Submitted:
23 June 2026
Posted:
24 June 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Host Plant Preparations
2.2. Maintenance of Prey and Predator Colonies
2.3. Study Design
2.3.1. Arena Setup
2.3.2. Life Table Set-Up
2.3.3. Predation Capacity Assessment
2.3.4. Potential Predation Rate of the Release Model
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Developmental Parameters
3.2. Reproductive Parameters
3.3. Life Table Parameters
3.3. Predation and Feeding Capacity
3.4. Potential Predation Rate of Release (PPRR)
- For P. persimilis: 1.22 × 12.44 = 15.18 T. urticae managed per predator per day.
- For N. californicus: 1.29 × 10.13= 13.06 T. urticae managed per predator per day.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Competing Interests
References
- Aktar, M.W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A.J.I.t. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. 2009, 2(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grbić, M.; et al. The genome of Tetranychus urticae reveals herbivorous pest adaptations. 2011, 479(7374), 487–492. [Google Scholar]
- Gerson, U.; Weintraub, P.G.J.A.r.o.e. Mites (Acari) as a factor in greenhouse management. 2012, 57(1), 229–247. [Google Scholar]
- Van Leeuwen, T.; et al. Acaricide resistance mechanisms in the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae and other important Acari: a review. 2010, 40(8), 563–572. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.-Q.; Sanderson, J.P.J.J.o.E.E. Relative toxicity of abamectin to the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae). 1990, 83(5), 1783–1790. [Google Scholar]
- Van Lenteren, J.C.J.B. The state of commercial augmentative biological control: plenty of natural enemies, but a frustrating lack of uptake. 2012, 57(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Rhodes, E.M.; et al. Comparison of single and combination treatments of Phytoseiulus persimilis, Neoseiulus californicus, and Acramite (bifenazate) for control of twospotted spider mites in strawberries. 2006, 39(3), 213–225. [Google Scholar]
- McMurtry, J.A.; et al. Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. 2013, 18(4), 297–320. [Google Scholar]
- Song, Z.-W.; et al. Prey consumption and functional response of Neoseiulus californicus and Neoseiulus longispinosus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus kanzawai (Acari: Tetranychidae). 2016, 21(7), 936–946. [Google Scholar]
- El-Laithy, A.J.E. Integrated control of two spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae on cucumber grown under plastichouse conditions in Egypt. 1996, 41(3), 485–491. [Google Scholar]
- HEIKAL, I.H.; EBRAHIM, A.A.J.E.J.o.A.R. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF TETRANYCHUS URTICAE Koch ON SWEET PEPPER PLANTATIONS IN A COMMERCIAL FARM BY THE PREDATORY MITE, PHYTOSEIULUS MACROPILIS (BANKS). 2013, 91(3), 1161–1173. [Google Scholar]
- Birch, L.J.T.J.o.A.E. The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. 1948; pp. 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Chi, H.J.I.S. Life-table analysis incorporating both sexes and variable development rates among individuals. 1988, 17(1), 26–34. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.B.; Chi, H.J.I.S. Age‐stage, two‐sex life tables of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett)(Diptera: Tephritidae) with a discussion on the problem of applying female age‐specific life tables to insect populations 2012, 19(2), 263–273.
- Chi, H. Two-SEX-MSChart: computer program for the age-stage, two-sex life table analysis. National Chang Hsing University: Taichung, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Walter, D.E.; Proctor, H.C. Mites: ecology, evolution and behaviour; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Escudero, L.; Ferragut, F.J.B.C. Life-history of predatory mites Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on four spider mite species as prey, with special reference to Tetranychus evansi (Acari: Tetranychidae). 2005, 32(3), 378–384. [Google Scholar]
- Weintraub, P.; Palevsky, E.J.E.; Acarology, A. Evaluation of the predatory mite, Neoseiulus californicus, for spider mite control on greenhouse sweet pepper under hot arid field conditions. 2008, 45(1), 29–37. [Google Scholar]




| Sex | Species | Temperature (°C) | Egg | Larva | Protochrysalis¹ | Protonymph | Deutochrysalis¹ | Deutonymph | Teliochrysalis¹ | Total Pre-adult | Adult Life Span | n² |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Tetranychus urticae | 20 | 6.24 ± 0.06a | 2.76 ± 0.07a | 1.16 ± 0.05a | 2.43 ± 0.06a | 1.30 ± 0.06a | 2.84 ± 0.54a | 2.02 ± 1.13a | 18.75 ± 0.22a | 20.13 ± 0.83a | 63 |
| 25 | 3.88 ± 0.07b | 2.12 ± 0.07ab | 1.18 ± 0.05a | 1.32 ± 0.06b | 1.38 ± 0.14a | 1.86 ± 0.06b | 1.85 ± 0.12a | 13.59 ± 0.17b | 17.17 ± 0.63b | 66 | ||
| 30 | 3.13 ± 0.06c | 1.27 ± 0.05b | 0.85 ± 0.00b | 1.21 ± 0.05b | 0.92 ± 0.00b | 1.44 ± 0.10b | 1.00 ± 0.00b | 10.04 ± 0.12c | 9.18 ± 0.32c | 71 | ||
| Phytoseiulus persimilis | 20 | 3.17 ± 0.10a | 1.36 ± 0.08a | -- | 1.86 ± 0.06a | -- | 1.94 ± 0.04a | -- | 8.33 ± 0.14a | 27.42 ± 0.81a | 66 | |
| 25 | 2.76 ± 0.08b | 1.08 ± 0.05b | -- | 1.43 ± 0.08b | -- | 1.59 ± 0.08b | -- | 6.86 ± 0.15b | 23.41 ± 0.81b | 37 | ||
| 30 | 1.78 ± 0.07c | 1.00 ± 0.00b | -- | 1.03 ± 0.00c | -- | 1.15 ± 0.10c | -- | 5.08 ± 0.14c | 17.57 ± 0.43c | 37 | ||
| Neoseiulus californicus | 20 | 2.89 ± 0.14a | 1.25 ± 0.07a | -- | 1.72 ± 0.08a | -- | 1.81 ± 0.07a | -- | 7.67 ± 0.20a | 37.75 ± 1.07a | 71 | |
| 25 | 1.70 ± 0.08b | 1.03 ± 0.03b | -- | 1.16 ± 0.06b | -- | 1.35 ± 0.08b | -- | 5.24 ± 0.12b | 28.92 ± 0.86b | 37 | ||
| 30 | 1.03 ± 0.03c | 1.00 ± 0.00b | -- | 1.00 ± 0.00c | -- | 1.00 ± 0.00c | -- | 4.03 ± 0.03c | 19.55 ± 0.56c | 33 | ||
| Male | Tetranychus urticae | 20 | 6.45 ± 0.09a | 2.74 ± 0.09a | 1.13 ± 0.06a | 2.45 ± 0.10a | 1.35 ± 0.09a | 2.94 ± 0.12a | 1.87 ± 0.43a | 18.94 ± 0.23a | 14.81 ± 0.88a | 31 |
| 25 | 3.81 ± 0.07b | 2.00 ± 0.10b | 1.23 ± 0.08a | 1.38 ± 0.10b | 1.21 ± 0.06ab | 2.04 ± 0.12b | 1.50 ± 0.06b | 13.17 ± 0.20b | 10.19 ± 0.80b | 26 | ||
| 30 | 2.93 ± 0.10c | 1.32 ± 0.09c | 1.04 ± 0.04b | 1.21 ± 0.08b | 0.91 ± 0.00b | 1.39 ± 0.09c | 1.00 ± 0.00c | 9.89 ± 0.21c | 4.96 ± 0.49c | 29 | ||
| Phytoseiulus persimilis | 20 | 3.07 ± 0.13a | 1.14 ± 0.10a | -- | 1.79 ± 0.11a | -- | 2.00 ± 0.10a | -- | 8.00 ± 0.21a | 26.86 ± 1.96a | 26 | |
| 25 | 2.69 ± 0.13b | 1.23 ± 0.12a | -- | 1.31 ± 0.13b | -- | 1.38 ± 0.14b | -- | 6.62 ± 0.24b | 22.46 ± 2.32b | 13 | ||
| 30 | 1.85 ± 0.10c | 1.00 ± 0.00b | -- | 1.08 ± 0.08c | -- | 1.08 ± 0.05c | -- | 4.89 ± 0.08c | 17.46 ± 1.39c | 13 | ||
| Neoseiulus californicus | 20 | 3.00 ± 0.15a | 1.14 ± 0.10a | -- | 1.71 ± 0.13a | -- | 1.93 ± 0.13a | -- | 7.79 ± 0.24a | 31.07 ± 2.11a | 28 | |
| 25 | 1.54 ± 0.14b | 1.00 ± 0.00b | -- | 1.31 ± 0.13b | -- | 1.23 ± 0.12b | -- | 5.08 ± 0.21b | 28.46 ± 2.19a | 13 | ||
| 30 | 1.00 ± 0.00c | 1.00 ± 0.00b | -- | 1.00 ± 0.00c | -- | 1.00 ± 0.00c | -- | 4.00 ± 0.00c | 17.56 ± 1.13b | 16 |
| Parameter | Temperature (°C) |
Tetranychus urticae |
Phytoseiulus persimilis |
Neoseiulus californicus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Female Total Longevity (days)¹ |
20 | 38.87 ± 0.82a | 35.75 ± 0.85a | 45.42 ± 1.06a |
| 25 | 30.24 ± 0.63b | 30.27 ± 0.83b | 34.16 ± 0.89b | |
| 30 | 19.23 ± 0.31c | 22.46 ± 0.43c | 23.58 ± 0.56c | |
|
Male Total Longevity (days)¹ |
20 | 33.74 ± 4.82a | 34.86 ± 1.99a | 38.86 ± 2.06a |
| 25 | 23.88 ± 0.85b | 29.08 ± 2.30b | 33.54 ± 2.25a | |
| 30 | 14.86 ± 0.50c | 22.57 ± 1.36c | 21.56 ± 1.13b | |
|
Mean Total Fecundity (eggs/female) |
20 | 44.40 ± 1.54b | 38.25 ± 2.05a | 38.89 ± 2.27a |
| 25 | 69.48 ± 3.15a | 39.78 ± 2.02a | 44.89 ± 2.22a | |
| 30 | 45.62 ± 1.99b | 35.92 ± 1.47a | 29.97 ± 1.24b | |
|
Total Pre-Oviposition Period (TPOP, days) ² |
20 | 20.54 ± 0.21a | 11.61 ± 0.18a | 10.69 ± 0.24a |
| 25 | 15.02 ± 0.17b | 9.76 ± 0.18b | 7.57 ± 0.17b | |
| 30 | 11.20 ± 0.13c | 7.03 ± 0.15c | 6.97 ± 0.15b | |
|
Adult Pre-Oviposition Period (APOP, days) ³ |
20 | 1.79 ± 0.06b | 3.28 ± 0.14a | 3.03 ± 0.25a |
| 25 | 1.94 ± 0.07a | 2.89 ± 0.16a | 2.32 ± 0.12b | |
| 30 | 1.17 ± 0.06c | 2.14 ± 0.13b | 2.94 ± 0.14a | |
|
Oviposition Period (days)⁴ |
20 | 13.22 ± 0.51a | 15.08 ± 0.60a | 14.64 ± 0.60a |
| 25 | 14.08 ± 0.57a | 15.84 ± 0.61a | 14.43 ± 0.63a | |
| 30 | 7.67 ± 0.29b | 11.12 ± 0.31b | 12.41 ± 0.32a | |
| Mean Eggs per Oviposition Day | 20 | 3.36 ± 0.08b | 2.61 ± 0.06b | 2.58 ± 0.08b |
| 25 | 4.94 ± 0.10a | 2.76 ± 0.06b | 2.83 ± 0.09b | |
| 30 | 6.03 ± 0.15a | 2.90 ± 0.07b | 1.80 ± 0.30c |
| Parameter | Temperature (°C) | Tetranychus urticae (n=100) | Phytoseiulus persimilis (n=50) | Neoseiulus californicus (n=50) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
**Intrinsic Rate of Increase (rm, day⁻¹) ** |
20 | 0.127 ± 0.003 c | 0.182 ± 0.007 b | 0.196 ± 0.008 a |
| 25 | 0.180 ± 0.003 b | 0.209 ± 0.007 a | 0.252 ± 0.009 a | |
| 30 | 0.233 ± 0.006 a | 0.268 ± 0.010 a | 0.246 ± 0.010 a | |
| **Finite Rate of Increase (λ, day⁻¹) ** | 20 | 1.135 ± 0.004 c | 1.200 ± 0.005 b | 1.217 ± 0.010 a |
| 25 | 1.196 ± 0.005 b | 1.233 ± 0.009 a | 1.286 ± 0.010 a | |
| 30 | 1.263 ± 0.008 a | 1.307 ± 0.010 a | 1.279 ± 0.013 a | |
| Gross Reproductive Rate (GRR, eggs/female) | 20 | 37.03 ± 2.62 b | 32.23 ± 5.07 a | 28.71 ± 3.04 a |
| 25 | 69.68 ± 3.91 a | 42.12 ± 9.97 a | 36.71 ± 4.81 a | |
| 30 | 58.33 ± 7.80 a | 29.21 ± 2.68 a | 21.50 ± 2.31 b | |
| Net Reproductive Rate (R0, offspring/female) | 20 | 27.968 ± 2.35 b | 27.533 ± 2.83 a | 26.243 ± 0.23 a |
| 25 | 45.85 ± 3.88 a | 29.43 ± 2.87 a | 21.30 ± 0.20 b | |
| 30 | 32.39 ± 2.50 ab | 26.58 ± 2.47 a | 14.86 ± 0.16 c | |
| Mean Generation Time (T, days) | 20 | 26.243 ± 0.23 a | 18.147 ± 0.34 b | 16.97 ± 0.41 c |
| 25 | 21.30 ± 0.20 a | 16.14 ± 0.26 b | 13.91 ± 0.27 c | |
| 30 | 14.86 ± 0.16 a | 12.24 ± 0.20 b | 12.10 ± 0.20 b | |
| Doubling Time (Dt, days) | 20 | 5.46 ± 0.61 a | 3.79 ± 0.57 b | 3.79 ± 0.58 b |
| 25 | 3.86 ± 0.59 a | 3.31 ± 0.48 ab | 2.75 ± 0.35 b | |
| 30 | 2.96 ± 0.49 a | 2.59 ± 0.54 a | 2.81 ± 0.52 a | |
| Sex Ratio (Proportion Female)¹ | 20 | 0.63 ± 0.05 a | 0.72 ± 0.05 a | 0.72 ± 0.05 a |
| 25 | 0.66 ± 0.05 a | 0.74 ± 0.06 a | 0.74 ± 0.06 a | |
| 30 | 0.71 ± 0.05 a | 0.74 ± 0.06 a | 0.66 ± 0.07 a |
| Predator Species | Consumption Metric | Temperature (°C) | Protonymph | Deutonymph | Adult Male |
Adult Female |
Total Mean Consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phytoseiulus persimilis | Stage-Specific Net Consumption (Total prey/stage) | 20 | 5.13 ± 0.25 | 7.70 ± 0.30 | 73.13 ± 2.65 | 223.63 ± 4.80 | 309.60 ± 13.21 a |
| 25 | 5.62 ± 0.49 | 9.12 ± 0.67 | 55.83 ± 2.54 | 213.93 ± 4.90 | 284.37 ± 15.13 a | ||
| 30 | 4.63 ± 0.27 | 7.33 ± 0.47 | 49.97 ± 2.45 | 200.33 ± 4.90 | 262.27 ± 6.98 a | ||
| Daily Consumption Rate (Prey/day/stage) ¹ | 20 | 2.75 ± 0.25 | 3.92 ± 0.36 | 3.11 ± 0.96 | 10.86 ± 0.99 | 10.16 ± 0.64b | |
| 25 | 3.91 ± 0.33 | 5.51 ± 0.46 | 3.53 ± 0.98 | 11.88 ± 0.99 | 11.21 ± 0.69ab | ||
| 30 | 4.48 ± 0.31 | 6.67 ± 0.46 | 4.13 ± 0.96 | 14.59 ± 0.99 | 12.47 ± 0.68a | ||
| Neoseiulus californicus | Stage-Specific Net Consumption (Total prey/stage) | 20 | 4.43 ± 0.34 | 6.77 ± 0.35 | 64.53 ± 2.65 | 247.03 ± 4.80 | 322.77 ± 10.96 a |
| 25 | 4.37 ± 0.43 | 6.23 ± 0.50 | 66.27 ± 2.67 | 204.76 ± 4.83 | 281.63 ± 15.28 a | ||
| 30 | 3.63 ± 0.32 | 4.87 ± 0.21 | 55.46 ± 3.00 | 135.33 ± 4.58 | 199.30 ± 7.86 b | ||
| Daily Consumption Rate (Prey/day/stage) ¹ | 20 | 2.61 ± 0.30 | 3.70 ± 0.42 | 2.36 ± 0.93 | 8.76 ± 0.99 | 8.11 ± 0.66c | |
| 25 | 3.54 ± 0.35 | 4.35 ± 0.42 | 2.87 ± 0.99 | 10.95 ± 0.91 | 10.19 ± 0.67a | ||
| 30 | 3.63 ± 0.34 | 4.87 ± 0.46 | 3.72 ± 0.99 | 10.67 ± 0.97 | 9.97 ± 0.69b |
| Species | Parameter | 20°C | 25°C | 30°C | Overall Average rm (day⁻¹) | Ratio of Predator rm to Prey rm | Overall average Daily Food Consumption (prey/day) | Potential Predation Rate of Release PPRR (prey/predator/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phytoseiulus persimilis | Intrinsic Rate of Increase (rm) (day⁻¹) | 0.182 | 0.209 | 0.268 | 0.22 | 1.22 | 12.44 | 15.18 |
| Mean daily Food consumption by adult female(prey/day) | 10.86 | 11.88 | 14.59 | 12.44 | ||||
| Neoseiulus californicus | Intrinsic Rate of Increase (rm) (day⁻¹) | 0.196 | 0.252 | 0.246 | 0.231 | 1.29 | 10.13 | 13.06 |
| Mean daily Food consumption by adult female (prey/day) | 8.76 | 10.95 | 10.67 | 10.13 | ||||
| Tetranychus urticae | Intrinsic Rate of Increase (rm) (day⁻¹) | 0.127 | 0.18 | 0.233 | 0.18 | -- | -- | -- |
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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).