DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Rodents on Ground Dwelling Arthropods in the Waitakere Ranges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Rodents on Ground Dwelling Arthropods in the Waitakere Ranges The Effects of Rodents on Ground Dwelling Arthropods in the Waitakere Ranges A thesis submitted to the Auckland University of Technology in fulfilment of the Degree Master of Philosophy Peter A. King January 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS ATTESTATION …………………………….…………….…….………………….…....8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………….……9 ABSTRACT ……………………...……………………….……….………….……....…11 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 13 1.1 GONDWANALAND ORIGINS OF NEW ZEALAND’S ARTHROPODS.............. 14 1.2 IMPACTS OF HUMAN COLONISATION............................................................... 17 1.3 ARTHROPODS IN THE DIETS OF INTRODUCED PREDATORS....................... 19 1.4 IMPACT OF INTRODUCED PREDATORS ON NATIVE VERTEBRATES ......... 22 1.5 EFFECTS OF PREDATORS ON NATIVE ARTHROPODS.................................... 24 1.5.1 Research on Offshore Islands .......................................................................24 1.5.2 Research on the Mainland ............................................................................29 1.6 IMPACT OF HABITAT STRUCTURE ON ARTHROPOD POPULATIONS......... 32 1.7 ARTHROPODS AS INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE................ 33 1.8 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 35 1.9 AIMS OF THIS RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 36 2 METHODS .........................................................................................................................38 2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 38 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTIONS................................................................................................ 39 2.2.1 Treatment Sites............................................................................................42 2.2.2 Control Sites ...............................................................................................45 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS....................................................... 48 2.3.1 Vegetation Parameters .................................................................................48 2.3.2 Physical Parameters .....................................................................................48 2.3.3 Ground Cover..............................................................................................49 2.4 WEATHER MEASUREMENTS................................................................................ 50 2.4.1 Temperature ................................................................................................50 2.4.2 Rainfall.......................................................................................................50 2.5 POSSUM AND RODENT CONTROL AT THE TREATMENT SITES (LTFERP). 50 2.6 RODENT MONITORING .......................................................................................... 51 2.6.1 Previous Research........................................................................................51 2.6.2 This Study...................................................................................................55 2.7 POSSUM CONTROL IN THE WAITAKERE RANGES.......................................... 55 2.8 POSSUM MONITORING .......................................................................................... 56 2.8.1 Previous Research........................................................................................56 2.8.2 This Study...................................................................................................56 2.9 ARTHROPOD MONITORING.................................................................................. 57 2.9.1 Pitfall Traps ................................................................................................61 2.9.2 Sampling Regime ........................................................................................64 2.10 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA..................................................................... 66 2.10.1 Ground Cover..............................................................................................66 2.10.2 Rat Tracking ...............................................................................................66 2 2.10.3 Pitfall Trap Samples.....................................................................................67 3 RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 68 3.1 KANUKA FOREST.................................................................................................... 68 3.1.1 Study Site Physical Characteristics ...............................................................68 3.1.2 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................68 3.1.3 Rodent Monitoring ......................................................................................70 3.1.4 Ground Weta...............................................................................................73 3.1.5 Cave Weta...................................................................................................78 3.1.6 Carabid Beetles ...........................................................................................82 3.1.7 Prowling Spiders .........................................................................................87 3.1.8 Kanuka Forest Results Summary ..................................................................91 3.2 PODOCARP-BROADLEAF FOREST....................................................................... 95 3.2.1 Study Site Physical Characteristics ...............................................................95 3.2.2 Vegetation Monitoring .................................................................................95 3.2.3 Rodent Monitoring ......................................................................................97 3.2.4 Ground Weta...............................................................................................99 3.2.5 Cave Weta...................................................................................................99 3.2.6 Carabid Beetles .........................................................................................101 3.2.7 Prowling Spiders .......................................................................................103 3.2.8 Podocarp-Broadleaf Results Summary ........................................................105 3.3 TARAIRE FOREST.................................................................................................. 107 3.3.1 Study Site Physical Characteristics .............................................................107 3.3.2 Vegetation Assessment ..............................................................................107 3.3.3 Rodent Monitoring ....................................................................................109 3.3.4 Ground Weta.............................................................................................112 3.3.5 Cave Weta.................................................................................................112 3.3.6 Carabid Beetles .........................................................................................114 3.3.7 Prowling Spiders .......................................................................................117 3.3.8 Taraire Results Summary ...........................................................................119 3.4 OVERVIEW OF ARTHROPOD ABUNDANCE AT TREATMENT SITES ......... 121 3.5 POSSUM MONITORING ........................................................................................ 122 3.5.1 At the LTFERP .........................................................................................122 3.5.2 At the Control Sites ...................................................................................123 3.5.3 Possum Footprints on Rodent Tracking Cards used in 2005–06 at the Control Sites ...123 3.6 WEATHER MONITORING..................................................................................... 124 3.6.1 Rainfall Data .............................................................................................124 3.6.2 Temperature Data ......................................................................................124 4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 126 4.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 126 4.2 RODENT MONITORING ........................................................................................ 127 4.3 IMPACT OF RODENTS ON ARTHROPODS ........................................................ 130 4.3.1 On Ground Weta .......................................................................................130 4.3.2 On Cave Weta ...........................................................................................132 4.3.3 On Carabid Beetles ....................................................................................133 4.3.4 On Prowling Spiders..................................................................................135 3 4.4 ARTHROPODS IN TARAIRE FOREST ................................................................. 136 4.4.1 The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anisodactylus Binotatus Fabr., a Carabid Beetle New to New Zealand, and a Review of the Exotic Carabid Fauna
    Pacific Insects 5 (4) : 837-847 December 30, 1963 ANISODACTYLUS BINOTATUS FABR., A CARABID BEETLE NEW TO NEW ZEALAND, AND A REVIEW OF THE EXOTIC CARABID FAUNA By R. L. C. Pilgrim DEPT, OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY, NEW ZEALAND Abstract: Anisodactylus binotatus Fabr. 1787 (Col.: Carabidae), an introduced species now established in Canterbury (South Island), New Zealand, is reported for the first time. The literature respecting other carabids sometimes recorded as introduced is reviewed; Ago- nochila binotata (White, 1846), Agonum submetallicum (White, 1846), Hypharpax australasiae (Dejean, 1829) and Pentagonica vittipennis Chaudoir, 1877 are shown to be better considered as endemic to the Australia - New Zealand area. Other species are classed as either native to New Zealand, clearly introduced though not all established, or of doubtful occurrence in New Zealand. Introduction: The Carabidae of New Zealand are predominantly endemic species, but a small number of exotic species has been recorded. This paper reports a further introduc­ tion to the carabid fauna of this country and concludes with a survey of recorded exotic Carabidae in New Zealand. Specimens of the newly-recorded species were collected in domestic gardens in Christ­ church, and were included in a collection sent for identification to Dr. E. B. Britton, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), who kindly drew the writer's attention to the fact that they were so far unreported from New Zealand. Description of adult (from New Zealand specimens) Fig. 1. Anisodactylus binotatus Fabricius, 1787 Color: Head, pronotum, elytra and femora black; tibiae and tarsi light brown to red- black ; palps and antennal segments 1-2 brown, remainder of antennae black; leg spines red-brown; head with small red spot on frons between eyes.
    [Show full text]
  • Entomology of the Aucklands and Other Islands South of New Zealand: Lepidoptera, Ex­ Cluding Non-Crambine Pyralidae
    Pacific Insects Monograph 27: 55-172 10 November 1971 ENTOMOLOGY OF THE AUCKLANDS AND OTHER ISLANDS SOUTH OF NEW ZEALAND: LEPIDOPTERA, EX­ CLUDING NON-CRAMBINE PYRALIDAE By J. S. Dugdale1 CONTENTS Introduction 55 Acknowledgements 58 Faunal Composition and Relationships 58 Faunal List 59 Key to Families 68 1. Arctiidae 71 2. Carposinidae 73 Coleophoridae 76 Cosmopterygidae 77 3. Crambinae (pt Pyralidae) 77 4. Elachistidae 79 5. Geometridae 89 Hyponomeutidae 115 6. Nepticulidae 115 7. Noctuidae 117 8. Oecophoridae 131 9. Psychidae 137 10. Pterophoridae 145 11. Tineidae... 148 12. Tortricidae 156 References 169 Note 172 Abstract: This paper deals with all Lepidoptera, excluding the non-crambine Pyralidae, of Auckland, Campbell, Antipodes and Snares Is. The native resident fauna of these islands consists of 42 species of which 21 (50%) are endemic, in 27 genera, of which 3 (11%) are endemic, in 12 families. The endemic fauna is characterised by brachyptery (66%), body size under 10 mm (72%) and concealed, or strictly ground- dwelling larval life. All species can be related to mainland forms; there is a distinctive pre-Pleistocene element as well as some instances of possible Pleistocene introductions, as suggested by the presence of pairs of species, one member of which is endemic but fully winged. A graph and tables are given showing the composition of the fauna, its distribution, habits, and presumed derivations. Host plants or host niches are discussed. An additional 7 species are considered to be non-resident waifs. The taxonomic part includes keys to families (applicable only to the subantarctic fauna), and to genera and species.
    [Show full text]
  • From Characters of the Female Reproductive Tract
    Phylogeny and Classification of Caraboidea Mus. reg. Sci. nat. Torino, 1998: XX LCE. (1996, Firenze, Italy) 107-170 James K. LIEBHERR and Kipling W. WILL* Inferring phylogenetic relationships within Carabidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) from characters of the female reproductive tract ABSTRACT Characters of the female reproductive tract, ovipositor, and abdomen are analyzed using cladi­ stic parsimony for a comprehensive representation of carabid beetle tribes. The resulting cladogram is rooted at the family Trachypachidae. No characters of the female reproductive tract define the Carabidae as monophyletic. The Carabidac exhibit a fundamental dichotomy, with the isochaete tri­ bes Metriini and Paussini forming the adelphotaxon to the Anisochaeta, which includes Gehringiini and Rhysodini, along with the other groups considered member taxa in Jeannel's classification. Monophyly of Isochaeta is supported by the groundplan presence of a securiform helminthoid scle­ rite at the spermathecal base, and a rod-like, elongate laterotergite IX leading to the explosion cham­ ber of the pygidial defense glands. Monophyly of the Anisochaeta is supported by the derived divi­ sion of gonocoxa IX into a basal and apical portion. Within Anisochaeta, the evolution of a secon­ dary spermatheca-2, and loss ofthe primary spermathcca-I has occurred in one lineage including the Gehringiini, Notiokasiini, Elaphrini, Nebriini, Opisthiini, Notiophilini, and Omophronini. This evo­ lutionary replacement is demonstrated by the possession of both spermatheca-like structures in Gehringia olympica Darlington and Omophron variegatum (Olivier). The adelphotaxon to this sper­ matheca-2 clade comprises a basal rhysodine grade consisting of Clivinini, Promecognathini, Amarotypini, Apotomini, Melaenini, Cymbionotini, and Rhysodini. The Rhysodini and Clivinini both exhibit a highly modified laterotergite IX; long and thin, with or without a clavate lateral region.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Native Forest Remnants, North Island, New Zealand
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Habitat use, seasonality and ecology of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in native forest remnants, North Island, New Zealand A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Ecology at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Melissa Alice Sarah Hutchison 2001 Abstract The Carabidae (lnsecta: Coleoptera) is one of the largest insect families in New Zealand with an estimated 600 species, 90% of which are endemic. Carabids have received a considerabl e amount of attention in the Northern Hemisphere, but next to nothing i known about the biology of carabids in New Zealand. The aim of my research was to increase our knowledge about the ecology, population dynamics, and life history of carabids in New Zealand native fo rests. The morphology and biology of two species of endemic carabids, Mecodema oconnori Broun and Megadromus capito (White) was studied in detail. Mecodema oconnori wa strongly . exuall y dimorphic, whereas M. capita males and females were very similar in size and weight. During the course of the study, I discovered several very small M . ocorn zori males with red legs, and these may belong to a separate species. The habitat use and movement of M. oconnori and M. capito in a native forest remnant was investigated using several different sampling techniques, including manual searches, Ji ve capture pitfall trapping, and harmonic radar tracking.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Abundance and Diversity O F Web-Building Spiders in Relation to Habita T Structure on Barro Colorado Island, Panama
    Lubin, Y . D. 1978 . Seasonal abundance and diversity of web-building spiders in relation to habita t structure on Barro Colorado Island, Panama . J. Arachnol. 6 :31-51 . SEASONAL ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY O F WEB-BUILDING SPIDERS IN RELATION TO HABITA T STRUCTURE ON BARRO COLORADO ISLAND, PANAMA Yael D . Lubin Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute P. O. Box 2072, Balboa, Canal Zone ABSTRAC T Web-building spiders were censused by a visual censuring method in tropical forest understory o n Barro Colorado Island (BCI), Panama Canal Zone. An overall trend of low numbers of spiders in th e late dry season and early wet season (March to May) was seen on all transects . The majority of th e species on the transects had wet season distribution patterns . Some species which occurred year-round on the forest transects had wet season distributions on a clearing-edge transect . A shortage of flyin g insect prey or dessication may have been responsible for the observed distributions . Species diversity and diversity of web types followed the overall seasonal pattern of spider abun- dance. The diversities of species and of web types were greatest on the forest transect with the highes t diversity of structural supports for spider webs . Web density, however, was greatest on the transect a t the edge of a small clearing . Faunal composition, diversity of web types, and seasonal patterns of distribution of spiders on th e BCI transects differed markedly from similar measures derived from censuses taken in a tropica l montane habitat in New Guinea . The differences were attributed in part to differences in the habitat s and in the evenness of the climate .
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Larval Parasitoid, Agathis Bishopi (Nixon) (Hymenoptera
    Using the larval parasitoid, Agathis bishopi (Nixon) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), for early detection of False Codling Moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) infested fruit Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE at RHODES UNIVERSITY by Kennedy Josaya Zimba December 2014 Abstract Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) is one of the major citrus pests of economic importance for South Africa’s citrus industry. It is endemic to Africa, and therefore a phytosanitary pest with zero tolerance by most export markets. The cryptic nature of T. leucotreta makes visual inspection an inefficient method for detecting neonate larvae in fruit in the packhouse. Therefore, a more accurate method for sorting infested fruit at the packhouse, particularly for newly infested fruit could ensure market access. A recent study showed that fruit infested by T. leucotreta emit a chemical profile different from that of a healthy fruit. Several studies provide evidence that parasitoids locate their hosts feeding on fruit by exploiting the novel chemical profiles produced due to host herbivory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of using the naturally occurring behaviour of a larval parasitoid Agathis bishopi (Nixon) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for detection of T. leucotreta infested fruit, by determining which compound in infested fruit is attractive to parasitoids. Y- tube olfactometer and flight-tunnel bioassays with healthy and T. leucotreta infested fruit showed a significantly stronger response of A. bishopi female parasitoids to infested fruit. Among the volatile compounds associated with T. leucotreta infested fruit, D-limonene elicited the strongest attraction to A. bishopi female parasitoids.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Ensifera (Hexapoda: Orthoptera) Using Three Ribosomal Loci, with Implications for the Evolution of Acoustic Communication
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 38 (2006) 510–530 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Phylogeny of Ensifera (Hexapoda: Orthoptera) using three ribosomal loci, with implications for the evolution of acoustic communication M.C. Jost a,*, K.L. Shaw b a Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, USA b Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA Received 9 May 2005; revised 27 September 2005; accepted 4 October 2005 Available online 16 November 2005 Abstract Representatives of the Orthopteran suborder Ensifera (crickets, katydids, and related insects) are well known for acoustic signals pro- duced in the contexts of courtship and mate recognition. We present a phylogenetic estimate of Ensifera for a sample of 51 taxonomically diverse exemplars, using sequences from 18S, 28S, and 16S rRNA. The results support a monophyletic Ensifera, monophyly of most ensiferan families, and the superfamily Gryllacridoidea which would include Stenopelmatidae, Anostostomatidae, Gryllacrididae, and Lezina. Schizodactylidae was recovered as the sister lineage to Grylloidea, and both Rhaphidophoridae and Tettigoniidae were found to be more closely related to Grylloidea than has been suggested by prior studies. The ambidextrously stridulating haglid Cyphoderris was found to be basal (or sister) to a clade that contains both Grylloidea and Tettigoniidae. Tree comparison tests with the concatenated molecular data found our phylogeny to be significantly better at explaining our data than three recent phylogenetic hypotheses based on morphological characters. A high degree of conflict exists between the molecular and morphological data, possibly indicating that much homoplasy is present in Ensifera, particularly in acoustic structures. In contrast to prior evolutionary hypotheses based on most parsi- monious ancestral state reconstructions, we propose that tegminal stridulation and tibial tympana are ancestral to Ensifera and were lost multiple times, especially within the Gryllidae.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Biology Project Reports of Cleardale Station and Taniwha Farm, Rakaia Gorge, Canterbury, New Zealand
    Conservation biology project reports of Cleardale Station and Taniwha Farm, Rakaia Gorge, Canterbury, New Zealand Edited by Nick Dickinson & Mike Bowie Lincoln University Wildlife Management Report No. 73 2020 ©Department of Pest-management & Conservation, Lincoln University ISSN: 1179-7738 ISBN: 978-0-86476-451-5 Lincoln University Wildlife Management Report No. 73 September 2020 Conservation biology project reports of Cleardale Station and Taniwha Farm, Rakaia Gorge, Canterbury, New Zealand Cleardale Station looking towards Rakaia River (Photo: Tanmayi Pagadala) Edited by Nick Dickinson and Mike Bowie Department of Pest-management & Conservation, Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647 Email:[email protected] i Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................v List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Cleardale and Taniwha Stations ............................................................................................... 2 : Habitat Preference of Birds ................................................................................... 3 Fraser Gurney Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • New Locality Records for Two Species of Protected Weevils, Anagotus Fairburni
    Tuhinga 29: 20–34 Copyright © Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (2018) New locality records for two species of protected weevils, Anagotus fairburni (Brookes, 1932) and Hadramphus stilbocarpae Kuschel, 1971 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), from southern Fiordland, New Zealand Colin M. Miskelly,* Alan J.D. Tennyson** and Colin R. Bishop*** * Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand ([email protected]) ** Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand *** Department of Conservation, PO Box 29, Te Anau 9600, New Zealand ABSTRACT: The flax weevil Anagotus fairburni (Brookes, 1932) and knobbled weevil Hadramphus stilbocarpae Kuschel, 1971 were among the first New Zealand insects to be granted legal protection. Both are large flightless species with narrow host–plant requirements. Their disjunct distributions are probably the result of predation by introduced rodents, with populations of both having apparently been extirpated by ship rats (Rattus rattus) at one documented site (Taukihepa/Big South Cape Island). Within Fiordland, flax weevils were previously known from a single small island in Breaksea Sound, and knobbled weevils had been reported from five outer islands, from Secretary Island south to Resolution Island. We report the presence of both species in Dusky Sound, and flax weevils in Chalky and Preservation Inlets, based on surveys of 134 islands in 2016 and 2017. Signs of flax weevil feeding were recorded on 56 widely scattered islands, with live or dead animals found on seven of these during the limited search time available. A single knobbled weevil was found at night on a small island in the Seal Islands, southwest of Anchor Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24
    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
    [Show full text]
  • Insects and Related Arthropods Associated with of Agriculture
    USDA United States Department Insects and Related Arthropods Associated with of Agriculture Forest Service Greenleaf Manzanita in Montane Chaparral Pacific Southwest Communities of Northeastern California Research Station General Technical Report Michael A. Valenti George T. Ferrell Alan A. Berryman PSW-GTR- 167 Publisher: Pacific Southwest Research Station Albany, California Forest Service Mailing address: U.S. Department of Agriculture PO Box 245, Berkeley CA 9470 1 -0245 Abstract Valenti, Michael A.; Ferrell, George T.; Berryman, Alan A. 1997. Insects and related arthropods associated with greenleaf manzanita in montane chaparral communities of northeastern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-167. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. Agriculture; 26 p. September 1997 Specimens representing 19 orders and 169 arthropod families (mostly insects) were collected from greenleaf manzanita brushfields in northeastern California and identified to species whenever possible. More than500 taxa below the family level wereinventoried, and each listing includes relative frequency of encounter, life stages collected, and dominant role in the greenleaf manzanita community. Specific host relationships are included for some predators and parasitoids. Herbivores, predators, and parasitoids comprised the majority (80 percent) of identified insects and related taxa. Retrieval Terms: Arctostaphylos patula, arthropods, California, insects, manzanita The Authors Michael A. Valenti is Forest Health Specialist, Delaware Department of Agriculture, 2320 S. DuPont Hwy, Dover, DE 19901-5515. George T. Ferrell is a retired Research Entomologist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2400 Washington Ave., Redding, CA 96001. Alan A. Berryman is Professor of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6382. All photographs were taken by Michael A. Valenti, except for Figure 2, which was taken by Amy H.
    [Show full text]