THE EFFECT OF FOREST FRAGMENT QUALITY ON CERAMBYCID OCCUPANCY AND ABUNDANCE by Kaitlin Handley A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology Spring 2014 © 2014 Kaitlin Handley All Rights Reserved UMI Number: 1562381 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 1562381 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 THE EFFECT OF FOREST FRAGMENT QUALITY ON CERAMBYCID OCCUPANCY AND ABUNDANCE by Kaitlin Handley Approved: __________________________________________________________ Judith A. Hough-Goldstein, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Jacob L. Bowman, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Approved: __________________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: __________________________________________________________ James G. Richards, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank my committee members, Judy Hough- Goldstein, Vince D’Amico, Charles Bartlett, and Greg Shriver for all of their guidance and support over the last two years. Each of you brought different things to my project, and it would not have been possible without help from all of you. I want to thank Judy Hough-Goldstein in particular for always being around whenever I had a question and reading and editing my thesis about 100 times and getting it back to me as quickly as humanly possible. I would also like to thank my excellent field technicians, Jake Shaner, Lily Newton, Theresa Andrew, and Sam Nestory. You all did an excellent job and made my field work fun! I hope that you all have extremely successful futures, because you are all wonderful and deserve great things. I also want to thank my fellow graduate students in the ENWC department. These last two years would have been much less fun without all of you. I especially want to thank Scott Berg and David Gardner for all of their help, humor, and emotional support. I’ve enjoyed every minute spent with you two. Finally, I want to thank my family. You have been there every step of the way and are interested in my work even if it is hard to understand and strange because I study beetles. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ viii Chapter 1 DIVERSITY AND PHENOLOGY OF CERAMBYCID BEETLES IN DELAWARE ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Materials and Methods .............................................................................. 2 1.1.1 2012 ............................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 2013 ............................................................................................... 4 1.1.3 Statistical analysis ......................................................................... 5 1.2 Results ....................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 16 2 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE OCCUPANCY AND ABUNDANCE OF LONG-HORNED BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CERAMBYCIDAE) IN FOREST FRAGMENTS IN NORTHERN DELAWARE ............................... 23 2.1 Methods and Materials ............................................................................ 25 2.1.1 Tree Survey ................................................................................. 28 2.1.2 Statistical Analysis ...................................................................... 29 2.2 Results ..................................................................................................... 32 2.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 47 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 56 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Taxa and abundance of Cerambycidae captured by cross-vein panel traps in Delaware during 2012-2013. ........................................................ 9 Table 1.2 Taxonomy and numbers of beetle families that were captured by cross- vein panel traps in Delaware during 2012 and 2013. .............................. 11 Table 2.1 Study sites used for the 2012 and 2013 field seasons. ............................... 31 Table 2.2 Total cerambycid specimens and species captured in each trap in 2013 and 2012, arranged in rank order of abundance for 2013. ...................... 33 Table 2.3 Differences in catch between traps at sites with two traps located 100 m to 180 m from each other (2013) ............................................................. 34 Table 2.4 Models to predict Phymatodes amoenus abundance. The global model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_oak)+ β2 (pct_acer)+ β3 (pct_nyssa)+ β4 (pct_tulip)+ β5 (pct_sweetgum)+ β6 (pct_beech)+ β7 (patch_ha)+ β8 (pct_stressed/dead)). ................................................................................ 36 Table 2.5 Models to predict Megacyllene caryae abundance. The global model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_oak)+ β2 (pct_acer)+ β3 (pct_nyssa)+ β4 (pct_tulip)+ β5 (pct_sweetgum)+ β6 (pct_beech)+ β7 (patch_ha)+ β8 (pct_stressed/dead)). ................................................................................ 37 Table 2.6 Models to predict Xylotrechus colonus abundance. The percent sweetgum model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_sweetgum)). ......... 38 Table 2.7 Models to predict Prionus laticollis abundance. The global model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_oak)+ β2 (pct_acer)+ β3 (pct_nyssa)+ β4 (pct_tulip)+ β5 (pct_sweetgum)+ β6 (pct_beech)+ β7 (patch_ha)+ β8 (pct_stressed/dead)). ................................................................................ 39 Table 2.8 Models to predict Graphisurus fasciatus abundance. The global model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_oak)+ β2 (pct_acer)+ β3 (pct_nyssa)+ β4 (pct_tulip)+ β5 (pct_sweetgum)+ β6 (pct_beech)+ β7 (patch_ha)+ β8 (pct_stressed/dead)). ....................................................... 40 v Table 2.9 Models to predict Anelaphus villosus abundance. The model that incorporates percentages of all dominant tree species is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_oak)+ β2 (pct_acer)+ β3 (pct_nyssa)+ β4 (pct_tulip)+ β5 (pct_sweetgum)+ β6 (pct_beech)). ................................... 41 Table 2.10 Models to predict Cyrtophorus verrucosus abundance. The patch size model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (patch_ha)). ................................... 42 Table 2.11 Models to predict Euderces pini abundance. The percent tulip tree is the best model (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_tulip)). ............................................. 43 Table 2.12 Models to predict Neoclytus acuminatus abundance. The percent sweetgum model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_sweetgum)). ......... 44 Table 2.13 Models to predict Neoclytus mucronatus abundance. The global model is the best (abundance= βo+β1 (pct_oak)+ β2 (pct_acer)+ β3 (pct_nyssa)+ β4 (pct_tulip)+ β5 (pct_sweetgum)+ β6 (pct_beech)+ β7 (patch_ha)+ β8 (pct_stressed/dead)). ....................................................... 45 Table 2.14 Beta (±SE) estimates for best models for the top ten species of cerambycids captured in 2013. ................................................................ 46 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Location of FRAME study sites in Newark, Delaware. Sites where traps were located for both the 2012 and 2013 field seasons are marked in black. Sites used only in 2013 are dark grey. Additional 2013 sites located in Wilmington and Hockessin are not depicted on this map have utm coordinates of 18S 456999 4400333 (Wilmington 1), 18S 455821 4401112 (Wilmington 2), 18S 444616 4404625 (Mount Cuba Interior), and 18S 441685 4404829 (Hough). ........................................... 5 Figure 1.2 Species with total catch greater than 20 individuals in 2012 arranged chronologically by subfamily. Bars indicate range of activity period. Species in bold were captured in 2012 and 2013. ................................... 12 Figure 1.3 Species with total catch greater than 20 individuals in 2013 arranged chronologically by subfamily. Bars indicate range of activity period. Species in bold were captured in 2012 and 2013. ................................... 13 Figure 1.4 Mean (± SEM) number of individuals collected in traps with different lures. Letters indicate