Acta Biologica

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Acta Biologica


ISSN: 2450-8330     eISSN: 2353-3013    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/ab.2019.26-07
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ

Issue archive / No. 26
Tetranychus urticae changes its oviposition pattern in the presence of the predatory mites, Phytoseiulus persimilis and Typhlodromus bagdasarjani

Authors: Mona Moghadasi
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Azadeh Zahedi Golpayegani
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Alireza Saboori
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Hossein Allahyari
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Hamideh Dehghani Tafti
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Keywords: oviposition spider mite predation parental care Phytoseiidae
Data publikacji całości:2019
Page range:17 (65-81)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Oviposition behaviors in herbivorous mites are affected by several factors i.e. food availability for juveniles and reduced predation risks. We used the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Tetranychidae) to find out whether the previous presence of specialist/ generalist phytoseiid predator individuals, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot/ Typhlodromus bagdasarjani Wainstein & Arutunjan (here, direct effect) or their previous odour perception by prey (here, indirect effect) would affect T. urticae oviposition strategies. Tetranychus urticae female individuals were placed on a leaf disc in a plastic container with predators either on the same disc (direct presence of predator) or on the second disc (receiving odours related to a predator) in the same container. Getting experienced, the prey individuals transferred to the oviposition container to their oviposition pattern parameters get recorded. The ovipositing T. urticae were monitored in two experimental situations: 1. Receiving odours related to the predator- prey interaction from the second leaf disc in the same oviposition container during their oviposition period, and 2. Receiving no odour. Our results showed that when T. urticae females perceived the predator presence in their first container (with either predator species, both direct and indirect effect), they reduced their total egg distances, oviposition rates and oviposition periods significantly regardless of receiving odours related to prey-predator interactions during experiment. Receiving odours during oviposition, T. urticae females decreased their pairwise egg distances in at least 4 and at most 6 pairs of eggs, while when odours were absent during oviposition, the distances decreased in at least 2 and at most 3 pairs of eggs. The direct presence of P. persimilis reduced the prey oviposition period significantly more than that when T. bagdasarjani was present. The spider mites oviposition rate reduction was obviousely more than that in the presence of T. bagdasarjani. The different effects of predator species on T. urticae egg distances were discussed.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Abrams, P.A. (1996). Dynamics and interactions in food webs with adaptive foragers. In: G.A. Polis, K.O. (eds.), Winemiller Food webs: Integration of patterns and dynmics (pp. 149–159). New York: Chapman and Hall.
2.Chittenden, A.R., Saito, Y. (2001). Why are there feeding and nonfeeding larvae in phytoseiid mites (Acari, Phytoseiidae)? Journal of Ethology, 19, 55–62.
3.Choh, Y., Takabayashi, J. (2006). Intact lima bean plants exposed to herbivore-induced plant volatiles attract predatory mites and spider mites at different levels according to plant parts. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 41, 537–543.
4.Choh, Y., Uefune, M., Takabayashi, J. (2010). Predation-related odours reduce oviposition in a herbivorous mite. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 50, 1–8.
5.De Almedia, Ȃ.A., Janssen, A. (2013). Juvenile prey induce antipredator behavior in adult predators. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 59, 275–282.
6.Dias, C.R., Guimarães Bernardo, A.M., Mencalha, J., Freitas, C.W.C., Sarmento, R.A., Pallini, A., Jans-sen, A. (2016). Experimental and Applied Acarology, 69 (3), 263–276.
7.Dicke, M., Sabelis, M.W., de Jong, M. (1988). Analysis of prey preference in phytoseiid mites by using an olfactometer, predation models and electrophoresis. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 5, 225–241. Dittmann, L., Schausberger, P. (2017). Adaptive aggregation by spider mites under predation risk. Scientific
8.Reports, 7, 10609. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10819-8.
9.Faraji, F., Janssen, A., van Rijn, P.C.J., Sabelis, M.W. (2000). Kin recognition by the predatory mite Iphi-
10.seius degenerans: discrimination among own, conspecific, and heterospecific eggs. Ecological Entomology, 25, 147–155.
11.Farazmand, A., Fathipour, Y., Kamali, K. (2013). Predation preference of Neoseiulus californicus and Typh-lodromus bagdasarjani on heterospecific phytoseiid and Scolothrips longicornis in presence and absence of Tetranychus urticae. Persian Journal of Acarology, 2 (1), 181–188.
12.Fernández Ferrari, M.C., Schausberger, P. (2013). From repulsion to attraction: species- and spatial context-dependent threat sensitive response of the spider mite Tetranychus urticae to predatory mite cues. Naturwissenchaften, 100, 541–549.
13.Gnanvossou, D., Yaninek, J.S., Hanna, R., Dicke, M. (2003). Effects of prey mite species on life history of the phytoseiid predators Typhlodromalus manihoti and Typhlodromalus aripo. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 30, 265–278.
14.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 (4), 422–427.
15.Hackl, T., Schausberger, P. (2014). Learned predation risk management by spider mites. Ecology and Evolution, 2, 1–7.
16.Hoffmeister, T.S., Roitberg, B.D. (1997). Counterespionage in an insect herbivore-parasitoid system. Naturwissenchaften, 84, 1–3.
17.Kroon, A., Veenendaal, R.L., Bruin, J., Egas, M., Sabelis, M.W. (2008). “Sleeping with the enemy” – predator induced diapause in a mite.
18.Naturwissenschaften, 95, 1195–1198.
19.Landeros, J., Guevara, L.P., Badii, M.H., Flores, A.E., Pamanes, A. (2004). Effect of different densities of the two spotted spider mite
20.Tetranychus urticae on CO2 assimilation, transpiration, and stomatal behavior in rose leaves. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 32,
21.187–198.
22.Lemos, F., Sarmento, R.A., Pallini, A., Dias, A.R., Sabelis, M.W., Janssen, A. (2010). Spider mite we medi-atesanti-predator behavior.
23.Experimental and Applied Acarology, 52, 1–10.
24.Lima, S.L., Dill, L.M. (1990). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
25.68, 619–640.
26.Lopez-sepulcre, A., Kokko, H. (2002). The role of kin recognition in the evolution of conspecific brood parasitism. Animal Behavior, 64,
27.215–222.
28.McMurtry, J.A., De Moraes, G.J., Sourassou, N.F. (2013). Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications
29.for biological control strategies. Systematic and Applied Aca-rology, 18 (4): 297–320.
30.Moghadasi, M., Saboori, A., Allahyari, H., Zahedi Golpayegani, A. (2013). Prey stages preference of different stages of Typhlodromus
31.bagdasarjani (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tet-ranychidae) on rose. Persian Journal of Acarology, 2 (3), 531–538.
32.Montserrat, M., Bas, C., Magalhaes, S., Sabelis, M.W., de Roos, A.M., Janssen, A. (2007). Predators induce egg retention in prey.
33.Behavioural Ecology, 150, 699–705.
34.Pallini, A., Janssen, A., Sabelis, M.W. (1999). Spider mites avoid plants with predators. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 23, 803–815.
35.Pizzol, J., Poncet, C., Hector, S., Ziegler, M. (2006). Preventive IPM for greenhouse roses in the South of France. Bulletin OILB/SROP, 29
36.(4), 31–36.
37.Pijanowska, J. (1997). Alarm signals in Daphnia. Oecologia, 112, 12–16.
38.Schausberger, P. (2005). The predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis manipulates imprinting among offspring through egg placement.
39.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58, 53–59.
40.Shave, C.R., Townsend, C.R., Crowl, T.A. (1994). Anti-predator behaviours of a freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops zealandicus) to a native
41.and an introduced predator. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 18 (1), 1–10.
42.Shimoda, T., Kishimoto, H., Takabayashi, J., Amano, H., Dicke, M. (2009). Comparison of thread-cutting behavior in three specialist
43.predatory mites to cope with complex webs of Tetranychus spider mites. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 47, 111–120.
44.Skaloudova, B., Zemek, R., Krivan, V. (2007). The effect of predation risk on an acarine system. Animal Behaviour, 74, 813–821.
45.Zeraatkar, A., Zahedi Golpayegani, A., Saboori, A. (2013). Kin recognition in three samples of Phytosei-ulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae).
46.Persian Journal of Acarology, 2 (2), 311–319.