Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:33:55.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISTRIBUTION AND IMPACT OF LEPTOGLOSSUS OCCIDENTALS HEIDEMANN (HEMIPTERA: COREIDAE) IN SEED ORCHARDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Suzie E. Blatt  and
John H. Borden
Suzie E. Blatt
Affiliation:
Centre for Pest Management, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
John H. Borden
Affiliation:
Centre for Pest Management, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann (Hemiptera: Coreidae) is considered to be an important cone and seed pest in seed orchards in British Columbia; however, no impact studies have been done in Canada. Surveys to determine the distribution of L. occidentalis were conducted over a 3-year period in three coastal seed orchards of Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, and over a 2-year period in two seed orchards of lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelmann. Leptoglossus occidentalis was found to distribute itself in patches, coinciding with a clonal preference. Seed losses were assessed for 2 years in the coastal Douglas-fir orchards and for 1 year in one lodgepole pine orchard. The percentages of partially filled seed that could have been caused by feeding of L. occidentalis or by a number of other factors were < 5% in coastal Douglas-fir for both 1992 and 1993 and ~14% in lodgepole pine in 1993. Apparently because populations of L. occidentalis were low, there was no correlation between the percentage of partially filled seed and number of insects per tree. Except in unusual circumstances, management measures in Canada are judged not to be necessary as populations of L. occidentalis are consistently below the calculated threshold levels required to cause ≥5% loss in seed production.

Résumé

Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann (Hemiptère : Coreidae) est considéré être un important ravageur des cônes et des graines des vergers à graines de la Colombie-Britannique; aucune étude d’impact n’a cependant été effectuée au Canada. Des vergers ont été étudiés sur une période de 3 ans afin de déterminer la distribution de L. occidentalis dans trois vergers à graines de la variété côtière du Douglas taxifolié, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, et sur une période de 2 ans dans deux vergers à graines du pin tordu, Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelmann. Les auteurs ont trouvé que L. occidentalis se distribue en groupes, correspondant à une préférence clonale. Les pertes en graines ont été évaluées pendant 2 ans dans les vergers à graines du Douglas taxifolié et pendant 1 an dans un verger de pin tordu. Les pourcentages de graines partiellement remplies qui pourraient être attribués à l’activité trophique de L. occidentalis ou à d’autres facteurs étaient < 5% pour le douglas taxifolié en 1992 et en 1993, et ~14% pour le pin tordu en 1993. Aucune corrélation n’a été trouvée entre le pourcentage de graines partiellement remplies et le nombre d’insectes par arbre, apparemment dû au fait que les populations de L. occidentalis étaient faibles. De plus, des mesures particulières de gestion ne sont pas jugées nécessaires au Canada, sauf dans des circonstances inhabituelles, puisque les populations de L. occidentalis sont sans exception sous les seuils requis pour causer des pertes de production de graines ≥5%.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 128 , Issue 6 , December 1996 , pp. 1065 - 1076
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1996

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

Connelly, A.E., and Schowalter, T.D.. 1991. Seed losses to feeding by Leptoglossus occidentalis (Heteroptera: Coreidae) during two periods of second year cone development in Western White Pine. Journal of Economic Entomology 84: 215–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBarr, G.L., Barber, L.R., and Maxwell, A.H.. 1982. Use of carbofuran for control of eastern white pine cone and seed insects. Forest Ecology Management 4: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, P.D. 1984. Comparison of Damage to Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco] Seed, by Each Life Stage of Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann (Hemiptera: Coreidae). B.Sc. (Forestry) thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.28 pp.Google Scholar
Hedlin, A.F., and Ruth, D.S.. 1978. Examination of Douglas-fir clones for differences in susceptibility to damage by cone and seed insects. Journal of the Entomological Society of B.C. 75: 33–34.Google Scholar
Hedlin, A.F., Yates, H.O. III, Cibrian-Tovar, D., Ebel, B.H., Koerber, T.W., and Merkel, E.P.. 1981. Cone and Seed Insects of North American Conifers. Canadian Forestry Service, USDA Forest Service, and Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos, Mexico. 122 pp.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M.J., and Roques, A.. 1993. Attractiveness of color traps to Strobilomyia spp. (Diptera: Anthomyiidae). Environmental Entomology 22: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerber, T.R. 1963. Leptoglossus occidentalis (Hemiptera: Coreidae), a newly discovered pest of coniferous seed. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 56: 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, C.J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper Collins, New York, NY. 654 pp.Google Scholar
Mattson, W.J. 1971. Relationship between cone crop size and cone damage by insects in red pine seed production area. The Canadian Entomologist 103: 617–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, P.L., Roelofs, C.J., Youngman, R.R., and Baker, T.C.. 1991. Characterization of chemicals mediating ovipositional host-plant finding by Amyelois transitella females. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17: 599–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rappaport, N., and Roques, A.. 1991. Resource use and clonal differences in attack rate by the Douglas-fir seed chalcid, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Torymidae), in France. The Canadian Entomologist 123: 1219–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. 1988. SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute, Raleigh, NC. 494 pp.Google Scholar
Schowalter, T.D. 1996. Conifer seed losses to Leptoglossus occidentalis in northwestern North America. In DeBarr, G.L., Turgeon, J.J., Roques, A., and Zhang, Y.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Cone and Seed Insect Working Party Conference (IUFRO S2.07-01). Beijing and Harbin 1992: USDA Forest Service Southeast Experimental Station. In press.Google Scholar
Schowalter, T.D., and Sexton, J.M.. 1990. Effect of Leptoglossus occidentalis (Heteroptera: Coreidae) on seed development of Douglas-fir at different times during the growing season in western Oregon. Journal of Economic Entomology 83: 1485–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, P.J., Haverty, M.I., and Daterman, G.E.. 1986. Impact of insects and methodology for monitoring insects in western white pine seed orchards. pp. 147–155in Roques, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Cone and Seed Insects Working Party, (IUFRO-Sz. 07-01), 3–5 September 1986, Briacon Olivet: INRA.Google Scholar
Städler, E. 1974. Host plant stimuli affecting oviposition behavior of the eastern spruce budworm. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 17: 176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiessenborn, W.D., and Baker, T.C.. 1990. Upwind flight to cotton flowers by Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Environmental Entomology 19: 490–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 718 pp.Google Scholar
Zhu, Y., Armon, K.J., and Gerhardt, K.O.. 1993. Field observations on attractiveness of selected blooming plants to noctuid moths and electroantennogram responses of black cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) moths to flower volatiles. Environmental Entomology 22: 162–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar