Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:44:41.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PREDATION OF TENT CATERPILLARS, MALACOSOMA AMERICANA (LEPIDOPTERA: LASIOCAMPIDAE) BY ANTS (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. L. Ayre  and
D. E. Hitchon
G. L. Ayre
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario
D. E. Hitchon
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

First- and second-instar tent caterpillar larvae are acceptable prey for many native species of ants. The amount of predation which occurs is normally related to ambient temperature. A warm period in early spring allows ants to forage actively and often leads to destruction of the caterpillar colonies whereas a cool spring curtails ant activity and allows the caterpillars to develop beyond the vulnerable period free from predation by ants. In latter instars the caterpillars are protected completely against ants by their dense setae.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 100 , Issue 8 , August 1968 , pp. 823 - 826
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1968

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

Clausen, C. P. 1940. Entomophagous insects. McGraw-Hill, New York and London.Google Scholar
Gösswald, K. 1951. Die rote Waldameise im Dienste der Waldhypiene. Metta Kinau, Verlag. Luneburg.Google Scholar
Green, G. W., and Sullivan, C. R.. 1950. Ants attacking larvae of the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria Hbn. (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Can. Ent. 82: 194–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCook, H. C. 1882. Ants as beneficial insecticides. Proc. Acad. nut. Sci. Philad. 1882: 263–271.Google Scholar