Effect of plant protection on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in pea (Pisum L.) and lupine (Lupinus L.) crops

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Various crop cultivation systems may affect field-dwelling organisms, representatives of both harmful and beneficial entomofauna. In this paper, attention was drawn to one of the factors which distinguishes organic and integrated farming, that is the application of chemical plant protection preparations. Materials and Methods: The experiment was conducted in Poland, at the Experimental Station IOR-PIB in Winna Góra near Środa Wielkopolska, on crop fields of lupine and pea. The experiment was composed of a block of organic fields (no chemical plant protection preparations) and another block, where a plant protection programme was carried out in line with the integrated agricultural production guidelines. Carabidae were caught into modified Barber traps, from May to the end of July in 2006, 2010 and 2014. Results and conclusions:As a result of our study, 8 848 specimens belonging to 67 species of Carabidae were collected. The most numerous species collected in the pea and lupine were: Poecilus cupreus, Pterostichus melanarius, Harpalus rufipes, Bembidion femoratum, Bembidion quadrimaculatum and Bembidion tetracolum. Overall, our results demonstrate that an application of chemical plant protection preparations decreases the abundance and species diversity of carabid beetles assemblages in studied crops and induces changes in particular life traits of carabids fauna. After the treatment, the abundance of large carabid beetles diminishes and their place is occupied by small zoophages. Furthermore, the forecrop could be one of the factors that influence assemblages of carabids on crop fields.IntRoductIon T he use of pesticides causes endless controversies. Every synthetic preparation which enters the natural environment has a direct or indirect influence on many biotic elements and processes on a scale that may encompass whole ecosystems (1). Even the chemical products that do not seem toxic to humans, animals or plants can affect agricultural ecosystems adversely. The use of pesticides can have a variety of negative agricultural, environmental and health effects (2, 3, 4). Progressive specialization in agriculture and environmental pollution due to the excessive use of chemical plant protection products has stimulated a search for pro-ecological solutions (5). Contemporary plant protection systems, on principle, should be economically efficient and eco-friendly (6). They should take advantage of all available pest-control methods while sus- taining natural self-regulation processes which occur in agricultural ecosystems.Although much progress is visible in the field of plant protection products, expressed, among others in the increasing selectivity, more rapid degradation as well as the use of integrated crop protection programs, we still need to monitor the environment, particularly in terms of protecting the beneficial entomofauna occurring there. Practical application of integrated plant protection solutions involves the use -to the highest extent possible -of all alternative, non...

Effect of plant protection on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in sugar beet crops in four-year rotation

“…The dominant species in sugar beet fields included H. rufipes, which made up over half of all ground beetles caught, regardless of the type of plant protection method. Although H. rufipes is classified as a hemizoophage, feeding on mixed plant and animal food, its considerable size, coupled with abundant appearance, can contribute to reducing the masses of pests in plant fields (Kosewska et al 2016). Trophic preferences are an indicator of the availability and variety of food present.…”

“…Similar results were obtained by Eyre et al (2012) in cereal crops. As suggested by Kosewska et al (2016), it is worth considering whether the success of small carnivores in fields with chemical plant protection is a consequence of their greater tolerance to chemical substances or weaker competition on behalf of other insects due to the application of pesticides and elimination of larger carnivores. According to Navntoft et al (2006), small carnivores are macropterous and, after the disturbance caused by an application of sprayed chemicals subsides, they can recolonize the affected field more rapidly.…”

Journal of Plant Protection Research

“…As numerous studies have shown (Oberholzer et al 2003;Carrillo et al 2007;Ghahari et al 2009;Renkema et al 2014), under appropriate conditions ground beetles can significantly reduce the occurrence of many pest species in various types of crops. It has been shown that the impact on species biodiversity and the number of ground beetles in agroecosystems are mainly due to the type of crop (Hurej and Twardowski 2006;Saska 2007;Hummel et al 2012), the number and type of agrotechnical treatments (Twardowski 2010), the use of chemical plant protection products (Kosewska et al 2016), non-cultivated landscape elements (forest edges, meadows, hedgerows, etc.) (Błaszkiewicz and Schwerk 2013;Fischer et al 2013) and the area neighboring cultivated areas (Leslie et al 2013).…”

Effect of intercropping narrow-leafed lupin with spring triticale on the abundance and diversity of rove beetles

“…Clough et al (2007) found positive response of saprophagous and predatory staphylinids to organic agriculture. Purtauf et al (2002) observed differences in the abundance of ground beetle feeding groups according to landscape simplification, and Kosewska et al (2016) to organic and conventional farming in legume crops. According to these works, an assumption has been made that the response of rove beetles to intercropping might be different depending on the trophic group.…”