| Literature DB >> 35270093 |
Amine Assouguem1,2, Mohammed Kara3, Hamza Mechchate4, Fahd A Al-Mekhlafi5, Fahd Nasr6, Abdellah Farah2, Abderahim Lazraq1.
Abstract
To evaluate the effectiveness of eco-friendly treatments based on detergents classified as non-hazardous and black soap on the pest Tetranychus urticae Koch 1836, and their predators (Euseius stipulatus Athias-Henriot, 1960, Typhlodromus sp., Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot, 1957), different treatments were applied to citrus orchards planted with Valencia late (Orange) in the Mechraa Belksiri region of Morocco (T0 = control experiment; T1 = spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; T2 = 125 L/Ha (5%) of black soap; T3 = detergent; 4 L/Ha of Oni product + 2 L/Ha of Tide product). The results obtained during the whole monitoring period indicated that the three treatments used, namely spirodiclofen, black soap, and detergents, ensured a reduction in the rate of population of the pest T. urticae compared to the untreated plot. In the untreated plot, the average was 45.01 A± 4.90 mobile forms, while the plot treated with spirodiclofen it was only 21.10 C ± 2.71, the black soap 31.49 B ± 3.35, and in the plot treated with detergents, the average was similar to that obtained by spirodiclofen (22.90 C ± 2.18). On the predators (E. stipulatus, P. persimilis, and Typhlodropmus sp.), the black soap and the treatment with detergents were less harmful compared to the chemical spirodiclofen.Entities:
Keywords: Euseius stipulatus; Phytoseiulus persimilis; Tetranychus urticae; Typhlodromus sp.; citrus orchard; monitoring; pest; predators; treatments
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270093 PMCID: PMC8912723 DOI: 10.3390/plants11050623
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Location of experimental orchards.
Figure 2The different types of treatments used in the citrus orchard.
Figure 3The proportion of the different mites studied (the phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae (TU) and their predators Euseius stipulatus (ES), Typhlodromus sp. (TY), and Pytoseiulus persimilis (PP)) according to the treatments used (T0 = control experiment; T1 = spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; T2 = 125 L/Ha (5%) of black soap; T3 = 4 L/Ha of Oni product + 2 L/Ha of Tide product). (a) Control experiment; (b) Spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; (c) Black soap 125 L/Ha; (d) T3 = Mixture of two detergents.
Figure 4Comparison between the means of different mites according to the treatments (T0 = control experiment; T1 = spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; T2 = 125 L/Ha (5%) of black soap; T3 = detergents; 4 L/Ha of Oni product + 2 L/Ha of Tide product).
The impact of different treatments used on the mites studied (TU: T. urticae; ES: E. stipulatus; TY: Typhlodromus sp.; PP: P. persimilis) in citrus orchards. Values in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
| TU | TY | ES | PP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control experiment (T0) | 45.01 A ± 4.90 | 15.15 A ± 1.83 | 10.47 A ± 1.63 | 16.02 A ± 2.12 |
| Spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha (T1) | 21.10 C ± 2.71 | 7.13 C ± 1.28 | 7.44 B ± 1.37 | 10.06 B ± 1.15 |
| Black soap 5% (T2) | 31.49 B ± 3.35 | 10.40 B ± 2.05 | 9.10 AB ± 1.25 | 11.85 AB ± 1.11 |
| Detergent (T3) | 22.90 C ± 2.18 | 10.11 B ± 2.14 | 9.57 AB ± 1.47 | 14.68 A ± 1.87 |
Figure 5Principal component analysis (PCA) of the different mites studied (T. urticae; E. stipulatus; Typhlodromus sp.; P. persimilis) according to the different treatments (T0 = control experiment; T1 = spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; T2 = 125 L/Ha (5%) of black soap; T3 = detergents; 4 L/Ha of Oni product + 2 L/Ha of Tide product) (A); double projection diagram for the two components (B).
General linear model (GLM) of analysis of variance for the mean density of T. urticae (a), Typhlodromus sp. (b), P. persimilis (c), and E. stipulatus (d) according to the treatments, monitoring dates, and their interactions.
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Monitoring dates | 7 | 135.717 | 19,388.1 | 1579.57 | 0.000 * |
| Treatments | 3 | 28.572 | 9523.9 | 775.92 | 0.000 * |
| M. dates * Treatments | 21 | 18.865 | 898.4 | 73.19 | 0.000 * |
| Error | 288 | 3535 | 12.3 | ||
| Total | 319 | 186.689 | |||
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Monitoring dates | 7 | 7966.9 | 1138.13 | 211.42 | 0.000 * |
| Treatments | 3 | 2634.3 | 878.11 | 163.12 | 0.000 * |
| M. dates * Treatments | 21 | 579.6 | 27.60 | 5.13 | 0.000 * |
| Error | 288 | 1550.4 | 5.38 | ||
| Total | 319 | 12,731.2 | |||
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Monitoring dates | 7 | 30,048 | 4292.56 | 473.97 | 0.000 * |
| Treatments | 3 | 1745 | 581.70 | 64.23 | 0.000 * |
| M. dates * Treatments | 3012 | 143.44 | 15.84 | 0.000 * | |
| Error | 288 | 2608 | 9.06 | ||
| Total | 319 | 37,413 | |||
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Monitoring dates | 7 | 8996.3 | 1285.19 | 304.76 | 0.000 * |
| Treatments | 3 | 389.7 | 129.90 | 30.80 | 0.000 * |
| M. dates * Treatments | 409.6 | 19.50 | 4.62 | 0.000 * | |
| Error | 288 | 1214.5 | 4.22 | ||
| Total | 319 | 11,010.1 | |||
* Statistically significant p-values (p < 0.05).
Fluctuation of the different species studied (TU: T. urticae; ES: E. stipulatus; TY: Typhlodromus sp.; PP: P. persimilis) in the four treated plots (T0 = control experiment; T1 = spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; T2 = 125 L/Ha (5%) of black soap; T3 = detergents; 4 L/Ha of Oni product + 2 L/Ha of Tide product) according to the different monitoring dates (W: week).
| TU-TO | TU-T1 | TU-T2 | TU-T3 | TY-T0 | TY-T1 | TY-T2 | TY-T3 | ES-T0 | ES-T1 | ES-T2 | ES-T3 | PP-T0 | PP-T1 | PP-T2 | PP-T3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | 14.30 E ± 2.00 | 6.30 F ± 1.16 | 8.20 E ± 1.69 | 07.00 F ± 1.49 | 5.80 D ± 1.33 | 2.40 F ± 0.63 | 3.40 D ± 1.57 | 3.80 D ± 1.39 | 3.20 D ± 1.81 | 1.90 D ± 0.94 | 3.30 D ± 1.25 | 3.30 D ± 1.25 | 3.50 D ± 1.90 | 2.00 D ± 1.16 | 2.40 E ± 1.02 | 3.20 D ± 1.41 |
| W2 | 19.50 DE ± 1.51 | 8.60 F ± 1.71 | 13.50 D ± 2.17 | 10.80 F ± 2.39 | 6.70 D ± 1.14 | 3.00 EF ± 1.04 | 4.20 D ± 1.24 | 4.40 D ± 1.24 | 4.40 CD ± 1.64 | 2.20 D ± 1.31 | 2.60 D ± 1.07 | 2.60 D ± 1.07 | 5.50 CD ± 1.44 | 3.80 D ± 1.16 | 3.80 DE ± 1.34 | 4.40 D ± 1.22 |
| W3 | 22.10 D ± 2.13 | 8.50 F ± 1.35 | 17.70 CD ± 4.08 | 14.90 E ± 4.33 | 11.50 C ± 1.43 | 5.10 DE ± 1.37 | 7.60 C ± 1.53 | 6.80 CD ± 1.56 | 6.70 CD ± 1.54 | 3.80 CD ± 1.44 | 4.60 D ± 1.95 | 4.60 D ± 1.53 | 7.10 CD ± 1.93 | 6.90 C ± 1.53 | 6.70 CD ± 1.37 | 8.40 C ± 1.43 |
| W4 | 24.80 D ± 1.47 | 12.80 E ± 1.22 | 19.30 BC ± 2.22 | 17.0 DE ± 2.87 | 17.30 B ± 1.87 | 6.10 CD ± 1.10 | 8.40 C ± 1.43 | 8.30 C ± 1.47 | 7.70 C ± 1.70 | 6.60 BC ± 1.67 | 8.20 C ± 1.22 | 9.30 C ± 1.82 | 8.30 C ± 1.40 | 6.90 B ± 1.89 | 8.30 C ± 1.35 | 9.10 C ± 1.33 |
| W5 | 36.00 C ± 2.35 | 16.30 D ± 1.41 | 21.80 BC ± 3.15 | 20.0 CD ± 2.44 | 16.90 B ± 1.79 | 7.30 CD ± 1.41 | 8.60 C ± 1.49 | 8.30 C ± 1.30 | 8.50 BC ± 1.87 | 5.20 B ± 1.41 | 10.00 BC ± 1.29 | 10.60 BC ± 1.71 | 9.40 C ± 1.59 | 8.80 B ± 1.91 | 9.40 C ± 1.67 | 10.40 C ± 1.4 |
| W6 | 70.60 B ± 4.09 | 21.00 C ± 1.33 | 23.40 B ± 1.43 | 21.90 C ± 1.79 | 19.50 A ± 1.84 | 8.70 BC ± 1.45 | 15.40 B ± 2.14 | 14.50 B ± 1.94 | 12.10 B ± 1.54 | 12.40 A ± 1.26 | 11.70 B ± 1.82 | 12.50 B ± 1.78 | 15.50 B ± 2.04 | 12.10 A ± 2.01 | 15.90 B ± 2.04 | 19.20 B ± 1.7 |
| W7 | 86.20 A ± 6.42 | 41.70 B ± 3.71 | 72.30 A ± 5.29 | 38.00 B ± 1.29 | 20.90 A ± 2.84 | 11.20 AB ± 2.44 | 16.50 AB ± 2.84 | 15.20 B ± 2.35 | 19.90 A ± 2.19 | 13.50 A ± 1.78 | 15.50 A ± 1.54 | 16.00 A ± 1.24 | 39.60 A ± 2.94 | 18.40 A ± 2.56 | 22.90 A ± 2.91 | 30.70 A ± 2.4 |
| W8 | 86.60 A ± 7.06 | 53.60 A ± 4.77 | 75.70 A ± 4.69 | 53.60 A ± 3.77 | 22.60 A ± 2.77 | 13.30 A ± 1.17 | 19.10 A ± 1.27 | 19.60 A ± 2.55 | 21.30 A ± 2.75 | 13.90 A ± 1.83 | 16.90 A ± 1.96 | 17.70 A ± 1.57 | 39.30 A ± 2.87 | 21.60 A ± 2.04 | 25.90 A ± 2.87 | 32.0 A ± 2.97 |
Values in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Variation of the means of T. urticae and their predators (ES: E. stipulatus; TY: Typhlodromus sp.; PP: P. persimilis) in the four plots (T0 = control experiment; T1 = spirodiclofen 0.5 L/Ha; T2 = 125 L/Ha (5%) of black soap; T3 = detergent; 4 L/Ha of Oni product + 2 L/Ha of Tide product) according to the interaction between different monitoring dates and treatments (d = dates).
Temperatures recorded during the monitoring period.
| Follow-Up Date | 4 | 11 | 18 | 25 | 1 | 7 | 12 | 19 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature | 27 | 28 | 30 | 32 | 34 | 38 | 37 | 39 |