Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp 47–61 | Cite as

Copulation duration, sperm transfer and reproduction of the two closely related phytoseiid mites, Neoseiulus womersleyi and Neoseiulus longispinosus (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

  • Mohammad Shaef Ullah
  • Ryouhei Sugimoto
  • Manita Kongchuensin
  • Ploychompoo Konvipasruang
  • Tetsuo Gotoh


The effects of copulation duration on reproduction were studied in two important biological control agents, Neoseiulus womersleyi (Schicha) and Neoseiulus longispinosus (Evans), to better understand their reproductive potential. The number of eggs produced was significantly and positively related to the copulation duration in both species. Egg production was observed even in females which experienced only 15 min of copulation and increased as copulation period increased in both species. Both pre- and post-oviposition periods of N. womersleyi and N. longispinosus decreased with the increase of copulation durations, and they were significantly different between the two species. Copulation duration had no effect on the female adult longevity of N. womersleyi and N. longispinosus, but N. womersleyi showed higher adult longevity than N. longispinosus. Fecundity remarkably increased in both species when the copulation period exceeded 90 min. The size of the spermatophore inside the spermathecae increased in proportion to the copulation duration in both species. Fecundity was consistent with the sizes of the spermathecae and spermatophores. When copulation was extended, males first filled one spermatheca and then filled the other. The results obtained in this study suggest that copulation duration had similar effects on egg production in N. womersleyi and N. longispinosus. Egg production depended on the quantity of sperm transferred during copulation. The two species have similar reproductive potentials and mating properties under laboratory conditions.


Copulation Spermatophore Reproduction Neoseiulus womersleyi Neoseiulus longispinosus 



We thank Dr. Yasuki Kitashima, Ibaraki University, for his valuable suggestions on this study. We thank three anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript.


  1. Alberti G, Coons LB (1999) Acari – Mites. In: Harrison FW (ed) Microscopic anatomy of invertebrates, vol 8C. Wiley, New York, pp 515–1265Google Scholar
  2. Amano H, Chant DA (1978) Mating behavior and reproductive mechanisms of two species of predacious mites, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acarina): Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 20:196–214Google Scholar
  3. Avila FW, Sirot LK, LaFlamme BA, Rubinstein CD, Wolfner MF (2011) Insect seminal fluid proteins: identification and function. Annu Rev Entomol 56:21–40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbosa FA (2011) Copulation duration in the soldier fly: the roles of cryptic male choice and sperm competition risk. Behav Ecol 22:1332–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castagnoli M, Liguori M (1991) Laboratory observations on duration of copulation and egg production of three phytoseiid species fed on pollen. In: Schuster R, Murphy PW (eds) The acari: reproduction, development, and life history strategies, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Di Palma A, Alberti G (2001) Fine structure of the female genital system in phytoseiid mites with remarks on egg nutrimentary development, sperm access system, sperm transfer, and capacitation (Acari, Gamasida, Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 25:525–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Edvardsson M, Canal D (2006) The effects of copulation duration in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Behav Ecol 17:430–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gotoh T, Tsuchiya A (2008) Effect of multiple mating on reproduction and longevity of the phytoseiid mite Neoseiulus californicus. Exp Appl Acarol 44:185–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ho CC, Lo KC, Chen WH (1995) Comparative biology, reproductive compatibility, and geographical distribution of Amblyseius longispinosus and A. womersleyi (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ Entomol 24:601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ji J, Zhang ZQ, Zhang YX, Chen X, Lin JZ (2007) Effects of mating rates on oviposition, sex ratio and longevity in a predatory mite Neoseiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 43:171–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. McMurtry JA, Moraes GJ, Sourassou NF (2013) Revision of the lifestyle of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. Syst Appl Acarol 18:297–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Momen VFM (1993) Effects of single and multiple copulation on fecundity, longevity and sex ratio of the predaceous mite Amblyseius barkeri (Hugh.) (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Anz Schädlingskd Pfl Umwelt 66:148–150 (In German with an English abstract) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nguyen TTP, Amano H (2010) Sperm reception and egg production of mating-interrupted, single-mated, and multiple-mated females of Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) at different temperatures (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J Acarol Soc Jap 19:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Overmeer WPJ, Doodeman M, van Zon AQ (1982) Copulation and egg production in Amblyseius potentillae and Typhlodromys pyri (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Z Angew Entomol 93:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pappas ML, Broufas GD, Koveos DS (2005) Mating behaviour of the predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 36:187–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pappas ML, Broufas GD, Koveos DS (2007) Effect of mating frequency on fecundity and longevity of the predatory mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp Appl Acarol 43:161–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sabelis MW (1985) Capacity for population increase. In: Helle W, Sabelis MW (eds) Spider mites: their biology, natural enemies and control, 1B. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 265–278Google Scholar
  18. SAS Institute (2010) SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 9.3. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  19. Schausberger P, Patiño-Ruiz JD, Osakabe M, Murata Y, Sugimoto N, Uesugi R, Walzer A (2016) Ultimate drivers and proximate correlates of polyandry in predatory mites. PLoS ONE 11:e0154355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Schulten GGM (1985) Mating. In: Helle W, Sabelis MW (eds) Spider mites: Their biology, natural enemies and control, vol 1B. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 55–65Google Scholar
  21. Schulten GGM, Vanarendonk RCM, Russell VM, Roorda FA (1978) Copulation, egg production and sex-ratio in Phytoseiulus persimilis and Amblyseius biben (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Entomol Exp Appl 24:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 456Google Scholar
  23. Singh A, Singh BN (2014) Mating latency, duration of copulation and fertility in four species of the Drosophila bipectinata complex. Indian J Exp Biol 52:175–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsunoda T (1994) Mating behavior of the predaceous mite, Amblyseius womersleyi Schicha (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Appl Entomol Zool 29:141–147Google Scholar
  25. Tsunoda T, Amano H (2001) Female mate-receptivity behavior in multiple matings of a predaceous mite, Amblyseius womersleyi Schicha (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Appl Entomol Zool 36:393–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walter DE, Proctor HC (2013) Mites: Ecology, evolution & behaviour: life at a microscale, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Walzer A, Schausberger P (2014) Canalization of body size matters for lifetime reproductive success of male predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Biol J Linnean Soc 111:889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walzer A, Schausberger P (2015) Interdependent effects of male and female body size plasticity on mating behaviour of predatory mites. Anim Behav 100:96–105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Zaher M, Momen FM, Rasmy AH, Nawar MS, Abou-Elella G (2007) Some factors affecting reproduction and sex-ratio of the predacious mite Amblyseius deleoni (Muma and Denmark) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Arch Phytopath Plant Protect 40:264–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Entomology and Zoology, Faculty of AgricultureIbaraki UniversityAmiJapan
  2. 2.Department of AgriculturePlant Protection Research and Development OfficeChatuchak, BangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations