Non-consumptive predator effects on a primary greenhouse pest: Predatory mite harassment reduces western flower thrips abundance and plant damage

Jandricic, S.E.; Schmidt, Danielle; Bryant, G.E.; Frank, Steven D.

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.12.012

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They can swing their abdomen to ‘slap’ predatory mites 26 or secrete irritating anal fluid, which causes predatory mites to withdraw 27 . Moreover, the presence of predatory mites in the vicinity of thrips colonies can affect their behaviour 28 . Following detection of predators, thrips may switch state from stationary feeding to escaping, thereby increasing the probability of coming into contact with spores disseminated on plant surfaces 14 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phytoseiid predatory mites can disperse entomopathogenic fungi to prey patches

Lin

Guertin

Paolo

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown that predatory mites used as biocontrol agents can be loaded with entomopathogenic fungal conidia to increase infection rates in pest populations. Under laboratory conditions, we determined the capacity of two phytoseiid mites, Amblyseius swirskii and Neoseiulus cucumeris to deliver the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana to their prey, Frankliniella occidentalis. Predatory mites were loaded with conidia and released on plants that had been previously infested with first instar prey clustered on a bean leaf. We examined each plant section to characterize the spatial distribution of each interacting organism. Our results showed that A. swirskii delivered high numbers of conidia to thrips infested leaves, thereby increasing the proportion of thrips that came into contact with the fungus. The effect was larger when thrips infestation occurred on young leaves than on old leaves. Neoseiulus cucumeris delivered less conidia to the thrips infested leaves. These patterns result from differences in foraging activity between predatory mite species. Amblyseius swirskii stayed longer on plants, especially within thrips colonies, and had a stronger suppressing effect on thrips than N. cucumeris. Our study suggests that loading certain predatory mite species with fungal conidia can increase their capacity to suppress thrips populations by combining predation and dispersing pathogens.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phytoseiid predatory mites can disperse entomopathogenic fungi to prey patches

Lin

Guertin

Paolo

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using the framework and associated standardized terminology could be particularly useful in areas of research that have traditionally focused on predatorconsumptive effects and that are only now beginning to give predation-risk effects more attention as in biological control and applied ecology (Vandermeer et al 2010, Jandricic et al 2016. The framework can help researchers recognize which aspect of predation-risk effects are being examined in the context of what has been done in other systems, facilitating the development of appropriate methodology and the communication of findings to the broader ecological community.…”

Section: Benefits Of the Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework and standardized terminology to facilitate the study of predation‐risk effects

Peacor

Barton

Kimbro

et al. 2020

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The very presence of predators can strongly influence flexible prey traits such as behavior, morphology, life history, and physiology. In a rapidly growing body of literature representing diverse ecological systems, these trait (or "fear") responses have been shown to influence prey fitness components and density, and to have indirect effects on other species. However, this broad and exciting literature is burdened with inconsistent terminology that is likely hindering the development of inclusive frameworks and general advances in ecology. We examine the diverse terminology used in the literature, and discuss pros and cons of the many terms used. Common problems include the same term being used for different processes, and many different terms being used for the same process. To mitigate terminological barriers, we developed a conceptual framework that explicitly distinguishes the multiple predation-risk effects studied. These multiple effects, along with suggested standardized terminology, are riskinduced trait responses (i.e., effects on prey traits), interaction modifications (i.e., effects on prey-other-species interactions), nonconsumptive effects (i.e., effects on the fitness and density of the prey), and trait-mediated indirect effects (i.e., the effects on the fitness and density of other species). We apply the framework to three well studied systems to highlight how it can illuminate commonalities and differences among study systems. By clarifying and elucidating conceptually similar processes, the framework and standardized terminology can facilitate communication of insights and methodologies across systems and foster cross-disciplinary perspectives.

show abstract

“…Behavioural shifts are a commonly studied trait responses in arthropods, and are generally the most rapid and reversible. Examples include changes in time spent feeding (Thaler and Griffin, 2008;Jandricic et al, 2016;Ingerslew and Finke, 2017), food source (Schmitz et al, 1997), microhabitat and refuge use (Lucas et al, 2000;Lawson-Balagbo et al, 2007;Penfold et al, 2017), oviposition rate (Deas and Hunter, 2013;Hermann and Thaler, 2018), oviposition site selection (Angelon and Petranka, 2002;Vonesh and Blaustein, 2010;Silberbush and Blaustein, 2011), short-distance escape (Tamaki et al, 1970;Nelson, 2007;Fill et al, 2012) and dispersal (H€ oller et al, 1994;Henry et al, 2010;Welch and Harwood, 2014;Otsuki and Yano, 2014b).…”

Section: Enemy-risk Effects and The Evaluation Of Biological Control mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bugs scaring bugs: enemy‐risk effects in biological control systems

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enemy‐risk effects, often referred to as non‐consumptive effects (NCEs), are an important feature of predator–prey ecology, but their significance has had little impact on the conceptual underpinning or practice of biological control. We provide an overview of enemy‐risk effects in predator–prey interactions, discuss ways in which risk effects may impact biocontrol programs and suggest avenues for further integration of natural enemy ecology and integrated pest management. Enemy‐risk effects can have important influences on different stages of biological control programs, including natural enemy selection, efficacy testing and quantification of non‐target impacts. Enemy‐risk effects can also shape the interactions of biological control with other pest management practices. Biocontrol systems also provide community ecologists with some of the richest examples of behaviourally mediated trophic cascades and demonstrations of how enemy‐risk effects play out among species with no shared evolutionary history, important topics for invasion biology and conservation. We conclude that the longstanding use of ecological theory by biocontrol practitioners should be expanded to incorporate enemy‐risk effects, and that community ecologists will find many opportunities to study enemy‐risk effects in biocontrol settings.

show abstract

Non-consumptive predator effects on a primary greenhouse pest: Predatory mite harassment reduces western flower thrips abundance and plant damage

Cited by 22 publications

References 42 publications

Phytoseiid predatory mites can disperse entomopathogenic fungi to prey patches

Phytoseiid predatory mites can disperse entomopathogenic fungi to prey patches

A framework and standardized terminology to facilitate the study of predation‐risk effects

Bugs scaring bugs: enemy‐risk effects in biological control systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About