Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 189–204 | Cite as

Neoseiulus paspalivorus, a predator from coconut, as a candidate for controlling dry bulb mites infesting stored tulip bulbs

  • Izabela Lesna
  • Fernando R. da Silva
  • Yukie Sato
  • Maurice W. Sabelis
  • Suzanne T. E. Lommen


The dry bulb mite, Aceria tulipae, is the most important pest of stored tulip bulbs in The Netherlands. This tiny, eriophyoid mite hides in the narrow space between scales in the interior of the bulb. To achieve biological control of this hidden pest, candidate predators small enough to move in between the bulb scales are required. Earlier experiments have shown this potential for the phytoseiid mite, Neoseiulus cucumeris, but only after the bulbs were exposed to ethylene, a plant hormone that causes a slight increase in the distance between tulip bulb scales, just sufficient to allow this predator to reach the interior part of the bulb. Applying ethylene, however, is not an option in practice because it causes malformation of tulip flowers. In fact, to prevent this cosmetic damage, bulb growers ventilate rooms where tulip bulbs are stored, thereby removing ethylene produced by the bulbs (e.g. in response to mite or fungus infestation). Recently, studies on the role of predatory mites in controlling another eriophyoid mite on coconuts led to the discovery of an exceptionally small phytoseiid mite, Neoseiulus paspalivorus. This predator is able to move under the perianth of coconuts where coconut mites feed on meristematic tissue of the fruit. This discovery prompted us to test N. paspalivorus for its ability to control A. tulipae on tulip bulbs under storage conditions (ventilated rooms with bulbs in open boxes; 23 °C; storage period June–October). Using destructive sampling we monitored predator and prey populations in two series of replicated experiments, one at a high initial level of dry bulb mite infestation, late in the storage period, and another at a low initial dry bulb mite infestation, halfway the storage period. The first and the second series involved treatment with N. paspalivorus and a control experiment, but the second series had an additional treatment in which the predator N. cucumeris was released. Taking the two series of experiments together we found that N. paspalivorus controlled the populations of dry bulb mites both on the outer scale of the bulbs as well as in the interior part of the bulbs, whereas N. cucumeris significantly reduced the population of dry bulb mites on the outer scale, but not in the interior part of the bulb. Moreover, N. paspalivorus was found predominantly inside the bulb, whereas N. cucumeris was only found on the outer scale, thereby confirming our hypothesis that the small size of N. paspalivorus facilitates access to the interior of the bulbs. We argue that N. paspalivorus is a promising candidate for the biological control of dry bulb mites on tulip bulbs under storage conditions in the Netherlands.


Biological control Tulip bulbs Dry bulb mites Eriophyidae Predatory mites Phytoseiidae Predator–prey interaction Body size Prey refuge Ethylene Herbivore-induced plant response New association 



The work presented in this article was enabled by funding from the following organizations: NWO-WOTRO Integrated Programme “Classical Biological control of the Invasive Coconut Mite in Africa and Asia”) (The Hague, The Netherlands), Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Productschap Tuinbouw (PT nr. 14745), Praktijkonderzoek Plant en Omgeving “Bomen en Bollen”, part of Wageningen UR (Lisse, The Netherlands). We are deeply grateful to Joris Glas and Merijn Kant (University of Amsterdam) for providing tomato russet mites as prey for rearing the predatory mite N. paspalivorus, and Koppert Biological Systems (Berkel en Rodenrijs, The Netherlands) for providing N. cucumeris. We thank Arie van der Lans and Martin van Dam for finding suitable lots of tulip bulbs, and Tom Koot for technical support of the storage facilities. Finally, we are indebted to all participants of a workshop held in Lisse (October, 2012) to evaluate the potential for the application of N. paspalivorus in the tulip bulb industry.


  1. Aratchige NS (2007) Biological control of rust mites in coconuts and tulip bulbs. PhD Thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Aratchige NS, Lesna I, Sabelis MW (2004) Below-ground plant parts emit herbivore-induced volatiles: olfactory responses of a predatory mite to tulip bulbs infested by rust mites. Exp Appl Acarol 33:21–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asjes CJ, Blom-Barnhoorn GJ (1998) Verspreiding tulpenvirus X in tulpen—Nu meer bekend over de overbrenger. Bloembollencultuur 15:18–19Google Scholar
  4. Conijn CGM, Van Aartrijk J, Lesna I (1996) Flower bulbs. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J, Pests World Crop (eds) Eriophyoid mites. Their biology, natural enemies and control, 6th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 651–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Kock MJD, Lommen STE, Lemmers MEC (2011) Voorkom vooral tulpengalmijt in bewaring: waakzaamheid voor TVX geboden. Bloembollenvisie 222:18–19Google Scholar
  6. De Munk WJ (1973) Bud necrosis, a storage disease of tulips IV. The influence of ethylene concentration and storage temperature on bud development. Eur J Plant Pathol 79:13–22Google Scholar
  7. Gude H, Dijkema M (2005) The use of 1-MCP as an inhibitor of ethylene action in tulip bulbs under laboratory and practical conditions. Acta Horticulturae 673:243–248Google Scholar
  8. Hadfield J (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33:1–22Google Scholar
  9. Hokkanen HMT, Pimentel D (1989) New associations in biological control—theory and practice. Canadian Entomol 121:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kamerbeek GA, de Munk WJ (1976) A review of ethylene effects in bulbous plants. Sci Hortic 4:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawson-Balagbo LM, Gondim MGC Jr, de Moraes GJ, Hanna R, Schausberger P (2008) Exploration of the acarine fauna on coconut palm in Brazil with emphasis on Aceria guerreronis (Acari: Eriophyidae) and its natural enemies. Bull Entomol Res 98:83–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lesna I, Conijn CGM, Sabelis MW (2005) From biological control to biological insight: rust-mite induced change in bulb morphology, a new mode of indirect plant defence? In: G. Weigmann, G. Alberti, A. Wohltmann and S. Ragusa (eds), Acarine Biodiversity in the Natural and Human Sphere. Phytophaga (Palermo) 14: 285–291Google Scholar
  13. Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) (1996) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. World Crop Pest Series Vol. 6, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 790 + xxxii ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Lommen STE, Conijn CGM, Lemmers MEC, Pham KTK, de Kock MJD (2012a) Mites as vector of tulip virus X in stored tulip bulbs. Integrated protection of stored products. IOBC-WPRS Bulletin 81:57–67Google Scholar
  15. Lommen S, Duyvesteijn R, Gude H (2012b) Kernrot in tulp: de risico’s ontrafeld, de mythe ontmanteld. Bloembollenvisie 250:20–21Google Scholar
  16. Lommen STE, Lesna I, Da Silva F, Sabelis M (2012c) Kleine roofmijt pakt tulpengalmijt effectief aan. Bloembollenvisie 260:22–23Google Scholar
  17. Negloh K, Hanna R, Schausberger P (2011) The coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis, in Benin and Tanzania: occurrence, damage and associated acarine fauna. Exp Appl Acarol 55:361–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  19. Sabelis MW (1996) Phytoseiidae. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. World Crop Pest Series, vol 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 427–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sabelis MW, Bruin J (1996) Evolutionary ecology: life history patterns, food plant choice and dispersal. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. World Crop Pest Series, vol 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 329–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sabelis MW, Lesna I, Aratchige NS (2007) A tritrophic perspective to the biological control of eriophyoid mites. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 30(5):91–93Google Scholar
  22. Sabelis MW, Janssen A, Lesna I, Aratchige NS, Nomikou M, van Rijn PCJ (2008) Developments in the use of predatory mites for biological pest control. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 12:187–199Google Scholar
  23. Sabelis MW, Janssen A, Lesna I (2012) Perspective: consequences of trait-mediated indirect interactions for biological control of plant pests. In: Ohgushi T, Schmitz OJ, Holt RD (eds) Chapter 22 in: interaction richness and complexity: ecological and evolutionary aspects of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Aartrijk J (2000) Ziekten en afwijkingen bij Bolgewassen. Deel l: Liliaceae. Derde Druk. Laboratorium voor Bloembollenonderzoek, Lisse, p 194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Izabela Lesna
    • 1
  • Fernando R. da Silva
    • 1
  • Yukie Sato
    • 1
  • Maurice W. Sabelis
    • 1
  • Suzanne T. E. Lommen
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Section Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem DynamicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Praktijkonderzoek Plant en Omgeving (PPO), Sector Bloembollen, Boomkwekerij en FruitWageningen URLisseThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Unit of Ecology and Evolution, Department of BiologyUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations