Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T11:04:58.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFERENT SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR THE GYPSY MOTH, PORTHETRIA DISPAR (LEPIDOPTERA: LYMANTRIIDAE) AND ITS NATURAL ENEMIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Ronald M. Weseloh
Ronald M. Weseloh
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A variety of field sampling procedures were used to estimate population levels of the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), and the following natural enemies: Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), Blepharipa scutellata (Robineau-Desvoidy) (Diptera: Tachinidae), and Calosoma sycophanta (L.) (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Regression analyses indicated, among other things, that gypsy moth egg mass counts were not good indicators of tree defoliation, but that defoliation and number of gypsy moth larvae on branch terminals were correlated. Estimates of adult abundance of A. melanoscelus and B. scutellata were negatively correlated with estimates of numbers of immature parasitoids. Numbers of gypsy moth larvae parasitized by A. melanoscelus were positively correlated with numbers of A. melanoscelus cocoons sampled. Numbers of adult C. sycophanta were not correlated with larval numbers of this insect. It was concluded from these results that the procedures used to estimate numbers of natural enemy adults were not entirely adequate, but may be useful for supplementing other sampling methods.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 106 , Issue 3 , March 1974 , pp. 225 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1974

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

Bess, H. A. 1961. Population ecology of the gypsy moth Porthetria dispar L. (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Bull. Conn. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 646. 43 pp.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. W. 1967. The analysis of numerical change in gypsy moth populations. Forest Sci. Monogr. 15: 1–33.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. W. and Podgwaite, J. D.. 1971. The disease complex of the gypsy moth. I. Major components. J. invert. Path. 18: 101–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, C. W. and Holbrook, J. E. R.. 1929. Trapping Calosoma beetles. J. econ. Ent. 22: 562–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. (Ed.). 1964. Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Reinhold, New York. 844 pp.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. and Doane, C. C.. 1966. An artificial diet for the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 462–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisojevic, P. 1970. The role of oligophagous and polyphagous tachinids in reducing the gypsy moth numbers. Proc. int. Congr. Pl. Prot., Paris, 1970. p. 488.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1972. Diel periodicities of some parasitoids of the gypsy moth and noctuid cutworms. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 1126–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar