Functional response of the predatory mite Chileseius camposi (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on densities of it prey, Panonychus ulmi (Acarina: Tetranychidae);The functional response of the phytoseiid predator chileseius camposi gonzález y schuster, 1962 (Acarina:Phytoseiidae)

Revista de Biologia Tropical

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 1255-1260

  Sepúlveda, Francisco ^a   Carrillo, Roberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUSTRAL DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Chilesius camposi; Functional response; Panonychus ulmi; Phytoseiidae; Predation

Indexed keywords

ACARI; PANONYCHUS ULMI; PHYTOSEIIDAE; TETRANYCHIDAE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; MALE; MITE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; PREDATION; TETRANYCHIDAE;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MITES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DENSITY; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; TETRANYCHIDAE;

EID: 70449711402     PISSN: 00347744     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Badii M., J.A. McMurtry& A Flores. 1999. Rates of development, survival and predation of immature stages of Phytoseilus longipes (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 23: 611-621.
2. Berryman A. 1992. The origins and evolution of predatorprey theory. Ecology 75: 1530-1535.
3. Cédola C& E. Botto. 1996. Evaluación de la respuesta functional de Amblyseius idaeus Moraes y McMurtry, 1983 y Phytoseiulus macropilis (Banks, 1905) (Acarina:Phytoseiidae) en condiciones de laboratorio. Revista Chilena de Entomología 23: 15-18
4. Everson P. 1979. The functional response of Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) to various densities of Tetranychus urticae (Acarina: Tetranychidae). Canadian Entomologist 111: 7-10.
5. Fan Y& F. Petit. 1994 Parameter estimation of functional response. Environmental Entomologist 23: 785-794.
6. González R& R. Schuster. 1962. Especies de la familia Phytoseiidae en Chile I. (Acarina:Mesostigmata). Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Agronomía. Universidad de Chile Boletín Técnico No 16
7. Guajardo M. 1993. Acaros asociados a un huerto de manzanos de la la Décima Región y su respuesta a diferentes insecticidas con distinto sitio de acción. Tesis de Licenciatura, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.
8. Hassell M. 1976. Arthropod predator-prey systems, p 105-131. In May R (ed.) Theoretical ecology, principles and applications. Second edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.
9. Hassell M. 1978. The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Princenton University Press, Princenton, New Jersey, USA.
10. Holling C. 1959a. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Canadian Entomologist 91: 293-320.
11. Holling C. 1959b. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasistism. Canadian Entomologist 91:385-398.
12. Holling C. 1961. Principles of insect predation. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 6:163-182.
13. Juliano S.& F. Williams. 1985. On the evolution of handling time. Evolution 39:212-215.
14. Klein C.& D. Waterhouse. 2000. The distribution and importance of arthropods associated with agriculture and forestry in Chile. ACIAR Monograph No 68.
15. Lester P.& R. Harmsen. 2002. Functional and numerical responses not always indicate the most effective predator for biological control: an analysis of two predators in a two-prey system. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:455-468.
16. Livdahl T.& A. Stiven. 1983. Statistical difficulties in the analysis of predator functional response data. Canadian Entomologist 115: 1365-1370.
17. McMurtry J.& D. Croft.1997. Life styles of Phytoseiid mites and their roles as biological control agents. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42: 291-321.
18. Mori H.& D. Chant. 1966. The influence of prey density, relative humidity and starvation on the predaceous behavior of Phytpseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 44:483-491.
19. O'Neil R. 1997. Functional response and search strategy of Podissus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) attacking Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environmental Entomology 26: 1183-1190.
20. Rogers D. 1972. Random search and insect population models. Journal of Animal Ecology 18:1-35.
21. Sabelis M. 1986. The functional response of predatory mites to the density of two spider mites, p.298-321. In Metz J.& Diekmann O. (eds.). Dynamics of Physiologically Structured Populations, Lecture Notes in Biomathemathics. Springer Verlag, Belin, Germany.
22. Solomon M. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 41: 369-383.
23. van de Vrie M., J McMurtry& C. Huffaker. 1972. Ecology of tetranychid mites and their natural enemies: a review. III: Biology, ecology and pest status and host-plant relation of tetranychid. Hilgardia 41: 343-432.
24. Venegas C. 1977. Biology, population dynamic and antagonists of some apple phytophagous insects and mites (Malus pumila Mill.) in Valdivia. Tesis de Ingeniero Agrónomo, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.
25. Williams F.& S. Juliano. 1985. Further difficulties in the analisis of functional response experiments and resolution. Canadian Entomologist 117:631-640.
26. Zhang Y., Z. Zhang, J. Lin& Q. Liu. 1999. Biology of Typhlodromus bombusae (Acari: Phytoseiidae) a predator of Schizotetranychus nanjingensis (Acari: Tetranychidae) injurous to bamboo in Funjian, China. Systematic Applied Acarology 4: 57-62.