Experimental & Applied Acarology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 155–165 | Cite as

Egg-harvesting allows large scale rearing ofAmblyseius finlandicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory

  • Tuomas Kostiainen
  • Marjorie A. Hoy
Article
Accepted:

Abstract

An improved method to rearAmblyseius finlandicus (Oudemans) in the laboratory is described that allows large numbers to be produced. Mites developed faster and had a higher ovipositional rate when fed on pollen and reared on a bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) leaf substrate than when fed on pollen on an artificial arena. Two-spotted spider mites (Tetranychus urticae Koch) were an inferior food source forA. finlandicus mainly because of their profuse webbing.A. finlandicus was able to develop and reproduce on all 11 types of pollen tested although immature mortality was high on cedar (Cedrus sp.) pollen. Total number of mites increased almost 100-fold in three weeks on bean leaf substrate when eggs were collected and transferred (=egg-harvesting) in cotton tufts from the base colonies every two or three days to initiate new colonies. Only about a 13-fold population increase occurred when egg-harvesting was not employed, probably due to a combination of cannibalism and reduced fecundity. Egg-harvesting using cotton tufts is especially suitable for large scale rearing of species likeA. finlandicus that are cannibalistic and/or lay fewer eggs with increasing population density. In addition, the phytoseiidsAmblyseius reductus Wainstein andAnthoseius rhenanus (Oudemans) were reared successfully on pollen and spider mites using either leaf or artificial arenas. This is the first record of successful rearing ofA. rhenanus in the laboratory and ofA. reductus in the laboratory on pollen.

Keywords

Population Density Food Source Arena Improve Method Population Increase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akimov, I.A., Kolodochka, L.A. and Dei, E.A., 1976. An experiment in rearing local species of predacious Phytoseiid mites (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory. Vestnik Zoologii, (No.1): 53. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  2. Amano, H. and Chant, D.A., 1986. Laboratory studies on the feeding habits, reproduction and development of three phytoseiid species,Typhlodromus pomi, Phytoseius macropilis andAmblyseius finlandicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae), occurring on abandoned apple trees in Ontario, Canada. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2: 299–313.Google Scholar
  3. Chant, D.A., 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part 1. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Can. Entomol., Suppl. 12, 91: 1–44.Google Scholar
  4. Collyer, E., 1958. Some insectary experiments with predacious mites to determine their effect on the development ofMetatetranychus ulmi (Koch) populations. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 1: 138–146.Google Scholar
  5. Collyer, E., 1964. The effect of an alternative food supply on the relationship between twoTyphlodromus species andPanonychus ulmi (Koch) (Acarina). Entomol. Exp. Appl., 7: 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dicke, M., Sabelis, M.W. and de Jong, M., 1988. Analysis of prey preference in phytoseiid mites by using an olfactometer, predation models and electrophoresis. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 5: 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dicke, M., Sabelis, M.W., de Jong, M. and Alers, M.P.T., 1990. Do phytoseiid mites select the best prey species in terms of reproductive success? Exp. Appl. Acarol., 8: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duso, C. and Liguori, M., 1984. Ricerche sugli acari della vite nel Veneto: aspetti faunistici e incidenza degli interventi fitosanitari sulle popolazioni degli acari fitofagi e predatori. Redia, 47: 337–353.Google Scholar
  9. Duso, C. and Sbrissa, F., 1990. Gli Acari Fitoseidi (Acari Phytoseiidae) del melo nell'Italia settentrionale: distribuzione, biologia, ecologia ed importanza economica. Boll. Zool. Agr. Bachic. 22: 53–89.Google Scholar
  10. El-Borolossy, M. and Fischer-Colbrie, P., 1989. Untersuchungen zum Artenspektrum von Raubmilben im österreichischen Obst- und Weinbau. Pflanzenschutzberichte, 50: 49–63.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer-Colbrie, P. and El-Borolossy, M., 1990. Untersuchungen zum Einfluß des Klimas, der Pflanzenart und der Wirtstiere auf das Vorkommen verschiedener Raubmilbenarten im österreichischen Obst- und Weinbau. Pflanzenschutzberichte, 51: 101–126.Google Scholar
  12. Genini, M., Klay, A., Delucchi, V., Baillod, M. and Baumgärtner, J., 1983. Les espèces de Phytoséiides (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) dans les vergers de pommier en Suisse. Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges., 56: 45–56.Google Scholar
  13. Hess, R.T. and Hoy, M.A., 1982. Microorganisms associated with the spider mite predatorMetaseiulus (=Typhlodromus) occidentalis (Nesbitt): electron microscope observations. J. Invertebr. Pathol, 40: 98–106.Google Scholar
  14. Karg, W., 1971. Untersuchungen über die Acarofauna in Apfelanlagen im Hinblick auf den Übergang von Standardspritzprogrammen zu integrierten Behandlungsmaßnahmen. Arch. Pflanzenschutz, 7: 243–279.Google Scholar
  15. Karg, W., Mack, S. and Baier, B., 1987. Advantages of oligophagous predatory mites for biological control. Bull. SROP, 10: 66–73.Google Scholar
  16. Khorkhordin, E.G. and Losev, A.M., 1985. The functional reaction of a predator (Amblyseius finlandicus) on the population density of the spider mite (Schizotetranychus pruni). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 64: 1368–1376. (in Russian, with English summary).Google Scholar
  17. Khorkhordin, E.G. and Losev, A.M., 1989. Effect of substrate surface on the development, predatory activity and fecundity of the phytoseiid miteAmblyseius finlandicus. Vestnik Zoologii, 42–45. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  18. Kolodochka, L.A., 1977. Characteristics of feeding and oviposition of certain species of predatory phytoseid mites. Sov. J. Ecol., 8: 184–187.Google Scholar
  19. Kostiainen, T. and Hoy, M.A., 1994. Variability in resistance to organophosphorous insecticides in field-collected colonies ofAmblyseius finlandicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J. Appl. Entomol., (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Kropczynska-Linkiewicz, D., 1971. Studies on the feeding of four species of phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Acarol., 225–227.Google Scholar
  21. Malov, N.A. and Tokunova, M.V., 1990. Open air rearing ofAmblyseius. Zashchita Rastenii Moskva, (No.6): 22. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  22. McMurtry, J.A., Huffaker, C.B. and van de Vrie, M., 1970. Ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural enemies: a review. 1. Tetranychid enemies: their biological characters and the impact of spray practices. Hilgardia, 40: 331–390.Google Scholar
  23. Osakabe, M., 1988. Relationships between food substances and developmental success inAmblyseius sojaensis Ehara (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 23: 45–51.Google Scholar
  24. Overmeer, W.P.J., 1981. Notes on breeding phytoseiid mites from orchards (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory. Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Rijksuniv. Gent, 46: 503–509.Google Scholar
  25. Overmeer, W.P.J., 1985. Techniques. Rearing and handling. In: W. Helle and M.W. Sabelis (editors) Spider Mites: Their Biology, Natural Enemies, and Control. Vol.1B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 161–170.Google Scholar
  26. Rishi, N.D. and Rather, A.Q., 1983. Life-cycle of phytophagous miteTetranychus urticae Koch. and its predatory miteAmblyseius finlandicus Oudemans together with effect of certain acaricides/ fungicides on them. J. Entomol. Research, 7: 39–42.Google Scholar
  27. Sabelis, M.W. and van de Baan, H.E., 1983. Location of distant spider mite colonies by phytoseiid predators: demonstration of specific kairomones emitted byTetranychus urticae andPanonychus ulmi. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 33: 303–314.Google Scholar
  28. Samsøe-Petersen, L., Bigler, F., Bogenschütz, H., Brun, J., Hassan, S.A., Helyer, N.L., Kühner, C., Mansour, F., Naton, E., Oomen, P.A., Overmeer, W.P.J., Polgar, L., Rieckmann, W. and Stäubli, A., 1989. Laboratory rearing techniques for 16 beneficial arthropod species and their prey/hosts. Zeitschr. Pflanzenkrankheiten u. Pflanzenschutz, 96: 289–316.Google Scholar
  29. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 956 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Satpathy, J.M. and Mania, P.K., 1969. New record of a Phytoseiid mite,Amblyseius finlandicus Oudm. occurring in sugarcane with notes on its life history and bionomics. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 66: 648–655.Google Scholar
  31. Schausberger P., 1990. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Biologie vonAmblyseius aberrans Oudemans undAmblyseius finlandicus Oudemans (Gamasida: Phytoseiidae). Formal- und Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien, 102 pp. [dissertation].Google Scholar
  32. Schausberger, P., 1991. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Lebensverlauf, die Erstellung von Lebenstafeln und die Vermehrungskapazität vonAmblyseius aberrans Oud. undAmblyseius finlandicus Oud. (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Pflanzenschutzberichte, 52: 53–71.Google Scholar
  33. Schausberger, P., 1992a. Investigations on the influence of the predator population density on the rate of oviposition inAmblyseius finlandicus Oud. (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Anz. Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, 65: 36–39.Google Scholar
  34. Schausberger, P., 1992b. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über den Einfluß unterschiedlicher Nahrung auf die Präimaginalentwicklung und die Reproduktion vonAmblyseius aberrans Oud. undAmblyseius finlandicus Oud. (Acarina, Phytoseiidae). J. Appl. Entomol., 113: 476–486.Google Scholar
  35. Sechser, B., Thueler, P. and Bachmann, A., 1984. Observations on population levels of the European red mite (Acarina: Tetranychidae) and associated arthropod predator complexes in different spray programs over a 5 year period. Environ. Entomol. 13: 1577–1582.Google Scholar
  36. Sharma, N.K. and Sadana, G.L., 1984. Influence of temperature on the development of the predatory mite,Amblyseius finlandicus (Oudemans) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Indian J. Acarol., 9: 57–62.Google Scholar
  37. Sharma, N.K. and Sadana, G.L., 1987. Effect of predator-prey density on the prey consumption and daily rate of egg production of the predatory mite,Amblyseius finlandicus (Oudemans) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomon, 12: 191–195.Google Scholar
  38. Specht, H.B., 1968. Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) in the New Jersey apple orchard environment with descriptions of spermathecae and three new species. Can. Entomol., 100: 673–692.Google Scholar
  39. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie J.H., 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 633 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Thistlewood, H.M.A., 1991. A survey of predatory mites in Ontario apple orchards with diverse pesticide programs. Can. Entomol., 123: 1163–1174.Google Scholar
  41. Tuovinen, T., 1992. Phytoseiid mites on cultivated berries in Finland. Second Symposium of European Association of Acarologists. Aug. 31 – Sept. 5, Krynica, Poland.Google Scholar
  42. Tuovinen, T., 1993. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Gamasida) in Finnish apple plantations with reference to integrated control of phytophagous mites. Agric. Sci. Finl., Suppl. 1, 2: 33 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Van de Vrie, M., 1975. Some studies on the predator prey relationships inAmblyseius (T.)potentillae Garmans,A. finlandicus Oud. andPanonychus ulmi (Koch) on apple. Parasitica, 31: 43–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science and Technology Letters 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuomas Kostiainen
    • 1
  • Marjorie A. Hoy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Entomology and NematologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations