Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:36:45.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differentiation by Small Mammal Predators Between Sound and Empty Cocoons of the European Spruce Sawfly1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. F. Morris
R. F. Morris
Affiliation:
Dominion Entomological Laboratory, Fredericton, N.B.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a preliminary paper on the role of small mammals in the natural control of the European spruce sawfly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Htg.), the writer (7) recorded that shrews have a remarkable ability to select sound cocoons in preference to those which are dead or emptied by parasites. This ability was said to be much less apparent, however, in the rodents. However, various experimental aspects of the project on natural control were not completed. This was due mainly to the severe decimation of the sawfly resulting from the combined attacks of small mammals, disease, and parasites. Since the above statements have elicited some interest, it secms worthwhile to present the data on which they were based. Other aspects of the project, particularly those concerned with the populations of small mammals and their relation to forest site, and with the role of larval Elateridae, will be reported later.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , May 1949 , pp. 114 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1949

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

Rererences

1.Conklin, J. G. 1942. An analysis of the biological control of the European spruce sawfly in New Hampshire, with particular reference to predators. Abstr. of Doctoral Diss., Ohio State Univ. Press. No. 37, pp. 63–73.Google Scholar
2.Dennis, Wayne. 1930. Rejection of wormy nuts by squirrels. Jour. Mamm. 11: 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Goulden, C. H. 1939. Methods of statistical analysis. New York. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
4.Graham, S. A. 1929. The larch sawfly as an indicator of mouse abundance. Jour. Mamm. 10: 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Hardy, J. E. 1939. Natural control of Diprion smilis Htg. in Poland during 1936. Bul. Ent. Res. 30: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Martineau, R. 1943. Population studies of the European spruce sawfly in Quebec. For. Chron. 19: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Morris, R. F. 1942. Preliminary notes on the natural control of the European spruce sawfly by small mammals. Can. Ent. 74: 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Shull, A. F. 1907. Habits of the short-tailed shrew, Blarina brevicauda (Say). Amer. Nat. 41: 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar