INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Micrdnlms International 300 N ZEE B ROAD, ANN AR80R. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4EJ. ENGLAND 8100158 G o l d m a n , J a c k H e r b e r t COMPARATIVE DIETS AND REPRODUCTIVE OUTPUT IN AN OMNIVOROUS INSECT The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1980 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor, MI 48106 COMPARATIVE DIETS AND REPRODUCTIVE OUTPUT IN AN OMNIVOROUS INSECT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jack Herbert Goldman, B.S., M.S. The Ohio State University 1980 Reading Committee* Approved by Dr. George Dalrymple Dr. David Denlinger Dr. David Horn Environmental Biology Program Dr. Sheldon Lustick To my wife and parents, who made this worth doing. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank George Dalrymple for his faith in me, his patience, his inexhaustable good will, and his invaluable assistance! there are few people like George. I also want to thank my wife, Jan, for her tireless interest and support and help in writing and the graphics* I promise, Jani never again! I also want to thank Dave Denlinger for his help and the use of his lab, and also Shelley Lustick, Dave Horn, Roy Tassava, Pete Pappas, George Barber, Rodger Mitchell, Mike Murtaugh, Ann Gnagey, Jay Bradfield, John McCabe, Sue Mahaney, Ron Stuckey, the Environmental Biology Program, and the Department of Zoology. VITA July 15» 1 9 5 ^ .... Born, New York City 1971-1975 ........ New York State Regents Scholarship 1975 ............. Teaching Assistant, State Univer­ sity of New York at Binghamton 1975 ............. B.S., Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Binghamton 1975-1979 ........ Graduate Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1976-1980 ........ Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1978 ............. M.S., Environmental Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Nutritional physiology of cockroaches Computer simulation of population extinction Theoretical ecology TABLE OP CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ....................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... iii VITA ............................................. iv LIST OF T A B L E S ................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................... 6 A. Organization of Study .............. 6 B. Husbandry.......................... 6 C. Sampling .......................... 9 D. Measurements ...................... 10 E. Calculations...................... 11 F. Statistical analysis .............. 16 III. RE S U L T S.................................... 18 A. Growth and demography.............. 18 B. Food c o n s u m p t i o n .................. 21 C. Approximate digestibility .......... 21 D. Body w e i g h t ........................ 22 E. Relative growth r a t e .............. 23 F. Conversion efficiencies ............ 23 G. Oxygen consumption ................ 2k H. Reproductive investment ............ 2k I. Composite food u s e ................ 25 IV. DISCUSSION ................................ 26 V. CONCLUSIONS................................ kO BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... kk v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Pooled number of survivors at each instar for each diet (juvenile period), and G-test for differences (if significant, diets listed in increasing order by initial* L, low pro­ tein; M, medium protein; H, high protein) .... 58 2. Days to adulthood, each d i e t .....................58 3 . Pooled number of female survivors at begin­ ning of adulthood and at first three repro­ ductive efforts for each diet, and G-test for differences................................... 59 4. Interval (days) between adult eclosion of females and the appearance of the first ootheca........................................... 60 5. Pooled number of offspring produced at first three reproductive efforts for each diet, and G-test for differences.............................6 l 6 . Pooled values of number of offspring produced per reproductive effort at first three repro­ ductive efforts for each d i e t .................... 61 7. Pooled values of percentage of successful reproductive efforts at first three repro­ ductive efforts for each diet .......... 62 8 . Pooled values of number of offspring produced per successful reproductive effort at first three reproductive efforts for each diet.......... 62 9. Medians and ranges (in parenthesis) of values of approximate digestibilty ........... 63 10. Medians and ranges (in parentheses) of the consumption index for each diet at each sampling period, expressed as mg consumed per mg body weight per day (all weights are dry weights). 66 vi LIST OP TABLES (continued) Table Page 11. Medians and ranges (in parentheses) of values of body weight (in mg dry weight) for each diet at each sampling period (ten individuals sampled per d i e t ) .............. 68 12. Pooled values of relative growth rate (in mg gained per mg weight (dry weights)), each sampling period, for each d i e t .......... 70 13. Pooled values of conversion efficiency of ingested food (as percentages, based on dry weights) for each d i e t .................. 71 14. Pooled values of conversion efficiency of (digested) food into body substance (as per­ centages, based on dry weights) for each diet . 72 15. Medians and ranges (in parentheses) of oxygen consumption (expressed as microliters 0 2 per mg dry weight per day) for each diet at each sampling (one individual sampled per d i e t ) .................................... 73 16. Pooled values of reproductive investment (expressed as total mg. dry weight of oothecae produced per mg dry weight of Insect per day) for each d i e t ................................. 75 17. Reproductive biomass produced per day as a percentage of total food ingested per day (dry weights), each sampling period, for each d i e t ..................................... 76 18. Reproductive biomass produced per day as a percentage of toal food digested per day (dry weights), each sampling period, for each d i e t ..................................... 76 19. Medians and ranges (in parentheses) of dry weights of second-effort oothecae (in mg.) for each d i e t ................................. 77 20. Pooled values of number of oothecae per female per day for each population sampling period, each d i e t ............................ 7 7 vii LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table Page 21. Food use values of select insect species (other indices* CIt consumption index| R, respiration + ingestions RA, respiration assimilation).............................. 78 22. Averages and standard deviations of food use values of selected insect orders from Table 21 and Blattella germanica ...................... 82 23* Compensations in food use (+, positive evi­ dence for mechanism* negative evidence for mechanism).............................. 83 24. Age or size-related trends in food use indices (+t increase* -t decrease* 0 , unclear) .... 86 viii LIST OP FIGURES Page Figure 1. Fooled number of adult survivors in popula­ tions fed each diet through the first three reproductive efforts. (Solid line, high protein diet* dashed line, medium protein diet; dotted line, low protein diet ) . 90 2. Fooled number of offspring from populations fed each diet through the first three repro­ ductive efforts. (Solid line, high protein dieti dashed line, medium protein diet; dotted line, low protein diet ) .......... 91 3 - Percentage of reproductive efforts, pooled for populations fed