CHEMOECOLOGY

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 94–106 | Cite as

Performance of first instarChrysophtharta bimaculata larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on nine families ofEucalyptus regnans (Myrtaceae)

  • Kathryn C. Patterson
  • Anthony R. Clarke
  • Carolyn A. Raymond
  • Myron P. Zalucki
Research papers

Summary

In bagged and unbagged shoot experiments, we investigated the survival and growth rate of first instar larvae ofChrysophtharta bimaculata on 9 families of a natural host,Eucalyptus regnans. Families used had been previously assessed as being either of low or high susceptibility toC. bimaculata damage. In conjunction with larval experiments, we measured 24 tree and leaf characteristics (including foliar elemental concentrations, foliar terpenes, leaf toughness and tree growth rates) and attempted to correlate the plant characters measured with differences in larval performance and previous scorings ofE. regnans family susceptibility.

First instar larval growth and survival did not differ significantly across families or between low and high susceptibility family groups (=susceptibility classes), although survival was significantly greater in bagged than unbagged treatments. As predators were in low abundance at the study site, we attribute higher survival rates of larvae in bagged treatments to increased protection from adverse weather conditions. Only one plant character measured, an unidentified foliar phlorglucinol, was significantly negatively correlated with larval survival. Of the 24 plant characters measured, 11 were significantly different between families and 10 were signficantly different between susceptibility classes. Only 4 plant characters were significantly different at both the family and susceptibility class levels;viz. proportion red leaves, tree height at end of season, trunk volume at end of season and relative growth rate based on tree height. Principle Component Analysis using all plant characters measured, or subsets of them, could not separate individual families or susceptibility classes. Our results suggest that herbivore resistance mechanisms inE. regnans do not affectC. bimaculata larvae, but may influence adult feeding and/or oviposition.

Key words

herbivory plant resistance leaf colour leaf toughness tree growth rate leaf nutrients terpenes Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Paropsinae Chrysophtharta bimaculata Myrtaceae Eucalyptus regnans 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker S (1995) A comparison of feeding, development and survival of larvae of the leaf beetleChrysophtharta bimaculata (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) onEucalyptus nitens andEucalyptus regnans. 1995 Open Forum and Symposium Conference, Ecological Society of Australian, Hobart, 27–29th September. Pg. 26.Google Scholar
  2. Beckmann R (1992) Trees that resist insect attack. Ecos 70:23–25.Google Scholar
  3. Boland DJ, Brophy JJ, House APN (1991)Eucalyptus Leaf Oils — Use, Chemistry Distillation and Marketing. Melbourne: Inkata PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Candy SG, Elliott HJ, Bashford R, Greener A (1992) Modelling the impact of defoliation by the leaf beetle,Chrysophtharta bimaculata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), on height growth ofEucalyptus regnans. Forest Ecol Manage 54:69–87Google Scholar
  5. Casotti G, Bradley JS (1991) Leaf nitrogen and its effects on the rate of herbivory on selected eucalypts in the jarrah forest. Forest Ecol Manage 41:167–177Google Scholar
  6. Courtney SP, Kibota TT (1990) Mother doesn't know best: Selection of hosts by ovipositing insects. Pp 161–188in Bernays EA (ed.) Insect Plant Interactions. Vol II. Boca Raton CA: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox ML (1994) Egg bursters in the Chrysomelidae, with a review of their occurrence in the Chrysomeloidea (Coleoptera). Pp 75–110in Jolivet PH, Cox ML, Petitpierre E (eds) Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae. NL-Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  8. Cremer KW (1966) Dissemination of seed fromEucalyptus regnans. Aust For 30:33–37Google Scholar
  9. Cremer KW (1977) Distance of seed dispersal inEucalyptus estimated from seed weights. Aust For Res 7:225–228Google Scholar
  10. de Little DW (1983) Life cycle and aspects of the biology of TasmanianEucalyptus leaf beetle,Chrysophtharta bimaculata (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Aust ent Soc 22:15–18Google Scholar
  11. de Little DW (1989) Paropsine chrysomelid attack on plantations ofEucalyptus nitens in Tasmania. New Zealand J Forest Sci 19:223–227Google Scholar
  12. de Little DW, Elliott HJ, Madden JL, Bashford R (1990) Stage-specific mortality in two field populations of immatureChrysophtharta bimaculata (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Aust ent Soc 29:51–55Google Scholar
  13. de Little DW, Madden JL (1975) Host preference in the Tasmanian eucalypt defoliating Paropsini (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with particular reference toChrysophtharta bimaculata (Olivier) andC. agricola (Chapuis). J Aust ent Soc 14:387–394Google Scholar
  14. Edwards PB, Wanjura WJ, Brown WV (1993) Selective herbivory by Christmas beetles in responses to intraspecific variation inEucalyptus terpenoids. Oecologia 95:551–557Google Scholar
  15. Elliott HJ, Bashford R, Greener A, Candy SG (1992) Integrated pest management of the Tasmanian Eucalyptus beetleChrysophtharta bimaculata (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Forest Ecol Manage 53:29–38Google Scholar
  16. Elliott HJ, Bashford R, Greener A (1993). Effects of defoliation by the leaf-beetleChrysophtharta bimaculata on growth ofE. regnans plantations in Tasmania. Aust Forest 56:22–26Google Scholar
  17. Floyd RB, Farrow RA (1994) The potential role of natural insect resistance in the integrated pest management of eucalypt plantations in Australia. Pp 55–76in Halos SC, Natividad FF, Escote-Carlson LJ, Enriquez GL, Umboh I (eds) Forest Pest and Disease Management. Bogor: Seameo Biotrop (Biotrop Special Publication No. 53)Google Scholar
  18. Fox LR, Macauley BJ (1977) Insect grazing onEucalyptus in response to variation in leaf tannins and nitrogen. Oecologia 29:145–162Google Scholar
  19. Greaves RTG (1966) Insect defoliation of eucalypt regrowth in the Florentine Valley, Tasmania. Appita 19:119–126Google Scholar
  20. Heffernan B (1985) A Handbook of Inorganic Chemical Analysis for Forest Soils, Foliage and Water. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Forest ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsson S, Ohmart CP (1988) Leaf age and larval performance of the leaf beetle,Paropsis atomaria. Ecol Entomol 13:19–24Google Scholar
  22. Li H (1993) Phytochemistry ofEucalyptus spp. and its role in insect-host-tree selection. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, HobartGoogle Scholar
  23. Li H, Madden JL, Potts BM (1995) Variation in volatile leaf oils of the TasmanianEucalyptus species. I. SubgenusMonocalyptus. Biochem Syst Ecol 23:299–318Google Scholar
  24. Lowther JR (1980) Use of a single acid-hydrogen peroxide digest for the analysis ofPinus radiata needles. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 11:175–188Google Scholar
  25. Mazanec Z (1985) Resistance ofEucalyptus marginata toPerthida glyphopa (Lepidoptera: Incurvariidae). J Aust ent Soc 24:209–221Google Scholar
  26. McLeod S (1992) Determination of total soil and plant nitrogen using a micro-distillation unit in a continuous flow analyser. Anal Chem Acta 266:113–117Google Scholar
  27. Morrow PA, Fox LR (1980) Effects of variation inEucalyptus essential oils yield on insect growth and grazing damage. Oecologia 45:209–219Google Scholar
  28. Ohmart CP (1991) Role of food quality in the population dynamics of chrysomelid beetles feeding onEucalyptus. Forest Ecol Manage 39:35–46Google Scholar
  29. Ohmart CP, Edwards PB (1991) Insect herbivory onEucalyptus. Annu Rev Entomol 36:637–657Google Scholar
  30. Ohmart CP, Larsson S (1989) Evidence for absorption of eucalypt essential oils byParopsis atomaria Olivier (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Aust ent Soc 28:201–205Google Scholar
  31. Ohmart CP, Stewart LG, Thomas JR (1985) Effects of food quality, particularly nitrogen concentrations, ofEucalyptus blakelyi foliage on the growth ofParopsis atomaria larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 65:543–549Google Scholar
  32. Ohmart CP, Thomas JR, Stewart LG (1987) Nitrogen, leaf toughness and the population dynamics ofParopsis atomaria Olivier (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) — a hypothesis. J Aust ent Soc 26:203–207Google Scholar
  33. Oyeyele SO, Zalucki MP (1990) Cardiac glycosides and oviposition byDanaus plexippus onAsclepias fruticosa in south-east Queensland (Australia) with notes on the effect of plant nitrogen content. Ecol Entomol 15:177–185Google Scholar
  34. Raymond CA (1995) Genetic variation inEucalyptus regnans andEucalyptus nitens for levels of observed defoliation caused by theEucalyptus leaf beetle,Chrysophtharta bimaculata Olivier, in Tasmania. For Ecol Manage 72:21–29Google Scholar
  35. Raymond CA (1996) Role of leaf developement and colour change in differential defoliation ofEucalyptus regnans families by the leaf eating beetleChrysophtahrta bimaculata (Olivier). Forest Ecol Manage: in pressGoogle Scholar
  36. Rayment GE, Higginson FR (1992) Australian Laboratory Handbook of Soils and Water Chemical Methods. Melbourne: Inkata PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Sands DPA, Brancatini VA (1991) A portable penetrometer for measuring leaf toughness in insect herbivory studies. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 93:786–788Google Scholar
  38. Scriber JM, Slansky F Jr (1981) The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annu Rev Entomol 26:183–211Google Scholar
  39. Selman BJ (1994) The biology of the paropsine eucalyptus beetles of Australia. Pp 555–565in Jolivet PH, Cox ML, Petitpierre E (eds) Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae. NL-Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  40. Southwell IA, Maddox CDA, Zalucki MP (1995) Metabolism of 1,8-cineole in tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia andM. linariifolia) by pyrgo beetle (Paropsisterna tigrina). J Chem Ecol 21:439–453Google Scholar
  41. Springett BP (1978) On the ecological role of insects in Australian eucalypt forests. Aust J Ecol 3:129–139Google Scholar
  42. Stone C, Bacon PE (1994) Relationships among moisture stress, insect herbivory, foliar cineole content and the growth of river red gumEucalyptus camaldulensis. J Appl Ecol 31:604–612Google Scholar
  43. Strauss SY, Morrow PA (1988) Movement patterns of an Australian chrysomelid beetle in a stand of twoEucalyptus host species. Oecologia 77:231–237Google Scholar
  44. Zalucki MP, Brower LP, Malcolm SB (1990) Oviposition byDanaus plexippus in relation to cardenoloid content of threeAsclepias species in southeastern USA. Ecol Entomol 15:231–240Google Scholar
  45. Zalucki MP, Brower LP (1992) Survival of first instar larvae ofDanaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Danainae) in relation to cardiac glycoside and latex content ofAsclepias humistrata (Ascelpiadaceae). Chemoecology 3:81–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn C. Patterson
    • 1
  • Anthony R. Clarke
    • 1
  • Carolyn A. Raymond
    • 1
    • 2
  • Myron P. Zalucki
    • 3
  1. 1.Co-operative Research Centre for Temperate Hardwood ForestryAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Division of ForestryAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Entomology and Co-operative Research Centre for Tropical Pest ManagementThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations