2002
DOI: 10.1590/s0100-204x2002000900004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efeito do peso corporal na fecundidade e na longevidade do percevejo predador Podisus rostralis

Abstract: -Considering the importance of predatory Pentatomidae as biological control agents it is necessary to optimize mass production facilities of these species. The objective of this research was to evaluate the influence of body weight on survival and reproductive parameters of females of Podisus rostralis (Stål) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Treatments were represented by females of this predator with the following mean weight: 39.5 mg, 45.5 mg, 51.5 mg, 57.5 mg and 63.5 mg. Heavier females of P. rostralis showed sh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, in a recent study with female Drosophila melanogaster, longevity is not significantly affected by body size (Travers et al 2015). The non-significant relationship between longevity and body size was also frequently reported in other model organisms such as C. elegans and non-model organisms, including the beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (for female only Fox et al 2004), parasitoid Cephalonomia stephanoderis Betrem (Lauzière 2014), stinkbug predator Podisus rostralis (Zanuncio et al 2002), mosquito Aedos triseriatus (Landry et al 1988), and goldspotted oak borer Agrilus auroguttatus (Lopez & Hoddle 2014). This report may suggest that within species the morphology variation in body size is not adequate to result in lifespan changes.…”
Section: Body Size and Longevitymentioning
confidence: 82%
“…For example, in a recent study with female Drosophila melanogaster, longevity is not significantly affected by body size (Travers et al 2015). The non-significant relationship between longevity and body size was also frequently reported in other model organisms such as C. elegans and non-model organisms, including the beetle Callosobruchus maculatus (for female only Fox et al 2004), parasitoid Cephalonomia stephanoderis Betrem (Lauzière 2014), stinkbug predator Podisus rostralis (Zanuncio et al 2002), mosquito Aedos triseriatus (Landry et al 1988), and goldspotted oak borer Agrilus auroguttatus (Lopez & Hoddle 2014). This report may suggest that within species the morphology variation in body size is not adequate to result in lifespan changes.…”
Section: Body Size and Longevitymentioning
confidence: 82%
“…A similar body mass of P. nigrispinus with caterpillars of A. gemmatalis in insect resistant IAC-24 soybean cultivar suggests that it is harmless to the reproductive system of this predator, because heavier females of the stink bug reproduced more successfully, as observed in the higher fertility rate of those heavier females of P. nigrispinus, S. cincticeps and Podisus rostralis Stäl, 1860 (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) compared to lower weight females (Mohaghegh et al, 1999;Zanuncio et al, 2002;Zanuncio et al, 2005). On the other hand, females with greater body mass may have higher survival rates at times of shortage of prey, which would not affect their reproduction (Molina-Rugama et al, 1998).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Food quantity and quality affect parameters such as survival, mass gain, stage duration, egg number and longevity (Zanuncio et al, 2002;Peluzio et al, 2018). Comparing the nymph period found in this study (Table 1), with the means obtained by Vacari et al (2007) using caterpillars of Diatraea saccharalis (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), by Espíndula et al (2010) using caterpillars of Heliothis virescens (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and by Santana et al (2017), using caterpillars of Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), despite the variations in the different stages, when considering the nymphal period as a whole, the phase is similar, being 18.60 days for H. armigera (Table 1), 18,20; 19.40; and 19.61 days for D. saccharalis, H. virescens and S. frugiperda, respectively.…”
Section: Biological Aspects Of P Nigrispinus Nymphs With H Armigeramentioning
confidence: 99%