Kay (1986) indicates that these mites disperse via the wind or by being carried on machinery, people, and maybe animals or insects that move in the field. These mites cannot fly.
MANAGEMENT
Non-Chemical Control
There are a few of predators that feed on the tomato russet mite, but most of them do not seem feasible for a biological control program. Bailey and Keifer (1943) observed that a predatory mite, Seiulus sp., was effective in controlling tomato russet mite on tomatoes grown in home gardens. However, this predatory mite was not effective as a commercial biological control agent.
There are other predatory mites which feed on tomato russet mite.
Typhlodromus occidentalis (Nesbitt),
Pronematus ubiquitis (McGregor), and
Lasioseius sp
. were predatory mites noted by Rice (1961). The Zambia Department of Agriculture (1977) implied that the predatory mite,
Phytoseiulus persimilis (Athias-Henriot), may have controlled tomato russet mite. De Moraes and Lima (1983) observed that
Euseius concordis (Chant) will feed on tomato russet mite. They indicated that its effectiveness as a predator of the tomato russet mite would be limited by the presence of
Tetranychus evansi (Baker and Pritchard). The problem is with the webbing of
T. evansi. It hinders the activity of
E. concordis. Another problem is the presence of tomato russet mite with
T. evansi for most of the year.
There seems to be some potential for the use of
Homeopronematus anconai (Baker) as a biological control agent. (Perring and Farrar, 1986). Studies indicate that this predator is effective in controlling tomato russet mite in the laboratory.
Basic crop sanitation helps in the control of the tomato russet mite (Kay, 1986). Weed hosts should be eliminated within and around the crop. Crop residues should also be destroyed. Keeping the area around the crop free of tomato russet mite hosts helps to reduce the sources of infestation.
Chemical Control
The crop should be monitored for any plant symptoms indicative of the presence of the tomato russet mite. When tomato russet mites are found, control measures should be taken early so that serious damage to the crop does not occur. Also, good pesticide spraying technique is important for complete coverage of all parts of the plant. The lower part of the stem and the undersides of the leaves should not be forgotten.
Sulfur is usually recommended for the control of mites. However, in northern Queensland, a study by Kay and Shepherd (1988) found sulfur to be ineffective. Their 7 trial study was conducted from 1982 to 1985 on tomatoes. They found that the most effective acaricides against an established infestation of tomato russet mite were dicofol (Kelthane), cyhexatin (Plictran), azocyclotin (Peropal), sulprofos (Bolstar), and monocrotophos (Azodrin). Fenbutatin oxide (Vendex) was moderately effective. Sulfur, demeten-S-methyl (Metasytox-R), dimethoate, endosulfan, methamidophos (Monitor), and propargite (Omite) were ineffective.
Kay and Shepherd (1988) also found that dicofol and cyhexatin were the most effective treatments to prevent a damaging infestation from developing. Sulprofos and monocrotophos were also effective. Sulfur was ineffective. Three-weekly or monthly applications were found to be insufficient. A weekly or fortnightly application schedule was necessary for prevention.
Royalty and Perring (1987) evaluated five acaricides on tomato russet mite and a tydeid mite predator,
Homeopronematus anconai. For tomato russet mite, avermectin B1 (
Avid, Agrimer) was the most toxic, followed by dicofol, cyhexatin, sulfur, and thuringiensin. For H. anconai, dicofol was the most toxic followed by avermectin B1, sulfur, cyhexatin, and thuringienson. According to their study, selective doses of Avermectin B1 could provide good control of tomato russet mite while conserving a predator of the tomato russet mite,
H. anconai.
http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/a_lycope.htm