الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 283 |  |  |
| | | from | 283 | | |
Abstract
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The study of the Egyptian faunatic representatives of
Mesostigmata is considered of special importance. since
members included. are well kno~. actually as very active
and efficient predators. It is hoped to participate in
biological or even integrational control programmes of
various pests. The considerable level of Ecosystem destroy.
observed. necessitate to find out and apply such
alternate of the recently extentive use of conventional
chemical control method. for saving the egyptian Agroenvironment.
The overdependent. on such chemical methods.
which . markedly desturbed natural balance in such
environment. resulted in instantaneous killing of natural
enemies of various pests. consequently the disciplinary
role of them in balancing Agro- ecosystem was enitrely
excluded. Thus.it is reqUired. principally to change the pest
control strategey in Egypt. by the gradual shifting towards
biological meth9ds. in which chemical application must be
restricted only to the existance of great necessity
otherwise blending in integrated control progr~es.
So. the presentt work was focused upon surveying and
taxnomical recognition of the Mesostigmatic predaceous
species under the egyptian environmental conditions. in
different localities.as a necessary prel ~inary step. before
utilizing such organisms in. subsequent biological control
applications.
207
208
Results achieved are summarized in the following:
1. About 200 samples were collected from soil. plantsand
partially bird nests in various natural localities covering
seven Egyptian Governorates. yielded about 7000 mite individuals.
of which only mesostigmatid predators were isolated.
from these. about 600 specimens were permanently mounted and
identified using stereoscopic binocular research
microscope. This process was carried out after
conducting primary identification on temporary preparations.
using concave slide.
2. Identification of permanently prepared specimens
were carried out.reaching specific level. thereafter were
distributed according to their relationships to the higher
categories.
3. About 48 mesostigmatid predaceous species were recognized.
They seemed to belong in 20 different genera.which are
related to 12 higher taxa on familial and subfamilial
levels. They were rather divided into 6 groups on the
level of superf.milial ranks. of cohort Gamasina.
4. from the revealed taxa. 21 species were. firstly
recorded for the Egyptian fauna. of which 5 ones seemed to
be rather new for science. They were briefly described. figured
and named as. ”,crochel., helWAni sp.n. ~ ab4.lwahAbi
sp.n.. IL.. zAh,ri sp.n, And AMrow.ius ~ paraplUIDQPUIsp.n.
and La’ioleius polimeni ,po n.
209
The newly recorded species. as added to the Egyptian
Mesostigmatid fauna are: Macrocheles recki. Bregetova et
Koroleva. 1960 ~ scutatiformis Petrova. 1967; ~
(matrius) violovitshi. Bregetova et Koroleva. 1967
Pachylaelaps vexillifer Willmann. 1956: Hypoaspis aculeifer
Canestrini. 1883: ~ paraesternalis Willmann. 1949;
Laelaspis imitatus Reitblat. 1963; Amblyseius umpraticu8
Chant. 1956; ~ callunae Willmann. 1952 ~ rademockeri
Dosse. 1958; ~ bryODhilus Karg. 1970 KampimodrOJnus
aberrans OUdemans. 1930: ~ langi Wainstein et Arutunjan.
1970 : Ameroseius (Bognarseius) plumegera (Oudemens, 1930)
and Rhodacarus denticulatus Berlese, 1921.
5. Classification of the detected species, were based. to
far extent. on natural systemizing in combination with
artificial one till the standard of superf~ilial levels.
On the standard of the latter. superf~ilies, which
comprised this collection were; Eviphidoidea Karg. 1965;
Dermanyssoidea Kolenati. 1859; Phytoseioidea (Karg. 1965).
Kandil. 1981 Ascoidea Karg. 1965: Rhodacaroidea Krantz.1978
and Parasitoidea Krantz. 1978. The latter two
superf~ilies combinations Were accepted after Krantz. 1978
in the following:
A) All taxa included in superf~ilies Rhodacaroidea and
parasitoidea were erroneously comprised by Karg. 1965 in
210
superfamily Eug~aseoidea. which included families
Rhodacaridae Oudeman~. 1902. and Eugamasidae Hirschmann.
1962. The latter one rather included subfamily
Parasitinae Oudemans. 1901.
B) The system of Krantz. 1978. in which he corrected
what was overlooked by Karg. 1965 of the priotity of
Rhodacaridae. thereupon he replaced Eugamasoidea by
Rhodacaroidea is satisfactorily. accepted and followed
here. Furthermore. he transferred subf~ily Parasitinae
form the group. upon which he created .thereat new
superfamily Parasitoidea in the year 1978. which also is
utilized within the present course of investigation.
6. It is worth noting. that the mOdified system of
superfamily Phytoseioidea Karg. 1965 whcih was modified by
Kandil. 1980. was followed satisfactorily in such work.
Such modification comprised familial and subfamilial
membership depending upon reevaluation of taxonomic
characters in relation to ecological and biological
responses. reconcilIation of hindered nomenclatural priority
of some taxa. new combination of subfamilies included in
same families. generic membership of each family and
subfamily. and rather splitting same genera to subgeneric
ranks. which seemed to have essential importance in
simplifying the task of classification. These stimulant
modifications which conicide with the present one are
211.
A) Families Phytoseiidae Berlese. 1916; Blattisocidae
Garman. 1948 ; Ameroseiidae Evans. 1963 and Podocinidae
Berlese. 1916 are considered to constitute superfamily
Phytoseioidea. Fortunately. all families are represented.
B) Family Phytoseiidae was represented by subfamilies
Phytoseiinae Berlese. 1916 and Amblyseiinae Muma. 1961.
C) Genus Kampimodromus Nesbitt. 1951 which is firstly
recorded to the Egyptian fauna. through the present work.
is ordered here within SUbfamily Amblyseiinae.
D) Genera Blattisocius keegan. 1944 and Proctolaelapo
Berlese. 1923. represented. taunatically family·
Blattisocidae in Egypt.
E) Genus Ameroseius Berlese.
two subgenera Ameroseius s.str.
(in press).
F) Genus Lasioseius Berlese. 1916 is classified within
family Podocinidae.
G) Genus Cheiroseius Berlese. 1916 is returned within
the present work to family Ascidae Voigts & Oudemans.
190~. after it had been transferred by Kandil.1980 to
family Blattisocidae .
1923 was splitted into
and Boqnarseius Kandil
7. Historical review’of eash taxon at various levels trom
superfamilial till generic levels is concerned and presented
ih the present work.
8. Taxonomical contaxic features of all groups included in
212
the present work. are extensively conducted for the aim of
limiting each one at its diagnostic characters. which
distinctly facilitate the task of identification.
9. For the purpose of distinguishing different taxa from
each other. identification keys. at various levels from
superfamily to species.on the bases of the Egyptian faunatic
representative of Mesostigmatic predators detected. are
established independently. otherwise in few cases. combined
with those of Zaher et Ai.. 1986. Such keys were.
principally. based on female taxonomic characters.
Finally it can be concluded that:
1- In spite of that.the extensive use of the conventional
pesticides in controlling pests in Egypt. results indicate
that such organisms are still attaining considerable
level of spread. Thus. it is not so difficult to reconstruct
their populations to levels enough to supress.
efficiently pest populations under economic injury
levels in the Egyptian Environment.
2. It is. so expected that such predators may have acquired
considerable levels of pesticide resistance. that enable
them to blend safely in integrational control programmes.
until the complete shift to the biological ones
would exist.
3. The restriction of using chemical compounds in pest
control. in Egypt is considered of great impoetance for
~---_.~~---~----~------~-----
- --- ._. -- --- ..- -- . - ._-_._-_.- -_..
213
mankind and his domestic animals. which can avoid
injurious effects of pesticide residues that may be
stored in food products in addition to the reduction
of environmental pollution.
4. The concept of ”pest management II must replace” pest
controlII for the apprehension of the necessity of
attaining naturally balanced Ecosystem. So.integrational
control programmes must be practically set up and
applied. in which all control agents must be represented ..
5. For the aim of practical applications. the following
studies are further currently needed:
A) Complete survey of the egyptian faunatic representatives
of pestpre~ators and parasites in various
localities in the country.
B) Ecological studies for various detected species.
including biotic and abiotic factors affecting their
populations.
C) Biological studies on different species comprising.
prey-predator intactions. host preferences. fecundity
and reproduction potentiality. efficiency of
different stages of certain predator in reducing density
of certain pest population and the role of
some species in controling same medical pests or
reducing environmental pollution.
214
Such studies are preliminary needed. for the
establishment of efficient supervised pest management
progr~es. under which various pest populations
can be permanently kept at levels under economic injury
levels. Additonally. the saving of financial cost and
environmental pollution will be also implicated .