Press. 410 pp.

Hussian N.A.H., El-Sharabasy H.M., AboGhalia A.H., Soliman M.F.M. 2018. Mites inhabiting some fruit trees in Ismailia Governorate. Egypt Acad. J. Biol. Sci., 11(4): 71-81. https://doi.org/10.21608/eajbsa.2018.17734

İncekulak R., Ecevit O. 2002. A research on determination of harmful and beneficial mite species on apple orchards in Amasya and their population densities. *In:* Özbek H., Güçlü Ş., Hayat R. (Eds). Proceedings of the fifth Turkish National Congress of Biological Control. Erzurum (Turkey): Atatürk University Press: 297-314.

Kain D., Nyrop J. 1995. Predatory Mites. Insect Identification Fact Sheet No. 23. Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 2 pp. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/43122

Kasap İ. 2011. Seasonal population development of spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their predators in sprayed and unsprayed apple orchards in Van, Turkey. Zoosymposia. 6: 111-117.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zoosymposia.6.1.19

Kasap İ., Çobanoğlu S. 2006. Population dynamics of *Bryobia rubrioculus* Scheuten (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its predators in sprayed and unsprayed apple orchards. Van. Turk J. Entomol., 30 (2): 89-98.

Kasap İ., Çobanoğlu S. 2007. Mite (Acari) fauna in apple orchards of around the lake Van basin of Turkey. Turk J. Entomol., 31(2): 97-109.

Kasap İ., Çobanoğlu S., Pehlivan S. 2013. Predatory mite species on pome fruit trees and weeds in the province of Çanakkale and Balıkesir. Turk J. Biol., 4(2): 109-123.
Kasap İ., Çobanoğlu S., Pehlivan S., Kök Ş., Baştuğ G. 2015. Plant pest mite species on pome fruit trees and weeds in the provinces of Çanakkale and Balıkesir. Plant Prot. Bull., 55(2): 85-94.

Kasap İ., Kök Ş., Pehlivan S., Baştuğ G. 2019. Population development of European red mite, *Panonychus ulmi* (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae) on apple orchards in Çanakkale, Turkey. *Acarological Studies.*, 1(2): 161-164.

Kishimoto H. 2002. Species composition and seasonal occurrence of spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their predators in Japanese pear orchards with different agrochemical spraying programs. *Appl. Entomol. Zool.*, 37(4): 603-615.

Kostiainen T.S., Hoy M.A. 1994. Egg-harvesting allows large scale rearing of *Amblyseius finlandicus* (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory. *Exp. Appl. Acarol.*, 18: 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353683

Krantz G.W., Walter D.E. 2009. A manual of Acarology. Lubbock, Texas, USA. Texas Tech. Univ. Press. 807 pp.

Kreiter S., Tixier M.-S., Auger P., Muckenstrum N, Sentenac G, Doublet B, Weber M. 2000. Phytoseiid mites of vineyards in France. *Acarologia*, 41(4): 75-94.

Kumral N.A., Çobanoğlu S. 2015. The potential of the nightshade plants (Solanaceae) as reservoir plants for pest and predatory mites. *Turk J. Entomol.*, 39(1): 91-108. https://doi.org/10.16970/ted.55042

Kumral N.A., Kovancı B. 2007. The diversity and abundance of mites in agrochemical-free and conventional deciduous fruit orchards of Bursa, Turkey. *Turk J. Entomol.*, 31(2): 83-95.

Ludwig J.A., Reynolds J.F. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A primer on methods and computing. New York, Wiley. 352 pp.

Madanlar N. 1991. Studies on the identification of Acarina species and their population densities associated with citrus plantations in İzmir. [PhD Thesis]. Ege University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. 258 pp.

McMurtry J.A., De Moraes G.J., Sourassou N.F. 2013. Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. *Syst. Appl. Acarol.*, 18(4): 297-320. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.18.4.1

Milic D., Bulatovic L.M., Bulatovic B.K., Milovancevic Z. 2016. Raw material requirements planning in fruit juice production. *Agric. Econ.*, 63(4): 1395-1402. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj1604395M

Momen F., El-Borolossy M. 2010. Juvenile survival and development in three phytoseiid species (Acari: Phytoseiidae) feeding on con- and heterospecific immatures. *Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung.*, 45(2): 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1556/APhyt.45.2010.2.12

NAPPO 2008. *Cenopalpus pulcher* (Canestrini and Fanzago). North American Plant Protection Organization: Phytosanitary Alert System [Internet]. [10 July 2020]. Available from: urlbib http://pestalert.org/viewArchPestAlert.cfm?rid=54

Nicotina M. 1996. Acari fitoseidi associati alia vite nei vigneti del Lazio. *Boil. Lab. Ent. Agr. Filippo Silvestri.*, 52: 117-130.

Nomikou M., Janssen A., Shraag R., Sabelis M.M. 2001. Phytoseiid predators as potential biological control agents for *Bemisia tabaci*. *Exp. Appl. Acarol.*, 25:271-291. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017976725685

Osman M., Mahmoud M.F. 2008. Seasonal abundance patterns of insects and mites on pear trees during the blooming and fruiting seasons at Ismailia Governorate, Egypt. *Tunis J. Plant. Prot.*, 3(1): 47-58.

Öksüz E.S., Özman S.K. 1999. Mites of stored paddy rice in Samsun province of Turkey. *Proceedings of the XIV International plant protection congress, Jerusalem, Israel, 39 pp.*

Özçağıran R., Ünal A., Özeker E., İsfendiyaroğlu M. 2005. İlman iklim meyve türleri yumuşak çekirdekli meyveler Cilt-II, No:556. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi. 166 pp.

Özman S.K., Çobanoğlu S. 2001. Current status of hazelnut mites in Turkey. *Proc. V. Int. Congress. on Hazelnut. Ed. S.A. Mehlenbacher. Acta Horticulturae*, 556: 479-488. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.556.70

Özsayın N. 2012. Studies on mite species of pome fruits in Kelkit Valley (Giresun, Sivas). [Master Thesisi]. *Gaziosmanpaşa University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences*. 100 pp.

Palevsky E., Oppenheim D., Reuveny H., Gerson U. 1996. Impact of European red mite on Golden Delicious and Oregon Spur apples in Israel. *Exp. Appl. Acarol.*, 20: 343-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00052963

Papaioannou-Souliotis P., Markoyiannaki-Printziou D., Rumbos I., Adamopoulos I., 1999. Phytoseiid mites associated with vine in various provinces of Greece: a contribution to faunistics and biogeography, with reference to eco-ethological aspects of *Phytoseius finitimus* (Ribaga) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). *Acarologia*, XL (2): 113-125.

Pappas M.L., Xanthis C., Samaras K., Koveos D.S., Broufas G.D. 2013. Potential of the predatory mite *Phytoseius finitimus* (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to feed and reproduce on greenhouse pests. *Exp. Appl. Acarol.*, 61: 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-013-9711-9

Praslicka J., Bartekova A. 2008. Occurrence of predatory mites of the Phytoseiidae family on apple trees in integrated and ecological orchards. *Plant Prot. Sci.*, 44(2): 57-60. https://doi.org/10.17221/7/2008-PPS

Praslicka J., Bartekova A., Schlarmannova J., Malina R. 2009. Predatory mites of the Phytoseiidae family in integrated and ecological pest management systems in orchards in Slovakia. *Biologia*, 64(5): 959-961. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-009-0163-y

Ragusa S., Tsolakis H. 2000. Notes on the adaptation of some phytophagous and predacious mites to various ecological parameters in the Mediterranean countries. *Web Ecol.*, 1: 35-47. https://doi.org/10.5194/we-1-35-2000

Rahmani H., Kamalı K., Faraji F. 2010. Predatory mite fauna of Phytoseiidae of northwest Iran (Acari: Mesostigmata). *Turk J. Zool.*, 34: 497-508. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-0902-23
Salmane I., Petrova V. 2002. Overview on Phytoseiidae mites (Acari, Mesostigmata, Gamasina) of Latvia. Latvijas Entomologs, 39: 48-54.

Santos M.A. 1976. Evaluation of *Zetzellia mali* as a predator of *Panonychus ulmi* and *Aulus schlechten-dali*. Environ. Entomol., 5: 187-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/5.1.187

Schausberger P. 1992. Comparative investigations on the effect of different foods on development and reproduction of *Amblyseius aberrans* Oud. and *A. finlandicus* Oud. (Acarina, Phytoseiidae). J. Appl. Entomol., 113: 476-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1992.tb00692.x

Schausberger P. 1997. Inter- and intraspecific predation on immatures by adult females in *Euseius finlandicus*, *Typhlodromus pyri* and *Kampimodromus aberrans* (Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol., 21: 131-150.

Singh P., Singh R.N., Srivastava C.P. 2016. Phytophagous mites of Indian fruit plants. In: Pandey A.K., Mall P. (Eds). Insect pest management of fruit crop, ch. 30, New Delhi, Delhi, India, Biotech Books: 621-649.

Southwood T.R.E. 1968. Ecological methods with particular references to study of insect populations. Methuen, London. 391 pp.

Soysal M., Akyazi R. 2018. Mite species of the vegetable crops in Ordu Province with first report of *Amblyseius rademacheri* Dosse, 1958 (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) in Turkey. Turk J. Entomol., 42 (4): 265-286. https://doi.org/10.16970/entoted.447218

Stojnic B. 2001. Structural changes and functional relationships of phytoseiid complex (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in apple orchard. [Phd Thesis]. University of Belgrade. 224 pp.

Stojnic B., Mladenovic K., Maric I., Marcic D. 2014. Species complexes of predatory mites and spider mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae) on cultivated and wild apple trees in Serbia. Int. J. Acarology, 40(7): 485-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2014.956671

Strickler K., Cushing N., Whalon M., Croft B.A. 1987. Mite (Acari) species composition in Michigan apple orchards. Environ. Entomol., 16(1): 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/16.1.30

Swirski E., Amitai S. 1982. Notes on predacious mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from Turkey, with description of the male of *Phytoseius echinus* Wainstein and Arutunian. Isr. J. Entomol., 16: 55-62.

Szabo A., Penzes B., Sipos P., Hegyi T., Hajdu Z., Marko V. 2014. Pest management systems affect composition but not abundance of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in apple orchards. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 62: 525-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-013-9752-0

Tajmiri P., Ebadollahi A., Nazifi A., Alizadeh E. 2014. Population fluctuation of *Transeius wainsteini* (Gomelauri, 1968) (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) as dominant species on plum orchards (*Prunus domestica* L.), adjacent raspberry hedgerows (*Rubus* spp.), and orchards dominant floor vegetation in the Guilan Province. The third national congress on organic and conventional agriculture, Volume 1, Ardabil, Iran. p.1. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3190.6882

Thistlewood H. 1991. A survey of predatory mites in Ontario apple orchards with diverse pesticide programs. Can. Entomol., 123: 1163-1174. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent1231163-6

Tixier M.-S., Vicente V.S., Douin M., Duso C., Kreiter S. 2017. Great molecular variation within the species *Phytoseius finitimus* (Acari: Phytoseiidae): implications for diagnosis decision within the mite family Phytoseiidae. Acarologia, 57(3): 493-515. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20174168

TUIK 2021. Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT)-TUIK. [Internet] [30 July 2020]. Available from: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=tr

Tuovinen T., Rokx J.A.H. 1991. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on apple trees and in surrounding vegetation in Southern Finland. Densities and species composition. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 12: 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204398

Van de Vrie M. 1985. Apple. In: Helle W, Sabelis MW (Ed). Spider mites: their biology, natural enemies and control, Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 311-325.

Wainstein B.A., Arutunjan E.S. 1968. New species of predaceous mites of the genus *Typhlodromus* (Parasitiformes: Phytoseiidae). Zool. Zhurnal., 47 (8): 1240-1244.

Woolhouse M.E.J., Harmsen R. 1985. The mite complex on the foliage of a pesticide-free apple orchard: population dynamics and habitat associations. In: Ellis C.R., Kevan P.G., Pree D.J., Trimble R.M. (Eds). Entomological society of Ontario, Canada: 1-11.

Yanar D., Ecevit O. 2005. Plant injurious and predatory mite species in apple (*Malus communis* L.) orchards in Tokat province. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Ondokuz Mayıs University, 20(1): 18-23.

Yanar D., Ecevit O. 2008. Species composition and seasonal occurrence of spider mites and their predators in sprayed and unsprayed apple orchards in Tokat, Turkey. Phytoparasitica, 36(5): 491-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03020296

YMS Report 2021. Turkey evaluation report of the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, 2020/2021 January-November period [Internet]. [7 March 2022]. Available from: http://www.ymss.org.tr/en/export-stats.html

Yu J.M., Luo Q.H., Sun J.L., Shi C.L., Yin J., Zhou Y.L., Tang R., Zhang H., Yu Z., Chen M. 2015. Diversity of house dust mite species in Xishuangbanna Dai, a tropical rainforest region in Southwest China. Biomed. Res. Int.: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/421716