Intraguild Predation and Chemical Cue Responses Between Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus in Laboratory Assays
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Test Mites
2.2. Intraguild Predation
2.3. Behavioral Bioassay
2.4. Experience Effects
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Intraguild Predation on Heterospecific Prey Without Shared Prey
3.2. Intraguild Predation on Heterospecifics with Shared Prey
3.3. Behavioral Bioassay
3.4. Experience Effects
3.4.1. Foraging Activity of P. persimilis on Cucumber and Bean Leaves Infested with Spider Mites Alone or Accompanied with a Heterospecific Predator
3.4.2. Foraging Activity of N. californicus on Cucumber and Bean Leaves Infested with Spider Mites Alone or Accompanied by Heterospecific Predators
3.4.3. Interaction Between Feeding State, Weeks Experiences, and Predator Mites on the Foraging Behavior of Predatory Mites
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- van Lenteren, J.C. A greenhouse without pesticides: Fact or fantasy? Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çakmak, I.; Janssen, A.; Sabelis, M.W. Intraguild interactions between the predatory mites Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus persimilis. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2006, 38, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Janssen, A.; Pallini, A.; Venzon, M.; Sabelis, M.W. Behaviour and indirect interactions in food webs of plant-inhabiting arthropods. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1998, 22, 497–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messelink, G.J.; Janssen, A. Increased control of thrips and aphids in greenhouses with two species of generalist predatory bugs involved in intraguild predation. Biol. Control 2014, 79, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnanvossou, D.; Hanna, R.; Dicke, M. Infochemical-mediated intraguild interactions among three predatory mites on cassava plants. Oecologia 2003, 135, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maleknia, B.; Golpayegani, A.Z.; Saboori, A.; Magalhães, S. Olfactory responses of Phytoseiulus persimilis to rose plants with or without prey or competitors. Acarologia 2013, 53, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choh, Y.; van der Hammen, T.; Sabelis, M.W.; Janssen, A. Cues of intraguild predators affect the distribution of intraguild prey. Oecologia 2010, 163, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magalhães, S.; Tudorache, C.; Montserrat, M.; van Maanen, R.; Sabelis, M.W.; Janssen, A. Diet of intraguild predators affects antipredator behavior in intraguild prey. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pianka, E.R. Niche overlap and difuse competition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1974, 71, 2141–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Lenteren, J.C.; Bolckmans, K.; Köhl, J.; Ravensberg, W.J.; Urbaneja, A. Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: Plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 2018, 63, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, H.; Janssen, A.; Pallini, A.; Venzon, M.; Fadini, M.; Duarte, V. A phytoseiid predator from the tropics as potential biological control agent for the spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Biol. Control 2007, 42, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Migeon, A.; Dorkeld, F. Spider mites web: A database dedicated to the knowledge of an acarine pest family, the Tetranychidae. In Sixth Congress of the European Association of Acarologists-Integrative Acarology; European Association of Acarologists: Montpellier, France, 2008; pp. 208–215. [Google Scholar]
- Van Leeuwen, T.; Vontas, J.; Tsagkarakou, A.; Dermauw, W.; Tirry, L. Acaricide resistance mechanisms in the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae and other important Acari: A review. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2010, 40, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McMurtry, J.A.; Moraes, G.J.D.; Sourassou, N.F. Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. Syst. Appl. Acarol. 2013, 18, 297–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanamani, M.; Fathipour, Y.; Talebi, A.A.; Mehrabadi, M. Linking pollen quality and performance of Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in two-spotted spider mite management programmes: Pollen as supplementary diet for Neoseiulus californicus. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 73, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, L.; Mori, S.; Haruyama, N.; Hirai, N.; Osakabe, M. Strawberry pollen as a source of UV-B protection ingredients for the phytoseiid mite Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 77, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilstrap, F.E.; Friese, D.D. The predatory potential of Phytoseiulus persimilis, Amblyseius californicus, and Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Int. J. Acarol. 1985, 11, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vacacela Ajila, H.E.; Colares, F.; Lemos, F.; Marques, P.H.; Franklin, E.C.; Santo do Vale, W.; Oliveira, E.E.; Venzon, M.; Pallini, A. Supplementary food for Neoseiulus californicus boosts biological control of Tetranychus urticae on strawberry. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 1986–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Wijk, M.; De Bruijn, P.J.A.; Sabelis, M.W. Predatory mite attraction to herbivore-induced plant odors is not a consequence of attraction to individual herbivore-induced plant volatiles. J. Chem. Ecol. 2008, 34, 791–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Znajder, B.; Sabelis, M.W.; Egas, M. Response of predatory mites to a herbivore-induced plant volatile: Genetic variation for context-dependent behaviour. J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fadini, M.A.; Venzon, M.; Oliveira, H.; Pallini, A.; Vilela, E.F. Response of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus macropilis (Banks) to volatiles produced by strawberry plants in response to attack by Tetranychid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae: Tetranychidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2010, 39, 248–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, M.M.; Pallini, A.; Lima, E.; Janssen, A. Ontogenetic stage-specific reciprocal intraguild predation. Oecologia 2018, 188, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, M.M.; Pallini, A.; Marques, P.H.; Lima, E.; Janssen, A. Compatibility of two predator species for biological control of the two-spotted spider mite. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2010, 80, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wissinger, S.; McGrady, J. Intraguild predation and competition between larval dragonflies: Direct and indirect effects on shared prey. Ecology 1993, 74, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, W.E.; Wise, D.H. Predator interference and the establishment of generalist predator populations for biocontrol. Biol. Control 1999, 15, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peralta-Quesada, P.C.; Schausberger, P. Prenatal chemosensory learning by the predatory mite Neoseiulus californicus. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e53229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schausberger, P.; Walzer, A.; Hoffmann, D.; Rahmani, H. Food imprinting revisited: Early learning in foraging predatory mites. Behaviour 2010, 147, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schausberger, P.; Davaasambuu, U.; Saussure, S.; Christiansen, I.C. Categorizing experience-based foraging plasticity in mites: Age dependency, primacy effects and memory persistence. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 172110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schausberger, P.; Nguyen, T.H.; Altintas, M. Early life experience of intraguild predation risk shifts the personalities of predatory mites along the shy-bold axis. Zoosymposia 2022, 22, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steppuhn, A.; Schuman, M.C.; Baldwin, I.T. Si lencing jasmonate signalling and jasmonate-mediated defences reveals different survival strategies between two Nicotiana attenuata accessions. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17, 3717–3732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohlfs Dominguez, P. Promoting our understanding of neural plasticity by exploring developmental plasticity in early and adult life. Brain Res. Bull. 2014, 107, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamps, J.A.; Krishnan, V.V. Age-dependent changes in behavioural plasticity: Insights from Bayesian models of development. Anim. Behav. 2017, 126, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, V.J.; Babu, A. Herbivore-induced plant volatiles from red spider mite, Oligonychus coffeae infested tea plants as attractant cues for the predatory mite, Neoseiulus longispinosus. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 41, 613–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seiter, M.; Schausberger, P. Constitutive and operational variation of learning in foraging predatory mites. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christiansen, I.C.; Schausberger, P. Interference in early dual-task learning by predatory mites. Anim. Behav. 2017, 133, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christiansen, I.C.; Szin, S.; Schausberger, P. Benefit-cost trade-offs of early learning in foraging predatory mites Amblyseius swirskii. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichert, M.B.; Christiansen, I.C.; Seiter, M.; Schausberger, P. Transgenerational loss and recovery of early learning ability in foraging predatory mites. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2018, 71, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabelis, M.; van de Baan, H. Location of distant spider mite colonies by phytoseiid predators: Demonstration of specific kairomones emitted by Tetranychus urticae and Panonychus ulmi. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1983, 33, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabelis, M.; van der Weel, J. Anemotactic responses of the predatory mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot, and their role in prey finding. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1993, 17, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCullagh, P.; Nelder, J.A. Models for polytomous data. In Generalized Linear Models; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 149–192. [Google Scholar]
- Walzer, A.; Schausberger, P. Cannibalism and interspecific predation in the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus: Predation rates and effects on reproduction and juvenile development. BioControl 1999, 43, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walzer, A.; Schausberger, P. Predation preferences and discrimination between con- and heterospecific prey by the phytoseiid mites Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus. BioControl 1999, 43, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, A.; Sabelis, M.W.; Magalhães, S.; Montserrat, M.; van der Hammen, T. Habitat structure affects intraguild predation. Ecology 2007, 88, 2713–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, R.D.; Polis, G.A. A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am. Nat. 1997, 149, 745–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenheim, J.A.; Kaya, H.K.; Ehler, L.E.; Marois, J.J.; Jaffee, B.A. Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: Theory and evidence. Biol. Control 1995, 5, 303–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, W.E.; Ives, A.R. Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist parasitoid. Ecology 2001, 82, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vance-Chalcraft, H.D.; Rosenheim, J.A.; Vonesh, J.R.; Osenberg, C.W.; Sih, A. The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: A meta-analysis. Ecology 2007, 88, 2689–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pallini, A.; Janssen, A.; Sabelis, M.W. Spider mites avoid plants with predators. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1999, 23, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, A.; Pallini, A.; Venzon, M.; Sabelis, M.W. Absence of odour-mediated avoidance of heterospecific competitors by the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1999, 92, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, A.; Bruin, J.; Jacobs, G.; Schraag, R.; Sabelis, M.W. Predators use volatiles to avoid prey patches with conspecifics. J. Anim. Ecol. 1997, 66, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayoumy, M.H.; Ramadan, M.M. When predators avoid predation by their con-and heterospecific competitors: Nonconsumptive effects mediate foraging behavior and prey handling time of predators. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onzo, A.; Hanna, R.; Zannou, I.; Sabelis, M.W.; Yaninek, J.S. Dynamics of refuge use: Diurnal, vertical migration by predatory and herbivorous mites within cassava plants. Oikos 2003, 101, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerson, U.; Weintraub, P.G. Mites for the control of pests in protected cultivation. Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci. 2007, 63, 658–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pocius, V.M.; Kersch-Becker, M.F. Evaluating the influence of plant defenses on prey quality as an opportunity to enhance biological control in agroecosystems. Biol. Control 2024, 193, 105515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drukker, B.; Bruin, J.; Jacobs, G.; Kroon, A.; Sabelis, M.W. How predatory mites learn to cope with variability in volatile plant signals in the environment of their herbivorous prey. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2000, 24, 881–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, J.G.; Dicke, M. The role of methyl salicylate in prey searching behavior of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. J. Chem. Ecol. 2004, 30, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takabayashi, J.; Sabelis, M.W.; Janssen, A.; Shiojiri, K.; van Wijk, M. Can plants betray the presence of multiple herbivore species to predators and parasitoids? The role of learning in phytochemical information networks. Ecol. Res. 2006, 21, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dicke, M.; van der Maas, K.J.; Takabayashi, J.; Vet, L. Learning affects response to volatile allelochemicals by predatory mites. Proc. Sect. Exp. Appl. Entomol. Neth. Entomol. Soc. 1990, 1, 35–36. [Google Scholar]
- Vet, L.E.M.; Groenewold, A.W. Semiochemicals and learning in parasitoids. J. Chem. Ecol. 1990, 16, 3119–3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.Q.; Sanderson, J.P. Effects of host plant experience on foraging behavior of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1992, 85, 775–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sznajder, B.; Sabelis, M.W.; Egas, M. Innate responses of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis to a herbivore-induced plant volatile. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2011, 54, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vet, L.E.M.; Lewis, W.J.; Papaj, D.R.; van Lenteren, J.C. A variable-response model for parasitoid foraging behavior. J. Insect Behav. 1990, 3, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, J.G.; Snoeren, T.A.L.; Dicke, M. Predatory mites learn to discriminate between plant volatiles induced by prey and nonprey herbivores. Anim. Behav. 2005, 69, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dicke, M.; Van Beek, T.A.; Posthumus, M.A.; Ben Dom, N.; Van Bokhoven, H.; De Groot, A.E. Isolation and identification of volatile kairomone that affects acarine predatorprey interactions Involvement of host plant in its production. J. Chem. Ecol. 1990, 16, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takabayashi, J.; Dicke, M. Response of predatory mites with different rearing histories to volatiles of uninfested plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1992, 64, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krips, O.E.; Willems, P.E.L.; Gols, R.; Posthumus, M.A.; Dicke, M. The response of Phytoseiulus persimilis to spider-mite induced volatiles from gerbera: Influence of starvation and experience. J. Chem. Ecol. 1999, 25, 2623–2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.X.; Andringa, J.; Brouwer, J.; Alba, J.M.; Kortbeek, R.W.; Messelink, G.J.; Janssen, A. The omnivorous predator Macrolophus pygmaeus induces production of plant volatiles that attract a specialist predator. J. Pest Sci. 2022, 95, 1343–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chailleux, A.; Mohl, E.K.; Teixeira Alves, M.; Messelink, G.J.; Desneux, N. Natural enemy-mediated indirect interactions among prey species: Potential for enhancing biocontrol services in agroecosystems. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1769–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, B.H.; Cobey, S. The olfactory memory of the honeybee. 2. Blocking between odorants in binary mixtures. J. Exp. Biol. 1994, 195, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papaj, D.R.; Snellen, H.; Swaans, K.; Vet, L.E.M. Unrewarding experiences and their effect on foraging in the parasitic wasp Leptopilina heterotoma (Hymenoptera: Eucoilidae). J. Insect Behav. 1994, 7, 465–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]








| Spider Mites | Spider Mites + Heterospecific | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experience (A) | Source of variation | Mean square | F. value | p. value | Mean square | F. value | p. value |
| One week | Treatment (A) | 0.33 a | 0.17 | 0.08 n.s. | 0.08 a | 0.03 | 0.56 n.s. |
| Feeding state (B) | 8.33 a | 4.17 | 0.69 n.s. | 10.08 a | 4.03 | 0.08 n.s. | |
| A*B | 5.33 | 2.67 | 0.14 n.s. | 6.75 | 2.7 | 0.14 n.s. | |
| Two weeks | Treatment (A) | 0.33 b | 0.33 | 0.58 n.s. | 0.08 b | 0.08 | 0.78 n.s. |
| Feeding state (B) | 8.33 a | 8.33 | 0.02 * | 6.75 a | 6.75 | 0.03 * | |
| A*B | 5.33 | 5.33 | 0.05 * | 4.08 | 4.08 | 0.08 n.s. | |
| Three weeks | Treatment (A) | 3.00 a | 0.82 | 0.39 n.s. | 2.08 a | 0.52 | 0.49 n.s. |
| Feeding state (B) | 1.33 a | 0.36 | 0.56 n.s. | 2.08 a | 0.52 | 0.49 n.s. | |
| A*B | 3.00 | 0.82 | 0.39 n.s. | 4.08 | 1.02 | 0.34 n.s. | |
| Four weeks | Treatment (A) | 14.08 a | 4.97 | 0.06 n.s. | 8.33 a | 3.70 | 0.09 n.s. |
| Feeding state (B) | 0.08 a | 0.03 | 0.86 n.s. | 0.0 a | 0.00 | 1.00 n.s. | |
| A*B | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.87 n.s. | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.71 n.s. | |
| Spider Mites | Spider Mites + Heterospecific | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experience (A) | Source of variation | Mean square | F. value | p. value | Mean square | F. value | p. value |
| One week | Treatment (A) | 1.33 b | 0.89 | 0.37 n.s. | 2.08 a | 1.19 | 0.31 n.s. |
| Feeding state (B) | 3.00 a | 2.00 | 0.19 n.s. | 2.08 a | 1.19 | 0.31 n.s. | |
| A*B | 21.33 a | 14.22 | 0.006 ** | 24.08 | 13.76 | 0.006 ** | |
| Two weeks | Treatment (A) | 0.08 b | 0.08 | 0.78 n.s. | 0.33 a | 0.44 a | 0.52 n.s. |
| Feeding state (B) | 18.75 a | 18.75 | 0.003 ** | 21.33 b | 28.44 | 0.0007 *** | |
| A*B | 2.08 | 2.08 | 0. 19 n.s. | 1.33 | 1.78 | 0. 22 n.s. | |
| Three weeks | Treatment (A) | 10.08 a | 7.12 | 0.029 * | 12.00 b | 12.00 | 0.02 * |
| Feeding state (B) | 10.08 b | 7.12 | 0.029 * | 8.33 a | 8.33 | 0.009 ** | |
| A*B | 36.75 | 25.94 | 0.0009 *** | 40.33 | 40.33 | 0.0002 *** | |
| Four weeks | Treatment (A) | 21.33 a | 14.22 a | 0.006 ** | 24.08 b | 19.27 | 0.002 ** |
| Feeding state (B) | 3.00 b | 2.00 b | 0.19 n.s. | 2.08 a | 1.67 | 0.233 n.s. | |
| A*B | 21.33 | 14.22 | 0.006 ** | 24.08 | 19.27 | 0.002 ** | |
| Factors | Predators Response | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tertranychus urtica | T. u + Hetterospicific | (T. u) Time | (T. u + Hetterospicifi) Time | ||
| Weeks | d.f. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| F | 5.59 | 4.35 | 0.67 | 4.78 | |
| P | 0.04 * | 0.55 n.s. | 0.06 n.s. | 0.05 * | |
| Feeding state | d.f. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| F | 3.72 | 4.72 | 4.72 | 1.99 | |
| P | 0.09 n.s. | 0.06 n.s. | 0.062 n.s. | 0.196 n.s. | |
| Feeding state × Weeks | d.f. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| F | 0.56 | 0.42 | 1.49 | 8.08 | |
| P | 0.66 n.s. | 0.75 n.s. | 0.29 n.s. | 0.008 ** | |
| Predatory mites | d.f. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| F | 25.99 | 28.09 | 8.26 | 38.58 | |
| P | 0.0002 *** | 0.0001 *** | 0.012 * | 0.0001 *** | |
| Predatory mites ×Weeks | d.f. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| F | 6.46 | 6.68 | 2.12 | 7.77 | |
| P | 0.006 ** | 0.005 * | 0.14 n.s. | 0.0001 *** | |
| Predatory mites × Feeding state | d.f. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| F | 7.07 | 8.41 | 6.27 | 6.02 | |
| P | 0.02 * | 0.0116 * | 0.03 * | 0.028 * | |
| Predatory mites × Feeding state × Weeks | d.f. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| F | 18.85 | 16.81 | 13.90 | 10.17 | |
| P | 0.0001 *** | 0.0001 *** | 0.0002 *** | 0.0008 *** | |
| R2 | 92% | 91.38% | 89.02% | 90.25% | |
| Coefficient Variation | 12.18 | 12.45 | 18.29 | 15.37 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Kalmosh, F.S.; Zhang, B.; Đukić, N.; Alamri, A.; Alrokayan, S.; Xu, X. Intraguild Predation and Chemical Cue Responses Between Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus in Laboratory Assays. Insects 2026, 17, 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020157
Kalmosh FS, Zhang B, Đukić N, Alamri A, Alrokayan S, Xu X. Intraguild Predation and Chemical Cue Responses Between Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus in Laboratory Assays. Insects. 2026; 17(2):157. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020157
Chicago/Turabian StyleKalmosh, Fatma Sh., Bo Zhang, Nikola Đukić, Abdulaziz Alamri, Salman Alrokayan, and Xuenong Xu. 2026. "Intraguild Predation and Chemical Cue Responses Between Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus in Laboratory Assays" Insects 17, no. 2: 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020157
APA StyleKalmosh, F. S., Zhang, B., Đukić, N., Alamri, A., Alrokayan, S., & Xu, X. (2026). Intraguild Predation and Chemical Cue Responses Between Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus californicus in Laboratory Assays. Insects, 17(2), 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020157

