The Components of Predation as Revealed by a Study of Small-Mammal Predation of the European Pine Sawfly1 | The Canadian Entomologist | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)
Extract
The fluctuation of an animal's numbers between restricted limits is determined by a balance between that animal's capacity to increase and the environmenta1 cheks to this increase. Many authors have indulged in the calculating the propressive increase of a population when no checks nrerc operating. Thus Huxley calculatedthat the progeny of a single Aphis in the course of 10 generations, supposing all survived,would “contain more ponderable substance than five hundred millions of stout men; that is, more than the whole population of China”, (in Thompson, 1929). Checks, however, do occur and it has been the subject of much controversy to determine how these checks operate. Certain general principles—the density-dependence concept of Smith ( 1955) , the competition theory of Nicholson (1933)—have been proposed both verbally and mathematically, but because they have been based in part upon untested and restrictive assumptions they have been severelv criticized (e.g. Andrewartha and Birch 1954). These problems could be considerably clarified if we knew the mode of operation of each process that affects numbers, if we knew its basic and subsidiary components. predation, one such process, forms the subject of the present paper.
Information
Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1959
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.)
Article purchase
Temporarily unavailable
References
Andrewartha, H. G. and Birch, L. C.. 1954. The distribution and abundance of animals. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bird, F. T. 1952. On the artificial dissemination of the virus disease of the European saw-fly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.). Can. Dept. Agric., For. Biol. Div., Bi–Mon. Progr. Rept. 8(3): 1–2.Google Scholar
Bird, F. T. 1953. The use of a virus disease in the biological control of the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.). Can. Ent. 85: 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, W. F. 1941. Techniques for the study of mammal populations, J. Mamm. 22: 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckner, C. H. 1957. Population studies on small mammals of southeastern Manitoba. J. Mamm. 38: 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, T. 1951. Effects of temperature and host density on the rate of increase of an insect parasite. Amer. Nat. 85: 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, T. 1954. Influences of natural temperatures and controlled host densities on oviposition of an insect parasite. Physiol. Ecol. 27: 239–248.Google Scholar
Burt, W. H. 1940. Territorial behaviour and populations of some small mammals in southern Michigan. Misc. Publ. Univ. Mich. Mus. Zool. no. 45: 1–52.Google Scholar
De Bach, P. 1958. The role of weather and entomophagous species in the natural control of insect populations, J. Econ. Ent. 51: 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1941. The effect of host density on the rate of reproduction of entomophagous parasites, J. Econ. Ent. 34: 741–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1947. Effects of parasite population density on rate of change of host and parasite populations. Ecology 28: 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Errington, P. L. 1934. Vulnerability of bob-white populations to predation. Ecology 15: 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Errington, P. L. 1943. An analysis of mink predation upon muskrats in North-Central United States. Agric. Exp. Sta. Iowa State Coll. Res. Bull. 320: 797–924.Google Scholar
Errington, P. L. 1945. Some contributions of a fifteen-year local study of the northern bob-white to a knowledge of population phenomena. Ecol. Monog. 15: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Errington, P. L. 1946. Predation and vertebrate populations. Quart. Rev. Biol. 21: 144–177, 221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, G., and Gunn, D. L.. 1940. The orientation of animals. Oxford.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1955. The selection by certain small mammals of dead, parasitized, and healthy prepupae of the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Goeff.). Can. J. Zool. 33: 404–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1958a. A radiographic technique to identify healthy, parasitized, and diseased sawfly prepupae within cocoons. Can. Ent. 90: 59–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1958b. Sensory stimuli involved in the location and selection of sawfly cocoons by small mammals. Can. J. Zool. 36: 633–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, H. 1956. On the theories on host-parasite interaction. Int. Union of For. Res. Organizations, 12th Congress, Oxford, 1956.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Lincoln, F. C. 1930. Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns. U.S. Dept. Agric. Circular 118.Google Scholar
MacLagan, D. S. 1932. The effect of population density upon rate of reproduction, with special reference to insects. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. 111: 437–454.Google Scholar
Morris, R. F., Chesire, W. F., Miller, C. A., and Mott, D. G.. 1958. Numerical response of avian and mammalian predators during a gradation of the spruce budworm. Ecology 39(3): 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, A. J., and Bailey, V. A.. 1935. The balance of animal populations. Part 1, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1935, p. 551–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prebble, M. L. 1943. Sampling methods in population studies of the European spruce saw-fly, Gilpinia hercyniae (Hartig.) in eastern Canada. Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., Third Series, Sect. V. 37: 93–126.Google Scholar
Ricker, W. E. 1941. The consumption of young sockeye salmon by predaceous fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 5: 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W., and Sang, J. H.. 1944. The ecological determinants of population growth in a Drosophila culture. I. Fecundity of adult flies. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B., 132: 258–277.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecology 18: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickel, L. F. 1954. A comparison of certain methods of measuring ranges of small mammals. J. Mamm. 35: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1930. The principles of biological control. Ann. Appl. Biol. 17: 306–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1939. Biological control and the theories of the interactions of populations. Parasitology 31: 299–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, L. 1949. Bosvogels en insecten. Nederl. Boschbouue. Tijdschr. 21: 91–105.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, L. 1955. The effect of predators on the numbers of their hosts. Vakblad voor Biologen 28: 217–228.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D. 1922. The natural control of the fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea Drury) in Canada. Can. Dept. Agr. Bull. 3, new series (Ent. Bull. 19): 1–107.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949a. Distribution of progeny by Cryptus inornatus Pratt. (Hym. Ichneumonidae). Can. Ent. 81: 285–299, 82: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949b. Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. (Hym. Braconidae). Can. Ent. 81: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, G. C. 1947. The natural control of population balance in the knapweed gall-fly (Urophora jaceana). J. Anim. Ecol. 16: 139–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, G. C. 1953. Ecological aspects of population regulation. Trans. IXth Int. Congr. Ent. 2: 210–214.Google Scholar
Voûte, A. D. 1946. Regulation of the density of the insect populations in virgin forests and cultivated woods. Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie 7: 435–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voûte, A. D. 1956. Forest entomology and population dynamics. Int. Union For. Res. Organizations, Twelfth Congress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Voûte, A. D. 1958. On the regulation of insect populations. Proc. Tenth Int. Congr. of Ent. Montreal, 1956.Google Scholar