Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T03:16:36.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing mark–recapture and constant removal protocols for estimating forager population size of the subterranean termite Coptotermes lacteus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T.A. Evans
T.A. Evans*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Entomology, GPO BOX 1700, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
*
*Fax: +61 2 6246 4000 E-mail: theo.evans@csiro.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forager population sizes of colonies of Coptotermes lacteus(Froggatt) in New South Wales were estimated using two methods: mark–recapture and constant removal, in two disturbed habitats: a pine plantation and cleared farmland. Mark–recapture population estimates were unrealistic and unreliable: they could be improbably large, over 200 million foragers, and they varied enormously between samples for each colony without any pattern. The constant removal population estimates could also be unrealistic: they could be negative or quite different when calculated using regression and maximum likelihood methods. However, the unrealistic results could be predicted reliably, and explained by the lack of re-contact with the sampling devices (bait stations) – a violation of an assumption of the method. This happened more frequently in the plantation than in the farmland, probably because of the greater abundance of alternative food sources in the plantation. Of the two methods, constant removal provided reasonable forager population estimates, relative to direct counts, at least some of the time, plus a mechanism by which reliability could be tested, whereas mark–recapture provided neither. Further refinement and testing of constant removal methods are urged to provide a more reliable population estimation technique for termites.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

Beal, R.H. & Smith, V.K. (1971) Relative susceptibilities of Coptotermes formosanus, Reticulitermes flavipes and R. virginicus to soil insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology 64, 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosland, M.W.J.Lok, C.M., Wong, T.C., Shakarad, M.Traniello, J.F.A. (1997) Division of labour in a lower termite: the majority of tasks are performed by older workers. Animal Behaviour 54, 999–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, A.D. & Waller, D.A. (1997) Problems with the interpretation of mark–release–recapture data in subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 30, 233–241.Google Scholar
Evans, T.A. (2000) Fast marking of termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 36, 517–533.Google Scholar
Evans, T.A. (2001) Estimating relative decline in populations of subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) due to baiting. Journal of Economic Entomology 94, 1602–1609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, T.A. (2002) Tunnel specificity and forager movements in subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae and Termitidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 92, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, T.A. & Gleeson, P.V. (2001) Seasonal and daily movement patterns of subterranean wood-eating termite foragers. Australian Journal of Zoology 49, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, T.A., Lenz, M. & Gleeson, P.V. (1998) Testing assumptions of mark–recapture protocols for estimating population size using Australian, mound-building, subterranean termites. Ecological Entomology 23, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, T.A., Lenz, M. & Gleeson, P.V. (1999) Estimating population size and forager movement in a tropical subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Environmental Entomology 28, 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewart, D.M. & French, J.R.J. (1988) Estimation of the population of a mound colony of Coptotermes lacteus (Froggatt). Document IRG/WP/1353. The International Research Group on Wood Preservation. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Forschler, B.T. & Townsend, M.L. (1996) Mark–recapture estimates of Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) colony foraging populations from Georgia, USA. Environmental Entomology 25, 952–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, F.J. & Greaves, T. (1940) The population of a mound colony of Coptotermes lacteus (Frogg.). Journal of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research 13, 140–149.Google Scholar
Gay, F.J., Greaves, T., Holdaway, F.G. & Wetherly, A.M. (1955) Standard laboratory colonies of termites for evaluating the resistance of timber, timber preservtives, and other materials to termite attack. Bulletin 277, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Hill, G.F. (1942) Termites (Isoptera) from the Australian Region. Melbourne, CSIR Publishing.Google Scholar
Hinze, B. & Leuthold, R.H. (1999) Age related polyethism and activity rhythms in the nest of the termite Macrotermes bellicosus (Isoptera, Termitidae). Insectes Sociaux 46, 392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S.C. (1990) Effects of population density on tunneling by formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) through treated soil. Journal of Economic Entomology 83, 875–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, M. & Runko, S. (1993) Long-term impact of orphaning on field colonies of Coptotermes lacteus (Froggatt) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Insectes Sociaux 40, 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, F.C. (1930) Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns. U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular 118, 1–4.Google Scholar
Moran, P.A.P. (1951) A mathematical theory of animal trapping. Biometrika 38, 307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, S.K. & Traniello, J.F.A. (1996) Individual and collective search behaviour in the subterranean termite Reticulitermes flavipes. 6th International Behavioural Ecology Congress, Canberra, Australia September–October 1996. p. 128 (abstract).Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry. 3rd edn. New York, W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. (1978) Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations, 2nd edn. London, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. & Henderson, P.A. (2000) Ecological methods 3rd edn. Oxford, Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Thorne, B.L., Russek-CohenE., E.,ForschlerB.T., B.T.,Breisch, N.L. & Traniello, J.F.A. (1996) Evaluation of mark–recapture methods for estimating forager population size of subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) colonies. Environmental Entomology 25, 938–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zippin, C. (1956) An evaluation of the removal method of estimating animal populations. Biometrics 12, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zippin, C. (1958) The removal method of population estimate. Journal of Wildlife Management 22, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar