Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supplemental food that supports both predator and pest: A risk for biological control?

  • Published:
Experimental and Applied Acarology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supplemental food sources to support natural enemies in crops are increasingly being tested and used. This is particularly interesting for generalist predators that can reproduce on these food sources. However, a potential risk for pest control could occur when herbivores also benefit from supplemental food sources. In order to optimize biological control, it may be important to select food sources that support predator populations more than herbivore populations. In this study we evaluated the nutritional quality of four types of supplemental food for the generalist predatory mites Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot and Amblydromalus (Typhlodromalus) limonicus (Garman and McGregor), both important thrips predators, and for the herbivore western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande, by assessing oviposition rates. These tests showed that application of corn pollen, cattail pollen or sterilized eggs of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller to chrysanthemum leaves resulted in three times higher oviposition rates of thrips compared to leaves without additional food. None of the tested food sources promoted predatory mites or western flower thrips exclusively. Decapsulated cysts of Artemia franciscana Kellogg were not suitable, whereas cattail pollen was very suitable for both predatory mites and western flower thrips. In addition, we found that the rate of thrips predation by A. swirskii can be reduced by 50 %, when pollen is present. Nevertheless, application of pollen or Ephestia eggs to a chrysanthemum crop still strongly enhanced the biological control of thrips with A. swirskii, both at low and high release densities of predatory mites through the strong numerical response of the predators. Despite these positive results, application in a crop should be approached with caution, as the results may strongly depend on the initial predator–prey ratio, the nutritional quality of the supplemental food source, the species of predatory mites, the distribution of the food in the crop and the type of crop.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams PA, Holt RD, Roth JD (1998) Apparent competition or apparent mutualism? Shared predation when populations cycle. Ecology 79:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal AA, Kobayashi C, Thaler JS (1999) Influence of prey availability and induced host-plant resistance on omnivory by western flower thrips. Ecology 80:518–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arijs Y, De Clercq P (2001) Rearing Orius laevigatus on cysts of the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana. Biol Control 21:79–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buitenhuis R, Shipp L, Scott-Dupree C (2010) Intra-guild vs extra-guild prey: effect on predator fitness and preference of Amblyseius swirskii (Athias-Henriot) and Neoseiulus cucumeris (Oudemans) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Bull Entomol Res 100:167–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert DJ, Huffaker CB (1974) Predator (Metaseiulus occidentalis)—prey (Pronematus spp.) interactions under sulfur and cattail pollen applications in a noncommercial vineyard. Entomophaga 19:361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castañé C, Quero R, Riudavets J (2006) The brine shrimp Artemia sp as alternative prey for rearing the predatory bug Macrolophus caliginosus. Biol Control 38:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocuzza GE, DeClercq P, VandeVeire M, DeCock A, Degheele D, Vacante V (1997) Reproduction of Orius laevigatus and Orius albidipennis on pollen and Ephestia kuehniella eggs. Entomol Exp Appl 82:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraji F, Janssen A, Sabelis MW (2002) Oviposition patterns in a predatory mite reduce the risk of egg predation caused by prey. Ecol Entomol 27:660–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goleva I, Zebitz CW (2013) Suitability of different pollen as alternative food for the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 61:259–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition and structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulshof J, Ketoja E, Vänninen I (2003) Life history characteristics of Frankliniella occidentalis on cucumber leaves with and without supplemental food. Entomol Exp Appl 108:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen A, Willemse E, van der Hammen T (2003) Poor host plant quality causes omnivore to consume predator eggs. J Anim Ecol 72:478–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koller M, Knapp M, Schausberger P (2007) Direct and indirect adverse effects of tomato on the predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus feeding on the spider mite Tetranychus evansi. Entomol Exp Appl 125:297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunkel BA, Cottrell TE (2007) Oviposition response of green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and potential attractants on pecan. Environ Entomol 36:577–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren JG (2009) Relationships of natural enemies and non-prey foods. Progress in biological control, vol 7. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuo T, Mochizuki M, Yara K, Mitsunaga T, Mochizuki A (2003) Suitability of pollen as an alternative diet for Amblyseius cucumeris (Oudeman). Jpn J Appl Entomol 47:153–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McMurtry JA, Scriven GT (1964) Studies on the feeding, reproduction, and development of Amblyseius hibisci (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on various food substances. Ann Entomol Soc Am 57:649–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messelink GJ, Van Steenpaal SEF, Ramakers PMJ (2006) Evaluation of phytoseiid predators for control of western flower thrips on greenhouse cucumber. Biocontrol 51:753–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messelink GJ, Ramakers PMJ, Cortez JA, Janssen A (2009) How to enhance pest control by generalist predatory mites in greenhouse crops. In: Mason PG, Gillespie DR, Vincent C (eds). Proceedings of the 3rd ISBCA. Christchurch, New Zealand, pp 309–318

