Functional Response of Lyctocoris campestris (F.) Adults: Effects of Predator Sex, Prey Species, and Experimental Habitat

Predatory abilities of Amphibolus venator (Klug) (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), a predator of stored-product insect pests

“…1), similar to other insect predators (Holling, 1961;Parajulee et al, 1994;Donnelly and Phillips, 2001). In the Type II response, the attack rate is inversely dependent on change in prey density and there is a specific upper threshold (the maximum attack rate) in the number of prey killed.…”

“…Two species of anthocorid bugs, Xylocoris flavipes (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Lyctocoris campestris (F.) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), are used as biological control agents for stored-product insect pests (Brower and Press, 1992;Parajulee and Phillips, 1993) and their predatory ability has been studied in detail by Donnelly and Phillips (2001) and Parajulee et al (1994). These are effective predators of eggs and young larvae but not for adults, pupae and mature larvae of stored-product insect pests.…”

“…X. flavipes also cannot easily kill large larvae of the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Donnelly and Phillips, 2001). L. campestris kill mature larva of T. castaneum but cannot predate adults (Parajulee and Phillips, 1993;Parajulee et al, 1994). Predators that can attack the mature larvae, pupae and adults of stored-product insect pests have been little studied.…”

“…It is known that the functional response of the predators of many storedproduct insect pests shows a strong fit to Holling's Type II response, similar to that of other common predators (Parajulee et al, 1994;Donnelly and Phillips, 2001). The data from 1-day trials were fitted to Holling's disk equation (Holling, 1959).…”

Functional and numerical responses of Amblydromalus limonicus and Neoseiulus cucumeris to eggs and first instar nymph of tomato/potato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli)

“…Functional response may be influenced by different factors, e.g. abiotic, such as temperature and relative humidity, and biotic, such as prey or host species (Donnelly & Phillips 2001;Hoddle 2003;Allahyari et al 2004;Faria et al 2004); the presence of alternative food (Wei & Walde 1997); predator sex (Parajulee et al 1994) and predator age and feeding history (Eveleigh & Chant 1981). In addition, the host plant may also influence functional response, for instance indirectly, by affecting prey palatability or offering prey refuges (Messina & Hanks 1998) or directly, by plant structure such as trichome or by sticky exudates that reduce searching efficiency (Cedola et al 2001).…”