CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlStudy of Mite SpeciesSpider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

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

Open access
Jensen, Kim, Toft, Søren, Sørensen, Jesper G., Sigsgaard, Lene, Kristensen, Torsten N., Overgaard, Johannes, Holmstrup, Martin·2019·Biological Control
DOI 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104076
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generalist predators potentially have access to a wide array of prey, but it is little studied how experience with specific prey affects preference for this prey. In particular, it is unknown how experience with pest prey affects predator foraging decisions in cases where the pest is nutritious but protected by a repelling, potentially deadly defence. We investigated preference of the soil predatory mite Gaeolaelaps aculeifer Canestrini for the risky pest springtail Protaphorura fimata Gisin relative to the safe non-pest springtail Folsomia candida Willem. Egg production under foraging on live or dead individuals of either prey showed that the two species had equal nutritional quality for G. aculeifer , but indicated that live F. candida were more difficult to catch than live P. fimata . Importantly, some G. aculeifer were killed by P. fimata defence secretions, demonstrating that live P. fimata are risky prey. Preference for P. fimata was generally high when mites were given a choice between a live individual of either prey, but this preference was reduced following exposure to live individuals of P. fimata . Furthermore, fewer G. aculeifer killed a prey and time until kill was longer after experience with live P. fimata . These findings indicate that live P. fimata induced a partial aversion on G. aculeifer during exposure. Our study shows that generalist predators can reduce their preference for risky prey following exposure. This indicates that generalist predators used in biological control against risky prey are most efficient against this prey if not exposed to it prior to release.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104076

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 9

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Amin, 2014, Preimaginal development and fecundity of Gaeolaelaps aculeifer (Acari: Laelapidae) feeding on Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Acari: Acaridae) at constant temperatures, J. Crop Prot., 3, 581
  2. Azevedo, 2019, Free living nematodes as alternative prey for soil predatory mites: an interdisciplinary case study of conservation biological control, Biol. Control, 132, 128, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.02.007 · DOI
  3. Baker, 1975, Association of populations of onychiurid Collembola with damage to sugar-beet seedlings, Plant. Pathol., 24, 150, 10.1111/j.1365-3059.1975.tb01882.x · DOI
  4. Barnhisel, 1991, Zooplankton spine induces aversion in small fish predators, Oecologia, 88, 444, 10.1007/BF00317591 · DOI
  5. Berndt, 2004, The edaphic phase in the ontogenesis of Frankliniella occidentalis and comparison of Hypoaspis miles and Hypoaspis aculeifer as predators of soil-dwelling thrips stages, Biol. Control, 30, 17, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2003.09.009 · DOI
  6. Berndt, 2004, Predation capacity of two predatory laelapid mites on soil-dwelling thrips stages, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 112, 107, 10.1111/j.0013-8703.2004.00185.x · DOI
  7. Betz, 2004, The role of adhesion in prey capture and predator defence in arthropods, Arthropod. Struct. Dev., 33, 3, 10.1016/j.asd.2003.10.002 · DOI
  8. Bilde, 2000, The value of Collembola from agricultural soils as food for a generalist predator, J. Appl. Ecol., 37, 672, 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00527.x · DOI
  9. Brenard, 2018, Food supplementation to optimize inoculative release of the predatory bug Macrolophus pygmaeus in sweet pepper, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 166, 574, 10.1111/eea.12704 · DOI
  10. Brown, 1983, A predator defence in Onychiurus armatus (Tullb.) (Collembola: Onychiuridae), Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc., 18, 152
  11. Baatrup, 2006, Predation of the mite Hypoaspis aculeifer on the springtail Folsomia fimetaria and the influence of sex, size, starvation, and poisoning, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 118, 61, 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2006.00357.x · DOI
  12. Cascone, 2015, Improving the efficiency of Trichogramma achaeae to control Tuta absoluta, Biocontrol, 60, 761, 10.1007/s10526-015-9684-1 · DOI
  13. Chailleux, 2014, Natural-enemy mediated indirect interactions among prey species: potential for enhancing biocontrol services in agroecosystems, Pest Manage. Sci., 70, 1769, 10.1002/ps.3916 · DOI
  14. Dixon, 1958, The escape responses shown by certain aphids to the presence of the coccinellid Adalia decempunctata (L.), Trans. Roy. Entomol. Soc. Lond., 110, 319, 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1958.tb00786.x · DOI
  15. Edwards, 1962, Springtail damage to bean seedlings, Plant. Pathol., 11, 67, 10.1111/j.1365-3059.1962.tb00169.x · DOI
  16. Endlweber, 2009, Collembola switch diet in presence of plant roots thereby functioning as herbivores, Soil Biol. Biochem., 41, 1151, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.022 · DOI
  17. Forbes, 1989, Prey defences and predator handling behaviour: the dangerous prey hypothesis, Oikos, 55, 155, 10.2307/3565418 · DOI
  18. Fountain, 2005, Folsomia candida (Collembola): a “standard” soil arthropod, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 50, 201, 10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130331 · DOI
  19. Gerson, 2007, Mites for the control of pests in protected cultivation, Pest Manage. Sci., 63, 658, 10.1002/ps.1380 · DOI
  20. Heckmann, 2007, Reproductive performance of the generalist predator Hypoaspis aculeifer (Acari: Gamasida) when foraging on different invertebrate prey, Appl. Soil Ecol., 36, 130, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.01.002 · DOI
  21. Hurej, 1992, Investigations on damage to sugar beet seedlings by the springtail (Onychiurus armatus (Collembola, Onychiuridae)) in Lower Silesia (Poland), Acta Entomol. Bohem., 89, 403
  22. Ishii, 2010, The effect of learning and search images on predator–prey interactions, Pop. Ecol., 52, 27, 10.1007/s10144-009-0185-x · DOI
  23. Jensen, 2017, Cold acclimation reduces predation rate and reproduction but increases cold- and starvation tolerance in the predatory mite Gaeolaelaps aculeifer Canestrini, Biol. Control, 114, 150, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.08.013 · DOI
  24. Jensen, 2019, Interactive effects of temperature and time on cold tolerance and spring predation in overwintering soil predatory mites (Gaeolaelaps aculeifer Canestrini), Biol. Control, 132, 169, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.02.018 · DOI
  25. Jensen, 2019, Prey-specific impact of cold pre-exposure on kill rate and reproduction, J. Anim. Ecol., 88, 258, 10.1111/1365-2656.12916 · DOI
  26. Jess, 2004, Biological control of sciarid and phorid pests of mushroom with predatory mites from the genus Hypoaspis (Acari: Hypoaspidae) and the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema feltiae, Bull. Entomol. Res., 94, 159, 10.1079/BER2003286 · DOI
  27. Joseph, 2017, Influence of plant age, temperature, and moisture on Protaphorura fimata feeding injury on lettuce in the Salinas Valley of California, USA, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 162, 69, 10.1111/eea.12518 · DOI
  28. Joseph, 2015, Evidence of Protaphorura fimata (Collembola: Poduromorpha: Onychiuridae) feeding on germinating lettuce in the Salinas Valley of California, J. Econ. Entomol., 108, 228, 10.1093/jee/tou021 · DOI
  29. Karg, 1961, Ökologische Untersuchungen von edaphischen Gamasiden (Acarina, Parasitiformes) 1, Teil. Pedobiologia, 1, 53, 10.1016/S0031-4056(22)00062-2 · DOI
  30. Knapp, 2018, Use of predatory mites in commercial biocontrol: current status and future prospects, Acarologia, 58, 72, 10.24349/acarologia/20184275 · DOI
  31. Koehler, 1997, Mesostigmata (Gamasina, Uropodina), efficient predators in agroecosystems, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 62, 105, 10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01141-3 · DOI
  32. Koss, 2005, Alternative prey disrupt biocontrol by a guild of generalist predators, Biol. Control, 32, 243, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2004.10.002 · DOI
  33. Krey, 2017, Generalist predators consume spider mites despite the presence of alternative prey, Biol. Control, 115, 157, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.10.007 · DOI
  34. Krogh, 1995, Effects of pesticides on the reproduction of Hypoaspis aculeifer (Gamasida: Laelapidae) in the laboratory, Acta Zool. Fenn., 196, 333
  35. Lesna, 1999, Diet-dependent female choice for males with ‘good genes’ in a soil predatory mite, Nature, 401, 581, 10.1038/44125 · DOI
  36. Lesna, 1996, Biological control of the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini, by the predatory mite, Hypoaspis aculeifer, on lilies: predator-prey interactions at various spatial scales, J. Appl. Ecol., 33, 369, 10.2307/2404758 · DOI
  37. Losey, 1998, Positive predator–predator interactions: enhanced predation rates and synergistic suppression of aphid populations, Ecology, 79, 2143
  38. Mukherjee, 2013, Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review, Biol. Rev., 88, 550, 10.1111/brv.12014 · DOI
  39. Muñoz-Cárdenas, 2017, Supplying high-quality alternative prey in the litter increases control of an above-ground plant pest by a generalist predator, Biol. Control, 105, 19, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.11.004 · DOI
  40. Navarro-Campos, 2012, Soil-dwelling predatory mites in citrus: their potential as natural enemies of thrips with special reference to Pezothrips kellyanus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), Biol. Control, 63, 201, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.07.007 · DOI
  41. Navarro-Campos, 2016, Impact of factitious foods and prey on the oviposition of the predatory mites Gaeolaelaps aculeifer and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae), Exp. Appl. Acarol., 70, 69, 10.1007/s10493-016-0061-2 · DOI
  42. Plouvier, 2018, Improving the efficiency of augmentative biological control with arthropod natural enemies: a modeling approach, Biol. Control, 125, 121, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.05.010 · DOI
  43. Rueda-Ramírez, 2018, Colombian population of the mite Gaeolaelaps aculeifer as a predator of the thrips Frankliniella occidentalis and the possible use of an astigmatid mite as its factitious prey, Syst. Appl. Acarol., 23, 2359
  44. Scott, 1964, The economic significance of Collembola in the Salinas Valley of California, J. Econ. Entomol., 57, 297, 10.1093/jee/57.2.297a · DOI
  45. Sigsgaard, 2010, Habitat and prey preferences of the two predatory bugs Anthocoris nemorum (L.) and A. nemoralis (Fabricius) (Anthocoridae: Hemiptera-Heteroptera), Biol. Control, 53, 46, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.11.005 · DOI
  46. Spencer, 1930, Recent experiments with soil animals attacking roots of sugarcane, J. Econ. Entomol., 23, 680, 10.1093/jee/23.4.680 · DOI
  47. Su, 2019, Re-adaptation from alternative prey to target prey increased predation of predator on target mite, Syst. Appl. Acarol., 24, 467
  48. Symondson, 2006, Biodiversity vs. biocontrol: positive and negative effects of alternative prey on control of slugs by carabid beetles, Bull. Entomol. Res., 96, 637, 10.1079/BER2006467 · DOI
  49. Toft, 1997, Acquired food aversion of a wolf spider to three cereal aphids: intra- and interspecific effects, Entomophaga, 42, 63
  50. Toft, 1999, Prey choice and spider fitness, J. Arachnol., 27, 301
  51. Usher, 1966, A defense mechanism in Onychiurus (Collembola: Onychiuridae), Entomol. Monthly Magn., 102, 237
  52. Vasseur, 2018, Use of biological control against arthropod pests in Canadian greenhouse crop production, J. Biosafety, 27, 1
  53. Whitney, 2018, Selectivity underlies the dissociation between seasonal prey availability and prey consumption in a generalist predator, Mol. Ecol., 27, 1739, 10.1111/mec.14554 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Jensen, K., Toft, S., Sørensen, J. G., Sigsgaard, L., Kristensen, T. N., Overgaard, J., & Holmstrup, M.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Kim
ORCID
Venue
Biological Control
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
139
Pages
104076
ISSN
1049-9644 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104076
OpenAlex
W2969875643
Cited by
9
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Biological Control (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Danish Council for Independent Research – Technology and Production Sciences (DFF-FTP-4184-00248)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Study of Mite Species
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Spider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
Keywords
Folsomia candida, predatory mites, Collembola, prey selection, time to kill, generalist predators, soil arthropods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review