Experimental & Applied Acarology

, Volume 39, Issue 3–4, pp 243–256 | Cite as

Evidence for host plant preference by Iphiseiodes quadripilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on Citrus

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we present field and laboratory evidence on the preference of Iphiseiodes quadripilis (Banks) for grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfadyen) leaves compared with sweet orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) leaves. This preference was confirmed in four orchards whether leaf samples were taken from either border trees of contiguous grapefruit or sweet orange or interior row trees with both citrus species in adjacent rows. Iphiseiodes quadripilis was most abundant in grapefruit trees in spite of the greater abundance of the Texas citrus mite, Eutetranychus banksi (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae) in sweet orange trees. Similar preference responses were observed in laboratory tests using a Y-tube olfactometer whether I. quadripilis were collected from sweet orange or grapefruit. Iphiseiodes quadripilis collected from grapefruit trees showed significant preference for grapefruit over sweet orange leaves in contact choice tests using an arena of alternating leaf strips (12 mm long × 2 mm wide) of sweet orange and grapefruit. However, I.␣quadripilis collected from sweet orange trees did not show preference for either grapefruit or sweet orange leaves. Based on these results, grapefruit leaves foster some unknown factor or factors that retain I. quadripilis in greater numbers compared with sweet orange leaves.

Keywords

Citrus Eutetranychus banksi Tetranychidae Host preference Iphiseiodes quadripilis Olfactometer Citrus sinensis Citrus paradisi 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank JG Morse and J Peña for reviewing earlier drafts of the manuscript.

References

  1. Agrawal AA (1997) Do leaf domatia mediate a plant mite mutualism? An experimental test of the effects on predators and herbivores. Ecol Entomol 22:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belczewski R, Harmsen R (2000) The effect of non-pathogenic phylloplane fungi on life history traits of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Exp Appl Acarol 24:257–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beard JJ, Walter GH (2001) Host plant specificity in several species of generalist mite predators. Ecol Entomol 26:562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng YS, Lee CS (1981) Composition of leaf essential oils from ten citrus species. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China (Taiwan) 5:278–283Google Scholar
  5. Childers CC (1994) Biological control of phytophagous mites on Florida citrus utilizing predatory arthropods. In: Rosen D, Bennet FD, Capinera JL (eds) Pest management in the subtropics. Intercept, Andover, UK, pp 255–288Google Scholar
  6. Dicke M, Sabelis MW (1988) How plants obtain predatory mites as bodyguards. Neth J Zool 38:148–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dicke M, Takabayashi J, Posthumus MA, Schutte C, Krips OE (1998) Plant-phytoseiid interactions mediated by herbivore-induced plant volatiles: variation in production of cues and in responses of predatory mites. Exp Appl Acarol 22:311–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dicke M, Agrawal A, Bruin J (2003) Plants talk, but are they deaf? Trends Plant Sci 8:403–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drukker B, Scutareanu P, Sabelis MW (1995) Do anthrocorid predators respond to synomones from Psylla-infested pear trees under field conditions? Entomol Exp Appl 77:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drukker B, Janssen A, Ravensberg W, Sabelis MW (1997) Improved capacity of the predator Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on tomato. Exp Appl Acarol 21:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duso C, Vettorazzo E (1999) Mite population dynamics on different grape varieties with or without phytoseiids released (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 23:741–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoy MA, Nguyen R (1997) Classical biological control of the citrus leafminer Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae): theory, practice, art and science. Trop Lepid 8 (Suppl␣1):19Google Scholar
  13. Krantz GW (1978) A manual of Acarology, 2nd edn. Oregon State Book Stores, Inc., CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  14. Lesna I (1998) Bulb mite biocontrol: evolutionary genetics of prey choice in soil predators. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 117 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Lesna I, Sabelis MW (1999) Diet-dependent female choice for males with ‘good genes’ in a soil predatory mite. Nature 401:581–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muma MH (1964) The population of Phytoseiidae on Florida citrus. Fla Entomol 47:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muma MH (1971) Food habits of Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) including common species on Florida citrus. Fla Entomol 54:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muma MH, Selhime AG, Denmark HA (1961) An annotated list of predators and parasites associated with insects and mites on Florida citrus. Univ Fla Agric Expt Sta Bull 634:39Google Scholar
  19. O’Dowd DJ, Willson MF (1997) Leaf domatia and the distribution and abundance of foliar mites in broadleaf deciduous forest in Wisconsin. Am Midland Nat 137:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P, McPheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sabelis MW, Van de Baan HE (1983) Location of distant spider mite colonies by phytoseiid predators: demonstration of specific kairomones emitted by Tetranychus urticae and Panonychus ulmi. Exp Appl Acarol 33:303–314Google Scholar
  22. Scutareanu P, Drukker B, Bruin J, Posthumus MA, Sabelis MW (1997) Volatiles from Psylla-infested pear trees and their possible involvement in attraction of anthocorid predators. J Chem Ecol 23:2241–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. StatSoft Inc (2000) Statistica for Windows. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Takabayashi J, Dicke M (1992) Responses of the predatory mites with different rearing histories to volatiles of uninfested plants. Entomol Exp Appl 64:187–193Google Scholar
  25. Villanueva RT (2002) A study of the biology and ecology of selected predators of phytophagous mites on Florida citrus. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  26. Villanueva RT, Childers CC (2005) Diurnal and spatial patterns of Phytoseiidae in the citrus tree canopy. Exp Appl Acarol 35:269–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Villanueva RT, Michaud JP, Childers CC (2003) Ladybeetles as predators of pest and predacious mites in citrus. J Entomol Sci 39:23–29Google Scholar
  28. Walter DE (1996) Living on leaves: Mites, tomenta, and leaf domatia. Annu Rev Entomol 41:101–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zemek R, Prenerova E (1997) Powdery mildew an alternative food for the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 21:405—414CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology, Don Ellis LaboratoriesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Entomology and Nematology Department, Citrus Research and Education CenterUniversity of Florida, IFASLake AlfredUSA

Personalised recommendations