Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:30:23.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STUDIES OF FECUNDITY AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE ORIENTAL FRUIT MOTH, GRAPHOLITHA MOLESTA (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE), ON THE NIAGARA PENINSULA OF ONTARIO1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. H. H. Phillips  and
Jean R. Proctor
J. H. H. Phillips
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Vineland Station, Ontario
Jean R. Proctor
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Vineland Station, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unsprayed apple trees measurably increased the numbers of the Oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta (Busck), in adjacent peach trees in only 1 of 4 years, though the apples were rather heavily infested. The moth became evenly dispersed throughout a previously uninfected peach orchard within three generations. Caged orchard trees were unsatisfactory for studying behaviour because the environment within the cages differed from that in the orchard. Experimental studies indicated that fecundity of the females was variable between years and generations and a varying proportion laid no eggs. Intraspecific competition between newly hatched larvae occurred at low egg densities; egg mortality was small but mortality of newly hatched larvae was large.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 10 , October 1969 , pp. 1024 - 1033
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

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, H. W., and Brunson, M. H.. 1943. The effect of proximity to apple on the extent of Oriental fruit moth injury in peach orchards. J. econ. Ent. 36: 879–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, H. W., and Plasket, E. L.. 1958. Populations of the Oriental fruit moth in peach and apple orchards in the Eastern States. U.S. Dep. Agric. tech. Bull. 182.Google Scholar
Boyce, H. R. 1947. Long term trends in parasitism of twig-infesting Oriental fruit moth larvae. Ann. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 77: 21–34.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, G. U. 1956. The development and fecundity of the Oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta, under controlled temperatures and humidity. Bull. ent. Res. 46: 743–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustan, G. G. 1929. Preliminary notes on the mortality and feeding habits of newly hatched Oriental peach moth larvae. Ann. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 60 (1929): 108–111.Google Scholar
Dustan, G. G. 1961. The Oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) in Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 91 (1960): 215–227.Google Scholar
Dustan, G. G. 1967. Range of the Oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta, in apples and peaches in Ontario. Can. Ent. 99: 587–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dustan, G. G., and Boyce, H. R.. 1966. Parasitism of the Oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta (Busck), (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 96 (1965): 100–102.Google Scholar
Peterson, A., and Haeussler, G. J.. 1926. The Oriental peach moth. U.S. Dep. Agric. Cir. 395.Google Scholar
Putman, W. L., and Herne, D. H. C.. 1959. Gross effects of some pesticides on populations of phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards and their economic implications. Can. Ent. 91: 568–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snapp, O. I., and Swingle, H. S.. 1929. Life history of the Oriental peach moth in Georgia. U.S. Dep. Agric. tech. Bull. 152.Google Scholar
Steiner, L. F., and Yetter, W. P.. 1933. Second report on the efficiency of bait traps for the Oriental fruit moth as indicated by the release and capture of marked moths. J. econ. Ent. 26: 774–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yetter, W. P., and Steiner, L. F.. 1932. Efficiency of bait traps for the Oriental fruit moth as indicated by the release and capture of marked adults. J. econ. Ent. 25: 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar