Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:45:49.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Temperature on Fecundity and Survival of Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffr.) and C. hyperici (Forst.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. Harris
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute for Biological Control, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario

Extract

Four colonies of Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffr.) and two of C. hyperici (Forst.) were released in 1951 and 1952 in the souvhern interior of British Columbia (Fig. 1) in the hope of duplicating the successful biological control of Hypericum perforatum L. in California. In 1956, Smith (1958) showed that though the colonies were still present, the weed had increased in all areas. By 1960, however, C. hyperici had greatly reduced the abundance of H. perforatum at Fruitvale (Fig. 2) while at Edgewood the beetle had disappeared. A colony of C. padrigmina at Edgewood had also disappeared and the three other C. quadrigemina colonies persisted at a low density without controlling the weed. For example, at Christina Lake (Fig. 3) a few beetles were found every year since release, though they had not always appeared in the sample plots. The annual fluctuations of the weed as indicated in the figure were probably of climatic origin as they were similar to those for the other areas. The most promising of the C. quadrigemina colonies was at Fife where, though there were few beetles in the release meadow itself, they were common on the slope below.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1962

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

Clark, L. R. 1953. The ecology of Chrysomela gemellata Rossi and C. hyperici Forst. and their effect on St. John's wort in the Bright District, Victoria. Aust. J. Zool. 1: 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. K., and Huffaker, C. B.. 1951. The role of Chrysolina gemellata in the biological control of Klamath weed. Jour. Econ. Ent. 44: 244247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., and Kennett, C. E.. 1953. Ecological tests on Chrysolina gemellata (Rossi) and C. hyperici Forst. in the biological control of Klamath weed. J. Econ. Ent. 45: 10611064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, R. W. 1953. The influence of food on cold hardiness of insects. Can. Ent. 85: 261269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. M. [1958]. Biological control of Klamath weed, Hypericum perforatum L. in British Columbia. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Ent. Montreal 1956, 4: 561565.Google Scholar