Bionomics of transverse ladybird beetle, Coccinella transversalis on cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora

Abstract views: 228 / PDF downloads: 55


  • H S RAKSHITH ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • SACHIN S SUROSHE ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • SUBHASH CHANDER ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • S N BHAGYASREE ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
  • Y VENKANNA ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India


A. craccivora, Attack rate, Cowpea, C. transversalis, Predator-prey interaction’s


Cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch is one of the important pests of legumes. It is a cosmopolitan and polyphagous pest causing 30-35% damage to vegetable crops globally. Chemical control of this pest is not only expensive but also has deleterious effects on human health, environment and non-target organisms. Biological control is one of the most important components of integrated pest management to achieve eco-friendly and sustainable management of crop pests. Coccinellid predator, Coccinella transversalis Fab. is an efficient predator known for its appetite on cowpea aphid under vegetable ecosystem. With this background, we conducted a study on biology, morphometric and functional response of C. transversalis on cowpea aphid under laboratory conditions (27±1°C and 65±5% RH) at Biological Control Lab, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, during 2016-17. Type of functional response was determined through polynomial logistic regression of proportion of prey consumption to the density of prey. Functional response parameters were obtained by fitting the data to the Holling's and Roger's equations. Total life span of male and female was ranged from 47-64 and 60-71 days, with a mean of 56±6.2 and 66±3.9 days, respectively. Both male and female of C. transversalis were found to exhibit Type II functional response. Female has showed high attack rate (1.99±0.141) compared to male (1.90±0.088) with maximum prey consumption of 84.41 and 80.51 aphids/day, respectively. Handling time obtained for males (0.0124 day) was higher than females (0.0118 day).


Download data is not yet available.


Borah R and Dutta S K. 2010. Feeding potential of Coccinella transversalis on different morphs of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). Journal of Biological Control 24(3): 271–73.

Garcia-Bellido D C, Vannier J, Hu S X and Chen A L. 2009. Arthropod visual predators in the early pelagic ecosystem: evidence from the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang biotas. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276: 2567–74.

Hodek I, Honek A and Van Emden H F. 2012. Ecology and Behaviour of the Ladybird Beetles (Coccinellidae). pp 15–36. John Wiley & Sons Press, New Jersey, USA.

Holling C S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Canadian Entomologist 91(7): 385–98.

Juliano J. 2001. VRPN: a device-independent, network-transparent VR peripheral system. (In) Proceeding of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, November 08-10, pp 55–61.

Kaur H and Virk J S. 2012. Feeding potential of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri against the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis. Phytoparasitica 40(2): 131–36.

Kumari S, Suroshe S S, Kumar D, Budhlakoti N and Yana V. 2021. Foraging behaviour of Scymnus coccivora Ayyar against cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 28: 3799–3805

Lohar M K, Khuhro S N, Lakho M H, Magsi G A and Khuhro T A. 2012. Biology and feeding potential of predator, Hipppdamia convergence Guir, (Coleoptera: Coccinella) on mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. in laboratory. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences 28(2): 150–59.

Lyla K R, Sheena and Bhasker. 2008. Biology and feeding preference of the coccinellid predator, Coccinella transversalis Fab. Insect Environment 14(2): 75–76.

Omkar and Kumar G. 2015. Responses of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Anegleis cardoni, to varying densities of Aphis gossypii. Journal of Insect Science 13(1): 42–46.

Omkar and Srivatsava R B. 2003. Prey quality dependent growth, development and reproduction of a biocontrol agent, Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 14(7): 665–73.

Pervez A and Omkar. 2005. Functional responses of coccinellid predators: An illustration of a logistic approach. Journal of Insect Science 5: 1–6.

Pritchard D W, Paterson R, Bovy, H C and Barrios-O'Neill D. 2017. Frair: an R package for fitting and comparing consumer functional responses. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8(11): 1528–34.

Rogers D. 1972. Random search and insect population models. Journal of Animal Ecology 15(1): 369-83.

Shinde P R, Shetgar S S and Mhaske S H. 2016. Biology of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Mulsant) on Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) at different temperature levels. Journal of Biological Control 30(2): 124–27.

Solangi B K, Lohar M K, Abro G H and Talpur M A. 2007. Searching ability and feeding potential of larvae, 7-spotted beetle Coccinella septempunctata Linn. under laboratory and field conditions. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 23(3): 705–09.

Tank B D and Korat D M. 2007. Biology of ladybird beetle, Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fab.) in middle Gujarat conditions. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences 20(3): 634–36.

Thompson G A and Goggin F L. 2006.Transcriptomics and functional genomics of plant defence induction by phloem-feeding insects. Journal of Experimental Botany 57(4): 755–66.

Venkanna Y, Suroshe S S, Chander S and Sweetee K. 2021. Feeding potential and foraging behaviour of Cheilomenes sexmaculata (F.) on the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science









How to Cite

RAKSHITH, H. S., SUROSHE, S. S., CHANDER, S., BHAGYASREE, S. N., & VENKANNA, Y. (2021). Bionomics of transverse ladybird beetle, Coccinella transversalis on cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 91(9), 1368–1372.