4.4 Article

Peach pest management programs impact beneficial fauna abundance and Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) egg parasitism and predation

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 780-788

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-32.4.780

关键词

oriental fruit moth; parasitoids; predators; sentinel eggs; peach orchards

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted timed visual observations of the peach canopy to monitor beneficial fauna diversity and abundance in orchards with reduced risk and conventional arthropod management programs. In addition, we placed sentinel Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) eggs in the peach canopy and determined egg parasitism, predation, and the total impact of natural enemies. Reduced risk orchards used minimal insecticide, G. molesta mating disruption, and managed sod ground cover to suppress Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) (Heteroptera: Miridae). Conventional orchards used organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides to control G. molesta, L. lineolaris, and other pests. Chrysoperla rufilabris (Burmeister) and C. plorabunda (Fitch) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Coccinella septempunctata L. and Harawnia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Orius insidiosus (Say) (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae), and Trichogramma minutum Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) were the most frequently observed natural enemies in southern New Jersey peach orchards. Hippodamia convergens (Guerin-Meneville), Adalia bipunctata L., Coleonmegilla maculata De Geer (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), and T exiguum Pinto et Platner (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) were observed less frequently. Beneficial fauna was more abundant in orchards with the reduced risk program compared with conventionally farmed orchards. The rate of G. molesta sentinel egg parasitism and predation was significantly higher in reduced risk orchards compared with conventional orchards. Overall, predators destroyed more sentinel eggs than did egg parasitoids.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据