Functional and numerical responses of the predatory mite Amblyseius aerialis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to Aceria guerreronis (Acari: Eriophyidae)

Abstract

The coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer, is one of the main pests of the coconut tree (Cocos nucifera L.) worldwide. Its control is mainly based on the use of acaricides. However, due to the habitat of this pest mite, which is protected by fruit bracts that act as a physical barrier, chemical control is often inefficient. Thus, natural enemies have been studied as an alternative to acaricides. We evaluated the functional and numerical responses of Amblyseius aerialis (Muma) to increasing densities of A. guerreronis (40, 80, 160, 240 and 360) and additionally the oviposition rates of the phytoseiid A. aerialis over 11 days on different food sources: coconut pollen, A. guerreronis and a mix of pollen and A. guerreronis. Our results showed that Amblyseius aerialis showed a type III functional response, where prey consumption increasing as the density of A. guerreronis increased, with a maximum consumption of up to 175 prey per predator. All the prey densities allowed female oviposition. The number of eggs laid by A. aerialis increased with increasing prey density and stabilized between 240 and 360 A. guerreronis individuals, with an average oviposition of 1.7 eggs/female. Furthermore, our results showed that all the food sources (coconut pollen, A. guerreronis and a mix of pollen and A. guerreronis) supported oviposition. The mean oviposition was approximately 1.5 eggs/female on all the food sources. Our study suggests that A. aerialis can be effective in the biological control of A. guerreronis. However, further studies are needed to investigate whether A. aerialis can explore the habitat of A. guerreronis and if that prey can support the development of immature stages and the reproduction of A. aerialis.

Acarofauna associated with coconut fruits (Cocos nucifera L.) in a crop area from Pará state, Amazon, Brazil

“…In the Amazon region, it has also been reported in several other crops (Mineiro et al 2009;Bobot et al 2011;Cruz et al 2012;Nuvoloni et al 2015;Ferreira et al 2018;Cruz et al 2019;Noronha et al 2020). This predator was also predominant in palm trees in a survey carried out by Cruz et al (2015) in the state of Amazonas, and on coconut leaves and fruits in the municipality of Moju, Pará state (Ferreira et al 2022). Amblyseius aerialis has a generalist habit (McMurtry et al 2013), preying on other arthropod species and pollen of different plant species (Amaral et al 2018).…”

“…Amblyseius aerialis has a generalist habit (McMurtry et al 2013), preying on other arthropod species and pollen of different plant species (Amaral et al 2018). Ferreira et al (2022) assessed the functional response of A. aerialis to A. guerreronis and concluded that this predator has the potential to control A. guerreronis and in the absence of prey under field conditions, can feed on coconut pollen as an alternative food.…”

“…On the other hand, Amblyseius largoensis (Muma) and Euseius alatus (De Leon) have characteristics that make access to the bracts difficult; however, they can help in regulation of A. guerreronis during its dispersal process (Galvão et al 2007;Melo et al 2009Melo et al , 2015. A recent functional response study suggested that the predator Amblyseius aerialis (Muma) has potential to control coconut mites (Ferreira et al 2022).…”

“…2009, 2015). A recent functional response study suggested that the predator Amblyseius aerialis (Muma) has potential to control coconut mites (Ferreira et al . 2022).…”

Predatory mites, a green pesticide, and an Entomopathogenic compound: A proposed IPM tactic based on pest species diversity indices and population dynamics

“…Till now, very large number of predatory and/or parasite taxa been used to control pest infestations that caused massive economic losses (Smagghe and Diaz, 2012). Predatory phytoseiid mites have reported to be successful control means for spider mites (Negm et al ., 2014; Alatawi et al ., 2018), eriophyids (Momen et al ., 2004, 2014; Momen and Abdel-Khalek, 2008; Abou-Elella et al ., 2014; Melo et al ., 2015; Abdel-Khalek and Momen, 2022; Ferreira et al ., 2022), whiteflies (Teich, 1966; Nomikou et al ., 2001, 2002, 2003), thrips (Messelink et al ., 2006; Arthurs et al ., 2009; Sanad and Hassan, 2019), aphids (Messelink et al ., 2013), and they were proven to fed alternative sources as pollen (van Rijn and Tanigoshi, 1999; Abou-Elella et al ., 2014; Delisle et al ., 2015 b; Rahmani et al ., 2021; Xin and Zhang, 2021), fungi (Zemek and Prenerová, 1997; Momen and Abdelkhader, 2010), or other factitious food/artificial diet to be mass produced (Janssen and Sabelis, 2015; Delisle et al ., 2015 a, b; Momen et al ., 2020; Xin and Zhang, 2021).…”