The Pine Looper in Britain and Europe

  • David A. Barbour
Part of the Population Ecology book series (POPE)

Abstract

The pine looper moth, Bupalus piniaria Linnaeus, has been a serious pest of European forestry for more than 200 years, particularly in Germany,15,17,30,32,61 In the Netherlands, where the looper has never attained pest status, the population dynamics and general biology have been intensively studied.10,20,37,38 The pine looper was not known as a pest in Britain until 1953, when larvae totally defoliated 40 ha of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) at Cannock Chase, Staffordshire. Subsequent secondary infestations by the bark beetle, Tomicus piniperda Linnaeus, resulted in death of the trees.11 Since then, pupal samples have been taken annually in some 50 different Forestry Commission pine areas. Seven subsequent outbreaks on five different sites have been treated with insecticides. High populations have also been found in plantations of Corsican pine (Pinus nigra) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). This chapter describes the dynamics of populations in Britain, but makes frequent reference to studies in Germany and the Netherlands.

Keywords

Host Tree Population Cycle Pupal Weight Tussock Moth Canadian Lynx 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adlung, K. G., 1966, A critical evaluation of the European research on use of red wood ants (Formica rufa group) for the protection of forests against harmful insects, Z. Angew. Entomol. 57: 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, R. M., and May, R. M., 1981, The population dynamics of microparasites and their invertebrate hosts, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 191: 451–524.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltensweiler, W., 1964, Zeiraphera griseana Hübner (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in the European Alps. A contribution to the problem of cycles, Can. Entomol. 96: 792–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbour, D. A., 1980, Population dynamics of the pine looper moth Bupalus piniaria (L.) (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in British pine forests, PhD. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barbour, D. A., 1985, Patterns of population fluctuation in the pine looper moth Bupalus piniaria L. in Britain, in: Site Characteristics and Population Dynamics of Lepidopteran and Hymenopteran Forest Pests (D. Bevan and J. T. Stoakley, eds.), pp. 8–20, Forestry Commission Research and Development Paper 135.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berryman, A. A., 1985, Site characteristics and population dynamics: A theoretical perspective, in: Site Characteristics and Population Dynamics of Lepidopteran and Hymenopteran Forest Pests (D. Bevan and J. T. Stoakley, eds.), pp. 1–7, Forestry Commission Research and Development Paper 135.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bevan, D., and Brown, R. M., 1961, The Pine looper moth Bupalus piniarius in Rendlesham and Sherwood Forests-1959, Rep. Forest Res. ( Lon. ) 1961: 172–179.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bevan, D., and Brown, R. M., 1978, Pine looper moth, For. Comm. Forest Rec. 119.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bevan, D., and Paramonov, A., 1962, Fecundity of the pine looper moth, Bupalus piniarius, Rep. For. Res. (Lon.) 1962: 174–176.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Botterweg, P. F., 1978, Moth behaviour and dispersal of the pine looper, Bupalus piniarius L. (Lepidoptera, Geometridae), Neth. J. Zool. 28: 341–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crooke, M., 1959, Insecticidal control of the pine looper in Great Britain. I. Aerial spraying, Forestry 32: 166–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crooke, M., 1970, Studies on tit and pine looper moth populations at Culbin Forest, Rep. Forest Res. (Lon.) 1970: 185.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davies, J. M., 1962, The pine looper moth, Bupalus piniarius, at Cannock Chase in 1960, Rep. Forest Res. (Lon.) 1962: 176–182.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ebert, W., 1967, Uber den Einfluss von Klima und Witterung auf den Massenwechsel des Kiefernspanners, Arch. Forst. 16: 787–792.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebert, W., 1968, Die Schadgebiete unserer wichtigsten Kiefern-bestandesschädlinge im Tiefland der DDR. I. Die Schadgebiete des Kiefernspanners und der Forleule, Arch. Forst. 17: 125–144.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ebert, W., and Otto, D., 1969, Zur Populationsdynamik des Kiefernspanners (Bupalus piniarius Linné) in nordostdeutschen Tiefland, Ber. 10 Wandervers Entomol. (DAL Berlin) 80: 309–316.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Escherich, K., 1931, Die Forstinsekten Mitteleuropas, Vol. 3, Paul Parey, Berlin.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fagerstron, T., Larsson, S., Lohm, U., and Tenow, 0., 1978, Growth in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.): A hypothesis on response to Blastophagus piniperda L. (Col., Scolytidae) attacks, Forest Ecol. Man. 1: 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gibb, J. A., and Betts, M. M., 1963, Food and food supply of nestling tits (Paridae) in Breckland pine, J. Anim. Ecol. 32: 489–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gruys, P., 1970, Growth in Bupalus piniarius (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in relation to larval population density, Agric. Res. Rep. 742: 127.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gruys, P., 1971, Mutual interference in Bupalus piniarius (Lepidoptera, Geometridae), in: Dynamics of Populations. Proceedings of the Advanced Study Institute on “Dynamics of Numbers in Populations,” Oosterbeek, The Netherlands, September 7–18, 1970, pp. 199–207, PUDOC, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haeselbarth, E.,’ 1979, Zur Parasitierung der Puppen von Forleule (Panolis flammea [Schiff.]), Kiefernspanner (Bupalus piniarius [L.]) und Heidelbeerspanner (Boarmia bistortata [Goeze] in Bayerischen Kiefernwaldem, Z. Angew. Entomol. 87: 186–202, 311–322.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hassell, M. P., and May, R. M., 1973, Stability in insect host—parasite models, J. Anim. Ecol. 42: 693–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hassell, M. P., and Varley, G. C., 1969, New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control, Nature (Lon.) 223: 1133–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herrebout, W. M., 1966, The fate of the eggs of Eucarcelia rutilla VILL. deposited upon the integument of the host, Z. Angew. Entomol. 58: 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Herrebout, W. M., 1969, Some aspects of host selection in Eucarcelia rutilla VILL, Neth. J. Zool. 19: 1104.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hukuhara, T., 1985, Pathology associated with cytoplasmic polyhedrosis viruses, in: Viral Insecticides for Biological Control ( K. Maramorosch and K. E. Sherman, eds.), pp. 121–162, Academic, London.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Isaev, A., and Khlebopros, R. G., 1977, Inertial and non-inertial factors regulating forest insect population density, in: Proceedings of a Conference on Pest Management. Int. Appl. Systems Analysis CP-77–6, Laxenburg, Austria ( G. A. Norton and C. S. Holling, eds.), pp. 317–319, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jahn, E., and Sinreich, A., 1957, Zum Auftreten des Kiefernspanners, Bupalus piniarius L. im Burgenland in den Jahren 1952–1956, Z. Angew. Entomol. 41: 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klimetzek, D., 1972, Die Zeitfolge von Ubervermehrungen nadelfrassender Kiefernraupen in der Pfalz seit 1810 und die Ursachen ihres Rückganges in neuerer Zeit, Z. Angew. Entomol. 71: 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klimetzek, D., 1975, Umfang und Auswirkung von Begiftungsaktionen gegen Kiefernraupen in Nordbayem, Allg. Forst. Z. 146: 186–191.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klimetzek, D., 1979, Insekten-Grosschädlinge an Kiefer in Nordbayern und der Pflaz: Analyse und Vergleich 1810–1970, Institut für Forstzoologie, Freiburg.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klomp, H., 1953, Die Bedeutung der populations-dynamischen Forschung in der angewandten Entomologie, Mitt. Biol. Zentr. (Berl.) 75: 28–33.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klomp, H., 1956, Die morphologischen Merkmale und die Bionomie der Kiefemspanner-tachine Carcelia obesa Zett. (=rutilla B.B.), Z. Angew. Entomol. 38: 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klomp, H., 1958, On the synchronization of the generations of the tachinid Carcelia obesa Zett. (=rutilla B.B.) and its host Bupalus piniarius L., Z. Angew. Entomol. 42: 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klomp, H., 1959, Infestations of forest insects and the role of parasites, in: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress on Zoology, London, 1958.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klomp, H., 1966, The dynamics of a field population of the pine looper Bupalus piniarius L. (Lep. Geom.), Adv. Ecol. Res. 3: 207–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klomp, H., 1968, A seventeen-year study of the abundance of the pine looper Bupalus piniarius L. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), Symp. R. Entomol. Soc. (Lon.) 4: 98–108.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klomp, H., 1974, Population dynamics: A key to the understanding of integrated control, in: Insects: Studies in Population Management (P. W. Geiber, L. R. Clark, D. J. Anderson, and H. A. Nix, eds.), pp. 69–79, Ecol. Soc. Aust. (memoirs 1), Canberra.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klomp, H., and Gruys, P., 1965, The analysis of factors affecting reproduction and mortality in a natural population of the pine looper, Bupalus piniarius L., Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress on Entomology, London, 1964. pp. 369–372.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Klomp, H., and Teerink, B. J., 1962, Host selection and number of eggs per oviposition in the egg—parasite Trichogramma embryophagum HTG, Nature (Lond.) 195: 1020–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mason, R. R., and Luck, R. F., 1978, Numerical behaviour of populations, in: The Douglas-fir tussock moth: A synthesis. (M. H. Brooks, R. W. Stark, and R. W. Campbell, eds.), pp. 39–47, U.S. Forest Service Tech. Bull. #1585.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mattson, W. J., and Addy, N. D., 1975, Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production, Science 190: 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miller, H. G., Miller, J. D., and Binns, W. O., 1977, Growth of Scots pine under nutritional and climatic stress, Plant Soil 48: 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mook, J. H., Mook, L. J., and Heikens, H. S., 1963, Further evidence for the role of “searching images” in the hunting behavior of titmice, Arch. Neerl. Zool. 13: 448–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moran, P. A. P., 1953, The statistical analysis of the Canadian Lynx cycle, Aust. J. Zool. 1: 163–173, 291–298.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ohnesorge, B., 1963, Beziehungen zwischen Regulationsmechanisms und Massenwechselablauf bei Insekten, Z. Angew. Zool. 50: 427–483.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Oldiges, H., 1959, Der Einfluss der Waldbodendüngung auf das Auftreten von Schadinsekten, Z. Angew. Entomol. 45: 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Otto, D., and Geyer, W., 1970, Zur Bedeutung des Kiefernnadelhurzes und des Kiefetnnadelöles für die Entwicklung Nadelfressender Insekten. Arch. Forst. 19: 151–167.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Poole, R. W., 1974, An Introduction to Quantitative Ecology, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Potts, G. R., Tapper, S. C., and Hudson, P. J., 1984, Population fluctuations in red grouse: Analysis of bag records and a simulation model, J. Anim. Ecol. 54: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Royama, T., 1977, Population persistence and density dependence, Ecol. Monog. 47: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Royama, T., 1984, Population dynamics of the spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana, Ecol. Monog. 54: 429–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schoonhoven, L. M., 1963, Diapause and the physiology of host parasite synchronization in Bupalus piniarius L. (Geom.) and Eucarcelia rutilla Vill. (Tach.), Arch. Neerl. Zool. 26: 111–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schwenke, W., 1968, Neue Hinweise auf eine Abhängigkeit der Vermehrung blatt und nadelfressender Forstinsekten von Zuckergehalt ihrer Nahrung, Z. Angew. Entomol. 611: 365–369.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schwenke, W., 1978, Forstchadlinge Europas, Vol. 3: Schmetterlinge, Paul Parey, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schwerdtfeger, F., 1935, Studien über den Massenweschsel einiger Forstschädlinge, Z. Forst. Jagdw. 67: 15–38, 85–104, 449–482, 513–540.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schwerdtfeger, F., 1941, Uber die Ursachen des Massenwechsels der Insekten, Z. Angew. Entomol. 28: 254–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stenseth, N. C., 1981, On Chitty’s theory for fluctuating populations: The importance of genetic polymorphism in the generation of regular density cycles, J. Theor. Biol. 90: 9–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tenow, O., 1972, The outbreaks of Oporinia autumnata Bkh. and Operophthera spp. (Lep. Geometridae) in the Scandinavian mountain chain and northern Finland 1862–1968, Zool. Bidr. Uppsala. (Suppl. 2 )Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Varley, G. C., 1949, Population changes in German forest pests, J. Anim. Ecol. 18: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Varley, G. C., and Gradwell, G. R., 1970, Recent advances in insect population dynamics, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 15: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Veen, J. C., Van, 1981, The biology of Poecilostictus cothurnatus (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) an endoparasite of Bupalus piniarius (Lepidoptera, Geometridae), Ann. Entomol. Fenn. 47: 77–93.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vezina, A., and Peterman, R. M., 1985, Tests of the role of a nuclear polyhedrosis virus in the population dynamics of its host, Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), Oecologia (Berl.) 67: 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Voute, A. D., 1964, Harmonious control of forest insects, Int. Rev. Forest Res. 1: 325–383.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    White, T. C. R., 1974, A hypothesis to explain outbreaks of looper caterpillars with special reference to populations of Selidosema sauvis in a plantation of Pinus radiata in New Zealand, Oecologia (Berl.) 16: 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Barbour
    • 1
  1. 1.Forest Research StationBritish Forestry CommissionSurreyEngland

Personalised recommendations