+ Site Statistics
References:
52,654,530
Abstracts:
29,560,856
PMIDs:
28,072,755
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn

+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Host preference and feeding potential of spiders predaceous on insect pests of rice



Host preference and feeding potential of spiders predaceous on insect pests of rice



Journal of Entomological Research (New Delhi) 20(2): 145-150



Spiders collected from different rice ecosystems of North Bihar (India) comprised 61.26 per cent identified species. Amongst the four species, Lycosa pseudoannulata predominated (21.78%) over Callitrichia formosa (16.33%), Agriope catenulata (14.56%) and Clubiona japonica (8.59%). L. pseudoannulata preyed more on GLH (43.3%) than rice hispa (6.67%), stem borers (3.3%) and rice leaffolder (3.3.%). Further, L. pseudoannulata was the most efficient predator, the number of GLH predated 10 days after caging being 4.80 per day, followed by Clubiona sp. (4.23 GLH/day), A. catenulata (3.79 GLH/day), and Callitrichia formosa (2.67GLH/day). The population of L. pseudoannulata varied from 10.0 to 32.0 per cent, the maximum being on 95- and 110-day old crop and the lowest on 140-day crop. C. formosa was more in the early growth stages, i.e., 20-30 days after transplanting (DAT). In the case of A. catenulata, the maximum being recorded at 95 DAT (28.0%) and minimum (4.0%) at 35 DAT. Also, C. japonica maintained higher population at the later stages of crop growth, i.e., at 125 or 140 DAT (20.0%) followed by 95 and 110 DAT (12.0%).

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 002860384

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

Host preference and feeding potential of spiders to rice insect pests. Oryza 35(1): 65-69, 1998

Predaceous spiders of pigeonpea pests and their extent of feeding. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology 13(1): 81-82, 1993

Predaceous spiders of mango pests and their extent of feeding. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology 16(3): 167-168, 1996

Relative toxicity of 5 insecticides against insect pests of rice and their predators, with the effect of bidrin on the feeding of Lycosa pseudoannulata and Oedothorax insecticeps spiders. Plant protection bulletin: 19 (1) 1-12, 1977

Studies on spiders as natural enemies of insect pests part 5 species of spiders as natural enemies of the house fly and evaluation of their predaceous capacities. Medical Entomology and Zoology 28(2): 175-178, 1977

Mating-choice and host preference tests in the rice-feeding and water-oat-feeding types of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Annual Report of the Society of Plant Protection of North Japan ( 49): 102-104, 1998

Community structure and population dynamics of major insect pests and predaceous arthropods in four high-quality rice varieties in China. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University. Aug; 244: 343-347, 2005

Effects of flooding on insect pests and spiders in a rainfed rice environment. International Rice Research Newsletter 11(5): 24-25, 1986

Predatory potential of spiders on some insect pests of Bhendi. Bionotes 6(4): 109-110, 2004

Predatory potential of spiders on some insect pests of chilli. Bionotes 7(4): 129-130, 2005

Control function of predators in coexistent system of three spiders and two rice insect pests. Scientia Agricultura Sinica. February 20; 352: 146-151, 2002

Correlation of spiders with weather parameters and insect pests of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Insect Environment 11(1): 23-25, 2005

Further evaluation in the feeding potential of the predaceous insects and spiders in association with aphids harmful to apple and pear growing, and the effect of pesticides on predators. Jap J Apple Entomol Zool 6(4): 274-279, 1962

Prey potential and preference of three rice dwelling spiders. Madras Agricultural Journal. 1998( ) July-September; 857-9: 427-429, 2000

Prey preference of orthopteran predators on rice insect pests. Journal of Biological Control 16(2): 109-112, 2002