Next Article in Journal
Effects of KMnO4-Modified Biochar Combined with Organic Fertilizer on Carbon and Nitrogen Content in Acidic Red Soil and the Growth of Chinese Cabbage
Previous Article in Journal
Yield and Fruit Quality of Three Strawberry Cultivars Across Four Growing Cycles in a Greenhouse Soilless System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Demographic Characteristics of Novius penicillioides (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) in Relation to Icerya jacobsoni (Hemiptera, Monophlebidae) Reared on Different Host Plants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/agronomy16131216
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Predatory Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua

by
Jiyu Cao
1,†,
Rongrong Hua
1,†,
Huiqing Wang
2,
Lixuan Zheng
1,
Jiayun Hu
1,
Jianping Zhang
1,* and
Jing Chen
1,*
1
Key Laboratory of Oasis Agricultural Pest Management and Plant Protection Resources Utilization, College of Agriculture, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
2
Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Plant Protection and Quarantine Station, Urumqi 830000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2026, 16(13), 1216; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16131216 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 6 May 2026 / Revised: 11 June 2026 / Accepted: 15 June 2026 / Published: 23 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Beneficial Insects Research for Conservation Biological Control)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

[Objective] To determine the control potential of Arma chinensis against major soybean pests Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua, thereby providing theoretical and practical support for biological pest control in soybean fields. [Methods] Laboratory and field experiments were conducted to assess the predation capacity, feeding preference, and field control effect of third~fifth-instar nymphs and male/female adults of A. chinensis on first, third and fifth-instar larvae of these two pests. Predation functional responses were fitted to analyze predation characteristics and the relationship between searching efficiency and prey density. [Results] Both nymphs and adults of A. chinensis preyed on the larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua, with the predation functional responses conforming to the Holling Type II disk equation, which presented the highest predatory efficiency. The female adult of A. chinensis showed strong predation capacity against H. armigera (55.368) and S. exigua (50.699) larvae, with the highest daily prey consumption of 13.158 and 13.699 individuals, respectively. Searching efficiency of A. chinensis was negatively correlated with prey density, and significantly higher for first-instar than third-instar larvae. Under cooccurrence conditions, A. chinensis displayed an obvious feeding preference for H. armigera larvae. Field trials demonstrated that female adults of A. chinensis generated a 70% population decline rate of H. armigera. Meanwhile, the population decline rate of S. exigua reached over 80%. Female adults of A. chinensis achieved field control rates of 80% against H. armigera larvae and 70% against S. exigua larvae. [Conclusions] A. chinensis has strong predation and control potential against the larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua. Among these, females of A. chinensis demonstrated the highest efficacy in controlling the two types of Lepidoptera larvae, both indoors and in field conditions. It is a promising biological control agent for soybean fields and provides a scientific basis for large-scale application.

1. Introduction

Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is widely distributed across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia within the latitude range of 50° N to 50° S [1]. This polyphagous pest infests over 180 host species [2,3]. While cotton is a primary host, H. armigera also causes severe yield losses in crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans. The larval stage generally takes 12–20 days, and larvae become particularly destructive during the fifth and 6th instars, exhibiting voracious feeding behavior by boring into crop buds, flowers, ears, and fruits [4]. Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is another cosmopolitan and highly polyphagous pest, known for its populations that exhibit intermittent outbreaks [5]. It is a highly polyphagous pest that infests a variety of crops, with soybean as one of its primary hosts, as well as cotton, maize, sunflower, chickpea, cowpea, and tomato, and it can feed on more than 200 plant species across over 30 families [6]. Leguminous hosts are favorable for their development; the larval stage lasts about 12–15 days, which is shorter than on alternative hosts [7]. Newly hatched larvae typically cluster on the undersides of leaves, spinning protective webs and feeding on leaf tissue, which results in characteristic translucent “windowpanes” in the epidermis. By the third-instar, larvae create more distinct holes or notches in leaves. Older instars often bore into fruits, such as bell peppers and tomatoes, directly impacting both yield and marketability [8]. Globally, leaf-feeding insects are responsible for annual crop losses estimated at 18–20% of total production, with an economic value exceeding $470 billion [9,10]. Chemical control has long been the cornerstone of management for H. armigera and S. exigua, valued for its rapid action and operational convenience. The most widely applied active molecules include chlorantraniliprole, indoxacarb, and lufenuron. The recommended field application doses generally range from 150 to 300 g a.i./hm2 for these pesticides. Commonly used insecticides include diamides, benzoylureas, and other classes. However, overreliance on chemical methods has led to the well-known “3R” problems in pest management (resistance, resurgence, and residue), along with environmental pollution, harm to non-target organisms, and food safety concerns. Consequently, the development and application of environmentally friendly biological control strategies have become a central focus of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs [9,10].
Among biological control agents, natural enemies generally consist of three main groups: predators, parasitoids, and entomopathogens. All of them play vital roles in sustainable pest management. Among these groups, predatory natural enemies have attracted considerable attention due to their direct suppression of pest populations. Arma chinensis (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) is a predatory stinkbug with promising application potential, owing to its broad prey range and high adaptability [11,12]. Both nymphs (second to fifth-instar) and adults prey on more than 40 pest species across several orders, including Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, and Hemiptera [13,14,15]. A. chinensis is widely distributed across Europe and Northeast Asia, reflecting its strong ecological adaptability. In controlling lepidopteran pests, it has shown efficacy against S. frugiperda [16], S. litura [17,18,19], Agriophara rhombata [20], Hyphantria cunea [21], and others. Studies indicate that A. chinensis also exhibits predatory activity against larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua [12,22,23,24], including feeding on S. exigua in sugar beet fields [12]. However, the effectiveness of natural enemies against a specific pest depends not only on predation efficiency but also on factors such as prey preference and field microclimatic conditions.
When presented with multiple prey species, natural enemies often display distinct selective preferences. These preferences can be influenced by factors such as prey size [25,26], nutritional composition [27,28], mobility [29], and defense mechanisms [30]. For example, Harpactor fuscipes (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) shows greater selectivity for third-instar larvae of Heliothis assulta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) than for nymphs of Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) [31]. Similarly, although Orius minutus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) captures Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae) at the highest daily rate, it exhibits a strong feeding preference for Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) [32]. To date, few studies have reported the prey selectivity of predatory natural enemies toward H. armigera and S. exigua. Studies on Arma chinensis have revealed that when offered both third-instar larvae of H. armigera and pupae of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), it prefers the latter [23]. This kind of prey preference will further influence its actual pest control performance when applied in complex agroecosystems. Although A. chinensis is a known natural enemy of both H. armigera and S. exigua [12,22,23,24], its predatory selectivity between these two common soybean pests has not yet been investigated.
While numerous laboratory studies have confirmed the significant potential of Arma chinensis to prey on lepidopteran larvae, its practical efficacy as a biological control agent in the field—a core criterion for evaluating any natural enemy—requires further validation. Research shows that the growth, development, and feeding capacity of A. chinensis under field conditions are influenced by factors such as prey species [33,34,35], environmental temperature [36], and host plant variety [37]. More broadly, the predation capacity of natural enemies in natural settings is shaped by a complex array of interacting factors. These include climatic adaptability [38,39], tri-trophic crop–pest–enemy interactions [27,40,41], vegetation structure [42], prey density [43,44], interactions with other natural enemies [45,46,47], and non-target effects [48,49,50]. Therefore, to comprehensively evaluate the practical biocontrol potential of A. chinensis, field efficacy trials under natural field conditions are indispensable for clarifying its actual pest-suppressive capacity in complex agroecosystems.
In summary, while previous laboratory studies have evaluated the predatory capacity of A. chinensis against H. armigera and S. exigua [22,23,24], systematic research remains scarce on predation by different nymphal instars and male and female adults of A. chinensis against larval instars of the two pests. Furthermore, in the soybean agroecosystems of Xinjiang, larvae of both H. armigera and S. exigua can cause damage from the seedling stage through pod development, with periods of co-occurrence. Yet, no studies have reported whether A. chinensis exhibits a feeding preference when both pests are present in soybean fields. Additionally, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of the field control efficacy of different A. chinensis instars under actual cropping conditions.
Therefore, to clarify the predatory effectiveness of A. chinensis against H. armigera and S. exigua in a soybean host system, this study conducted laboratory assays to investigate the functional response, feeding preference, and field control efficacy of the third, fourth, and fifth-instar nymphs, as well as female and male adults of A. chinensis against the first, third, and fifth-instar larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua. The aim is to elucidate the predatory capacity and practical control potential of A. chinensis against these two pests, providing a theoretical basis for its release in soybean fields for integrated pest management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect Sources

Insects: S. exigua pupae were purchased from Jiyuan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Jiyuan, Henan, China. Male H. armigera adults were collected from soybean fields in Shihezi between May and August 2025. These males were co-reared with H. armigera female pupae (also purchased from Jiyuan Biotechnology, Jiyuan, Henan, China) in an intelligent light-controlled incubator (RXZ-380D model, manufactured by Ningbo Jiangnan Instrument Factory, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China), at 28 ± 1 °C, 40 ± 10% relative humidity, and a 16L: 8D photoperiod. Larvae of both S. exigua and H. armigera were reared in 9 cm disposable bacterial culture dishes using the artificial diet formulation reported in a previous study [51]. Upon pupation, larvae were transferred to 2500 mL glass beakers covered with gauze (containers covered by a gauze strip). Emerged adults were reared on a compound nutrient-sucrose solution [51]. Daily collection of H. armigera eggs and S. exigua egg masses was conducted for propagation until the F1 generation.
A. chinensis eggs were purchased from Jiyuan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Jiyuan, Henan, China. After hatching, they were co-fed with A. chinensis nymphs collected from fields in Shihezi City and the Shawan region in rearing containers (bottom diameter 9.5 cm, height 7 cm, with lids covered by 0.025 mm mesh). They were fed live third-instar larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua at a 1:1 ratio and maintained in the laboratory until the F1 generation. Developmentally synchronized, active, and healthy third, fourth, and fifth-instar nymphs and adult males and females of A. chinensis were selected for the experiment.

2.2. Experimental Methods

2.2.1. Predation Tests of A. chinensis on H. armigera and S. exigua Larvae

Before the experiment, newly emerged A. chinensis adults (females and males, 24 h post-eclosion) and third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs were individually placed in a rearing container. The container type and size were consistent with those described in the second paragraph of Section 2.1. All assays were performed under the same laboratory conditions as stated in Section 2.1, including temperature, relative humidity and photoperiod. Put one A. chinensis and a moist cotton ball in each container. After the A. chinensis were starved for 24 h, a certain number of H. armigera or S. exigua larvae were added to the containers, respectively. The predatory capacity of H. armigera or S. exigua larvae was determined by exposing a single individual predator to 10 larvae of each instar of H. armigera and S. exigua larvae per container separately, and the average predation number was calculated to evaluate the predatory capacity. Subsequently, functional response assays with gradient prey densities were further conducted. After 24 h of starvation, the first, third, and fifth-instar larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua were introduced at different density gradients for functional response fitting. The molting duration of the first, third and fifth-instar larvae was 2 d, 4 d, and 4–5 d, respectively. Larval densities for different instars of H. armigera or S. exigua were as follows: the first instar: 4, 8, 10, 12, 16 larvae/container; the third instar: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 larvae/container; the fifth-instar: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 larvae/container. These density gradients were determined based on preliminary experiments, covering low to high prey abundance. This setting can fully reflect the predation characteristics of A. chinensis and ensure valid biological interpretation and statistical comparison among treatments. Each treatment was replicated 15 times. Sufficient soybean leaves were placed in each rearing container to prevent larval mortality or self-mutilation due to starvation. After 24 h of rearing, the number of dead H. armigera and S. exigua larvae was recorded for each treatment group. During observation, larvae were gently prodded with a brush; those exhibiting severe shriveling or lack of movement were deemed dead.

2.2.2. Functional Response of A. chinensis to H. armigera and S. exigua Larvae

The predation functional response of A. chinensis was analyzed using the frair package in RStudio4.5.0. The functional response type was determined via the linear coefficient (P1): P1 = 0 represents Holling Type I, P1 < 0 corresponds to Holling Type II, and P1 > 0 indicates Holling Type III.
Functional response equation: Na = aN0T/(1 + aThN0), where Na represents the number of H. armigera or S. exigua larvae consumed by A. chinensis, a denotes the attack rate, N0 is the initial density of H. armigera or S. exigua larvae; T is the experimental cycle, with a total duration of 1 d in this study; Th is the handling time, referring to the time required for A. chinensis to capture and consume a single larva [43].
From the Holling functional response model, the maximum daily prey consumption is calculated as 1/Th. The value of a/Th was defined as the predation efficiency here. These two indices were applied to assess the predation potential of A. chinensis at different developmental stages against various larval stages of H. armigera and S. exigua.

2.2.3. Searching Efficiency of A. chinensis on H. armigera and S. exigua Larvae

The equation S = a/(1 + aThN0) was used to fit the searching efficiencies of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of A. chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of H. armigera or S. exigua. S represents the searching efficiency, and the meanings of other parameters are the same as in Section 2.2.2.

2.2.4. Prey Preference of A. chinensis Toward Third-Instar Larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua

To observe the prey preference of A. chinensis female adults toward mixed-reared third-instar larvae of H. armigera and the third-instar larvae of S. exigua, each container contained 2, 4, or 6 third-instar H. armigera larvae together with the same number of third-instar S. exigua larvae. Subsequently, one female adult of A. chinensis starved for 24 h was placed into each container. The total prey number per container was thus 4, 8, and 12, corresponding to predator-to-prey ratios of 1:4, 1:8, and 1:12. Each treatment was replicated 3 times. Survival numbers of both prey species were recorded after 24 h. The predation preference of A. chinensis toward third-instar S. exigua and H. armigera larvae was evaluated using Zhou’s method: Ci = (Qi − Fi)/(Qi + Fi), where Qi represents the prey consumption of the predator insect on prey species i, Fi denotes the proportion of prey species, and i among all prey species [52].

2.2.5. Field Control Trials of A. chinensis Against H. armigera and S. exigua Larvae

Fifth-instar nymphs and adults of A. chinensis were used in field trials conducted in a soybean field at the Experimental Station of Shihezi, Xinjiang, China. Before release, all test predators were starved for 24 h to ensure consistent feeding status and accurately measure their predatory voracity. According to previous laboratory functional response results, nymphs with strong predatory capacity were selected for subsequent field trials. Larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua were tested at the first-, third-, and fifth-instar stages, resulting in six treatment combinations with three replicates each. Rectangular mesh cages (50 × 50 × 120 cm; 0.025 mm gauze) were installed with their bottom edges buried 5 cm into the soil to prevent insect movement. Before each trial, all non-target pests on enclosed soybean were removed by mechanical methods, and each cage was inoculated with a fixed prey density: 25 first-instar, 10 third-instar, and 10 fifth-instar larvae were introduced for each pest species. Bioassays for H. armigera and S. exigua were conducted in individual cages. One A. chinensis predator (fifth-instar nymphs or adults) was then introduced per treatment cage, while control cages contained only prey. Larval survival was recorded at 1, 3, and 7 d after predator release. Throughout the 7-day experiment, no prey reproduction occurred, and cages effectively excluded outside insects, allowing a reliable assessment of predation and natural survival [53,54].
Pest reduction rate (%) = (Total pest population − Remaining surviving pests)/Total pest population × 100

2.3. Data Analysis

Data processing and graphing for predation response parameters and logistic regression analysis were performed using R Studio 4.5.1. For multiple comparisons, Duncan’s multiple range test was adopted. All statistical analyses were conducted at a significance level of p < 0.05. Graphing for foraging effect equations was conducted using Origin 2018. Data processing and graphing for feeding preference and field control efficacy evaluation were performed using GraphPad Prism 9.5.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Evaluation of the Predatory Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Helicoverpa armigera Larvae

3.1.1. The Predatory Capacity of Arma chinensis Towards Helicoverpa armigera Larvae

Across all tested developmental stages of A. chinensis, predation decreased as the H. armigera larval instar stage increased, and no significant difference in predation performance was found among A. chinensis individuals (Table 1). The third-instar A. chinensis nymphs exhibited the lowest consumption on the fifth-instar larvae (17.3%). Both female and male adults exhibited the greatest prey consumption on the first-instar H. armigera (87.3% and 85.3%, respectively). Overall, A. chinensis females exhibited the highest prey consumption rates for all larval stages of H. armigera.

3.1.2. The Predatory Function Response of Arma chinensis to the Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera

Logistic regression verified Holling Type II functional responses for every treatment, supported by negative P1 values (Table 2), indicating that the predation responses of all A. chinensis stages (third-fifth-instar nymphs, and adults) to H. armigera larvae (first, third, and fifth-instars) conformed to the Holling II model (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). In accordance with this model, the number of prey consumed increased with prey density before eventually plateauing. Furthermore, for a given predator stage, consumption gradually decreased as the instar of the H. armigera larvae increased.
Regarding the functional response parameters, female adults of A. chinensis preying on first-instar H. armigera exhibited the highest attack rate (4.208) and the shortest handling time (0.078 d), resulting in the greatest theoretical maximum daily consumption (13.922 individuals). Conversely, the fourth-instar nymphs preying on fifth-instar larvae showed the longest handling time (0.434 d). Accordingly, female adults achieved the highest predation efficiency against first-instar H. armigera (55.368), followed by male adults (47.372) (Table 3).

3.1.3. The Searching Efficiency of Arma chinensis on Helicoverpa armigera Larvae

The search efficiency of A. chinensis followed this order: female adults > male adults > fifth-instar nymphs > fourth-instar nymphs > third-instar nymphs. Female adults exhibited the highest search efficiency (Figure 4A–C). As prey abundance increased, the search efficiency of A. chinensis decreased. When A. chinensis preyed on first- and third-instar H. armigera larvae, the searching efficiency curves for third-instar nymphs diverged significantly from those of fourth- and fifth-instar nymphs, as well as adult females and males.

3.2. Evaluation of the Predatory Effect of Arma chinensis Against Spodoptera exigua Larvae

3.2.1. The Predatory Capacity of Arma chinensis Towards Spodoptera exigua Larvae

Across all tested developmental stages of A. chinensis, predation decreased as the S. exigua larval instar stage increased, and no significant difference in predation performance was found among A. chinensis individuals (Table 4). The third-instar A. chinensis nymphs exhibited the lowest predation rate on the fifth-instar larvae (8.70%). Both female and male adults exhibited higher predation rates on the first-instar H. armigera (81.0% and 86.7%, respectively). Overall, the adults of A. chinensis exhibited the highest prey consumption rates for all larval stages of S. exigua.

3.2.2. The Predatory Function Response of Arma chinensis to the Larvae of Spodoptera exigua

Logistic regression confirmed a Type II functional response for A. chinensis at the third, fourth, and fifth instars, as well as adult males and females preying on S. exigua larvae at the first, third, and fifth instars, as indicated by the negative estimates of the linear coefficient P1 across all treatments (Table 5). Predation functions conform to the Holling II model. Functional response models of A. chinensis preying on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of S. exigua across distinct developmental stages were established and visualized (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Under each treatment, the prey consumption increased with prey density and eventually plateaued. When A. chinensis at the same developmental stage preyed on S. exigua larvae of different instars, the number of S. exigua larvae consumed by A. chinensis decreased gradually as the instar age of the S. exigua larvae increased.
A. chinensis female adults exhibited the highest predation efficiency against first-instar S. exigua larvae (50.699), followed by male adults (49.868) (Table 6). Conversely, the third-instar nymphs showed the lowest efficacy against fifth-instar S. exigua larvae (0.163). Consistent with these observations, the theoretical maximum daily consumption was highest for female adults preying on first-instar S. exigua (13.699), whereas the third-instar nymphs displayed the lowest maximum daily consumption, preying on only approximately 1.091 individuals of fifth-instar S. exigua daily (Table 6).

3.2.3. The Searching Efficiency of Arma chinensis on Spodoptera exigua Larvae

The search efficiency of A. chinensis followed this order: female adults > male adults > fifth-instar nymphs > fourth-instar nymphs > third-instar nymphs. Female adults exhibited the highest search efficiency (Figure 8A–C). As prey abundance increased, the search efficiency of A. chinensis decreased. When searching for the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of S. exigua, female A. chinensis exhibited the highest search efficiency at larval densities of four, two, and two individuals per container, respectively.

3.3. Prey Preference of Arma chinensis Towards Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua

The preference index Ci for the third-instar larvae of H. armigera was positive for all A. chinensis female adults, whereas the preference index Ci for the third-instar larvae of S. exigua was negative. Prey consumptions were lower for S. exigua than for H. armigera (Table 7). This indicates that when both prey species coexist, A. chinensis female adults exhibit a positive preference for H. armigera and a negative preference for third-instar S. exigua larvae.

3.4. Field Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua

In the field trial control plots, H. armigera larvae at the first-, third-, and fifth-instar stages remained active even after 7 d. When the prey were the first-instar larvae of H. armigera, the decline rate of female adults on day 7 of H. armigera larvae was 78.33%, which was higher than that of male adults (76.67%) and the fifth-instar nymphs (60.00%) of A. chinensis on S. exigua larvae. The predation rate of A. chinensis on the fifth-instar larvae of H. armigera was low. On day 7, the pest population reduction rates decreased in the order: female adults (73.33%), male adults (66.67%), and fifth-instar nymphs (66.67%) (Figure 9).
In the control area of the field trial, the reduction rates for the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of S. exigua were consistent, with good activity persisting for up to day 7. When the prey were the fifth-instar larvae of S. exigua, the female adults of A. chinensis had the highest decline rate (86.67%) on 7 d of S. exigua larvae, followed by male adults (80.00%) and fifth-instar nymphs (66.67%). The predation rate of A. chinensis on the third-instar larvae of S. exigua was low. On the seventh day, the population decline rates of A. chinensis from high to low were female adults (80.00%), male adults (66.67%), and the fifth-instar nymphs (56.67%) (Figure 10).

4. Discussion

As a key indicator for evaluating the pest control efficacy of predatory insects on prey populations, the functional response to predation directly reflects the interactions between predators and prey [55]. The Holling II model provides a robust framework for assessing the biocontrol efficacy of predatory insects [56]. It matches the density-dependent predation pattern of natural enemies and is thus suitable for characterizing the predation process of A. chinensis. This model has been used to assess the functional response of A. chinensis to different prey species [18,56,57,58,59]. Ecologically, the derived parameters reveal the predation traits of A. chinensis and further illustrate its ecological role in suppressing pest populations. This study investigated the predatory activity of the third, fourth, and fifth-instar nymphs and adult males and females of A. chinensis toward larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua. Results indicate that the third-instar nymphs and adults of A. chinensis are capable of preying on the evaluated larval stages of H. armigera and S. exigua. However, among all the tested developmental stages, only the female adults exhibited the greatest predatory capacity. All predatory functions fitted the Holling II functional response model.
When soybean was used as the host plant, the predation efficiency of all stages of A. chinensis on the third H. armigera larvae, which were lower than the values reported for conspecifics fed on corn leaves (39.80, 35.810, and 34.542 for adult females, males, and the fifth-instar nymphs, respectively) [22] and also lower than those fed with moistened absorbent cotton balls and artificial diet (16.311, 22.177, and 28.114 for the third- and fourth-instar nymphs and adult females) [23]; the predation efficiency of all stages of A. chinensis on the third-instar S. exigua larvae was higher than that of adults using moistened cotton balls (18.722 for males, 17.527 for females) [24]. The predation rate of the tested A. chinensis in our study was also higher than that of nymphs and adults fed tussah pupae preying on the first–2nd instar larvae (19.0%, 20.0%, 21.0%) [12].
These findings indicate that the predation rates of A. chinensis on different prey species are influenced by its rearing and propagation methods. These variations may also be attributed to factors such as environmental conditions [60], hunger state [61], developmental stage [22,23,62], criteria for determining larval mortality, and host plant characteristics. For instance, under favorable high-pressure conditions, Doru luteipes exhibits shorter search times for S. frugiperda, whereas its predation rate on S. frugiperda eggs decreases under low-pressure conditions [60]. When prey density is low, A. chinensis starved for two or four days consume significantly more Mythimna separata than satiated individuals [61]. The method of assessing predation also affects feeding rate estimates. A. chinensis often engages in prolonged feeding on individual prey, with salivary gland secretions leading to prey paralysis and death [63]. While some studies consider prey immobility upon contact as an indicator of death, others define successful predation as complete hemolymph extraction within two hours [18].
At the same prey developmental stage, prey consumption by A. chinensis increased with prey density. However, when the density of H. armigera and S. exigua larvae reached a certain threshold, predation rates rose gradually before slowing. This deceleration primarily reflects a satiation limitation in A. chinensis, coupled with intrinsic behavioral constraints during predation, specifically search time and attack rate. The search efficiency of predatory insects generally diminishes as prey density increases. In this study, the search efficiency of A. chinensis approximated that reported for other predatory bugs, such as Picromerus lewisi [58], Sycanus falleni [57], and Eocanthecona furcellata [59]. For example, fifth-instar nymphs of A. chinensis showed the highest daily capture rate for first-instar S. litura larvae, while their rate for fifth-instar larvae was the lowest [17]. Furthermore, female adults generally demonstrated higher predation intensity than males, possibly because females are larger and require substantial energy for egg formation and development during the oviposition period, necessitating greater prey intake to replenish nutrients. The predatory patterns of A. chinensis against Argyrogramma agnata [64], S. frugiperda [18,65], and Tuta absoluta [66] are similar: their predatory capacity gradually increases with advancing instar. Based on these findings, the peak larval stage of H. armigera and S. exigua can be preliminarily regarded as the optimal release window for A. chinensis in field applications. By the third instar, A. chinensis already exhibits sufficient predatory efficacy for field release. Directly releasing adults—and appropriately increasing the proportion of female adults—may further enhance overall pest control effectiveness.
Search efficiency serves as another key indicator for assessing the pest control capacity of natural enemies. It reflects the ability of A. chinensis to locate, recognize, and attack prey, directly representing its foraging performance in complex environments, and provides an important reference for evaluating its biocontrol potential. This study shows that the search efficiency of A. chinensis gradually decreases as larval densities of H. armigera and S. exigua increase, but increases with advancing instar from the third instar onward. Female adults displayed maximum searching efficiency when exposed to peak densities of third- and fifth-instar larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua, reflecting greater foraging capacity. Across all prey instars, female adults showed higher search efficiency and shorter handling time than male adults and other nymphal stages. This pattern of age- and sex-related differences aligns with observations when A. chinensis preyed on higher-density Menyotia grassland caterpillars, where female adults consumed slightly more prey per day than males [67], and with findings on S. frugiperda, where females also showed slightly higher consumption than males [16], consistent with the results of this study.
Notably, prey density plays a key role in regulating predator preference; changes in prey density often lead to corresponding shifts in prey selection strategies. When exposed to both prey species at the same time, adult female A. chinensis preferred to feed on H. armigera larvae, and their predation volume gradually increased with higher prey densities. Similar selective behavior has been reported for A. chinensis toward S. litura and H. assulta [34], and for multicolored ladybugs feeding on S. frugiperda and S. exigua [68].
Searching ability is a vital trait for natural enemies utilized in pest biocontrol. The present field cage experiment further revealed the searching performance of A. chinensis against target pests in soybean fields. Field observations demonstrated that fifth-instar nymphs and adults of A. chinensis exert significant suppression on first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of H. armigera and S. exigua. Notably, the predation rate of A. chinensis on H. armigera was higher than that on S. exigua. Additionally, when preying on the same species, adult females exhibited a higher predation rate than other stages of the predator. Mirroring strategies for Agriophara rhombata, deploying fifth-instar nymphs of A. chinensis at the initial outbreak stage maximizes predation as these nymphs subsequently develop into adults with superior predatory capacity [20].
Older A. chinensis individuals require more prey relative to their body size. The predator rarely sucks prey dry completely. The venom released during stinging can impair prey survival, which is determined by its feeding behavior. To compensate for predation obstacles and maintain normal growth and metabolism, late-instar predators capture a greater number of prey. Observations during the study also revealed a characteristic feeding behavior: A. chinensis engages in prolonged feeding on a single captured prey until it is fully consumed and desiccated. This aligns with its documented biological traits [15] and observed predation on Hyphantria cunea [69]. The predator typically inserts its mouthparts into the prey’s head to rapidly immobilize it and continues feeding until only the exoskeleton remains. This behavioral pattern helps explain results from indoor experiments, where the consumption of third-instar larvae was nearly equivalent to that of fifth-instar larvae. Supporting this, related studies found no significant difference in the maximum daily consumption and handling time of A. chinensis for third- versus fifth-instar S. litura larvae [17], and similarly consistent predation efficiency on third- and fifth-instar larvae of Ectropis grisescens [70]. These findings collectively demonstrate the broad adaptability and stable predation efficiency of A. chinensis across different prey instars.
After release in soybean fields, A. chinensis rapidly adapts to the field environment, suggesting that indoor rearing conditions closer to natural settings can enhance its field adaptability. However, the actual predation rate of A. chinensis in the field appeared relatively low. Notably, in the control plots, the released prey had completely defoliated the soybean plants within the cages by day 7, with most individuals having molted through two instar stages. Although A. chinensis predation rates fluctuated in response to prey age, the ultimate prevention of defoliation demonstrates higher predatory efficacy and substantial potential for field pest control. Concurrent studies indicate that soybean as a host plant not only facilitates the establishment, retention, and survival of A. chinensis, but also supports the completion of its life cycle via plant feeding [71]. Future strategies may involve establishing embedded natural enemy systems—using field pest populations within cage setups—to enable A. chinensis to reproduce and sustain itself in situ [61]. This approach leverages endogenous biocontrol to reduce costs and improve efficiency, while preserving the quality and reproductive capacity of A. chinensis and thereby accumulating larger field populations [72]. This biocontrol mode has lower long-term operating costs and superior economic benefits. Artificial release facilitates the establishment of local natural enemy populations for sustained pest control. Unlike conventional insecticides, this biocontrol method brings few ecological risks and avoids the problems of pesticide resistance and ecological disturbance. This approach capitalizes on the predator’s functional traits observed under controlled conditions to drive endogenous biocontrol.
This study used the Holling II model to assess the predation potential of A. chinensis against H. armigera and S. exigua larvae. The results confirm its field viability for mitigating crop damage caused by these pests. Consequently, release strategies should prioritize adult females and target the initial peak of larval outbreaks to ensure sustainable, cost-effective control.
However, biotic and abiotic factors greatly influence the growth and reproduction of A. chinensis [15,23,73,74]. Future studies will first explore the combined effects of environmental factors and formulate targeted release protocols. Field trials are also required to verify its long-term control performance. Artificially releasing this predator can establish stable local populations for sustained pest suppression. This biocontrol method is economically feasible and ecologically safe, with no risks such as pest resistance caused by conventional insecticides. Integrating mass-rearing techniques will further promote its wide application in agriculture.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C. (Jiyu Cao); data curation, J.C. (Jiyu Cao), R.H. and H.W.; formal analysis, J.C. (Jiyu Cao) and R.H.; funding acquisition, J.C. (Jing Chen); investigation, J.C. (Jiyu Cao), L.Z. and J.H.; methodology, J.C. (Jing Chen) and J.C. (Jiyu Cao); project administration, J.C. (Jing Chen) and J.C. (Jiyu Cao); resources, J.C. (Jing Chen); supervision, J.C. (Jing Chen) and J.Z.; validation, J.C. (Jing Chen) and J.Z.; Writing—original draft, J.C. (Jiyu Cao) and R.H.; writing—review and editing, J.C. (Jing Chen) and J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (Science and Technology Talent Projects of Xinjiang Production Construction Corps (2024DB001)) and Science and Technology Department of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (the Key Research and Development Task Special Program of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (2022B02043), and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Soybean Industry Technology System (XARS-04)). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank Shaoshan Wang, Zhiping Cai, Jie Su, and Xian Zhou for their guidance in experimental design and methods. We are grateful to the reviewer and the editor for their comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Valencia-Montoya, W.A.; Elfekih, S.; North, H.L.; José Maurício, S.B. Adaptive introgression across semipermeable species boundaries between local Helicoverpa zea and invasive Helicoverpa armigera Moths. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2020, 37, 2568–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yadav, S.P.S.; Lahutiya, V.; Paudel, P. A review on the biology, ecology, and management tactics of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Turk. J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 10, 2467–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jin, M.; North, H.L.; Peng, Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, B.; Pan, R.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, W.; Liu, K.; Yang, B.; et al. Adaptive evolution to the natural and anthropogenic environment in a global invasive crop pest, the cotton bollworm. Innovation 2023, 4, 100454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lu, y.; Wang, K.; Jiang, Y.; Xia, B.; Li, P.; Feng, H.; Wyckhuys, K.A.; Guo, Y. Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science 2010, 328, 1151–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Zheng, X.; Cong, X.; Wang, X.; Lei, C. A Review of Geographic Distribution, Overwintering and Migration in Spodoptera exigua Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Entomol. Res. Soc. 2011, 13, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rajesh Chowdary, L.; Suneel Kumar, G.V.; Bharathi, S.; Sarada, O.; Nagaraju, Y.; Manikyanahalli Chandrashekara, K.; Naga Harish, G. Off-season survival and life history of beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) on various host plants. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 13721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Azidah, A.; Sofian-azirun, M. Life history of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on various host plants. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2006, 96, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saeed, S.; Sayyed, A.H.; Ahmad, I. Effect of host plants on life-history traits of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Pest Sci. 2010, 83, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hafeez, M.; Ullah, F.; Khan, M.M.; Li, X.; Zhang, Z.; Shah, S.; Imran, M.; Assiri, M.A.; Fernández-grandon, G.M.; Desneux, N.; et al. Metabolic-based insecticide resistance mechanism and ecofriendly approaches for controlling of beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 1746–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhou, W.; Arcot, Y.; Medina, R.F.; Bernal, J.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Akbulut, M.E.S. Integrated Pest Management: An Update on the Sustainability Approach to Crop Protection. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 41130–41147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gao, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, Y.; Fan, J.; Wang, G. Study on the biological characteristics of Arma chinensis. J. Eng. Heilongjiang Univ. 2011, 2, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gao, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, Y.; Fan, J.; Fu, X.; Jing, N.; Wang, G. Study on artificial breeding technology and releasing in field of Arma chinensis Fallou. J. Eng. Heilongjiang Univ. 2012, 3, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pan, S.; Yang, X.; Yuan, R.; Yang, Y. Determination of the number of enemies of Arma chinensis feeding on Leucoma salicis. J. Jilin For. Sci. Technol. 1993, 1, 25–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Tian, Y.; Xu, Z.; Li, G. Study on functional response of Arma chinensis to the adults of Monolepta hieroglyphica. J. Environ. Entomol. 2007, 4, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zou, D.; Wang, M.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chen, H. Taxonomic and bionomic notes on Arma chinensis (Fallou). Zootaxa 2012, 3382, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yin, Y.; Li, X.; Zhao, X.; Tang, Y.; Wang, M.; Chen, A.; Chen, F.; Zhang, L. Predation of adult of Arma chinensis to larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda. Plant Prot. 2019, 45, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gao, Q.; Wang, D.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Meng, F.; Wu, B.; Wang, Z.; Liu, L.; Zong, H.; Tan, X. Study on Predatory Function of Arma chinensis on Spodoptera litura (Fabricius). Tob. Sci. China 2019, 40, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, M.; Su, X.J.; Zhou, X.X.; Yue, H.F.; Chen, Y.X.; Yan, X.J.; Yuan, H.Z. Study on the predation ability of Arma chinensis and Picromerus lewisi on the older larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda. In Proceedings of the 2019 Annual Academic Conference of the Chinese Society for Plant Protection, Xi’an, China, 23 October 2018; Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=iwDheDcO5w5xP1cIh53Yl4uXcI9kHmCfXp1b0I-Oi8xIEtfmhN08SxG1tNTrvjoxokKhM5OkNaMvk_ddT7WYNSPXWhwOZEZND0HFbwzWhUEs3YF7tZc8HLh7-NKNkxQMbeen__bUDRqarr32V9KJEkFYMYV3ffFVWRlQiiFaRcDeEhl7Y8MeXQ0MNlVVPfNH&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS (accessed on 5 May 2026).
  19. Tang, Y.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Liu, C.; Mao, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, L. Predation of Arma chinensis on Spodoptera litura Larvae. Tob. Sci. China. 2020, 41, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Luo, Z.; Gong, X.; Yuxiang, D.; Wang, X.; Shen, S.; Long, Y. Evaluation of predation effectiveness of Arma chinensis to Agriophara rhombata larvae. For. Pest Dis. 2023, 42, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, W.; Liu, Q.; Yanjia, R.; Kang, Z.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Q.; Wang, J.; Ma, J.; Sun, Y. Preliminary Observation of Preyed Ability of Arma chinensis (Fallou), a New Natural Enemy of Hyphantria cunea (Drury). J. Shandong For. Sci. Technol. 2012, 42, 11–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sun, J.; Wang, M.; Tang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Li, H. Predatory functional response of Arma custos (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) to the larvae of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Plant Prot. 2021, 48, 1081–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, J.; Li, F.; Du, Y.; Xie, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, C.; Guo, S. Predation Ability and Preference of Arma chinensis against Helicoverpa armigera Larvae. Henan Agric. Sci. 2025, 54, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, J.; Ge, Y.; Jiang, J.; Liu, Y.; Ji, X. Functional response of Arma chinensis adults to different larval instars of Spodoptera exigua. J. Appl. Entomol. 2025, 62, 1828–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ganjisaffar, F.; Perring, T.M. Prey stage preference and functional response of the predatory mite Galendromus flumenis to Oligonychus pratensis. Biol. Control 2015, 82, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patel, P.; Kumar, B.; Kumar, D. Does body size of coccinellid predators (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) influence their preference to eat well-defended prey? Acta Entomol. Sin. 2018, 61, 704–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rendon, D.; Taylor, P.W.; Wilder, S.M.; Whitehouse, M.E.A. Does prey encounter and nutrient content affect prey selection in wolf spiders inhabiting Bt cotton fields? PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Řezáč, M.; Gloríková, N.; Líznarová, E.; Wilder, S.M.; Heneberg, P. The nutritional status of Heliophanus spiders shifts their food preferences for aphid prey over intraguild spider prey. Environ. Entomol. 2025, 55, nvaf135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Pintar, M.R.; Resetarits, W.J. Match and mismatch: Integrating consumptive effects of predators, prey traits, and habitat selection in colonizing aquatic insects. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 1902–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Beretta, G.M.; Zandbergen, L.; Deere, J.A.; Messelink, G.J.; Muñoz Cárdenas, K.; Janssen, A. Predator-prey interactions: How thrips avoid predation. Biol. Control 2024, 188, 105437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Deng, H.; Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Wu, W. Predation of Harpactor fuscipes on Helicoverpa assulta and Spodoptera litura. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2012, 39, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Song, B.; Yang, Q.; Li, Q.; Jiang, C.; Wang, X.; Wang, H. Prey preferences of Orius munutus. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 55, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ouyang, J.; Wu, S.; Zhou, Z. Effects of Mixed Prey on the Development, Reproduction, and Predation of Arma chinensis. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2021, 37, 1090–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, C. Predation, Prey Preference, and Life Table of Arma chinensis (Fallou) on Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) and Helicoverpa assulta (Guenée). Master’s Thesis, Guizhou University, Guizhou, China, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Q.; Wang, L.; Zhu, X.; Lin, C.; Huang, H.; Kuang, Y.; Jing, R.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, L. Evaluation of the growth and development of predatory stink bug Arma custos(Fabricius) fed on Chinese tussar moth Antheraea pernyi (Guérin-Méneville) pupaeand geometer Ectropis grisescens Warren pupae based on two-sex life table. J. Plant Prot. 2025, 52, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, J.; Mu, Y.; Yang, C.; Yang, L.; Zhang, C.; Yu, H.; Chang, Z.; Long, J.; Chen, X. Population Growth Performance of Arma custos (Faricius) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) at Different Temperatures. J. Insect Sci. 2022, 22, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Liao, P.; Yin, J.; Yin, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Li, Y.; Mi, J.; Wang, M.; Chen, H.; Zhang, L.; Liu, C. Influence of Leguminous Host Plants on Growth, Development and Fecundity of Arma chinensis. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2020, 36, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Van Baaren, J.; Le Lann, C.; van Alphen, J. Aphid Biodiversity Under Environmental Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rafiei, B. Climate change impacts on pest and beneficial insects: Challenges and management strategies for adaptation. Arthropods 2025, 14, 82–93. [Google Scholar]
  40. Inbar, M.; Gerling, D. Plant-Mediated Interactions Between Whiteflies, Herbivores, and Natural Enemies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2008, 53, 431–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lemay, J.; Zheng, Y.; Scott-dupree, C. Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Biological Control Agents Used to Manage Insect Pests in Indoor Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) Cultivation. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 795989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carter, M.C.; Sutherland, D.; Dixon, A.F.G. Plant structure and the searching efficiency of coccinellid larvae. Oecologia 1984, 63, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Holling, C.S. Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism. Can. Entomol. 1959, 91, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cuthbert, R.N.; Dalu, T.; Wasserman, R.J.; Sentis, A.; Weyl, O.L.F.; Froneman, P.W.; Callaghan, A.; Dick, J.T.A. Prey and predator density-dependent interactions under different water volumes. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 6504–6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Arim, M.; Marquet, P.A. Intraguild predation: A widespread interaction related to species biology. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Provost, C.; Coderre, D.; Lucas, É.; Chouinard, G.; Bostanian, N.J.; Provost, C. Impact of intraguild predation and lambda-cyhalothrin on predation efficacy of three acarophagous predators. Pest Manag. Sci. 2005, 61, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. de Pedro, L.; Beitia, F.; Tormos, J. Two Better Than One? Potential Effects of Intraguild Predation on the Biological Control of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) by the Parasitoid Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) and the Predator Pseudoophonus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Agronomy 2022, 13, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schmidt-jeffris, R.A. Nontarget pesticide impacts on pest natural enemies: Progress and gaps in current knowledge. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2023, 58, 101056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhang, Z.; Wu, H.; Zhang, A.; Tan, M.; Yan, S.; Jiang, D. Transfer of heavy metals along the food chain: A review on the pest control performance of insect natural enemies under heavy metal stress. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 478, 135587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Spence, S.K.; Alharbi, S.A.M.; Ejomah, A.; Maleki, F.A.; Wolfin, M.S.; Kersch-Becker, M.F. Sublethal Effects of Neonicotinoids: How Physiological and Behavioral Disruptions in Non-Target Insects Threaten Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Insects 2025, 17, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Qu, H.; Duan, J.; Ma, S.; Wang, S. Effect of different artificial diet preservatives on the growth and reproduction of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2024, 61, 1048–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhou, J.Z.; Chen, C.M. Quantitative measurement of selectivity of predator for prey. Acta Ecol. Sin. 1987, 7, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
  53. Xie, Q.; Yang, J.; Ma, J.; Yi, X. Forest Predation Behavior and Control of Arma chinensis on Alphaea phasm. For. Sci. Technol. Commun. 2022, 9, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, B. Effectiveness of the Natural Enemy Arma chinensis and Telenomus remus on the Prevention and Control of Major Pest, Spodoptera frugiperda. Master’s Thesis, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, China, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhuang, L.; Li, W.; Yang, L.; Li, H.; Fan, Y.; Yuan, G. Influencing factors of ladybirds on aphid functional response. Res. Insects Cent. China 2012, 8, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ali, S. Fitness and Predating Potential of orius strigicollis poppius (heteroptera:anthocoridae) on Pectinophora gossypiella and Spodoptera exigua. Master’s Thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hou, Z.; Sun, B.; Liu, X.; Yin, Z.; Guo, X. Predatory functional response of assassin bug Sycanus falleni to the larvae of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Plant Prot. 2020, 47, 852–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Yin, Y.; Zhao, X.; Chen, F.; Zhang, L. Predation of Picromerus lewisi Nymph on Larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda. Chin. J. Biol. Control. 2020, 36, 520–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gong, X.; Luo, Z.; Yu, X.; Qu, H.; Wang, X.; Long, L.; Zhang, D.; Liang, X.; Chen, L.; Long, Y. Functional response of Eocanthecona furcellate(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) to different instars of Agriophara rhombata Meyr. Chin. J. Biol. Control. 2023, 39, 1066–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Azevedo, K.E.X.; Magalhães, D.M.; De Andrade Moral, R.; José Maurício, S.B. Weathering the hunt: The role of barometric pressure in predator insects’ foraging behaviour. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 13, e10416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Pan, M.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, L.; Chen, H. Effects of Starvation and Prey Availability on Predation and Dispersal of an Omnivorous Predator Arma chinensis Fallou. J. Insect Behav. 2019, 32, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pervez, A.; Sharma, R. Influence of intraspecific competition for food on the bodyweight of the adult aphidophagous ladybird, Coccinella transversalis. Eur. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 11, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Qu, Y.; Walker, A.A.; Meng, L.; Herzig, V.; Li, B. The Predatory Stink Bug Arma custos (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae) Produces a Complex Proteinaceous Venom to Overcome Caterpillar Prey. Biology 2023, 12, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zeng, R.; Wu, J.; Bai, T.; Cai, Y.; Peng, R.; Ma, C.; Zhang, R.; Yang, Q.; Ren, W. Predation Characteristics of Arma chinensis to Larvae of Argyrogramma agnata. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2025, 41, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fu, C.; Liu, J.; Huang, M.; Zhang, S.; Chen, B.; Zhang, L. Study on indoor predation characteristics of Arma chinensis on Spodoptera frugiperda. In Proceedings of the 2019 Green Control Conference on Spodoptera litura in Yunnan; Editorial Department of Yunnan Agricultural Sciences and Technology: Kunming, China, 2019; pp. 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yang, W. Screening of Pesticides and Evaluation of the Predation Function of Arma chinensis on Tuta absoluta Control in Inner Mongolia. Master’s Thesis, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Inner Mongolia, China, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Han, S.; Yu, W.; Li, Q.; Xu, B.; Zhang, M.; Shen, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L. Evaluation of the predatory ability of Arma chinensis adults on larvae of Gynaephora menyuanensis. Plant Prot. 2025, 51, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, K.; Cao, K.; Wang, M.; Chen, C. Predatory functional response and predation preference of ladybeetle Harmonia axyridis to Spodoptera frugiperda and Spodoptera exigua. Plant Health Med. 2025, 4, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, C.; Song, L.; Zuo, T.; Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Sun, S. Observation of predation behavior and evaluation of the predation capacity of Arma chinensis against Hyphantria cunea. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2022, 44, 94–102. [Google Scholar]
  70. Guo, S.; Chen, J.; Zhang, L.; Li, F.; Liu, H.; Shi, H. The Predatory Ability and Intraspecific Interference Response of Arma chinensis to the Larvae of Ectropis grisescens. Tea Sci. 2024, 44, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pan, M.-Z.; Fu, Z.-X.; Li, Y.-Y.; Chen, H.-Y.; Zhang, L.-S.; Liu, T.-X. Role of host plants in the suitability and dispersal of an omnivorous predator Arma chinensis Fallou (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae) in a biological control context. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2022, 129, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Du, Q.; Cai, H.; Li, J.; Wu, S.; Zeng, W.; Zhai, Z.; Yang, Z. Effects of Field Rejuvenation on Biological Characteristics of Arma chinensis and Its Progeny. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2022, 38, 1619–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chi, H.; You, M.; Atlıhan, R.; Smith, C.L.; Kavousi, A.; Özgökçe, M.S.; Güncan, A.; Tuan, S.-J.; Fu, J.-W.; Xu, Y.-Y.; et al. Age-Stage, two-sex life table: An introduction to theory, data analysis, and application. Entomol. Gen. 2020, 40, 103–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wu, S.; Zeng, W.; Deng, W.; Li, J.; Li, M.; Tan, L.; Cai, H.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Z. Parental Sex and Not Kinship Determines Egg Cannibalism in Arma custos Fallou (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae). Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 758587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 16 01216 g001
Figure 1. Response curve of predation of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the first larvae Helicoverpa armigera.
Figure 1. Response curve of predation of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the first larvae Helicoverpa armigera.
Agronomy 16 01216 g001
Agronomy 16 01216 g002
Figure 2. Response curve of predation of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the third larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Figure 2. Response curve of predation of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the third larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Agronomy 16 01216 g002
Agronomy 16 01216 g003
Figure 3. Response curve of predation of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the fifth larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Figure 3. Response curve of predation of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the fifth larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Agronomy 16 01216 g003
Agronomy 16 01216 g004
Figure 4. Searching efficiency of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Figure 4. Searching efficiency of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Agronomy 16 01216 g004
Agronomy 16 01216 g005
Figure 5. Predation response curve of the third-, fourth-, fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the first-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Figure 5. Predation response curve of the third-, fourth-, fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the first-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Agronomy 16 01216 g005
Agronomy 16 01216 g006
Figure 6. Predation response curve of the third-, fourth-, fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the third-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Figure 6. Predation response curve of the third-, fourth-, fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the third-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Agronomy 16 01216 g006
Agronomy 16 01216 g007
Figure 7. Predation response curve of the third-, fourth-, fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Figure 7. Predation response curve of the third-, fourth-, fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis to the fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Agronomy 16 01216 g007
Agronomy 16 01216 g008
Figure 8. Searching efficiency of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis preying on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Figure 8. Searching efficiency of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis preying on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Agronomy 16 01216 g008
Agronomy 16 01216 g009
Figure 9. The population decline rate of the fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Helicoverpa armigera in the field. Note: Error bars represent the standard error (SE) of the mean based on three biological replicates.
Figure 9. The population decline rate of the fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Helicoverpa armigera in the field. Note: Error bars represent the standard error (SE) of the mean based on three biological replicates.
Agronomy 16 01216 g009
Agronomy 16 01216 g010
Figure 10. The population decline rate of the fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Spodoptera exigua in the field. Note: Error bars represent the standard error (SE) of the mean based on three biological replicates.
Figure 10. The population decline rate of the fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first- (A), third- (B), and fifth-instar (C) larvae of Spodoptera exigua in the field. Note: Error bars represent the standard error (SE) of the mean based on three biological replicates.
Agronomy 16 01216 g010
Table 1. Predation rate (%) of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Table 1. Predation rate (%) of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
A. chinensis Stage Prey Stage of H. armigera
The First InstarThe Third InstarThe Fifth Instar
The third-instar42.0 ± 12.1 a21.3 ± 9.9 b17.3 ± 12.8 c
The fourth-instar70.7 ± 19.8 a30.7 ± 9.6 b20.0 ± 14.1 c
The fifth-instar76.0 ± 19.2 a34.7 ± 12.5 b29.3 ± 12.8 c
Female adult87.3 ± 16.2 a41.3 ± 11.3 b34.0 ± 13.5 c
Male adult85.3 ± 14.6 a39.3 ± 16.2 b32.0 ± 13.2 c
Note: The date of predation rate was mean ± SE. The difference between the same stage of A. chinensis and different prey stages at the same density of H. armigera (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of predation function of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of predation function of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
A. chinensis StageH. armigera StageEstimateSEz Value
third instarfirst instar−0.1070.020−5.371
third instar−0.2550.037−6.821
fifth instar−0.1640.037−4.379
fourth instarfirst instar−0.130.021−6.141
third instar−0.2730.036−7.591
fifth instar−0.2240.037−6.016
fifth instarfirst instar−0.1720.023−7.475
third instar−0.2810.036−7.734
fifth instar−0.2520.036−7.105
Female adultfirst instar−0.2060.027−7.687
third instar−0.2650.037−7.221
fifth instar−0.2560.035−7.228
Male adultfirst instar−0.1840.025−7.355
third instar−0.2310.035−6.547
fifth instar−0.2490.035−7.067
Table 3. Functional responses of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis preying on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
Table 3. Functional responses of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis preying on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera.
A. chinensis StageH. armigera StageFunctional Response
Equation		Attack RateHandling TimePredation Efficiency Maximum Daily Consumption
third instarfirst instarNa = 1.223N0/(1 + 0.187N0)1.223 ± 0.357 a0.153 ± 0.026 a7.9936.536
third instarNa = 1.369N0/(1 + 0.439N0)1.369 ± 0.373 a0.321 ± 0.061 a4.2653.115
fifth instarNa = 0.963N0/(1 + 0.387N0)0.963 ± 0.290 b0.402 ± 0.089 b2.3962.488
fourth instarfirst instarNa = 2.490N0/(1 + 0.214N0)2.490 ± 0.398 a0.086 ± 0.010 a28.95311.628
third instarNa = 4.079N0/(1 + 1.199N0)4.079 ± 1.088 a0.294 ± 0.03 b13.8743.401
fifth instarNa = 2.125N0/(1 + 0.922N0)2.125 ± 0.713 a0.434 ± 0.061 c4.8962.304
fifth instarfirst instarNa = 3.201N0/(1 + 0.278N0)3.201 ± 0.476 a0.087 ± 0.008 a36.79311.494
third instarNa = 3.106N0/(1 + 0.652N0)3.106 ± 0.573 a0.210 ± 0.023 b14.7904.762
fifth instarNa = 3.818N0/(1 + 0.199N0)3.818 ± 1.154 a0.314 ± 0.036 c12.1593.185
Female adultfirst instarNa = 4.208N0/(1 + 0.320N0)4.208 ± 0.608 a0.076 ± 0.006 a55.36813.158
third instarNa = 2.887N0/(1 + 0.473N0)2.887 ± 0.458 b0.164 ± 0.019 b17.6046.098
fifth instarNa = 3.550N0/(1 + 0.905N0)3.550 ± 0.870 b0.255 ± 0.029 c13.9223.922
Male adultfirst instarNa = 3.695N0/(1 + 0.288N0)3.695 ± 0.543 a0.078 ± 0.007 a47.37212.821
third instarNa = 2.364N0/(1 + 0.388N0)2.364 ± 0.379 b0.164 ± 0.022 b14.4156.098
fifth instarNa = 3.257N0/(1 + 0.863N0)3.257 ± 0.841 b0.265 ± 0.032 c12.2913.774
Note: The date of consumption was mean ± SE. The difference between the same stage of A. chinensis and different prey stages at the same density of H. armigera (p < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test).
Table 4. Predation rate (%) of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Table 4. Predation rate (%) of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
A. chinensis StagePrey Stage of S. exigua
First InstarThird InstarFifth Instar
third instar nymphs36.0 ± 06.3 a23.3 ± 9.8 b8.7 ± 9.9 c
fourth-instar nymphs59.3 ± 13.9 a28.0 ± 10.1 b16.7 ± 7.2 c
fifth-instar nymphs76.7 ± 18.8 a32.7 ± 8.8 b19.3 ± 7.0 c
Female adult84.0 ± 15.9 a43.3 ± 12.3 b31.3 ± 15.5 c
male adult86.7 ± 15.0 a34.7 ± 10.6 b30.0 ± 13.6 c
Note: The date of predation rate was mean ± SE. The difference between the same stage of A. chinensis and different prey stages at the same density of S. exigua (p < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test).
Table 5. Logistic regression analysis of predation function of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Table 5. Logistic regression analysis of predation function of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
A. chinensis StageH. armigera StageEstimateSEz Value
third instarfirst instar−0.1070.020 −5.371
third instar−0.1730.035 −4.925
fifth instar−0.1590.048 −3.280
fourth instarfirst instar−0.1150.020 −5.817
third instar−0.2140.036 −5.903
fifth instar−0.2350.041 −5.690
fifth instarfirst instar−0.1770.023 −7.669
third instar−0.3260.039 −8.368
fifth instar−0.2370.040 −5.962
Female adultfirst instar−0.1900.026 −7.340
third instar−0.3080.004 −7.719
fifth instar−0.2950.038 −7.719
Male adultfirst instar−0.1910.026 −7.418
third instar−0.3540.040 −8.840
fifth instar−0.2910.038 −7.669
Table 6. Functional responses of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis preying on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
Table 6. Functional responses of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-instar nymphs and adults of Arma chinensis preying on the first-, third-, and fifth-instar larvae of Spodoptera exigua.
A. chinensis StageS. exigua StageFunction Response EquationAttack RateHandling TimePredation Efficiency Maximum Daily Consumption
third instarfirst instarNa = 1.420N0/(1 + 0.271N0)1.420 ± 0.357 a 0.191 ± 0.026 a 7.435 5.236
third instarNa = 1.369N0/(1 + 0.439N0)1.369 ± 0.373 b 0.321 ± 0.061 b 4.265 3.115
fifth instarNa = 0.562N0/(1 + 0.515N0)0.562 ± 0.295 c 0.917 ± 0.268 c 0.613 1.091
fourth instarfirst instarNa = 1.731N0/(1 + 0.177N0)1.731 ± 0.290 a 0.102 ± 0.014 a 16.971 9.804
third instarNa = 2.002N0/(1 + 0.517N0)2.002 ± 0.511 a 0.258 ± 0.041 b 7.760 3.876
fifth instarNa = 4.019N0/(1 + 2.247N0)4.019 ± 3.355 b 0.559 ± 0.083 c 7.190 1.789
fifth instarfirst instarNa = 3.448N0/(1 + 0.317N0)3.448 ± 0.540 a 0.092 ± 0.008 a 37.478 10.870
third instarNa = 5.339N0/(1 + 1.388N0)5.339 ± 0.371 a 0.260 ± 0.022 b 20.535 3.846
fifth instarNa = 3.388N0/(1 + 0.413N0)3.388 ± 1.909 a 0.417 ± 0.065 c 8.125 2.398
Female adultfirst instarNa = 3.701N0/(1 + 0.270N0)3.701 ± 0.512 a 0.073 ± 0.007 a 50.699 13.699
third instarNa = 4.151N0/(1 + 0.743N0)4.151 ± 0.809 a 0.179 ± 0.019 b 23.190 5.587
fifth instarNa = 4.962N0/(1 + 1.379N0)4.962 ± 1.460 a 0.278 ± 0.027 c 17.849 3.597
Male adultfirst instarNa = 3.790N0/(1 + 0.288N0)3.790 ± 0.528 a 0.076 ± 0.007 a 49.868 13.158
third instarNa = 3.645N0/(1 + 0.660N0)3.645 ± 0.662 b 0.181 ± 0.019 b 20.138 5.525
fifth instarNa = 5.392N0/(1 + 1.618N0)5.392 ± 1.741 b 0.300 ± 0.027 b 17.973 3.333
Note: The date of consumption was mean ± SE. The difference between the same stage of A. chinensis and different prey stages at the same density of S. exigua (p < 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test).
Table 7. Predation preference of Arma chinensis for two kinds of prey.
Table 7. Predation preference of Arma chinensis for two kinds of prey.
Initial PreyInitial Prey QuantityPredation AmountPredation Prefeference (Ci)
third-instar larvae of H. armigera21.200 ± 0.4470.233 ± 0.224
42.000 ± 0.7070.113 ± 0.137
62.400 ± 0.4580.084 ± 0.179
third-instar larvae of S. exigua20.600 ± 0.548−0.333 ± 0.624
41.200 ± 0.837−0.262 ± 0.421
61.600 ± 1.140−0.248 ± 0.450
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cao, J.; Hua, R.; Wang, H.; Zheng, L.; Hu, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, J. Evaluation of the Predatory Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua. Agronomy 2026, 16, 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16131216

AMA Style

Cao J, Hua R, Wang H, Zheng L, Hu J, Zhang J, Chen J. Evaluation of the Predatory Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua. Agronomy. 2026; 16(13):1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16131216

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cao, Jiyu, Rongrong Hua, Huiqing Wang, Lixuan Zheng, Jiayun Hu, Jianping Zhang, and Jing Chen. 2026. "Evaluation of the Predatory Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua" Agronomy 16, no. 13: 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16131216

APA Style

Cao, J., Hua, R., Wang, H., Zheng, L., Hu, J., Zhang, J., & Chen, J. (2026). Evaluation of the Predatory Efficacy of Arma chinensis Against Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exigua. Agronomy, 16(13), 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16131216

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop