Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:37:34.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Woodpeckers as Predators of the Codling Moth in Nova Scotia1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Extract

There have been few quantitative studies on the role of woodpeckers in control of insect pests. Hutchison (1951) and Wygant (1958) pointed out the importance of these predators in reducing outbreaks of the Engelmann spruce beetle and Knight (1958) established a means of assessing the value of woodpeckers by correlating their activity with beetle survival but made no attempt to measure the numbers of woodpeckers in an area.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1959

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

Hutchison, F. T. 1951. The effects of woodpeckers on the Engelmann spruce beetle, Dendroctonus engelmanni Hopkins. M.Sc. thesis. A. & M. College of Colorado.Google Scholar
Knight, F. B. 1958. The effects of woodpeckers on populations of the Engelmann spruce beetle. J. Econ. Ent. 51: 603607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLellan, C. R. 1958. Role of woodpeckers in control of the codling moth in Nova Scotia. Canadian Ent. 90: 1822.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F., Cheshire, W. F., Miller, C. A., and Mott, D. G.. 1958. The numerical response of avian and mammalian predators during a gradation of the spruce budworm. Ecology 39: 487494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1959. A mathematical model for the effect of densities of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. Canadian Ent. 91: 129144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wygant, N. D. 1958. Engelmann spruce beetle control in Colorado. Proc. Tenth International Congress of Ent. 4 (1956): 181184.Google Scholar
Yeager, L. E. 1955. Two woodpecker populations in relation to environmental change. The Condor 57: 148153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar