The significance of prey in the diet of the phytophagous thrips, Frankliniella schultzei

Abstract

1. Patterns of mite egg consumption by the phytophagous thrips Frankliniella schultzei Trybom were investigated. Although F. schultzei predation is somewhat similar to that of F. occidentalis (Pergande), the understanding of predation by these two phytophagous thrips was extended, allowing the functional significance of flower thrips’ predatory behaviour to be reinterpreted.2. Second‐instar larvae consumed significantly more eggs than any other life‐stage, and the daily intake of eggs by second‐instar larvae declined significantly with each successive day of the 4‐day duration of instar two.3. Mite eggs that had had their silken webbing removed were consumed at a significantly greater rate than those with their webbing intact.4. Frankliniella schultzei immatures developed successfully both on diets containing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) leaf tissue plus mite eggs and on cotton leaf tissue alone. Supplementing a leaf tissue larval diet with mite eggs lowered the developmental time from egg to adult significantly, as well as lowering the percentage mortality. Continuation of the mite egg supplement beyond adult eclosion increased fecundity significantly and extended life span over that achieved on a leaf diet alone.5. In laboratory choice tests, mite eggs and pollen of Wax Mallow (Malvaviscus arboreus Cav.), the usual host of F. schultzei in Brisbane, were encountered with similar frequencies. Furthermore, the mean proportion of encounters with pollen grains that resulted in consumption of pollen did not differ significantly from the encounter : consumption rate for mite eggs.6. Frankliniella schultzei, like F. occidentalis, does not seem to be specifically adapted for preying on mite eggs, even though such predation enhances performance and reproductive output of F. schultzei when constrained on cotton leaves. Comparison of performance results with those published for F. schultzei when reared on the floral parts of one of its primary hosts (M. arboreus) (Milne et al., 1996), indicates that mite egg predation does not make up completely for a deficient adult or larval diet.

Australian Thysanoptera – biological diversity and a diversity of studies

“…Frankliniella schultzei and Thrips tabaci are both phytophagous species, but both of them also function as predators, particularly against the eggs of mites (Milne & Walter 1997, 1998b. Frankliniella schultzei can cause marked feeding damage to cotton seedlings, but if the crop is not sprayed at this stage, this thrips subsequently becomes an effective predator of the far more harmful two-spotted spider mites (Wilson et al 1996), and growth by the cotton plants quickly compensates for the early season thrips damage.…”

Predation rate and numerical response ofAphidoletes aphidimyzafeeding on different densities ofAphis craccivora

“…For example, Isenhour and Yeargan (1981) reported that adult females of Orius insidiosus Say (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) killed more soybean thrips, Sericothrips variabilis Beach (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), than adult males. Milne and Walter (1997) reported that second-instar larvae of Frankliniella schultzei Trybom (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) devoured significantly more eggs than any other life stage. McConnell and Kring (1990) observed significant differences between the number of nymphs and adult aphids consumed by Coccinella septempunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).…”

Asociación Thysanoptera (Insecta)- <i>Vicia faba</i> (Fabaceae) en la Prepuna y Puna de Jujuy, Argentina

“…Frankliniella occidentalis, F. schultzei y Thrips tabaci son consideradas plagas en todos los continentes (Mound 1997), presentan hábitos antófilos, folívoros y eventualmente se comportan como depredadoras (Lewis 1973, Trichilo & Leigh 1986, Van Rijn et al 1995, Wilson et al 1996, Milne & Walter 1997, 1998, Morse & Hoddle 2006. La situación de F. australis y F. gemina es diferente, ambas tienen distribución neotropical (Ortíz 1997, De Santis et al 1980, González 1999, Cavalleri et al 2006) y son de hábitos antófilos sobre una amplia variedad de plantas hospedadoras (Zamar & Arce 1999, González 1999, De Borbón 2005, 2009.…”