Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T17:45:03.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FEEDING HABITS AND FOOD PREFERENCES OF MELANOPLUS BIVITTATUS AND M. FEMURRUBRUM (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE)12

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C. G. Bailey  and
M. K. Mukerji
C. G. Bailey
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba
M. K. Mukerji
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The feeding habits of Melanoplus bivittatus (Say) and M. femurrubrum (DeGeer) in an Ontario grassland were investigated by analyzing crop contents. The study revealed that both species are mixed feeders which prefer forbs over grasses. Both species ingested a wide range of host plants in the field, showing preferences for some species over others. Differential growth and mortality resulted when grasshoppers were reared on different host plants.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 11 , November 1976 , pp. 1207 - 1212
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

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

Criddle, N. 1933. Studies on the biology of North American Acrididae, development and habits. Proc. World's Grain Exhib. Conf. Can. 2: 474–494.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1947. Chemical insect attractants and repellents. Blackiston, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Friend, W. G. 1958. Nutritional requirements by phytophagous insects. A. Rev. Ent. 3: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isley, F. B. 1938. The relations of Texas Acrididae to plants and soils. Ecol. Monographs 8: 551–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isley, F. B. 1944. Correlation between mandibular morphology and food specificity in grasshoppers. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 37: 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipke, H. and Fraenkel, G.. 1956. Insect nutrition. A. Rev. Ent. 1: 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkern, G. B. and Anderson, J. F.. 1959. A technique for studying the food habits and preferences of grasshoppers. J. econ. Ent. 52: 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkern, G. B., Anderson, J. F., and Brusven, M. A.. 1962. Biology and ecology of North Dakota grasshoppers. I. Food habits and preferences of grasshoppers associated with alfalfa fields. Res. Rep. N. Dakota agric. Exp. Stn 7.Google Scholar
Painter, R. H. 1951. The role of nutritional factors in host plant selection. Trans. IX int. Congr. Ent. 2: 101–105.Google Scholar
Parker, J. R. 1954. A new look at an ancient enemy. Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 2064.Google Scholar
Smith, R. W. and Stewart, W. W. A.. 1946. A useful cage for sampling field populations of grasshoppers. A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 76: 32–35.Google Scholar
Urquhart, F. A. 1941. An ecological study of the saltatoria of Point Pelee, Ontario. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar