Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T19:18:26.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE EFFECT OF PREY DEFENSE ON THE FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF PODISUS MODESTUS (HEMIPTERA: PENTATOMIDAE) TO DENSITIES OF THE SAWFLIES NEODIPRION SWAINEI AND N. PRATTI BANKSIANAE (HYMENOPTERA: NEODIPRIONIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Walter Tostowaryk
Affiliation:
Forest Research Laboratory, Canadian Forestry Service, Quebec, Quebec and Department of Entomology and Limnology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Abstract

Experiments were carried out to determine the functional response of Podisus modestus (Dallas) to densities of two colonial species of jack pine sawfly, Neodiprion swainei (Middleton) and N. pratti banksianae (Rohwer). Two types of functional response curve were exhibited by the pentatomids, a domed response curve and a negatively accelerated curve.The domed response was caused by the more effective defense reactions of the sawfly larvae at higher densities.An equation is proposed for the domed response curve. The implications of the domed functional response are discussed in relation to the social behavior of these sawflies.

Type
Articles
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

Burnett, T. 1951. Effects of temperature and host density on the rate of increase of an insect parasite. Am. Nat. 85: 337352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H.. 1966. Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1969. The importance of coincidence in the functional and numerical responses of two parasites of the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer. can. Ent. 101: 673713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, D. L. and Sisojevič, P.. 1966. Predatory behavior of Philodromus rufus Walckenaer (Araneae: Thomisidae). Can. Ent. 98: 113133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959 a. The Components of Predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Ent. 91: 293320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959 b. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1961. Priciples of insect predation. A. Rev. Ent. 6: 163182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 45, 60 pp.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 48, 86 pp.Google Scholar
Mori, H. and Chant, D. A.. 1966. The influence of prey density, relative humidity, and starvation of the predacious behavior of Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Can. J. Zool. 44: 483491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. F. 1963. The effect of predator age and prey defense on the functional response of Podisus maculiventris Say to the density of Hyphantria cunea Drury. Can. Ent. 95: 10091020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukerji, M. K. and LeRoux, E. J.. 1969. The effect of predator age on the functional response of Podisus maculiventris to the prey size of Galleria mellonella. Can. Ent. 101: 314327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prop, N. 1960. Protection against birds and parasites in some species of tenthredinid larvae. Arch. néerl. Zool. 13: 380447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandness, J. N. and McMurtry, J. A.. 1970. Functional response of three species of phytoseiidae (Acarina) to prey density. Can. Ent. 102:692704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tostowaryk, W. 1971. Life history and behaviour of Podisus modestus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in boreal forest in Quebec. Can. Ent. 103: 662674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welty, J. C. 1934. Experiments in group behaviour of fishes. Physiol. Zool. 7: 85128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar