Sustainable Crop Protection under Protected Cultivation

Reddy, P. Parvatha

doi:10.1007/978-981-287-952-3

Cited by 72 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…High-value crops, which were traditionally grown in the open, are increasingly produced under netting and/or plastic covers (Baudoin et al, 2017;Castilla, 2002;Cook & Calvin, 2005;Reddy, 2016). Crop covers are used to increase the reliability or duration of production by modifying the growing environment and to enhance crop quality and yields by providing a physical safeguard against extreme weather, plant pests, and pathogens (Amarante, Steffens, & Argenta, 2011;Lloyd, Hamacek, George, Nissen, & Waite, 2005;Marco et al, 2008;Middleton & McWaters, 1997;Sauphanor, Severac, Maugin, Toubon, & Capowiez, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Netted crop covers reduce honeybee foraging activity and colony strength in a mass flowering crop

Evans

Cutting

Jochym

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread use of protective covers in horticulture represents a novel landscape‐level change, presenting the challenges for crop pollination. Honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are pollinators of many crops, but their behavior can be affected by conditions under covers. To determine how netting crop covers can affect honeybee foraging dynamics, colony health, and pollination services, we assessed the performance of 52 nucleus honeybee colonies in five covered and six uncovered kiwifruit orchards. Colony strength was estimated pre‐ and postintroduction, and the foraging of individual bees (including pollen, nectar, and naïve foragers) was monitored in a subset of the hives fitted with RFID readers. Simultaneously, we evaluated pollination effectiveness by measuring flower visitation rates and the number of seeds produced after single honeybee visits. Honeybee colonies under cover exhibited both an acute loss of foragers and changes in the behavior of successful foragers. Under cover, bees were roughly three times less likely to return after their first trip outside the hive. Consequently, the number of adult bees in hives declined at a faster rate in these orchards, with colonies losing on average 1,057 ± 274 of their bees in under two weeks. Bees that did forage under cover completed fewer trips provisioning their colony, failing to reenter after a few short‐duration trips. These effects are likely to have implications for colony health and productivity. We also found that bee density (bees/thousand flowers) and visitation rates to flowers were lower under cover; however, we did not detect a resultant change in pollination. Our findings highlight the need for environment‐specific management techniques for pollinators. Improving honeybee orientation under covers and increasing our understanding of the effects of covers on bee nutrition and brood rearing should be primary objectives for maintaining colonies and potentially improving pollination in these systems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Netted crop covers reduce honeybee foraging activity and colony strength in a mass flowering crop

Evans

Cutting

Jochym

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, continued widespread use of broad‐spectrum synthetic pesticides in agroecosystems results in adverse impacts on numerous non‐target species, including natural enemies of important pests, and continues to negatively impact human and animal health, and the environment . To reduce the use of chemicals in agriculture, more effective integration of biological and chemical control is necessary . IPM stresses the optimal integration of biological and chemical control tactics; for example, emphasizing need‐based use of intrusive therapeutic tactics, such as selective pesticides, and reliance on economically relevant thresholds for applying interventions rather than traditional calendar or other uninformed approaches for pesticide application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lethal effects of selected novel pesticides on immature stages of Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae)

Khan

Ruberson

2017

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each plant, the number of leaves that showed yellowness and the total number of leaves were recorded. Leaf yellowness in chrysanthemum is symptomatic for diseases such as those caused by soil pathogens like Verticillium, Fusarium or Puccinia (Reddy 2016). The characterization of yellowness was based on observations by eye, and for all leaves which were characterized as yellow, an area of at least 5% of the leaf was yellow.…”

Section: Plant Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study we examine how mixing soils conditioned by different plant species influences net plant-soil feedback effects on plant growth and leaf yellowness (a plant health indicator) (Reddy 2016). In a previous study, we tested the plant-soil feedback effects of 37 different plant species and observed that inoculation of soil conditioned by several species led to increased growth and resistance against Pythium, while inoculation of soils conditioned by other species reduced growth and resistance (Ma et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergistic and antagonistic effects of mixing monospecific soils on plant-soil feedbacks

Pineda

Wurff³

et al. 2018

Plant Soil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Plants influence the soil they grow in, and this can alter the performance of other, later growing plants in the same soil. This is called plantsoil feedback and is usually tested with monospecific soils, i.e. soils that are conditioned by one plant species. Here, we test if plant-soil feedbacks of inocula consisting of mixtures of monospecific soils can be predicted from the effects of the component inocula. Methods Chrysanthemum plants were grown in sterile soil inoculated with eight monospecific conditioned soils and with mixtures consisting of all pairwise combinations. Plant biomass and leaf yellowness were measured and the additivity was calculated.Results On average, plant biomass in the mixed inocula was slightly but significantly (6%) lower than predicted. In contrast, when growing in mixed inocula, plants showed 38% less disease symptoms than predicted. Moreover, the larger the difference between the effects of the two monospecific soils on plant growth, the higher the observed effect in the mixture exceeded the predicted effects. Conclusions We show that mixed monospecific soils interact antagonistically in terms of plant growth, but synergistically for disease symptoms. Our study further advances our understanding of plant-soil feedbacks, and suggests that mixing soils can be a powerful tool to steer soil microbiomes to improve plant-soil feedback effects.

show abstract

Sustainable Crop Protection under Protected Cultivation

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

Netted crop covers reduce honeybee foraging activity and colony strength in a mass flowering crop

Netted crop covers reduce honeybee foraging activity and colony strength in a mass flowering crop

Lethal effects of selected novel pesticides on immature stages of Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae)

Synergistic and antagonistic effects of mixing monospecific soils on plant-soil feedbacks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About