Mie 60-6395 MURVOSH, Chad Michael
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received Mie 60-6395 MURVOSH, Chad Michael. AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE RIFFLE BEETLE PSEPHENUS HERRICKI (DeKAY) (COLEOPTERA: PSEPHENIDAE). The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1960 Zoology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE RIFFLE BEETLE PSEPHEMJS HERRICKI (DeKAY) (COLEOPTERA: PSEPHENIDAE) DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By CHAD MICHAEL MJEVOSH, B. S ., M. Sc. ****** The Ohio State University 1960 Approved by ' A dviser Department of Zoology and Entomology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to egress ray sincere appreciation to Dr. Ralph Ho Davidson of The Ohio State University, for his advice and supervision of this investigation. I also wish to thank Dr. Milton W. Sanderson, Dr. Richard D. Alexander, Dr. Frank N. Young, Professor Josef N. Knull, Dr. Hugh B. Leech, Dr. H. J. Relnhard, Dr. Glenn B. Wiggins, Dr. Henry F. Howden, Dr. 0. L. Cartwright, Dr. Paul Spangler, Dr. J. F. Gates Clarke, Paul Freytag, and Edwin Hazard for their aid in helping me to understand the geographic dis tribution of the genus Psephenus. I am indebted to Dr. John W. Crites who examined adult and larval specimens of P. herricki for parasites. Sincere appreciation is also extended to Dr. Frank W. Fisk, Dr. Alvah Peterson, Dr. Willard C. Myser, Dr. Dwight M. DeLong, Dr. Charles A. Dambach, Dr. David H. Stansberry, Dr. Clarence E. Taft, and Dr. T. H. Langlois, who helped in more ways than it is possible to express. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page In tro d u c tio n ........................................................................................... 1 Methods . 3 Sampling Larval Populations ........................................................... 4 Chemical Analysis of W ater .................................... 7 Physical Factors ............................................................................. 8 The Study A re a ................................................................... 12 Geographic Distribution ............................................................................. 16 Ecological Life H isto ry ............................................................................ 19 L a r v a e ............................................................................................................. 19 Description and Development ........................................................... 19 F o o d ............................................ 23 B e h a v i o r .................................... 24 Ecological Distribution ....................... 32 S u r v i v a l ................................................................................................... 43 Pupae ....................................................................................... 52 Description ..... ......................................................................... 52 Ecological Distribution .................................................................... 52 S u r v i v a l .................................................................................................... 54 A d u l t s ............................................................................................................. 56 Ecological Distribution ..................................................................... 56 i i i Page E g g s ............................................ 65 Description and Development ..................................................... 65 Ecological Distribution . .................................................................. 66 D i s c u s s i o n ............................................................................................................. 72 Summary ........................................................................................................... 81 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 85 iv TABLES Page 1. Climatological data for Columbus, Ohio, 1959 ................... 13 2. Relationship between the number of larvae on a rock and the relative position of the r o c k ............................................. ................................................ 30 3. Chemical conditions of habitats at Hayden Gorge . 36 v FIGURES Page 1. Field data record card ................................................. 11 2. The North American distribution of the genus Psephenus . 18 3. The larva of Pi herricki ..................................................................... 21 4. Total length measurements of water penny larvae .... 22 5. Graph of the relative numbers of P. herricki larvae in three habitats at Hayden Gorge .................................... 34 6. Map of the Hayden Gorge habitats .............................................. 35 7. Habitats at Hayden Gorge before flood . ............................. 46 8. Habitats at Hayden Gorge during flood .................... 47 9. Habitats at Hayden Gorge after flood ......................................... 48 10. An adult P. herricki .............................................................................. 57 v i INTRODUCTION Any ecological study is of necessity very broad. The in vestigator, in approaching a problem, cannot set sharp lim its to the areas to be investigated. Many subjects will require study if the worker ever hopes to weave together the solution to a particular problem. This applies to any study but is especially true if the study is ecological in nature, since ecology is more directly con cerned with the interaction of variables. This study represents an attempt to understand and explain the macrohabitat and microhabitat distribution of a species of aquatic insect. The answers to two questions were sought: (l) What is the habitat distribution of the life stages of the water penny Psephenus herricki? (2) What factors cause such a distribution? The question may be r e s ta te d : Where does Psephenus h e r r ic k i li v e and why? Preliminary field work showed that the larvae of this species are not restricted to any definite type of aquatic habitat. They could be found in lakes and in riffles, runs, and pool areas of various types of streams. Qualitative sampling indicated that the greatest numbers were found in stream riffle areas. Sampling was then continued throughout the study on a quantitative basis to determine whether such was actually the case and what factor or factors were responsible for such a distribution. Quantitative data were supplemented by various laboratory experiments and by qualita tive observations both in the laboratory and in the field. Life history data were collected to supplement existing information. 1 There exists very little information concerning the water beetles of the family Psephenidae. Much of this is taxonomic in nature; very few biological studies have been done. This group of water beetles and others related to it have suffered a number of name changes. The old family name Parnidae included the three sub families Psepheninae, Parninae, and Elminae. Leng (1920) raised each of these to family rank but designated Elmidae as Helmidae. West (1929 b), in a study of larval anatomy, preserves the family name of Dryopidae and includes in it the subfamilies Psepheninae, Dryopinae, and Elminae. Edwards (1949) retains Leng’s classifica ti o n . The water penny P. herricki was originally discribed as a crustacean or as West (1929 b) states: "DeKay (1844) makes the unhappy blunder of describing the larva of Psephenus lecontei Lee, as a new species of crustacean Fluvicola herricki. the identity of which is finally set right by LeConte (1839, 1850),w The species 1181116 £ .* berricki takes priority over P. lecontei. Few papers have been published on the biology of P. herricki. Most of these consist of life history notes. Hubbard (1880) and Leng (1894) were among the first to record short observations on the biology of this species. Matheson (1914) published the first major contribution on the life history of this insect. The only major publication since then is West’s (1929a) life history study. Schafer (1950) contributed to our knowledge of this insect by providing additional information concerning life history and food habits. This study was part of a master's thesis but does not appear to have been published. METHODS P. herricki larvae are not restricted to any one given stream habitat and the abundance of larvae appeared to be in the form of a gradient decreasing from riffles to run areas. It was assumed that one factor or a combination of the various chemical, physical, or biotic factors in the streams could be shown to be responsible for effecting the habitat distribution of this species. It was then de cided to measure these factors on a quantitative comparative basis, e.g., how do these factors in a run habitat compare with those in the riffle habitat immediately downstream? Data were collected on these aspects of the problem at two permanent sampling stations on two different streams, the Olentangy River and Hayden Run. Samples were collected from the different habitats at each station on the same day if at all possible. It later became convenient to designate that part of the run immediately above the riffle as an intermediate zone. The reason for this will be discussed later. These permanent stations provided much of the quantitative data collected for this study, but many observations were also recorded from