Aceria ficus goes under several different names: fig bud mite, fig rust mite, and fig blister mite. They have been documented to cause a wide range of symptoms including: chlorotic mottling on leaves, bud blast and leaf drop, interior fruit discoloration, fruit drop, leaf distortion, and bronzing.
Rhyncaphytoptus ficifoliae is only known as the fig leaf mite as far as I know. They are not documented to spread FMV, but I’ve never seen that tested, and they feed in a similar manner (and co-evolved with figs and FMV). They however do not cause the chlorotic mottling because they do not feed on young leaves/buds. They are not known to cause galls either. So while it takes specialized training to visually differentiate the two species the presence of symptoms indicates fig bud mites.
This study from Acarologia documents the movement of both species throughout the year on young and old leaves.
Populations of P ubiquitus began to increase on leaves from July reached a peak in early November 1989 and 1990, with 4 and 22 individuals per leaf, respectively. A positive relationship was noted between the incidence of the two eriophyoid
mites and P. ubiquitus on the same leaves, while the reverse was the case with the two-spotted spider mite (Table 4). In June and July 1991, when the percentage of leaves infested with A. ficus and R. ficifoliae reached its maximum; this was followed
by an increase in the percentage of the leaves harbouring the predator during July. A gradual decrease in the percentage of the infested leaves followed. T urticae reached its maximum in late May and during June. An almost negative relationship was noted between the incidence of leaves infestation with T urticae and P. ubiquitus on the
same levels (Table 4). Such a distribution suggests that it would be possible for the predator to achieve control of the eriophyoid pests. The data are in accordance with those reported by BAKER (1939) and ABDEL-KHALEK (1993).
There are several miticides labelled for eriophyid mites… Forbid 4f/Oberon 2 SC/Judo, Avid, Akari, Pylon, Kontos among others. As opposed to carbaryl and other broad spectrum pesticides they are safer for beneficials which may help finish the job so to speak.
FMV is poorly understood, mainly due to the insidious nature of the fig bud mite and a failure to identify and differentiate symptoms. It is caused by a virus, not stress, or nutrient deficiencies. Perfectly happy (infected) trees still show symptoms regardless, I have observed this for over a decade on some trees growing in ideal soils, while rootbound/stressed/underfertilized trees remain asymtomatic unless they had a history of infection. The hypothesis that FMV symptoms are tied to nutrient deficiencies is simply a myth, with no scientific evidence whatsoever. Sellers who use forums promote the idea to alter new grower perception and shield themselves from liability, while ignoring best practices to not propagate from symptomatic growths.
Vigorous growth does indeed reduce symptoms, most likely due to the rate of virus replication not being tied to the rate of plant cellular division… Because FMV is not systemic each cellular division (growth) cuts the virus count in half, if division happens again before virus replication reaches previous levels the level of virus in new cells is reduced. Propagating from asymtomatic growths generally produces asymtomatic plants, I’ve personally accomplished this several times.