4.1 Article

Effect of different prey species on the life history parameters of Chrysoperla sinica (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY
卷 109, 期 2, 页码 175-180

出版社

CZECH ACAD SCI, INST ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.14411/eje.2012.023

关键词

Neuroptera; Chrysopidae; Chrysoperla sinica; prey species; pre-imaginal development; survival; adult longevity; fecundity

资金

  1. special fund for Agro-scientific Research for the Public Interest [200803032, 201103002]
  2. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results of studies on prey suitability for generalist predators are important for efficient mass rearing and implementing Integrated Pest Management Programmes (IPM). The green lacewing, Chrysoperla sinica (Tjeder), is a polyphagous natural enemy attacking several pests on various crops in China. We investigated the effect of feeding it different species of prey on its pre-imaginal development, survival, adult longevity and fecundity under laboratory conditions. The prey species tested were nymphs of Aphis glycines Matsumura, cotton aphid Aphis gossypii Glover, peach aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer, corn aphid Rhopalosiphum maidis Fitch and cowpea aphid Aphis craccivora Koch, and eggs of the rice grain moth, Corcyra cephalonica Stainin. None of these species of prey affected the pre-imaginal survival or percentage survival of the eggs of the predator. However, eggs of C. cephalonica and nymphs of M. persicae and A. glycines were the best of the prey species tested, in that when fed on these species the pre-imaginal developmental period of C. sinica was shorter and its adult longevity, fecundity and percentage survival greater than when fed the other species of prey. In contrast, when fed nymphs of A. craccivora the pre-imaginal development period was longer, adult longevity shorter and fecundity lower. These findings could be helpful in defining more optimum conditions for the mass rearing of C. sinica for use in integrated pest management (IPM) programmes for various crops.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据