Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T17:42:02.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREY CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR OF AMBLYSEIUS LARGOENSIS IN RELATION TO HUNGER1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. N. Sandness  and
J. A. McMurtry
J. N. Sandness
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside
J. A. McMurtry
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A series of constant observations on Amblyseius largoensis (Muma) on excised avocado leaves in the laboratory revealed that the hunger level of this predator directly affected the time spent feeding on individual prey, the relative aggressiveness, the frequency of successful captures, the length of digestive pause, and the speed of movement. Feeding and nonfeeding periods occurred in constantly recurring cycles. Hungry predators captured 2–4 prey in succession; after each capture a digestive pause followed, the length of which increased (up to 7–8 h) as the predator became increasingly satiated. This cycle was repeated 2–3 times in 24 h. Several thresholds appeared to be responsible for this behavior pattern.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 104 , Issue 4 , April 1972 , pp. 461 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Haynes, D. L. and Sisojevic, P.. 1966. Predatory behavior of Philodromus rufus Walckenaer (Araneae: Thomisidae). Can. Ent. 98: 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1961. Principles of insect predation. A. Rev. Ent. 6: 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 48, 86 p.Google Scholar
Mori, H. and Chant, D. A.. 1966. The influence of prey density, relative humidity, and starvation on the predacious behavior of Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Can. J. Zool. 44: 383–491.Google Scholar
Sandness, J. N. and McMurtry, J. A.. 1970. Functional response of three species of Phytoseiidae (Acarina) to prey density. Can. Ent. 102: 692–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 18: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tugendhat, B. 1960. The normal feeding behaviour of the three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Behaviour 15: 284–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar