4.6 Article

Differential levels of mite infestation of wheat and barley in Czech grain stores

期刊

INSECT SCIENCE
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 255-262

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7917.2009.01254.x

关键词

barley; food; grain; mite; storage; wheat

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport [2B08049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While mites are able to utilize numerous food sources, the suitability of the food strongly influences population growth. The different suitabilities of various stored agricultural products will thus affect the level of infestation. In this study, we compared field mite infestation rates in two stored cereals: wheat and barley. We analyzed mite abundance, frequency and species composition in samples of grain obtained from 79 selected Czech grain stores. Stored barley seemed to be more vulnerable to mite attack than wheat, as we consistently found more infested samples, more species and higher mean and median mite abundance per sample in barley as compared to wheat. The mean mite abundance per sample were 55 and 506 individuals for wheat and barley, respectively. In barley, 10% of samples exceeded allergen risk threshold (i.e., 1 000 individuals per kg of grain). Altogether, 25 species were identified from approximately 35 000 individuals. The most frequently identified species were the same in wheat and barley, that is, Tydeus interruptus Sig Thor, Acarus siro L., Tarsonemus granarius Lindquist, Lepidoglyphus destructor (Schrank) and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank). Based on principal components analysis, we found a closer association of T. interruptus, T. putrescentiae, L. destructor and Cheyletus eruditus (Schrank) with barley samples, corresponding to the high frequency and abundance values of these mites. The probable reasons for the higher infestation, especially mite abundance in barley, are discussed in relation to the higher proportion of crushed parts, which may release favorable nutrient sources and amplify the abundance values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据