Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T16:56:32.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WITHIN AND BETWEEN TREE VARIATION OF LIVE AND PARASITIZED DOUGLAS-FIR TUSSOCK MOTH, ORYGIA PSEUDOTSUGATA (LEPIDOPTERA: LYMANTRIIDAE), COCOONS ON WHITE FIR IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SAMPLING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Robert F. Luck  and
Donald L. Dahlsten
Robert F. Luck
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Division of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside 92507
Donald L. Dahlsten
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Division of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside 92507
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The distribution of Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (McD.), cocoons was studied within and between the crowns of white fir, Abies concolor ((Gord. and Glend.) Lindl.), at six locations in the central Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. The within tree, between tree, and between plot distribution of cocoons in the crown, categorized by sex, mortality (including parasitization), and stage (larva or pupa) were analyzed. Only cocoons containing female pupae varied in their distribution within the tree and they were concentrated in the bottom third of the live crown but their densities at any one level bore little relation to those in the other levels within the crown. Cocoon density varied significantly between plots and between trees within plots. Total parasitism did not vary significantly between plots. The variable within tree distribution of cocoons containing female pupae and their increased percentage parasitism relative to those containing male pupae, suggested that the live crown should be stratified. A sample unit consisting of two branches selected from the midpoint of each of the three crown levels (total: 6 branches) sampled approximately 5% of the live crown of white fir. The relation between the number of sample trees and mean cocoon density at three levels of precision is provided.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , 01 March 1980 , pp. 231 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1980

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
Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling Techniques, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York. 413 pp.Google Scholar
Condrashoff, S. F. and Grant, J.. 1962. Sampling Douglas-fir tussock moth populations. Can. Dep. For., Forest Ent. and Path. Branch, Bi-mon. Prog. Rep. 18(4): 3.Google Scholar
Dahlsten, D. L., Cameron, E. A., and Copper, W. A.. 1970. Distribution and parasitization of cocoons of the Douglas-fir tussock moth Hemerocampa pseudotsugata (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), in an isolated infestation. Can. Ent. 102: 175–181.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
Kirk, R. E. 1968. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Luck, R. F. and Dahlsten, D. L., 1967. Douglas-fir tussock moth (Hemerocampa pseudotsugata) eggmass distribution on white fir in northeastern California. Can. Ent. 99: 1193–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, R. R. 1969. Sequential sampling of Douglas-fir tussock moth populations. U.S. Forest Serv., Pac. N.W. For. and Rng. Exp. Sta. Res. Note PNW-102. 11 pp.Google Scholar
Mason, R. R. 1970. Development of sampling methods for the Douglas-fir tussock moth, Hemerocampa pseudotsugata (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Can. Ent. 102: 836–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, R. R. 1977. Sampling low density populations of the Douglas-fir tussock moth by frequency of occurrence in the lower tree crown. Pac N.W. For. and Rng. Exp. Sta. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-216.Google Scholar
Mason, R. R. 1978. Detecting suboutbreak populations of the Douglas-fir tussock moth by sequential sampling of early larvae in the lower tree crown. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-238.Google Scholar
Petrinovich, L. F. and Hardyck, C. D.. 1969. Error rates for multiple comparison methods: Some evidence concerning the frequency of erroneous conclusions. Phychological Bull. 71: 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J.. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. 776 pp.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1966. Ecological Methods. Chapman and Hall, London. 391 pp.Google Scholar
Stuart, A. 1976. Basic Ideas of Scientific Sampling, 2nd ed. Griffin's statistical monographs and courses no. 4. Hafner Press, New York. 106 pp.Google Scholar