Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:26:20.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Body size - realized fecundity relationship of whitemarked tussock moth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Graham S. Thurston  and
James D. MacGregor
Graham S. Thurston*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service – Atlantic, PO Box 4000, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 5P7
James D. MacGregor
Affiliation:
417 MacLean Street, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada B2H 4N6
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Insect body size and fecundity are frequently reported to be correlated (e.g., Miller 1957; Dempster 1971; Beckwith 1976; Hough and Pimental 1978; Gilbert 1984; Carroll and Quiring 1993; Honek 1993; Spurgeon et al. 1995; Tammaru et al. 1996, 2002; Nylin and Gotthard 1998). The main body of evidence for this relationship stems from laboratory experiments where potential fecundity (or total egg production) is most often measured (Tammaru et al. 1996); very little evidence is available from field studies (Sopow and Quiring 1998). Realized fecundity (or total eggs laid) is affected by many extrinsic factors (e.g., Leather 1988; Carroll and Quiring 1993; Tammaru et al. 1996), suggesting that fecundity measures derived from laboratory experimentation may not be useful in nature where abiotic conditions may be highly variable (Carroll and Quiring 1993; Nylin and Gotthard 1998; Sopow and Quiring 1998).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 135 , Issue 4 , August 2003 , pp. 583 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2003

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

Beckwith, R.C. 1976. Influence of host foliage on the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Environmental Entomology 5: 73–7Google Scholar
Carroll, A.L., Quiring, D.T. 1993. Interactions between size and temperature influence fecundity and longevity of a torticid moth, Zeiraphera canadensis. Oecologia 93: 233–41Google Scholar
Dempster, J. 1971. The population ecology of the Cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae L. (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae). Oecologia 7: 26–67Google Scholar
Embree, D.G., Elgee, D.E., Estabrooks, G.E. 1984. Orgyia leucostigma (JE Smith), whitemarked tussock moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). pp 359–61 in Kelleher, J.S., Hulme, M.A. (Eds), Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1969–1980. Farnham Royal, United Kingdom: Commonwealth Agricultural BureauxGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N. 1984. Control of fecundity in Pieris rapae. 1. The problem. Journal of Animal Ecology 53: 581–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honek, A. 1993. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66: 483–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, J.A., Pimental, D. 1978. Influence of host foliage on development, survival and fecundity of the gypsy moth. Environmental Entomology 7: 97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leather, S.R. 1988. Size, reproductive potential and fecundity in insects: things aren't as simple as they seem. Oikos 51: 386–9Google Scholar
McKinnon, M.L. 1995. The relationship between growth rate and foliar chemistry of young white spruce and the performance of a gall-forming insect. MScF thesis, University of New Brunswick, FrederictonGoogle Scholar
McKinnon, M.L., Quiring, D.T., Bauce, E. 1999. Influence of tree growth rate, shoot size and foliar chemistry on the abundance and performance of a galling adelgid. Functional Ecology 13: 859–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C.A. 1957. A technique for estimating the fecundity of the natural populations of the spruce budworm. Canadian Journal of Zoology 35: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nylin, S., Gotthard, K. 1998. Plasticity in life-history traits. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 63–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, A.H., Lindquist, O.H. 1982.Insects of eastern hardwood trees. Canadian Forest Service Forestry Technical Report 29Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G., Roe, A., Lewontin, R.C. 1960. Quantitative zoology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and CoGoogle Scholar
Sopow, S.L., Quiring, D.T. 1998. Body size of spruce-galling adelgids is positively related to realized fecundity in nature. Ecological Entomology 23: 101–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speight, M.R. 1994. Reproductive capacity of the horse chestnut scale insect, Pulvinaria regalis Canard (Hom., Coccidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 118: 59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS Inc. 1998. Systat 8.0. Statistics. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS IncGoogle Scholar
Spurgeon, D.W., Lingren, P.D., Shaver, T.N., Raulston, J.R. 1995. Realized and potential fecundity of the Mexican rice borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) as a function of pupal weight. Environmental Entomology 24: 94–8Google Scholar
Tammaru, T., Kaitaniemi, P., Ruohomaki, K. 1996. Realized fecundity in Epirrita autumnata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): relation to body size and consequences to population dynamics. Oikos 77: 407–16Google Scholar
Tammaru, T., Esperk, T., Castellanos, I. 2002. No evidence for costs of being large in females of Orgyia spp. (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae): larger is always better. Oecologia 133: 430–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurston, G.S. 2002. Orgyia leucostigma (J.E. Smith), whitemarked tussock moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). pp 201–3 in Mason, P., Huber, J. (Eds), Biological control programmes in Canada, 1981–2000. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI PublishingGoogle Scholar
Wickman, P., Karlsson, B. 1989. Abdomen size, body size and the reproductive effort of insects. Oikos 56: 209–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall IncGoogle Scholar