Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:01:12.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE RELATIVE ACTIVITY AND FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF PHYTOSEIULUS PERSIMILIS (ACARINA: PHYTOSEIIDAE) AND TETRANYCHUS URTICAE (ACARINA: TETRANYCHIDAE): THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Everson
P. Everson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2E3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The activity of the predacious mite Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot was greater oh a glass substrate than on a bean leaf substrate. Temperature did not affect its relative activity on the two substrates. The phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae Koch was inactive on the bean leaf substrate. It was active on the glass substrate and its activity varied with temperature. The functional response of P. persimilis and T. urticae was examined at four temperatures (15°, 20°, 25°, 30 °C). Each functional response to increasing temperature rose curvilinearly to a plateau. From Holling’s disk equation, rate of successful search increased and handling time decreased.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 112 , Issue 1 , 01 January 1980 , pp. 17 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1980

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

Amano, H., and Chant, D. A.. 1977. Life history and reproduction of two species of predacious mites, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acarina:Phytoseiidae). Can. J. Zool. 55: 1978–1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommers, L. 1976. Capacities for increase and predation in Amblyseius bibens (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Z. angew. Ent. 81: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommers, L. et al. 1977. Studies on the response of Amblyseius bibens to conditions of prey scarcity. Entomophaga 22: 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommers, L. and Van Etten, J.. 1975. Amblyseius bibens (Acarina: Phytoseiidae), a predator of spider mites (Tetranychidae) in Madagascar. Entomologia exp. appl. 18: 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Everson, P. 1979. The functional response of Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) to various densities of Tetranychus urticae (Acarina: Tetranychidae). Can. Ent. 111: 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, A. Y. 1975. Feeding characteristics and predator impact of Chaohorus (Diptera: Chaoboridae) larvae in a small lake. Limnol. Ocean. 20: 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, N. R. 1970. A comparison of two models of the functional response with emphasis on parameter estimation procedures. Can. Ent. 102: 1094–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glen, D. M. 1975. Searching behaviour and prey density requirements of Blepharidopterus angulatus (Fall.) (Heteroptera: Miridae) as a predator of the lime aphid, Eucallipterus tiliae (L.) and the leafhopper Alnetoidea alneti (Dahlbom). J. Anim. Ecol. 44: 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffths, K. J. and Holling, C. S.. 1969. A competition submodel for parasites and predators. Can. Ent. 101: 785–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M. P. et al. 1976. The components of arthropod predation. I. The prey death-rate. J. Anim. Ecol. 45: 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M. P. and May, R. M.. 1974. Aggregation in predators and insect parasites. J. Anim. Ecol. 43: 567–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 48. 86 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. et al. 1970. Ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural enemies: a review. II. Tetranychid populations and their possible control by predators: An evaluation. Hilgardia 40: 391–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, G. J. and Ford, J. B.. 1973. The feeding behaviour of Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) particularly as affected by certain pesticides. Ann. appl. Biol. 75: 165–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laing, J. E. and Osborn, J. A. L.. 1974. The effect of prey density on the functional and numerical responses of three species of predatory mites. Entomophaga 19: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurtry, J. A. et al. 1970. Ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural enemies: a review. I. Tetranychid enemies: their biological characters and the impact of spray practices. Higardia 40: 331–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, H. 1967. The influence of prey density on the predation of Amblyseius longispinosus (Evans) (Acarina:Phytoseiidae). Proc. 2nd int. Congr. Acarol.: 149–153.Google Scholar
Mori, H. 1971. The behaviour and functional responses of phytoseiid predators. Pacif. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1: 188.Google Scholar
Mori, H. and Chant, D. A.. 1966. The influence of prey density, relative humidity, and starvation on the predacious behaviour of Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina:Phytoseiidae). Can. J. Zool. 44: 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, W. W. and Oaten, A.. 1975. Predation and population stability. Advanc. Ecol. Res. 9: 2–131.Google Scholar
Nakamura, K. 1977. A model for the functional response of a predator to varying prey densities; based on the feeding ecology of wolf spiders. Bull. natl. Inst. Agric. Sci. (C) 31: 29–89.Google Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. and Bailey, V. A.. 1935. The balance of animal populations. Part I. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 551–598.Google Scholar
Pruszynski, S. 1976. Observations on the predacious behavior of Phytoseiulus persimilis. Sec. Regionale Ouest Palearc. /WPRS Bull. 4: 39–44.Google Scholar
Putman, W. L. 1962. Life-history and behaviour 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
Rasmy, A. H. and El-Banhawy, E. M.. 1974. Behavior and bionomics of the predatory mite Phytoseius plumifer (Acarina:Phytoseiidae) as affected by physical surface features of host plants. Entomophaga 19: 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, D. 1972. Random search and insect population models. J. Anim. Ecol. 41: 369–383Google Scholar
Royama, T. 1971. A comparative study of models for predation and parasitism. Researches Popul. Ecol. Kyoto Univ. Suppl. 1. 91 pp.Google Scholar
Sandness, J. N. and McMurtry, J. A.. 1970. Functional response of three species of Phytoseiidae (Acarina) to prey density. Can. Ent. 102: 692–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandness, J. N. and McMurtry, J. A.. 1972. Prey consumption behavior of Amblyseius largoensis in relation to hunger. Can. Ent. 104: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, M. A. 1975. Functional and numerical responses of the predatory mite, Amblyseius fallacis, to prey density. Environ. Ent. 4: 989–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 18: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takafuji, A. and Chant, D. A.. 1976. Comparative studies of two species of predacious mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae), with special reference to their responses to the density of their prey. Researches Popul. Ecol. Kyoto Univ. 17: 255–310.Google Scholar
Theaker, T. L. and Tonks, N. V.. 1977. A method for rearing the predacious mite Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henroit (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). J. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 74: 8–9.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. J. 1978. Towards a realistic predator-prey model: The effect of temperature on the functional response and life history of larvae of the damselfly, Ischnura elegans. J. Anim. Ecol. 47: 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Schmidt, G. 1976. Der einflusse der von den Beutetieren hinterlassenen Spuren auf Suchverhalten und Sucherfolg von Phytoseiulus persimilis A. and H. (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Z. angew. Ent. 82: 216–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar