Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T23:58:06.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CARABID BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPRUCE BUDWORM, CHORISTONEURA FUMIFERANA (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. Marcel Reeves ,
Gary A. Dunn  and
Daniel T. Jennings
R. Marcel Reeves
Affiliation:
Entomology Department, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Gary A. Dunn
Affiliation:
Entomology Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Daniel T. Jennings
Affiliation:
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Barrier-pitfall traps and tree bands were used to sample adult carabid beetles in five forest stands of different tree species composition and spruce budworm infestation levels. Twenty genera and 37 species were collected over the 2-year period. Adult carabid populations were highest in the red spruce stand while carabid species diversity was greater in hardwood and fir stands having the most tree species diversity. Potential adult carabid predators of spruce budworm were identified using 5 criteria: number of individuals, habitat preferences, seasonal abundance, size, and food. We conclude that adults of Pterostichus pensylvanicus (Lec.) had the highest potential as predators of spruce budworm followed by Platynus decentis Say, Calosoma frigidum Kby., Pterostichus tristis (Dej.), Cymindis cribricollis Dej., Pterostichus rostratus (Newm.), Calathus ingratus Dej., and Pterostichus adoxus (Say).

Résumé

Des pièges-fosses et des bandes sur les arbres ont été utilisés pour échantillonner la faune carabique dans 5 boisés de composition différente et ayant différents niveaux d'mfesiation de la tordeuse des bourgeons de l'épinette. Vingt genres et 37 espèces ont été relevées au cours des 2 ans. Les populations de carabes adultes les plus élevées ont été recensées dans le boisé d'épinette rouge, mais la diversité spécifique était plus grande dans les boisés d'essences à bois dur et les boisés de sapin ayant la diversité d'arbres la plus grande. Les prédateurs adultes potentiels de la tordeuse ont été identifiés à partir de 5 critères : nombre d'individus, préférences écologiques, abondance saisonnière, taille et ressource alimentaire. Nous concluons que les adultes de Pterostichus pensylvanicus (Lec.) ont montré le meilleur potentiel en tant que prédateurs de la tordeuse, suivis de Platynus decentis Say, Calosoma frigidum Kby., Pterostichus tristis (Dej.), Cymindis cribricollis Dej., Pterostichus rostratus (Newm.), Calathus ingratus Dej. et Pterostichus adoxus (Say).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 115 , Issue 5 , May 1983 , pp. 453 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1983

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

Ashley, M. D. and Stark, D.. 1976. Photo field guide for on-the-ground evaluation of spruce budworm damage (Choristoneura fumiferana, Clem.) on balsam fir (Abies balsamea, Mill.). Maine agric. Exp. Stn Misc. Publ., May 1976. 20 pp.Google Scholar
Barlow, C. A. 1970. Phenology and distribution of some Pterostichus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of eastern Canada. Jl. N.Y. ent. Soc. 78: 215–237.Google Scholar
Burgess, A. F. and Collins, C. W.. 1917. The genus Calosoma: including studies of seasonal histories, habits, and economic importance of American species north of Mexico and several introduced species. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Ent. Bull. 417. 124 pp.Google Scholar
Dunn, G. A. and Reeves, R. M.. 1980. A modified collection net for catching insects under cloth bands on trees. Ent. News 91: 7–9.Google Scholar
Durkis, T. J. and Reeves, R. M.. 1982. Barriers increase efficiency of pitfall traps. Ent. News 93: 8–12.Google Scholar
Freitag, R., Hastings, L., Mercer, W. R., and Smith, A.. 1973. Ground beetle populations near a kraft mill. Can. Ent. 105: 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, R. and Poulter, F.. 1970. The effects of the insecticide sumithion and phosphamidon on populations of five species of carabid beetles and two species of lycosid spiders in northwestern Ontario. Can. Ent. 102: 1307–1311.Google Scholar
Gidaspow, T. 1959. North American caterpillar hunters of the genera Calosoma and Callisthenes (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 116: 225–344.Google Scholar
Goulet, H. 1974. Biology and relationships of Pterostichus adstrictus Eschscholtz and Pterostichus pensylvanicus Leconte (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Quaest. ent. 10: 3–33.Google Scholar
Greenslade, P. J. M. 1964. Pitfall trappings as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). J. Anim. Ecol. 33: 301–310.Google Scholar
Holliday, N. J. and Hagley, E. A. C.. 1978. Occurrence and activity of ground beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae) in a pest management apple orchard. Can. Ent. 110: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. E. and Cameron, R. S.. 1969. Phytophagous ground beetles. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62: 909–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krall, J. H. 1977. The predation of litter-dwelling Carabidae on larvae of the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana in northern Maine. MS. Thesis, Univ. Maine, Orono.Google Scholar
Kulman, H. M. 1974. Comparative ecology of North American Carabidae with special reference to biological control. Entomophaga 7: 61–70.Google Scholar
Larochelle, A. 1975. Les Carabidae du Québec et du Labrador. Dep. Biol. Coll. (Bourget, Rigaud, Quebec) Bull. 1. 255 pp.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C. H. 1961. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pt. 2. Opusc. Ent. Suppl. 20. pp. 1–200.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C. H. 1963. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pt. 3. Opusc. Ent. Suppl. 24. pp. 201–408.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C. H. 1966. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pt. 4. Opusc. Ent. Suppl. 29. pp. 409–648.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C. H. 1968. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pt. 5. Opusc. Ent. Suppl. 33. pp. 649–944.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C. H. 1969 a. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pt. 6. Opusc. Ent. Suppl. 34. pp. 945–1192.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C. H. 1969 b. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pt. 1. Opusc. Ent. Suppl. 35. pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M., Zar, J. H., and Karr, J. R.. 1968. On the calculation of information-theoretical measures of diversity. Am. Midl. Nat. 79: 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, M. L. 1975. Some factors influencing efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia 19: 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, G. V. 1971. A seed-cacheing carabid (Coleoptera). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 64: 1474–1475.Google Scholar
Martin, J. L. 1965. The insect ecology of red pine plantations in central Ontario. III Soil surface fauna as indicators of stand change. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 95: 87–102.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1974. Population and Community Ecology. Gordon and Breach Sci. Publ., New York. 424 pp.Google Scholar
Reeves, R. M. 1980. The use of barriers with pitfall traps. Ent. News 91: 10–12.Google Scholar
Sanders, C. J. and Frankenhuyzen, K.. 1979. High populations of a carabid beetle associated with spruce budworm. Bi-mon. Res. Notes 35: 21–22.Google Scholar
Smith, B. J. 1976. A new application in the pitfall trapping in insects. Trans. Ky Acad. Sci. 37: 94–97.Google Scholar
Varty, I. W. and Carter, N. E.. 1974. Inventory of litter arthropods and airborne insects in fir-spruce stands treated with insecticides. Maritimes For. Res. Centre, Inf. Rep. M-X-48. 32 pp.Google Scholar
Williams, B. H., Coates, W. H., and Scripture, P. N.. 1943. Soil survey of Coos County, New Hampshire. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Pl. Ind. Ser. 1937, No. 5. 99 pp.Google Scholar