Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T01:18:19.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOST FOLIAGE IN THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOREST SITES IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA TO OUTBREAKS OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR TUSSOCK MOTH, ORGYIA PSEUDOTSUGATA (LEPIDOPTERA: LYMANTRIIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. R. Mason
R. R. Mason
Affiliation:
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Host foliage was evaluated for nonpreference and antibiosis by field rearing Douglas-fir tussock moth larvae, Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough), (instars 2–6) at typical outbreak and non-outbreak forest sites in central California. Nonpreference was evaluated by comparing frass production and antibiosis by comparing survival, pupation, and fecundity on the different sites. Typical outbreak sites had a lower site index and higher plant moisture stress than typical non-outbreak sites. Production of frass for all crown levels collectively was not significantly different between sites, although more frass was produced in the tops of trees on outbreak sites. Survival and pupation were also not significantly different between sites, but egg production was 28% higher on outbreak sites than non-outbreak sites. If differences in foliage quality did exist between sites, they did not affect the tussock moth enough to explain observed differences in population numbers.

Résumé

Des larves des stades 2 à 6 de la chenille à houppes du Douglas, Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough), ont été élevées sur le terrain afin d’évaluer la non-préférence et l’antibiose du feuillage de l’hôte. Les observations ont été faites au centre de la Californie dans des sites forestiers qui sont généralement soit épidémiques, soit non-épidémiques. La non-préférence et l’antibiose ont été évaluées en comparant, respectivement, la production de matière fécale, et la survie, le taux de nymphose et la fécondité, entre les différents sites. Les sites généralement épidémiques ont montré un indice de site plus bas, et un niveau de privation d’humidité des arbres plus élevé que les sites typiquement non-épidémiques. La production de matière fécale pour l’ensemble des différents niveaux de l’arbre n’a pas montré de différence significative liée au site, bien que plus de matière fécale ait été produite au sommet des arbres dans les sites épidémiques. La survie et le taux de nymphose n’ont pas varié significativement entre les sites, mais la ponte était de 28% plus élevée dans les sites épidémiques que dans les sites non-épidémiques. S’il existait des différences qualitatives du feuillage entre les sites, elles n’ont pas affecté la chenille à houppes suffisamment pour expliquer les différences observées dans l’abondance des populations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 113 , Issue 4 , April 1981 , pp. 325 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1981

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. Environ. Ent. 5: 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlsten, D. L., Luck, R. F., Schlinger, E. I., Wenz, J. M., and Copper, W. A.. 1977. Parasitoids and predators of the Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), in low to moderate populations in central California. Can. Ent. 109: 727–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, D. and Reineke, L. H.. 1933. Preliminary yield tables for second-growth stands in the California pine region. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 354. 23 pp.Google Scholar
Eaton, C. B. and Struble, G. R.. 1957. The Douglas-fir tussock moth in California. (Lepidoptera: Liparidae). Pan-Pacif. Ent. 33: 105–108.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F. 1970. The Physiology of Insect Reproduction. Pergamon Press, Oxford, Toronto, Sidney, and Braunschweig. 307 pp.Google Scholar
Gremalskii, V. I. 1961. The resistance of pine stands to defoliator pests. Zool. Zh. 40: 1656–1664. (Translated from Russian, IPST CAT No. 1330, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.)Google Scholar
Mason, R. R. 1974. Population change in an outbreak of the Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), in central Arizona. Can. Ent. 106: 1171–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, R. R. 1978. Synchronous patterns in an outbreak of the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Environ. Ent. 7: 672–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, R. R. and Baxter, J. W.. 1970. Food preference in a natural population of the Douglas-fir tussock moth. J. econ. Ent. 63: 1257–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, R. R. and Tigner, T. C.. 1972. Forest-site relationships within an outbreak of lodgepole needle miner in central Oregon. U.S. Dep. Agric. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-146. 18 pp. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Mathavan, S. and Pandian, T. J.. 1974. Use of faecal weight as an indicator of food consumption in some lepidopterans. Oecologia 15: 177–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattson, W. J. and Addy, N. D.. 1975. Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production. Science 190: 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maul, D. C. 1958. Silvical characteristics of white fir. U.S. Dep. Agric. Serv. Tech. Pap. 25. 22 pp. Calif. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkely, California.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. G. 1979. Dispersal of early instars of the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 72(2): 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, R. H. 1951. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. The Univ. Press of Kansas, Lawrence and London. 520 pp.Google Scholar
Rudnev, D. F. 1962. The action of the physiological condition of plants upon mass outbreaks of forest pests. Zool. Zh. 41: 313–330.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. F. 1977. Classification of western Canadian defoliating forest insects by outbreak spread characteristics and habitat restriction. pp. 80–88in Kulman, H. M. and Chiang, H. C. (Eds.), Insect Ecology—papers presented in the A. C. Hodson ecology lectures. Tech. Bull. Univ. agric. Exp. Stn. 310.Google Scholar
Schwenke, W. 1966. Climatic and edaphic dependence of insect nutrition and its importance for the problem of insect resistance in forest trees. pp. 251–252 in Gerhold, H. D., Schreiner, E. J., McDermott, R. E., and Winieski, L. A. (Eds.), Breeding Pest-Resistant Trees. Pergamon Press, Oxford, London, Edinburgh, New York, Toronto, Paris, and Braunschweig. 505 pp.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, Toronto, and London. 481 pp.Google Scholar
Stoszek, K. J. 1977. Factors influencing tree and stand susceptibility to Douglas-fir tussock moth attack. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 23: 171–172.Google Scholar
Stoszek, K. J. and Mika, P. G.. 1978. Outbreaks, sites, and stands. pp. 56–59 in Brookes, M. H., Stark, R. W., and Campbell, R. W. (Eds.), The Douglas-fir Tussock Moth: A Synthesis. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1585. 338 pp.Google Scholar
Sugden, B. A. 1957. A brief history of outbreaks of Douglas-fir tussock moth Hemerocampa pseudotsugata McD., in British Columbia. Proc. ent. Soc. Br. Columb. 54: 37–39.Google Scholar
Van Emden, H. F. and Way, M. J.. 1972. Host plants in the population dynamics of insects. pp. 181–199 in van Emden, H. F. (Ed.), Insect/plant relationships. Blackwell Scientific Pub., Oxford, London, Edinburgh, and Melbourne. 213 pp.Google Scholar
Waring, R. H. and Cleary, B. D.. 1967. Plant moisture stress: evaluation by pressure bomb. Science 155: 1248–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickman, B. E. 1963. Mortality and growth reduction of white fir following defoliation by the Douglas-fir tussock moth. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-7. 15 pp. Pac. Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Williams, J. T. 1978. Management implications from a timber type evaluation of Oregon and Washington tussock moth outbreak areas. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Of Washington, Seattle. 69 pp.Google Scholar