Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T18:06:17.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRINSIC FACTORS CAUSING QUALITATIVE CHANGES IN POPULATIONS OF PORTHETRIA DISPAR (LEPIDOPTERA: LYMANTRIIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

David E. Leonard
David E. Leonard
Affiliation:
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence is presented to suggest that the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.), is numerically self-regulating through a shift in the quality of individuals induced by changes in nutrition. This qualitative change affects dispersal, behavior, developmental rate, and fecundity, and this provides P. dispar with the ability to respond to intrinsic and extrinsic factors faster and more efficiently than if dependent on selection. Adaptability is further facilitated because the change in quality can be induced either in the previous generation by the amount of nutrient reserves provided the eggs, or during the current generation by hunger, crowding, or cool temperature. This change is best characterized by an increase in the number of larvae with additional instars. In these larvae, a prolongation of instar I and a shift in behavior increases their potential for dispersal. The similarities and differences between P. dispar and Malacosoma pluviale (Dyar) are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 2 , February 1970 , pp. 239 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Burgess, A. F., and Baker, W. L.. 1938. The gypsy and brown-tailed moths and their control. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. 464.Google Scholar
Campbell, I. M. 1962. Reproductive capacity in the genus Choristoneura Led. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 4: 272–288.Google Scholar
Campbell, I. M. 1966. Genetic variation related to survival in lepidoptera species. Breeding Host-Resistant Trees. Proc. A.T.O. & N.S.F. Symp., pp. 129–135.Google Scholar
Chitty, D. 1960. Population processes in the vole and their relevance to general theory. Can. J. Zool. 38: 99–113.Google Scholar
Chu, H. C. 1968. Histological study of the alimentary trait of Lymantria larvae. I. The composition of the midgut epithelium. Acta Ent. Sinica 1: 137–143.Google Scholar
Trans. from Acta Ent. Sinica 14: 140 (1965).Google Scholar
De Wilde, J. 1964 a. Reproduction, pp. 9–58. In Rockstein, (ed.), The physiology of Insecta 1. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
De Wilde, J. 1964 b. Reproduction—endocrine control, pp. 59–90. In Rockstein, (ed.), The physiology of Insecta 1. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Doane, C. C. 1968. Changes in egg mass density, size and amount of parasitism after chemical treatment of a heavy population of gypsy moth. J. econ. Ent. 61: 1288–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, C. C. 1969. Trans-ovum transmission of nuclear-polyhedrosis virus in the gypsy moth and the inducement of virus susceptibility. J. Invert. Path. 14: 199–210.Google Scholar
Dowden, P. B. 1961. The gypsy moth egg parasite, Ooencyrtus kuwanai, in southern Connecticut in 1960. J. econ. Ent. 54: 876–878.Google Scholar
Franz, J. M., and Laux, W.. 1964 (1965). Individual differences in Malacosoma neustria (L.). Proc. XII int. Congr. Ent., Vol. 6, pp. 393–394.Google Scholar
Fernald, C. H. 1896. The gypsy moth Porthetria dispar (L.) II. In The gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (Linn.). Wright and Potter, Boston.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R. 1934. Lymantria. Biblio. Genetica 11: 1–185.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, S. W. 1959. Number of fall generations of Oencyrtus kuwanae (How.) in gypsy moth eggs. J. econ. Ent. 52: 764–765.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1966. Differences in development of strains of the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.). Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn Bull. 680.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1967. Silking behavior of the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.). Can. Ent. 99: 1145–1149.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1968. Effects of density of larvae on the biology of the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.). Ent. exp. appl. 11: 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D. E. The effects of starvation on the behavior, number of larval instars, and developmental rate of Porthetria dispar. J. Insect Physiol. In press.Google Scholar
Leonard, D. E., and Doane, C. C.. 1966. An artificial diet for the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59: 462–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maksimovic, M. 1958. Experimental research on the influence of temperature upon the development and the population dynamics of the gypsy moth, (Liparis dispar L.). Posebno Izdanje Bioloskog Inst. NR Srbije 3.Google Scholar
Trans. from Serbo-Croatian, 1963. OTS 61–11203.Google Scholar
Strangeways-Dixon, J. 1962. The relationship between nutrition, hormones and reproduction in the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala (Meig.). III. The corporus allatum in relation to nutrition, the ovaries, innervation and corporus cardiacum. J. exp. Biol. 39: 293–306.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1957. Individual differences as a factor in population dynamics: the development of a problem. Can. J. Zool. 35: 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1960. Qualitative changes in natural populations during changes in abundance. Can. J. Zool. 38: 289–314.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1962. Population quality and the maintenance of nuclear-polyhedrosis virus between outbreaks of Malacosoma pluviale (Dyar). J. Insect Path. 4: 285–305.Google Scholar
Wellington, W. G. 1965. Some maternal influences on progeny quality in the western tent caterpillar, Malacosoma pluviale (Dyar). Can. Ent. 97: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, W. G., and Maelzer, D. A.. 1967. Effects of farnesyl methyl ether on the production of the western caterpillar, Malacosoma pluviale: Some physiological, ecological, and practical implications. Can. Ent. 99: 249–263.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. 1965. The principles of insect physiology, pp. 54–64. Methuen, London.Google Scholar