Advertisement

Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 171–180 | Cite as

Host plant effects on the behaviour and performance of Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

  • Rosemarije BuitenhuisEmail author
  • Les Shipp
  • Cynthia Scott-Dupree
  • Angela Brommit
  • Wonhyo Lee
Article

Abstract

Biological control in ornamental crops is challenging due to the wide diversity of crops and cultivars. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that trichome density on different host plants influences the behavior and performance of the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Behavioural observations of this predator in the presence or absence of prey (western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) were done on leaf squares of ornamental plant species differing in trichome density (rose, chrysanthemum and gerbera) and compared to a smooth surface (plastic). Tomato leaves were used to observe the influence of glandular trichomes. The performance of A. swirskii was assessed by measuring predation and oviposition rate. Behaviour of A. swirskii was influenced by plant species. Up to a certain density of trichomes, trichome number had a negative effect on walking speed. It was highest on plastic, followed by rose. No differences were found among chrysanthemum, gerbera and tomato. Walking speed was slightly higher on disks without prey. Proportion of time spent walking was the same on leaf disks of all plant species, with and without prey. No effect of glandular trichomes on tomato leaves was seen. Most thrips were killed and consumed on gerbera, and least on rose. Predation rates on chrysanthemum and plastic were intermediate. In contrast, no differences in oviposition rate were found among plant species. The results of this study indicate that trichome density can explain some of the variability in efficacy of A. swirskii on different crops. Release rates of A. swirskii may need to be adjusted depending on the crop in which it is used.

Keywords

Greenhouse ornamentals Western flower thrips Trichome density Biological control 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Sébastien Rocheleau, Erik Glemser and Rebecca Eerkes for technical assistance. Funding was obtained through an Agriculture Adaptation Council—Canada Ontario Research and Development (CORD) IV Grant (Project No. 9006) to Flowers Canada (Ontario) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Matching Investment Initiative; and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada under the Growing Forward Program.

References

  1. Bell WJ (1990) Searching behavior patterns in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 35:447–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broufas GD, Koveos DS (2000) Effect of different pollens on development, survivorship and reproduction of Euseius finlandicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ Entomol 29:743–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cédola CV, Sánchez NE, Liljesthröm GG (2002) Effect of tomato leaf hairiness on functional and numerical response of Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 25:819–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cortesero AM, Stapel JO, Lewis WJ (2000) Understanding and manipulating plant attributes to enhance biological control. Biol Control 17:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Almeida AA, Janssen A (2013) Juvenile prey induce antipredator behaviour in adult predators. Exp Appl Acarol 59:275–282PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. de Clercq P, Mohaghegh J, Tirry L (2000) Effect of host plant on the functional response of the predator Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Biol Control 18:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Laithy AYM, Fouly AH (1992) Life table parameters of the two phytoseiid predators Amblyseius scutalis (Athias-Henriot) and A. swirskii A.-H. (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in Egypt. J Appl Entomol 113:8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(6):660–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gnanvossou D, Hanna R, Dicke M (2003) Infochemical-mediated intraguild interactions among three predatory mites on cassava plants. Oecologia 135(1):84–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinz KM, Parrella MP (1994) Poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Koltz) cultivar-mediated differences in performance of five natural enemies of Bemisia argentifolii Bellows and Perring, n. sp. (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Biol Control 4:305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssen A, Willemse E, Van der Hammen T (2003) Poor host plant quality causes omnivore to consume predator eggs. J Anim Ecol 72:478–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krips OE, Kleijn PW, Willems PEL, Gols GJZ, Dicke M (1999) Leaf hairs influence searching efficiency and predation rate of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 23:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loomans AJM, van Lenteren JC, Tommasini MG, Maini S, Riudavets J (1995) Biological control of thrips pests. Wageningen Agricultural University papers 95-1. Veenman, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  14. Loughner R, Goldman K, Loeb G, Nyrop J (2008) Influence of leaf trichomes on predatory mite (Typhlodromus pyri) abundance in grape varieties. Exp Appl Acarol 45:111–122Google Scholar
  15. Loughner R, Wentworth K, Loeb G, Nyrop J (2010a) Influence of leaf trichomes on predatory mite density and distribution in plant assemblages and implications for biological control. Biol Control 54:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loughner R, Wentworth K, Loeb G, Nyrop J (2010b) Leaf trichomes influence predatory mite densities through dispersal behavior. Entomol Exp Appl 134:78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loughner R, Nyrop J, Wentworth K, Sanderson J (2011) Effects of supplemental pollen and fibers on canopy abundance of Amblyseius swirskii. IOBC Bull 68:105–109Google Scholar
  18. Madadi H, Enkegaard A, Brodsgaard HF, Kharrazi-Pakdel A, Mohaghegh J, Ashouri A (2007) Host plant effects on the functional response of Neoseiulus cucumeris to onion thrips larvae. J Appl Entomol 313:728–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Messelink GJ, Van Steenpaal SEF, Ramakers PMJ (2006) Evaluation of phytoseiid predators for control of western flower thrips on greenhouse cucumber. Biocontrol 51:753–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nomikou M, Janssen A, Schraag R, Sabelis MW (2001) Phytoseiid predators as potential biological control agents for Bemisia tabaci. Exp Appl Acarol 25:271–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Dowd DJ, Wilson MF (1991) Associations between mites and leaf domatia. Trends Ecol Evol 6:179–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ottoni EB (2000) EthoLog 2.2: a tool for the transcription and timing of behavior observation sessions. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 32:446–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Overmeer WPJ (1985) Rearing and handling. In: Helle W, Sabelis MW (eds) Spider mites: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 161–170Google Scholar
  24. Park HH, Shipp JL, Buitenhuis R (2010) Predation, development, and oviposition by the predatory mite Amblyseius swirkii (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on tomato russet mite (Acari: Eriophyidae). J Econ Entomol 103:563–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Robb KL (1989) Analysis of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) as a pest of floricultural crops in California. University of California, RiversideGoogle Scholar
  27. Roda A, Nyrop J, Dicke M, English-Loeb G (2000) Trichomes and spider-mite webbing protect predatory mite eggs from intraguild predation. Oecologia 125:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rott AS, Ponsonby DJ (2001) Control of two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae Kock (Acari: Tetranychidae) on edible crops in glasshouses using two interacting species of predatory mite. In: Halliday RB, Walter DE, Proctor HC, Norton RA, Colloff MJ (eds) Acarology: proceedings of the 10th international congress. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 387–391Google Scholar
  29. Sabelis MW, van Baalen M, Bakker FM, Bruin J, Drukker B, Egas M, Janssen ARM, Lesna IK, Pels B, Van Rijn PCJ, Scutareanu P (1999) The evolution of direct and indirect plant defence against herbivorous arthropods. In: Olff H, Brown VK, Drent RH (eds) Herbivores: between plants and predators. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, pp 109–166Google Scholar
  30. SAS Institute Inc. (2005) SAS/STAT user’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott Brown AS, Simmonds MS, Blaney WM (1999) Influence of species of host plants on the predation of thrips by Neoseiulus cucumeris, Iphiseius degenerans and Orius laevigatus. Entomol Exp Appl 92:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shipp JL, Boland GJ, Shaw LA (1991) Integrated pest management of disease and arthropod pests of greenhouse vegetable crops in Ontario: current status and future possibilities. Can J Plant Sci 71:887–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skirvin DJ, Fenlon JS (2001) Plant species modifies the functional response of Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) implications for biological control. Bull Entomol Res 91:61–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Southwood TRE (1986) Plant surfaces and insects—an overview. In: Juniper B, Southwood TRE (eds) Insects and the plant surface. Edward Arnold, London, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  35. Stavrinides MC, Skirvin DJ (2003) The effect of chrysanthemum leaf trichome density and prey spatial distribution on predation of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) by Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Bull Entomol Res 93:343–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sütterlin S, Van Lenteren JC (1997) Influence of hairiness of Gerbera jamesonii leaves on the searching efficiency of the parasitoid Encarsia formosa. Biol Control 9:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Haren RJF, Steenhuis MM, Sabelis MW, de Ponti OMB (1987) Tomato stem trichomes and dispersal success of Phytoseiulus persimilis relative to its prey Tetranychus urticae. Exp Appl Acarol 3:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Maanen R, Vila E, Sabelis MW, Janssen A (2010) Biological control of broad mites (Polyphagotarsonemus latus) with the generalist predator Amblyseius swirskii. Exp Appl Acarol 52:29–34PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu X, Enkegaard A (2010) Prey preference of the predatory mite, Amblyseius swirskii between first instar western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis and nymphs of the twospotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae. J Insect Sci 10:149PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemarije Buitenhuis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Les Shipp
    • 2
  • Cynthia Scott-Dupree
    • 3
  • Angela Brommit
    • 1
  • Wonhyo Lee
    • 4
  1. 1.Vineland Research and Innovation CentreVineland StationCanada
  2. 2.Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research CentreAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaHarrowCanada
  3. 3.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  4. 4.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations