Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:21:13.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INFLUENCE OF NATURAL DIETS AND LARVAL DENSITY ON GYPSY MOTH, LYMANTRIA DISPAR (LEPIDOPTERA: ORGYIIDAE), EGG MASS CHARACTERISTICS1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

John L. Capinera  and
Pedro Barbosa
John L. Capinera
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Pedro Barbosa
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory and field studies indicate that differences in gypsy moth egg mass characteristics can be related to larval density and natural diet. Egg mass characteristics are valuable indices of population quality as well as future population levels. Laboratory crowding reduced number of eggs/mass but did not affect egg size. Field collected egg masses from various population levels in Massachusetts also varied in egg number/mass, but egg size could not be directly correlated to density. Laboratory rearing of larvae on several natural diets produced differences in both egg number and size. Maple diets produced egg masses with fewer, smaller eggs, as compared with oak diets. Field collected egg masses also varied in mean egg size, according to host tree species. Thus, forest composition may directly affect the quality of gypsy moth populations, as well as numerical levels. Increasing density could affect egg size indirectly, by forcing gypsy moth larvae to feed on unfavorable host foliage.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 10 , October 1977 , pp. 1313 - 1318
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

Allen, D. C. 1973. Fecundity of the saddled prominent, Heterocampa guttivitta. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 66: 1181–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, I. M. 1962. Reproductive capacity in the genus Choristoneura Led. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). I. Quantitative inheritance and genes as controllers of rates. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 4: 272–288.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. W. 1973. Forecasting gypsy moth egg-mass density. For. Serv. Res. Pap. U.S. Dep. Agric. NE-268.Google Scholar
Capinera, J. L. and Barbosa, P.. 1975. Dispersal of first-instar gypsy moth larvae in relation to population quality. (Abstract) Jl N.Y. ent. Soc. 83: 258.Google Scholar
Capinera, J. L. and Barbosa, P.. 1976. Dispersal of first-instar gypsy moth larvae in relation to population quality. Oecologia 26: 53–60.Google Scholar
Drooz, A. T. 1969. Population density and insect biology: a review, pp. 113–126. Forest insect population dynamics. For. Serv. Res. Pap. U.S. Dep. Agric. NE-125.Google Scholar
Drooz, A. T. 1975. Larval diet and adult longevity in the elm spanworm. Environ. Ent. 5: 847–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwao, S. 1962. Studies on the phase variation and related phenomena in some lepidopterous insects. Mem. Coll. Agric. Kyoto 84. 80 pp.Google Scholar
Drooz, A. T. 1968. Some effects of grouping in lepidopterous insects, pp. 185–212. Chauvins, M. R. and Moirot, M. C. (Eds.), L'effet de groupe chez les animaux. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Kovacevic, Z. 1949. The mass outbreak and control of Lymantria dispar. For. Abstr. (1953) 14: 2464.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1968. Effects of density of larvae on the biology of the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar. Entomologia exp. appl. 11: 291–304.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1969. Intrinsic factors causing qualitative changes in populations of the gypsy moth. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 100: 195–199.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1970. Intrinsic factors causing qualitative changes in populations of Porthetria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Can. Ent. 102: 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1971. Population quality, pp. 7–20. Toward integrated control. For. Serv. Res. Pap. U.S. Dep. Agric. NE-194.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. and Doane, C. C.. 1966. An artificial diet for the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 462–464.Google Scholar
Mattson, W. J. and Addy, N. D.. 1975. Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production. Science 190: 515–522.Google Scholar
Mosher, F. H. 1915. Food plants of the gypsy moth in America. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 250.Google Scholar
Saufley, G. C. 1972. Gypsy moth eggs: A method for cleaning, counting, and sorting. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. P-72-2.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1957. Individual differences as a factor in population dynamics: the development of a problem. Can. J. Zool. 35: 293–323.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1960. Qualitative changes in natural populations during changes in abundance. Can. J. Zool. 38: 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1964. Qualitative changes in populations in unstable environments. Can. Ent. 96: 435–451.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1965. Some maternal influences on progeny quality in the western tent caterpillar, Malacosoma pluviale (Dyar). Can. Ent. 17: 1–14.Google Scholar
White, T. C. R. 1974. A hypothesis to explain outbreaks of looper caterpillars, with special reference to populations of Selidosema suavis in a plantation of Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Oecologia 16: 279–301.Google Scholar
Zaher, M. A. and Long, D. B.. 1959. Some effects of larval population density on the biology of Pieris brassicae L. and Plusia gamma L. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 34: 97–109.Google Scholar