Prey-specific experience affects prey preference and time to kill in the soil predatory mite Gaeolaelaps aculeifer Canestrini

Jensen, Kristoffer; Toft, Sune; Sørensen, Jesper Givskov; Sigsgaard, Lene; Kristensen, Torsten Nygård; Overgaard, Johannes; Holmstrup, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104076

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This does not prevent the presence of pests, but will hinder the introduction of soil predators (Fransen 1992;Paulitz 1997;van Schelt and Mulder 2000;Cloyd and Zaborski 2004). Furthermore, not all soil types are favourable for Enkegaard and Brødsgaard (2000); 13 Freire et al (2007); 14 Gillespie and Quiring (1990); 15 Glockemann (1992); 16 Jensen et al (2019); 17 Jess and Bingham (2004); 18 Kasuga et al (2006); 19 Lesna et al (1996); 20 Lesna et al (2000); 21 Lesna et al (2014) predatory soil mites. Sandy soils, for example, can be too compact for predatory mites to move freely and localize prey (Lesna et al 2000;Sabelis et al 2008).…”

Section: Predatory Soil Mites As Biocontrol Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Actinotrichida: Trombidifromes: Erythraeidae) Frankliniella occidentalis 27 Blattisocius dolichus Ma (Parasitiformes: Mesotigmata: Blattisociidae) Radophulus similis (Cobb) Thorne (burrowing nematode) (Rhabditica: Panagrolaimida: Pratylenchidae ) 11 Meloidogyne incognita 37 Geolaelaps gillespiei n. sp. (Parasitiformes: Mesostigmata: Lealapidae) Frankliniella occidentalis 5 Parasitus bitoberosus Karg (Parasitiformes: Mesotigmata: Parasitidae) Thrips tabaci 9 Lasioseius fimetorum Karg (Parasitiformes: Mesostigmata: Ascidae) Frankliniella occidentalis 12 Cunaxa capreolus (Berlese) (Acariformes: Trombidiformes: Cunaxidae) Meloidogyne incognita 2 Tylenchulus semipenetrans Cobb (citrus nematode) (Tylenchina: Tylenchida: Tylenchulidae) 2 Table reference list: 1 Ajvad et al ( 2018 ); 2 Al-Azzazy and Al-Rehiayani ( 2022 ); 3 Azevedo et al ( 2020 ); 4 Baatrup et al ( 2006 ); 5 Beaulieu ( 2009 ); 6 Berndt et al ( 2004a ); 7 Berndt et al ( 2004b ); 8 Castilho et al ( 2009 ); 9 Castro-López and Martínez-Osorio ( 2021 ); 10 Chambers et al ( 1993 ); 11 Chen et al ( 2013 ); 12 Enkegaard and Brødsgaard ( 2000 ); 13 Freire et al ( 2007 ); 14 Gillespie and Quiring ( 1990 ); 15 Glockemann ( 1992 ); 16 Jensen et al ( 2019 ); 17 Jess and Bingham ( 2004 ); 18 Kasuga et al ( 2006 ); 19 Lesna et al ( 1996 ); 20 Lesna et al ( 2000 ); 21 Lesna et al ( 2014 ); 22 Messelink and van Wensveen ( 2003 ); 23 Messelink and van Slooten ( 2004 ); 24 Messelink and van Holstein-Saj ( 2006 ); 25 Messelink et al ( 2008 ); 26 Moreira et al ( 2015 ); 27 Muñoz-Cárdenas et al ( 2014 ); 28 Muñoz-Cárdenas ( …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Table reference list: 1 Ajvad et al ( 2018 ); 2 Al-Azzazy and Al-Rehiayani ( 2022 ); 3 Azevedo et al ( 2020 ); 4 Baatrup et al ( 2006 ); 5 Beaulieu ( 2009 ); 6 Berndt et al ( 2004a ); 7 Berndt et al ( 2004b ); 8 Castilho et al ( 2009 ); 9 Castro-López and Martínez-Osorio ( 2021 ); 10 Chambers et al ( 1993 ); 11 Chen et al ( 2013 ); 12 Enkegaard and Brødsgaard ( 2000 ); 13 Freire et al ( 2007 ); 14 Gillespie and Quiring ( 1990 ); 15 Glockemann ( 1992 ); 16 Jensen et al ( 2019 ); 17 Jess and Bingham ( 2004 ); 18 Kasuga et al ( 2006 ); 19 Lesna et al ( 1996 ); 20 Lesna et al ( 2000 ); 21 Lesna et al ( 2014 ); 22 Messelink and van Wensveen ( 2003 ); 23 Messelink and van Slooten ( 2004 ); 24 Messelink and van Holstein-Saj ( 2006 ); 25 Messelink et al ( 2008 ); 26 Moreira et al ( 2015 ); 27 Muñoz-Cárdenas et al ( 2014 ); 28 Muñoz-Cárdenas ( 2017 ); 29 Navarro-Campos et al ( 2016 ); 30 Navarro-Campos et al ( 2020 ); 31 Pozzebon et al ( 2015 ); 32 Rahman et al ( 2012 ); 33 Sabelis et al ( 2008 ); 34 Wright and Chambers ( 1994 ); 35 Wu et al ( 2014 ); 36 Wu et al ( 2016 ); 37 Xu et al ( 2014 ); 38 Yan et al ( 2022 ); 39 Yang et al ( 2020 ); 40 Zhang et al ( 2021 ) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological pest control is becoming increasingly important for sustainable agriculture. Although many species of natural enemies are already being used commercially, efficient biological control of various pests is still lacking, and there is a need for more biocontrol agents. In this review, we focus on predatory soil mites, their role as natural enemies, and their biocontrol potential, mainly in vegetable and ornamental crops, with an emphasis on greenhouse systems. These predators are still underrepresented in biological control, but have several advantages compared to predators living on above-ground plant parts. For example, predatory soil mites are often easy and affordable to mass rear, as most of them are generalist predators, which also means that they may be used against various pests and can survive periods of pest scarcity by feeding on alternative prey or food. Many of them can also endure unfavourable conditions, making it easier for them to establish in various crops. Based on the current literature, we show that they have potential to control a variety of pests, both in greenhouses and in the field. However, more research is needed to fully understand and appreciate their potential as biocontrol agents. We review and discuss several methods to increase their efficiency, such as supplying them with alternative food and changing soil/litter structure to enable persistence of their populations. We conclude that predatory soil mites deserve more attention in future studies to increase their application in agricultural crops.

show abstract

Section: Predatory Soil Mites As Biocontrol Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, prey conditioning may also have opposite effects, that is reduce predation rate on lowquality prey species (e.g., ladybeetles [Boivin, Roger, Coderre, & Wajnberg, 2010] and chrysopid larvae [Nesbit, Wilby, Roberts, & Menéndez, 2015]). Jensen et al (2019) showed that experience with a risky collembolan prey in the predatory mite Gaeolaelaps aculeifer reduced its preference for that prey. Thus, results on the effects of prey conditioning of BCAs are mixed.…”

Section: Applied Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food quality of Ephestia eggs, the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi and mixed diet for Orius majusculus

Toft

Sørensen

Sigsgaard

et al. 2020

J Applied Entomology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the food quality of the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi to the pirate bug Orius majusculus using Ephestia eggs as high-quality comparison prey. Several performance parameters were tested on individuals that had been reared and maintained on each of the two single-prey diets or on a mixed diet. All fitness parameters were lower in individuals fed aphids only, indicating poor food quality of this prey. Compared with the pure Ephestia egg diet, the mixed diet enhanced teneral mass, while adult survival and female starvation tolerance were negatively affected and all other traits were unaffected. Body protein proportions were constant across diets, whereas lipid proportion was low in the aphid treatment. Preference for aphids was lower following a monotypic aphid diet than when reared on Ephestia eggs or a mixed diet. The results confirm that R. padi is low-quality food for O. majusculus as it is for other generalist predators, even though O. majusculus may contribute significantly to population suppression of the aphid. K E Y W O R D SAnthocoridae, Aphididae, biological control, dietary mixing, life cycle, pest

show abstract

“…Consequently, the complexity and identity of the microbiome of soil invertebrates could be strongly influenced by their hierarchical position within the food web. For example, predators in soil food webs might be generalists [ 28 , 30 , 36 ], which could ingest multiple low trophic organisms. This means that, apart from the environment, they could acquire microbiota from multiple low trophic organisms, and some microbes unique to different low trophic organisms might coexist within predators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trophic level drives the host microbiome of soil invertebrates at a continental scale

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Increasing our knowledge of soil biodiversity is fundamental to forecast changes in ecosystem functions under global change scenarios. All multicellular organisms are now known to be holobionts, containing large assemblages of microbial species. Soil fauna is now known to have thousands of species living within them. However, we know very little about the identity and function of host microbiome in contrasting soil faunal groups, across different terrestrial biomes, or at a large spatial scale. Here, we examined the microbiomes of multiple functionally important soil fauna in contrasting terrestrial ecosystems across China. Results Different soil fauna had diverse and unique microbiomes, which were also distinct from those in surrounding soils. These unique microbiomes were maintained within taxa across diverse sampling sites and in contrasting terrestrial ecosystems. The microbiomes of nematodes, potworms, and earthworms were more difficult to predict using environmental data, compared to those of collembolans, oribatid mites, and predatory mites. Although stochastic processes were important, deterministic processes, such as host selection, also contributed to the assembly of unique microbiota in each taxon of soil fauna. Microbial biodiversity, unique microbial taxa, and microbial dark matter (defined as unidentified microbial taxa) all increased with trophic levels within the soil food web. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that soil animals are important as repositories of microbial biodiversity, and those at the top of the food web harbor more diverse and unique microbiomes. This hidden source of biodiversity is rarely considered in biodiversity and conservation debates and stresses the importance of preserving key soil invertebrates.

show abstract

Prey-specific experience affects prey preference and time to kill in the soil predatory mite Gaeolaelaps aculeifer Canestrini

Cited by 4 publications

References 46 publications

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

Review: predatory soil mites as biocontrol agents of above- and below-ground plant pests

Food quality of Ephestia eggs, the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi and mixed diet for Orius majusculus

Trophic level drives the host microbiome of soil invertebrates at a continental scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About