Experimental and Applied Acarology

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 29–41 | Cite as

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

  • M. ManwaringEmail author
  • H. F. Nahrung
  • H. Wallace


Plant parasitic nematodes are common and important global pests, causing over US$150 billion in crop losses across the agricultural sector worldwide. Meloidogyne javanica and Pratylenchus zeae are two of the most damaging plant-parasitic nematodes and there are limited options for their control. We evaluated the potential of a large (Lasioseius subterraneous) and a small (Protogamasellus mica) mesostigmatan mite as biological control agents of plant-parasitic nematodes. We tested the attack rate and reproductive potential of these two mite species on four nematode species: M. javanica (eggs), Pra. zeae (adults) and two microbivorous nematodes, Mesorhabditis sp. and Aphelenchus avenae (adults for both species). Each mite/nematode combination (1 mite:100 nematodes) was tested in six replicate arenas. In a separate trial, each mite species was presented with 50 A. avenae and 50 Pra. zeae in the same arena to determine prey preference. Both mite species significantly reduced the abundance of all nematode species used in the trials when compared to nematode-only controls. Lasioseius subterraneous consumed all available M. javanica eggs within 72 h. The larger mite had a significantly higher overall attack rate than the smaller mite, each consuming an average of 96 and 72 nematodes, respectively, within 72 h. However, both mites had a similar reproductive rate. Protogamasellus mica displayed a positive preference towards the plant parasitic nematode Pra. zeae over the fungal feeding A. avenae whereas L. subterraneous did not display a prey preference. Our results highlight the potential of these two predators to control plant parasitic nematodes, although further trials under field conditions are needed.


Mesostigmata Rootknot nematode Lesion nematode Biocontrol 



This research was funded by Sugar Research Australia and an Australian Postgraduate Award (now Research Training Program) to MM through the Australian Government’s Department of Education and Training, and the University of the Sunshine Coast. We thank Graham Stirling for his contributions to earlier drafts of the manuscript and for provision (operating as Biological Crop Protection) of mites and nematodes used in experiments.


  1. Abou-Awad BA, Korayem AM, Hassan MF, Abou-Elela MA (2001) Life history of the predatory mite Lasioseius athiasae (Acari, Ascidae) on various kinds of food substances: a polypeptide analysis of prey consideration. J Appl Entomol 125:125–130Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo L, Leite L, Chacon-Orozco J, Moreira M, Ferreira M, Cano L, Borges V, Rueda-Ramírez D, De Moraes G, Palevsky E (2019) Free living nematodes as alternative prey for soil predatory mites: an interdisciplinary case study of conservation biological control. Biol Control 132:128–134Google Scholar
  3. Benhadi-Marin J, Alberto Pereira J, Barreales D, Paulo Sousa J, Santos (2018) A simulation-based method to compare the pest suppression potential of predators: a case study with spiders. Biol Control 123:87–96Google Scholar
  4. Blair BL, Stirling GR, Whittle PJL (1999) Distribution of pest nematodes on sugarcane in south Queensland and relationship to soil texture, cultivar, crop age and region. Aust J Exp Agric 39:43–50Google Scholar
  5. Bonkowski M, Villenave C, Griffiths B (2009) Rhizosphere fauna: the functional and structural diversity of intimate interactions of soil fauna with plant roots. Plant Soil 321:213–233Google Scholar
  6. Britto EPJ, Gago E, Moraes GJ (2012) How promising is Lasioseius floridensis as a control agent of Polyphagotarsonemus latus? Exp Appl Acarol 56:221–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Castillo P, Volvas N (2007) Pratylenchus (Nematoda: Pratylenchidae); diagnosis, biology, pathogenicity and management. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  8. Chesson J (1978) Measuring preference in selective predation. Ecol 59:211–215Google Scholar
  9. Chesson J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecol 64:1297–1304Google Scholar
  10. DeBach P, Rosen D (1991) Biological control by natural enemies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Harwood JD, Phillips SW, Lello J, Sunderland KD, Glen DM, Bruford MW, Harper GL, Symondson WOC (2009) Invertebrate biodiversity affects predator fitness and hence potential to control pests in crops. Biol Control 51:499–506Google Scholar
  12. Hassell MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassell MP, May RM (1986) Generalist and specialist natural enemies in insect predator-prey interactions. J Anim Ecol 55:923–940Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins BA, Cornell HV (1999) Theoretical approaches to biological control. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoy MA (1994) Parasitoids and predators in management of arthropod pests. In: Metcalf RL, Luckmann WH (eds) Introduction to insect pest management. Wiley, New York, pp 129–198Google Scholar
  16. Huffaker CB (1971) Biological control. Plenum, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussey RS, Mims CW (1991) Ultrastructure of feeding tubes formed in giant-cells induced by the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Protoplasma 162:99–107Google Scholar
  18. Imbriani JL, Mankau R (1983) Studies on Lasioseius scapulatus, a mesostigmatid mite predacious on nematodes. J Nematol 15:523–528PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones M, Fosu-Nyarko J (2014) Molecular biology of root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus spp.) and their interaction with host plants. Ann Appl Biol 164:163–181Google Scholar
  20. Krantz GW, Walter DE (2009) A manual of acarology. Texas Tech University Press, TexasGoogle Scholar
  21. Manly BFJ (1974) A model for certain types of selection experiments. Biometrics 30:281–294Google Scholar
  22. Manwaring M, Wallace HM, Weaver HJ (2018) Effects of a mulch layer on the assemblage and abundance of mesostigmatan mites and other arthropods in the soil of a sugarcane agro-ecosystem in Australia. Exp Appl Acarol 74(3):291–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Murdoch WW, Chesson J, Chesson PL (1985) Biological control in theory and practice. Am Nat 125:344–366Google Scholar
  24. Navarro-Campos C, Wäckers FL, Pekas A (2016) Impact of factitious foods and prey on the oviposition of the predatory mites Gaeolaelaps aculeifer and Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae). Exp Appl Acarol 70:69–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicol JM, Turner SJ, Coyne DL, Den Nijs L, Hockland S, Maafi ZT (2011) Current nematode threats to world agriculture. In: Jones JT, Gheysen G, Fenoll C (eds) Genomics and molecular genetics of plant-nematode interactions. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 21–44Google Scholar
  26. Rasmy A, Nasr A, Reda A (1987) Reproductive response and development of three soil predaceous mites utilizing the acarid mite Tyrophagus casei Oud. as an alternate diet. Anz Schadlingskde Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz 60:92–94Google Scholar
  27. Queiroz OS, Ramos RS, Gontijo LM, Picanço MC (2015) Functional response of three species of predatory pirate bugs attacking eggs of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Enviro Entomol 44:246–251Google Scholar
  28. Prischmann D, Knutson E, Dashiell K, Lundgren J (2011) Generalist-feeding subterranean mites as potential biological control agents of immature corn rootworms. Exp Appl Acarol 55:233–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Read DS, Sheppard SK, Bruford MW, Glen DM, Symondson WOC (2006) Molecular detection of predation by soil micro-arthropods on nematodes. Mol Ecol 15:1963–1972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Salehi A, Ostovan H, Modarresi M (2014) Evaluation of the efficiency of Gaeolaelaps aculeifer in control of plant parasitic nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans under greenhouse conditions. J Entomol Nematol 6:150–153Google Scholar
  31. Singh S, Singh B, Singh AP (2015) Nematodes: a threat to sustainability of agriculture. Proced Environ Sci 29:215–216Google Scholar
  32. Stirling GR (2014) Biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes: soil ecosystem management in sustainable agriculture, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 536Google Scholar
  33. Stirling GR, Stirling MA, Walter DE (2017) The mesostigmatid mite Protogamasellus mica, an effective predator of free-living and plant-parasitic nematodes. J Nematol 49:327–333PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu Rev Entomol 47:561–594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Taha HA, Al-Assiuty AI, Sharra LA, Farid W (2014) The potential of two different Acari species (Mesostigmata and Oribatida) on suppression of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) on tomato plants. Glob J Environ Sci Toxicol 1:119–135Google Scholar
  36. Torbert HA, Wood CW (1992) Effects of soil compaction and water-filled pore space on soil microbial activity and N losses. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 23:1321–1331Google Scholar
  37. Van Leeuwen E, Jansen VAA, Bright PW (2007) How population dynamics shape the functional response in a one-predator-two-prey system. Ecology 88:1571–1581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Walter DE, Ikonen EK (1989) Species, guilds, and functional groups: taxonomy and behavior in nematophagous arthropods. J Nematol 21:315–327PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Walter DE, Proctor H (2013) Mites: ecology, evolution & behaviour: life at a microscale. Springer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. Walter DE, Sterling GR (2018) Microarthropods in Australian sugarcanesoils: a survey with emphasis on the Mesostigmata as potential regulators of nematode populations. Acaralogia 58:673–682Google Scholar
  41. Woodward G, Hildrew AG (2002) Body-size determinants of niche overlap and intraguild predation within a complex food web. J Anim Ecol 71:1063–1074Google Scholar
  42. Xu CL, Chen YL, Xu XN, Wang DW, Xie H, Wang ED, Li DS, Zhang BX, Qin HG (2014) Evaluation of Blattisocius dolichus (Acari: Blattisociidae) for biocontrol of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae). BioControl 59:617–624Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Genecology Research CentreUniversity of the Sunshine CoastSunshine CoastAustralia
  2. 2.Forest Industries Research CentreUniversity of the Sunshine CoastSunshine CoastAustralia
  3. 3.Environmental Futures Research InstituteGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia

Personalised recommendations