Intraguild predation among predatory mites through the presence of leaf domatia
Main Article Content
Abstract
Predatory mites Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) y Zetzellia mali (Ewing) (Acari: Stigmaeidae) have the potential to regulate pest mite population in different crops. One of the characteristics that influence its efficiency of control is the domatia on leaves through the interactions between phytoseiids and stigmeids predators. Domatia provide shelter and avoid intragremial predation between these two groups. Domatia shows difference between cultivars, which display within certain crops that imply an influence on the amount of natural enemies in the leaves. The objective of this essay is to analyze the important components that involve the presence of domatia in the leaves, besides understand how it could be an alternative to reduce the damage of mite pest of an agroecosystem. The complexity of the habitat around the domatia is a factor that could determine the abundance of natural enemies in the crop. Knowing domatia system could help farmers to reduce pesticide application and increase the efficacy of pest integrated management of mite pest using biological control. The adoption of pest management by cultivar is not widely known in the agricultural area and research is necessary to explain the benefits of the presence of domatia in mite pest control.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have publications with this journal accept the following terms of the License Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0):
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
The journal is not responsible for the opinions and concepts expressed in the works, they are the sole responsibility of the authors. The Editor, with the assistance of the Editorial Committee, reserves the right to suggest or request advisable or necessary modifications. They are accepted to publish original scientific papers, research results of interest that have not been published or sent to another journal for the same purpose.
The mention of trademarks of equipment, instruments or specific materials is for identification purposes, and there is no promotional commitment in relation to them, neither by the authors nor by the publisher.
How to Cite
References
Agrawal, A.A.; R. Karban. 1997. Domatia mediate plant-arthropod mutualism. Nature 387: 562-563.
Agrawal, A.A.; R. Karban; R.G. Colfer. 2000. How leaf domatia and induced plant resistance affect herbivores, natural enemies and plant performance. Oikos 89: 70-80.
Clements, D.R.; R. Harmsen.1990 Predatory behaviour and prey-stage preferences of stigmaeid and phytoseiid mites and their potential compatibility in biological control. Can. Ent. 122: 321-328.
Clements, D.R.; R. Harmsen. 1992. Stigmaeid-phytoseiid interactions and the impact of natural enemy complexes on plant-inhabiting mites. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 14: 327-341.
Croft, B.A.; I.V. MacRae. 1993. Biological control of apple mites: impact of Zetzellia mali (Acari: Stigmaeidae) on Typhlodromus pyri and Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ. Entomol. 22(4): 865-873.
Croft, B.A.; J.A. Murtry; H.K. Luh. 1998. Do literature records of predation reflect food specialization and predation types among phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae)? Exp. Appl. Acarol. 22: 467-480.
Croft, B.A.; J.S. Blackwood; J.A. McMurtry. 2004. Classifying life-style types of phytoseiid mites: diagnostic traits. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 33: 247-260.
Dicke, M. 1998. Direct and indirect effects of plants on beneficial organisms. In Handbook of pest management, J.R. Ruberson (ed.), pp. 105–153.Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York.
Duso, C. 1992. Role of Amblyseius aberrans (Oud.), Typhlodromus pyri (Scheuten) and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards. J. Appl. Ent. 114: 455-462.
English-Loeb, G.; A.P. Norton; A. Walter. 2002. Behavioral and population consequences of acarodomatia in grapes on phytoseiid mites (Mesostigmata) and implications for plant breeding. Entomol. Exp. Appl.104: 307-319.
Ferrerira, J.A.M.; F.S.C. Dayson; A. Pallini; M.W. Sabelis; A. Janssen. 2011. Leaf domatia reduce intraguid predation among predatory mites. Ecological Entomology 36:435-41.
Jansen, V.A.A.; M.W. Sabellis. 1992. Prey dispersal and predator persistence. Experimental and Applied Acarology 14: 215-231
Kasai, A.; S. Yano;A. Takafuji. 2002. Density of the eriophyid mite inhabiting the domatia of Cinnamomum camphora Linn affects the density of the predatory mite, Amblyseius sojaensis Ehara (Acari: Phytoseiidae), not inhabiting the domatia. Appl. Entomol. Zool 37:617–619.
Kasai, A.; S. Yano;A. Takafuji. 2005. Prey-predator mutualism in a tritrophic system on a camphor tree. Ecol Res 20: 163-166.
Kreiter, S.; M.S. Tixier; B.A. Croft; P. Auger; D. Barret. 2002. Plants and leaf characteristics influencing the predaceous mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in habitats surrounding vineyards. Environ. Entomol. 31(4): 648-660.
Lester, P.J.; H.M.A. Thistlewood; R. Harmsen. 2000. Some effects of pre-release host-plant on the biological control of Panonychus ulmi by the predatory mite Amblyseius fallacis. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 24: 19-33.
Loughner, R.; K. Goldman; G. English-Loeb; J. Nyrop. 2008. Influence of leaf trichomes on predatory mite (Typhlodromus pyri) abundance in grape varieties. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 45: 111-122.
O’Dowd, D.J.; M.F. Willson. 1991. Associations between mites and leaf domatia. Trends in Ecolog. Evol. 6(6): 179-182.
Onzo, A.; H. Rachid; I. Zannou; M.W. Sabelis; J. Yaninek. 2003. Dynamics of refuge use: diurnal, vertical migration by predatory and herbivorous mites within cassava plants. Oikos 101: 59-69.
MacRae, I.V.; B.A. Croft. 1996. Differential impact of egg predation by Zetzelliamali (Acari: Stigmaeidae) on Metaseiulus occidentalis and Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 20: 143-154.
Matos, C.H.C.; A. Pallini; F.F. Chaves; J.H. Schoereder; A. Janssen. 2006. Do domatia mediate mutualistic interactions between coffee plants and predatory mites? Entomol.Exper. Appl. 118: 185-192.
Nishida, S.; A. Naiki, T. 2005. Morphological variation in leaf domatia enables coexistence of antagonistic mites in Cinnamomum camphora. Can. J. Bot. 83:93-101.
Norton, A.P.; G. English-Loeb; E. Belden. 2001. Host plant manipulation of natural enemies: leaf domatia protect beneficial mites from insect predators. Oecologia 126: 535-542.
Pratt, P.D.; B.A. Croft. 2000. Screening of predatory mites as potential control agents of pest mites in landscape plant nurseries of the Pacific Northwest. J. Environ. Hort. 18(4): 218-223.
Potter, D.A.; P.G. Spicer. 1993. Seasonal phenology, management, and host preferences of potato leafhopper on nursery-grown maples. J. Environ. Hort. 11(3): 101-106.
Prado, J.; C. Quesada; C. Sadof. 2014a. Effects of pesticide application on Arthropod pests of nursery grown maples. J. Econ. Entomol. 107(2): 708-717.
Prado, J.; C. Quesada; C. Sadof; M. Mickelbart. 2014b. Effects of Fertilization on Potato Leafhopper and Maple Spider Mite on Nursery Grown Maples. J. Econ. Entomol. 108(3): 1221-7.
Prado, J.; A. Witte; C. Sadof. 2015. Do Leaf Domatia Mediate Intraguild Predation and Host Plant Resistance to Olygonichus aceris (Shimer) on Red Sunset (Acer rubrum)? Biological Control 90:187-192.
Polis, G.A.; C.A. Myers; R.D. Holt. 1989. The Ecology and Evolution of Intraguild Predation: Potential Competitors that Eat Each Other. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 297-330.
Reyes-Bello, J.C.; N.C. Mesa-Cobo; T. Kondo. 2011. Biología de Oligonychus yothersi (McGregor) (Acari: Tetranychidae) sobre aguacate Persea americana Mill. Cv. Lorena (Lauraceae). Caldasia 33 (1).
Sato, M.E.; A. Raga; L.C. Ceravolo; M.F. De Souza Filho; A.C. Rossi; G.J. De Morales. 2001. Effect of insecticides and fungicides on the interaction between members of the mite families Phytoseiidae and Stigmaeidae on citrus. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 25: 809-818.
Schmidt, R. A. 2014. Leaf structures affect predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and biological control. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 62:1-17.
Seagraves, B.L.; C.T. Redmond; D.A. Potter. 2013. Relative resistance or susceptibility of maple (Acer) species, hybrids and cultivars to six arthropod pests of production nurseries. Pest Manag. Sci. 69(1): 112-119.
Seelmann, L.; A.Auer; D. Hoffmann; P. Schausberger.2007. Leaf pubescence mediates intraguild predation between predatory mites. Oikos 807-817.
Shrewsbury, P.M.; M.R. Hardin. 2003. Evaluation of predatory mite (Acari: Phytoseiidae) releases to suppress spruce spider mites, Oligonychus ununguis (Acari: Tetranychidae), on juniper. J. Econ. Entomol. 96(6): 1675-1684.
Slone, D.H.; B.A. Croft. 1998. Spatial aggregation of apple mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Stigmaeidae, Tetranychidae) as measured by a binomial model: effects of life stage, reproduction, competition, and predation. Environ. Entomol. 27(4): 918-925.
Slone, D.H.; B.A. Croft. 2001. Species association among predaceous and phytophagous apple mites (Acari: Eriophyidae, Phytoseiidae, Stigmaeidae, Tetranychidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 25: 109-126.
Sudo M.; S. Nishida; T. Itioka. 2010. Sesonal fluctuations in foliar mite populations on Viburnum erosum Thunb. var. punctatum Franch. Et Sav. (Adoxaceae) and sympatric shrubs in temperate secondary forests in western Japan. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 45(3): 405-415.
Sudo, M.; M. Osakabe. 2011. Do plant mites commonly prefer the underside of leaves? Exp. Appl. Acarol. 55(1): 25-38.