Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:53:07.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in eucalypt architecture and the foraging behaviour and development of Amorbus obscuricornis (Hemiptera: Coreidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

MJ. Steinbauer ,
A.R. Clarke  and
S.C. Paterson
MJ. Steinbauer*
Affiliation:
Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Production Forestry, Hobart, Australia
A.R. Clarke
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
S.C. Paterson
Affiliation:
Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Production Forestry, Hobart, Australia
*
*Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Production Forestry & CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field surveys, manipulative field experiments and laboratory studies were employed to study the behaviour and development of a large coreid, Amorbus obscuricornis (Westwood), in response to changes in the architecture/foliar quality of Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) hosts in Tasmania, Australia. Following tree decapitation and subsequent regrowth, A. obscuricornis nymphs were only associated with coppiced hosts. Eucalypts coppiced naturally by wild fire were found to carry significantly more nymphs than non-coppiced conspecific hosts. In contrast, adult A. obscuricornis were found on both coppiced and non-coppiced hosts. The foliar quality of coppiced hosts was superior to that of non-coppiced hosts; being softer, having a higher moisture content and a lower C/N ratio. Field collected fifth instar nymphs were heavier when collected from coppice vs. noncoppice; but in bagged shoot experiments second instar nymphs gained less weight on coppice than non-coppice. It is suggested that because coppice is softer the shoots may deteriorate (i.e. wilt) more quickly than non-coppice shoots. Through different exposure regimes, it was confirmed that first instar nymphs need only water to ecdyse, while feeding is initiated in the second instar. Differences in the nutritional requirements of first and second instar nymphs were reflected in their behaviour. First instar nymphs did not discriminate between conspecific hosts on the basis of whether they were coppiced or not, whereas second instar nymphs preferentially chose coppiced conspecific hosts. The findings of this work are discussed in the context of the plant vigour and resource regulation hypotheses.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 88 , Issue 6 , December 1998 , pp. 641 - 651
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, I., Burbidge, T., Williams, M. & Van Heurck, P. (1992) Arthropod fauna of jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) foliage in Mediterranean forest of Western Australia: spatial and temporal variation in abundance, biomass, guild structure and species composition. Australian Journal of Ecology 17, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, C. & Herrera, C.M. (1996) Variation in herbivory within and among plants of Daphne laureola (Thymelaeaceae): correlation with plant size and architecture. Journal of Ecology 84, 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigger, M. (1985) The effect of attack by Amblypelta cocophaga China (Hemiptera: Coreidae) on growth of Eucalyptus deglupta in the Solomon Islands. Bulletin of Entomological Research 75, 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, D.J., Brophy, J.J. & House, A.P.N. (eds) (1991) Eucalyptus leaf oils. Use, chemistry, distillation and marketing. 252 pp. Melbourne, ACIAR/CSIRO.Google Scholar
Briese, D.T. (1996) Biological control of weeds and fire management in protected natural areas: are they compatible strategies? Biological Conservation 77, 135–141.Google Scholar
Carne, P.B. & Taylor, K.L. (1978) Insect pests, pp. 155–168 in Hillis, W.E. & Brown, A.G. (Eds) Eucalypts for wood production. Melbourne, CSIRO.Google Scholar
Carter, W.G. (1974) Growing and harvesting eucalypts on short rotations for pulping. Australian Forestry 36, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chippendale, G.M. (1988) Myrfaceae-Eucalyptus, Angophora, Flora of Australia 19. 542 pp. Canberra, AustralianGovernment Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Christensen, P. & Abbott, I. (1989) Impact of fire on the eucalypt forest ecosystem of southern Western Australia: a critical review. Australian Forestry 52, 103–121.Google Scholar
Christensen, P., Recher, H. & Hoare, J. (1981) Responses of open forests (dry sclerophyll forests) to fire regimes, pp. 367–393 in Gill, A.M., Groves, R.H. & Noble, I.R. (Eds) Fire and the Australian biota. Canberra, AustralianAcademy of Science.Google Scholar
Cobben, R.H. (1968) Evolutionary trends in Heteroptera. Part I. Eggs, architecture of the shell, gross embryology and ecloswn. 475 pp. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Craig, T.P., Price, P.W. & Itami, J.K. (1986) Resource regulation by a stem-galling sawfly on the Arroyo willow. Ecology 67, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, T.P., Itami, J.K. & Price, P.W. (1989) A strong relationship between oviposition preference and larval performance in a shoot-galling sawfly. Ecology 70, 1691–1699.Google Scholar
Davies, S.J. & Myerscough, P.J. (1991) Post-fire demography of the wet-mallee Eucalyptus luehmanmana F. Muell. (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 39, 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denno, R.F. & Roderick, G.K. (1991) Influence of patch size, vegetation texture, and host plant architecture on the diversity, abundance, and life history styles of sap-feeding herbivores, pp. 169–196 in Bell, S.S., McCoy, E.D. & Mushinsky, H.R. (Eds) Habitat structure. The physical arrangement of objects in space. London, Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vol, J.E. & Goeden, R.D. (1973) Biology of Chelinidea vtttiger with notes on its host-plant relationships and value in biological weed control. Environmental Entomology 2, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, G.A., Reid, J.B. & Jackson, W.D. (1983) The occurrence of mixed stands of the Eucalyptus subgenera Monocalyptus and Symphyomyrtus in south-eastern Tasmania. Australian Journal of Ecology 8, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, J.R. (1984) Apical dominance, pp. 127–148 in Wilkins, M.B. (Ed.) Advanced plant physiology. London, Pitman Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M.R. (1955) Growth habits of the eucalypts. 262 pp. Canberra, Commonwealth Government.Google Scholar
Kearsley, M.J.C. & Whitham, T.G. (1997) The developmental stream of cottonwoods affects ramet growth and resistance to galling aphids. Ecology 79, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, J. (1990) Dieback of rural eucalypts: response of foliar dietary quality and herbivory to defoliation. Australian Journal of Ecology 15, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J.H. (1983) Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 28, 23–39.Google Scholar
Lowman, M.D. & Box, J.D. (1983) Variation in leaf toughness and phenolic content among five species of Australian rain forest trees. Australian Journal of Ecology 8, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maelzer, D.A. (1977) The biology and main causes of changes in numbers of the rose aphid, Macrosiphum rosae (L.), on cultivated roses in South Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 25, 269–284.Google Scholar
Maelzer, D.A. (1981) Aphids – introduced pests of man's crops, pp. 89–106in Kitching, R.L. & Jones, R.E. (Eds) The ecology of pests. Some Australian case histories. Melbourne, CSIRO Australia.Google Scholar
Martinsen, G.D., Driebe, E.M. & Whitham, T.G. (1998) Indirect interactions mediated by changing plant chemistry: beaver browsing benefits beetles. Ecology 79, 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N.C.E. (1956) The biology of the Heteroptera. 162 pp. London, Leonard Hill [Books] Limited.Google Scholar
Morrow, P.A. (1977) The significance of phytophagous insects in the Eucalyptus forests of Australia, pp. 19–29. in Mattson, W.J. (Ed.) The role of arthropods in forest ecosystems. New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Morrow, P.A. (1983) The role of sclerophyllous leaves in determining insect grazing damage, pp. 509–524in Kruger, F.J., Mitchell, D.T. & Jarvis, J.U.M. (Eds) Mediterranean-type ecosystems: the role of nutrients. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, I.R. (1989) Ecological traits of the Eucalyptus L'Herit subgenera Monocalyptus and Symphyomyrtus. Australian Journal of Botany 37, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmart, C.P. & Edwards, P.B. (1991) Insect herbivory on Eucalyptus. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 637–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penfold, A.R. & Willis, J.L. (1961) The eucalypts: botany, cultivation, chemistry, and utilisation. 551 pp. London, Leonard Hill.Google Scholar
Prestidge, R.A. & McNeill, S. (1983) The role of nitrogen in the ecology of grassland Auchenorrhyncha. pp. 257–281 in Lee, J.A., & Ronson, I.H. (Eds) Nitrogen as an ecological factor. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Price, P.W. (1991) The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62, 244–251.Google Scholar
