| Literature DB >> 26436422 |
Xiaoxiao Zhang1, Jiale Lv1, Yue Hu2, Boming Wang1, Xi Chen2, Xuenong Xu1, Endong Wang1.
Abstract
Amblyseius orientalis (Ehara) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) is a native predatory mite species in China. It used to be considered as a specialist predator of spider mites. However, recent studies show it also preys on other small arthropod pests, such as Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Experiments were conducted to investigate (1) prey preference of A. orientalis between Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisd.) (Acari: Tetranychidae) and B. tabaci, and (2) development, consumption and life table parameters of A. orientalis when reared on T. cinnabarinus, B. tabaci or a mix of both prey species. When preying on different stages of T. cinnabarinus, A. orientalis preferred protonymphs, whereas when preying on different stages of B. tabaci, A. orientalis preferred eggs. When these two most preferred stages were provided together (T. cinnabarinus protonymphs and B. tabaci eggs), A. orientalis randomly selected its prey. Amblyseius orientalis was able to complete its life cycle on B. tabaci eggs, T. cinnabarinus protonymphs, or a mix of both prey. However, its developmental duration was 53.9% and 30.0% longer when reared on B. tabaci eggs than on T. cinnabarinus and a mix of both prey, respectively. In addition, it produced only a few eggs and its intrinsic rate of increase was negative when reared on B. tabaci eggs, which indicates that B. tabaci is not sufficient to maintain A. orientalis population. The intrinsic rates of increase were 0.16 and 0.23 when A. orientalis was fed on the prey mix and T. cinnabarinus, respectively. These results suggest that although B. tabaci is a poor food resource for A. orientalis in comparison to T. cinnabarinus, A. orientalis is able to sustain its population on a mix of both prey. This predatory mite may thus be a potential biological control agent of B. tabaci when this pest co-occurs with the alternative minor pest T. cinnabarinus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26436422 PMCID: PMC4593607 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic views and photographs of the experimental unit.
Prey preference of A. orientalis between B. tabaci eggs and 1st instar larval.
| Prey Stages | Initial Density | n | Number Consumed | Preference Index α |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10 | 20 | 5.80±0.46a | 0.97±0.02a |
|
| 10 | 20 | 2.05±0.33b | 0.40±0.07b |
Means ± SE followed by different lowercase letters in the same column were significantly different at p = 0.05.
Prey preference of A. orientalis among T. cinnabarinus eggs, larvae and protonymphs.
| Prey Stages | Initial Density | n | Number Consumed | Preference Index α |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10 | 20 | 3.25±0.23a | 0.81±0.04a |
|
| 10 | 20 | 3.10±0.23a | 0.76±0.05a |
|
| 10 | 20 | 3.48±0.24a | 0.85±0.05a |
Means ± SE followed by different lowercase letters in the same column were significantly different at p = 0.05.
Prey preference of A. orientalis between B. tabaci eggs and T. cinnabarinus protonymphs.
| Initial Density | Number of Prey Consumed | Preference Index α | Paired T-test of α | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| n | Total |
|
|
|
| t | df | p |
|
|
| 20 | 9.60±0.80 | 7.05±0.64 | 2.55±0.39 | 0.72±0.07A | 0.78±0.07A | 0.451 | 19 | 0.657 |
|
|
| 16 | 10.25±0.63 | 6.75±0.72 | 3.50±0.43 | 0.66±0.08A | 0.89±0.07A | 1.858 | 15 | 0.083 |
|
|
| 15 | 9.87±0.75 | 6.93±0.76 | 2.93±0.37 | 0.79±0.08A | 0.79±0.08A | 0.049 | 14 | 0.961 |
|
|
| 27 | 10.15±0.84 | 6.85±0.74 | 3.30±0.37 | 0.81±0.06A | 0.77±0.05A | -0.379 | 26 | 0.707 |
|
|
| 23 | 10.13±0.52 | 6.22±0.53 | 3.91±0.47 | 0.82±0.06A | 0.72±0.06A | -0.850 | 22 | 0.404 |
|
|
| 26 | 10.58±0.58 | 5.73±0.36 | 4.85±0.42 | 0.89±0.04A | 0.75±0.05A | -1.821 | 25 | 0.081 |
|
|
| 15 | 9.73±0.77 | 4.73±0.43 | 5.00±0.57 | 0.94±0.04B | 0.67±0.07A | -2.934 | 14 | 0.011 |
|
|
| 15 | 11.13±0.97 | 4.47±0.68 | 6.67±0.88 | 0.85±0.06A | 0.72±0.08A | -1.023 | 14 | 0.323 |
|
|
| 15 | 8.93±0.68 | 3.87±0.68 | 5.07±0.45 | 0.83±0.09A | 0.60±0.08A | -1.459 | 14 | 0.167 |
|
|
| 15 | 10.87±1.48 | 3.27±0.45 | 7.60±1.28 | 0.79±0.09A | 0.69±0.07A | -0.628 | 14 | 0.540 |
|
|
| 15 | 12.00±1.19 | 3.67±0.61 | 8.33±1.02 | 0.78±0.09A | 0.68±0.08A | -0.673 | 14 | 0.512 |
|
| - | - | - | - | 0.81±0.02A | 0.74±0.02A | -1.940 | 201 | 0.054 | |
Means ± SE followed by different uppercase letters in the same row were significantly different at p = 0.05.
Fig 2Impact of the proportion of T. cinnabarinus and B. tabaci in the mixed diet on prey consumption of A. orientalis.
(* refers to the proportion of T. cinnabarinus protonymphs where significant preference for whitefly eggs was observed).
Impact of prey type on duration (days) of life stages and reproduction of A. orientalis.
| Biological Characteristics | Treatments | ANOVA Analyses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Prey Mix (n = 44) |
| F | df |
| ||
|
| |||||||
|
| 1.95±0.02a | 1.99±0.03a | 2.04±0.04a | 1.738 | 2,116 | 0.180 | |
|
| 0.70±0.02a | 0.95±0.03b | 1.31±0.03c | 134.859 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.98±0.01a | 1.18±0.04b | 2.02±0.06c | 193.701 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.99±0.02a | 1.32±0.07b | 1.73±0.04c | 66.31 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| 4.62±0.03a | 5.43±0.11b | 7.10±0.10c | 204.273 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| 1.14±0.06a | 2.35±0.17b | 3.27±0.26c | 66.245 | 2,105 | <0.001 | |
|
| 20.93±0.76b | 26.82±1.01c | 2.81±0.46a | 317.328 | 2,105 | <0.001 | |
|
| 70.53±3.09c | 23.90±2.14b | 11.67±1.49a | 45.083 | 2,105 | <0.001 | |
|
| 97.21±3.00c | 58.49±2.42b | 26.54±1.20a | 171.790 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 1.88±0.03c | 1.28±0.04b | 0.65±0.09a | 83.039 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| 39.49±1.57b | 34.66±1.72b | 1.69±0.33a | 411.881 | 2,116 | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.63±0.00b | 0.62±0.01b | 0.45±0.07a | 16.906 | 2,105 | <0.001 | |
Means ± SE within a row followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different at p = 0.05.
Fig 3Age-specific survival (a) and fecundity (b) of A. orientalis when provided with T. cinnabarinus only, B. tabaci only, or a mixed diet.
Impact of prey type on daily consumption of A. orientalis.
| Daily Consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| (Min.~Max.) | |||
| Life Stages |
|
| Prey Mix |
|
| 1.02±0.18aA | 1.07±0.19aA | 0.98±0.16aA |
| (0~3) | (0~4) | (0~4) | |
|
| 4.89±0.38bB | 3.00±0.36bA | 4.11±0.23cB |
| (1~15) | (0~8) | (1~8) | |
|
| 7.14±0.62cA | 7.56±0.35dA | 6.43±0.35dA |
| (0~17) | (4~18) | (1~12) | |
|
| 8.63±0.32cA | 14.54±0.42eB | 8.09±0.37eA |
| (2~20) | (5~30) | (0~23) | |
|
| 8.05±0.80cA | 19.59±0.38fC | 9.70±0.24fB |
| (1~22) | (4~34) | (0~25) | |
|
| 4.72±0.30bB | 5.37±0.20cB | 2.91±0.19bA |
| (1~14) | (0~13) | (0~16) | |
|
| 6.12±0.21A | 8.55±0.11B | 6.67±0.11A |
|
| 4.71±0.30A | 3.88±0.30A | 3.84±0.25A |
Means ± SE within a column followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different at p = 0.05. Means ± SE within a row followed by different uppercase letters are significantly different at p = 0.05.
Estimated daily biomass intake allocation of A. orientalis as affected by prey species.
| Prey-Offspring Conversion Rate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prey Treatments | Basal Metabolism |
| p1 |
| p2 |
|
| 1.81±0.06 | 0.02±0.00 | 0.003 | - | - |
|
| 4.60±0.01 | - | - | 0.11±0.00 | <0.001 |
|
| 2.33±0.01 | 0.15±0.00 | 0.000 | 0.16±0.00 | <0.001 |
Impact of prey type on life table parameters of A. orientalis.
| Prey | Parameters of Significance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter |
| Prey Mix |
| F | df |
|
|
| 0.23±0.00c | 0.16±0.00b | -0.03±0.00a | 191051.318 | 2,2997 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.26±0.00c | 1.17±0.00b | 0.97±0.00a | 234985.496 | 2,2997 | <0.001 |
|
| 23.36±0.04c | 20.57±0.04b | 0.67±0.00a | 153398.577 | 2,2997 | <0.001 |
|
| 13.46±0.01b | 19.27±0.01c | 13.31±0.01a | 186988.670 | 2,2997 | <0.001 |
|
| 2.96±0.00b | 4.42±0.01c | -28.99±1.51a | 468.989 | 2,2997 | <0.001 |
Means ± SE within a row followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different at p = 0.05.
Development, fecundity, and intrinsic rate of increase of A. orientalis and A. swirskii at 25±2°C.
| Predator | Prey | Developmental Duration (days) | Longevity | Proportion of Female Offspring | Daily Fecundity (eggs/female/day) | Cumulative Fecundity (eggs/female) | Intrinsic Rate of Increase (rm) | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
|
| 97.21 | 0.63 | 1.88 | 39.49 | 0.23 | Present study | ||
|
| 5.43 | 58.49 | 0.62 | 1.28 | 34.66 | 0.16 | Present study | |
|
| 7.1 | 26.54 | 0.45 | 0.65 | 1.69 | -0.03 | Present study | |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 6.47 | 23.82 | - | 1.18 | 13 | 0.13 | Marzieh et al., 2014 [ | |
|
| 8.3 | - | 0.74 | 1 | - | 0.208 | Nomikou et al., 2001 [ | |
|
| 7.4 | - | 0.64 | 1.66 | - | 0.213 | Nomikou et al., 2002 [ | |
|
| 5.01 | 22.14 | 0.65 | 1.71 | 22.52 | 0.222 | Midthassel et al., 2013 [ | |
|
| 7 | 35.9 | 0.72 | 1.21 | 29.03 | 0.175 | Nguyen et al., 2013 [ | |
|
| 7 | 25.8 | 0.69 | - | 16.1 | 0.14 | Lee & Gillespie, 2011 [ |
*Developmental durations used in the table refer to the timing between egg laying and adult emergence (egg-adult), except for A. swirskii reared on B. tabaci, where it refers to egg-egg duration.