Abstract

To assess their potential to control poultry red mites (Dermanyssus gallinae), we tested selected predaceous mites (Androlaelaps casalis and Stratiolaelaps scimitus) that occur naturally in wild bird nests or sometimes spontaneously invade poultry houses. This was done under laboratory conditions in cages, each with 2–3 laying hens, initially 300 poultry red mites and later the release of 1,000 predators. These small-scale tests were designed to prevent mite escape from the cages and they were carried out in three replicates at each of three temperature regimes: 26, 30 (constant day and night) and 33–25 °C (day-night cycle). After 6 weeks total population sizes of poultry red mites and predatory mites were assessed. For the temperature regimes of 26 and 33/25 °C S. scimitus reduced the poultry red mite population relative to the control experiments by a factor 3 and 30, respectively, and A. casalis by a factor of 18 and 55, respectively. At 30 °C the predators had less effect on red mites, with a reduction of 1.3-fold for S. scimitus and 5.6-fold for A. casalis. This possibly reflected hen manure condition or an effect of other invertebrates in the hen feed. Poultry red mite control was not negatively affected by temperatures as high as 33 °C and was always better in trials with A. casalis than in those with S. scimitus. In none of the experiments predators managed to eradicate the population of poultry red mites. This may be due to a prey refuge effect since most predatory mites were found in and around the manure tray at the bottom of the cage, whereas most poultry red mites were found higher up in the cage (i.e. on the walls, the cover, the perch, the nest box and the food box). The efficacy of applying predatory mites in the poultry industry may be promoted by reducing this refuge effect, boosting predatory mite populations using alternative prey and prolonged predator release devices. Biocontrol success, however, will strongly depend on how the poultry is housed in practice (free range, cage or aviary systems) and on which chemicals are applied to disinfect poultry houses and to control other pests.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10493-012-9596-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • While there is progress in exploring pathogens as a means to combat ectoparasites on livestock (Hogsette 1999; Wall 2007), biological control by means of true predators is still in its infancy

  • Because current methods to control PRM in Dutch poultry farms are not sufficiently effective (Emous et al 2005), we aimed to develop new methods to combat poultry red mites by the use of their natural enemies, in particular predatory mites

  • This approach was pioneered by Buffoni et al (1995, 1997) and Maurer and Hertzberg (2001). They reported spontaneous occurrence of the predatory mite Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank) in the litter of poultry houses in Switzerland (Maurer et al 1993) and observed this mite feeding on juvenile PRMs, but did not observe sufficient PRM control in their experiments in poultry houses (Maurer and Hertzberg 2001)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While there is progress in exploring pathogens (mainly fungi) as a means to combat ectoparasites on livestock (Hogsette 1999; Wall 2007), biological control by means of true predators is still in its infancy. Nests usually harbour communities of arthropods, including parasites, and microbivores and predators that feed on them (Fenda 2010; Lesna et al 2009 and references therein) Such communities may harbour several species that are specialized on life in a nest (nidicoles), and they emerge more in nests that are re-used by the nesting bird or mammal. This is why we made inventories of arthropods living in starling nests and carried out experiments to assess which of them are true predators of PRM (Lesna et al 2009). This yielded several candidate predators for biological control of PRM, one of which was abundant (especially in re-used nestboxes), shown to be a true predator of PRM (see McKinley 1963) and demonstrated not to be a facultative parasite of (young) birds: Androlaelaps casalis (Berlese)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call