We present records of Diceroprocta vitripennis, Tibicen chloromera, and Tibicen pruinosa (new state record) in Michigan. Monitoring geographic range changes and population size differences by song suggests several population situations for cicadas: (1) sizable populations in most areas of apparently good habitat; (2) widely separated single individuals or small populations on the edges of populated regions, representing range extensions that may be of limited duration; (3) one or a few individuals present only once, probably transferred in soil on roots, and ultimately unsuccessful. Species- specific calling songs allow sensitive measurement of species\u27 range changes

Alexander, Richard D

Cooley, John R

Marshall, David Ciszek

Moore, Thomas E

English

Valparaiso University

The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 29 Number 3 - Fall 1996 Number 3 - Fall 1996 Article 7 October 1996 New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on the Use of Songs to Monitor Range Changes David Ciszek Marshall University of Michigan John R. Cooley University of Michigan Richard D. Alexander University of Michigan Thomas E. Moore University of Michigan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle  Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Marshall, David Ciszek; Cooley, John R.; Alexander, Richard D.; and Moore, Thomas E. 1996. "New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on the Use of Songs to Monitor Range Changes," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 29 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss3/7 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at scholar@valpo.edu. THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST1996 165 NEW RECORDS OF MICHIGAN CICADIDAE (HOMOPTERA), WITH NOTES ON THE USE OF SONGS TO MONITOR RANGE CHANGES David Ciszek Marshall, John R. Cooley, Richard D. Alexander, and Thomas E. Moore1 ABSTRACT We present records of Diceroprocta vitripennis, Tibicen chloromera, and Tibicen pruinosa (new state record) in Michigan. Monitoring geographic range changes and population size differences by song suggests several popu­lation situations for cicadas: (1) sizable populations i most areas of appar­ently good habitat; (2) widely separated single individuals or small popula­tions on the edges of populated regions, representing range extensions that may be of limited duration; (3) one or a few individuals present only once, probably transferred in soil on roots, and ultimately unsuccessful. Species­specific calling songs allow sensitive measurement of species' range changes. A REVIEW OF SOME EXISTING RECORDS Moore (1966) listed ten species of cicadas in Michigan. Alexander et al. (1972) doubted the significance of two of these species'rec rds. First, the record of Magicicada cassini (Fisher) was based on a single specimen "found amid several quarts of specimens collected 21 June 1936 in Ann Arbor (Brood X) by I. J. Cantrall" (Moore 1966) at Eberwhite Woods in Ann Arbor, Washte­naw County. This specimen could not be relocated, and the species has not otherwise been reported in the vicinity of Ann Arbor, despite listening efforts (which have included Eberwhite Woods) during every emergence since 1957. These circumstances le d u to doubt that M. cassini exists in Michigan. Sec­ond, Tibicen chloromera (Walker) was reported from a specimen found in a student collection from Whitmore Lake, Washtenaw County, and labeled as taken dead inside an automobile; TEM also reported this species from Lenawee and I gham Counties. Alexander et aL (1972) suggested that T. chloromera may not occur in eastern Michigan north of Lenawee County. Be­tween 1957 and 1993, no songs of this species were heard in southeastern Michigan by either TEM or RDA. Our new records, including Tibicen pr ­inosa Say, a new state record, return the number of cicada species known in Michigan to ten: Diceroprocta vitripennis (Say), Magicicada septendecim (L.), Okanagana canadensis (Prov.), O. rimosa (Say), Tibicen auletes (Ger.), T. canicularis (Harris), T. chloromera, T. linnei (S. a d G.), T  lyricen (De G.), and T. pruinosa. 1 Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079. 1Marshall et al.: New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on thePublished by ValpoScholar, 1996---166 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 29, No.3 NEW RECORDS Our records are composed primarily of listening records. In 1993, 1995, and 1996, intensive efforts were made to seek out and listen for the cicada species listed below. We did not make any special efforts to listen for these species during 1994. Diceroprocta vitripennis (Say) - Moore's (1966) Michigan record of D. vitripennis has been supplemented by (1) the collection of four females and one male at Warren Dunes, Berrien County, on 17 July 1982, by Mark and Adrienne O'Brien, (2) a single female collected in Grand Mere, Berrien County, 21 July 1982, by L. Schaddelee (Univ. Mich. Mus. Zoo!.), and (3) a single male collected at Grand Mere by D. Wilsey on 20-24 June 1996 (de­posited in UMMZ). Tibicen chloromera (Walker) - On 30 August 1993, RDA heard one male of T. chloromera singing in Jasper, Michigan (Lenawee County), on Route 52, and several others along Black Creek, approximately 0.7 mi. south of Jasper. DCM confirmed these records on 21 August 1996 and added an ad­ditionallistening record (several males) along the River Raisin, on Deerfield Road east of Adrian in Lenawee County. TEM noted T. chloromera in this county in 1995 and 1996. On the afternoon f 5 September 1996, DCM andJRC heard several males of T. chloromera in St. Joseph County, along the Pi­geon River at the intersection of Marl Lake Road and Indi n Prairie Road and along the Fawn River at Sevinson Road. Additional listening by DCM and JRC on these days in Hillsdale, Branch, Cass, and Berrien Counties yielded no T. chloromera. However, TEM reports having heard this species in Hillsdale County and recorded it in Monroe County (1994, 1995 and 1996) north of Dundee near the Raisin River, on Davis Rd. T. chloromera is abun­dant across much of the eastern United States, including most of Ohio, and t now appears to extend into the southern ti r of Michigan counties. All of our records are limited to the southern portions of these counties, despite listen­ing efforts farther north. Moore's (1966) record from Ingham County stands alone in this respect; new listening attempts should be made to determine if the species persists there. Tibicen pruinosa Say - On 23 August 1993, at approximately 20:00 hr, DCM heard one male of T. pruinosa singing on Packard Street at Arch Street in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County. On 26 August 1993, at approximately 20:25 hr, DCM tape-recorded a male of T. pruinosa singing at the corner of Geddes Avenue and Church Street, in Ann Arbor. On 18 August 1995, at20:42 hr, DCM recorded another male at this same location. On approxi­mately the same date, RDA heard either one or two T. pruinosa males singing at Bethel Church Road, 0.3 mi. west of Schneider Road, Washtenaw County; the cicadas were heard on two days only. Although RDA had lived on a farm at this location for 21 years, he had never heard T. pruinosa there be­fore, and he did not hear it again in 1996. On 18 August 1996, RDA heard single males of T. pruinosa in Jasper, Lenawee County, and 4.5 mL south of Jasper on Route 52. On 21 August 1996, DCM heard one or two T. pruinosa at the intersection of Carson Highway a d Shepherd Road north of Adrian, in Lenawee County. Louanne Reich, of the UMMZ, heard a single male T. pruinosa singing in an elm next tothe Kraus Natural Science Building, on the University of Michigan campus, at dusk on 6 September 1996. TEM re­ports listening records of T. pruinosa in Branch, Hillsdale, and Lenawee Counties in 1959. Like T. chloromera, T. pruinosa occur  across much of the eastern United States, including most of Ohio, north to the Maumee River drainage in the northwestern part ofthe state. Figure 1 illustrates the existing Michigan records of the three species 2The Great Lakes Entomologist, Vol. 29, No. 3 [1996], Art. 7https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss3/7THE GREAT lAKES ENTOMOLOGIST1996 167 Figure 1. Michigan records f TIbicen chloromera (open circles), TIbicen pru­inosa (filled circles), and Diceroprocta vitripennis (filled squares). Half-filled circle ind cates both TIbicen species present. All TIbicen records are listening records. See text for descriptions of localities. Moore's records for Ingham, Branch, and Hillsdale Counties do not refer to specific locations. discussed above. The songs and morphology f all the above species are dis­tinguished in Alexander et al. (1972) and Alexander (1997). Voucher tapes of song records, where available, will be deposited in the UMMZ. DISCUSSION Interpretation of new records - Spotty year-to-year records, such as those described above, are difficult to interpret, especially when only small 3Marshall et al.: New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on thePublished by ValpoScholar, 1996168 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 29, No.3 numbers of animals are observed and when the records are found near the edge of the species' known range. This s tuation is exacerbated by the high mobility and prolonged development of insects such as cicadas (from 2-17 years, see Karban 1986). Four possible situations may exist with regard to a species' distribution: (1) A species may be absent from a location; (2) one r more individuals may be spotted in a location in only one year, and not ap­pear in subsequent years; (3) one or more individuals may be spotted in more than one year, but not in other years (and the records mayor may not exhibit periodicity, as in periodical cicadas); r (4  the pecies may be present every year. For cicadas, situations #2 and #3 could indicate (A) th  existence of sus­taining populations of cicadas in one or more different year-classes (in the case of #2, cicadas with a long life cycle), (B) the occasional appearance of mi­grants who fail to reproduce successfully, (C) the occasional maturation of imported nymphs who fail to reproduce (see Chilcote and Stehr [1984], for an example of importation via transplanted trees), or several of these alterna­tives at onc . Even ituation #4 could result from repeated immigration of a highly mobile species or from an ongoing range extension, especially if the numbers observed are small. Periodical cicadas, with their long life cycles and known history of life-cycle-Iength plasticity (straggling), introduce an al­most perverse degree of difficulty to this problem (Marshall, ms. in prep). Generally, these difficulties will be reduced when mobility is low and acciden­tal importation unlikely, and when the life cycles involved are not longer than one year. In no situation, however, can a single positive record be used with confidence to extend the known range of a species. Rar ty and difficulty of observing or collecting confound any study of distribution or abu dance; incomplete understanding of a species' natural history magnifies this prob­lem, because even a diligent observer might fail to locate a species by search­ing in a slightly inappropriate microhabitat (but see below on advantages of song records). Apparent rarity or absence, then, must be interpr ted with caution. Because the new localities given for Tibicen chloromera are found very near to known populations in Ohio, and because often several males were heard at once, it appears to us that T. chloromera is established in some of the southern Michigan counties. Either T. chloromera has been established for some time in these areas and missed by previous surveys, or this sp cies is extending its range. We probably can apply the same interpretation to the records of T. pruinosa in the southern tier of Michigan counties. In contrast, the observations in multiple years of (usually) single individuals of T. pru­inosa in Washtenaw County, 40-50 miles beyond their known ra ge limits along the Michigan-Ohio border, are more difficult to understand, and range extension from adjacent populations may not be the best explanation. Chilcote and Stehr (1984) described the emergence in 1982 of a new p pula­tion of Brood V of Magicicada septendecim on the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing, Ingham County, hundreds of miles beyond the known range of this brood. These cicadas had apparently been introduced several years earlier as nymphs in the soil of trans lanted dogwoods. A simi­lar process might account for r observations f T. pruinosa males in Wash­tenaw County, although one would probably have to assume multiple impor­tations to explain the records from different localities. (Records from multipleyears do not necessarily indicate the presence of a breeding popUlation, be­cause life cycle plasticity might cause juvenile cicadas from a single intro­duced population to emerge over several years, especially wh n they are transplanted beyond their natural range.) Unless we invoke either multiple introductions or recurring dispersal over large distances, we are left wi h the unlikely possibility that T. pruinosa is established in Washtenaw County at 4The Great Lakes Entomologist, Vol. 29, No. 3 [1996], Art. 7https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss3/71996 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 169 such low densities that no more than one or two are heard each year. T us, the records discussed in this paper may represent two different situations: (1) small, introduced populations that mayor may not persist (M. septen­decim and possibly T. pruinosa), or (2) an ongoing range extension (T. chloromera and possibly T. pruinosa).The significance of song records - Species with long-range, species­specific acoustic signals, such as those of the singing Orthoptera and Cicadi­dae, provide an opportunity for study matched by few other kinds of organ­isms (most notably nurans and some birds). Males f these species reliably broadcast their identity and location over great distances for weeks or months each season. Single calling individuals can be located with ease by trained observers, even without detailed knowledge of the species' preferred habitat. Therefore, listening for the presence or absence of calling songs in an area is a highly sensitive means of data collection, making species withsuch signals ideal subjects for analyses of speciation, hybrid zones, characterdisplacement, dispersal, o  ny study in which detailed and extens ve knowl­edge of distribution or abundance is required. Systematic observations over time can reveal even minor fluctuations in a species' range. With the ability to locate easily the first immigrants in a locale, one can measure dispersal tendencies and rates of range extension. The primary drawback of sound records is the ephemeral nature of the record itself. We recommend making voucher recordings whenever possible. LITERATURE CITED Alexander, R. D. 1997. Key to the sp cies of cicadas occurring in the United States east of the Mississippi River. Great Lakes Entomol. In press. Alexander, R. D., A. E. Pace, and D. Otte. 1972. The singing insects of Michigan. Great Lakes Entomol. 5:33-69. Chilcote, C. A., and F. W. Stehr. 1984. A new record for Magicicada septendecim in Michigan (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Great Lakes Entomol. 17:53-54. Karban, R. 1986. Prolonged development in cicadas. In: F. Taylor and R. Karban, eds. The Evolution of Insect Life Cycles. Springer-Verlag, New York. Moore, T. E. 1966. The cicadas of Michigan (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Papers Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters 51:75-94. 5Marshall et al.: New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on thePublished by ValpoScholar, 1996

New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on the Use of Songs to Monitor Range Changes

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1914&amp;context=tgle

New Records of Michigan Cicadidae (Homoptera), With Notes on the Use of Songs to Monitor Range Changes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Valparaiso University