DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Distribution of Acrididae in Central Oklahoma· Charles C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecological Distribution of Acrididae in Central Oklahoma· Charles C 67 ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ACRIDIDAE IN CENTRAL OKLAHOMA· CHARLES C. SMITH, Norman This report is a summary ot some ot the results ot studies dealing with biotic communities in central Oklahoma during 1938 and 1939. Only the data dealing with the Acrididae are included here. Complete reports are being pnblished elsewhere. It is ot practical importance tor the ecologist and the entomologist to know the correlation between various habitats and the distribution of species of Insects. From the standpoint ot community ecology, grasshop­ pers constitute an important component ot the tauna, since they have a direct influence on the plant life and provide tood for other animals ot the community. They constitute an important link in the transformation of plant tissues into animal material usable by other animals. In this study, quantitative collections and field observations were made of the grasshoppers in a number of different habitats. The data are summarized in Table 1, which is largely self explanatory. Well rec­ ognized communities are named from the dominant plants. Others are given a descriptive name. Climax situations yield a larger number of species but a smaller number of specimens than disturbed areas or seral stages. Overgrazed pastures in this region often show a type of vegetation similar to that of the short grass plains farther west and also an assemblage of grass­ hoppers of western affinities. At the same time many ot the eastern species found in the mixed-grass prairie survive in overgrazed areas and these, in addition to geophilous species which increase in number, cause an increase both in species and specimens from such areas. In 1938, from normal, undisturbed prairie, there were taken 25 species and 649 speci­ mens, from overgrazed areas, 35 species and 1746 specimens. Midseral stages in succession showed a much higher number of specimens than either pioneer communities on abandoned, eroded land or climax prairie. From pioneer stages were taken 14 species and 327 specimens, from mid­ seral communities 22 species and 814 specimens and as was mentioned above, 25 species and 649 specimens from the native prairie. Bunch-grass sand-prairie yielded the largest number ot specimens ot any ot the stations in 1938, 18 species and 2154 specimens being taken there. Some species ot grasshoppers are governed in their distribution by the character ot the soil surface, that is, whether exposed or covered by vegetation, and the physical character of the soil, that is, whether loam, fine sand, coarse sand or clay. Other species are associated with certain species of plants and are distributed in accordance with these plants. Still others are limited in their distribution by a combination of the factors mentioned. Difference in plant communities under the same climatic con­ ditions is usually due to edaphic factors. As is 11lustrated in Table 1, most species are associated with speciflc types of plant associations al· though they may be present in small numbers In other communities. The work of Vestal (1913) on the local distribution of grasshoppers In rela- • Contribution No. 223 from the Zoological Laboratories, University ot Ok­ lahoma. .8 PROCEEDINGS OIo~ THE OKLAHOMA tfOD to plant auocJatlons showed that certain species are more restricted In rauce of habitats than are others. He found that no two plant asso­ CIaU0D8 bad Identical graubopper assemblages and that no two grass­ hoppen have Identical habitat preferences. 11817 (1937) .tudied the seaaonal succession and BOil relations of north­ eutern Teus acridlans and found that in certain instances succession is determined b7 specific food plants but chiefly Is determined by Interrela­ tlou re-ultlng from vegetation cover and climate. In other words grass­ hoppers are a part of the biotic community in which they occur and their preaence i8 due to factors of the habitat. Weue (1939), Smith (1940). and Coyner (1939) have shown that when overgrazing bas eliminated the taller components of the mixed-grass prairie, ,hort grasses become dominant and that species of acridians char­ acter1ltic of the short-grass plains to the west invade and become import­ ant. Oeophllous species al80 increase in abundance because of the in­ crease in the total amount of exposed soil surface. Smith (1940) traced biotic succession on abandoned. eroded farmland and found that Melanophl" cU!1erenUali8 was the most important acridian In pioneer communitlee. M. conlt1.BtU. Mermjrta mac1IUpennia and Hippi8CV8 nt,go.G in midseral stages and 8l1rbtda aclmtrabiliB, M. con!us1ls and M. jHlCkclrcJ" in the mixed-grass prairie cUmax community. The eeaaonal succession of most acridians found in the prairie region of central Oklahoma was followed by Acker (1939) who also made obser­ vations on the ecological distribution of the various species. BIBLIOGRAPHY Acker, G.. 1939. Seasonal succession of grasshoppers in central Oklahoma. Theeis, University of Oklahoma. Coyner. W•• 1939. Effect ot overgrazing on the acrididae. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 19:83-86. IlelY. F. B.. 1987. Seasonal succession. soil relations. numbers and regional distribution ot northeastern Texas acridians. Ecol. Mon. 7:319­ 3.3. Smith, C. C.. 1940. Biotic and physiographic succession on abandoned eroded farmland in central Oklahoma. Ecol. Mono. 10. No.3, (in press) Smith, C. C.. 19.0-6. The effect of overgrazing on the biota of the mixed­ grass prairie in Oklahoma. Ecology 21, (in press) Vestal, A. G., 1913. Local diBtribution of grasshoppers in relation to plant &88OClatfons. Bio. Bull. 26:H1-180. Weese, A. 0., 1939. The effect of overgrazing on insect populations. Proc. Okla. Acad. Set 19:96-99. ACADEKY OF SCIENCE FOR 111. TABLE 1 EcoJoI/kal (Jutriklto. 01 '''e wno.. a~ 01 AcridUGe 'ft cnt,.., OWGAowa. ABCDEFGHIJKLKN PBoloessa texana (Scudder) 3 J 1 Dlchromorpha viridis (Scudder) 321 Schlstocerca damnttica Sau88ure 3 Schistocerca americana (Drury) 2 2 1 131 2 1 Arphla xanthoptera (Burme18ter) 3 2 2 1 1 2 Acrolophitls hirtlpes (Say) 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 Chortophaga viridttasciata (De Geer) 3 1 1 1 1 3 Hlppiscus rugoeus (Scudder) 1 Z 1 2 1 8 1 a Pardalophora sau88urel (SCudder) 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 Arphla simplex Scudder 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 J Melanoplu8 t.r. femur rubrum (De Geer) 3 2 2 1 Melanoplus keelerl (Thomas) 3 Melanoplus contusus Scudder 2 2 2 8 2 2 3 3 2 1 Melanoplu8 packardU Scudder 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 Melanoplus foedu8 fiuviatllis Bruner 2 2 1 1 1 3 Melanoplu8 blvittatus (say) 132 1 221 2 Melanoplus ponderosu8 (Scudder) 822 Melanoplus bispmosu8 SCudder III Melanoplus mexicanus (sau88ure) 1 1 3 Melanoplus angustipenni8 Implger Scudder 3 1 311 Melanoplus regalfs (Dodge) 132 MelanopluB dlfferentia118 (Thomas) 1 121 1 a 1 Amphltornus c. coloradus (Thomas) 2 3 2 2 Leprus wheelerl (Thomas) 2 1 Hesperotettlx viridis pratensis Scudder 2 2 1 2 Hesperotettlx speclosus (Scudder) 1 1 1 133 2 1 Hesperotettlx v. viridis (Tbomas) 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 Opeia o. obscura (Thomas) 3 2 1 a Boopedon gracile Rehn 2 2 3 2 Orphulelia speclosa Scudder 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 Syrbula admlrabUis (Uhler) 2 2 a 2 2 2 1 1 8 Mermirta maculfpennls Bruner 232 2 2 2 1 2 1 .Agenotettlx d. deorum (Scudder) 1 2 3 2 121 3 Eritettix simplex (Scudder) 2 2 Dissostelra carolina (Linnaeus) 1 2 1 Diss08telra longJpennis (Thomas) 2 1 Pblltbostroma quadrlmaculatum 2 3 3 (Thomas) Brachystola magna (Girard) 2 3 Spharagemon equale (Say) 3 1 3 1 222 Spharagemon collare (Scudder) 2 3 2 2 223 Hadrotettlx trlfasciatus (Say) 3 2 1 2 2 Arphia consperaa Scudder 3 213 Trlmerotropls p. pallldipennis 2 1 (Burmeister) Trachyrhachls kiowa fuscUabrls 2 3 (Thomaa) Schistocerca lIneata SCudder 1 2 2 3 Schistocerca obscura (Fabricius) 2 LeptyBma ma.rg1nicoUis (8ervI11e) a Paratettlx cucullatus (Burmelater) 8 ( A) saftiiD&ii (QUercu-mckoi'l&-ADdropogon auoctation). (ti) Mid-cra- prab18 (ARdropo,ma aCOJ)Clnu-BotJtelotwJ e-rtlpendtd4 auoclatlon), (0) JIUu4-cra­ prairie (A. aCOj'HJriu- B. c.rllpett4wl4-B. Mra.t4-Bucbloe aMOCIatlon), .(D) OYer­ grued pastures (B. hirnt4-Buchloe-Amphlachyr1e), (E) Short-grau pralrle (B. " ....t4-Buehloe), (F) Subcllmu pralrte (Andropogon colUlOClee), (0) Seral stagee on eroded B011 (AriaUda ueoeIee), (H) Pioneer stag.. on eroded 100 (lOIed-weed aaoctes), (I) Bunch-grasa 8and-pralrte (Panlcum-Androposon .... elation) (J) Sandy flood plabul (Tamarlx-8al1x aMOCIes), (K) 8edce flag, (L} Water's edp, (M) Pioneer stage on uneroded eo11, (N) Bermuda ...... aod..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spatial Vision in Band-Winged Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Oedipodinae)
    Spatial vision in band-winged grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Oedipodinae) A Senior Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Organismal Biology and Ecology, Colorado College By Alexander B. Duncan Bachelor of Arts Degree in Organismal Biology and Ecology May, 2017 Approved by: _________________________________________ Dr. Nicholas Brandley Primary Thesis Advisor ________________________________________ Dr. Emilie Gray Secondary Thesis Advisor ABSTRACT Visual acuity, the ability to resolve fine spatial details, can vary dramatically between and within insect species. Body-size, sex, behavior, and ecological niche are all factors that may influence an insect’s acuity. Band-winged grasshoppers (Oedipodinae) are a subfamily of grasshoppers characterized by their colorfully patterned hindwings. Although researchers have anecdotally suggested that this color pattern may attract mates, few studies have examined the visual acuity of these animals, and none have examined its implications on intraspecific signaling. Here, we compare the visual acuity of three bandwing species: Dissosteira carolina, Arphia pseudonietana, and Spharagemon equale. To measure acuity in these species we used a modified radius of curvature estimation (RCE) technique. Visual acuity was significantly coarser 1) in males compared to females, 2) parallel to the horizon compared to the perpendicular, and 3) in S. equale compared to other bandwings. Unlike many insect families, body size within a species did not correlate with visual acuity. To examine the functional implications of these results, we modeled the appearance of different bandwing patterns to conspecifics. These results suggest that hind- wing patterning could only be used as a signal to conspecifics at short distances (<50cm). This study furthers the exploration of behavior and the evolution of visual systems in bandwings.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site a Report to the U
    Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site A report to the U. S. Army and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service G. J. Michels, Jr., J. L. Newton, H. L. Lindon, and J. A. Brazille Texas AgriLife Research 2301 Experiment Station Road Bushland, TX 79012 2008 Report Introductory Notes The invertebrate survey in 2008 presented an interesting challenge. Extremely dry conditions prevailed throughout most of the adult activity period for the invertebrates and grass fires occurred several times throughout the summer. By visual assessment, plant resources were scarce compared to last year, with few green plants and almost no flowering plants. Eight habitats and nine sites continued to be sampled in 2008. The Ponderosa pine/ yellow indiangrass site was removed from the study after the low numbers of species and individuals collected there in 2007. All other sites from the 2007 survey were included in the 2008 survey. We also discontinued the collection of Coccinellidae in the 2008 survey, as only 98 individuals from four species were collected in 2007. Pitfall and malaise trapping were continued in the same way as the 2007 survey. Sweep net sampling was discontinued to allow time for Asilidae and Orthoptera timed surveys consisting of direct collection of individuals with a net. These surveys were conducted in the same way as the time constrained butterfly (Papilionidea and Hesperoidea) surveys, with 15-minute intervals for each taxanomic group. This was sucessful when individuals were present, but the dry summer made it difficult to assess the utility of these techniques because of overall low abundance of insects.
    [Show full text]
  • Forms of Melanoplus Bowditchi (Orthoptera: Acrididae) Collected from Different Host Plants Are Indistinguishable Genetically and in Aedeagal Morphology
    Forms of Melanoplus bowditchi (Orthoptera: Acrididae) collected from diVerent host plants are indistinguishable genetically and in aedeagal morphology Muhammad Irfan Ullah1,4 , Fatima Mustafa1,5 , Kate M. Kneeland1, Mathew L. Brust2, W. Wyatt Hoback3,6 , Shripat T. Kamble1 and John E. Foster1 1 Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA 2 Department of Biology, Chadron State College, Chadron, NE, USA 3 Department of Biology, University of Nebraska, Kearney, NE, USA 4 Current aYliation: Department of Entomology, University of Sargodha, Pakistan 5 Current aYliation: Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan 6 Current aYliation: Entomology and Plant Pathology Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA ABSTRACT The sagebrush grasshopper, Melanoplus bowditchi Scudder (Orthoptera: Acrididae), is a phytophilous species that is widely distributed in the western United States on sagebrush species. The geographical distribution of M. bowditchi is very similar to the range of its host plants and its feeding association varies in relation to sagebrush dis- tribution. Melanoplus bowditchi bowditchi Scudder and M. bowditchi canus Hebard were described based on their feeding association with diVerent sagebrush species, sand sagebrush and silver sagebrush, respectively. Recently, M. bowditchi have been observed feeding on other plant species in western Nebraska. We collected adult M. bowditchi feeding on four plant species, sand sagebrush, Artemisia filifolia, big sagebrush, A. tridentata, fringed sagebrush, A. frigidus, and winterfat, Kraschenin- Submitted 10 January 2014 nikovia lanata. We compared the specimens collected from the four plant species for Accepted 17 May 2014 Published 10 June 2014 their morphological and genetic diVerences. We observed no consistent diVerences among the aedeagal parameres or basal rings among the grasshoppers collected Corresponding author W.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Characters
    40 Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation: Final Report Leon C. Hinz Jr. and James N. Zahniser Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois 30 April 2015 INHS Technical Report 2015 (31) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number T-88-R-001) Unrestricted: for immediate online release. Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Brian D. Anderson, Interim Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Geoffrey A. Levin, Acting Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. Project Number: T-88-R-001 Contractor information: University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Project Period: 1 October 2013—31 September 2014 Principle Investigator: Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Stream Ecologist Illinois Natural History Survey One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-8297 [email protected] Prepared by: Leon C. Hinz Jr. & James N. Zahniser Goals/ Objectives: (1) Review all SGNC listing criteria for currently listed non-mollusk invertebrate species using criteria in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, (2) Assess current status of species populations, (3) Review criteria for additional species for potential listing as SGNC, (4) Assess stressors to species previously reviewed, (5) Complete draft updates and revisions of IWAP Appendix I and Appendix II for non-mollusk invertebrates. T-88 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthoptera: Acrididae
    FOOD PLAOT PREFERENCES OF GRASSHOPPERS (ORTOOPTERAt ACRIDIDAE) OF SELECTED PLANTED PASTURES IN EASTERN KANSAS by JAMES DALE LAMBLEY B. S., Kansas State University, ftonhattan, 1965 A THESIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Entomology Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 1967 Approved byt Major Professor LP alW ii IP C-'-5- TABLE OF CONTENTS ^ INTRODUCTION • ^ REVIEV OF LITERATURE MTHRIALS AND METHODS ^ ^ Study Area '° Field and Laboratory Studies RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21 Acridinae 1 22 Oedipodinae ' 1 9S Cyrtacanthacridinae SUWJ'ARY 128 LITERAPJRS CITED. 131 ACKKO'.VLEDGKENTS '•^® APPENDIX 1^° INTOODUCnON The purpose of this study, near Manhattan, Kansas, during 1965 and 1966, was to increase knowledge of the feeding and behavior of grasshoppers in of the planted (tame) pastures. Emphasis was placed on the feeding habits more common species. Great Grasshoppers have long been considered serious plant pests in the of rangelands Plains area of the United States. Loss in production potential (including pasture grass and other forage) has been estimated to be not include $80,000,000 per year for 1959 and 1960 (Anon., 1965). This does funds spent for grasshopper control. methods of Consequently, m-jch of the research has been directed towards biology immediate direct control. Little basic research dealing with the less on and ecology of grasshoppers of rangeland has been done and even from such planted pasture species. Neglect in basic research has resulted from cropland; factors as (l) lower economic return from grassland than than in cropland: and, (2) insect damage is often less apparent in grassland intensive (3) recent recognition of grasslands as resources deserving scientific investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sexual Dimorphism in the Spatial Vision of Band-Winged Grasshoppers 2 Alex B
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.18.303784; this version posted September 24, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 A sexual dimorphism in the spatial vision of band-winged grasshoppers 2 Alex B. Duncan1, Brae A. Salazar1, Sara R. Garcia2, and Nicholas C. Brandley2,1,* 3 4 1: Colorado College, Department of Organismal Biology & Ecology, 14 E, W Cache La Poudre 5 St., Colorado Springs CO 80903, USA 6 2: College of Wooster, Department of Biology, 1189 Beall Ave, Wooster OH 44691, USA 7 *: corresponding author: [email protected] 8 9 Abstract 10 Visual acuity (VA) --- a measurement of the fineness or coarseness of vision --- 11 correlates with the size of an animal, with larger species often possessing sharper vision. 12 However, it is unknown whether the same relationship between visual acuity and size holds 13 within a species when individuals differ consistently and substantially in size, such as through a 14 sexual size dimorphism. Here we examine the visual acuity of three species of sexually 15 dimorphic band-winged grasshoppers, in which females are the larger sex (Arphia 16 pseudonietana, Dissosteira carolina, and Spharagemon equale; total n = 98). Using a radius of 17 curvature estimation method, we find that females have ~21% finer vision in the most acute 18 region and axis of the eye than do males. Further explorations of the eyes of the species 19 showing the greatest size dimorphism (D. carolina) suggest that this VA dimorphism is driven by 20 females having larger eyes with more ommatidia.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook
    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinon Canyon Report 2007
    IIInnnvvveeerrrttteeebbbrrraaattteee DDDiiissstttrrriiibbbuuutttiiiooonnn aaannnddd DDDiiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy AAAsssssseeessssssmmmeennnttt aaattt ttthhheee UUU... SSS... AAArrrmmmyyy PPPiiinnnooonnn CCCaaannnyyyooonnn MMMaaannneeeuuuvvveeerrr SSSiiittteee PPPrrreeessseeennnttteeeddd tttooo ttthhheee UUU... SSS... AAArrrmmmyyy aaannnddd UUU... SSS... FFFiiissshhh aaannnddd WWWiiillldddllliiifffeee SSSeeerrrvvviiicceee BBByyy GGG... JJJ... MMMiiiccchhheeelllsss,,, JJJrrr...,,, JJJ... LLL... NNNeeewwwtttooonnn,,, JJJ... AAA... BBBrrraaazzziiilllllleee aaannnddd VVV... AAA... CCCaaarrrnnneeeyyy TTTeeexxxaaasss AAAgggrrriiiLLLiiifffeee RRReeessseeeaaarrrccchhh 222333000111 EEExxxpppeeerrriiimmmeeennnttt SSStttaaatttiiiooonnn RRRoooaaaddd BBBuuussshhhlllaaannnddd,,, TTTXXX 777999000111222 222000000777 RRReeepppooorrttt 1 Introduction Insects fill several ecological roles in the biotic community (Triplehorn and Johnson 2005). Many species are phytophagous, feeding directly on plants; filling the primary consumer role of moving energy stored in plants to organisms that are unable to digest plant material (Triplehorn and Johnson 2005). Insects are responsible for a majority of the pollination that occurs and pollination relationships between host plant and pollinator can be very general with one pollinator pollinating many species of plant or very specific with both the plant and the pollinator dependant on each other for survival (Triplehorn and Johnson 2005). Insects can be mutualist, commensal, parasitic or predatory to the benefit or detriment
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Some of the Common Grasshoppers of the Front Range of Colorado
    Field guide to some of the common grasshoppers of the Front Range of Colorado Instructions: The following guide presents the grasshopper species most commonly found along an elevational gradient from the plains of Boulder, Colorado, to the subalpine that lies to the west. Use this guide to identify the species that are found during each weekly sample at your designated site. This will help you determine whether climate change is impacting the timing to adulthood of each community. Grasshoppers of the Front Range There are 548 species of North American grasshoppers and 133 of these occur in Colorado. Only about a dozen of these species are considered important pests on rangelands, with five of these causing most problems on crops. Within the Front Range of Colorado, 72 species can be found, although most are relatively uncommon. The most commonly encountered species along our lower foothills (1752m) to subalpine (3000 m) transect can be placed into 3 groups (subfamilies); Gomphocerinae, Melanoplinae and Oedipodinae. The Gomphocerinae (slant-faced grasshoppers) are grass specialists that tend to be small and are the grasshoppers commonly heard in meadows chorusing during the day. The Melanoplinae (spur-throated grasshoppers) are the most commonly encountered grasshoppers and are primarily forb feeders. Melanoplinae are small (but some can be large) and several of these species tend to be short winged and cannot actively fly, They do not chorus. Most of the Oedipodinae (banded-winged grasshoppers) tend to be grass feeders or herbivorous (both grass and forb feeding) and are rarely solely forb feeders. These grasshoppers are commonly found in open areas where they bask and display, they vary considerably in size, and are all active fliers that often use their wings to make loud clicking sounds.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Orthoptera of Ohio
    Mar., 1904.] A List of the Orthoptera of Ohio. 109- A LIST OF THE ORTHOPTERA OF OHIO.* CHARGES S. MEAD. A little over a year ago the writer, at the suggestion of Prof. Herbert Osborn, began to work over the Orthoptera in the Entomological collection at the Ohio State University, with a view of eventually publishing a list of those found in Ohio. During the spring and fall, collecting was done in central Ohio and during the summer in northern Ohio, mostly in the neighborhood of Sandusky. Heretofore, very little work has been done on the grasshoppers of Ohio and nothing published. Very few references are found in the literature to Orthoptera collected in this state. The Orthoptera, in general, reach their adult condition in late summer and early fall, only a few species maturing and dying before the first of August. Some of the species listed below are fairly common in parts of Ohio and others are quite scarce. Syrbula admirabilis (Uhler). This is a southern form with its northern range about the center af Ohio. On September 23 three females were captured at Buckeye Lake. Orphulella speciosa (Scudder). Blatchley reports having captured but a single pair in Indiana, where it is quite scarce. Morse writes of its being common in the New England states. It is fairly plentiful in the vicinity of Columbus and Sandusky. Hippiscus rugosus (Scudder). On September 23, a coral winged form of this species was captured at Buckeye L,ake. It agrees with the descriptions of '' rugosus'' in all particulars except the color of the wings, which are usually lemon or orange.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners Natural Resources Board Approved August 2005 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acceptance September 2005 Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Governor Jim Doyle Natural Resources Board Gerald M. O’Brien, Chair Howard D. Poulson, Vice-Chair Jonathan P Ela, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Christine L. Thomas John W. Welter Stephen D. Willet Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Scott Hassett, Secretary Laurie Osterndorf, Division Administrator, Land Paul DeLong, Division Administrator, Forestry Todd Ambs, Division Administrator, Water Amy Smith, Division Administrator, Enforcement and Science Recommended Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” – John Muir The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. This publication can be made available in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio-tape, etc.) upon request. Please contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or call (608) 266-7012 for copies of this report. Pub-ER-641 2005
    [Show full text]
  • Kopulation Und Sexualethologie Von Rotflügeliger/Blauflügeliger
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Galathea, Berichte des Kreises Nürnberger Entomologen e.V. Jahr/Year: 2019 Band/Volume: 35 Autor(en)/Author(s): Mader Detlef Artikel/Article: Kopulation und Sexualethologie von Rotflügeliger/Blauflügeliger Ödlandschrecke, anderen Heuschrecken, Gottesanbeterin, anderen Fangschrecken, Mosaikjungfer, Prachtlibelle und anderen Libellen 121-201 gal athea Band 35 • Beiträge des Kreises Nürnberger Entomologen • 2019 • S. 121-201 Kopulation und Sexualethologie von Rotflügeliger/Blauflügeliger Ödlandschrecke, anderen Heuschrecken, Gottesanbeterin, anderen Fangschrecken, Mosaikjungfer, Prachtlibelle und anderen Libellen DETLEF MADER Inhaltsverzeichnis Seite Zusammenfassung ................................................................................................................................................. 124 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................ 124 Key Words .................................................................................................................................................................. 125 1 Kopulation und Sexualethologie von Insekten ................................................................ 125 1.1 Die wichtigsten Stellungen bei der Kopulation von Insekten ................................. 127 1.1.1 Antipodale
    [Show full text]