Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:21:26.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant species modifies the functional response of Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae): implications for biological control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D.J. Skirvin  and
J.S. Fenlon
D.J. Skirvin*
Affiliation:
Horticulture Research International, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF, UK
J.S. Fenlon
Affiliation:
Horticulture Research International, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF, UK
*
*Fax: 01789 470552 E-mail: dave.skirvin@hri.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The functional response of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot to eggs of its prey, the spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch was examined on three plant species. Experiments were done to determine whether differences in the functional response on the three plant species were due to the morphological features of the crop directly on the predator or through an effect of the plant species on the prey. The results show that crop morphology is the only factor influencing the predatory ability of P. persimilis on the three plant species. Fewer eggs were eaten on Ceanothus thyrsiflorus var. ‘Autumnal Blue’, the plant species with hairy leaves, and greater numbers of prey consumed on Choisya ternata, a species with smooth leaves. However, similarly few eggs were eaten on the smooth, but waxy leaved Euonymus japonicus as on Ceanothus thyrsiflorus, demonstrating that morphological characters of leaves other than the possession of hairs and trichomes may affect the rates of predation. The implications of these results for the tritrophic interactions between plant, predator and prey, and the development of suitable biological control strategies are discussed.

Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 61 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbot, W.S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18, 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranham, J.E. & Helle, W. (1985) Pesticide resistance in Tetranychidae. pp. 405–422in Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W. (Eds) Spider mites – their biology, natural enemies and control, Vol 1B. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Croft, P., Fenlon, J., Jacobson, R.J. & Dubas, J. (1999) Effect of tomato conditioning on Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acari: Phytoseiidae) population growth. IOBC WPRS Bulletin 22(1), 45–48.Google Scholar
Cronquist, A. (1981) An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hislop, R.G. & Prokopy, R.J. (1981) Mite predator response to prey and predator-emitted stimuli. Journal of Chemical Ecology 7, 895–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holling, C.S. (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Canadian Entomologist 91, 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, N.W. & Scopes, N.E.A. (1985) Greenhouse vegetables (Britain) pp. 285–298 in Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W. (Eds) Spider mites – their biology, natural enemies and control, Vol 1B. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hussey, N.W., Parr, W.J. & Gould, H.J. (1965) Observations on the control of Tetranychus urticae Koch on cucumbers by the predatory mite Phytoseiulus riegeli Dosse. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 8, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropczynska, D. & Tomczyk, A. (1996) Development of Tetranychus urticae Koch and Tetranychus cinnabarinus Boisd. populations on sweet pepper and Phytoseiulus persimilis (A-H.) effectiveness in their control. IOBC WPRS Bulletin 19(1), 71–74.Google Scholar
Martin, N.A., Workman, P.J. & Marais, T. (1996) IPM for greenhouse crops in New Zealand: progress, problems and prospects. IOBC WPRS Bulletin 19(1), 99–102.Google Scholar
Nachman, G. (1981) Temporal and spatial dynamics of an acarine predator–prey system. Journal of Animal Ecology 50, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P.W., Bouton, C.E., Gross, P., McPheron, B.A., Thompson, J.N. & Weis, A.E. (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between herbivores and natural enemies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, C. & Capelletti, G. (1998) Relationship between some morphological structures and locomotion of Clithostethus orcuatus Rossi (Coleoptera; Coccinellidae), a whitefly predator. Frustula Entomologica 11, 195–202.Google Scholar
Ryoo, M.I. (1986) Studies on the basic components of the predation of Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Researches on Population Ecology 28, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelis, M.W. (1981) Biological control of two-spotted spider mites using phytoseiid predators. Part I. Modelling the predator–prey interaction at the individual level. Agricultural Research Reports, Pudoc, Wageningen 910.Google Scholar
Sabelis, M.W. (1986) The functional response of predatory mites to the density of two spotted spider mites. pp. 298–321 in Metz, J.A.J. & Diekman, O. (Eds) Lecture notes in biomathematics 68: the dynamics of physiologically structured populations. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sabelis, M.W., Van Baalen, M., Bakker, F.M., Bruin, J., Drukker, B., Egas, M., Janssen, A.R.M., Lesna, I.K., Pels, B., Van Rijn, P.C.J. & Scutareanu, P. (1999) The evolution of direct and indirect plant defence against herbivorous arthropods. pp. 109–166 in Olff, H., Brown, V.K. & Drent, R.H. (Eds) Herbivores: between plants and predators. Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Skirvin, D.J. & de Courcy Williams, M.E. (1999) Differential effects of plant species on a mite pest (Tetranychus urticae) and its predator (Phytoseiulus persimilis): implications for biological control. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23, 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sütterlin, S. & van Lenteren, J.C. (1997) Influence of hairiness of Gerbera jamesonii leaves on the searching efficiency of the parasitoid Encarsia formosa. Biological Control 9, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Haren, R.J.F., Steenhuis, M.M., Sabelis, M.W. & De Ponti, O.M.B. (1987) Tomato stem trichomes and dispersal success of Phytoseiulus persimilis relative to its prey Tetranychus urticae. Experimental and Applied Acarology 3, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, D.E. & O'Dowd, D.J. (1992) Leaf morphology and predators: effect of leaf domatia on the abundance of predatory mites (Acari; Phytoseiidae). Environmental Entomology 21, 478–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar