Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:13:48.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREFERENCE OF REDUVIOLUS AMERICOFERUS (HEMIPTERA: NABIDAE) FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPER NYMPHS AND PEA APHIDS1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P.W. Flinn ,
A.A. Hower  and
R.A.J. Taylor
P.W. Flinn
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA 16802
A.A. Hower
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA 16802
R.A.J. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The preference of the nabid, Reduviolus americoferus (L.), for potato leafhopper nymphs, Empoasca fabae (Harris), and pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), was examined using functional response models. The nabid exhibited a type-II functional response to each prey. Handling time was much higher for the aphid than for the leafhopper (3.623 vs. 0.211 h). Instantaneous search rates were also higher for the aphid (0.096 vs. 0.020 h−1). A preference index was calculated using the ratio of the instantaneous search rates. The nabid exhibited strong preference for the aphid; when both prey were present in equal numbers, the nabid consumed 3 times as many aphids. The predator did not switch to leafhopper nymphs as the proportion of leafhoppers was increased.

Résumé

On a étudié la préférence du nabide Reduviolus americoferus (L.) vis-à-vis les larves de la cicadelle de la pomme de terre, Empoasca fabae (Harris) et le puceron du pois, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), à l'aide de modèles de réponse fonctionnelle. Le nabide a montré une réponse fonctionnelle de type II à chacune des proies. Le temps de manipulation était beaucoup plus long pour le puceron que la cicadelle (3,623 v. 0,211 h). Le taux instantanné de recherche était aussi plus élevé pour le puceron (0,096 v. 0,020 h−1). On a calculé un indice de préférence à l'aide du taux instantanné de recherche. Le nabide a ainsi montré une forte préférence pour le puceron : à nombre égal des 2 proies, le nabide a consommé 3 fois plus de pucerons. Le prédateur n'a pas montré d'inversion de préférence lorsqu'on a augmenté la proportion de cicadelles.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 117 , Issue 12 , December 1985 , pp. 1503 - 1508
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1985

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

Akre, B.G., and Johnson, D.M.. 1979. Switching and sigmoid functional response curves by damselfly nabids with alternate prey available. J. Anim. Ecol. 48: 703–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cock, M.J.W. 1978. The assessment of preference. J. Anim. Ecol. 47: 805–816.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. 45: 1–60.Google Scholar
Howell, J.O., and Pienkowski, R.L.. 1971. Spider populations in alfalfa, with notes on spider prey and effect of harvest. J. econ. Ent. 64: 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, H.O. 1961. The modified Gauss-Newton method for the fitting nonlinear regression functions by least squares. Technometrics 3: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M.P., Lawton, J.H., and Beddington, J.R.. 1977. Sigmoid functional responses by invertebrate predators and parasitoids. J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavallee, A.G., and Shaw, F.R.. 1969. Preference of the golden-eye lacewing larvae for pea aphids, leafhopper and plant bug nymphs, and alfalfa weevil larvae. J. econ. Ent. 62: 1228–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, D.G., and Pienkowski, R.L.. 1982. Laboratory studies on insect predators of potato leafhopper eggs, nymphs and adults. Environ. Ent. 11: 361–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, W.W. 1969. Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol. Monog. 39: 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, W.W. 1973. The functional response of predators. J. Appl. Ecol. 10: 335–342.Google Scholar
Simonet, D.E., and Pienkowski, R.L.. 1978. Laboratory and field evaluation of sampling techniques for the nymphal stages of the potato leafhopper on alfalfa. J. econ. Ent. 71: 840–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, A.G. 1974. Studies on the arthropod fauna of alfalfa. VI. Plantbugs (Miridae). Can. Ent. 106: 1267–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, A.G. 1977. Studies on the arthropod fauna of alfalfa. VII. Predatious insects. Can. Etn. 109: 423–427.Google Scholar