Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T00:14:30.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). IX.—Spatial distribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. Milne
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Extract

The garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.), has been recorded in most counties of England and Wales (43 out of 52) and is probably to be found in all. It is more abundant the warmer and wetter the region, i.e., it is more abundant in the west and south and most abundant in the south-west. It flourishes best in permanent pasture on light soil in hilly country, and occurs from sea-level to an altitude of at least 1,160 ft.

Patchiness in local distribution was investigated on the pastures of fell farms in the Lake District.

An infested fell pasture includes from one to five plant associations which are described as (1) Grass, (2) Sparse Bracken, (3) Bracken Bed, (4) Heath Rush and (5) Common Rush. Typically, all five are present in a pasture. The proportions of ground covered by grass turf (Agrostis-Festuca) in these associations are (1) 100 per cent., (2) 99 per cent., (3) 0 per cent., (4) 80 per cent, and (5) 50 per cent., the grass turf in the rush associations (4 & 5) filling the spaces between clumps of rushes. Soil stages of the garden chafer are found only in the grass turf and so the Bracken Bed association is never infested. In terms of density per unit area of ground, the other four associations exhibit the following relation between their infestations: Grass>Sparse Bracken>Heath Rush>Common Rush. This relation is only partly explained by the similar relation between proportions of ground covered by grass turf (see above). As to other factors that might be partly responsible, no correlation exists between botanical characteristics of grass turf and infestation but there are two negative correlations among physical characteristics which are suggestive: Grass and Sparse Bracken-<Heath Rush and Common Rush with respect to toughness of turf; and Grass<Sparse Bracken<Heath Rush<Common Rush with respect to wetness.

Grassland, an unbroken expanse of grass sward, is, in the Lake District, by far the most important habitat since it carries by far the greatest part of the garden chafer population.

In grassland no evidence was found of an association between density of soil stages and proximity to bracken.

The population of any soil stage, from egg to pupa, is always much greater in drier than in wetter parts of grassland.

Sampling at intervals within a generation indicated that the mortality rate is higher in the wetter parts of grassland. This is not due to any lack of food, or difficulty of utilising it, or to the presence of more enemies (competitors, predators, parasites and pathogens) in the wetter parts, but, as established by laboratory and field experiments, is attributable to a direct effect of moisture. Further experiments suggested that the egg stage is most and the feeding stages are least resistant to excessive moisture.

Field experiments also indicated that the so-called ‘effective bee-liners’, females characterised by a direct and sustained flight from their roosting sites and that lay some eggs far afield, exercise some degree of discrimination in the choice of oviposition sites, the majority tending to choose the drier parts of grassland, the kind of site that does in fact, become more highly infested. Less than a quarter of all females become effective bee-liners and as such lay only about 15 per cent, of all eggs deposited by a population.

There is a dynamic aspect to the phenomenon that population is greater in drier than wetter parts of grassland. Although population is always greater in the drier parts, the magnitude of the population ratio between drier and wetter parts can change considerably from one year to the next as a result of either excessive rain or excessive drought during the larval feeding period. The mechanism of such change is indicated.

Spatial distribution on grassland was assessed statistically by employing Fisher's Coefficient of Dispersion. Eggs, and hence newly hatched larvae, are strongly aggregated. This strong degree of aggregation is gradually lessened, however, by the subsequent wanderings of the larvae in the course of feeding. Nevertheless, even in the final instar, larvae are still appreciably aggregated and hence so also are pupae. By the end of the feeding period, average dispersal from the hatching point is probably not more than 12 inches.

Apart from proper food, which is provided by grassland, the most important living condition for the garden chafer in the soil appears to be proper soil moisture. Although actual limits have not been specified, survival clearly depends on the soil containing neither too much nor too little water for too long.

As regards geographical distribution in England and Wales, the finding that the garden chafer is more abundant the warmer and wetter the climate is explained as follows. Females grow larger, and hence produce more eggs, where the larval feeding period is warmer, and more larvae survive where the climate is wetter, because the greater rainfall means less chance of too little water for an animal that has to live in freely draining soil to avoid too much water.

Fundamentally, the patchy local distribution of the garden chafer is mainly a matter of the patchiness of soil-moisture conditions. The patchiness determined by these conditions is maintained and intensified by the reproductive behaviour of the adults.

Accounts of other species in this and other countries suggest that, for pasture scarabs in general, soil moisture is the chief factor concerned in determining spatial distribution.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (19541956). Monthly weather reports of the Meteorological Office. London, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Bilham, E. G. (1938). The climate of the British Isles.—347 pp. London, MacMillan.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. (1942). Statistical and ecological studies in the distribution of species in plant communities. I. Dispersion as a factor in the study of changes in plant populations.—Ann. Bot. (N.S.) 6 pp. 351370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke, T. V. (1960). The black soil scarab, Othnonius batesii Olliff. A progress report.—Department of Agriculture, Graman, Australia, pp. 19. (Unpublished.)Google Scholar
Cameron, A. E. (1941). Insect and other pests of 1940.—Trans. Highl. agric. Soc. Scot. 53 pp. 7797.Google Scholar
Clapham, A. R. (1936). Over-dispersion in grassland communities and the use of statistical methods in plant ecology.—J. Ecol. 24 pp. 232251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, J. (1860). Farm insects.—528 pp. Glasgow, &c., Blackie & Son. Also (1883). London, van Voorst.Google Scholar
Dumbleton, L. J. (1942). The grass grub (Odontria zealandica White): a review of the problem in New Zealand.—N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 23 pp. 305A321A.Google Scholar
Fidler, J. H. (1936 a). Some notes on the biology and economics of some British chafers.—Ann. appl. Biol. 23 pp. 409427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fidler, J. H. (1936 b). An investigation into the relation between chafer larvae and the physical factors of their soil habitat.—J. Anim. Ecol. 5 pp. 333347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. A. H., Peet, W. V. & Rogerson, J. P. (1947). Observations on the chafer grub problem in the Lake District.—Bull. ent. Res. 37 pp. 455468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, G. H. (1948). The distribution, life-history and control of Phyllophaga anxia Lee. in Quebec and Ontario.—Sci. Agric. 28 pp. 403416.Google Scholar
Laughlin, R. (1957 a). Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). III.—The growth of the larva.—Bull. ent. Res. 48 pp. 127154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, R. (1957 b). Absorption of water by the egg of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola L.—J. exp. Biol. 34 pp. 226236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, R. (1962). The reproductive physiology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.).—Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Durham.Google Scholar
Laughlin, R. (1964). Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). VIII.—Temperature and larval growth.—Bull. ent. Res. 54 pp. 745759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maelzer, D. A. (1961). The effect of temperature and moisture on the immature stages of Aphodius tasmaniae Hope (Scarabaeidae) in the lower southeast of South Australia.—Austr. J. Zool. 9 pp. 173202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. (1956). Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). II.—The cycle from egg to adult in the field.—Bull. ent. Res. 47 pp. 2342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. (1959 a). Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). V.—The flight season: sex proportions.—Bull. ent. Res. 50 pp. 3952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. (1959 b). The centric systematic area-sample treated as a random sample.—Biometrics 15 pp. 270297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. (1960). Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). VII.—The flight season: male and female behaviour, and concluding discussion.—Bull. ent. Res. 51 pp. 353378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, A. & Laughlin, R. (1956). Biology and ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.). I.—The adult and egg production.—Bull. ent. Res. 47 pp. 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormerod, E. A. (1893). Report of observations on injurious insects and common farm pests during the year 1892.—167 pp. London, Simpkin, Marshall.Google Scholar
Raw, F. (1951). The ecology of the garden chafer, Phyllopertha horticola (L.) with preliminary observations on control measures.—Bull. ent. Res. 42 pp. 605646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. & Hollick, F. S. J. (1944). Studies of wireworm populations. I. A census of wireworms in pasture.—Ann. appl. Biol. 31 pp. 5264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. & Hollick, F. S. J. (1946). Studies on wireworm populations. II. Spatial distribution.—J. exp. Biol. 23 pp. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaerffenberg, B. (1947 a). Bodenentseuchung durch überschwemmung.—Zbl. Gesamtgeb. Ent. 2 pp. 4851.Google Scholar
Schaerffenberg, B. (1947 b). Grossversuch zur Bekämpfung des Maikäferengerlings durch Sommerüberschwemmung.—Zbl. Gesamtgeb. Ent. 2 pp. 5153.Google Scholar
Schjøtz-Christensen, B. (1957). The beetle fauna of the corynephoretum in the ground of the Mols Laboratory, with special reference to Cardiophorus asellus Er. (Elateridae).—Nat. Jutland. 6–7 pp. 1120.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. H. & Thompson, H. W. (1928). A garden chafer attack.—Ann. appl. Biol. 15 pp. 258262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, I. & Heal, G. M. (1944). Chafer damage to grassland in north Wales in 1942–1943 by Phyllopertha horticola L. and Hoplia philanthus Fuess. I. Notes on population, life history and morphology.—Ann. appl. Biol. 31 pp. 124131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M. G. (1944). Notes on the biology of Dexia rustica F., a Dipterous parasite of Melolontha melolontha L.—Proc. zool. Soc. (A) 113 pp. 126176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, C. L. (1935). The control of Phyllopertha horticola L. in grassland.—Rep. agric. hort. Res. Sta. Bristol 1934 pp. 150157.Google Scholar
Warburton, C. (1909). Annual report for 1909 of the zoologist.—J. R. agric. Soc. 70 pp. 355361.Google Scholar
Warburton, C. (1911). Annual report for 1911 of the zoologist.—J. R. agric. Soc. 72 pp. 381386.Google Scholar