, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 75–79 | Cite as

Factors affecting pupal survival and eclosion in the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea (D&S)

  • Simon R. Leather
Original Papers


The proportion of adult Panolis flammea emerging from the overwintering pupae was markedly affected by pupation substrate, waterlogging, temperature and relative humidty. Pupae which had spent the winter in needle litter had a significantly greater survival rate than those in either soil or peat.

The greater the length of time spent waterlogged the greater the mortality rate of P. flammea pupae. At temperatures of-20° C, there was 100% pupal mortality within 24 h of exposure.

Pupal weight loss was proportional to the length of time spent as a pupa. Female pupae lost proportionately more weight than male pupae. Pupae of both sexes lost more weight at a low relative humidity than at a high relative humidity. At low relative humidities female pupal mortality was higher than that of male pupae.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altenkirch W (1978) Kieferngroßschädlinge in Niedersachsen 1977/78. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 14:367–368Google Scholar
  2. Blatchford ON (1978) Forestry Practice. Forestry Commission Bulletin 14:1–138Google Scholar
  3. Botterweg PF (1982) Protandry in the pine looper, Bupalus piniarius (Lep Geometridae); an explanatory model. Neth J Zool 32:169–193Google Scholar
  4. Busby RJN (1974) Forest site yield guide to upland Britain. Forest Record 97:1–13Google Scholar
  5. Escherich K (1931) Die Forstinsekten Mitteleuropas Bd 3, Paul Parey, Berlin, p 825Google Scholar
  6. Hart G, Lull HW (1963) Some relationships among air, snow and soil temperatures and soil frost. US Forest Service Research Note NE-3 1–4Google Scholar
  7. Holliday NJ (1983) Effects of temperature on winter moth pupae, Operophtera brumata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) Can Ent 115:243–249Google Scholar
  8. Holmquist AM (1931) Studies on arthropod hibernation III. Temperatures in forest hibernacula. Ecology 12:387–400Google Scholar
  9. Klimetzek D (1972) Die zeitfolge von übervermehrungen nadelfressender kiefernraupen in der Pfalz seit 1810 und die ursachen ihres rückganges in neuer Zeit. Z Ang Ent 71:414–428Google Scholar
  10. Leather SR, Barbour DA (1983) The effect of temperature on the emergence of pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea (D&S) (Lep, Noctuidae) Z Ang Ent 96:445–448Google Scholar
  11. Lekander B (1954) Skogsinsekternas uppträdande i Sverige under tiden 1946–1950. Medd Stat Skogforskinst 44:1–46Google Scholar
  12. Meyer E (1931) Beobachtungen und untersuchungen zur biologie und bekämpfung der kieferneule Panolis flammea Schiff. Z Ang Ent 18:1–56Google Scholar
  13. Priesner E, Bogenschutz H, Altenkirch W, Arn H (1978) A sex attractant for the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea. Z Naturforsch 33c:1000–1002Google Scholar
  14. Saalas U (1949) Suomen Metsähyönteiset. WSOY, Helsinki, p 653Google Scholar
  15. Schwenke W (1978) Die Forstschädlinge Europas Vol 3 Schmetterlinge. Paul Parey, Hamburg und BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Stoakley JT (1977) A severe outbreak of the pine beauty moth on Lodgepole pine in Sutherland. Scottish Forestry 31:113–125Google Scholar
  17. Stoakley JT (1978) The pine beauty moth — its distribution, life cycle and importance as a pest in Scottish forests. In: Control of Pine Beauty Moth by Fenitrothion in Scotland, Holden AV, Bevan D (eds) pp 7–12Google Scholar
  18. Stoakley JT (1979) Pine beauty moth. Forest Record 120:1–11Google Scholar
  19. Turnock wJ, Lamb RJ, Bodnaryk RP (1983) Effects of cold stress during pupal diapause on the survival and development of Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Oecologia (Berlin) 56:185–192Google Scholar
  20. Wiklund C, Fagerström T (1977) Why do males emerge before females? a hypothesis to explain the incidence of protandry in butterflies. Oecologia (Berlin) 31:153–158Google Scholar
  21. Zwölfer W (1931) Studien zur Ökologie und epidemiologie der Insekten. I. Die kieferneule, Panolis flammea Schiff. Z Ang Ent 17:475–562Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon R. Leather
    • 1
  1. 1.Forestry CommissionNorthern Research StationRoslinUK

Personalised recommendations