Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:05:10.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISTRIBUTIONS OF SCOLYTUS VENTRALIS ATTACKS, EMERGENCE, AND PARASITES IN GRAND FIR1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Alan A. Berryman
Alan A. Berryman
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The distributions of Scolytus ventralis LeConte attacks, emergence, and parasites were studied by stratified sampling of 20 grand fir. Of the theoretical distributions tested the negative binomial gave the best fit to all three sets of data. Three sample unit sizes were analyzed (1/4, 1/2, and 1 sq. ft) and all gave similar estimates of the mean, although the smallest sample unit influenced the distribution by increasing the frequency of the zero class. Approximate normality was achieved by applying logarithmic transformation to the attack data and the Taylor power transformation to the emergence and parasite data. Analysis of variance showed that the vertical position of the sample in the tree was die most consistent factor influencing the distribution of attacks, emergence, and parasitism, while cardinal aspect had little effect. Considerable variation also occurred among trees within a group. The density of attacks was extremely variable both within and between trees, although it was slightly higher on rough bark. Emergence was generally greater in the basal half of the tree, being reduced in the upper levels by competition with other insects. Emergence increased with attack density up to about 13 attacks per square foot. Thereafter survival was probably limited by intraspecific competition. Parasitism appeared to be reduced near the base of the tree by thick bark and at the top by lack of host larvae.

Sampling designs for the fir engraver will have to consider variations between trees and vertical strata within the tree.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 100 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 57 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1968

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

Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3: 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beall, G. 1942. The transformation of data from entomological field experiments so that the analysis of variance becomes applicable. Biometrika 32: 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, A. A. 1965. Insect predators of the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis LeConte, with particular reference to the clerid, Enoclerus lecontei (Wolcott). PhD. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bliss, C. I. 1958. The analysis of insect counts as negative binomial distributions. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. Vol. 2. pp. 1015–1031.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. W., and Cole, W. E.. 1965. A technique for sampling populations of the mountain pine beetle. U.S. Forest Serv. Res. Paper INT-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1947. Some consequences when the assumptions for the analysis of variance are not satisfied. Biometrics 3: 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coohran, W. G., and Cox, G. M.. 1962. Experimental designs. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
DeMars, C. J. Jr., 1966. An analysis of within-tree changes in distribution of the western pine beetle, Dendroctonus brevicomis LeConte, during development. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Eisenhart, C. 1947. The assumptions underlying the analysis of variance. Biometrics 3: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guenther, W. C. 1964. Analysis of variance. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. B., and Rudinsky, J. A.. 1962. Biology and habits of the Douglas-fir beetle parasite, Coeloides brunneri Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in western Oregon. Can. Ent. 94: 748–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, R. F. 1965. Distribution of attacks by Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk. on Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm. Can. Ent. 97: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, R. W., and Borden, J. H.. 1965. Observations on mortality factors of the fir engraver beetle, Scolytus ventralis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J. econ. Ent. 58: 1162–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struble, G. R. 1957. The fir engraver, a serious enemy of western true firs. U.S. Dep. Agric. Prod. Res. Rep. No. 11.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. 1961. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature, Lond. 189: 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, W. E. 1959. A quantitative measure of aggregation in insects. J. econ. Ent. 52: 1180–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, W. E., and Henson, W. R.. 1959. Some sampling attributes of the negative binomial with special reference to forest insects. Forest Sci. 5: 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar