Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:35:25.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF THREE SPECIES OF PHYTOSEIIDAE (ACARINA) TO PREY DENSITY1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. N. Sandness  and
J. A. McMurtry
J. N. Sandness
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside, California
J. A. McMurtry
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were carried out on excised leaves to determine the form of the functional response curve of the phytoseiid predators Amblyseius largoensis (Muma), A. concordis (Chant), and Typhlodromus floridanus (Muma), to increases in density of the prey, Oligonychus punicae (Hirst). The curve for each species was curvilinear to a plateau from prey densities of 1 to 70/arena, the average number killed/24 hours at the plateau being 8.5/female for A. largoensis, 5.5/female for A. concordis, and 2.0/female for T. floridanus. From prey densities of 70–300/arena, there was an accelerated rise to another plateau, in which the average number of prey killed in a 24 hour period was double that of the first plateau.Detailed analysis of A. largoensis at a density of 200 prey/arena showed the effect to be due to a stimulation–interference component, which resulted in the predator killing several prey in close succession because of increased prey contact, and because total utilization of each was minimal. During a 1 hour period, A. largoensis captured an average of 1.25 prey/predator at a prey density of 35/arena, while at a prey density of 200/arena, 3.87 prey/predator were captured. More than four times longer was spent feeding on the first prey at a density of 35 than at a density of 200 prey/arena. During the time that the predator was hungry, it was stimulated to capture and kill interfering prey that bumped into it.The functional response curve of the three predators increased in magnitude when waterproofed paper arenas were used. Four possible reasons for this increase are discussed: reduced number of prey eggs for consumption by T. floridanus; lack of webbing, which interferes with searching; increased prey activity; and dehydration of prey, affecting their relative palatability to the predator.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 6 , June 1970 , pp. 692 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Burnett, T. 1951. Effects of temperature and host density on the rate of increase of an insect parasite. Am. Nat. 85: 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, T. 1954. Influences of natural temperatures and controlled host densities on oviposition of an insect parasite. Physiol. Zool. 27: 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina). I. Bionomics of seven species in south-eastern England. II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of 38 new species. Can. Ent. Suppl. 12.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1961. The effect of prey density on prey consumption and oviposition in adults of Typhlodromus (T.) occidentalis Nesbitt (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in the laboratory. Can. J. Zool. 39: 311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1941. The effect of host density on the rate of reproduction of entomophagous parasites. J. econ. Ent. 34: 741–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRuiter, L. 1952. Some experiments on the camouflage of stick caterpillars. Behaviour 4: 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, D. L., and Sisojevic, P.. 1966. Predatory behavior of Philodromus rufus Walckenaer (Araneae: Thomisidae). Can. Ent. 98: 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Ent. 91: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1961. Principles of insect predation. Ann. Rev. Ent. 6: 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchlein, J. H. 1966. Some aspects of the prey-predator relation. In Ecology of aphidophagous insects. Proc. Symp. Liblice, 1965. pp. 237–242. Academia Publ. House Cz. Acad. Sci.Google Scholar
Kuchlein, J. H. 1967. The density related action of aphidophagous insects. Vestnik Cs. Spol. Zool. (Acta Soc. Zool. Bohemoslov.) 31 (2): 162–169.Google Scholar
Messenger, P. S. 1968. Bioclimatic studies of the aphid parasite Praon exsoletum. I. Effects of temperature on the functional response of females to varying host densities. Can. Ent. 100: 728–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1959. The interaction of the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), and the parasite Apanteles fumiferaneae Vier. Can. Ent. 91: 457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1960. The interaction of the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), and the parasite Glypta fumiferaneae (Vier.). Can. Ent. 92: 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, H., and Chant, D. A.. 1966. The influence of prey density, relative humidity, and starvation on the predacious behavior of Phytosceiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Can. J. Zool. 44: 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, W. L. 1962. Life-history and behavior of the predacious mite Typhlodromus (T.) caudiglans Schuster (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Ontario, with notes on the prey of related species. Can. Ent. 94: 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandness, J. N., and Fleschner, C. A.. Behavior of Amblyseius largoensis relative to the basic functional response equation. In preparation.Google Scholar
Sandness, J. N., and McMurtry, J. A.. Behavior patterns of Amblyseius largoensis and Typhlodromus floridanus during the hunger-satiation cycle. In preparation.Google Scholar
Schuster, R. O., and Pritchard, A. E.. 1963. Phytoseiid mites of California. Hilgardia 34(7): 191–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949 a. Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Can. Ent. 81: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949 b. Distribution of progeny by Cryptus inornatus Pratt (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Can. Ent. 81: 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1959. A mathematical model for the effect of densities of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. Can. Ent. 91: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welty, J. C. 1934. Experiments in group behavior of fishes. Physiol. Zool. 7: 85–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar