Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 205–215 | Cite as

Factors determining species displacement of related predatory mite species (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

  • Tetsuo Gotoh
  • Masumi Hanawa
  • Sayaka Shimazaki
  • Natsuki Yokoyama
  • Chun-Qing Fu
  • Reo Sugawara
  • Shuichi Yano
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Neoseiulus womersleyi (Acari: Phytoseiidae) used to be the dominant species in fruit-tree orchards throughout Japan, but starting in the 1990s, N. womersleyi began to be displaced by Neoseiulus californicus in central and southwestern Japan. The present study was conducted to examine factors explaining the displacement of N. womersleyi by N. californicus. First, we confirmed under laboratory conditions that N. californicus could exclude N. womersleyi if they initially coexisted in a 1:1 ratio. During a 2-h continuous observation period, none of the heterospecific pairs had copulated and after 5 days together with heterospecific males, none of the females had laid eggs. When these females were placed with conspecific males, normal numbers of offspring were produced. Moreover, conspecific matings were not substantially disturbed in the presence of heterospecific males or females. Total fecundity was significantly lower in N. womersleyi than in N. californicus, but their r m values did not differ from each other. On the other hand, the frequency of intraguild predation by N. californicus on N. womersleyi was significantly higher than vice versa. From these results, we concluded that not reproductive interference nor differential female fecundity but asymmetrical intraguild predation seemed to explain the competitive exclusion of N. womersleyi by N. californicus.

Keywords

Species displacement Reproductive interference Reproductive performance Asymmetrical intraguild predation Neoseiulus womersleyi Neoseiulus californicus 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amano H (2001) Species structure and abundance of invertebrate natural enemies in sustainable agroecosystems. In: Shiomi M, Koizumi H (eds) Structure and function in agroecosystem design and management. CRC Press, New York, pp 167–182Google Scholar
  2. Amano H, Ishii Y, Kobori Y (2004) Pesticide susceptibility of two dominant phytoseiid mites, Neoseiulus californicus and N. womersleyi, in conventional Japanese fruit orchards (Gamasina: Phytoseiidae). J Acarol Soc Jpn 13:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch LC (1948) The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. J Anim Ecol 17:15–26Google Scholar
  4. Braks MAH, Honorio NA, Lounibos LP, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R, Juliano SA (2004) Interspecific competition between two invasive species of container mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), in Brazil. Ann Entomol Soc Am 97:130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castagnoli M, Liguori M, Simoni S (1999) Effect of two different host plants on biological features of Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor). Int J Acarol 25:145–150Google Scholar
  6. Croft BA, Macrae IV (1993) Biological control of apple mites: impact of Zetzellia mali (Acari: Stigmaeidae) on Typhlodromus pyri and Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ Entomol 22:865–873Google Scholar
  7. Duso C, Pasqualetto C, Camporese P (1991) Role of the predatory mites Amblyseius aberrans Oud., Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and Amblyseius andersoni Chant (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in vineyards: II. Minimum releases of Amblyseius aberrans and Typhlodromus pyri to control spider mite populations (Acari, Tetranychidae). J Appl Entomol 112:298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehara S (1964) Some mites of the families Phytoseiidae and Blattisocidae from Japan (Acarina: Mesostigmata). J Fac Sci Hokkaido Univ Ser 6 Zool 15:378–394Google Scholar
  9. Escudero LA, Ferragut F (2005) Life-history of predatory mites Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on four spider mite species as prey, with special reference to Tetranychus evansi (Acari: Tetranychidae). Biol Control 32:378–384Google Scholar
  10. Fujimoto H, Hiramatsu T, Takafuji A (1996) Reproductive interference between Panonychus mori Yokoyama and P. citri (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae) in peach orchards. Appl Entomol Zool 31:59–65Google Scholar
  11. Gotoh T (1986) Life-history parameters of the hawthorn spider mite, Tetranychus viennensis Zacher (Acarina: Tetranychidae), on deciduous oak. Appl Entomol Zool 21:389–393Google Scholar
  12. Gotoh T, Tsuchiya A (2008) Effect of multiple mating on reproduction and longevity of the phytoseiid mite Neoseiulus californicus. Exp Appl Acarol 44:185–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gotoh T, Yamaguchi K, Mori K (2004) Effect of temperature on life history of the predatory mite Amblyseius (Neoseiulus) californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 32:15–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gotoh T, Akizawa T, Watanabe M, Tsuchiya A, Shimazaki S (2005) Cold hardiness of Neoseiulus californicus and N. womersleyi (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J Acarol Soc Jpn 14:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gotoh T, Tsuchiya A, Kitashima Y (2006) Influence of prey on developmental performance, reproduction and prey consumption of Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 40:189–204Google Scholar
  16. Gröning J, Hochkirch A (2008) Reproductive interference between animal species. Q Rev Biol 83:257–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gröning J, Lücke N, Finger A, Hochkirch A (2007) Reproductive interference in two ground-hopper species: testing hypotheses of coexistence in the field. Oikos 116:1449–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamamura T (1986) Studies on the biological control of Kanzawa spider mite, Tetranychus kanzawai Kishida by the chemical resistant predacious mite, Amblyseius longispinosus (Evans) in tea fields (Acarina: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae). Bull Natl Res Inst Tea 21:121–201 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  19. Hochkirch A, Gröning J, Bücker A (2007) Sympatry with the devil: reproductive interference could hamper species coexistence. J Anim Ecol 76:633–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kishimoto H (2002) Species composition and seasonal occurrence of spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their predators in Japanese pear orchards with different agrochemical spraying programs. Appl Entomol Zool 37:603–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kustutan O, Cakmak I (2009) Development, fecundity, and prey consumption of Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) fed Tetranychus cinnabarinus Boisduval. Turk J Agric For 33:19–28Google Scholar
  22. Lawo J-P, Lawo NC (2011) Misconceptions about the comparison of intrinsic rates of natural increase. J Appl Entomol 135:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee JH, Ahn JJ (2000) Temperature effects on development, fecundity, and life table parameters of Amblyseius womersleyi (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ Entomol 29:265–271Google Scholar
  24. McMurtry JA, Croft BA (1997) Life-style of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Annu Rev Entomol 42:291–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monetti LN, Croft BA (1997) Mating, cross-mating and related behaviours of Neoseiulus californicus and Neoseiulus fallacis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 21:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munger F (1957) Equipment and technique used in laboratory studies of the citrus red mite. USDA Agric Res Serv 33(39):1–5Google Scholar
  27. Reitz SR, Trumble JT (2002) Competitive displacement among insects and arachnids. Annu Rev Entomol 47:435–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sabelis MW (1985) Predation on spider mites. In: Helle W, Sabelis MW (eds) Spider mites: their biology, natural enemies and control, vol B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 103–129Google Scholar
  29. Saito Y, Mori H (1981) Parameters related to potential rate of population increase of three predacious mites in Japan (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Appl Entomol Zool 16:45–47Google Scholar
  30. Schausberger P, Walzer A (2001) Combined versus single species release of predaceous mites: predator–predator interactions and pest suppression. Biol Control 20:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. WH Freeman & Company, New York, p 887Google Scholar
  32. SPSS (2002) SPSS 11.5 J Brief Guide. SPSS Inc, Tokyo, p 160 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  33. Suzuki N, Osawa N, Nishida T (2012) Asymmetric reproductive interference between specialist and generalist predatory ladybirds. J Anim Ecol 81:1077–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takafuji A, Kuno E, Fujimoto H (1997) Reproductive interference and its consequences for the competitive interactions between two closely related Panonychus spider mites. Exp Appl Acarol 21:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walzer A, Schausberger P (1999) Predation preferences and discrimination between con- and heterospecific prey by the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus. Biocontrol 43:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wyatt IJ, White PF (1977) Simple estimation of intrinsic increase rates for aphids and tetranychid mites. J Appl Ecol 14:757–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tetsuo Gotoh
    • 1
  • Masumi Hanawa
    • 1
  • Sayaka Shimazaki
    • 1
  • Natsuki Yokoyama
    • 1
  • Chun-Qing Fu
    • 1
  • Reo Sugawara
    • 1
  • Shuichi Yano
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Entomology and Zoology, Faculty of AgricultureIbaraki UniversityAmiJapan
  2. 2.Laboratory of Ecological Information, Graduate School of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations