Experimental & Applied Acarology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 33–46 | Cite as

Intraguild Interactions Between the Predatory Mites Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus persimilis

  • Ibrahim Çakmak
  • Arne Janssen
  • Maurice W. Sabelis


Species at the same trophic level may interact through competition for food, but can also interact through intraguild predation. Intraguild predation is widespread at the second and third trophic level and the effects may cascade down to the plant level. The effects of intraguild predation can be modified by antipredator behaviour in the intraguild prey. We studied intraguild predation and antipredator behaviour in two species of predatory mite, Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus persimilis, which are both used for control of the two-spotted spider mite in greenhouse and outdoor crops. Using a Y-tube olfactometer, we assessed in particular whether each of the two predators avoids odours emanating from prey patches occupied by the heterospecific predator. Furthermore, we measured the occurrence and rate of intraguild predation of different developmental stages of P. persimilis and N. californicus on bean leaves in absence or in presence of the shared prey. Neither of the two predator species avoided prey patches with the heterospecific competitor, both when inexperienced with the other predator and when experienced with prey patches occupied by the heterospecific predator. Intraguild experiments showed that N. californicus is a potential intraguild predator of P. persimilis. However, P. persimilis did not suffer much from intraguild predation as long as the shared prey was present. This is probably because N. californicus prefers to feed on two-spotted spider mites rather than on its intraguild prey.


Antipredator behaviour Avoidance Intraguild predation Phytoseiidae Volatile chemicals 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barber, A., Campbell, C.A.M., Crane, H., Lilley, R., Tregidga, E. 2003Biocontrol of two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae on dwarf hops by the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilisNeoseiulus californicusBiocontrol Sci. Technol.13275284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boer, J.G., Dicke, M. 2004The role of methyl salicylate in prey searching behavior of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilisJ. Chem. Ecol.30255271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dicke, M., Beek, T.A., Posthumus, M.A., Ben Dom, N., Bokhoven, H., Groot, E. 1990aIsolation and identification of volatile kairomone that affects acarine predator–prey interactionsJ. Chem. Ecol.16381396Google Scholar
  4. Dicke, M., Maas, K.J., Takabayashi, J., Vet, L.E.M. 1990bLearning affects response to volatile allelochemicals by predatory mitesProc. Sec. Exp. Appl. Entomol. Netherlands Entomol. Soc. (NEV)13136Google Scholar
  5. Dill, L.M. 1987Animal decision making and its ecological consequences: the future of aquatic ecology and behaviorCan. J. Zool.65803811Google Scholar
  6. Drukker, B., Bruin, J., Jacobs, G., Kroon, A., Sabelis, M.W. 2000How predatory mites learn to cope with variability in volatile plant signals in the environment of their herbivorous preyExp. Appl. Acarol.24881895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Friese, D.D., Gilstrap, F.E. 1982Influence of prey availability on reproduction and prey consumption of Phytoseiulus persimilisAmblyseius californicus and Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae)Int. J. Acarol.88589Google Scholar
  8. Gilstrap, F.E., Friese, D.D. 1985The predatory potential of Phytoseiulus persimilis, Amblyseius californicusMetaseiulus occidentalis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae)Int. J. Acarol.11163168Google Scholar
  9. Hochberg, M.E. 1996Consequences for host population levels of increasing natural enemy species richness in classical biological controlAm. Nat.147307318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hopper, K.R. 2001Flexible antipredator behavior in a dragonfly species that coexists with different predator typesOikos93470476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssen, A., Alphen, J.J.M., Sabelis, M.W., Bakker, K. 1995aOdour-mediated avoidance of competition in Drosophila parasitoids: the ghost of competitionOikos73356366Google Scholar
  12. Janssen, A., Alphen, J.J.M., Sabelis, M.W., Bakker, K. 1995bSpecificity of odour mediated avoidance of competition in Drosophila parasitoidsBehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology36229235Google Scholar
  13. Janssen, A., Bruin, J., Jacobs, G., Schraag, R., Sabelis, M.W. 1997Predators use volatiles to avoid prey patches with conspecificsJ. Anim. Ecol.66223232Google Scholar
  14. Janssen, A., Pallini, A., Venzon, M., Sabelis, M.W. 1998Behaviour and indirect interactions in food webs of plant-inhabiting arthropodsExp. Appl. Acarol.22497521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janssen, A. 1999Plants with spider-mite prey attract more predatory mites than clean plants under greenhouse conditionsEntomol. Exp. Appl.90191198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janssen, A., Pallini, A., Venzon, M., Sabelis, M.W. 1999Absence of odour-mediated avoidance of heterospecific competitors by the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilisEntomol. Exp. Appl.927382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krips, O.E., Willems, P.E.L., Gols, R., Posthumus, M.A., Dicke, M. 1999The response of Phytoseiulus persimilis to spider-mite induced volatiles from gerbera: influence of starvation and experienceJ. Chem. Ecol.2526232641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lima, S.L., Dill, L.M. 1990Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectusCan. J. Zool.68619640Google Scholar
  19. Magalhães, S., Janssen, A., Hanna, R., Sabelis, M.W. 2002Flexible antipredator behaviour in herbivorous mites through vertical migration in a plantOecologia132143149Google Scholar
  20. Magalhães, S., Tudorache, C., Montserrat, M., Maanen, R., Sabelis, M.W., Janssen, A. 2004Diet of intraguild predators affects antipredator behavior in intraguild preyBehav. Ecol.16364370Google Scholar
  21. McMurtry, J.A., Croft, B.A. 1997Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological controlAnnu. Rev. Entomol.42291321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pallini, A., Janssen, A., Sabelis, M.W. 1997Odour-mediated responses of phytophagous mites to conspecific and heterospecific competitorsOecologia110179185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pallini, A., Janssen, A., Sabelis, M.W. 1998Predators induce interspecific herbivore competition for food in refuge spaceEcol. Lett.1171177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pallini, A., Janssen, A., Sabelis, M.W. 1999Spider mites avoid plants with predatorsExp. Appl. Acarol.23803815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenheim, J.A., Kaya, H.K., Ehler, L.E., Marois, J.J., Jaffee, B.A. 1995Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: theory and evidenceBiol. Control5303335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sabelis, M.W. 1981Biological Control of Two-spotted Spider Mites using Phytoseiid PredatorsPudocWageningen242Google Scholar
  27. Sabelis, M.W., Baan, H.E. 1983Location of distant spider mite colonies by phytoseiid predators: demonstration of specific kairomones emitted by Tetranychus urticaePanonychus ulmiEntomol. Exp. Appl.33303314Google Scholar
  28. Sabelis, M.W., Weel, J.J. 1993Anemotactic responses of the predatory mitePhytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriotand their role in prey findingExp. Appl. Acarol.17521529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schausberger, P., Walzer, A. 2001Combined versus single species release of predaceous mites: predator–predator interactions and pest suppressionBiol. Control20269278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simberloff, D., Stiling, P. 1996How risky is biological control?Ecology7719651974Google Scholar
  31. Snyder, W.E., Ballard, S.N., Yang, S., Clevenger, G.M., Miller, T.D., Ahn, J.J., Hatten, T.D., Berryman, A.A. 2004Complementary biocontrol of aphids by the ladybird beetle Harmonia axyridisthe parasitoid Aphelinus asychis on greenhouse rosesBiol. Control30229235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J. 1995Biometry3FreemanNew York716722Google Scholar
  33. Takabayashi, J., Dicke, M. 1992Responses of predatory mites with different rearing histories to volatiles of uninfested plantsEntomol. Exp. Appl.64187193Google Scholar
  34. Takabayashi, J., Dicke, M., Takahashi, S., Posthumus, M.A., Beek, T.A. 1994Leaf age affects composition of herbivoreinduced synomones and attraction of predatory mitesJ. Chem. Ecol.20373386Google Scholar
  35. Turner, A.M., Fetterolf, S.A., Bernot, R.J. 1999Predator identity and consumer behavior: differential effects of fish and crayfish on the habitat use of a freshwater snailOecologia118242247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Buskirk, J. 2001Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvaeJ. Evolution. Biol.14482489Google Scholar
  37. Lenteren, J.C., Benuzzi, M., Nicoli, G., Maini, S. 1992

    Biological control in protected crops in Europe

    Lenteren, J.C.Minks, A.K.Ponti, O.M.B. eds. Biological Control and Integrated Crop Protection: Towards Environmentally Safer AgriculturePudocWageningen7789
    Google Scholar
  38. Lenteren, J.C. 2000A greenhouse without pesticides: fact or fantasy?Crop Protection19375384Google Scholar
  39. Venzon, M., Janssen, A., Pallini, A., Sabelis, M.W. 2000Diet of a polyphagous arthropod predator affects refuge seeking of its thrips preyAnimal Behaviour60369375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Walzer, A., Schausberger, P. 1999aCannibalism and interspecific predation in the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilisNeoseiulus californicus: predation rates and effects on reproduction and juvenile developmentBioControl43457468Google Scholar
  41. Walzer, A., Schausberger, P. 1999bPredation preferences and discrimination between con- and heterospecific prey by the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilisNeoseiulus californicusBioControl43469478Google Scholar
  42. Walzer, A., Blümel, S., Schausberger, P. 2001Population dynamics of interacting predatory mites, Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicusheld on detached bean leavesExp. Appl. Acarol.25731743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ibrahim Çakmak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arne Janssen
    • 1
  • Maurice W. Sabelis
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, Section Population BiologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of Adnan MenderesAydınTurkey

Personalised recommendations