156 5, POPULATION SYSTEMS. Whereas population structure can be described readily by sampling the population, ‘measurement of population processes is more difficult and requires accounting for the fate of individuals. Life table analysis is the most reliable method to account for age= specific survival and reproduction by members of a cohort. The net production of off- spring by the cohort is designated the replacement rate and indicates population trend, ‘Advances in technology are creating new opportunities to explore patterns and efficiency cof long distance dispersal. Changesin these variables and processes are the basi for popu- lation dynamics. Regulatory factors and models of population change in time and space are deseribed in the next two chaptors(it Population Dynamics |. Population Fluctuation I. Factors Affecting Population Size A. Densiy Independent Factors 2B. Density Dopondont Factors . Regulatory Mechanisms IIL, Models of Population Change A. Exponential and Geometric Modes 1, Loyiste Modo! CC. Complex Maxdels D Computerized Modele E. Model Evaluation IV. Summary Rise and fall of a cotton herbivore Insect populations are noted for their dramatic Nuctuations in sze and often have been targets for controltlorts. However species whichare characterized by periodic outbreaks wil typically decline to very low numbers as a result of resource depletion and increased predation and ‘parasitism. If popalation size fas below a critical minimus threshold, males and females ma) bbe unable to find each other to reproduce. leading to extinction ‘The cotionlealworm, Alabama argllacea, was once the most economically important pest ‘of cotten ia the Americis and among the most abundant migratory insects in easiern North ‘America (D.L. Wagner 2009). This moth was a specialized herbivore oa cotton, Gossypium ‘pp. and its close relatives, in Central and South America. It appeared in the U.S. ia 1793, cating serious losses to cotton crops in Georgia and South Carolina, and again in 1800 (C. Riley 1885). During the next four years itspread through the range of commercial cotton, in the southern U.S. with particularly devastating outbreaks in 1804, 1825, 1846, 1868. 1873, and 1881, and became among the eatliest targets of mechanically applied, asenical insecticides (C. Riley 1885). “Thisspecies was not, howevet.a permanent resideat of the US. Cotton Belt. Itappareatly did sot have a freeze-tolerant diapaute or quoscent stage, so was capable of continuous breeding ‘nly inthe subtropical and tropical portions of its range. However. it reproduced rapidly and ‘often migrated as massive swarms into emperate regions durin spring and summer, depending fn environmental conditions, and then reproduced and caused crop damage in the Cotton, [Bell The size of migrating swarms relecied particular environmental conaions and source population size. Asa result, swarms often reached the US. Cotton Bel after harvest, and most records ofthe moth in the northern US. ae from September-October (D.L- Wagner 2109). Scheie mae158 6. POPULATION DYNAMICS Cotton production in the U.S. declined in the early 1900s, a a result of devastation by the boll weevil, Anttomous grandis (R.H. Smith 2007), and agriculture in the region became much more diverse. The cotton lealworm decined in abundance during this period and epparently Dbocame extiaet by the late 1900, probably as a result of reduced cotton acreage and more intense pest management of cotton (D.L. Wagner 2008).