, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 421–423 | Cite as

Predatory efficiency and biology of the predatory mite,Amblyseius gossipi [Acarina: Phytoseiidae] as affected by plant surfaces

  • Aly H. Rasmy


The predatory mite,Amblyseius gossipiElbadry was reared on leaves of sour orange and fig. The sour orange leaves, which have smooth surfaces, promoted a faster development and a higher rate of prey consumption, whereas the hairy fig leaves led to a retardation in the predator development and a lower rate of prey consumption. The distinct preference of this predator for smooth leaves explains its abundance on citrus trees and its scarcity on fig trees. Thus, „thigmotaxis” is not a common feature among predacious mites but a specific character.


Plant Pathology Smooth Surface Specific Character Plant Surface Fast Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


L'acarien prédateur,Amblyseius gossipiElbadry a été élevé sur des feuilles de bigarradier et de figuier. Les premières à surface lisse déterminent un développement plus rapide et un taux de prédation plus élevé, alors que les feuilles poilues du figuier causent un retard dans le développement du prédateur et une moindre activité alimentaire. La préférence pour les feuilles lisses explique l'abondance de ce prédateur dans les citrus et sa rareté dans les figuiers. Ainsi, le «thigmotactisme» n'est pas un phénomène commun chez les acariens prédateurs mais un caractère spécifique.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Breukel, L. M. &Post, A. — 1959. The influence of manurial treatment on the population density ofMetatetranychus ulmi (Koch) [Acari, Tetranychidae]. —Entomol. Exp. Appl., 2, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collyer, E. — 1958. Some insectary experiments with predaceous mites to determine their effect on the development ofMetatetranychus ulmi (Koch) populations. —Entomol. Exp. Appl., 1, 138–146.Google Scholar
  3. Downing, R. S. &Moilliet, T. K. — 1967. Relative densities of predaceous and phytophagous mites on three varieties of apple trees. —Can. Entomol., 99, 738–741.Google Scholar
  4. Eritzsche, R. — 1957. Abhängigkeit der Spinnmilbenvermehrung von dem Ernährungzaustand der Wirtspflanzen. —Tag Ber. dt. Akad. LandWiss. Berl., 17, 55–63.Google Scholar
  5. Fleschner, C. A. — 1958. Field approach to population studies of tetranychid mites on citrus and avocado in California. —Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Entomol., Montreal (1956) 2, 669–674.Google Scholar
  6. Kuenen, D. J. — 1949. The fruit tree red spider mite (Metatetranychus ulimi Koch (Tetranychidae, Acari) and its relation to its host plant. —Tijdschr. Entomol., 91, 83–120.Google Scholar
  7. Rasmy, Aly H. &Elbanhawy, E. M. — 1974. Behavior and bionomics of the predatory mite,Phytoseius plumifer [Acarina, Phytoseiidae] as affected by physical surface features of host plant. —Entomophaga, 19, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Putman, W. L. — 1962. Life history and behavior of the predaceous mitesTyphlodromus (T.)caudiglans Schuster [Acarina: Phytoseiidae] in Ontario, with notes on the prey of related species. —Can. Entomol., 94, 163–177.Google Scholar
  9. Stoner, A. K., Frank, J. A. &Gentie, G. A. — 1968. The relationship of glandular hairs on tomatoes to spider mite resistance. —Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 93, 532–538.Google Scholar
  10. Van de Vrie, M., McMurtry, J. A. &Huffaker, C. B. — 1972. Ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural ennemies. —Hilgardia, 41, 343–432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Le François 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aly H. Rasmy
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Protection Dept.National Research Centre, DokkiCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations