Attack rate and prey preference of Lasioseius subterraneous and Protogamasellus mica on four nematode species

Manwaring, Mathew R; Nahrung, Helen F.; Wallace, Helen M.

doi:10.1007/s10493-019-00456-3

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This mite hunts for plant-parasitic nematodes such as Meloidogyne incognita and the citrus nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans and can significantly decrease their numbers [64]. Other predatory mites inhabiting soil and feeding on plant-parasitic nematodes include Lasioseius penicilliger [65], Lasioseius subterraneous, Protogamasellus mica [66,67], Lasioseius scapulatus, and Gaeolaelaps aculeifer [68]. Interestingly, the presence of organic manure generally increases the number of predatory mites in soil [69].…”

Section: Botanical Amendments As Substitutes For Synthetic Nematicidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nematicidal Amendments and Soil Remediation

Ntalli

Adamski

Doula

et al. 2020

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intensification of agriculture has created concerns about soil degradation and toxicity of agricultural chemicals to non-target organisms. As a result, there is great urgency for discovering new ecofriendly tools for pest management and plant nutrition. Botanical matrices and their extracts and purified secondary metabolites have received much research interest, but time-consuming registration issues have slowed their adoption. In contrast, cultural practices such as use of plant matrices as soil amendments could be immediately used as plant protectants or organic fertilizers. Herein, we focus on some types of soil amendments of botanical origin and their utilization for nematicidal activity and enhancement of plant nutrition. The mode of action is discussed in terms of parasite control as well as plant growth stimulation.

show abstract

Section: Botanical Amendments As Substitutes For Synthetic Nematicidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nematicidal Amendments and Soil Remediation

Ntalli

Adamski

Doula

et al. 2020

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some uropodine mites feed on plant sap (Forsslund 1943). Many gamasines readily feed on nematode prey (Imbriani and Mankau 1983;Walter 1987;Krantz and Walter 2009;Stirling et al 2017;Manwaring et al 2020) their actions prejudicing the use of nematodes as biocontrol agents (Epsky et al 1988). In all grasping forms, chelate chelicerae are used in feeding upon small prey or other food stuffs and port material into the labral area for potential straining (Flechtmann et al 1994) and uptake via the pre-oral groove (Evans and Loots 1975).…”

Section: Diversity Of Form and Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding design in free-living mesostigmatid chelicerae (Acari: Anactinotrichida)

Bowman

2021

Exp Appl Acarol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model based upon mechanics is used in a re-analysis of historical acarine morphological work augmented by an extra seven zoophagous mesostigmatid species. This review shows that predatory mesostigmatids do have cheliceral designs with clear rational purposes. Almost invariably within an overall body size class, the switch in predatory style from a worm-like prey feeding (‘crushing/mashing’ kill) functional group to a micro-arthropod feeding (‘active prey cutting/slicing/slashing' kill) functional group is matched by: an increased cheliceral reach, a bigger chelal gape, a larger morphologically estimated chelal crunch force, and a drop in the adductive lever arm velocity ratio of the chela. Small size matters. Several uropodines (Eviphis ostrinus, the omnivore Trachytes aegrota, Urodiaspis tecta and, Uropoda orbicularis) have more elongate chelicerae (greater reach) than their chelal gape would suggest, even allowing for allometry across mesostigmatids. They may be: plesiosaur-like high-speed strikers of prey, scavenging carrion feeders (like long-necked vultures), probing/burrowing crevice feeders of cryptic nematodes, or small morsel/fragmentary food feeders. Some uropodoids have chelicerae and chelae which probably work like a construction-site mechanical excavator-digger with its small bucket. Possible hoeing/bulldozing, spore-cracking and tiny sabre-tooth cat-like striking actions are discussed for others. Subtle changes lead small mesostigmatids to be predator–scavengers (mesocarnivores) or to be predator–fungivores (hypocarnivores). Some uropodines (e.g., the worm-like prey feeder Alliphis siculus and, Uropoda orbicularis) show chelae similar in design to astigmatids and cryptostigmatids indicating possible facultative saprophagy. Scale matters—obligate predatory designs (hypercarnivory) start for mesostigmatids with chelal gape > 150 μm and cheliceral reach > 350 μm (i.e., about 500–650 μm in body size). Commonality of trophic design in these larger species with solifugids is indicated. Veigaia species with low chelal velocity ratio and other morphological strengthening specialisms, appear specially adapted in a concerted way for predating active soft and fast moving springtails (Collembola). Veigaia cerva shows a markedly bigger chelal gape than its cheliceral reach would proportionately infer suggesting it is a crocodile-like sit-and-wait or ambush predator par excellence. A small chelal gape, low cheliceral reach, moderate velocity ratio variant of the worm-like feeding habit design is supported for phytoseiid pollenophagy. Evidence for a resource partitioning model in the evolution of gnathosomal development is found. A comparison to crustacean claws and vertebrate mandibles is made. Alliphis siculus and Rhodacarus strenzkei are surprisingly powerful mega-cephalics for their small size. Parasitids show a canid-like trophic design. The chelicera of the nematophagous Alliphis halleri shows felid-like features. Glyphtholaspis confusa has hyaena-like cheliceral dentition. The latter species has a markedly smaller chelal gape than its cheliceral reach would suggest proportionately, which together with a high chelal velocity ratio and a high estimated chelal crunch force matches a power specialism of feeding on immobile tough fly eggs/pupae by crushing (durophagy). A consideration of gnathosomal orientation is made. Predatory specialisms appear to often match genera especially in larger mesostigmatids, which may scale quite differently. Comparison to holothyrids and opilioacarids indicates that the cheliceral chelae of the former are cutting-style and those of the latter are crushing-style. A simple validated easy-to-use ‘2:1 on’ predictive algorithm of feeding habit type is included based on a strength-speed tradeoff in chelal velocity ratio for ecologists to test in the field.

show abstract

“…El consumo de nematodos depende de los mecanismos que posee el ácaro predador, tales como piezas bucales, modos de alimentación, tamaños corporales (Woodward y Hildrew 2002;Manwaring et al 2020), así como también de la variación de los microhábitats y los mecanismos de búsqueda de las presas (Heidemann et al 2014b). Los ácaros pueden explorar y excavar pequeñas grietas para atrapar nematodos de menor tamaño (Bowman 2021).…”

Section: Microartrópodos: áCaros Y Colémbolos Predadoresunclassified

Mecanismos de captura, colonización y alimentación empleados por parásitos y predadores de nematodos

Vera-Morales

Castañeda-Ruíz

Sosa

et al. 2022

ECOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mecanismos de captura, colonización y alimentación empleados por parásitos y predadores de nematodos. Los organismos del suelo tienen un papel fundamental en la estructura y ciclo de nutrientes en los ecosistemas; especialmente los nematodos que son abundantes y funcionalmente diversos. Debido a que algunos taxones de nematodos causan enfermedades a las plantas, la mayoría de los estudios tienen un enfoque agrícola, por tanto, es de relevancia ecológica conocer los diferentes grupos de organismos de suelo que los consumen o parasitan. El propósito de esta revisión es discutir sobre los mecanismos de captura, colonización o alimentación que ejercen los enemigos naturales de los nematodos, especialmente los predadores y parásitos, tales como bacterias, hongos, nematodos, microartrópodos y tardígrados. Algunas bacterias que se encuentran en la rizosfera sintetizan moléculas tóxicas que matan a los nematodos mientras que los hongos nematófagos pueden ser predadores, endoparásitos, parásitos de huevos, productores de toxinas y presentar dispositivos especiales para la captura de sus presas. Además, los nematodos predadores presentan tres mecanismos de alimentación: las especies del orden Mononchida cortan a sus presas o las consumen enteras, las del orden Diplogasterida cortan y succionan los contenidos y finalmente las de los ordenes Dorylaimida y Aphelenchida emplean un estilete para perforar y succionar. En el caso de los microartrópodos, los colémbolos emplean sus maxilares y los ácaros sus quelíceros para agarrar, triturar y masticar, mientras que los tardígrados pueden devorar nematodos enteros. Conocer las estrategias de los parásitos y predadores de nematodos complementa la investigación en patógenos de importancia agrícola y contribuye a la comprensión de la complejidad de las redes tróficas del suelo.

show abstract

Attack rate and prey preference of Lasioseius subterraneous and Protogamasellus mica on four nematode species

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Nematicidal Amendments and Soil Remediation

Nematicidal Amendments and Soil Remediation

Feeding design in free-living mesostigmatid chelicerae (Acari: Anactinotrichida)

Mecanismos de captura, colonización y alimentación empleados por parásitos y predadores de nematodos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About