Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T00:57:55.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SPATIAL PATTERN AND DENSITY OF CTENICERA DESTRUCTOR AND HYPOLITHUS BICOLOR (COLEOPTERA: ELATERIDAE) IN SOIL IN SPRING WHEAT1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. F. Doane
J. F. Doane
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Determination of the spatial pattern and estimation of the density of egg, larval, and adult populations of Ctenicera destructor (Brown) and Hypolithus bicolor Eschscholtz were made by soil sampling, and for C. destructor adults, also by cages that collected the emerging adults in the spring. Eggs of both the above species and also those of Aeolus mellillus (Say), which were also found in the samples, were highly aggregated. Small C. destructor larvae were most highly aggregated and medium larvae less so; large larvae were usually randomly distributed. Unlike C. destructor, large H. bicolor larvae were more highly aggregated than either the small or medium bicolor larvae. Sampling by emergence cages showed that C. destructor adults were aggregated while sampling by soil cores showed them to be randomly distributed. The different result obtained by the two methods was attributed to the difference in the size of the sampling unit. Aggregation was detected in 29% of the H. bicolor adult population sampled by soil cores only.

Larval densities of C. destructor ranged from a low of 0.25 to a high of 1.46 per sample unit (81 cm2) over the 14-year period that samples were taken; densities of H. bicolor ranged from 0.16 to 0.64. Densities of C. destructor and H. bicolor adults averaged about 6 (range 1–16) % and 12 (0–27) % of the total population of larvae and adults for each respective species. Population composition, in terms of adults and larvae of different sizes, and population fluctuations are discussed.

The relation between density and the number of sampling units required to achieve four levels of margin of error at four levels of statistical significance was determined.

No satisfactory transformation was found for data of individual samples with a mean less than 1. Several common transformations, including Taylor’s power transformation, were satisfactory for stabilizing the variance of pooled samples.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 6 , June 1977 , pp. 807 - 822
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

REFERENCES

Andersen, F. S. 1965. The negative binomial distribution and the sampling of insect populations. Proc. XII int. Congr. Ent., p. 395.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. 1942. Statistical and ecological studies on the distribution of species in plant communities. Ann. Bot. (N.S.) 6: 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrage, R. H. 1963. Seasonal feeding of larvae of Ctenicera destructor and Hypolithus bicolor (Coleoptera: Elateridae) on potatoes placed in the field at weekly intervals. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 56: 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrage, R. H. 1964. Trends in damage by wireworms (Coleoptera:Elateridae) in grain crops in Saskatchewan, 1954–1961. Can. J. Pl. Sci. 44: 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrage, R. H., Vibert, R. O., and MacLeod, M. N.. 1963. Note on a power operated soil sampler for field wireworm studies. Can. J. Pl. Sci. 43: 242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, J. F. 1961. Movement on the soil surface, of adult Ctenicera aeripennis destructor (Brown) and Hypolithus bicolor Esch. (Coleoptera: Elateridae), as indicated by funnel pitfall traps, with notes on captures of other arthropods. Can. Ent. 93: 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, J. F. 1963. Studies on oviposition and fecundity of Ctenicera destructor (Brown) (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Can. Ent. 95: 1145–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, J. F. 1967. The influence of soil moisture and some soil physical factors on the ovipositional behavior of the prairie grain wireworm, Ctenicera destructor. Ent. exp. appl. 10: 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doane, J. F. 1969. A method of separating the eggs of the prairie grain wireworm, Ctenicera destructor, from soil. Can. Ent. 101: 1002–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. 1941. Wireworm populations and their effect on crops. Ann. appl. Biol. 28: 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, E. G. and Ethridge, F. G.. 1972. A generalized set of discrete frequency distributions with Fortran program. Math. Geol. 4: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1961. Design of a sampling plan for studies on the population dynamics of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Can. Ent. 93: 820–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1965. Spatial pattern of the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni, on cruciers. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 58: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. W. 1937. Practical field methods of sampling for wireworms. J. agr. Res. 54: 123–134.Google Scholar
Kihlberg, J. K., Heron, J. H., and Schotz, W. E.. 1972. Square root transformation revisited. Appl. Stat. 21: 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, K. M. 1928. Economic importance of wireworms and false wireworms in Saskatchewan. Scient. Agric. 8: 693–706.Google Scholar
Miller, C. D. F., Mukerji, M. K., and Guppy, J. C.. 1972. Notes on the spatial pattern of Hypera postica (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on alfalfa. Can. Ent. 104: 1995–1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. 1963. Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.): IX. Spatial distribution. Bull. ent. Res. 54: 761–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morisita, M. 1959. Measuring the dispersion of individuals and analysis of the distributional patterns. Mem. Fac. Sci., Kyushu Univ. E (Biol.) 2: 215–235.Google Scholar
Mukerji, M. K. 1973. The development of sampling techniques for populations of the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae). Res. popul. Ecol. 15: 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onsager, J. A. and Day, A.. 1975. Distribution of wireworms (Conoderus spp.) in soil samples. J. Georgia ent. Soc. 10: 9–13.Google Scholar
Salt, C. and Hollick, F. S. J.. 1946. Studies of wireworm populations II. Spatial distribution. J. exp. Biol. 23: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1966. Ecological Methods: with particular reference to the study of insect populations. Methuen, London. 391 pp.Google Scholar
Strickland, E. H. 1935. The biology of prairie inhabiting wireworms. Proc. World's Grain Exhib. and Conf., 1933, 2: 520–529.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. 1961. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189: 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R. 1965. A natural law for the spatial disposition of insects. Proc. XII int. Congr. Ent., pp. 396–397.Google Scholar
Waters, W. E. 1959. A quantitative measure of aggregation in insects. J. econ. Ent. 52: 1180–1184.CrossRefGoogle 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
Willard, J. R. 1973. Soil invertebrates: II. Elateridae, population and biomass. CCIBP Matador Proj., Tech. Rep. 8. 53 pp.Google Scholar
Zacharuk, R. Y. 1958. Note on two forms of Hypolithus bicolor Esch. (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Can. Ent. 90: 567–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacharuk, R. Y. 1962. Distribution, habits and development of Ctenicera destructor (Brown) in Western Canada, with notes on the related species aeripennis (Kby.). Can. J. Zool. 40: 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar