Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying

To enhance biological pest control in crop fields, it is recommended to increase semi‐natural area on farm and decrease insecticide spraying. While the benefits of semi‐natural area for biocontrol in unsprayed fields are often demonstrated, it remains largely unknown if there are any benefits in rea...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of applied ecology 2019-09, Vol.56 (9), p.2176-2185
Hauptverfasser: Gagic, Vesna, Hulthen, Andrew D., Marcora, Anna, Wang, Xiaobei, Jones, Laura, Schellhorn, Nancy A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2185
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2176
container_title The Journal of applied ecology
container_volume 56
creator Gagic, Vesna
Hulthen, Andrew D.
Marcora, Anna
Wang, Xiaobei
Jones, Laura
Schellhorn, Nancy A.
description To enhance biological pest control in crop fields, it is recommended to increase semi‐natural area on farm and decrease insecticide spraying. While the benefits of semi‐natural area for biocontrol in unsprayed fields are often demonstrated, it remains largely unknown if there are any benefits in real‐world, commonly sprayed crops. Here, we explored the combined effects of semi‐natural field margins and insecticide spraying on pest (cotton bollworm) egg predation in 53 Australian cotton fields and semi‐natural field margins across 2 years. We used predation experiments close to field edges to exclude functional groups of predators depending on their spatio‐temporal activity (diurnal vs. nocturnal and ground vs. canopy dwelling) and digital cameras to record natural enemy taxa responsible for predation. Ground predation was substantially higher than canopy predation and its magnitude in unsprayed crops with semi‐natural margins was similar to that within semi‐natural areas. In contrast, semi‐natural field margins did not benefit biocontrol in sprayed crop fields and did not influence recovery rate of biocontrol after spraying. Within ground‐dwelling predators, one dominant taxon contributed the most to biocontrol at a particular time and place. However, the dominant predator–prey interactions changed between day and night and fields with and without margins, thus indicating increased importance of additional predator taxa with increasing spatio‐temporal scales. Synthesis and applications. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pro
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1365-2664.13452
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2283059406</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48579852</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48579852</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3782-a360c071a693f155f392d64124d9b7d8ac4e7edae74afa82aca75568970a02633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtPwzAMxiMEEuNx5oQUiXO3PJq0PcLEU5PgAOfIS13I1DUjyYb239NR2BXLkiX7-9nyR8gFZ2Pex4RLrTKhdT7mMlfigIz2nUMyYkzwrKwYPyYnMS4YY5WSckQ2N85b36XgW-q6PiPa5KyrkcZVgC3W1Aa_irT2GGnnE51jh41LtAl-SSMuXdZBWgdo6QfMXYIUKXQ1DWj9BkOksfVf7ZZCkzAMO133fkaOGmgjnv_WU_J2d_s6fchmz_eP0-tZZmVRigykZpYVHHQlG65UIytR65yLvK7mRV2CzbHAGrDIoYFSgIVCKV1WBQMmtJSn5GrYuwr-c40xmYVfh64_aYQoJVNVznSvmgyq_tUYAzZmFdwSwtZwZnbmmp2VZmel-TG3J9RAfLkWt__JzdPL7R93OXCLmHzYc3mpiqrs598Y74bU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2283059406</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Gagic, Vesna ; Hulthen, Andrew D. ; Marcora, Anna ; Wang, Xiaobei ; Jones, Laura ; Schellhorn, Nancy A.</creator><contributor>Kaplan, Ian</contributor><creatorcontrib>Gagic, Vesna ; Hulthen, Andrew D. ; Marcora, Anna ; Wang, Xiaobei ; Jones, Laura ; Schellhorn, Nancy A. ; Kaplan, Ian</creatorcontrib><description>To enhance biological pest control in crop fields, it is recommended to increase semi‐natural area on farm and decrease insecticide spraying. While the benefits of semi‐natural area for biocontrol in unsprayed fields are often demonstrated, it remains largely unknown if there are any benefits in real‐world, commonly sprayed crops. Here, we explored the combined effects of semi‐natural field margins and insecticide spraying on pest (cotton bollworm) egg predation in 53 Australian cotton fields and semi‐natural field margins across 2 years. We used predation experiments close to field edges to exclude functional groups of predators depending on their spatio‐temporal activity (diurnal vs. nocturnal and ground vs. canopy dwelling) and digital cameras to record natural enemy taxa responsible for predation. Ground predation was substantially higher than canopy predation and its magnitude in unsprayed crops with semi‐natural margins was similar to that within semi‐natural areas. In contrast, semi‐natural field margins did not benefit biocontrol in sprayed crop fields and did not influence recovery rate of biocontrol after spraying. Within ground‐dwelling predators, one dominant taxon contributed the most to biocontrol at a particular time and place. However, the dominant predator–prey interactions changed between day and night and fields with and without margins, thus indicating increased importance of additional predator taxa with increasing spatio‐temporal scales. Synthesis and applications. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8901</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2664</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13452</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley</publisher><subject>Biological control ; biological pest control ; Cameras ; Canopies ; Cotton ; Crop fields ; Crops ; Digital cameras ; Diurnal ; ecological intensification ; ecosystem service ; Farms ; Functional groups ; Helicoverpa ; Insecticides ; Natural enemies ; Night ; Nocturnal ; Pest control ; pest suppression ; Pests ; Predation ; Predator-prey interactions ; Predators ; Prey ; RESEARCH ARTICLE ; selection effect ; Spraying</subject><ispartof>The Journal of applied ecology, 2019-09, Vol.56 (9), p.2176-2185</ispartof><rights>2019 The Authors. © 2019 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2019 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>Journal of Applied Ecology © 2019 British Ecological Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3782-a360c071a693f155f392d64124d9b7d8ac4e7edae74afa82aca75568970a02633</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3782-a360c071a693f155f392d64124d9b7d8ac4e7edae74afa82aca75568970a02633</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3214-7547</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1365-2664.13452$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1365-2664.13452$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,1430,27907,27908,45557,45558,46392,46816</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Kaplan, Ian</contributor><creatorcontrib>Gagic, Vesna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulthen, Andrew D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcora, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiaobei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schellhorn, Nancy A.</creatorcontrib><title>Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying</title><title>The Journal of applied ecology</title><description>To enhance biological pest control in crop fields, it is recommended to increase semi‐natural area on farm and decrease insecticide spraying. While the benefits of semi‐natural area for biocontrol in unsprayed fields are often demonstrated, it remains largely unknown if there are any benefits in real‐world, commonly sprayed crops. Here, we explored the combined effects of semi‐natural field margins and insecticide spraying on pest (cotton bollworm) egg predation in 53 Australian cotton fields and semi‐natural field margins across 2 years. We used predation experiments close to field edges to exclude functional groups of predators depending on their spatio‐temporal activity (diurnal vs. nocturnal and ground vs. canopy dwelling) and digital cameras to record natural enemy taxa responsible for predation. Ground predation was substantially higher than canopy predation and its magnitude in unsprayed crops with semi‐natural margins was similar to that within semi‐natural areas. In contrast, semi‐natural field margins did not benefit biocontrol in sprayed crop fields and did not influence recovery rate of biocontrol after spraying. Within ground‐dwelling predators, one dominant taxon contributed the most to biocontrol at a particular time and place. However, the dominant predator–prey interactions changed between day and night and fields with and without margins, thus indicating increased importance of additional predator taxa with increasing spatio‐temporal scales. Synthesis and applications. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems.</description><subject>Biological control</subject><subject>biological pest control</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Canopies</subject><subject>Cotton</subject><subject>Crop fields</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>Digital cameras</subject><subject>Diurnal</subject><subject>ecological intensification</subject><subject>ecosystem service</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Functional groups</subject><subject>Helicoverpa</subject><subject>Insecticides</subject><subject>Natural enemies</subject><subject>Night</subject><subject>Nocturnal</subject><subject>Pest control</subject><subject>pest suppression</subject><subject>Pests</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Predator-prey interactions</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>RESEARCH ARTICLE</subject><subject>selection effect</subject><subject>Spraying</subject><issn>0021-8901</issn><issn>1365-2664</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMtPwzAMxiMEEuNx5oQUiXO3PJq0PcLEU5PgAOfIS13I1DUjyYb239NR2BXLkiX7-9nyR8gFZ2Pex4RLrTKhdT7mMlfigIz2nUMyYkzwrKwYPyYnMS4YY5WSckQ2N85b36XgW-q6PiPa5KyrkcZVgC3W1Aa_irT2GGnnE51jh41LtAl-SSMuXdZBWgdo6QfMXYIUKXQ1DWj9BkOksfVf7ZZCkzAMO133fkaOGmgjnv_WU_J2d_s6fchmz_eP0-tZZmVRigykZpYVHHQlG65UIytR65yLvK7mRV2CzbHAGrDIoYFSgIVCKV1WBQMmtJSn5GrYuwr-c40xmYVfh64_aYQoJVNVznSvmgyq_tUYAzZmFdwSwtZwZnbmmp2VZmel-TG3J9RAfLkWt__JzdPL7R93OXCLmHzYc3mpiqrs598Y74bU</recordid><startdate>20190901</startdate><enddate>20190901</enddate><creator>Gagic, Vesna</creator><creator>Hulthen, Andrew D.</creator><creator>Marcora, Anna</creator><creator>Wang, Xiaobei</creator><creator>Jones, Laura</creator><creator>Schellhorn, Nancy A.</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-7547</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190901</creationdate><title>Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying</title><author>Gagic, Vesna ; Hulthen, Andrew D. ; Marcora, Anna ; Wang, Xiaobei ; Jones, Laura ; Schellhorn, Nancy A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3782-a360c071a693f155f392d64124d9b7d8ac4e7edae74afa82aca75568970a02633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Biological control</topic><topic>biological pest control</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Canopies</topic><topic>Cotton</topic><topic>Crop fields</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>Digital cameras</topic><topic>Diurnal</topic><topic>ecological intensification</topic><topic>ecosystem service</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Functional groups</topic><topic>Helicoverpa</topic><topic>Insecticides</topic><topic>Natural enemies</topic><topic>Night</topic><topic>Nocturnal</topic><topic>Pest control</topic><topic>pest suppression</topic><topic>Pests</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Predator-prey interactions</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>RESEARCH ARTICLE</topic><topic>selection effect</topic><topic>Spraying</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gagic, Vesna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hulthen, Andrew D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcora, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiaobei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schellhorn, Nancy A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of applied ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gagic, Vesna</au><au>Hulthen, Andrew D.</au><au>Marcora, Anna</au><au>Wang, Xiaobei</au><au>Jones, Laura</au><au>Schellhorn, Nancy A.</au><au>Kaplan, Ian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of applied ecology</jtitle><date>2019-09-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2176</spage><epage>2185</epage><pages>2176-2185</pages><issn>0021-8901</issn><eissn>1365-2664</eissn><abstract>To enhance biological pest control in crop fields, it is recommended to increase semi‐natural area on farm and decrease insecticide spraying. While the benefits of semi‐natural area for biocontrol in unsprayed fields are often demonstrated, it remains largely unknown if there are any benefits in real‐world, commonly sprayed crops. Here, we explored the combined effects of semi‐natural field margins and insecticide spraying on pest (cotton bollworm) egg predation in 53 Australian cotton fields and semi‐natural field margins across 2 years. We used predation experiments close to field edges to exclude functional groups of predators depending on their spatio‐temporal activity (diurnal vs. nocturnal and ground vs. canopy dwelling) and digital cameras to record natural enemy taxa responsible for predation. Ground predation was substantially higher than canopy predation and its magnitude in unsprayed crops with semi‐natural margins was similar to that within semi‐natural areas. In contrast, semi‐natural field margins did not benefit biocontrol in sprayed crop fields and did not influence recovery rate of biocontrol after spraying. Within ground‐dwelling predators, one dominant taxon contributed the most to biocontrol at a particular time and place. However, the dominant predator–prey interactions changed between day and night and fields with and without margins, thus indicating increased importance of additional predator taxa with increasing spatio‐temporal scales. Synthesis and applications. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems. Our results show that semi‐natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground‐dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within‐field spraying and surrounding semi‐natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high‐input conventional production systems.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/1365-2664.13452</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-7547</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8901
ispartof The Journal of applied ecology, 2019-09, Vol.56 (9), p.2176-2185
issn 0021-8901
1365-2664
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2283059406
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content
subjects Biological control
biological pest control
Cameras
Canopies
Cotton
Crop fields
Crops
Digital cameras
Diurnal
ecological intensification
ecosystem service
Farms
Functional groups
Helicoverpa
Insecticides
Natural enemies
Night
Nocturnal
Pest control
pest suppression
Pests
Predation
Predator-prey interactions
Predators
Prey
RESEARCH ARTICLE
selection effect
Spraying
title Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T18%3A45%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biocontrol%20in%20insecticide%20sprayed%20crops%20does%20not%20benefit%20from%20semi-natural%20habitats%20and%20recovers%20slowly%20after%20spraying&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20applied%20ecology&rft.au=Gagic,%20Vesna&rft.date=2019-09-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2176&rft.epage=2185&rft.pages=2176-2185&rft.issn=0021-8901&rft.eissn=1365-2664&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13452&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48579852%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2283059406&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48579852&rfr_iscdi=true