Functional Response of Chrysoperla externa (Hagen 1861) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) Fed with Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner 1897) (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

Functional Response of Chrysoperla externa, Chrysoperla rufilabris, Ceraeochrysa sp. nr. Cincta, and Ceraeochrysa valida (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) as Natural Enemies of Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae)

“…When comparing predation between larval instars, the statistical analysis (α = 0.05) indicated that the third instar had higher voracity than earlier instars (Table 1). This agrees with the results reported by Loera et al (2001), Guarin (2003, Salas andVela (2003), Velázquez (2004), Pacheco-Rueda et al (2015) and Palomares-Pérez et al (2019). These authors reported that third-instar larvae are more voracious because they need to store the greatest amount of nutrients to be able to carry out the transformation to the adult stage; therefore, they are the ones that carry out most of the biological control activity.…”

“…The functional response identified (Type II) is similar with the response identified by Fonseca et al (2000), Auad et al (2001), Castro et al (2016) and Palomares-Pérez et al (2019), who mention that C. externa presented a Type II functional response when feeding on Schizaphis graminum (Rondani), Uroleucon ambrosiae (Thomas) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Trialeurodes vapo rariorum Westwood (Hemiptera: Aley rodidae) and Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) respectively. Similarly, C. rufilabris presents the same functional response when feeding According to Holling (1959), there is a significant increase in the consumption of prey when supplied at increasingly higher densities, and then a gradual reduction until stabilization.…”

Functional Response of Three Species of Chrysoperla1 Preying on Melanaphis sacchari2

“…1a). This is common in invertebrate predators (Holling 1959a, Hassell et al 1977) and has also been reported for the same Chrysoperla species in this study, but feeding on other prey species (Holling 1959a, Atlihan et al 2004, Fernandez-Arhex and Corley 2004, Mushtaq and Khan 2010, Hassanpour 2011, Palomares-Pérez et al 2019). In all cases, the curves diverged at prey density greater than 32, and C. carnea had greatest consumption ability than the other two species studied, even at 256 M. sacchari nymphs.…”

“…Atlihan et al (2004) found similar handling time by C. carnea preying on H. pruni . However, Palomares-Pérez et al (2019) found longer handling time of C. externa preying on M. sacchari . Other studies observed greater coefficient of attack but shorter handling time for C. carnea preying on T. vaporariorum eggs (Landeros et al 2013) and adult female Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) (Hassanpour et al 2009).…”

Testing the Effects of Prey Type on the Life History and Population-Level Parameters of Chrysoperla externa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)

“…These include their propensity to prey on a wide range of soft-bodied insects, such as aphids, whiteflies, thrips, and lepidopterans, which are commonly targeted pests in biological control programs [2,3]. Another advantageous trait is that, while adults primarily feed on nectar, pollen, and honeydew [4], the larvae exhibit high mobility and voracious predatory behavior, with their predatory capacity increasing as they mature [5,6]. Furthermore, green lacewings are easily reared in laboratory settings [7] and are currently being deployed as control agents for numerous agricultural crops worldwide.…”