Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:05:25.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVIPOSITION HISTORY, CURRENT FECUNDITY, AND THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SPRUCE BUDWORM MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE) TO ULV AERIAL SPRAYS OF INSECTICIDES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

A. W. Thomas
A. W. Thomas
Affiliation:
Maritimes Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5P7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The susceptibility of female spruce budworm moths to ULV aerial sprays of aminocarb and phosphamidon was dependent on the proportion of the total complement of eggs a female had laid. Females which laid few eggs were not killed by the insecticides whereas spent and almost-spent females were killed. Methods are described for determining the number of eggs a female has laid, the number of eggs she has to lay, and her total fecundity. These methods are used to evaluate the efficacy of ULV aerial sprays against budworm moths.

Résumé

La vulnérabilité des papillons femelles de la Tordeuse des bourgeons de l’Epinette aux arrosages aériens VUF (volume ultrafin) d’aminocarb et de phosphamidon fut proportionnelle à la quantité totale d’oeufs pondus par une femelle. Celles n’ayant pondu que quelques oeufs n’ont pas été tuées par les insecticides alors que celles qui ont pondu tous leurs oeufs ou presque, l’ont été. L’auteur décrit des méthodes déterminant le nombre d’oeufs qu’une femelle a pondus, le nombre d’oeufs qu’elle a à pondre, puis sa fécondité totale. De telles méthodes servent à évaluer l’efficacité des arrosages aériens VUF contre les papillons de la Tordeuse.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 4 , 01 April 1978 , pp. 337 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

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

Blais, J. R. 1952. The relationship of the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana, Clem.) to the flowering condition of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.). Can. J. Zool. 30: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, J. R. 1953. Effects of the destruction of the current year's foliage on balsam fir on the fecundity and habits of flight of the spruce budworm. Can. Ent. 85: 446–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, J. R. 1957. Some relationships of the spruce budworm, (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)) to black spruce, Picea mariana (Moench) Voss. For. Chron. 33: 364–372.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, L. M. 1961. Influence of larval environment on adult size and fecundity in the moth Panaxia dominula L. Nature 192: 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, C. S. 1971. Comparative reproduction of Crambus harpipterus and Agriphila plumbifimbriella in northern New Mexico. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 64: 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbank, D. O. 1956. The role of climate and dispersal in the initiation of outbreaks of the spruce budworm in New Brunswick. I. The role of climate. Can. J. Zool. 34: 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbank, D. O. 1957. The role of climate and dispersal in the initiation of outbreaks of the spruce budworm in New Brunswick. II. The role of dispersal. Can. J. Zool. 35: 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbank, D. O. 1973. The dispersal process of spruce budworm moths. Can. For. Serv. Marit. For. Res. Cent. Inf. Rep. M-X-39. 25 pp.Google Scholar
Jaynes, H. A. and Speers, C. F.. 1949. Biological and ecological studies of the spruce budworm. J. econ. Ent. 42: 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E. 1977. Movement patterns and egg distribution in cabbage butterflies. J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettela, E. G. and Miller, C. A.. 1975. Spray applications against spruce budworm moths, pp. 147–148. In Prebble, M. L. (Ed.), Aerial control of forest insects in Canada. Dept. of the Environment, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Martyn, E. J. 1965. Studies on the ecology of Oncopera intricata Walker (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). I. Fecundity of the female moths. Aust. J. Zool. 13: 801–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1957. A technique for estimating the fecundity of natural populations of the spruce budworm. Can. J. Zool. 35: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1963. The analysis of fecundity proportion in the unsprayed area, pp. 75–87. In Morris, R. F. (Ed.), The dynamics of epidemic spruce budworm populations. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 31.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. et al. 1973. Aerial spraying against spruce budworm adults in New Brunswick. Can. For. Serv. Marit. For. Res. Cent. Inf. Rep. M-X-38. 35 pp.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. et al. 1977. Spruce budworm adult spray tests — 1976. Can. For. Serv. Marit. For. Res. Cent. Inf. Rep. M-X-75. 23 pp.Google Scholar
Miller, W. E. 1977. Wing measure as a size index in Lepidoptera: the family Olethreutidae. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 70: 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigam, P. C. 1975. Chemical insecticides, pp. 8–24. In Prebble, M. L. (Ed.), Aerial control of forest insects in Canada. Dept. of the Environment, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Sanders, C. J. and Lucuik, G. S.. 1975. Effects of photoperiod and size on flight activity and oviposition in the eastern spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 107: 1289–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G.. 1967. Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Waloff, N. W. 1958. Some methods of interpreting trends in field populations. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. 2: 675–676.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar