Antipredator behaviours of a spider mite in response to cues of dangerous and harmless predators

Prey are known to invest in costly antipredator behaviour when perceiving cues of dangerous, but not of relatively harmless predators. Whereas most studies investigate one type of antipredator behaviour, we studied several types (changes in oviposition, in escape and avoidance behaviour) in the spider mite Tetranychus evansi in response to cues from two predatory mites. The predator Phytoseiulus longipes is considered a dangerous predator for T. evansi, whereas Phytoseiulus macropilis has a low predation rate on this prey, thus is a much less dangerous predator. Spider mite females oviposited less on leaf disc halves with predator cues than on clean disc halves, independent of the predator species. On entire leaf discs, they laid fewer eggs in the presence of cues of the dangerous predator than on clean discs, but not in the presence of cues of the harmless predator. Furthermore, the spider mites escaped more often from discs with cues of the dangerous predator than from discs without predator cues, but they did not escape more from discs with cues of the harmless predator. The spider mites did not avoid plants with conspecifics and predators. We conclude that the spider mites displayed several different antipredator responses to the same predator species, and that some of these antipredator responses were stronger with cues of dangerous predators than with cues of harmless predators

Antipredator behaviours of a spider mite in response to cues of dangerous and harmless predators

Prey are known to invest in costly antipredator behaviour when perceiving cues of dangerous, but not of relatively harmless predators. Whereas most studies investigate one type of antipredator behaviour, we studied several types (changes in oviposition, in escape and avoidance behaviour) in the spider mite Tetranychus evansi in response to cues from two predatory mites. The predator Phytoseiulus longipes is considered a dangerous predator for T. evansi, whereas Phytoseiulus macropilis has a low predation rate on this prey, thus is a much less dangerous predator. Spider mite females oviposited less on leaf disc halves with predator cues than on clean disc halves, independent of the predator species. On entire leaf discs, they laid fewer eggs in the presence of cues of the dangerous predator than on clean discs, but not in the presence of cues of the harmless predator. Furthermore, the spider mites escaped more often from discs with cues of the dangerous predator than from discs without predator cues, but they did not escape more from discs with cues of the harmless predator. The spider mites did not avoid plants with conspecifics and predators. We conclude that the spider mites displayed several different antipredator responses to the same predator species, and that some of these antipredator responses were stronger with cues of dangerous predators than with cues of harmless predators

Plant defences and spider-mite web affect host plant choice and performance of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci

Herbivores select host plants depending on plant quality and the presence of predators and competitors. Competing herbivores change host plant quantity through consumption, but they can also change plant quality through induction of plant defences, and this affects the performance of herbivores that arrive later on the plant. Some herbivores, such as the spider mite Tetranychus evansi, do not induce, but suppress plant defences, and later-arriving herbivores can profit from this suppression. It has been suggested that the dense web produced by this spider mite serves to prevent other herbivores to settle on the plant and benefit from the suppressed defences. Here, we confirmed this by studying the preference and performance of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci, a generalist herbivorous pest. To disentangle the effects through changes in plant defences from the effects of spider-mite web, we included treatments with a strain of the closely-related web-producing spider mite T. urticae, which induces plant defences. Whiteflies did perform worse on plants with defences induced by T. urticae, but, in contrast to other herbivores, did not perform better on plants with defences suppressed by T. evansi. Moreover, the web of both spider mites reduced the juvenile survival of whiteflies, and whiteflies avoided plants that were covered with web. Hence, whitefly performance was not only affected by plant quality and induced plant defences, but also through the web produced by spider mites, which thus serves to protect against potential competitors, especially when these could profit from the suppression of plant defences by the mites

Plant defences and spider-mite web affect host plant choice and performance of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci

Herbivores select host plants depending on plant quality and the presence of predators and competitors. Competing herbivores change host plant quantity through consumption, but they can also change plant quality through induction of plant defences, and this affects the performance of herbivores that arrive later on the plant. Some herbivores, such as the spider mite Tetranychus evansi, do not induce, but suppress plant defences, and later-arriving herbivores can profit from this suppression. It has been suggested that the dense web produced by this spider mite serves to prevent other herbivores to settle on the plant and benefit from the suppressed defences. Here, we confirmed this by studying the preference and performance of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci, a generalist herbivorous pest. To disentangle the effects through changes in plant defences from the effects of spider-mite web, we included treatments with a strain of the closely-related web-producing spider mite T. urticae, which induces plant defences. Whiteflies did perform worse on plants with defences induced by T. urticae, but, in contrast to other herbivores, did not perform better on plants with defences suppressed by T. evansi. Moreover, the web of both spider mites reduced the juvenile survival of whiteflies, and whiteflies avoided plants that were covered with web. Hence, whitefly performance was not only affected by plant quality and induced plant defences, but also through the web produced by spider mites, which thus serves to protect against potential competitors, especially when these could profit from the suppression of plant defences by the mites