  • Messelink GJ, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2012) Generalist predators, food web complexities and biological pest control in greenhouse crops. In: Larramendy ML, Soloneski S (eds) Integrated pest management and pest control—current and future tactics. InTech, Rijeka, pp 191–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Messelink GJ, Bennison J, Alomar O, Ingegno BL, Tavella L, Shipp L, Palevsky E, Wäckers FL (2014) Approaches to conserving natural enemy populations in greenhouse crops: current methods and future prospects. Biocontrol 59:377–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen DT, Vangansbeke D, De Clercq P (2014) Artificial and factitious foods support the development and reproduction of the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii. Exp Appl Acarol 62:181–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nomikou M, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2010) Pollen subsidies promote whitefly control through the numerical response of predatory mites. Biocontrol 55:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne RW, Murray DA, Harding SA, Baird DB, Soutar DM (2010) GenStat for windows (13th edition). Introduction. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramakers PMJ, Rabasse JM (1995) Integrated pest management in protected cultivation. In: Reuveni R (ed) Novel approaches to integrated pest management. CRC Press, Florida, pp 199–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabelis MW (1990) How to analyze prey preference when prey density varies? A new method to discriminate between effects of gut fullness and prey type composition. Oecologia 82:289–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skirvin DJ, Kravar-Garde L, Reynolds K, Jones J, Mead A, Fenlon J (2007) Supplemental food affects thrips predation and movement of Orius laevigatus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Neoseiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Bull Entomol Res 97:309–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu Rev Entomol 47:561–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Lenteren JC (2012) The state of commercial augmentative biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake. Biocontrol 57:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rijn PCJ, Tanigoshi LK (1999) Pollen as food for the predatory mites Iphiseius degenerans and Neoseiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae): dietary range and life history. Expl Appl Acarol 23:785–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rijn PCJ, van Houten YM, Sabelis MW (2002) How plants benefit from providing food to predators even when it is also edible to herbivores. Ecology 83:2664–2679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerkhove B, De Clercq P (2010) Pollen as an alternative or supplementary food for the mirid predator Macrolophus pygmaeus. Biol Control 53:238–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangansbeke D, Nguyen DT, Audenaert J, Verhoeven R, Gobin B, Tirry L, De Clercq P (2014) Performance of the predatory mite Amblydromalus limonicus on factitious foods. Biocontrol 59:67–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vantornhout I, Minnaert HL, Tirry L, De Clercq P (2004) Effect of pollen, natural prey and factitious prey on the development of Iphiseius degenerans. Biocontrol 49:627–644

  • Wade MR, Zalucki MP, Wratten SD, Robinson KA (2008) Conservation biological control of arthropods using artificial food sprays: current status and future challenges. Biol Control 45:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Comments by two anonymous reviewers substantially improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture, PO Box 20, 2265 ZG, Bleiswijk, The Netherlands

    Ada Leman & Gerben J. Messelink

Authors
  1. Ada Leman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerben J. Messelink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerben J. Messelink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leman, A., Messelink, G.J. Supplemental food that supports both predator and pest: A risk for biological control?. Exp Appl Acarol 65, 511–524 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-014-9859-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-014-9859-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation