Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 319–329 | Cite as

Risk assessment of non-target effects caused by releasing two exotic phytoseiid mites in Japan: can an indigenous phytoseiid mite become IG prey?

Article

Abstract

Two exotic phytoseiid mites, Neoseiulus cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii, are commercially available in Japan for the control of thrips and other pest insects. As part of a risk assessment of the non-target effects of releasing these two species, we investigated intraguild predation (IGP) between these exotic phytoseiid mites and an indigenous phytoseiid mite Gynaeseius liturivorus, which is promising as an indigenous natural enemy for the control of thrips in Japan. To understand IGP relations between the exotic and indigenous phytoseiid mites after use of the exotic mites for biological control, we investigated IGP between them in the absence of their shared prey. When an IG prey was offered to an IG predator, both exotic and indigenous females consumed the IG prey at all immature stages (egg, larva, protonymph, deutonymph), especially at its larval stages. The propensity for IGP in a no-choice test was measured by the survival time of IG prey corrected using the survival time of thrips offered to the IG predator. There was no significant difference in the propensity for IGP between N. cucumeris and G. liturivorus, but the propensity was significantly higher in A. swirskii than G. liturivorus. The propensity for IGP in a choice test was measured by the prey choice of the IG predator when a conspecific and a heterospecific larva were offered simultaneously as IG prey. Both exotic females consumed the heterospecific larva only. The indigenous female preferentially consumed the heterospecific larva when the heterospecific larva was N. cucumeris, but consumed the conspecific larva when the heterospecific larva was A. swirskii. We concluded that further investigation would be necessary for the exotic mites’ risk assessment, since the propensity for IGP of the two exotic females was similar to or higher than that of the indigenous female in both the no-choice and choice tests.

Keywords

Intraguild predation Intra-specific predation Risk assessment Gynaeseius liturivorus Neoseiulus cucumeris Amblyseius swirskii 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. M. Mochizuki (National Institute of Fruit Tree Sciences, Japan), N. Hinomoto (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences), and M. Momoshita (Arysta LifeScience Corporation, Japan) for providing G. liturivorus, F. occidentalis, N. cucumeris and A. swirskii and valuable advice on them. We thank Dr. K. Komi (Kôchi Agriculture Research Center) for valuable advice on G. liturivorus. We also thank Ms. K. Furukawa for her assistance in setting up the experiments. This study was partly supported by a subsidy from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists (no. 21-1045).

References

  1. Babendreier D, Bigler F, Kuhlmann U (2006) Current status and constraints in the assessment of non-target effects. In: Bigler F, Babendreier D, Kuhlmann U (eds) Environmental impact of invertebrates for biological control of arthropods: methods and risk assessment. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castagnoli M, Simoni S (1999) Effect of long-term feeding history on functional and numerical response of Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 23:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castagnoli M, Simoni S, Nachman G (2001) Short-term changes in consumption and oviposition rates of Neoseiulus californicus strains (Acari: Phytoseiidae) after a diet shift. Exp Appl Acarol 25:969–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faraji F, Janssen A, van Rijn PCJ, Sabelis MW (2000) Kin recognition by the predatory mite Iphiseius degenerans: discrimination among own, conspecific, and heterospecific eggs. Ecol Entomol 25:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kishimoto H (2005) A new technique for efficient rearing of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Appl Entomol Zool 40:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Komi K, Arakawa R, Amano H (2008a) Native phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) occurring on greenhouse vegetable crops under the pest control programs with natural enemies in Kochi prefecture, Japan. J Acarol Soc Jpn 17:23–28 (in Japanese with English summary)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Komi K, Arakawa R, Amano H (2008b) Predatory potential against Thrips palmi Karny of some native phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) occurring on greenhouse vegetable crops in Kochi prefecture, Japan. J Acarol Soc Jpn 17:29–35 (in Japanese with English summary)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuhlmann U, Schaffner U, Mason PG (2006) Selection of non-target species for host specificity testing. In: Bigler F, Babendreier D, Kuhlmann U (eds) Environmental impact of invertebrates for biological control of arthropods, methods and risk assessment. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp 15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McMurtry JA, Croft BA (1997) Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Annu Rev Entomol 42:291–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mochizuki M (2009) Development, reproduction and prey consumption of the thrips predator Gynaeseius liturivorus (Ehara) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J Acarol Soc Jpn 18:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mochizuki A (2010) Invasive insects: problem and risk assessment. Extension bulletins, FFTC for the Asian and Pacific Region, Taipei. http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/616/
  13. Mochizuki A, Mitsunaga T (2004) Non-target impact assessment of the introduced green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) on the indigenous sibling species, C. nipponensis (Okamoto) through interspecific predation. Appl Entomol Zool 39:217–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mochizuki A, Naka H, Hamasaki K, Mitsunaga T (2006) Larval cannibalism and intraguild predation between the introduced green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea, and the indigenous trash-carrying green lacewing, Mallada desjardinsi (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), as a case study of potential nontarget effect assessment. Environ Entomol 35:1298–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murai T, Ishii T (1982) Simple rearing method for flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on pollens. Jpn J Appl Entomol Zool 26:149–154 (in Japanese with English summary)Google Scholar
  16. Murai T, Loomans AJM (2001) Evaluation of an improved method for mass-rearing of thrips and a thrips parasitoid. Entomol Exp Appl 101:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Naka H, Mitsunaga T, Mochizuki A (2005) Laboratory hybridization between the introduced and the indigenous green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Chrysoperla) in Japan. Environ Entomol 34:727–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Naka H, Haruyama N, Ito K, Mitsunaga T, Nomura M, Mochizuki A (2006) Interspecific hybridization between introduced and indigenous green lacewings (Neurop., Chrysopidae: Chrysoperla) at different adult densities. J Appl Entomol 130:426–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rahmani H, Hoffmann D, Walzer A, Schausberger P (2009) Adaptive learning in the foraging behavior of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. Behav Ecol 20:946–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sabelis MW, van Rijn PCJ (1997) Predation by insects and mites. In: Lewis T (ed) Thrips as crop pests. CAB International, London, pp 259–354Google Scholar
  21. Schausberger P (1997) Inter- and intraspecific predation on immatures by adult females in Euseius finlandicus, Typhlodromus pyri and Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 21:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schausberger P (2003) Cannibalism among phytoseiid mites: a review. Exp Appl Acarol 29:173–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schausberger P (2007) Kin recognition by juvenile predatory mites: prior association or phenotype matching? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schausberger P, Croft BA (1999) Predation on and discrimination between con- and heterospecific eggs among specialist and generalist phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ Entomol 28:523–528Google Scholar
  25. Schausberger P, Croft BA (2000) Cannibalism and intraguild predation among phytoseiid mites: are aggressiveness and prey preference related to diet specialization? Exp Appl Acarol 24:709–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schausberger P, Croft BA (2001) Kin recognition and larval cannibalism by adult females in specialist predaceous mites. Anim Behav 61:459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strong DR, Pemberton RW (2000) Biological control of invading species—risk and reform. Science 288:1969–1970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Lenteren JC, Bale J, Bigler F, Hokkanen HMT, Loomans AJM (2006) Assessing risks of releasing exotic biological control agents. Annu Rev Entomol 51:609–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Rijn PCJ, Burgio G, Thomas MB (2005) Impact of intraspecific and intraguild predation on predator invasion and coexistence: can exotic ladybeetles displace native species? In: Hoddle MS (ed) Second international symposium on biological control of arthropods. USDA Forest Service Publication, Morgantown, pp 38–47Google Scholar
  30. van Veen FJF, Memmott J, Godfray HCJ (2006) Indirect effects, apparent competition and biological control. In: Brodeur J, Boivin G (eds) Trophic and guild interactions in biological control. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wimmer D, Hoffmann D, Schausberger P (2008) Prey suitability of western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, and onion thrips, Thrips tabaci, for the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii. Biocontrol Sci Tech 18:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Agro-Environmental SciencesTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations