Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:34:32.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatiotemporal within-plant distribution of the spider mite Tetranychus urticae and associated specialist and generalist predators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2009

A. Walzer ,
K. Moder  and
P. Schausberger
A. Walzer*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Department of Applied Plant Sciences and Plant Biotechnology, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
K. Moder
Affiliation:
Institute of Applied Statistics and Computing, Department of Landscape, Spatial and Infrastructure Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
P. Schausberger
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Department of Applied Plant Sciences and Plant Biotechnology, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +43 1 47654 3359 E-mail: andreas.walzer@boku.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Predators are important determinants of the spatiotemporal distribution of prey within a given habitat. The predator effects may vary with diet specialisation, the associated risk posed to prey and, if multiple predators are present, the predator-predator interactions. We examined the spatiotemporal distribution of the herbivorous spider mite Tetranychus urticae and the associated specialist and generalist predators Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus on bean plants. Tetranychus urticae is a key pest on numerous agricultural crops. Both predators are used singly and in combination for biological control of spider mites. Population development and within-plant distribution of the spider mites and the predators were compared among five treatments: T. urticae without predators, with either predator alone and with both predators in combination at full and half densities. The spider mites were suppressed to zero density in both predator combination treatments but not in the single predator treatments. The predators determined the spatiotemporal distribution of the spider mites through density- and behaviour-mediated effects, and these effects were linked to diet specialisation. The specialist P. persimilis exerted stronger density-mediated effects on the spider mite distribution than did the generalist N. californicus. Either predator induced in the spider mites early upward migration on plants. The predators also affected each other's distribution. The aggregation level of N. californicus was lowered by P. persimilis but not vice versa. In combination, the predators were more dispersed than when alone, reducing the predator-free space and leading to the local extinction of T. urticae.

Keywords

TetranychidaePhytoseiulus persimilisNeoseiulus californicusdispersionaggregationanti-predation behaviourdensity-mediated effectsbehaviour-mediated effects

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 99 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 457 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, P.A. (1993) Why predation rate should not be proportional to predator density. Ecology 74, 726–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, H. (2002) State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioral interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. Evolutionary Ecology Research 4, 759–778.Google Scholar
Badii, M.H. & McMurtry, J.A. (1984) Life history of and life table parameters for Phytoseiulus longipes with comparative studies on P. persimilis and Typhlodromus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 25, 111–123.Google Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J.L. & Townsend, C.R. (1996) Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. 3rd edn.1068 pp. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Science Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, C. (1984) Prey and predator emigration responses in the acarine system Tetranychus urticae-Phytoseiulus persimilis. Oecologia 61, 134–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolker, B., Holyoak, M., Krivan, V., Rowe, L. & Schmitz, O. (2003) Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84, 1101–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühl, A. & Zöfel, P. (2002) SPSS 11. Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse unter Windows. München, Person Studium.Google Scholar
Cakmak, I., Janssen, A. & Sabelis, M.W. (2006) Intraguild interactions between the predatory mites Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus persimilis. Experimental and Applied Acarology 38, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, J.H. (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: Evidence from field experiments. American Naturalist 122, 661–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosse, G. (1958) Über einige neue Raubmilbenarten (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Pflanzenschutzberichte 21, 44–61.Google Scholar
Fernandez, M. (1998) Asian Indian Americans in the Bay Area and the glass ceiling. Sociological Perspectives 41, 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friese, D.D. & Gilstrap, F.E. (1982) Influence of prey availability on reproduction and prey consumption of Phytoseiulus persimilis, Amblyseius californicus, and Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). International Journal of Acarology 8, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Mari, F. & Gonzalez-Zamora, J.E. (1999) Biological control of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) with naturally occurring predators in strawberry plantings in Valencia, Spain. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23, 487–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, N.M., Liljeström, G.G. & Sanchez, N.E. (1999) Spatial distribution and coincidence of Neoseiulus californicus and Tetranychus urticae (Acari, Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae) on strawberry. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23, 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grostal, P. & Dicke, M. (1999) Direct and indirect cues of predation risk influence behavior and reproduction of prey: a case for acarine interactions. Behavioral Ecology 10, 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grostal, P. & Dicke, M. (2000) Recognising one's enemies: a functional approach to risk assessment by prey. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47, 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfman, G.S. (1989) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish-trumpetfish interactions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W. (Eds) (1985) Spider Mites: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Vol. 1A. 397 pp. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Janssen, A., Pallini, A., Venzon, M. & Sabelis, M.W. (1999) Absence of odour-mediated avoidance of heterospecific predators by the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 92, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerfoot, W.C. & Sih, A. (1987) Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. 386 pp. London, UK, University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, A.M. & Ives, A.R. (2003) Species interactions can explain Taylor's power law for ecological time series. Nature 422, 65–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lima, S.L. (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. BioScience 48, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, S.L. (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, S.L. & Dill, L.M. (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68, 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttbeg, B. & Kerby, J.L. (2005) Are scared prey as good as dead? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 416–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, W.L. & Laing, J.E. (1973) Biology, potential for increase and prey consumption of Amblyseius chilenensis (Dosse) (Acarina. Phytoseiidae). Entomophaga 18, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magalhães, S., Janssen, A., Hanna, R. & Sabelis, M.W. (2002) Flexible antipredator behavior in herbivorous mites through vertical migration in a plant. Oecologia 132, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMurtry, J.A. & Croft, B.A. (1997) Life styles of phytoseiid mites. Annual Review of Entomology 42, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nachman, G. & Zemek, R. (2002) Interactions in a tritrophic acarine predator-prey metapopulation system IV: effects of host plant condition on Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Experimental and Applied Acarology 26, 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onzo, A., Hanna, R., Sabelis, M.W. & Yaninek, J.S. (2005) Temporal and spatial dynamics of an exotic predatory mite and its herbivorous mite prey on cassava in Benin, West Africa. Environmental Entomology 34, 866–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallini, A., Janssen, A. & Sabelis, M.W. (1999) Spider mites avoid plants with predators. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23, 803–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacor, S.D. & Werner, E.E. (2001) The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 3904–3908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G.A. (1991) Complex trophic interactions in deserts: an empirical critique of food-web theory. American Naturalist 138, 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G.A. & Strong, D.R. (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist 147, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G.A., Myers, C.A. & Holt, R.D. (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, 297–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preisser, E.L., Bolnick, D.I. & Benard, M.F. (2005) Scared to death? Effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Relyea, R.A. (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84, 1827–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochette, R. & Dill, L.M. (2000) Mortality, behavior and the effects of predators on the intertidal distribution of littorinid gastropods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 253, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schausberger, P. & Walzer, A. (2001) Combined versus single species release of predaceous mites: predator-predator interactions and pest suppression. Biological Control 20, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T.W. (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist 122, 240–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T.W. (1989) Food webs from the small to the large. Ecology 70, 1559–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sih, A. (1986) Antipredator responses and the perception of danger by mosquito larvae. Ecology 67, 434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sih, A. (1997) To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in fluctuating environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, 375–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sih, A., Englund, G. & Wooster, D. (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 350–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, L.R. (1961) Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Baalen, M. & Sabelis, M.W. (1999) Nonequilibrium population dynamics of ‘ideal and free’ prey and predators. American Naturalist 154, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Geest, L.P.S. (1985) Aspects of physiology. pp. 171–184in Helle, W. & Sabelis, M.W. (Eds) Spider Mites: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Vol. 1A. Amsterdam, Netherlands, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Venzon, M., Pallini, A. & Janssen, A. (2001) Interactions mediated by predators in arthropod food webs. Neotropical Entomologist 30, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, A. & Schausberger, P. (1999a) Predation preferences and discrimination between con- and heterospecific prey by the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus. BioControl 43, 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, A. & Schausberger, P. (1999b) Cannibalism and interspecific predation in the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus: predation rates and effects on reproduction and juvenile development. BioControl 43, 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, A., Paulus, H.F. & Schausberger, P. (2006) Oviposition behavior of predatory mites: response to the presence of con- and heterospecific eggs. Journal of Insect Behavior 19, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, A., Moder, K. & Schausberger, P. (2007) Spatiotemporal within-plant distribution of the spider mite Tetranychus urticae confronted with specialist and generalist predators. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 30, 139–145.Google Scholar
Wilson, L.T., Hoy, M.A., Zalom, F.G. & Smilanick, J.M. (1984) Sampling mites in almonds: I. Within-tree distribution and clumping pattern of mites with comments on predator-prey interactions. Hilgardia 52, 1–13.Google Scholar
Yao, D.S. & Chant, D.A. (1989) Population growth and predation interference between two species of phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in interactive systems. Oecologia 80, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Z.Q. & Sanderson, J.P. (1995) Two-spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on greenhouse roses: spatial distribution and predator efficiency. Journal of Economic Entomology 88, 352–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z.Q., Sanderson, J.P. & Nyrop, J.P. (1992) Foraging time and spatial patterns of predation in experimental populations: A comparative study of three mite predator-prey systems (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae). Oecologia 90, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed