Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-13T23:07:26.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENERGY DYNAMICS OF MELANOPLUS BIVITTATUS AND M. FEMURRUBRUM (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE) IN A GRASSLAND ECOSYSTEM1,2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C. G. Bailey  and
M. K. Mukerji
C. G. Bailey
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba
M. K. Mukerji
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bioenergetic studies on populations of the two-striped grasshopper, Melanoplus bivittatus (Say), and the red-legged grasshopper, M. femurrubrum (De Geer), at a natural grassland site in Ottawa in 1971 and 1972 indicated that the former species ingested 0.42% and the latter 0.44% of the green shoot primary production (3057 kcal/m2). An additional 1.22 and 1.30% of this production were cut and dropped by the grasshoppers, so that a total of 1.64 and 1.74% of the green vegetation was removed by M. bivittatus and M. femurrubrum, respectively. These two species assimilated 41 and 35% of the ingested food, the remainder being voided as faeces. Respiration accounted for 62% of the energy assimilated by M. bivittatus and for 63% of that assimilated by M. femurrubrum. Approximately 0.06% of the energy of primary production was converted by each species into body and was available to higher trophic levels. However, 94% of the potential energy of the green vegetation removed by the grasshoppers was returned to the "decomposer compartment" of the ecosystem, with only 6% removed or lost from the system.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 4 , April 1977 , pp. 605 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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.)

References

Andrzejewska, L., Breymeyer, A., Kajak, A., and Wojcik, Z.. 1967. Experimental studies on trophic relationships of terrestrial invertebrates, pp. 477–496. In Petrusewicz, K. (Ed.), Secondary productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and Krakow.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. G. and Riegert, P. W.. 1973. Energy dynamics of Encoptolophus sordidus costalis in a grassland ecosystem. Can. J. Zool. 51: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Engelmann, M. D. 1966. Energetics, terrestrial field studies, and animal productivity, pp. 73–115. In Cragg, J. B. (Ed.), Advances in ecological research (Vol. 3). Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Golley, F. B. 1960. Energy dynamics of a food chain of an old-field community. Ecol. Monogr. 30: 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyllenberg, G. 1969. The energy flow through a Chorthippus parallelus (Zett.) (Orthoptera) population on a meadow in Tvarminne, Finland. Acta zool. fenn. 123: 1–74.Google Scholar
Hinton, J. M. 1971. Energy flow in a natural population of Neophilaenus lineatus (Homoptera). Oikos 22: 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbould, P. J. 1967. Methods for estimating the primary production of forests and woodlands. Blackwell, Oxford and Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Odum, E. P. 1968. Energy flow in ecosystems: A historical review. Am. Zool. 8: 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, E. P., Connell, C. E., and Davenport, L. B.. 1962. Population energy flow of three primary consumer components of old field ecosystems. Ecology 43: 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr Manual No. 128. 1958. Instructions for the No. 1411 combustion colorimeter. Parr Instrument Co., Moline, Ill.Google Scholar
Petrusewicz, K. 1967. Concepts in studies on the secondary productivity of terrestrial ecosystems, pp. 17–49. In Petrusewicz, K. (Ed.), Secondary productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and Krakow.Google Scholar
Phillipson, J. and Watson, J.. 1965. Respiratory metabolism of the terrestrial isopod Oniscus asellus L. Oikos 16: 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobodkin, L. B. 1962. Energy in animal ecology, pp. 69–101. In Cragg, J. B. (Ed.), Advances in ecological research (Vol. 1). Academic Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
Smalley, A. E. 1960. Energy flow of a salt marsh grasshopper population. Ecology 41: 672–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. W. and Stewart, W. W. A.. 1946. A useful cage for sampling field populations of grasshoppers. A. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 73: 32–35.Google Scholar
Westlake, D. F. 1963. Comparisons of plant productivity. Biol. Rev. 38: 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegert, R. G. 1964. Population energetics of meadow spittlebugs, Philaenus spumarius L. as affected by migration and habitat. Ecol. Monogr. 34: 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegert, R. G. 1965. Energy dynamics of the grasshopper populations in old field and alfalfa field ecosystems. Oikos 16: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegert, R. G. and Evans, P. C.. 1967. Investigations of secondary productivity in grasslands, pp. 499–578. In Petrusewicz, K. (Ed.), Secondary productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and Krakow.Google Scholar