Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:15:29.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREY CONSUMPTION AND VARIATIONS IN LARVAL BIOLOGY OF ENOCLERUS SPHEGEUS (COLEOPTERA: CLERIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Gene D. Amman
Gene D. Amman*
Affiliation:
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, Ogden, Utah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Larvae of Enoclerus sphegeus Fabricius (Coleoptera: Cleridae) were separated into three groups for study. Throughout their development, the larvae in each group were fed mountain pine beetle larvae, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), of a specific size (small, medium, or large). Clerid larvae fed small D. ponderosae larvae generally completed three stadia, while the other two groups, which were fed medium-sized and large prey, respectively, usually passed through two larval stadia. The number of stadia a larva would have was determined by the amount of food consumed during the first stadium. The feeding period of larvae given small prey was considerably longer than that of those fed medium-sized or large beetle larvae, but the prepupal period was much shorter. The head capsules of second-instar larvae that passed through two stadia were distinctly wider than those of second-instar larvae that completed three stadia.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 11 , November 1970 , pp. 1374 - 1379
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Bodenstein, D. 1953. The role of hormones in molting and metamorphosis, pp. 879–931. In Roeder, K. D. (Ed.), Insect physiology. Wiley, New York; Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Böving, A. G., and Champlain, A. B.. 1920. Larvae of North American beetles of the family Cleridae. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 57: 575–649.10.5479/si.00963801.57-2323.575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, B. D., and Nagel, W. P.. 1965. Predators of the Douglas-fir beetle in western Oregon. Ore. agric. Exp. Stn Tech. Bull. 86, 32 pp.Google Scholar
DeLeon, D. 1934. An annotated list of the parasites, predators, and other associated fauna of the mountain pine beetle in western white pine and lodgepole pine. Can. Ent. 66: 51–61.10.4039/Ent6651-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, L. N., and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1964. Predators and parasites of the Douglas-fir beetle: description and identification of the immature stages. Ore. agric. Exp. Stn Tech. Bull. 79, 52 pp.Google Scholar
Reid, R. W. 1957. The bark beetle complex associated with lodgepole pine slash in Alberta. III: Notes on the biologies of several predators with special reference to Enoclerus sphegeus Fab. (Coleoptera: Cleridae) and two species of mites. Can. Ent. 89: 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struble, G. R. 1942 a. Biology of two native coleopterous predators of the mountain pine beetle in sugar pine. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 18: 97–107.Google Scholar
Struble, G. R. 1942 b. Laboratory propagation of two predators of the mountain pine beetle. J. econ. Ent. 35: 841–844.10.1093/jee/35.6.841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, A., and Hasegawa, S.. 1954. Relative humidity–temperature relationships of some saturated salt solutions in the temperature range 0° to 50°C. J. Res. natn. Bur. Stand. 53: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar