Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T15:28:38.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Spatial Distribution of Two Pine Sawflies and Methods of Sampling for the Study of Population Dynamics1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

L. A. Lyons
L. A. Lyons
Affiliation:
Forest Insect Laboratory, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spatial distribution of egg clusters and cocoons of Neodiprion swainei and N. sertifer is described, and methods are developed for estimating the density of different stages on the same numerical basis.

Egg-cluster density varies directly with height in the tree, branch length, and tree size, evidently due to the females’ preference for illuminated sites. The overdispersion of egg-cluster counts reflects the heterogeneity of distribution of suitable oviposition sites rather than an inherent aggregative behaviour of parent females. Cocoon density within stands is not strongly related to the distance from the nearest tree, due to the wide dispersal of cocoon-spinning larvae. Some of the overdispersion of cocoon counts is due to differences in cocoon density between sections of a stand. Cocoons of males are more highly aggregated than those of females, and cocoons attacked by predators are more highly aggregated than ones not attacked.

The sampling unit selected for each life-history stage is one that permits density estimates of desired precision at minimum cost. In some stands, egg density can be estimated at minimum cost by direct counts per quadrat, in most stands, however, the whole tree is the most economical unit, despite the fact that per-tree density must be converted to absolute density in order to express all stages on a common basis. Sampling error can be reduced by stratification according to tree size. Gradients in cocoon density are seldom steep enough to permit stratification, but the cost of sampling can be minimized by adjusting unit size. Optimal unit size varies inversely with cocoon density and degree of aggregation, and is affected by soil type and the method used to extract cocoons.

The role of spatial distribution and sampling programs in studies of population dynamics is discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 96 , Issue 11 , November 1964 , pp. 1373 - 1407
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1964

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

Anscombe, F. J. 1949. The statistical analysis of insect counts based on the negative binomial distribution. Biometrics 5: 165–173.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. I., and Calhoun, D. W.. 1954. An outline of biometry. Yale Co-op. Corp., New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1953. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. B. 1934. A brief account of sampling methods used in population studies of the jack pine sawfly, Neodiprion swainei Midd'tn. 25th and 26th Annu. Rep. Quebec Soc. Prot. Pl.: 96–100.Google Scholar
Finlayson, T. 1960. Taxonomy of cocoons and puparia, and their contents, of Canadian parasites of Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Canad. Ent. 92: 20–47.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. 1946. Field sampling for the estimation of wireworm populations. Biometrics Bull. 2: 1–7.Google Scholar
Galoux, A. 1952. La pullulation du lophyre roux (Neodiprion sertifer Geoffr.) dans la région spadoise (1948–1950). Trav. Stat. Rech. Groenendaal (C) No. 16, 31 pp.Google Scholar
Greig-Smith, P. 1957. Quantitative plant ecology. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1959. Observations on the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.), and its parasites in southern Ontario. Canad. Ent. 91: 501–512.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. H., Hurwitz, W. N. and Madow, W. G.. 1953. Sample survey methods and theory. Volume I, Methods and applications. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Henson, W. R. 1959. Some effects of secondary dispersive processes on distribution. Amer. Naturalist 93: 315–320.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1955. The selection by certain small mammals of dead, parasitized and healthy prepupae of the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.). Canad. J. Zool. 33: 404–419.Google Scholar
Iljinsky, A., and Greese, N.. 1928. Besichtigungs-Methode und Resultate vom Kiefernspinner beschädigter Wälder. Mitt. forstl. Versuchsw. Ukraine 9.Google Scholar
(cited in de Gryse, J. J. 1934. Quantitative methods in the study of forest insects. Sci. Agric. 14: 477–495.)Google Scholar
Lyons, L. A. 1962. The effect of aggregation on egg and larval survival in Neodiprion swainei Midd. (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Canad. Ent. 94: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, J. M. 1961. A technique for the extraction of cocoons from soil samples during population studies of the Swaine sawfly, Neodiprion swainei Midd. (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Canad. Ent. 93: 888–890.Google Scholar
Milne, A. 1959. The centric systematic area-sample treated as a random sample. Biometrics 15: 270–297.Google Scholar
Morisita, Masaaki. 1959. Measuring of the dispersion of individuals and analysis of the distributional patterns. Mem. Fac. Sci Kyushu Univ. (E) (Biol.) 2: 215–235.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F. 1960. Sampling insect populations. Annu. Rev. Ent. 5: 243–264.Google Scholar
Niklas, O. F., and Franz, J.. 1957. Begrenzungsfaktoren einer Gradation der Roten Kiefern-buschhornblattwespe (Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffr.)) in Südwestdeutschland 1953 bis 1956. Mitt. biol. Bundesanst. Berlin 89, 39 pp.Google Scholar
Ohnesorge, B., and Thalenhorst, W.. 1956. Zur Kenntniss der Fichten-Blattwespen. IV. Die Dispersion. Z. PflKrankh. 63: 197–211.Google Scholar
Pointing, P. J. 1957. Studies on the comparative ecology of two sawflies Pikonema alaskensis Roh. and Pikonema dimmockii Cress. (Tenthredinidae, Hymenoptera). Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Toronto.Google Scholar
Prebble, M. L. 1943. Sampling methods in population studies of the European spruce sawfly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig), in eastern Canada. Trans. roy. Soc. Can. (ser. 3, sect. V.) 37: 93–126.Google Scholar
Quenouille, M. H. 1950. Introductory statistics. Butterworth-Springer Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Schedl, K. E. 1937. Quantitative Freilandstudien an Blattwespen der Pinus banksiana mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Methodik. Z. angew. Ent. 24: 25–70, 181–215.Google Scholar
Schedl, K. E. 1938. Zur Blattwespen-Prognose. Mitt. Forstwirt. Forstwiss. 2: 192–241.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical methods applied to experiments in agriculture and biology. 5th ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Stark, R. W. and Dahlsten, D. L.. 1961. Distribution of cocoons of a Neodiprion sawfly under open-grown conditions. Canad. Ent. 93: 443–450.Google Scholar
Thalenhorst, W. 1958. Zur Kenntniss der Fichtenblattwespen. V. Die Populationsdichte der Nematini: Niveau und Fluktuationen. Z. PflKrankh. 65: 577–591.Google Scholar
Wadley, F. M. 1950. Notes on the form of distribution of insect and plant populations. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer.xs 43: 581–586.Google Scholar
Waters, W. E. 1959. A quantitative measure of aggregation in insects. J. econ. Ent. 52: 1180–1184.Google Scholar
Waters, W. E., and Henson, W. R.. 1959. Some sampling attributes of the negative binomial distribution with special reference to forest insects. For. Sci. 5: 397–412.Google Scholar
Yates, F., and Finney, D. J.. 1942. Statistical problems in field sampling for wireworms. Ann. appl. Biol. 29: 144–196.Google Scholar