Food Habits of Savannah and Grasshopper Sparrows in Relation to Foods Available

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Food Habits of Savannah and Grasshopper Sparrows in Relation to Foods Available This dissertation has been G2—2131 microfilmed exactly as received DIELERY, Dean George, 1928- FOOD HABITS OF SAVANNAH AND GRASSHOPPER SPARROWS IN RELATION TO FOODS AVAILABLE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 19G1 Zoology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan FOOD HABITS OF SAVANNAH AND GRASSHOPPER SPARROWS IN RELATION TO FOODS AVAILABLE DISSERTATION Praaantad in Partial Fulfillaant of tha Raquiraaanta for tha Dagraa Doctor of Fhiloaophy in tha Oraduata School of Tha Ohio Stata Univaraitj By DEAN GEOROE DILLERYt B. Sc., M. Sc. Tha Ohio Stata UniTaraity 19*1 Approvad by Fiaar Dapartaant*"bf Zoology and Entoaology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge and thank Dr* D. J. Borror for his help and advice and particularly for the nany suggestions which he offered. I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in providing the contents of l*t2 sparrow stonachs for ay exaaination. ii CONTENTS Pago INTRODUCTION..................................................... 1 METHODS ....................................................... 4 Study i r t u ................................................. ^ Bird Collections ............................. 5 Insect Collections ...................................... 9 Observations ............................................ 11 RESULTS........................................................ 12 General Observations .... ........................... 12 Weight and Caecal Length............................. 12 Parasites and Abnormalities ....................... 12 Digestive Processes ................................ 13 Feeding of Toung....................... 14 Foraging Behavior..........................................14 Materials Eaten..................... 16 Total Food Consumption............................... 16 Size of Materials Eaten ............................. 23 Intraspecific Variation ........................... 23 Interspecific Comparisons ..................... ..32 DISCUSSION..................................................... 43 SUMMARY ........................................................ 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................... 51 AUTOBIOGRAPHY ................................................ 57 iii TABLES Table Page 1. Number of Sparrows Utilized in this Study ................ 7 2. Comparison of Sweep Samples with Observations in a Hay F i e l d .................................................... 11 3. Bird Weights (in g r a m s ) .................................. 12 4. Food Materials Found in 162 Savannah Sparrows ..... 17 5» Food Materials Found in 91 Grasshopper Sparrows .... 20 6. Materials Eaten by Savannah and Grasshopper SparrowB. 23 7. Comparison of Orthoptera per Bird with Orthoptera per Sweep in Savannah Sparrows............................... 26 8. Numbers of Food Items of 11 Savannah Sparrows Taken from a Hay Field on July 13* 1961, Calhoun Co., Michigan.................................................. 28 9- Comparison of Orthoptera per Bird with Orthoptera per Sweep in Grasshopper Sparrows........................... 29 10. Comparison of Animals per Bird with Animals per Sweep in Grasshopper Sparrows from Two F i e l d s ................ 31 11. Numbers of Food Items of Four Adult Grasshopper Sparrows Taken from a Pasture on July 4, 1961, Marion Co., Michigan . ............. ........... 32 12. Comparison of Animals Eaten by Savannah and Grasshopper Sparrows in Three Fields in Marion Co., Ohio............ 33 iv FIGURES Figure Page 1. Per cent of animal food in the diet of 162 savannah sparrows; remainder is plant food. (Based on volume.). 2k 2. Per cent of animal food in the diet of 90 grasshopper sparrows; remainder is plant food. (Baaed on volume.). 2k 3. Number of Orthoptera per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows. .......................... Number of Homoptera per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows...................................... 37 3. Number of Cercopidae per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows...................................... 38 6. Number of Coleoptera per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows...................................... 39 7. Number of Curculionidae per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows...................................... kO 8. Number of Hemiptera and larvae per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows....................... kl 9. Number of Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Araneida per bird eaten by savannah and grasshopper sparrows.............. ^2 INTRODUCTION Many studies have been made of the food habits of birds, but sost of thea have been descriptive in nature and have not been concerned with ho* birds select their food. Several general food habit studies involving sparrows were made around the turn of the century, but these were mainly aimed at establishing the relation of the birds to agriculture (Beal and McAtee, 1912; Jones, 1913; Judd, 1901, 1902; Warren, 1890; Weed, 1898; Weed and Dearborn, 1903)* Sparrows can be considered beneficial in their food habits, since among their most important food items are weed seeds, caterpillars, and grasshoppers. Little attempt was made to see whether the birds were selective in their feeding. Judd (1897) experimented to a limited extent with the catbird (Dume- tella carolinensla) by offering it certain food items to see which it would eat. He decided that the catbird did show prefer­ ences. McAtee (1932) utilized figures on the food habits of all birds in comparison with calculated total numbers of animals available in his arguments against the effectiveness of protec­ tive adaptations in animals, but no actual counts of animals eaten in a given habitat were compared with the animals available in that habitat. There have also been some recent papers which discuss the food habits of sparrows, either listing the foods eaten (Hyde, 1939; Knowlton, 1950) or discussing some aspect of feeding behav­ ior (Walkinshaw, 1 9 ^ , 19^5)* None of these papers attempt to 1 utilise field data to determine whether birds show any selectiv­ ity in their diets. The food preferences of a species could be one of the fac­ tors contributing to habitat selection or a consequence of habi­ tat selection. I compared stomach contents with insect material collected at the same time in the same fields to determine whether sparrows exhibit any selectivity in their feeding or whether they merely take foods in the approximate proportions in which they occur in the fields. The former would indicate that food is a factor contributing to local distribution, the latter that it is probably only a consequence of distribution. Collec­ tions were made during the summers of 1959* I960, and 1961. At first several species of sparrows were collected, but the work was finally limited to two species. The savannah sparrow, Pas- serculus aandwichensis (Wilson), was fairly common in some areas and occurred in fields in which the insect life could be easily sampled. The grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum Maynard, was often found in the same fields as the savannah sparrow though never in such large numbers. Recently several authors have studied or at least discussed the availability of food items. Quay (195^), in a study of the winter feeding habits of the savannah sparrow, discussed the plant foods available and their possible relationship to bird distribution. He Indicated that there is probably a positive correlation. Salt (1957) compared foraging microhabitats and food preferences among fox sparrows (Passerella iliaoa). song 5 sparrows (Melospisa melodia), and Lincoln's sparrows (Melospiza lineolnii? in Wyoming. He found that each species forages in a different microhabitat and has different food preferences. Some work has been done on the feeding selectivity of game birds and a few other species. Hawkins (1937)* working with four gallinaceous species, found certain preferences in the plant foods selected. Stoddard (1931) decided that the amount of dif­ ferent foods eaten by bobwhite quail (Collnus virginianus) was correlated with availability except in the case of legumes. Bookhout (1958), on the other had, working with bobwhite quail in southern Illinois, found that it shows distinct preferences in the selection of plant foods. Ticehurst (19^0) in England found representatives of several orders of birds that showed prefer­ ences between two foods, both of which entered their normal diet. Stenger (1958) found that the ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) picks its animal food in direct correlation with abundance of that food in the particular microhabitat in which the bird feeds. In this study I have found that savannah and grasshopper sparrows are apparently guided in their selection of animal food by the size, numbers, and speed of their prey. METHODS Study Areas Sparrows were collected during the summers of 1959 and i960 in three general areas in Ohio and during the summer of 19&1 in several areas in Michigan and Ohio. Michigan collections were made in Calhoun, Jackson, and Washtenaw counties in the south central part of the state. Ohio collections were made in Dela­ ware, Marion, and Wyandot counties in the northwest central part of the state. A total of 22 fields was utilized for collecting, and the vegetation in some of the fields was changed between collection periods. Most savannah sparrows were found in either hay fields or pastures. The hay consisted mainly of alfalfa with some clovers and grasses. Savannah sparrows were found in hay only when it was less than 12 inches high. The pastures
Recommended publications
  • Morphology and Adaptation of Immature Stages of Hemipteran Insects
    © 2019 JETIR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162) Morphology and Adaptation of Immature Stages of Hemipteran Insects Devina Seram and Yendrembam K Devi Assistant Professor, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab Introduction Insect Adaptations An adaptation is an environmental change so an insect can better fit in and have a better chance of living. Insects are modified in many ways according to their environment. Insects can have adapted legs, mouthparts, body shapes, etc. which makes them easier to survive in the environment that they live in and these adaptations also help them get away from predators and other natural enemies. Here are some adaptations in the immature stages of important families of Hemiptera. Hemiptera are hemimetabolous exopterygotes with only egg and nymphal immature stages and are divided into two sub-orders, homoptera and heteroptera. The immature stages of homopteran families include Delphacidae, Fulgoridae, Cercopidae, Cicadidae, Membracidae, Cicadellidae, Psyllidae, Aleyrodidae, Aphididae, Phylloxeridae, Coccidae, Pseudococcidae, Diaspididae and heteropteran families Notonectidae, Corixidae, Belastomatidae, Nepidae, Hydrometridae, Gerridae, Veliidae, Cimicidae, Reduviidae, Pentatomidae, Lygaeidae, Coreidae, Tingitidae, Miridae will be discussed. Homopteran families 1. Delphacidae – Eg. plant hoppers They comprise the largest family of plant hoppers and are characterized by the presence of large, flattened spurs at the apex of their hind tibiae. Eggs are deposited inside plant tissues, elliptical in shape, colourless to whitish. Nymphs are similar in appearance to adults except for size, colour, under- developed wing pads and genitalia. 2. Fulgoridae – Eg. lantern bugs They can be recognized with their antennae inserted on the sides & beneath the eyes.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Tibraca Limbativentris</I> (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Department of Entomology Entomology, Department of 2018 Resistance in Rice to Tibraca limbativentris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) Influenced yb Plant Silicon Content Lincoln Luis França University of Goias State, Unidade Universitária de Ipameri, [email protected] Cássio Antonio Dierings Federal Goiano Institute, Campus Urutaí, Rodovia, [email protected] André Cirilo de Sousa Almeida Federal Goiano Institute, Campus Urutaí, Rodovia, [email protected] Marcio da Silva Araújo University of Goias State, Unidade Universitária de Ipameri Elvis Arden Heinrichs University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologyfacpub Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Entomology Commons França, Lincoln Luis; Dierings, Cássio Antonio; de Sousa Almeida, André Cirilo; Araújo, Marcio da Silva; Heinrichs, Elvis Arden; da Silva, Anderson Rodrigo; Freitas Barrigossi, José Alexandre; and de Jesus, Flávio Gonçalves, "Resistance in Rice to Tibraca limbativentris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) Influenced yb Plant Silicon Content" (2018). Faculty Publications: Department of Entomology. 900. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologyfacpub/900 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications:
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera) of Meghalaya with Special Reference to Encyrtidae, Mymaridae and Aphelinidae
    Journal of Biological Control, 29(2): 49-61, 2015 Research Article Additions to the Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera) of Meghalaya with special reference to Encyrtidae, Mymaridae and Aphelinidae A. RAMESHKUMAR*, J. POORANI and V. NAVEEN Division of Insect Systematics, ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, H. A. Farm post, Bellary road, Hebbal, Bangalore - 560024, Karnataka. *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Encyrtidae, Mymaridae and Aphelinidae were surveyed from Ri-Bhoi, Jaintia hills, East Khasi hills, and West Khasi hills districts of Meghalaya in 2013. New distribution records of 55 genera and 61 species of encyrtids, mymarids aphelinids and eucharitids for Meghalaya state are documented. KEY WORDS: Encyrtidae, Mymaridae, Aphelinidae, distributional records, India, Meghalaya (Article chronicle: Received: 01-06-2015; Revised: 21-06-2015; Accepted: 23-06-2015) INTRODUCTION composite images were obtained from image stacks using Combine ZP. The images were arranged in plates in Adobe Studies on the Chalcidoidea fauna of Meghalaya are Photoshop Elements 11. very limited and the state has not been systematically sur- veyed for encyrtids, mymarids and aphelinids though they RESULTS AND DISCUSSION play an important role in natural and applied biological control. Hayat and his co-workers have contributed to the During the survey, 950 specimens of chalcidoids and known fauna of Meghalaya (Hayat, 1998; Hayat, 2006; Ka- other parasitoids were collected. Twenty two species repre- zmi and Hayat, 2012; Zeya and Hayat, 1995). We surveyed senting 16 genera of mymarids, 30 species representing 28 four districts of Meghalaya in 2013 for Chalcidoidea with genera of encyrtids, 10 genera and 8 species of aphelinids particular reference to Encyrtidae, Aphelinidae and My- and Orasema initiator Kerrich of eucharitid are reported maridae and documented several taxa new to the state.
    [Show full text]
  • The Planthopper Genus Trypetimorpha: Systematics and Phylogenetic Relationships (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Tropiduchidae)
    JOURNAL OF NATURAL HISTORY, 1993, 27, 609-629 The planthopper genus Trypetimorpha: systematics and phylogenetic relationships (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Tropiduchidae) J. HUANG and T. BOURGOINt* Pomological Institute of Shijiazhuang, Agricultural and Forestry Academy of Sciences of Hebei, 5-7 Street, 050061, Shijiazhuang, China t Mus#um National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire d'Entomologie, 45 rue Buffon, F-75005, Paris, France (Accepted 28 January 1993) The genus Trypetimorpha is revised with the eight currently recognized species described or re-described. Four new species are described and seven new synonymies are proposed. Within Trypetimorphini sensu Fennah (1982), evidences for the monophyly of each genus are selected, but Caffrommatissus is transferred to the Cixiopsini. Monophyly of Trypetimorphini, restricted to Trypetimorpha and Ommatissus, is discussed. A key is given for the following Trypetimorpha species: (1) T. fenestrata Costa ( = T. pilosa Horvfith, syn. n.); (2) T. biermani Dammerman (= T. biermani Muir, syn. n.; = T. china (Wu), syn. n.; = T. formosana Ishihara, syn. n.); (3) T. japonica Ishihara ( = T. koreana Kwon and Lee, syn. n.); (4) T. canopus Linnavuori; (5) T. occidentalis, sp. n. (= T. fenestrata Costa, sensu Horvfith); (6) T. aschei, sp. n., from New Guinea; (7) T. wilsoni, sp. n., from Australia; (8) T. sizhengi, sp. n., from China and Viet Nam. Study of the type specimens of T. fenestrata Costa shows that they are different from T. fenestrata sensu Horvfith as usually accepted, which one is redescribed here as T. occidentalis. KEYWORDS: Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Tropiduchidae, Trypetimorpha, Ommatissus, Cafrommatissus, systematics, phylogeny. Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 10:13 13 January 2016 Introduction This revision arose as the result of a study of the Chinese Fulgoromorpha of economic importance (Chou et al., 1985) and the opportunity for J.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Orders
    CMG GardenNotes #313 Insect Orders Outline Anoplura: sucking lice, page 1 Blattaria: cockroaches and woodroaches, page 2 Coleoptera: beetles, page 2 Collembola: springtails, page 4 Dermaptera: earwigs, page 4 Diptera: flies, page 5 Ephemeroptera: mayflies, page 6 Hemiptera (suborder Heteroptera): true bugs, page 7 Hemiptera (suborders Auchenorrhyncha and Sternorrhyncha): aphids, cicadas, leafhoppers, mealybugs, scale and whiteflies, page 8 Hymenoptera: ants, bees, horntails, sawflies, and wasp, page 9 Isoptera: termites, page 11 Lepidoptera: butterflies and moths, page 12 Mallophaga: chewing and biting lice, page 13 Mantodea: mantids, page 14 Neuroptera: antlions, lacewings, snakeflies and dobsonflies, page 14 Odonata: dragonflies and damselflies, page 15 Orthoptera: crickets, grasshoppers, and katydids, page 15 Phasmida: Walking sticks, page 16 Plecoptera: stoneflies, page 16 Psocoptera: Psocids or booklice, page 17 Siphonaptera: Fleas, page 17 Thysanoptera: Thrips, page 17 Trichoptera: Caddisflies, page 18 Zygentomaa: Silverfish and Firebrats, page 18 Anoplura Sucking Lice • Feeds by sucking blood from mammals. • Some species (head lice and crabs lice) feed on humans. Metamorphosis: Simple/Gradual Features: [Figure 1] Figure 1. Sucking lice o Wingless o Mouthparts: Piercing/sucking, designed to feed on blood. o Body: Small head with larger, pear-shaped thorax and nine segmented abdomen. 313-1 Blattaria (Subclass of Dictyoptera) Cockroaches and Woodroaches • Most species are found in warmer subtropical to tropical climates. • The German, Oriental and American cockroach are indoor pests. • Woodroaches live outdoors feeding on decaying bark and other debris. Metamorphosis: Simple/Gradual Figure 2. American cockroach Features: [Figure 2] o Body: Flattened o Antennae: Long, thread-like o Mouthparts: Chewing o Wings: If present, are thickened, semi-transparent with distinct veins and lay flat.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Abundance of Insect Herbivores Foraging on Seedlings in a Rainforest in Guyana
    R Ecological Entomology (1999) 24, 245±259 Diversity and abundance of insect herbivores foraging on seedlings in a rainforest in Guyana YVES BASSET CABI Bioscience: Environment, Ascot, U.K. Abstract. 1. Free-living insect herbivores foraging on 10 000 tagged seedlings representing ®ve species of common rainforest trees were surveyed monthly for more than 1 year in an unlogged forest plot of 1 km2 in Guyana. 2. Overall, 9056 insect specimens were collected. Most were sap-sucking insects, which represented at least 244 species belonging to 25 families. Leaf-chewing insects included at least 101 species belonging to 16 families. Herbivore densities were among the lowest densities reported in tropical rainforests to date: 2.4 individuals per square metre of foliage. 3. Insect host speci®city was assessed by calculating Lloyd's index of patchiness from distributional records and considering feeding records in captivity and in situ. Generalists represented 84 and 78% of sap-sucking species and individuals, and 75 and 42% of leaf-chewing species and individuals. In particular, several species of polyphagous xylem-feeding Cicadellinae were strikingly abundant on all hosts. 4. The high incidence of generalist insects suggests that the Janzen±Connell model, explaining rates of attack on seedlings as a density-dependent process resulting from contagion of specialist insects from parent trees, is unlikely to be valid in this study system. 5. Given the rarity of ¯ushing events for the seedlings during the study period, the low insect densities, and the high proportion of generalists, the data also suggest that seedlings may represent a poor resource for free-living insect herbivores in rainforests.
    [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]
  • Insect Classification Standards 2020
    RECOMMENDED INSECT CLASSIFICATION FOR UGA ENTOMOLOGY CLASSES (2020) In an effort to standardize the hexapod classification systems being taught to our students by our faculty in multiple courses across three UGA campuses, I recommend that the Entomology Department adopts the basic system presented in the following textbook: Triplehorn, C.A. and N.F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects. 7th ed. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont CA, 864 pp. This book was chosen for a variety of reasons. It is widely used in the U.S. as the textbook for Insect Taxonomy classes, including our class at UGA. It focuses on North American taxa. The authors were cautious, presenting changes only after they have been widely accepted by the taxonomic community. Below is an annotated summary of the T&J (2005) classification. Some of the more familiar taxa above the ordinal level are given in caps. Some of the more important and familiar suborders and families are indented and listed beneath each order. Note that this is neither an exhaustive nor representative list of suborders and families. It was provided simply to clarify which taxa are impacted by some of more important classification changes. Please consult T&J (2005) for information about taxa that are not listed below. Unfortunately, T&J (2005) is now badly outdated with respect to some significant classification changes. Therefore, in the classification standard provided below, some well corroborated and broadly accepted updates have been made to their classification scheme. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this classification.
    [Show full text]
  • ~~ 8Ibliografia Del Salivazo De Los Pastos Y La Superfamilia
    R~P r ~~ 8IBLIOGRAFIA DEL SALIVAZO DE LOS PASTOS ?~ Y LA SUPERFAMILIA CERCOPOIDEA c,.j Junio de 2001 (671 referencias) csomu Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Internacional Center for Tropical Agriculture U\l ; :--,. ¡· !(t ~ ~~ e.CIO N Y L U l'r'il.\1 ACIUN u 1 DI~. 'uu; lf uO j~ Babhografía del Sahvazo de los Pastos y la Superfamaha Cercopoadea Jun1o de 2001 (671 referencias) Compilada por Dan1el C Peck B1oecolog1a/MIP del Sahvazo Proyecto de Grammeas y Legummosas Trop1cales CIAT Cah Colomb1a Portada Zulta carbonarta Z carbonarta Mahanarva andtgena y Z pubescens(en el sent1do de las manec1llas del reloJ) Fotos por Franc1sco Lopez 1 P ALADRAS CLAVES UTILIZADAS REGION CULTIVO MANEJO BABITAT BIOLOGIA CLASSIFICACION Australia lnd11 lndoncsaa New Zealand axonomy Colombta Ecuador Pero enes S 0 ght synd ome V cnc::zuela orghum asture assessmcnt K. lrawbmy asnm: pests S tylosanthes esbc1dcs uprean hytoto enu ñgrass enmls ro In CODIGOS ASIGNADOS AOI Cerc6p1dos asocl3dos con grammeas C02 Control qWIDJco A02 Otra Cercopmdea C03 Control cultural C04 Res1stenc13 vanetal BOO BIOECOLOOIA C05 Impacto BOl Comportanuento C06 Mane¡o mtegrado de plagas B02 BIO(Ogl3 C07 Cria BOl 013pausa C08 Muestreo & Momtm:eo B04 Eco logia B05 Ománnca poblac!onal 000 HOSPEDEROS B06 Taxonoiillll & S!Stemállca 001 Grammeas fona¡eras 002 Otras grammeas coo MANEJO 003 Caña de azucar COl Control bmlógtco & EnCI1llgos naturales 004 Hospederos no-grammeas 2 Abclui-Nour U., aad L. Labo d.l9!15. RtviSlon du s=e Ph laenus Sial 1864 au Liban aV<Cia descnpuon d\me auvelle~ P mlan1 n sp (Homuplm Auchenoll'hyncha, Cen:o¡ndae) Nouveau Revue d'Entomol"SSe 12(4) 297 303 Key wprds laXonomy Cmopcndea, Phtlaenus As1a, Aphrophondae, A02 ,...-'&<1111 ~ J J J A.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Distribution Ranking for the Multiple Projects Project Organism Group: Hemiptera Specimens
    Species Distribution Ranking for the Multiple Projects Project Organism Group: Hemiptera Specimens Family and Species Sum Of Sites Where Species Was Found Cercopidae Clastoptera obtusa (Spittlebug) 26 Cercopidae Prosapia bicincta (Two-lined spittle bug) 24 Delphacidae Liburniella ornata (Planthopper) 21 Cicadellidae Jikradia olitorius (Leafhopper) 18 Miridae Lygus lineolaris (Tarnished plant bug) 18 Cercopidae Philaenus spumarius (Meadow spittlebug) 18 Berytidae Jalysus spinosus (Stilt bug) 18 Cercopidae Clastoptera xanthocephala (Spittlebug) 16 Cicadellidae Graphocephala coccinea (Leafhopper) 15 Pentatomidae Mormidea lugens (Stink bug) 12 Alydidae Alydus eurinus (Broad-headed bug) 12 Cercopidae Lepyronia quadrangularis (Spittlebug) 11 Pentatomidae Euschistus tristigmus (Stink bug) 11 Rhyparochromidae Pseudopachybrachius basalis (Seed bug) 10 Lygaeidae Kleidocerys resedae (Seed bug) 10 Psyllidae Cacopsylla carpinicola (Psyllid plant bug) 9 Rhopalidae Niesthrea louisianica (Scentless plant bug) 9 Cydnidae Sehirus cinctus (Burrower bug) 9 Cercopidae Aphrophora saratogenesis (Spittlebug) 9 Flatidae Metcalfa pruinosa (Planthopper) 9 Flatidae Anormenis chloris (Planthopper) 9 Psyllidae Bactericera tripunctata (Jumping plant lice) 8 Delphacidae Isodelphax basivitta (Planthopper) 8 Delphacidae Delphacodes puella (Planthopper) 8 Psyllidae Bactericera species (Jumping plant lice) 8 Cercopidae Aphrophora quadrinotata (Spittlebug) 8 Cercopidae Aphrophora cribrata (Pine spittle bug) 7 Pentatomidae Euschistus servus (Stink bug) 7 Membracidae Acutalis
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Groups of Insects, Mites and Spiders
    List Supplemental Information Content Taxonomic Groups of Insects, Mites and Spiders Pests of trees and shrubs Class Arachnida, Spiders and mites elm bark beetle, smaller European Scolytus multistriatus Order Acari, Mites and ticks elm bark beetle, native Hylurgopinus rufipes pine bark engraver, Ips pini Family Eriophyidae, Leaf vagrant, gall, erinea, rust, or pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda eriophyid mites ash flower gall mite, Aceria fraxiniflora Order Hemiptera, True bugs, aphids, and scales elm eriophyid mite, Aceria parulmi Family Adelgidae, Pine and spruce aphids eriophyid mites, several species Cooley spruce gall adelgid, Adelges cooleyi hemlock rust mite, Nalepella tsugifoliae Eastern spruce gall adelgid, Adelges abietis maple spindlegall mite, Vasates aceriscrumena hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae maple velvet erineum gall, several species pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi Family Tarsonemidae, Cyclamen and tarsonemid mites Family Aphididae, Aphids cyclamen mite, Phytonemus pallidus balsam twig aphid, Mindarus abietinus Family Tetranychidae, Freeranging, spider mites, honeysuckle witches’ broom aphid, tetranychid mites Hyadaphis tataricae boxwood spider mite, Eurytetranychus buxi white pine aphid, Cinara strobi clover mite, Bryobia praetiosa woolly alder aphid, Paraprociphilus tessellatus European red mite, Panonychus ulmi woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum honeylocust spider mite, Eotetranychus multidigituli Family Cercopidae, Froghoppers or spittlebugs spruce spider mite, Oligonychus ununguis spittlebugs, several
    [Show full text]
  • Acacia Flat Mite (Brevipalpus Acadiae Ryke & Meyer, Tenuipalpidae, Acarina): Doringboomplatmyt
    Creepie-crawlies and such comprising: Common Names of Insects 1963, indicated as CNI Butterfly List 1959, indicated as BL Some names the sources of which are unknown, and indicated as such Gewone Insekname SKOENLAPPERLYS INSLUITENDE BOSLUISE, MYTE, SAAMGESTEL DEUR DIE AALWURMS EN SPINNEKOPPE LANDBOUTAALKOMITEE Saamgestel deur die MET MEDEWERKING VAN NAVORSINGSINSTITUUT VIR DIE PLANTBESKERMING TAALDIENSBURO Departement van Landbou-tegniese Dienste VAN DIE met medewerking van die DEPARTEMENT VAN ONDERWYS, KUNS EN LANDBOUTAALKOMITEE WETENSKAP van die Taaldiensburo 1959 1963 BUTTERFLY LIST Common Names of Insects COMPILED BY THE INCLUDING TICKS, MITES, EELWORMS AGRICULTURAL TERMINOLOGY AND SPIDERS COMMITTEE Compiled by the IN COLLABORATION WiTH PLANT PROTECTION RESEARCH THE INSTITUTE LANGUAGE SERVICES BUREAU Department of Agricultural Technical Services OF THE in collaboration with the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND AGRICULTURAL TERMINOLOGY SCIENCE COMMITTEE DIE STAATSDRUKKER + PRETORIA + THE of the Language Service Bureau GOVERNMENT PRINTER 1963 1959 Rekenaarmatig en leksikografies herverwerk deur PJ Taljaard e-mail enquiries: [email protected] EXPLANATORY NOTES 1 The list was alphabetised electronically. 2 On the target-language side, ie to the right of the :, synonyms are separated by a comma, e.g.: fission: klowing, splyting The sequence of the translated terms does NOT indicate any preference. Preferred terms are underlined. 3 Where catchwords of similar form are used as different parts of speech and confusion may therefore
    [Show full text]