# Mite species (Acari) on blackberry cultivars in organic and conventional farms in Florida and Georgia, USA

Rana Akyazi, Cal Welbourn, Oscar E. Liburd

► To cite this version:

Rana Akyazi, Cal Welbourn, Oscar E. Liburd. Mite species (Acari) on blackberry cultivars in organic and conventional farms in Florida and Georgia, USA. Acarologia, 2021, 61 (1), pp.31-45. 10.24349/acarologia/20214414. hal-03110428

HAL Id: hal-03110428

https://hal.science/hal-03110428

Submitted on 14 Jan 2021

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

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_3.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 2021 (Volume 61): 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_4.png" /></figure>

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

**Acarologia** is under **free license** and distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons-BY-NC-ND which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
# Mite species (Acari) on blackberry cultivars in organic and conventional farms in Florida and Georgia, USA

Rana Akyazi<sup>a,b</sup>, Cal Welbourn<sup>c</sup>, Oscar E. Liburd<sup>b</sup>

## Original research

### ABSTRACT

This study was carried out to determine mite species on blackberry plants (*Rubus* spp. (Rosaceae)) in Florida and Georgia, USA, and differences in mite species between organic and conventional blackberry plantings in the area sampled. Surveys were conducted in organic and conventional commercial blackberry plantings from June to October 2016. Leaf samples were collected monthly from nine different blackberry cultivars including ‘Arapaho’, ‘Choctaw’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Kiowa’, ‘Natchez’, ‘Navaho’, ‘Osage’, ‘Ouachita’, and Von. Approximately 20 leaves per blackberry plant were taken. Twenty mite species (a total of 152 mite specimens) belonging to 7 families including Phytoseiidae (9 species), Ascidae (1), Cheyletidae (1), Erythraeidae (1), Stigmaeidae (1), Tetranychidae (4) and Tarsonemidae (3) were identified during the study. It was found that the abundance of predatory mites collected in organic farms was over 2-fold higher (105) than in conventional farms (47), which may be related to pesticide use on these commercial farms. Future surveys should provide a list of predatory species, which may hold potential for biological control of economically important pest mites.

**Keywords** blackberry; *Rubus* spp.; mite; pest; predatory mite groups

Part of this research was presented as a poster at the 19th International Conference on Entomology ICE 2017 (19-20 October 2017 Paris, France) and published as an abstract

### Introduction

Blackberries (*Rubus* spp. (Rosaceae)) are a major small fruit crop that is grown throughout Europe and the United States (Strik 2007). Mexico is the leading producer of blackberries worldwide. In the US, the crop is valued at 50 million USD (USDA-NASS 2016) with 90% of its production in the northwest region (Oregon). Production is expanding in the southern United States (Arkansas to Florida) and several new cultivars are being developed that do not require the heat units for satisfactory production that is required of traditional cultivars.

Several mite species have been found in association with blackberry plants (Vincent *et al.* 2010) and most of these mites are agricultural pests that are known to cause economic damage. The broad mite, *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Banks) is one of two species in the family Tarsonemidae that cause extensive damage to crop plants (Liburd *et al.* 2020). *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* has been found in association with leaf-curling symptoms on primocane-fruiting blackberry (*Rubus* L. subgenus *Rubus* Watson) in Arkansas (Vincent *et al.* 2010), which negatively affect plant growth and development.

Received 17 September 2020

Accepted 06 January 2021

Published 14 January 2021

Corresponding author

Rana Akyazi: ranaakyazi@odu.edu.tr

Academic editor

Migeon, Alain

DOI

10.24349/acarologia/20214414

ISSN 0044-586X (print)

ISSN 2107-7207 (electronic)

CC Copyright

Akyazi R. *et al.*

Distributed under

Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Department of Plant Protection, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Division of Plant Industry, FSCA, Gainesville, USA.</footnote>
Davies *et al.* (2001) examined microhabitats and aggregation patterns of the phytophagous mite, *Acalitus essigi* (Hassan) (Trombidiformes: Eriophyidae), on *Rubus fruticosus* L. (Rosaceae). They found that *A. essigi* was a refugee inhabiting species that resided in the buds and leaf axils on primocanes and fructocanes. Scott *et al.* (2008) collected the same species of eriophyid mites from the fruits of three species of the weedy blackberry (*R. anglo-candicans* A. Newton, *R. laudatus* A. Berger and *R. ulmifolius* Schott) in south-west Australia. This was the first record for this species in Western Australia and these plants appear to be new host records for *A. essigi*. Similarly, Cetin *et al.* (2010) recorded *A. essigi* as a new pest in blackberry plantings in the Marmara region of Turkey in 2009.

Marchetti and Ferla (2011) determined the diversity and population fluctuation of mites on blackberry (*R. fruticosus*) in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. A total of 26 mite species belonging to 12 families were found. Most of the mites were phytophagous species belonging to the families Diptilomiopidae (80.9%) and Tetranychidae (13.9%). The most common families of predaceous mites were Stigmaeidae (2.1%) and Phytoseiidae (0.4%). Recently, Trinidad *et al.* (2019) evaluated the occurrence of phytophagous and predatory mites in different blackberry genotypes in the municipality of Pelotas, RS, Brazil. They recorded a total of 12 mite species belonging to the families Tetranychidae, Diptilomiopidae, Eriophyidae, Tarsonemidae, Tenuipalpidae, Stigmaeidae, Tydeidae, Phytoseiidae. The families Tydeidae, Diptilomiopidae, Tetranychidae, and Eriophyidae showed a higher representability.

Ozsisli and Cobanoglu (2019) determined predatory and harmful mite species on *R. fruticosus*, and *Rubus sanctus* Schreber in Turkey (Adana, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş provinces). *Phytoseius finitimus* Ribaga (Phytoseiidae), *Pronematus ubiquitus* (McGregor), *Tydeus californicus* (Banks) (Tydeidae), and *Zetelia mali* (Ewing) (Stigmaeidae) were predatory mite species obtained in the study. The phytophagous mites were *Cenopalpus pulcher* (Canestrini & Fanzago), *C. spinosus* (Donnadieu) (Tenuipalpidae) and *Tetranychus urticae* Koch (Tetranychidae).

In a recent study, Akyazi and Liburd (2019) assessed the effectiveness of a commercially available predator, *Neoseiulus californicus* (McGregor) to reduce *T. urticae* populations in a commercial blackberry planting and recommended that an assessment of local phytoseiids and other predators should be considered before further releases of *N. californicus* are considered.

To our knowledge a survey of mite fauna associated with blackberries have not been conducted in Florida and Georgia despite an expanding blackberry industry in the region. This study was carried out to determine phytophagous and predatory mite species on nine commercially available blackberry cultivars in Florida and Georgia, USA in 2016.

**Material and Methods**

**Sampled Areas**

The survey was conducted in selected organic and conventional commercial blackberry farms in Florida and Georgia, USA (Figure 1). Geographical coordinates were recorded using a GPS mobile device.

**Sampled Blackberry Cultivars**

This study was carried out on nine blackberry cultivars including ‘Arapaho’, ‘Choctaw’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Kiowa’, ‘Natchez’, ‘Navaho’, ‘Osage’, ‘Ouachita’ and ‘Von’ (Table 1).

**Sampling Method**

The survey was conducted from June to October 2016. Leaf samples were collected monthly. The number of sampled plants per site was determined according to the total number of the plants in each planting (Table 2). On each sampling date, leaves were taken from different
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 Sampled farms in Florida and Georgia, USA.</figcaption></figure>

parts of the bush canopy, i.e. lower, middle, and upper canopy. Approximately 20 leaves per blackberry plant were collected. The samples were placed in paper bags and then later in Ziplock plastic bags, labeled and transferred to the University of Florida, Small Fruit and Vegetable IPM (UF-SFVIPM) laboratory.

Extraction, preparation, and identification of mite specimens

The mites were collected with a 0 or 00 paint brush under a stereomicroscope LEICA M205 C (Leica Microsystems Inc., Buffalo Grove, Illinois, USA) directly from the leaves. In this way, all mites were separated into families before examination using 40 x to 160 x magnification.

<table><caption>**Table 1** Sampled blackberry cultivars with growth characteristics (Adapted from Fernandez *et al.* 2015).</caption><thead><tr><td>Cultivar</td><td>Erect</td><td>Thorns</td><td>Season</td><td>Comments</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Arapaho</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Early</td><td>Lower yields; plant at higher density.</td></tr><tr><td>Choctaw</td><td>Erect</td><td>Yes</td><td>Early</td><td>High-yielding</td></tr><tr><td>Freedom</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Floricane crop very early, Primocane crop from early September to first frost</td><td>Primocane-fruiting; soft berries for home garden or local market only</td></tr><tr><td>Kiowa</td><td>Erect</td><td>Yes</td><td>Mid</td><td>Low chilling; best for local sales and PYO (Pick your Own)</td></tr><tr><td>Natchez</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Early (slightly before or with Arapaho)</td><td>Very large fruit; very high yield; tends to over produce so careful pruning is essential. Winter hardiness is poor in high elevations.</td></tr><tr><td>Navaho</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Mid to late</td><td>Stores well; excellent flavor; average size. Quite susceptible to orange rust; long harvest season</td></tr><tr><td>Osage</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Mid</td><td>New cultivar with superior flavor. It has excellent post-harvest quality with medium-high yields.</td></tr><tr><td>Ouachita</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Early to mid</td><td>Excellent flavor; high yields, large fruit size, and good post-harvest quality.</td></tr><tr><td>Von</td><td>Erect</td><td>No</td><td>Mid to late</td><td>Holds up well in rain; high yields; average size. It has a good post-harvest quality and late season production</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** According to the total number of plants in each planting, the number of sampled plants (Madanlar and Kısmalı 1991).</caption><thead><tr><td>Total number of plants in each planting</td><td>The number of sampled plants</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0-50</td><td>All plants</td></tr><tr><td>51-200</td><td>50 plants</td></tr><tr><td>201-400</td><td>60 plants</td></tr><tr><td>More than 400</td><td>20% of the total number of plants</td></tr></tbody></table>

Specimens were preserved in vials containing 70% ethanol (according to cultivar and family). All mites were cleared in Lacto-phenol medium. Each mite was mounted in a drop of Hoyer's medium on microscope slides and dried in an oven at 50 °C for 5-7 days according to the method of Krantz and Walter (2009).

Species identifications were made in Division of Plant Industry, FSCA, Gainesville, USA by the second author. The mite specimens were deposited in the Mite Collection at the Division of Plant Industry, FSCA, Gainesville, USA.

## Results and Discussion

During the surveys, a total of 20 mite species belonging to 7 families were identified (Table 3) as follows: nine species of Phytoseiidae, four Tetranychidae, three Tarsonemidae, one for each of Ascidae, Stigmaeidae, Cheyletidae and Erythraeidae.

# Predatory mite species on nine different blackberry cultivars in selected organic and conventional commercial blackberry farms in Florida and Georgia, USA

## Family Phytoseiidae

### Galendromus (Galendromus) floridanus (Muma)

*Typhlodromus floridanus* (original designation) Muma

*Galendromus floridanus* Muma

*Metaseiulus (Galendromus) floridanus* Karg

*Galendromus (Galendromus) gratus* (Chant), synonymy according to Demite *et al.* (2020)

*Galendromus (Galendromus) helveolus* (Chant), synonymy according to Demite *et al.* (2020)

**Material Examined (n = 8; 7 ♀♀, 1 ♂)** — 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 2 August 2016, Osage, Organic Farm), 1♀ (30°26′18.19″ N, 84°11′55.83″ W, 39 m, 31 July 2016, Navaho, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 11 August 2016, Choctaw, Organic Farm), 1♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016, Choctaw, Conventional Farm), 1♂ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016, Choctaw, Conventional Farm), 1♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm), 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Osage, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 15 July 2016, Choctaw, Organic Farm).

**Comments** — *G. (G.) floridanus* was recorded in Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Colombia, Ecuador, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Honduras, Martinique, Panama Venezuela, and USA- Florida. It was collected from *Citrus* sp. (Rutaceae) and *Thespesia populnea* L. (Malvaceae) (Demite *et al.* 2020). In the present study, *G. floridanus* was collected together with *P. latus*, *Tarsonemus* (*Tarsonemus*) *bilobatus* Suski, *Tarsonemus* (*Tarsonemus*) *confusus* Ewing (Trombidiformes: Tarsonemidae), *Eotetranychus carpini*
(Qudemansi), *Tetranychus schoenei* McGregor and *Tetranychus urticae* Koch (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae).

## Phytoseius chanti Denmark

*Phytoseius (Dubininellus) chanti* Denmark

*Phytoseius (Phytoseius) chanti* Muma & Denmark

*Phytoseius chantii* Chant & McMurtry

**Material Examined (n = 4; 4 ♀♀)** — 1 ♀ (22 August 2016, Kiowa); 2 ♀♀ (15 July 2016, Arapaho); 1 ♀ (15 July 2016, Choctaw); 29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, Organic Farm.

**Comments** — *Phytoseius chanti* was detected in USA- Florida (Denmark 1966; Denmark and Evans 2011; Muma and Denmark 1970). It was found on *Quercus virginiana* Mill (Fagaceae) (Denmark 1966), *Calocarpum sapota* (Jacq.) Merr (Sapotaceae), *Cynadon dactylon*

<table><caption>**Table 3** Mite species determined on blackberry plants in organic and conventional farms in Florida and Georgia, USA.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Family</th><th rowspan="2">Species</th><th colspan="2">Organic</th><th colspan="2">Conventional</th><th rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>♀</th><th>♂</th><th>L/N</th><th>♀</th><th>♂</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Phytoseiidae</td><td>Galendromus (Galendromus) floridanus (Muma)*</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius chanti Denmark</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Proprioseius meridionalis Chant</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromips dentilis (De Leon)</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromalus peregrinus (Muma)</td><td>14</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>15</td><td>-</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius sp.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius sp.1</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius sp.2</td><td>6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Proprioseiopsis sp.</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Ascidae</td><td>Asca sp.</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Cheyletidae</td><td>Oudemanscheyla denmarki (Yunker)</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Erythraeidae</td><td>Lasioerythraeus sp.**</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1L</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Stigmaeidae</td><td>Agistemus sp.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>8N</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Predatory Mite Number</td><td>44</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total Predatory Mite Number (Organic/ Conventional/ Total)</td><td>57</td><td></td><td></td><td>23</td><td></td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Tarsonemidae</td><td>Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks)</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus (Tarsonemus) bilobatus Suski</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus (Tarsonemus) confusus Ewing</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Tetranychidae</td><td>Eotetranychus carpini (Oudemans)</td><td>4</td><td>18</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus schoenei McGregor</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus urticae Koch</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus sp.</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Phytophagous Mite Number</td><td>13</td><td>35</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>16</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total Phytophagous Mite Number (Organic/ Conventional/ Total)</td><td>48</td><td></td><td></td><td>24</td><td></td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Total Mite Number</td><td>57</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>30</td><td>17</td><td>152</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">GENERAL TOTAL (Organic/ Conventional/ Total)</td><td>105</td><td></td><td></td><td>47</td><td></td><td>152</td></tr></tbody></table>

L: Larva; N: Nymph

<footnote>*: It was followed what is mentioned in the Phytoseiidae catalogue by Demite et al. (2020) considering *Galendromus (Galendromus) gratus* (Chant) as a junior synonym of *Galendromus (Galendromus) floridanus* (Muma)</footnote>

<footnote>**: Erythraeid mites are ectoparasitic in their larval stage and predatory in their deutonymphal and adult stages (Goldarazena et al. 2000)</footnote>
(L.) (Poaceae), *Diospyros* sp. (Ebenaceae), *Pisium* sp. (Fabaceae), *Quercus durandii* Buckley, *Quercus* sp. (Fagaceae), *Rhus copallinum* L. var. *leucantha* (Jacq.) (Anacardiaceae), *Styrax americana* Lam (Styracaceae) and *Vitis* sp. (Vitaceae) (Muma and Denmark 1970). During the present study, *P. chanti* was collected together with *P. latus*, *E. carpini*, *T. bilobatus*, *T. confusus*, *T. schoenei* and *T. urticae*.

### Proprioseius meridionalis Chant

*Amblyseius (Proprioseius) meridionalis* Pritchard & Baker

*Phytoseiulus (Proprioseius) meridionalis* Wainstein

*Amblyseius (Amblyseius) meridionalis* Tseng

*Proprioseius (Proprioseius) meridionalis* Karg

*Typhlodromus psychotriae* Hirschmann (unjustified replacement name for *Proprioseius meridionalis*)

**Material Examined (n=4; 4 ♀♀)** — 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°39′15.95″ N, 82°31′25.49″ W, 32 m, 27 July 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm), 2♀♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016, Choctaw, Conventional Farm).

**Comments** — *Proprioseius meridionalis* was recorded previously on wide range of host plants including blackberry, *Rubus* sp. in USA, Florida (Chant 1957; De Leon 1959; Denmark and Evans 2011; Denmark and Muma 1966; Muma and Denmark 1970; Walter and Denmark 1991) and New Jersey (Dyer and Swift 1979). In the current study, this species was collected with all phytophagous mite species, which were collected during the present study.

### Typhlodromips dentilis (De Leon)

*Amblyseius dentilis* Athias-Henriot

*Amblyseius (Typhlodromopsis) dentilis* Muma

**Material Examined (n=5; 5 ♀♀)** — 1♀ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 11 August 2016, Natchez, Organic Farm), 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Von, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 20 September 2016, Ouachita, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 28 June 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm), 1♀ (28°57′13.97″ N, 82°1′49.14″ W, 30 m, 12 July 2016, Natchez, Conventional Farm).

**Comments** — *Typhlodromips dentilis* has been found on many different types of plants worldwide (Demite *et al.* 2020). In Florida, it was recorded for the first time on *Rhus copallina* in Miami, Florida, USA and subsequently in various localities in Florida (Denmark and Evans 2011; Muma 1964a b; Muma and Denmark 1970). During the present study, *T. dentilis* was found together with populations of *P. latus*, *T. schoenei*, *E. carpini* and *T. confusus*.

### Typhlodromalus peregrinus (Muma)

*Typhlodromalus evansi* (Chant)

*Typhlodromalus primulae* (Chant)

*Typhlodromalus robiniae* (Chant) *Typhlodromalus sextus* (Garman)

*Typhlodromalus aripo* (De Leon)

**Material Examined (n=29; 29 ♀♀)** — 2♀ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 11 August 2016, Natchez, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, Choctaw, Organic Farm), 2♀♀ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 18 August 2016, Natchez, Conventional Farm), 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Choctaw, Organic Farm), 2♀♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Von, Organic Farm), 1♀Natchez, 1♀Osage, 1♀ Ouachita (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 20 September 2016, Organic Farm), 1♀Natchez, 2♀♀Osage, 2♀♀ Ouachita (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 21 September 2016 Organic Farm), 1♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 28 m, 22 August 2016, Conventional Farm).
W, 46 m, 22 September 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm), 8♀♀ Natchez, 1♀Osage, 3♀♀ Ouachita (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 22 September 2016, Conventional Farm).

**Comments** — According to Demite *et al.* (2020), to date, *T. peregrinus* was reported from 18 countries including the US. In the USA, it was detected in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, New, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (Demite *et al.* 2020). It was generally found on citrus (Childers 1994; Fadamiro *et al.* 2008, 2009; Muma 1955a, 1967; Pena 1992; Villanueva and Childers 2004, 2005) and solanaceous plants (Fiaboe *et al.* 2007; McMurtry 1983; Silva *et al.* 2016). This species was also collected from ground cover vegetation (weeds) of Alabama (Fadamiro *et al.* 2008, 2009) and Florida (Childers and Denmark 2011) citrus orchards (Kreiter *et al.* 2018). Vieira de Souza *et al.* (2015) detected it on *Cocos nucifera* (L.) (Arecaceae), *Theobroma cacao* L. (Malvaceae), *Psidium guajava* L. (Myrtaceae), *Carica papaya* L. (Caricaceae). It was also found on *Alchornea triplinervea* (Spreng.) Müll.Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) by Zacarias and De Moreas (2001). Kreiter *et al.* (2018) collected this species from *Neonotonia wightii* (Wight and Arn.) Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Macroptilium atropurpureum (DC.) (Fabaceae) and *Paspalum notatum* Flügge cv. Pensacola (Poaceae). However, according to Demite *et al.* (2020), there is no known record on *Rubus* spp. This species was associated with many insect and mite species by different researchers. While Aleyrodidae, Coccidae and Tetranychidae were evaluated as optimal prey for this species by Muma (1971), Childers and Denmark (2011) indicated that this species is a predator of thrips. According to Muma (1955b, 1971), it is a facultative predator of *Chrysomphalum aonidum* (L) and *Lepidosaphes beckii* (Newn.) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) (Pena *et al.* 1989). It was also collected from miners of *Phyllocnistis citrella* Stainton (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) and whitefly exuvia, empty scale armour, clump, dead scale insects, sooty mold (Childers 1994; Muma 1967; Villanueva and Childers 2011). It was found associated with *Panonychus citri* (McGregor), *Eotetranychus sexmaculatus* (Riley) (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae), *Parlatoria pergandii* Comstock (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) (Muma 1969), *Phyllocoptruta oleivora* (Ashmead) (Trombidiformes: Eriphyidae) (Pena, 1992; Kretier *et al.*, 2018). Silva *et al.* (2016) noted that this predator also was able to feed on all stages of *P. latus*. Immature stages of *P. citri*, all stages of *T. urticae*, and pollens of *Malephora crocea* (Jacq.) Schwant (Aizoaceae), *Quercus virginiana* Miller (Fagaceae), and *Typha latifolia* L. (Typhaceae) were evaluated as suitable diet in the laboratory by Fouly *et al.* (1995). In the present study, *T. peregrinus* was found together with populations of *P. latus*, *E. carpini*, *T. bilobatus*, *T. confusus*, *T. schoenei* and *T. urticae*.

