[Edited_by_A._Ciancio,_C.N.R.,_Bari,_Italy_and_K.(Bookos.org)

PREDATORY MITES IN IPM
319
Table 2 continued
Type III spp. (continued)
Phytoseius macropilis 1 T
P. spoofi 1 T
Amblyseius andersoni 1, 2 T
A. eharai 1 T
A. swirskii 1 T
Neoseiulus barkeri 2 G
N. cucumeris 1, 2 L, G
N. umbraticus L, T
Kampimodromus aberrans 1,2 T, V
Typhlodromalus aripo 1, 3 Sh
T. limonicus 1 T, Sh
T. manihoti 1, 3 Sh
Typhlodromips sessor
T. newsami 1, 2 T
Iphiseius degenerans 1, 2 T, Sh, G
Type IV spp.
Euseius addoensis 1 T
E. elinae 1 T
E. finlandicus 1 T
E. fructicolus 1 T
E. sojaensis 1 T
E. tularensis 1 T
E. stipulatus 1,3 T
E. victoriensis 1 T
a Strategies: 1 = conservation; 2 = augmentation; 3 = importation and establishment.
b Crops: L = low-growing; G = greenhouse; T = tree; Sh = shrub; V = grapevine.
A considerable amount of studies has been recently added concerning the
evaluation of the different degree of responses by generalists and specialists
predators, as a consequence of their different physiology and behaviour. Even if a
build up in basic physiological studies is still necessary, physiological and
behavioural responses were analysed frequently and in different contexts.
Preliminary studies indicate appreciable differences among life styles. One of the
most remarkable concerns the response to odours produced by preys, other foods,
competitors, host plants and other habitat-related elements (Blackwood, Luh, &
T