Researches on Population Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 186–210 | Cite as

Regulatory processes and population cyclicity in laboratory populations ofAnagasta Kühniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae). III. The development of population models

  • M. P. Hassell
  • C. B. Huffaker


  1. 1.

    Life table data for interactions betweenAnagasta kühniella and its ichneumon parasiteVenturia canescens in two room ecosystems (A & B) have been analyzed in an attempt to explain and model each room situation. The life table data have been presented in the form of a graphical key-factor analysis, and have been further analyzed by an investigation of the density relationships between the different mortalities and theAngasta densities upon which the mortalities act.

  2. 2.

    In room A (1.2 gm food per container), the parasites were present throughout the interaction. Egg and early larval mortality (k 1) appeared to be directly density-dependent and was the sole stabilizing influence when introduced into the model for room A. The area of discovery of the parasite was relatively constant and its mean value was used to calculate parasitism (k 3) in the model. All other mortalities were density-independent and treated as being constant at their mean values. The model predicts a series of oscillations of decreasing amplitude which are somewhat similar to those observed in theAnagasta population during the early stages of the interaction. The observed mean densities of host and parasite were very close to those predicted.

  3. 3.

    In room B, the parasites were absent for the first 8 generations (1- 2gm food per container). Model B1 covers this period and includes a direct density-dependent component describing changes ink 1, the remaining mortalities being constant. The observed mean densities approximate to the calculated densities. The parasites were present from the ninth generation and after the eleventh generation the food per container was increased to 7.2 gm. Model B2 covers the period in room B from generation 11. The most important component ofk 1 after the parasites were established is a delayed density-dependent one which appeared to be due to wounding of very small larvae by the probing activities of the parasites. Since the changes ink 1 could not be suitably predicted, the observed values were used in model B2. This delayed component was not detected in room A due to the relatively small range of parasite densities in room A compared with the 600-fold change in densities in room B. The calculated area of discovery for the parasite population in each generation was found to vary inversely with searching parasite density, and this ‘interference relationship’ was used in the submodel for parasitism. Again, this relationship was not detected in room A due to the much smaller range of parasite densities there. Model B2 gives oscillations in host and parasite populations arising from parasitism being a delayed density-dependent mortality. The correspondence with the observed oscillations is partly due to the actualk 1-values being used and partly because the submodel for parasitism adequately describes the observed changes ink 3. The tendency for these oscillations to decrease in amplitude is due to both the damping effect of parasite interference and the direct density-dependent component ofk 1.



Population Model Parasite Density Larval Mortality Host Density Adult Parasite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahmad, T. (1936) The influence of ecological factors on the Mediterranean flour moth,Ephestia kühniella and its parasite,Nemeritis canescens. J. Anim. Ecol.5: 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diamond, V. R. (1929) The biology ofNemeritis canescens, a parasite of the Mediterranean flour moth.60th Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario, pp. 84–89.Google Scholar
  3. Fisher, R. C. (1959) Life history and ecology ofHorogenes chrysostictosGmelin (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae), a parasite ofEphestia sericariumScott (Lepidoptera, Phycitidae).Can. J. Zool.37: 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Flanders, S. E. andM. E. Badgley (1963) Prey-predator interactions in self-balanced laboratory populations.Hilgardia35: 145–183.Google Scholar
  5. Flanders, S.E. andI.M. Hall (1965) Manipulated bacterial epizootics inAnagasta populations.J. Invert. Path.7: 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hassell, M.P. (1969a) A study of the mortality factors acting uponCyzenis albicans (Fall.), a tachinid parasite of the winter moth (Operophtera bmmata (L.)).J. Anim. Ecol.38: 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hassell, M. P. (1969b) A population model for the interaction betweenCyzenis albicans (Fall.) (Tachinidae) andOperophtera bramata (L.) (Geometridae) at Wytham, Berkshire.J. Anim. Ecol.38: 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hassell, M. P. andC. B. Huffaker (1969) The appraisal of delayed and direct density-dependence.Can. Ent.101: 353–361.Google Scholar
  9. Hollino, C. S. (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism.Can. Ent.91: 385–398.Google Scholar
  10. Huffaker, C. B., C. E. Kennett, B. Matsumoto and E.G. White (1968) Some parameters in the role of enemies in the natural control of insect abundance. Pp. 59-75 inInsect Abundance, edited by T. R. E. Southwood,Symp. Roy. Ent. Soc. London, No. 4.Google Scholar
  11. Huffaker, C. B. andC. E. Kennett (1969) Some aspects of assessing efficiency of natural enemies.Can. Ent.101: 425–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huffaker, C. B., K. P. Shea andS. G. Herman (1963) Experimental studies on predation. III. Complex dispersion and levels of food in an acarine predator-prey interaction.Hilgardia34: 305–330.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, R. D. andN. Gilbert (1969) A model of an aphid population —a general statement.J. Anim. Ecol.37: 553–564.Google Scholar
  14. Narayanan, E. S. (1939) ‘Auto-parasitism’ byNemeritis canescens (Grav.) (Ichneumonidae).Nature144: 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicholson, A. J. (1933) The balance of animal populations.J. Anim. Ecol. Supplement to Vol.2: 132–178.Google Scholar
  16. Nicholson, A. J. and V. A. Bailey (1935) The balance of animal populations. Part 1.Proc. Zool. Soc. London: 551-598.Google Scholar
  17. Norris, M. J. (1933) Contributions towards the study of insect fertility. II. Experiments on the factors influencing fertility inEphestia kühniella Z. (Lepidoptera, Phycitidae).Proc. Zool. Soc. London4: 903–934.Google Scholar
  18. Richards, O. W. andW. S. Thompson (1932) A contribution to the study of the generaEphestia,Gn. (includingStrymax,Dyar), andPlodia,Gn. (Lepidoptera, Phycitidae), with notes on parasites of the larvae.Trans. Roy. Ent. Soc. London80: 169–250.Google Scholar
  19. Richards, O. W. andN. Waloff (1954) Studies on the biology and population dynamics of British grasshoppers.Anti-Locust Bull.17: 182 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Salt, G. (1961) Competition among insect parasitoids.Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol.15: 96–119.Google Scholar
  21. Simmonds, F. J. (1943) The occurrence of superparasitism inNemeritis canescensGrav.Rev. Can. Biol.2: 15–58.Google Scholar
  22. Southwood, T. R. E. (1966)Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations. Methuen & Co., London, 391 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Southwood, T. R. E. andW. F. Jepson (1966) Studies on the populations ofOscinella frit L. (Dipt.: Chloropidae) in the oat crop.J. Anim. Ecol.31: 481–495.Google Scholar
  24. Ullyett, G. C. andJ. S. Merwe, v. d. (1947) Some factors influencing population growth ofEphestia kühniellaZell. (Lep., Phycitidae).J.Ent. Soc. S. Africa10: 46–63.Google Scholar
  25. Varley, G. C. (1953) Ecological aspects of population regulation.Trans. IXth Intern. Congr. Ent.2: 210–214.Google Scholar
  26. Varley, G. C. andG. R. Gradwell (1960) Key factors in population studies.J. Anim. Ecol.29: 399–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Varley, G. C. andG. R. Gradwell (1963a) The interpretation of insect population changes.Proc. Ceylon Assoc. Advmt. Sci.18(D): 142–156.Google Scholar
  28. Varley, G. C. andG. R. Gradwell (1963b) Predatory insects as density dependent mortality factors.Proc. XVI Intern. Zool. Congr.1: 240.Google Scholar
  29. Varley, G. C. and G. R. Gradwell (1968) Population models for the winter moth. pp. 132-142 inInsect Abundance, edited by T. R. E. Southwood.Symp. Roy. Ent. Soc. London, No. 4.Google Scholar
  30. Wadsworth, R. V. (1919) Notes on the life history ofEphestia kühniella.Ann. Appl. Biol.6: 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. White, E. G. andC. B. Huffaker (1969a) Regulatory processes and population cyclicity in laboratory populations ofAnagasta kühniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae). I. Competition for food and predation.Res. Popul. Ecol.11: 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. White, E. G. andC. B. Huffaker (1969b) Regulatory processes and population cyclicity in laboratory populations ofAnagasta kühniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae). II. Parasitism, predation, competition and protective cover.Res. Popul. Ecol.11: 150–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, J. R. (1951) The factors which promote and influence the oviposition ofNemeritis canescensGray. (Ichneumonidae, Ophioninae).Proc. Roy. Ent. Soc. London, Ser. A26: 49–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Hassell
    • 1
  • C. B. Huffaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological ControlUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations