DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 39(2), 1985, 65-84

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 39(2), 1985, 65-84 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Volume 39 1985 Number 2 Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 39(2), 1985, 65-84 MAINTAINING SPECIES INTEGRITY BETWEEN SYMPATRIC POPULATIONS OF HYALOPHORA CECROPIA AND HYALOPHORA COLUMBIA (SATURNIIDAE) IN CENTRAL MICHIGAN JAMES P. TUTTLE 728 Coachman #4, Troy, Michigan 48083 ABSTRACT. The available literature suggests that Hyalophora cecropia and Hya­ lophora columbia have identical ethological requirements with respect to reproductive behavior and F j hybrids have often been produced in the laboratory. As a result, investi­ gators have long been puzzled by the rarity of natural hybrids since the two species occur sympatrically over much of the northern Great Lakes region. Field observations in Montcalm County, Michigan, identified a series of progressive barriers which operate to prevent hybridization. The prezygotic isolating mechanisms, seasonal isolation, daily allochronic flight behavior, and mechanical incompatibility re­ strict most of the interaction between the two species. However, when individuals oc­ casionally overcome those barriers and a successful hybrid mating occurs, several post­ zygotic isolating mechanisms are then tested. As a result of the overall effectiveness of these systems, the gene pool of each species is protected, thereby allowing the two species to co-exist. The large moths of the genus Hyalophora (Saturniidae) are repre­ sented by two species within the state of Michigan. The cecropia moth, Hyalophora cecropia (L.), is widely distributed, while Hyalophora co­ lumbia (S. I. Smith) is a much more localized species. When Moore (1955) published his checklist of the Michigan moths, he listed 18 county records for H. cecropia from such varied locales as Dickinson County in the western portion of the Upper Peninsula to metropolitan Wayne County in the southeastern portion of the Lower Peninsula. He also cited statewide adult capture dates ranging from 27 May to 5 August. l The author's recent review of additional material in public and private collections has increased to 48 the number of counties from which H. cecropia has been reported (Fig. 1). The pa- 1 The 5 August date is based upon a reared specimen probably maintained under artificial conditions. Such late dates are highly unlikely in nature. 66 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY COLUMBIA 0 CECROPIA FIG. 1. Distributional map of H. cecropia and H. columbia in Michigan. Montcalm County (darkened) is the site of the present study. rameters of the adult flight period were also expanded when wild capture dates as early as 22 May were discovered. The distribution of H. cecropia within the state is greatly enhanced by the acceptance of a wide array of larval foodplants. Tietz (1972) lists 75 specific larval food plant records, which include many of the native Michigan broadleaved trees and shrubs. This adaptability to varied plant communities is extremely important to a cosmopolitan species such as H. cecropia. Although there are still a number of counties from which H. cecropia has not been reported, this would appear to be due to a lack of col­ lecting. Based upon the adaptability of the species, the lack of rest ric- VOLUME 39, NUMBER 2 67 tive topographical barriers within the state and the distribution of ex­ isting county records, it is reasonable to assume that H. cecropia occurs in all of Michigan's 83 counties. In contrast to the large amount of data available on H. cecropia, the existing Michigan records of the distribution and flight period of H. columbia are extremely limited. Based exclusively on wild collected cocoons, Moore (1955) cited records for H. columbia from Lapeer, Montcalm, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. Since the pub­ lication of Moore's checklist there have been records from Ingham (Collins & Weast, 1961), Dickinson, Jackson, Livingston, Mecosta, Ne­ waygo (Ferguson, 1972), Clare, Menominee, Schoolcraft (M. C. Niel­ sen, in litt.), and Isabella counties (Ted Herig, pers. comm.) (Fig. 1). Most of these additional records are also based upon wild collected cocoons. In fact, prior to the present study, there were only six reports of H. columbia adults having been collected in Michigan. Three adults have been collected at light: a male collected in Menominee County on 10 June 1971; a female collected in Schoolcraft County on 21 June 1971; and a male (specimen lost) collected in Dickinson County (M. C. Niel­ sen, in litt.). In addition, in June 1978, single H. columbia males were attracted on each of three successive nights to a H. cecropia female in Montcalm County (Frank Hedges, pers. comm.). Unlike the widespread distribution of H. cecropia, the range of H. columbia is limited by its dependency on larch (Larix laricina) as the larval foodplant. Although there are records of H. columbia being reared in captivity on choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) (Collins & Weast, 1961) and weeping willow (Salix babylonica) (Norman Trem­ blay, pers. comm.), it is now generally accepted that the larvae feed exclusively on larch in nature. Many old food plant records were erroneously based on cocoons found attached to plants growing in association with larch. This is clearly reflected in the type description of H. columbia, when Smith (1863) cites "Nemopanthes canadensis and Rhodora canadensis" as larval food plants and only incidentally mentions larch as a possible alternate host. This can now be explained by the tendency of full-fed larvae to wander in search of an appropriate cocoon spinning site. In Michigan's Upper Peninsula larch abounds as a dominant tree species in conifer bog and swamp community associations (Barnes & Wagner, 1981). As a result of the widespread distribution of larch in this area, H. columbia should be expected to occur regularly. The relatively few records from this region are almost certainly due to limited collecting. The existing county records for H. columbia in Michigan's Lower 68 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Peninsula occur as two separate pockets which include seven counties in the southeast and five counties in the central portion of the penin­ sula, In these areas, larch occurs only in poorly drained "kettle hole" type situations. Such bogs may be isolated by several miles of unsuitable habitat and are historically very susceptible to human influence. An examination of specimens at the University of Michigan reveals several records for H. columbia from Wayne County prior to 1900. However, drainage and the resulting development have eliminated all of the suitable habitat. As a result, there are no records of H. columbia from Wayne County in this century. H. columbia populations in Michigan's Lower Peninsula are, there­ fore, restricted to those undisturbed areas where larch occurs in suffi­ cient numbers to effectively support the insect. One such locale is the Stanton State Game Area in Montcalm County (Fig. 1). In this area, which serves as the site of the present study, H. columbia occurs sym­ pat ric ally with H. cecropia. Within zones of contact between closely related species such as H. cecropia and H. columbia, effective mate recognition behavior must be established if both species are to co-exist over an extended period of time (Mayr, 1970). Yet, the available literature suggests that H. cecropia and H. columbia lack such discriminatory behavior. The existing data indicate that H. cecropia and H. columbia adults emerge at the same time of the year (Moore, 1955; Collins & Weast, 1961; Ferguson, 1972). Both species also mate during the hours im­ mediately preceding dawn (Collins & Weast, 1961; Ferguson, 1972). In addition, even the earliest breeders were able to obtain interspe­ cific Hyalophora hybrids in the laboratory (Morton, 1895; Soule, 1907). Since that time, almost all possible crosses, backcrosses, and reciprocal crosses have been attempted (Sweadner, 1937; Weast, 1959; Collins & Weast, 1961; Wright, 1971; Kohalmi & Moens, 1975). Investigators thus learned that congeneric males would readily re­ spond to calling2 non-specific females. Sweadner (1937) effectively ex­ ploited this ability by using H. cecropia females to attract wild H. columbia and H. gloveri nokomis (Brodie) males in western Ontario and Manitoba. More recently, H. cecropia females have been success­ fully used to attract wild H. columbia males in Manitoba (Collins, 1973), Ontario (Kohalmi & Moens, 1975), Quebec (Gilles Deslisle, pers. comm.), Wisconsin (Ferge, 1983), and Michigan (Frank Hedges, pers. comm.). Yet, in spite of these apparent behavioral similarities and the relative ease with which hybridization occurs in captivity, very few valid nat- 2 Extension of the ovipositor resulting in the release of a sexual pheromone. VOLUME 39, NUMBER 2 69 ural hybrids between H. cecropia and H. columbia have been reported. The author agrees with Ferguson (1972) who states, "Careful scrutiny of the literature reveals that at least some of the records of natural hybrids may be false, especially those based on cocoons only. Free­ man's experience of having a normal cecropia emerge from what looked like a hybrid cocoon on larch, already noted, casts suspicion on all reports based on cocoons of intermediate appearance." Ferguson (1972) does cite two records of hybrids emerging from cocoons collected in Mecosta County, Michigan, and Fraserburg, On­ tario. He also mentions a wild collected hybrid male collected on 13 June in Oakland County, Michigan. The author has examined a wild male collected on 17 June 1973, in Oakland County, Michigan, which appears to reflect a hybrid background. During the present study in Montcalm County, only one of 259 Hyalophora adults examined showed any hybrid influence. In the spring of 1981, the author observed the emergence of Hya­ lophora adults in outdoor cages in Ann Arbor, Michigan. An extended emergence pattern was observed in the caged H. cecropia adults. A comparison with the concentrated emergence of the H. columbia adults in the adjacent cage suggested partial temporal isolation. These obser­ vations supplied the impetus for the present study which offers data and discusses the reproductive isolating mechanisms which allow such closely related species to co-exist.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caterpillars Moths Butterflies Woodies
    NATIVE Caterpillars Moths and utter flies Band host NATIVE Hackberry Emperor oodies PHOTO : Megan McCarty W Double-toothed Prominent Honey locust Moth caterpillar Hackberry Emperor larva PHOTO : Douglas Tallamy Big Poplar Sphinx Number of species of Caterpillars n a study published in 2009, Dr. Oaks (Quercus) 557 Beeches (Fagus) 127 Honey-locusts (Gleditsia) 46 Magnolias (Magnolia) 21 Double-toothed Prominent ( Nerice IDouglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D, chair of the Cherries (Prunus) 456 Serviceberry (Amelanchier) 124 New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus) 45 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus) 19 bidentata ) larvae feed exclusively on elms Department of Entomology and Wildlife Willows (Salix) 455 Larches or Tamaracks (Larix) 121 Sycamores (Platanus) 45 Redbuds (Cercis) 19 (Ulmus), and can be found June through Ecology at the University of Delaware Birches (Betula) 411 Dogwoods (Cornus) 118 Huckleberry (Gaylussacia) 44 Green-briar (Smilax) 19 October. Their body shape mimics the specifically addressed the usefulness of Poplars (Populus) 367 Firs (Abies) 117 Hackberry (Celtis) 43 Wisterias (Wisteria) 19 toothed shape of American elm, making native woodies as host plants for our Crabapples (Malus) 308 Bayberries (Myrica) 108 Junipers (Juniperus) 42 Redbay (native) (Persea) 18 them hard to spot. The adult moth is native caterpillars (and obviously Maples (Acer) 297 Viburnums (Viburnum) 104 Elders (Sambucus) 42 Bearberry (Arctostaphylos) 17 small with a wingspan of 3-4 cm. therefore moths and butterflies). Blueberries (Vaccinium) 294 Currants (Ribes) 99 Ninebark (Physocarpus) 41 Bald cypresses (Taxodium) 16 We present here a partial list, and the Alders (Alnus) 255 Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya) 94 Lilacs (Syringa) 40 Leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne) 15 Honey locust caterpillar feeds on honey number of Lepidopteran species that rely Hickories (Carya) 235 Hemlocks (Tsuga) 92 Hollies (Ilex) 39 Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron) 15 locust, and Kentucky coffee trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawk Moths of North America Is Richly Illustrated with Larval Images and Contains an Abundance of Life History Information
    08 caterpillars EUSA/pp244-273 3/9/05 6:37 PM Page 244 244 TULIP-TREE MOTH CECROPIA MOTH 245 Callosamia angulifera Hyalophora cecropia RECOGNITION Frosted green with shiny yellow, orange, and blue knobs over top and sides of body. RECOGNITION Much like preceding but paler or Dorsal knobs on T2, T3, and A1 somewhat globular and waxier in color with pale stripe running below set with black spinules. Paired knobs on A2–A7 more spiracles on A1–A10 and black dots on abdomen cylindrical, yellow; knob over A8 unpaired and rounded. lacking contrasting pale rings. Yellow abdominal Larva to 10cm. Caterpillars of larch-feeding Columbia tubercle over A8 short, less than twice as high as broad. Silkmoth (Hyalophora columbia) have yellow-white to Larva to 6cm. Sweetbay Silkmoth (Callosamia securifera) yellow-pink instead of bright yellow knobs over dorsum similar in appearance but a specialist on sweet bay. Its of abdomen and knobs along sides tend to be more white than blue (as in Cecropia) and are yellow abdominal tubercle over A8 is nearly three times as set in black bases (see page 246). long as wide and the red knobs over thorax are cylindrical (see page 246). OCCURRENCE Urban and suburban yards and lots, orchards, fencerows, woodlands, OCCURRENCE Woodlands and forests from Michigan, southern Ontario, and and forests from Canada south to Florida and central Texas. One generation with mature Massachusetts to northern Florida and Mississippi. One principal generation northward; caterpillars from late June through August over most of range. two broods in South with mature caterpillars from early June onward.
    [Show full text]
  • PORTABLE OUTDOOR CAGES for MATING FEMALE GIANT SILKWORM MOTHS (SATURNIIDAE)L
    VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2 95 PORTABLE OUTDOOR CAGES FOR MATING FEMALE GIANT SILKWORM MOTHS (SATURNIIDAE)l THOMAS A. MILLER 2 AND WILLIAM J. COOPER ~ U. S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory, USAMBRDL BLDG 568, Fort Detrick, Maryland 21701 Like many lepidopterists who colonize and study the saturniids, we must find time apart from professional duties and other daily activities to pursue our interest in this family of moths. Therefore, our rearing methods must be both efficient and reliable if we are to accomplish any­ thing other than the mere maintenance of colonies. Although most of the saturniid species we have reared can be colonized for many genera­ tions without difficulty, we have at times had a particular problem obtain­ ing fertile eggs to perpetuate existing colonies or to begin new ones. This problem has been a function largely of limited available time to ensure the mating of females either by hand mating or by the use of indoor cages. For this reason we undertook an evaluation of methods for the routine, unattended mating of female saturniids indigenous to our area. We decided beforehand that the tying out of virgin females and the use of various-size stationary cages or traps (Collins & Weast, 1961; Quesada, 1967; Villiard, 1969) were not suitable to meet our requirements. Our approach, therefore, was to construct and test a series of portable out­ door cages that could be substituted locally for tying out or stationary cages and could also be easily transported for use in remote field areas. These cages were designed to minimize or prevent the escape of females placed therein while permitting pheromone-seeking males access for the purpose of copulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyalophora Cecropia): Morphological, Behavioral, and Biophysical Differences
    University of Massachusetts Medical School eScholarship@UMMS Neurobiology Publications and Presentations Neurobiology 2017-03-22 Dimorphic cocoons of the cecropia moth (Hyalophora cecropia): Morphological, behavioral, and biophysical differences Patrick A. Guerra University of Massachusetts Medical School Et al. Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/neurobiology_pp Part of the Neuroscience and Neurobiology Commons Repository Citation Guerra PA, Reppert SM. (2017). Dimorphic cocoons of the cecropia moth (Hyalophora cecropia): Morphological, behavioral, and biophysical differences. Neurobiology Publications and Presentations. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174023. Retrieved from https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/ neurobiology_pp/207 Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This material is brought to you by eScholarship@UMMS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Neurobiology Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of eScholarship@UMMS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESEARCH ARTICLE Dimorphic cocoons of the cecropia moth (Hyalophora cecropia): Morphological, behavioral, and biophysical differences Patrick A. Guerra¤*, Steven M. Reppert* Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America ¤ Current address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati,
    [Show full text]
  • Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs
    INSECTS THAT FEED ON COLORADO TREES AND SHRUBS1 Whitney Cranshaw David Leatherman Boris Kondratieff Bulletin 506A TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFOLIATORS .................................................... 8 Leaf Feeding Caterpillars .............................................. 8 Cecropia Moth ................................................ 8 Polyphemus Moth ............................................. 9 Nevada Buck Moth ............................................. 9 Pandora Moth ............................................... 10 Io Moth .................................................... 10 Fall Webworm ............................................... 11 Tiger Moth ................................................. 12 American Dagger Moth ......................................... 13 Redhumped Caterpillar ......................................... 13 Achemon Sphinx ............................................. 14 Table 1. Common sphinx moths of Colorado .......................... 14 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth ....................................... 15 1. Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension etnomologist and associate professor, entomology; David Leatherman, entomologist, Colorado State Forest Service; Boris Kondratieff, associate professor, entomology. 8/93. ©Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1994. For more information, contact your county Cooperative Extension office. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    [Show full text]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Saturniidae) Larvae on Various Plant Species
    212 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY FEEDING AND SURVIVAL OF CECROPIA (SATURNIIDAE) LARVAE ON VARIOUS PLANT SPECIES A. G. SCARBROUGH Department of Biology, Towson State College, Baltimore, ~1aryland 21204 AND G. P. WALDBAUER AND J. G. STERNBURG Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801 During the course of our studies of the cecropia moth, Hyalophora cecropia (L.), we found a large proportion of cocoons in low shrubs. We suspected that many of these shrubs, particularly species of Juniperus and Taxus, do not support larval growth, and that the presence of cocoons on them is evidence that pre-spinning larvae wandered to them from the foodplant. Most of the shrubs in question are not included on published lists of the hostplants of cecropia, but since this does not prove that cecropia larvae could not feed on them, we made the feeding trials described below. There is some doubt as to whether or not all of the species on the published "foodplant lists" of cecropia are actually eaten by cecropia larvae. Brodie's (1882) list is reliable since he included only plants on which larvae had been found feeding in the field. On the other hand, Marsh's (1937) list is of dubious value since he included plants on which he had found cocoons but had not seen larvae. Tietz (1958) compiled a long list, but, unfortunately, did not state the evidence upon which the plants were included. MA TERIALS AND METHODS Most cocoons were collected in residential areas, principally in the twin cities of Champaign and Urbana, Illinois, although a few were found in nearby small towns.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing 2010
    Fish & Wildlife Division Sustainable Resource Development Alberta Wild Species General Status Listing - 2010 Species at Risk ELCODE Group ID Scientific Name Common Name Status 2010 Status 2005 Status 2000 Background Lichens Cladonia cenotea Powdered Funnel Lichen Secure Cladonia cervicornis Lichens Ladder Lichen Secure verticillata Lichens Cladonia chlorophaea Mealy Pixie-cup Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia coccifera Eastern Boreal Pixie-cup Lichen Undetermined Lichens Cladonia coniocraea Common Pixie Powderhorn Secure Lichens Cladonia cornuta Bighorn Pixie Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia cornuta cornuta Bighorn Pixie Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia crispata Organpipe Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia cristatella British Soldiers Lichen Secure Cladonia Lichens Mealy Pixie-cup Lichen Undetermined cryptochlorophaea Lichens Cladonia cyanipes Blue-footed Pixie Lichen Sensitive Lichens Cladonia deformis Lesser Sulphur-cup Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia digitata Fingered Pixie-cup Lichen May Be At Risk Lichens Cladonia ecmocyna Orange-footed Pixie Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia fimbriata Trumpeting Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia furcata Forking Lichen Sensitive Lichens Cladonia glauca Glaucous Pixie Lichen May Be At Risk Lichens Cladonia gracilis gracilis Gracile Lichen May Be At Risk Lichens Cladonia gracilis turbinata Bronzed Lichen Secure Lichens Cladonia grayi Gray's Pixie-cup Lichen May Be At Risk Lichens Cladonia humilis Humble Pixie-cup Lichen Undetermined Lichens Cladonia macilenta Lipstick Powderhorn Lichen Secure Cladonia macilenta Lichens
    [Show full text]
  • Polyphemus Moth Antheraea Polyphemus (Cramer) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Saturniidae: Saturniinae)1 Donald W
    EENY-531 Polyphemus Moth Antheraea polyphemus (Cramer) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Saturniidae: Saturniinae)1 Donald W. Hall2 Introduction Distribution The polyphemus moth, Antheraea polyphemus (Cramer), Polyphemus moths are our most widely distributed large is one of our largest and most beautiful silk moths. It is silk moths. They are found from southern Canada down named after Polyphemus, the giant cyclops from Greek into Mexico and in all of the lower 48 states, except for mythology who had a single large, round eye in the middle Arizona and Nevada (Tuskes et al. 1996). of his forehead (Himmelman 2002). The name is because of the large eyespots in the middle of the moth is hind wings. Description The polyphemus moth also has been known by the genus name Telea, but it and the Old World species in the genus Adults Antheraea are not considered to be sufficiently different to The adult wingspan is 10 to 15 cm (approximately 4 to warrant different generic names. Because the name Anther- 6 inches) (Covell 2005). The upper surface of the wings aea has been used more often in the literature, Ferguson is various shades of reddish brown, gray, light brown, or (1972) recommended using that name rather than Telea yellow-brown with transparent eyespots. There is consider- to avoid confusion. Both genus names were published in able variation in color of the wings even in specimens from the same year. For a historical account of the polyphemus the same locality (Holland 1968). The large hind wing moth’s taxonomy see Ferguson (1972) or Tuskes et al. eyespots are ringed with prominent yellow, white (partial), (1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented Land Managers
    GYPSY MOTH (LYMANTRIA DISPAR): IMPACTS AND OPTIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY-ORIENTED LAND MANAGERS May 2004 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. A NatureServe Technical Report Citation: Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): Impacts and Options for Biodiversity- Oriented Land Managers. 59 pages. NatureServe: Arlington, Virginia. © 2004 NatureServe NatureServe 1101 Wilson Blvd., 15th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 www.natureserve.org Author’s Contact Information: Dr. Dale Schweitzer Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoologist NatureServe 1761 Main Street Port Norris, NJ 08349 856-785-2470 Email: [email protected] NatureServe Gypsy Moth: Impacts and Options for Biodiversity-Oriented Land Managers 2 Acknowledgments Richard Reardon (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV), Kevin Thorpe (Agricultural Research Service, Insect Chemical Ecology Laboratory, Beltsville, MD) and William Carothers (Forest Service Forest Protection, Asheville, NC) for technical review. Sandra Fosbroke (Forest Service Information Management Group, Morgantown, WV) provided many helpful editorial comments. The author also wishes to commend the Forest Service for funding so much important research and technology development into the impacts of gypsy moth and its control on non-target organisms and for encouraging development of more benign control technologies like Gypchek. Many, but by no means all, Forest Service-funded studies are cited in this document, including Peacock et al. (1998), Wagner et al. (1996), and many of the studies cited from Linda Butler and Ann Hajek. Many other studies in the late 1980s and 1990s had USDA Forest Service funding from the Appalachian Gypsy Moth Integrated Pest Management Project (AIPM).
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Artists, I Hope the Following List Will Inspire You and Enhance Your Appreciation of Our Diversity and Not Overwhelm You
    Dear Artists, I hope the following list will inspire you and enhance your appreciation of our diversity and not overwhelm you. Simply select a sampling of species which you believe will illustrate the particular biome (s) you have chosen. What criteria were used to choose these plants and animals? Characteristic species. Keystone species. Cool, beautiful or quite unique to the area. Interesting plant-animal relationship. Species in BOLD are definitely characteristic, but do not feel obligated to include all of them. (S) indicates they are portrayed on biome signs at the Highlands Center. Please remember copyright violations may result in disqualification from the competition. If an illustration can be recognized as derived from someone else's photograph or artwork, it is illegal unless it is in the public domain or if permission from the source person was obtained. Wishing you many hours of painting pleasure. Joan Dukes Some sites and ways to find images not needing copyright permission*: Google (enter the name of the plant or animal) settings (up above) Advanced search scroll down to usage rights Click not filtered by license Click free to use or share Click Advanced Search Google (enter the name of the plant or animal) images tools usage rights labeled for reuse or labeled for reuse with modification *Be aware some sites show many species that are totally unrelated to the one you googled. Go figure! https://cals.arizona.edu/yavapaiplants/ (It is safe to use any photos taken by Sue Smith.) https://www.thoughtco.com/paintings-from-photos-in-books-or-field-guides-2573675 Joan Dukes has many photos of plants and animals in the Central AZ Highlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. the Effects of Compsilura Concinnata, an Introduced Generalist Tachinid, on Non-Target Species in North America: a Cautionary Tale
    ASSESSING HOST RANGES OF PARASITOIDS AND PREDATORS _________________________________ CHAPTER 2. THE EFFECTS OF COMPSILURA CONCINNATA, AN INTRODUCED GENERALIST TACHINID, ON NON-TARGET SPECIES IN NORTH AMERICA: A CAUTIONARY TALE J. S. Elkinton and G. H. Boettner Deptartment of Plant, Soil and Insect Science: Division of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA [email protected] INTRODUCTION Classical biological control has long been a principal weapon in the worldwide effort to com- bat the devastating effects of invasive species. Classical biological control involves locating natural enemies of invasive species in their native range and releasing them in the newly invaded habi- tat. The premise of classical biological control is that invasive species out-compete native spe- cies and become major pest problems in large part because they have become isolated from the suite of natural enemies that keep them in check in their native habitat. There have been many successes worldwide in the classical biological control of both invasive weeds and invasive arthropods. The advantages of classical biological control over any other approach are obvi- ous and well known: the control exerted is typically permanent; it requires little or no further intervention; it is thus highly cost effective compared to mechanical removal or use of chemical pesticides, which must typically be applied repeatedly and are often infeasible in forests or other natural habitats. Classical biological control of invasive weeds has had a long history of evaluating the host range of candidates for introduction. The obvious reason is that herbivorous natural enemies might become important pests of agricultural crops or other beneficial plants.
    [Show full text]