Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:59:02.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CHRYSOPERLA PLORABUNDA (NEUROPTERA: CHRYSOPIDAE) LARVAE FEED DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THRIPS (THYSANOPTERA: THRIPIDAE) IN THE FIELD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Gary C. Chang
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Box 351800, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA 98195-1800

Extract

Green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) are commercially available augmentative biological control agents. Despite centuries of recognition as beneficial insects (Darwin 1800), scant information can be found describing what lacewing larvae prey upon in the field when several different prey species are present (New 1975). I assessed the types of prey that Chrysoperla plorabunda (Fitch) larvae consume when they are released on peas, Pisum sativum L. (Fabaceae), in western Washington. In 1997, two field assistants and I made observations at three sites: the Rent's Due Ranch (RDR: 48°14′N, 122°22′W), an organic farm located just outside Stanwood, Washington, and two research farms (Sumner: 47°11′N, 122°13′W; and Fife: 47°12′N, 122°20′W) in the Washington State University extension station system. Planting dates differed among these sites; at RDR, peas were planted in the spring, whereas we planted peas at the Sumner and Fife farms in June and July, respectively. Despite this and other differences, the peas at each site harbor similar insect communities (unpublished data).

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergeson, E., and Messina, F.J.. 1997. Resource- versus enemy-mediated interactions between ceral aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) on a common host plant. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 90: 425432.Google Scholar
Canard, M., and Duelli, P.. 1984. Predatory behavior of larvae and cannibalism. pp. 92100in Canard, M., Semeria, Y., and New, T.R. (Eds.), Biology of Chrysopidae. Dr W. Junk bv Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
Chang, G.C. 1996. Comparison of single versus multiple species of generalist predators for biological control. Environmental Entomology 25: 207212.Google Scholar
Darwin, E. 1800. Phytologia; or the philosophy of agriculture and gardening. Printed for J. Johnson by T. Bensley, London.Google Scholar
Evans, H.F. 1976. The role of predator-prey size ratio in determining the efficiency of capture by Anthocoris nemorum and the escape reactions of its prey, cyrthosiphon pisum. Ecological Entomology 1: 8590.Google Scholar
New, T.R. 1975. The biology of Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae (Neuroptera), with reference to their usage as biological control agents: a review. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 127: 115140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar