2011
DOI: 10.1007/s10144-011-0270-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scaling up from individual behaviour of Orius sauteri foraging on Thrips palmi to its daily functional response

Abstract: Functional responses of predators are generally measured under laboratory conditions at rather high prey densities. This is also true for the predation capability of the anthocorid predatory bug Orius sauteri (Poppius). To quantify the daily impact of one female Orius predator on its prey Thrips palmi Karny on greenhouse eggplants where the prey is present below the economic threshold density, we use its patch-leaving and feeding behaviour on eggplant leaves with different prey numbers and scale up to the larg… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Differences in the shape of functional responses of predators may depend on many variables such as prey species, size and appearance [ 23 , 24 ], prey distribution [ 25 ], availability of alternative prey, the predator’s age and hunger level [ 6 ], the plant structure on which the prey occurs [ 26 ], the temperature [ 27 ], the experimental conditions [ 25 , 28 ], and the type of analysis applied to estimate the response [ 29 ]. Addressing the last point, we used a straightforward way to fit the functional response curves and then applied model selection based on Akaike’s information criterion, which is a powerful method to select the best-fitting curve [ 25 ]. We kept the following variables constant: prey species, size and appearance, availability of alternative prey (not present in our experiments), predator’s age and hunger level, plant structure, temperature and experimental conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differences in the shape of functional responses of predators may depend on many variables such as prey species, size and appearance [ 23 , 24 ], prey distribution [ 25 ], availability of alternative prey, the predator’s age and hunger level [ 6 ], the plant structure on which the prey occurs [ 26 ], the temperature [ 27 ], the experimental conditions [ 25 , 28 ], and the type of analysis applied to estimate the response [ 29 ]. Addressing the last point, we used a straightforward way to fit the functional response curves and then applied model selection based on Akaike’s information criterion, which is a powerful method to select the best-fitting curve [ 25 ]. We kept the following variables constant: prey species, size and appearance, availability of alternative prey (not present in our experiments), predator’s age and hunger level, plant structure, temperature and experimental conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Predation functional response is an important indicator used to evaluate the control effect of predators on pests. Hemerik and Yano (2011) found a typical type II functional response for O. sauteri on Thrips palmi feeding on eggplant leaves, with approximately 10 prey items killed per day if T. palmi was present at levels close to its economic injury level. Wang et al (2014) compared the developmental and reproductive performance of O. sauteri on four aphid species, thrips and spider mites, showing that F. occidentalis was the optimal prey type, consistent with information from other Orius spp.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, this behavior is often described in terms of an increase in turning angle (direct klinokinesis) along with a reduction in walking speed (inverse orthokinesis) of predators in two-dimensional arenas, so that more time and energy are invested in prey patches within which prey are randomly distributed. However, prey distribution within leaves is often considered to be random (Hemerik and Yano, 2011;Nachman, 2006;Rincon et al, 2015). Thus, an increase in search effort motivated by prey encounter at the intra-leaflet scale would not provide, in theory, any benefit to the predator.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variation in number of prey in patches that are visited by an average predator typically is defined in terms of a probability distribution function that does not consider the location of predators and prey patches within the plant canopy explicitly (e.g. Hemerik and Yano, 2011;Nachman, 2006). However, non-uniform local predator-prey interactions that can affect population dynamics, ecosystem function, and system stability (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%