Price, P.W., Roininen, H. & Tahvanainen, J. (1987a) Plant age and attack by the bud galler, Euura mucronata. Oecologia 73, 334–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, P.W., Roininen, H. & Tahvanainen, J. (1987b) Why does the bud-galling sawfly, Euura mucronata, attack long shoots? Oecologia 74, 1–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Price, P.W., Cobb, N., Craig, T.P., Fernandes, G.W., Itami, J.K., Mopper, S.. & Preszler, R.W. (1990) Insect herbivore population dynamics on trees and shrubs: new approaches relevant to latent and eruptive species and life table development, pp. 1–38 in Bernays, E.A. (Ed.) Insect-plant interactions. Vol. 2. Boca Raton, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Sands, D.P.A. & Brancatini, V.A. (1991) A portable penetrometer for measuring leaf toughness in insect herbivory studies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 93, 786–788.Google Scholar
Scriber, J.M. & Slansky, F. Jr. (1981) The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annual Review of Entomology 26, 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specht, R.L. (1966) The growth and distribution of Mallee- Broombush (Eucalyptus incrassata-Melaleuca uncinata association) and heath vegetation near Dark Island Soak, Ninety-Mile Plain, South Australia. Australian journal of Botany 14, 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specht, R.L. & Brouwer, Y.M. (1975) Seasonal shoot growth of Eucalyptus spp. in the Brisbane area of Queensland (with notes on shoot growth and litter fall in other areas of Australia). Australian Journal of Botany 23, 459–474.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J. (1995) The bwgeography and host plant utilisation of eucalypt feeding Coreidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). 326 pp. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J. (1997) Seasonal phenology and developmental biology of Amorbus obscuricornis (Westwood) and Gelonus tasmanicus (Le Guillou) (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 45, 49–63.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J. (1998a) Seasonal fluctuations in body weight, lipid content and the starvation-longevity of Amorbus obscuricornis (Westwood) and Gelonus tasmanicus (Le Guillou) (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Australian Journal of Entomology 37, 90–96.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J. (1998b) The incidence and relative abundance of Amorbus obscuricornis (Westwood) and Gelonus tasmanicus (Le Guillou) (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in southern Tasmania and their performance on selected Eucalyptus species. Australian Journal of Zoology 45, 631–649.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J. & Clarke, A.R. (1998) Field observations of dispersion, mating and development of Amorbus obscuricornis (Westwood) (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Australian Journal of Entomology 37, 155–157.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J., Taylor, G.S. & Madden, J.L. (1997) Comparison of damage to Eucalyptus caused by Amorbus obscuricornis and Gelonus tasmanicus. Entomologia Expenmentahs et Apphcata 82, 175–180.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M.J., Clarke, A.R. & Madden, J.L. (1998) Oviposition preference of a Eucalyptus herbivore and the importance of leaf age on interspecific host choice. Ecological Entomology 23, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wada, A. & Hori, K. (1997) Feeding strategy of Palomena angulosa Motschulsky (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae). 1. Oviposition site selection, nymph development and walking ability of nymphs. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 41, 209–216.Google Scholar
Webley, O.J., Geary, T.F., Rockwood, D.L., Comer, C.W. & Meskimen, G.F. (1986) Seasonal coppicing variation in three eucalypts in southern Florida. Australian Forestry Research 16, 281–290.Google Scholar
Wellington, A.B. (1984) Leaf water potentials, fire and the regeneration of mallee eucalypts in semi-arid, south-eastern Australia.Oecologia 64, 360–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiklund, C. (1974) The concept of oligophagy and the natural habitats and host plants of Papilio machaon L. in Fennoscandia. Entomologica Scandmavica 5, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, G. & Jennings, S. (1993) Survival and recovery of Eucalyptus obhaua regeneration following wildfire. Tasforests 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
Yen, A.J. (1989) Overstorey invertebrates in the Big Desert, Victoria, pp. 285–299 in Noble, J.C. & Bradstock, R.A. (Eds) Mediterranean landscapes in Australia. Mallee ecosystems and their management. Melbourne, CSIRO Australia.Google Scholar