4.5 Article

Impact of predatory carabids on below- and above-ground pests and yield in strawberry

期刊

BIOCONTROL
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 515-522

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10526-011-9425-z

关键词

Carabidae; Density-manipulation plots; Otiorhynchus sulcatus; Pterostichus melanarius; Weed seed predation

资金

  1. Oregon Strawberry Commission
  2. Agricultural Research Foundation
  3. USDA CRIS [5358-22000-032-00D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of adult carabid beetles on below- and above-ground pests and fruit yield was examined in the laboratory and a two-year strawberry field study. In the laboratory, adults of Carabus nemoralis Muller, Nebria brevicollis (F.), Pterostichus algidus LeConte, Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger), and Scaphinotus marginatus Fischer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) consumed black vine weevil, Otiorhynchus sulcatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) eggs, larvae and/or pupae placed on the surface. The same five carabid species showed no impact or low removal rates of O. sulcatus larvae that had burrowed into the root of potted strawberry plants. In an assay with only P. melanarius, adults consumed O. sulcatus larvae placed on the soil surface more frequently than larvae buried 1.3 or 5 cm below. In a field study, the density of adult carabids, predominantly P. melanarius, was manipulated with augmented, exclusion, and open control plots (2 x 2 m). Manipulating carabid density had no impact on the removal of sentinel O. sulcatus larvae and pupae that were buried belowground which is consistent with laboratory observations. Increasing carabid density within augmented plots led to greater removal of red clover seeds, Trifolium pratense L., placed on the soil surface in the first year. Decreasing carabid density within exclusion plots resulted in fewer marketable fruits compared to control plots in both years. These results suggest that certain adult carabids may have limited impact belowground, and some beneficial impacts above-ground with pest control and crop protection.

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

4.5
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