Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:19:34.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEVELOPMENT, HATCH DATES, OVERWINTERING SUCCESS, AND SPRING EMERGENCE OF A “NON-DIAPAUSING” GYPSY MOTH STRAIN (LEPIDOPTERA: ORGYIIDAE) IN FIELD CAGES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Marjorie A. Hoy  and
Nancy Fike Knop
Marjorie A. Hoy
Affiliation:
Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley 94720 andU.S.F.S. Northwest Forest Experiment Station, Hamden, Connecticut 06514
Nancy Fike Knop
Affiliation:
Department of Entomological Sciences, University of California, Berkeley 94720 andU.S.F.S. Northwest Forest Experiment Station, Hamden, Connecticut 06514
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Newly-hatched larvae from a selected (S) “non-diapausing” gypsy moth strain and larvae from field-collected wild (W) eggs were reared in field cages in Connecticut, U.S.A. beginning May 1976 to determine developmental rates and interbreeding potential. Reciprocal and inter se matings between S and W moths were monitored to determine if hatch occurred during the fall and if S and reciprocal F1 hybrid (SW, WS) eggs could successfully overwinter and hatch at an appropriate time the following spring. Hatch of S eggs did occur in the fall. Survival of SW, WS, and some S eggs over the Connecticut winter demonstrated that this non-diapause colony is not suitable for a genetic control program in which the non-diapause trait is expected to act as a conditional lethal.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 9 , September 1978 , pp. 1003 - 1008
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

Hogan, T. W. 1971. An evaluation of a genetic method for population suppression of Teleogryllus commodus (Wlk.) (Orth., Gryllidae) in Victoria. Bull. ent. Res. 60: 383–390.Google Scholar
Hoy, M. A. 1977. Rapid response to selection for a nondiapausing gypsy moth. Science, Wash. 196: 1462–1463.Google Scholar
Hoy, M. A. 1978 a. Selection for a non-diapausing gypsy moth: Some biological attributes of a new laboratory strain. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 71: 75–80.Google Scholar
Hoy, M. A. 1978 b. Variability in diapause attributes of insects and mites: Some evolutionary and practical implications. In Dingle, H. (Ed.), The evolution of insect migration and diapause. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 101–126.Google Scholar
Klassen, W. et al. 1970. The potential for genetic suppression of insect populations by their adaptations to climate. Misc. Publs U.S. Dep. Agric. 1178. 77 pp.Google Scholar
LaChance, L. E. and Knipling, E. F.. 1962. Control of insect populations through genetic manipulations. Ann. ent. Soc. am. 55: 515–520.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1968. Diapause in the gypsy moth. J. econ. Ent. 61: 596–598.Google Scholar
Masaki, S. 1956. The effect of temperature on the termination of diapause in the egg of Lymantria dispar Linne. Jap. J. appl. Zool. 21: 148–157.Google Scholar
Salt, R. W. 1961. Principles of insect cold-hardiness. A. Rev. Ent. 6: 55–74.Google Scholar
Showers, W. B. et al. 1972. Survival and diapause characteristics of hybrids of three geographic races of the European corn borer. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 450–457.Google Scholar
Vasic, K. 1976. The effectiveness of certain parasites and predators to control gypsy moth. Inst. For. and Wood Ind., Belgrade. 167 pp.Google Scholar