Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T20:26:32.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIETS OF THREE COMMON GRASSHOPPERS (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE) INHABITING DESERT GRASSLAND1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. E. Pfadt ,
J. A. Lockwood  and
T. M. Foppe
R. E. Pfadt
Affiliation:
Entomology Section, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA82071
J. A. Lockwood
Affiliation:
Entomology Section, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA82071
T. M. Foppe
Affiliation:
Composition Analysis Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Examination of crop contents of three species of grasshoppers in outbreak densities on desert grassland of eastern Arizona revealed that all three were ingesting a mixed diet of plants. Crops of nymphal and adult Aulocara elliotti (Thomas) contained an average of 67 and 93% dry weight of grass, respectively, placing this species in both the mixed graminivorous and the graminivorous categories. The preferred host plant of A. elliotti was Bouteloua gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag. but it was not an essential item, as a large population developed in a site where this grass was virtually lacking but other perennial grasses were present. Crops of nymphs and adults of both Melanoplus sanguinipes (Fabricius) and M. cuneatus Scudder contained chiefly forbs (88–100% of dry weight). The principal host plants were Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Hér., Lupinus brevicaulis Wats., Microsteris gracilis (Hook.) Greene, and Plantago purshii Roem. & Schult. Both species of Melanoplus fit into the forbivorous category and evidence indicated they were in competition with each other for food. All three grasshopper species showed preferences for particular plant species and as a consequence had significantly different frequencies of plant taxa in their crop contents from what were present in the field.

Résumé

L’examen du contenu du jabot de trois espèces de criquets des prairies désertiques de l’est de l’Arizona en phase épidémique de densité de population a montré qu’elles consommaient une diète mixte de végétaux. Le contenu en poids sec du jabot des larves et des adultes d’Aulocara elliotti (Thomas) contenait en moyenne 67 et 93%, respectivement, de plantes graminoïdes. Cette espèce est donc à la fois graminivore et graminivore mixte. La plante préférée d’A. elliotti était Bouteloua gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag. mais cette plante n’est pas essentielle puisqu’une population importante a été trouvée dans un site où elle était virtuellement absente alors que d’autres graminées pérennes étaient présentes. Le jabot des larves et des adultes de Melanoplus sanguinipes (Fabricius) et de M. cuneatus Scudder contenait surtout des plantes non-graminoïdes (88–100% du poids sec). Les plantes principles étaient Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Her., Lupinus brevicaulis Wats., Microsteris gracilis (Hook.) Greene, et Plantago purshii Roem. & Schult. Ces deux espèces de Melanoplus sont donc non-graminivores et des données indiquent qu’elles étaient en compétition pour la nourriture. Les trois espèces de criquets avaient une préférence pour une plante en particulier, et en conséquence le contenu du jabot révélait des incidences des différents taxons végétaux qui différaient de celles observées sur le terrain.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 120 , Issue 5 , May 1988 , pp. 415 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1988

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

Anderson, N.L., and Wright, J.C.. 1952. Grasshopper investigations on Montana range lands. Montana Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 486.Google Scholar
Barnes, O.L. 1955. Effect of food plants on the lesser migratory grasshopper. J. econ. Ent. 48: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, O.L. 1965. Further tests of the effect of food on the migratory grasshopper. J. econ. Ent. 58: 475–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernays, E.A., and R.F. Chapman, . 1970. Food selection by Chorthippus parallelus (Zetterstedt) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in the field. J. Anim. Ecol. 39: 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaney, W.M., Chapman, R.F., and Wilson, A.. 1973. The pattern of feeding of Locusta migratoria (L.) (Orthoptera, Acrididae). Acrida 2: 119–137.Google Scholar
Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northw. Sci. 33: 43–64.Google Scholar
Fox, L.R., and Morrow, P.A.. 1981. Specialization: species property or local phenomenon? Science 211: 887–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangwere, S.K., Evans, F.C., and M.L. Nelson, . 1976. The food-habits and biology of Acrididae in an old-field community in southeastern Michigan. Great Lakes Ent. 9: 83–123.Google Scholar
Joern, A. 1983. Host plant utilization by grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) from a Sandhills prairie. J. Range Management 36: 793–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J.H., and Strong, D.R. Jr., 1981. Community patterns and competition in folivorous insects. Am. Nat. 118: 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkern, G.B., Pruess, K.P., Knutson, H., Hagen, A.F., Campbell, J.B., and Lambley, J.D.. 1969. Food habits and preferences of grassland grasshoppers of the North Central Great Plains. North Dakota State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 481.Google Scholar
Nerney, N.J. 1960. Grasshopper damage on short-grass rangeland of the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona. J. econ. Ent. 53: 640–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerney, N.J. 1961. Effects of seasonal rainfall on range condition and grasshopper population, San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona. J. econ. Ent. 54: 382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfadt, R.E. 1949. Food plants as factors in the ecology of the lesser migratory grasshopper, Melanoplus mexicanus (Sauss.). Wyoming Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 290.Google Scholar
Pfadt, R.E. 1977. Some aspects of the ecology of grasshopper populations inhabiting the shortgrass plains. Minnesota Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 310: 73–79.Google Scholar
Pfadt, R.E. 1982. Density and diversity of grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in an outbreak on Arizona rangeland. Environ. Ent. 11: 690–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfadt, R.E., and Lavigne, R.J.. 1982. Food habits of grasshoppers inhabiting the Pawnee site. Wyoming Agric. Exp. Stn. Sci. Monogr. 42.Google Scholar
Pickford, R. 1962. Development, survival and reproduction of Melanoplus bilituratus (Wlk.) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) reared on various food plants. Can. Ent. 94: 859–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L.E., and Uresk, D.W.. 1974. Food plant selection by the migratory grasshopper (Melanoplus sanguinipes) within a cheatgrass community. Northw. Sci. 48: 230–234.Google Scholar
Scharff, D.K. 1961. Ecology of the migratory grasshopper (Melanoplus bilituratus) on Montana grasslands. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Sparks, D.R., and Malechek, J.C.. 1968. Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. J. Range Management 21: 264–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1987. The importance of the mechanisms of interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 129: 769–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueckert, D.N., and Hansen, R.M.. 1971. Dietary overlap of grasshoppers on sandhill rangeland in northeastern Colorado. Oecologia 8: 276–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visscher, S.N., Lund, R., and Whitmore, W.. 1979. Host plant growth and insect rearing temperatures influence reproduction and longevity in the grasshopper, Aulocara elliotti (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Environ. Ent. 8: 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar