Skip to main content
dryadopen

Data from: Inter- and intra-specific variation of spider mite susceptibility to fungal infections: implications for the long-term success of biological control

<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Spider mites are severe pests of several annual and perennial crops worldwide, often causing important economic damages. As rapid evolution of pesticide resistance in this group hampers the efficiency of chemical control, alternative control strategies, such as the use of entomopathogenic fungi, are being developed. However, while several studies have focused on the evaluation of the control potential of different fungal species and/or isolates as well as their compatibility with other control methods (e.g. predators or chemical pesticides), knowledge on the extent of inter- and intraspecific variation in spider mite susceptibility to fungal infection is as yet incipient. Here, we measured the mortality induced by two generalist fungi, <i>Beauveria </i><i>bassiana </i>and <i>Metarhizium </i><i>brunneum</i>, in 12 spider mite populations belonging to different <i>Tetranychus </i>species: <i>T. evansi</i>, <i>T. ludeni</i>, the green form of <i>T. urticae </i>and the red form of <i>T. urticae</i>, within a full factorial experiment. We found that spider mite species differed in their susceptibility to infection by both fungal species. Moreover, we also found important intraspecific variation for this trait. These results draw caution on the development of single strains as biocontrol agents. Indeed, the high level of intraspecific variation suggests that (a) the one-size-fits-all strategy may fail to control spider-mite populations and (b) hosts resistance to infection may evolve at a rapid pace. Finally, we propose future directions to better understand this system and improve the long-term success of spider mite control strategies based on entomopathogenic fungi.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>

ShareScore

32/100

Overall dataset sharing score

Score breakdown

These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.

Stewardship
0
Harmonization
12
Access
12
Reuse readiness
0
Engagement
8