Functional and numerical responses do not always indicate the most effective predator for biological control: an analysis of two predators in a two‐prey system

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Prey consumption and functional response of three acarophagous species to eggs of the two-spotted spider mite in the laboratory (2004, background): “Therefore, as was pointed out by Koveos and Broufas (2000) and Lester and Harmsen (2002), it will be interesting to investigate how the responses of predators found in laboratory studies with simple single predator-single prey systems, such as the present study, reflect their responses in nature,…”
Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach (2014, background): “…et al. 2007), and also a familiar technique in assessing the potential and efficacy of biological control agents (O’Neil 1990; Van Drische and Bellows 2011; but see criticisms by Lester and Harmsen 2002), the uptake of functional responses in invasion biology has been very limited (see below).”
Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus macropilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and their impact on functional response to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) (2007, methodology): “In the present study, the functional response was used to evaluate this parameter; this is a tool commonly used by ecologists in the selection of potential predators for insect- and mite-pest management in biological control programs (Lester and Harmsen, 2002).”