Ovipositional Responses of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to the Presence of Prey, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)

Jump To References Section

Authors

  • Division of Entomology and Nematology, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesseraghatta, Bangalore 560 089, Karnataka ,IN
  • Division of Entomology and Nematology, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesseraghatta, Bangalore 560 089, Karnataka ,IN
  • Division of Entomology and Nematology, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesseraghatta, Bangalore 560 089, Karnataka ,IN

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2012/3495

Keywords:

Predator, Coccinellid, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, Clutch Size, Prey Specific Cues.

Abstract

Studies to understand the influence of prey-specific cues on the clutch size of predatory coccinellid, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) were carried out under laboratory conditions to determine factors which act as positive ovipositional cues to the female. Correlation analysis between the clutch size and the oviposition time indicated that the clutch size is influenced by prey specific cues like prey eggs and honeydew. The regression analysis also explained the maximum variability in the clutch size in the presence of prey specific cues viz., prey eggs along with honeydew (y = 0.2725x + 3.5593; R2 = 0.8742; 0.94**); prey eggs along with exuviae and honeydew (y = 0.2865x + 3.2844; R2 = 0.8384; r = 0.92**) and prey eggs alone (y = 0.257x + 3.7467; R2 = 0.7805; r = 0.88**). The study indicated that prey specific cues like prey eggs and honeydew serve as positive ovipositional cues for gravid C. montrouzieri.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Published

2012-10-18

How to Cite

Kamala Jayanthi, P. D., Sangeetha, P., & Abraham, V. (2012). Ovipositional Responses of <I>Cryptolaemus montrouzieri</I> Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to the Presence of Prey, <I>Maconellicoccus hirsutus</I> (Green). Journal of Biological Control, 26(3), 240–244. https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2012/3495