Biology of the Predatory Mite Phytoseiulus macropilis in Hawaii (Acarina: Phytoseiidae)1

Reproductive parameters of Phytoseiulus macropilis (Banks) fed with Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae) in laboratory

“…The results of the present study were similar to results obtained by Prasad (1967), who in evaluating the development of P. macropilis fed with Tetranychus tumidus Banks, 1900 (Tetranychidae) at 26 °C temperature, found durations of 1.8, 0.5, 0.9, and 1.0 days for the egg, larvae, protonymph, and deutonymph stages, respectively, and a development time from egg to adult of 4.2 days for females. Escudero and Ferragut (2005) observed that the developmental stages of P. persimilis when fed with T. urticae had an average duration, in days, of 1.45 for the egg, 0.65 for the larvae, 1.0 for the protonymph, and 1.04 for the deutonymph.…”

“…The sex ratio at 25 °C was similar in both studies. Prasad (1967) reported a shorter pre-oviposition period for P. macropilis than was found in the present study. However, an oviposition period of 20 days, longevity of 30 days for males and 27 days for females, and fecundity of 52 eggs/female were similar to the results found in the present study.…”

Evolution of pseudo-arrhenotoky

“…The drawn line corresponds to the regression of the sex ratio (y) on the oviposition rate (x) after logarithmic transformation of x (r --0.844): y = 0.538 + 0.208 x. Abbreviated and complete scientific nomenclature of the phytoseiid species are given below together with references used to construct the figure: Aa, Amblyseius andersoni (Amano and Chant, 1978); Aan, A. anonymus (Dinh et al, 1988); Abi, A. bibens (Blommers, 1976);Abr, A. brazilii (E1-Banhawy, 1975); Aca, A. californicus (Friese and Gilstrap, 1982); Aci, A. citrifolius (De Moraes and McMurtry, 1981 ); Ach, A. chiIenensis (Ma and Laing, 1973); Ad, A. degenerans (Takafuji and Chant, 1976); Afa, A. faIlacis (Ballard, 1954); Aft, A. finlandicus (M.W. Sabelis, unpublished data, 1982); Afu, A. fustis (Ezulike and Odebiyi, 1985); Ag, A. gossypi (Rasmy and E1-Banhawy, 1975); Ah, A. hibisci (Tanigoshi et al, 1981); Ai, A. idaeus (Dinh et al, 1988); Ala, A. largoensis (Tanaka and Kashio, 1977); Aio, A. longispinosus (Shih and Shieh, 1979;Mallik and Channabasavanna, 1983); Am, A. masiaka (Blommers, 1974); Ap, A. potentillae (Sabelis, 1981 ); Apl, A. pseudolongispinosus (Xin et al, 1984); As, A. scutalis (Bounfour and McMurtry, 1987); Au, A. umbraticus (Knisley and Swift, 1971 ); Avz, A. vazimba (Blommers, 1974); Ph, Phytoseius hawaiiensis (Sanderson and McMurtry, 1984); P1, Phytoseiulus longipes (Badii and McMurtry, 1984); Pro, P. macropilis (Prasad, 1967;; Pp, P. persimilis (Takafuji and Chant, 1976;Friese and Gilstrap, 1982; M.W. Sabelis, C.J.…”

Eficiência do ácaro predador Phytoseiulus macropilis (Banks) (Acari:Phytoseiidae) no controle de Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae) em tomateiro

“…Sua biologia foi inicialmente estudada por Smith e Summers (1949). Depois disso, diversos autores estudaram a possibilidade do uso desse predador no controle biológico de ácaros tetraniquídeos (PRASAD, 1967;SHIH et al, 1979;WATANABE et al, 1994 (REIS et al, 2000), nos municípios de Jeriquara e Garça no Estado de São Paulo em Coffea arabica L. cv. Mundo Novo, (MINEIRO et al, 2006) e no Rio Grande do Sul em soja (ROGGIA et al, 2009).…”

“…Este ácaro tem sido, relatado em regiões tropicais e subtropicais ao redor do mundo (TAKAHASHI e CHANT, 1993;MORAES et al, 2004), inclusive no Brasil. Sua biologia foi inicialmente estudada por Smith e Summers (1949), sendo diversos outros estudos subseqüentemente conduzidos (PRASAD, 1967;SHIH, POE e CROMROY, 1979). Diversos autores estudaram a possibilidade de seu uso no controle de ácaros tetraniquídeos GARCIA e CHIAVEGATO, 1997;OLIVEIRA et al, 2007;e outras referências citadas por KOSTIAINEN e HOY, 1996).…”