Functional response of Picromerus bidens: Effects of host plant

Journal of Applied Entomology

Volumn 131, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 160-164

  Mahdian, K ^a,b   Tirry, L ^a   De Clercq, P ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b VALI E ASR UNIVERSITY OF RAFSANJAN   (Iran)

Author keywords

Biological control; Functional response; Host plant; Picromerus bidens; Spodoptera exigua

Indexed keywords

FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; HOST PLANT; INSECT; PLANT-INSECT INTERACTION; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; VEGETABLE;

BETA VULGARIS SUBSP. VULGARIS; BIDENS; CAPSICUM ANNUUM VAR. ANNUUM; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; PICROMERUS BIDENS; SOLANUM MELONGENA; SPODOPTERA EXIGUA;

EID: 34047237859     PISSN: 09312048     EISSN: 14390418     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2006.01124.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Carter MC, Sutherland D, Dixon AFG, 1984. Plant structure and the searching efficiency of coccinellid larvae. Oecologia 63, 394-397.
2. Chesson J, 1989. The effect of alternative prey on the functional response of Notonecta hoffmani. Ecology 70, 1227-1235.
3. Clarck TL, Messina FJ, 1998. Plant architecture and the foraging success of ladybird beetles attacking the Russian wheat aphid. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 86, 153-161.
4. Coll M, 1998. Living and feeding on plants in predatory Heteroptera. In: Predatory Heteroptera: their ecology and use in biological control. Ed. by Coll M, Ruberson JR, Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomological Society of America, Lenham, MD, 89-130.
5. Coll M, Ridgway RL, 1995. Functional and numerical response of Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) to its prey in different vegetable crops. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 88, 732-738.
6. Coll M, Smith LA, Ridgway RL, 1997. Effects of plants on the searching efficiency of a generalist predator: the importance of predator-prey spatial association. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 83, 1-10.
7. De Clercq P, 2000. Predaceous stinkbugs (Pentatomidae: Asopinae). In: Heteroptera of economic importance. Ed. by Schaefer CW, Panizzi AR, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 737-789.
8. De Clercq P, Degheele D, 1994. Laboratory measurement of predation by Podisus maculiventris and P. sagitta (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) on beet armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 87, 76-87.
9. De Clercq P, Mohaghegh J, Tirry L, 2000. Effect of host plant on the functional response of the predator Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Biol. Control 18, 65-70.
10. East DA, Edelson JV, Cartwright B, 1989. Relative cabbage consumption by the cabbage looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), beet armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 82, 1367-1369.
11. Geitzenauer HL, Bernays EA, 1996. Plant effects on prey choice by a vespid wasp, Polistes arizonensis. Ecol. Entomol. 21, 227-234.
12. Hare JD, 1992. Effect of plant variation on herbivore-natural enemy interactions. In: Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution, and genetics. Ed. by Fritze RS, Simms EL, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 278-298.
13. Hassell MP, 1978. The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
14. Hoddle MS, 2003. The effect of prey species and environmental complexity on the functional response of Franklinothrips orizabensis: a test of the fractal foraging model. Ecol. Entomol. 28, 309-318.
15. Holling CS, 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 45, 1-60.
16. Juliano SA, 2001. Non-linear curve fitting: predation and functional response curves. In: Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Ed. by Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, Chapman & Hall, New York, 178-196.
17. Kajita H, 1986. Predation by Amblyseius spp. (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) and Orius spp. (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) on Thrips palmi Karny (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 21, 482-484.
18. Karevia P, Sahakian R, 1990. Tritrophic effects of a simple architectural mutation in pea plants. Nature 345, 433-434.
19. Kennedy GG, 2003. Tomato, pests, parasitoids, and predators: tritrophic interactions involving the genus Lycopersicon. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 48, 51-72.
20. Letourneau DK, 1988. Conceptual framework of threetrophic-level interactions. In: Novel aspects of insect-plant interactions. Ed. by Barbosa P, Letourneau DK, John Wiley & sons, New York, 1-9.
21. van der Linden A, 1996. Control of caterpillars in integrated pest management. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 19, 91-94.
22. Mahdian K, Vantornhout I, Tirry L, De Clercq P, 2006. Effects of temperature on predation by the stinkbugs Picromerus bidens and Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) on noctuid caterpillars. Bull. Entomol. Res. (in press).
23. Messina FG, Hanks JB, 1998. Host plant alters the shape of functional response of an aphid predator (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Environ. Entomol. 27, 1196-1202.
24. Murdoch WW, 1969. Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey population. Ecol. Monogr. 39, 335-354.
25. Nordlund DA, Lewis WJ, Altieri MA, 1988. Influences of plant-produced allelochemichals on the host/prey selection behaviour of entomophagous insects. In: Novel aspects of insect-plant pnteractions. Ed. by Barbosa P, Letourneau DK, Wiley, New York, 65-90.
26. Obrycki JJ, 1986. The influence of foliar pubescence on entomophagous species. In: Interactions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects. Ed. by Boethel DJ, Eikenbary RD, Wiley, New York, 61-83.
27. Poitout S, Bues R, 1970. Elevage de plusieurs espèces de lepidoptères Noctuidae sur milieu artificiel riche et sur milieu artificiel simplifié. Ann. Zool. Ecol. Anim. 2, 79-91.
28. Price PW, 1986. Ecological aspects of host plant resistance and biological control: interactions among three trophic levels. In: Interactions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects. Ed. by Boethel DJ, Eikenbary RD, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 11-30.
29. Rasmy AH, 1977. Predatory efficiency and biology of the predatory mite, Amblyseius gossipi (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) as affected by plant surfaces. Entomophaga 22, 421-423.
30. Rogers D, 1972. Random search and insect population models. J. Anim. Ecol. 41, 369-383.
31. SAS Institute, 1989. SAS/STA User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
32. Schenk D, Bacher S, 2002. Functional response of a generalist insect predator to one of its prey species in the field. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 524-531.
33. da Silva PG, Hagen KS, Gutierrez AP, 1992. Functional response of Curinus coeruleus (Col.: Coccinellidae) to Heteropsylla cubana (Hom.: Psyllidae) on artificial and natural substrates. Entomophaga 37, 555-564.
34. Stavrinides MC, Skirvin DJ, 2003. The effect of chrysanthemum leaf trichome density and prey spatial distribution on predation of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) by Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 93, 343-350.
35. Trexler JC, McCulloch CE, Travis J, 1988. How can the functional response best be determined? Oecologia 76, 206-214.
36. Tschanz B, Schmid E, Bacher S, 2005. Host plant exposure determines larval vulnerability - do prey females know? Funct. Ecol. 19, 391-395.