among arthropod food webs (Polis et al. 1989) and may be unidirectional or
bidirectional. In unidirectional, one species feeds on the other and in bidirectional,
both predators feed on each other (Madadi et al. 2008).
IGP can be seen in a wide range of biological control agents, for example,
anthocorids and encyrtids (Erbilgin et al. 2004), coccinellids and coccinellids
(Noia et al. 2008), coccinellids, chrysopids and cecidomyiids (Gardiner and Landis
2007), phytoseiids and phytoseiids (Walzer and Schausberger 1999a, b; Hatherly
et al. 2005; Meszaros et al. 2007; Cakmak et al. 2009), phytoseiids and anthocorids
(Madadi et al. 2008; Chow et al. 2010), and phytoseiids and thripids (van der
Hoeven and van Rijn 1990; Faraji 2001; Janssen et al. 2002; Walzer et al. 2004;
Magalhaes et al. 2005; Walzer and Schausberger 2009) and can be impressed by
several factors such as environmental conditions, host plant characteristics (Madadi
et al. 2008), mobility of prey (Provost et al. 2006), vulnerability of prey (Noia et al.
2008), feeding specificity (Farazmand et al. 2015a) and presence of extraguild
(EG) prey (Lucas 2005; Farazmand et al. 2015a; Maleknia et al. 2016; Moghadasi
and Allahyari 2017).
Several studies have been shown the effectiveness of releasing two or more
predatory mite species versus single predatory mite species to control tetranychid
mites (Schausberger and Walzer 2001; Walzer et al. 2001; Barber et al. 2003;
Rhodes et al. 2006; Fitzgerald et al. 2007). The outcome of such interactions
depends on the competing species, such as their feeding types (generalist against
specialist). Recently, in Iran, some studies have been done about intraguild predation
between introduced phytoseiids and native ones (Bohloolzadeh et al. 2013;
Farazmand et al. 2015a; Haghani et al. 2015; Rahmani et al. 2015; Ghasemloo
et al. 2016; Maleknia et al. 2016), phytoseiid and predatory thrips (Farazmand et al.
2015a, b), phytoseiid and predatory bugs (Madadi et al. 2009). Their results showed
introduced phytoseiids were much more prone to IGP than native phytoseiids
(Farazmand et al. 2015a; Rahmani et al. 2015; Maleknia et al. 2016). In these
interactions, predation preferences of N. californicus and T. bagdasarjani on
Scolothrips longicornis Pergande and heterospecific phytoseiids have been studied
and both species tended to prey more on first instar larvae of the thrips compared
with the heterospecific phytoseiid (Farazmand et al. 2013). Haghani et al. (2015)
calculated the predation preference index (Manly’s index) of three phytoseiid species (N. californicus, A. swirskii and P. persimilis) and indicated A. swirskii and
N. californicus were able to recognize con-heterospecific larva and preferred to feed
on heterospecific larvae but P. persimilis showed no preference between con- and
heterospecific larvae. In another study, Rahmani et al. (2015) showed that intraguild
predation is a weak force among N. californicus, T. bagdasarjani and P. plumifer
and at least in the presence of T. urticae, elimination of one by another did not occur.
Afshari et al. (2014) described larvae of A. andersoni had more nutritional value than
conspesific larvae for N. californicus females and they laid more eggs when consumed on heterospecific larvae, while for A. andersoni females, the eggs of
N. californicus had more nutritional value than conspesific eggs.
Borji et al. (2014) determined the level of P. persimilis aggressiveness against
eggs of T. urticae (Extraguild prey) after feeding on eggs of the predatory mite
3 Biological Control of Pests by Mites in Iran
103
bidirectional. In unidirectional, one species feeds on the other and in bidirectional,
both predators feed on each other (Madadi et al. 2008).
IGP can be seen in a wide range of biological control agents, for example,
anthocorids and encyrtids (Erbilgin et al. 2004), coccinellids and coccinellids
(Noia et al. 2008), coccinellids, chrysopids and cecidomyiids (Gardiner and Landis
2007), phytoseiids and phytoseiids (Walzer and Schausberger 1999a, b; Hatherly
et al. 2005; Meszaros et al. 2007; Cakmak et al. 2009), phytoseiids and anthocorids
(Madadi et al. 2008; Chow et al. 2010), and phytoseiids and thripids (van der
Hoeven and van Rijn 1990; Faraji 2001; Janssen et al. 2002; Walzer et al. 2004;
Magalhaes et al. 2005; Walzer and Schausberger 2009) and can be impressed by
several factors such as environmental conditions, host plant characteristics (Madadi
et al. 2008), mobility of prey (Provost et al. 2006), vulnerability of prey (Noia et al.
2008), feeding specificity (Farazmand et al. 2015a) and presence of extraguild
(EG) prey (Lucas 2005; Farazmand et al. 2015a; Maleknia et al. 2016; Moghadasi
and Allahyari 2017).
Several studies have been shown the effectiveness of releasing two or more
predatory mite species versus single predatory mite species to control tetranychid
mites (Schausberger and Walzer 2001; Walzer et al. 2001; Barber et al. 2003;
Rhodes et al. 2006; Fitzgerald et al. 2007). The outcome of such interactions
depends on the competing species, such as their feeding types (generalist against
specialist). Recently, in Iran, some studies have been done about intraguild predation
between introduced phytoseiids and native ones (Bohloolzadeh et al. 2013;
Farazmand et al. 2015a; Haghani et al. 2015; Rahmani et al. 2015; Ghasemloo
et al. 2016; Maleknia et al. 2016), phytoseiid and predatory thrips (Farazmand et al.
2015a, b), phytoseiid and predatory bugs (Madadi et al. 2009). Their results showed
introduced phytoseiids were much more prone to IGP than native phytoseiids
(Farazmand et al. 2015a; Rahmani et al. 2015; Maleknia et al. 2016). In these
interactions, predation preferences of N. californicus and T. bagdasarjani on
Scolothrips longicornis Pergande and heterospecific phytoseiids have been studied
and both species tended to prey more on first instar larvae of the thrips compared
with the heterospecific phytoseiid (Farazmand et al. 2013). Haghani et al. (2015)
calculated the predation preference index (Manly’s index) of three phytoseiid species (N. californicus, A. swirskii and P. persimilis) and indicated A. swirskii and
N. californicus were able to recognize con-heterospecific larva and preferred to feed
on heterospecific larvae but P. persimilis showed no preference between con- and
heterospecific larvae. In another study, Rahmani et al. (2015) showed that intraguild
predation is a weak force among N. californicus, T. bagdasarjani and P. plumifer
and at least in the presence of T. urticae, elimination of one by another did not occur.
Afshari et al. (2014) described larvae of A. andersoni had more nutritional value than
conspesific larvae for N. californicus females and they laid more eggs when consumed on heterospecific larvae, while for A. andersoni females, the eggs of
N. californicus had more nutritional value than conspesific eggs.
Borji et al. (2014) determined the level of P. persimilis aggressiveness against
eggs of T. urticae (Extraguild prey) after feeding on eggs of the predatory mite
3 Biological Control of Pests by Mites in Iran
103