**Amblyseius sp.**

**Material Examined (n=3; 1 ♀, 2 ♂)** — 1♂ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Ouachita, Organic Farm), 1♂ (29°40′37.56″ N, 82°29′32.73″ W, 32 m, 1 August 2016, Kiowa, Organic Farm), 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 21 September 2016, Natchez, Organic Farm).

**Phytoseius sp. 1**

**Material Examined (n=5; 5 ♀♀)** — 1♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016 Ouachita, Conventional Farm), 2♀♀ (22 August 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm), 1♀ 22 August 2016, Kiowa, 1♀ 20 September 2016, Kiowa (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m Organic Farm)

**Phytoseius sp. 2**

**Material Examined (n=6; 6 ♀♀)** — 1♀ (22 August 2016, Arapaho), 1♀ (22 August 2016, Choctaw), 1♀ (22 August 2016, Kiowa); 2♀♀ (20 September 2016, Kiowa); 1♀ (15 July 2016, Kiowa) (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m Organic Farm)
**Proprioseiopsis** sp.

**Material Examined** (n=4; 3 ♀♀, 1 ♂) — 1♀ 11 August 2016, Osage, 1♀ 15 July 2016, Ouachita (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, Organic Farm), 1♂ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Choctaw, Organic Farm), 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 2 August 2016, Ouachita, Organic Farm).

**Family Cheyletidae**

**Oudemanscheyla denmarki** (Yunker)

*Cheletomimus denmarki* Yunker

**Material Examined** (n=2; 2 ♀♀) — 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 2 August 2016, Natchez, Organic Farm), 1♀ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 18 August 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm).

**Comments** — Yunker (1961) and Muma (1964c) recorded this species from Florida citrus. It was recorded from *Lantana camara* L. (Verbenaceae) leaves collected from native forests in southeastern Queensland, Australia by Walter (1999). Hagstrum (2013) detected this species on betel nut (*Areca catechu* L., Arecaceae) in Taiwan. It was observed feeding on tydeid mites in domatia on leaves of wild grapes by Walter and Denmark (1991). In the current study, it was collected together with *P. latus*, *T. confusus*, *E. carpini* and *T. schoenei* phytophagous mites.

**Family Stigmaeidae**

**Agistemus** sp.

**Material examined** (n=8; 8 nymph) — 1N (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 2 August 2016, Von, Organic Farm), 2N (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 11 August 2016, Osage, Organic Farm), 3N Natchez, 2N Osage (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 15 July 2016, Organic Farm).

**Family Ascidae**

**Asca** sp. (n=1; 1♂)

**Material examined** — 1♂ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 11 August 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm)

**Family Erythraeidae**

**Lasioerythraeus** sp.

**Material examined** (n=1, 1 Larva) — 1L (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 15 July 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm)

**Phytophagous mite species on nine different blackberry cultivars in selected organic and conventional commercial blackberry farms in Florida and Georgia, USA**

**Family Tarsonemidae**

**Polyphagotarsonemus latus** (Banks)

*Acarus translucens* Green

*Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Banks)

*Acarus translucens* Green

*Hemitarsonemus latus* Banks

*Tarsonemus translucens* Green

*Avrosita translucens* Oudemans
*Tarsonemus latus* Banks

*Tarsonemus phaseoli* Bondar

*Neotarsonemus latus* Smiley

**Material examined (n=10; 5 ♀♀, 5 ♂♂)** — 1♀ Ouachita, 1♂ Osage (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 11 August 2016, Organic Farm); 1♂ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 28 June 2016, Ouachita, Organic Farm); 1♂ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm); 1♀ Osage, 1♀ Von (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Organic Farm); 1♂ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 22 September 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm), 1♀ (28°57′13.97″ N, 82°1′49.14″ W, 30 m, 12 July 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm); 1♂ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 21 July 2016, Osage, Conventional Farm). 1♀ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 21 July 2016, Natchez, Conventional Farm).

**Comments** — *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* is distributed worldwide and has a wide host range (Fasulo 2019; Azzazy and Alhewairini 2018; Gerson 1992; Johnson *et al.* 2016; Pena and Campel 2005). It was first described by Banks (1904) as *Tarsonemus latus* from the terminal buds of mango in a greenhouse in Washington, D.C., USA (Denmark 1980; Fasulo 2019). This mite was recently found in multiple states in the US causing yield reductions in blackberries (Johnson *et al.* 2016; Lefors *et al.* 2017). Vincent *et al.* (2010) reported it on blackberry in organic production in Arkansas. Rebek (2017) detected it in Oklahoma Blackberry orchards. Demchak and Johnson (2017) noticed that it has been problematic for blackberry growers in Pennsylvania. Rebek (2017) also found it on blackberries in Oklahoma. Finally, in 2017, this mite has been detected on blackberries in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, California, and Oklahoma (Rebek 2017). Renkema *et al.* (2017) recorded it from commercial strawberries in Florida. It is also considered a serious pest of *Pittosporum* spp. (Pittosporaceae) in Florida (Johnson and Lyon 1991). Pena *et al.* (2000) observed *P. latus* on citrus.

**Tarsonemus (Tarsonemus) bilobatus Suski**

*Tarsonemus (Tarsonemus) hungaricus* Schaarschmidt

*Lupotarsonemus bilobatus* Suski & Schaarschmidt

**Material examined (n=1; 1 ♀)** — 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m 11 August 2016 Arapaho Organic Farm)

**Comments** — *Tarsonemus bilobatus* has been reported on many plant species in Central America (Costa Rica), Europe (Byelorussia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Ukraine), Asia (China, India, Japan, Korea,), Africa (Egypt) (Lin and Zhang 2002; Zhang 2003) and South America (Brazil) (Lofego *et al.* 2005; Rezende *et al.* 2012). It was also collected from bacterial and fungal cultures, stored food products, litter and soil. It is primarily a fungivorus species (Zhang 2003).

**Tarsonemus (Tarsonemus) confusus Ewing**

*Tarsonemus assimilis* Banks

*Tarsonemus confusus* Ewing; Beer; Smiley; Kaliszewski

**Material Examined (n=5; 5 ♀♀)** — 1♀ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 11 August 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm); 1♀ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 18 August 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm); 2♀♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016 Kiowa Conventional Farm); 1♀ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 28 June 2016, Ouachita, Organic Farm).

**Comments** — *Tarsonemus confusus* occurs on many types of plants in Canada, Byelorussia, Egypt, China, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Germany, Korea, Netherlands, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Turkey (Lin and Zhang 2002), Hungary (Ripka *et al.* 2005) and Brazil (Lofego *et al.* 2005). It was also previously recorded from multiple states in the US on various plants including *Rubus* sp. (Lin and Zhang 2002).
## Family Tetranychidae

### Eotetranychus carpini (Oudemans)

**Material Examined (n=22; 4 ♀♀, 18 ♂♂)** — 1♂ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 2 August 2016, Osage, Organic Farm); 11♂ ♂2♀♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 21 September 2016, Von, Organic Farm); 1♂ Von, 1♂2♀♀ Ouachita, 28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W24 m, 25 August 2016, Organic Farm; 1♂ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 15 July 2016, Kiowa, Organic Farm); 2♂♂ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Arapaho, Organic Farm), 1♂ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 11 August 2016, Osage, Organic Farm)

**Comments** — *Eotetranychus carpini* has been widely reported in Europe (Migeon *et al.* 2007; Malagnini *et al.*, 2012)). It is also found in Mexico (Beer and Lang 1958) and USA (McGregor 1917). To date, it was reported from 30 countries in two major regions of Nearctic and Palearctic (Migeon and Dorkeld 2020). This species also exploits a wide range of host plants and have been reported on 54 host plants including *Rubus idaeus* (Migeon and Dorkeld 2020) and *Rubus* sp. (Bolland *et al.* 1998).

### Tetranychus schoenei McGregor

*Septanychus schoenei* McGregor

*Tetranychus schoenei* Pritchard & Baker

*Tetranychus (Polynychus) schoenei* Flechtmann & Hunter

**Material Examined (n=23; 6 ♀♀, 17 ♂♂)** — 1♀ Osage, 1♀ Ouachita (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 18 August 2016, Conventional Farm); 1♀ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 18 August 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm); 1♀ Kiowa, 1♂ Arapaho, 1♂ Choctaw (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Organic Farm), 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Osage, Organic Farm); 2♂♂ Natchez, 2♂♂ Osage (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 20 September 2016, Organic Farm); 1♂ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 28 June 2016, Ouachita, Organic Farm); 1♀ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 21 September 2016, Von, Organic Farm); 3♂♂ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 22 September 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm); 1♂ (29°32′35.80″ N, 82°5′7.34″ W, 28 m, 15 July 2016, Osage, Organic Farm); 1♂ Osage, 4 ♂♂ Ouachita (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 21 July 2016, Conventional Farm); 1♂ Osage (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 21 July 2016, Conventional Farm).

**Comments** — *Tetranychus schoenei* is widely distributed over the eastern and southwestern United States. Previous distribution records included Georgia (Flechtmann and Hunter 1971). It is also found in Iran (Beyzavi *et al.* 2013). According to Migeon and Dorkeld (2020), to date, it was reported from 2 countries and on 52 host plants including *Rubus allegheniensis*, *R. idaeus*, *R. occidentalis* (Reeves 1963), *Rubus* sp. (Reeves 1963; Seeman and Beard 2011).

### Tetranychus urticae Koch

Fifty species names have been synonymized with *T. urticae* in spider Mites Web (Migeon and Dorkeld 2020).

**Material Examined (n=5; 5 ♂♂)** — 1♂ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 18 August 2016, Osage, Conventional Farm); 1♂ (29°24′30.77″ N, 82°10′16.13″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Choctaw, Organic Farm); 2♂♂ (31°22′49.19″ N, 83°19′8.57″ W, 89 m, 21 July 2016, Osage, Conventional Farm); 1♂ (29°39′15.95″ N, 82°31′25.49″ W, 32 m, 27 July 2016, Navaho, Organic Farm).

**Comments** — *Tetranychus urticae* has an almost cosmopolitan distribution. It is also a highly polyphagous species. To date, it is reported on 1169 host plants including many *Rubus* spp. from 124 countries (Migeon and Dorkeld 2020).
## Tetranychus sp.

**Material Examined (n=6; 6 ♂)** — 1♂ Osage 1♂ Von (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 2 August 2016, Organic Farm); 1♂ (28°34′5.62″ N, 81°41′22.17″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Von, Organic Farm); 1♂ Navaho, 1♂ Ouachita (29°39′15.95″ N, 82°31′25.49″ W, 32 m, 27 July 2016, Organic Farm); 1♂ (30°54′18.31″ N, 82°38′51.06″ W, 46 m, 21 July 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm).

## Conclusion

In conclusion, the total number of mites collected in organic farms (105) was over 2-fold higher than in conventional farms (47). Moreover, while all of the twenty mite species identified during the study could be collected from organic farms, just nine could be obtained from conventional farms. The total number of beneficial mites collected in the organic farm was 57. In contrast, 23 beneficial mites were collected from conventional farms (Table 3). These results may be related to pesticide use on the conventional farms and are similar to that previously reported for mites (Incekulak and Ecevit 2002; Yanar and Ecevit 2008; Akyazı *et al.* 2016; Fathipour and Maleknia 2016; Soysal and Akyazı 2018).

Among the nine sampled cultivars, Quachita had 35 mites and 12 mite species, Osage had 27 mites, 9 species, Natchez had 26 mites, 9 species, Von had 22 mites, 7 species, Arapaho had 15 mites, 11 species, Choctaw had 13 mites, 8 species and Kiowa had 12 mites, 7 species. In contrast, no mite was found on the leaf samples taken from the Freedom cultivar, and

<table><caption>**Table 4** Mite numbers according to blackberry cultivars (Arapaho, Choctaw, Freedom, Kiowa, Natchez, Navaho., Osage, Ouachita, Von.)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Mite Species</th><th colspan="9">Mite Numbers</th></tr><tr><th>Arapaho</th><th>Choctaw</th><th>Freedom</th><th>Kiowa</th><th>Natchez</th><th>Navaho</th><th>Osage</th><th>Ouachita</th><th>Von</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Galendromus (G.) floridanus</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius chanti</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Proprioseius meridionalis</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromips dentilis</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Typhlodromalus peregrinus</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>14</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Amblyseius sp.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius sp.1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoseius sp.2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Proprioseiopsis sp.</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Asca sp.</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>(Oudemanscheyla) denmarki</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lasioerythraeus sp.</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Agistemus sp.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>4</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Polyphagotarsonemus latus</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus (T.) bilobatus</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tarsonemus (T.) confusus</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Eotetranychus carpini</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus schoenei</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus urticae</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tetranychus sp.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>15</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>26</td><td>1</td><td>27</td><td>35</td><td>22</td></tr></tfoot></table>
just one mite was collected from Navaho (Table 4). We hypothesize that differences in mite numbers and diversity may be caused by different phytochemical components, morphological and histological leaf structure of blackberry cultivars as stated by Camporese and Duso (1996), Krips *et al.* (1999), Kretier *et al.* (2002), Kabicek (2008), Khan *et al.* (2008) and Ali *et al.* (2015) for different plants. It should be noted that a single factor is not responsible for the abundance and diversity of mites but a combination of factors. Since the effect of cultivars on the mite population is time-consuming, such results can only be observed in the long term. As far as we know, no previous research has investigated the effect of blackberry cultivars on the mite population. And, future investigations are necessary to validate the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from this study.

## Acknowledgments

We thank growers in Florida and Georgia for allowing collection of samples from their farms.

## References

Akyazi R., Liburd O.E. 2019. Biological control of the twospotted spider mite (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae) with the predatory mite *Neoseiulus californicus* (Mesotigmata: Phytoseiidae) in blackberries. Fla. Entomol., 102: 373-381. doi:10.1653/024.102.0217

Akyazi R., Ueckermann E.A., Soysal M., Akyol D., 2016. Population dynamics of mites (Acari) on *Diospyros kaki* Thunb. and *Diospyros lotus* L. (Ebenaceae) trees in Ordu, Turkey. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 21 (10): 1334-1345. doi:10.11158/saa.21.10.4

Al-Azzazy M.M., Alhewairini S.S. 2018. First Record of *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* in Saudi Arabia. J. Agric. Sci., 10(12): 228-232. doi:10.5539/jas.v10n12p228

Alford D.V. 2016. *Eotetranychus carpini*. Pests of Fruit Crops: A Colour Handbook, Second Edition, Boca Raton, CRC Press, pp. 462. doi:10.1201/b17030

Ali F.S., Afifi A.M., El-Saiedy E.M.A., Ahmed M.M. 2015. Effect of phytochemical components, morphological and histological leaf structure of five tomato hybrids on *Tetranychus urticae* Koch Infestation. Acarines, 9: 23-30.

Banks N. 1904. Class III, Arachnida, Order 1, Acarina, four new species of injurious mites. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc., 12: 53-56.

Beer R.E., Lang D.S. 1958. The Tetranychidae of Mexico. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull., 38: 1231-1259. doi:10.5962/bhl.part.10974

Beyzavi G., Ueckerman E.A., Faraji F., Ostovan H. 2013. A catalog of Iranian prostigmatic mites of superfamilies Raphignathoidea & Tetranychoidea (Acari). Persian J. Acarol., 2(3): 389-474.

Bolland H.R., Gutierrez J., Flechtmann C.H.W. 1998. World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari: Tetranychidae), Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 392.

Cetin G., Denizhan E., Erenoğlu B. 2010. Türkiye faunası için yeni bir kayıt: *Acalitus essigi* (Hassan, 1928) (Böğürtlen akarı) (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea). [A new blackberry pest for Turkish fauna, *Acalitus essigi* (Hassan, 1928) (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea)]. Bitki Koruma Bülteni, 50(2):45-49.

Chant D.A. 1957. Descriptions of two new phytoseiid genera (Acarina: Phytoseiidae), with a note on *Phytoseius* Ribaga, 1902. Can. Entomol., 89: 357-363. doi:10.4039/Ent89357-8

Chant D.A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Part II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of thirty-eight new species. Can. Entomol., 61(12): 1-166. doi:10.4039/entm9112fv

Childers C.C. 1994. Biological control of phytophagous mites on Florida citrus utilizing predatory arthropods. In: Rosen D., Bennet F., Capinera J. (Eds). Pest management in the subtropics: biological control Florida perspective. Intercept, Andover, United Kingdom. p. 255-288.

Childers C.C., Denmark H.A. 2011. Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) within citrus orchards in Florida: species distribution, relative and seasonal abundance within trees, associated vines and ground cover plants. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 54: 331-371. doi:10.1007/s10493-011-9449-1

Camporese P., Duso C. 1996. Different colonization patterns of phytophagous and predatory mites (Acari, Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on three grape varieties, A case study. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 20: 1-22. doi:10.1007/s10493-012-9519-9

Davies J.T., Allen G.R., Williams M.A. 2001. Intraplant distribution of *Acalitus essigi* (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on blackberries (*Rubus fruticosus* agg.). Exp. Appl. Acarol., 25:625-639. doi:10.1023/A:1016179817089

De Leon D. 1959. Two new genera of phytoseiid mites with a note on *Proprioseius meridionalis* Chant (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomol. News., 70:257-262.

Demchak K., Johnson D. 2017. Small Fruit Mite - Broad Mites on Blackberries. College of Agricultural Sciences The Pennsylvania State University. https://extension.psu.edu/small-fruit-mite-broad-mites-on-blackberries
Demite P.R., Moraes G.J., de McMurtry J.A., Denmark H.A., Castilho R.C. 2020. Phytoseiidae Database. Available from: www.lea.esalq.usp.br/phytoseiidae.

Denmark H.A. 1966. Revision of the genus *Phytoseius* Ribaga, 1904 (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Fla Dep. Agric. Bull. 6:1-105.

Denmark H.A. 1980. Broad mite, *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Banks). FDACS-DPI Bureau of Entomology Circular No. 213 pp. 2.

Denmark H.A., Evans G.A. 2011. Phytoseiidae of North America and Hawaii (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, USA, pp. 451.

Denmark H.A., Evans G.A., Aguilar H., Vargas C., Ochoa R. 1999. Phytoseiidae of Central America. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA, pp. 125.

Denmark, H.A., Muma, M.H. 1966. Revision of the genus *Proprioseius* Chant (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Flo. Entomol., 49(4):253-264. doi:10.2307/3493888

Dyer J.G., Swift F.C. 1979. Sex ratio in field populations of Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 72(1):149-154. doi:10.1093/aesa/72.1.149

Fadamiro H.Y., Xiao Y., Hargroder T., Nesbitt M., Childers C.C. 2009. Diversity and seasonal abundance of predacious mites in Alabama Satsuma citrus. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 102(4): 617-628. doi:10.1603/008.102.0406

Fadamiro H.Y., Xiao Y., Hargroder T., Nesbitt M., Umeh V., Childers C.C. 2008. Seasonal occurrence of key arthropod pests and associated natural enemies in Alabama satsuma citrus. Environ. Entomol. 2: 555-567. doi:10.1093/ee/37.2.555

Fasulo T. 2019. Broad Mite, *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Banks) (Arachnida: Acari: Tarsonemidae). EENY-183. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, USA.

Fathipour Y., Maleknia B. 2016. Mite Predators. In: Omkar (Ed.), Ecofriendly pest management for food security. Elsevier, San Diego, USA, pp. 329-366. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803265-7.00011-7

Fernandez G., Garcia E., Lockwood D. 2015. Cultivars. Available from: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/southeast-regional-caneberry-production-guide/cultivars

Fiaboe K.K.M., Gondim M.G.C. Jr., Moraes G.J. de, Ogol C.K.P.O., Knapp. M. 2007. Surveys for natural enemies of the tomato red spider mite *Tetranychus evansi* (Acari: Tetranychidae) in the northeastern and southeastern Brazil. Zootaxa, 1395:33-58. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.1395.1.2

Flechtmann, C.H.W., Hunter, P.E. 1971. The spider mites (Prostigmata: Tetranychidae) of Georgia. J. Ga. Entomol. Soc., 6:16-30.

Fouly A.H., Abou-Setta M.M., Childers C.C. 1995. Effects of diets on the biology and life tables of *Typhlodromalus peregrinus*. Environ. Entomol., 24: 870-877. doi:10.1093/ee/24.4.870

Gerson U. 1992. Biology and control of the broad mite, *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Banks) (Acari: Tarsonemidae). Exp Appl Acarol., 13:163-178. doi:10.1007/BF01194934

Hagstrum D.W., Klejdysz T., Subramanyam B., Nawrot J. 2013. Atlas of Stored-Product Insects and Mites. AACC International Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp. 600. doi:10.1016/B978-1-891127-75-5.50009-5

Incekulak R., Ecevit O. 2002. A research on determination of harmful and beneficial mite species in apple orchards in Amasya and their population densities. Vth Turkish national congress of biological control (Erzurum, Turkey), pp. 297-314.

Johnson D.T., Garcia M.E., Rom C., Freeman L., Kim Soo-Hoon, Lewis B. 2016. Management of arthropods on blackberries and raspberries in Arkansas, USA. Acta Hortic. 1133:437-444. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1133.67

Johnson W.T., Lyon H.H. 1991. Insects that Feed on Trees and Shrubs. 2nd ed., rev. Comstock Publishing Associates. pp. 560.

Kabicek J. 2008. Cohabitation and intraleaf distribution of phytoseiid mites (Acari, Phytoseiidae) on leaves of *Corylus avellana*. Plant. Prot. Sci., 44(1): 32-36. doi:10.17221/3/2008-PPS

Khan M.A., Khaliq A., Subhani M.N., Saleem M.W. 2008. Incidence and development of *Thrips tabaci* and *Tetranychus urticae* on field grown cotton. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 10: 232-234.

Krantz G.W., Walter D.E. 2009. A Manual of Acarology. 3rd Edition. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock: pp. 807.

Kreiter S., Tixier M.S., Croft A., Auger P., Barret D. 2002. Plants and leaf characteristics influencing the predaceous mite *Kampimodromus aberrans* (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in habitats surrounding vineyards. Environ. Entomol., 31(4): 648-660. doi:10.1603/0046-225X-31.4.648

Kreiter S., Zriki G., Ryckewaert P., Pancarte C., Douin M., Tixier M.S. 2018. Phytoseiid mites of Martinique, with redescription of four species and new records (Acari: Mesostigmata). Acarologia, 58(2): 366-407.

Krips O.E., Kleijn P.W., Willems P.E.L., Gols G.J.Z., Dicke M. 1999. Leaf hairs influence searching efficiency and predation rate of the predatory mite *Phytoseiulus persimilis* (Phytoseiidae, Acarina). Exp. Appl. Acarol, 23(2): 119-131. doi:10.1023/A:1006098410165

LeFors J.A., Johnson D.T., Woodruff T. 2017. Acaricidal control of broad mites on blackberry, 2016. Arthropod Management Tests 42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsx113

Liburd O.E., Lopez L., Carrillo D., Revynthi A.M., Olaniyi O., Akyazi R. 2020. Integrated pest management of mites. In: Kogan M., Heinrichs E. (Eds). Integrated management of insect pests, current and future developments. Burleigh Dodds series in agricultural sciences; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. Cambridge UK. doi:10.19103/AS.2019.0047.26

Lin J.Z., Zhang Z.Q. 2002. Tarsonemidae of the World: Key to Genera, Geographical Distribution, Systematic Catalogue & Annotated Bibliography. Systematic & Applied Acarology Society, London, pp. 440.

Lofego A.C., Ochoa R., Moraes G.J. 2005. Some tarsonemid mites (Acari: Tarsonemidae) from the Brazilian "Cerrado" vegetation, with descriptions of three new species. Zootaxa, 823:1-27. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.823.1.1
Madanlar N., Kısmalı S. 1991. İzmir ilinde turunçgillerde bulunan Acarina türleri ve popülasyon yoğunluklarının saptanması üzerinde araştırmalar. Doktora Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir s. 258.

Malagnini V., Navajas M., Migeon A., Duso C. 2012. Differences between sympatric populations of *Eotetranychus carpini* collected from *Vitis vinifera* and *Carpinus betulus*: insights from host-switch experiments and molecular data. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 56:209-219. doi:10.1007/s10493-012-9511-7

Marchetti M.M., Ferla N.J. 2011. Diversity and population fluctuation of mites (Acari) in blackberry (*Rubus fruticosus*, Rosaceae) in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Iheringia Ser. Zool., 101:43-48. doi:10.1590/S0073-47212011000100005

McGregor E.A. 1917. Description of seven new species of red spiders. Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus., 51: 581-590. doi:10.5479/si.00963801.51-2167.581

McMurtry J.A. 1983. Phytoseiid mites from Guatemala, with descriptions of two new species and redefinitions of the genera *Euseius*, *Typhloseiopsis*, and the *Typhlodromus occidentalis* species group (Acari: Mesostigmata). Intern. J. Entomol. 25(4): 249-272.

Migeon A., Dorkeld F. 2020. SpmWeb: Spider Mites Web (version Jul 2011). In: Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, [2020-01-10] Beta Roskov Y., Ower G., Orrell T., Nicolson D., Bailly N., Kirk P.M., Bourgoin T., DeWalt R.E., Decock W., Nieukerken E. van, Penev L., (Eds). Digital resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.

Migeon A., Malagnini V., Navajas M., Duso C. 2007. Notes on the genus *Eotetranychus* (Acari: Tetranychidae) in Italy and France with a redescription of *Eotetranychus fraxini* Reck, new record for Italy and Western Europe. Zootaxa, 1509: 51-60. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.1509.1.5

Muma M.H. 1955a. Phytoseiidae (Acarina) associated with citrus in Florida. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer., 48: 262-272. doi:10.1093/aesa/48.4.262

Muma M.H. 1955b. Factors contributing to the natural control of citrus insects and mites in Florida. J. Econ. Entomol., 48: 432-438. doi:10.1093/jee/48.4.432

Muma M.H. 1964a. The population of Phytoseiidae on Florida citrus. Fla. Entomol., 47: 5-11. doi:10.2307/3493754

Muma, M.H. 1964b. Annotated list and keys to Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) associated with Florida citrus. Bull. - Agric. Exp. Stn. (Fla.), 685:1-42.

Muma M.H. 1964c. Cheyletidae (Acarina: Trombidiformes) associated with citrus in Florida. Flo. Entomol., 47:239-253. doi:10.2307/3493742

Muma M.H. 1967. *Typhlodromalus peregrinus* (Muma) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on Florida citrus. Proceedings, 2nd International Congress of Acarology. Sutton Bonington, 19-25 July 1967, England. Akade'miai Kiado', Budapest, Hungary: pp. 135-148.

Muma M.H. 1969. Biological control of various insects and mites on Florida citrus. Proceedings, 1st International Citrus Symposium, 16-26 March 1969, Riverside, CA. University of California, Riverside: pp. 863-870.

Muma M.H. 1971. Food habits of Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) including common species on Florida citrus. Fla Entomol. 54(1): 21-34. doi:10.2307/3493786

Muma M.H., Denmark H.A. 1970. Phytoseiidae of Florida. Arthropods of Florida and neighboring land areas, 6. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, USA, pp.150.

Ozsisli T., Cobanoglu S. 2019. Mite (Acari: Prostigmata, Mesostigmata) Species Determined on Blackberry Plant (*Rubus fruticosus* L., and *Rubus sanctus* Schreber, Rosaceae). pp. 1482-1488. International Symposium on Advanced Engineering Technologies (ISADET). May 02-04, 2019, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.

Pena J.F. 1992. Predator-prey interactions between *Typhlodromalus peregrinus* and *Polyphagotarsonemus latus*: effects of alternative prey and other food resources. Fla. Entomol. 75: 241-248. doi: 10.2307/3495626

Pena J.E., Baranowski R.M., Denmark H.A. 1989. Survey of Predators of the Broad Mite in Southern Florida. Flo. Entomol., 72(2): 373-377. doi:10.2307/3494921

Pena J.E., Campbell C.W. 2005. Broad mite. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Fact sheet ENY-618. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, USA.

Pena J.E., Ochoa R., Erbe E., 2000. *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Acari: Tarsonemidae) Research Status on Citrus. PROC. INTL. Soc. Citicult. IX Congr. pp. 754-759.

Rebek E.J. 2017 Broad mites on blackberries. Oklahoma State University Extension Entomology and Plant Pathology. Pest e-alerts 16(28):1-5.

Reeves R.M. 1963. Tetranychidae infesting woody plants in New York State, and a life history study of the elm spider mite *Eotetranychus matthyssei* n. sp. Memoir of the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, New York, 380:1-99.

Renkema J.M., LeFors J.A., Johnson D.T. 2017. First report of broad mite (Acari: Tarsonemidae) on commercial strawberry in Florida. Fla. Entomol. 100(4):804-806. doi:10.1653/024.100.0406

Rezende J.M., Lofego A.C., Navia D., Roggia S., 2012. Mites (Acari: Mesostigmata, Sarcoptiformes and Trombidiformes) Associated to Soybean in Brazil, Including New Records from the Cerrado Areas. Fla. Entomol., 95(3): 683-693. doi:10.1653/024.095.0319

Ripka G., Fain A., Kazmierski A., Kreiter S., Magowski W. 2005. New data to the knowledge of the mite fauna of Hungary (Acari: Mesostigmata, Prostigmata and Astigmata). Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung., 40:159-176. doi:10.1556/APhyt.40.2005.1-2.13

Rodriguez N., Farinas M.E., Sibat R. 1983. Acaros depredadores del genero *Galendromus* (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) en citricos de Cuba. Ciencia y Tecnica de la Agricultura. Serie Citricos y Otros Frutales, 6(1): 7-14.
Scott J.K., Yeoh P.B., Knihinicki D.K. 2008. Redberry mite, *Acalitus essigi* (Hassan) (Acari: Eriophyidae), an additional biological control agent for *Rubus* species (blackberry) (Rosaceae) in Australia. Aust. J. Entomol. 47:261-264. doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.2008.00654.x

Seeman O.D. Beard J.J. 2011. Identification of exotic pest and Australian native and naturalised species of *Tetranychus* (Acari: Tetranychidae). Zootaxa, 2961: 1-72. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.2961.1.1

Silva A.S., Tavares S.R., Lofego A.C., Almeida E.H., Silva E.S. 2016. Predatory mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) associated with *Polyphagotarsonemus latus* (Prostigmata: Tarsonemidae) on solanaceous plants. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 21(8):1133-1144. doi:10.11158/saa.21.8.13

Soysal M., Akyazı 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. doi:10.16970/entoted.447218

Strik B.C., Clark J.R., Finn C., Barnados M.P. 2007. Worldwide production of blackberries. Acta Hortic., 777:209-218. doi:10.21273/HORTTECH.17.2.205

Trinidad C.T.O., Fagundes J.P., Zorzo B., Nava D.E., da Cunha U.S. 2019. Diversity of mites in blackberry genotypes in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ciência Rural, 49(2):e20170734. doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20170734

USDA-NASS 2016. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2015 Summary July 2016. Available from: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/zs25x846c/p2676z01hfq977x78g/NoncFruiNu-07-06-2016.pdf.

Vieira de Souza I., Argolo P.S., Gondim Júnior M.G.C., de Moraes G.J., Bittencourt M.A.L., Oliveira A.R. 2015. Phytoseiid mites from tropical fruit trees in Bahia State, Brazil (Acari, Phytoseiidae). ZooKeys, 533: 99-131. doi:10.3897/zookeys.533.5981

Villanueva R.T., Childers C.C. 2004. Phytoseiidae increase with pollen deposition on citrus leaves. Fla. Entomol. 4:609-611. doi:10.1653/0015-4040(2004)087[0609:PIWPDO]2.0.CO;2

Villanueva R.T., Childers C.C. 2005. Diurnal and spatial patterns of Phytoseiidae in the citrus canopy. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 35(4): 269-280. doi:10.1007/s10493-004-5728-4

Villanueva R.T. Childers C.C. 2011. Mine-damaged leaves by *Phyllocnistis citrella* Stainton provide refuge for phytoseiids on grapefruit in Florida and Texas. Zoosymposia, 6:118-123. doi:10.11646/zoosymposia.6.1.20

Vincent C.I., García M.E., Johnson D.T., Rom C.R. 2010. Broad mite on primocane fruiting blackberry in organic production in Arkansas. Hort. Technology, 20: 718-723. doi:10.21273/HORTTECH.20.4.718

Walter D.E. 1999. Cryptic inhabitants of a noxious weed: mites (Arachnida: Acari) on *Lantana camara* L. invading forests in Queensland. Aust. J. Entomol., 38: 197-200. doi:10.1046/j.1440-6055.1999.00101.x

Walter D.E., Denmark H.A. 1991. Use of leaf domatia on wild grape (*Vitis munsoniana*) by arthropods in central Florida. Fla. Entomol., 74:440-446. doi:10.2307/3494838

Yunker C.E. 1961. The genera Bak, new genus, and *Cheletomimus* Oudemans, with descriptions of three new species (Acarina: Cheyletidae), Can. Entomol., 93:1023-1035. doi:10.4039/Ent931023-11

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. doi:10.1007/BF03020296

Zacarias M.S., De Moraes G.J. de 2001. Phytoseiid mites (Acari) associated with rubber trees and other euphorbiaceous plants in southeastern Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol., 30:579-586. doi:10.1590/S1519-566X2001000400011

Zhang Z.Q. 2003. Mites of greenhouses identification, biology and control. CABI Publishing, pp. 244. doi:10.1079/9780851995908.0000