Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-66d7dfc8f5-npwgr Total loading time: 0.431 Render date: 2023-02-09T01:05:46.245Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

A COMPARISON OF EPIGAEIC COLEOPTERA ASSEMBLAGES IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL, AND ABANDONED ORCHARDS IN NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Isobel A. Pearsall
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4
Sandra J. Walde
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4J1

Abstract

The beetle fauna of conventional, organic, and abandoned apple orchards was monitored in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, between May and September 1991. Treatment in the three types of orchards differed with respect to weed control, disease control, fertilization, and general care. The most commonly captured beetles in all three types of orchards were carabids, in particular, Carabus nemoralis Müller, Carabus granulatus Linné, Harpalus rufipes (DeGeer), and Pterostichus coracinus (Newman). In general, abundance of predaceous beetles was highest in the conventional orchards and lowest in the abandoned orchards. Generic composition of predaceous beetles was similar among orchards, although the abandoned orchards were characterized by high proportions of the larger carabids, C. nemoralis and C. granulatus, whereas the organic and conventional orchards were dominated by the smaller carabids, H. rufipes and P. coracinus. Although there were no significant differences among orchard type in the total abundance of non-predaceous beetles, the abandoned orchards displayed the greatest diversity of non-predaceous beetles, with the lowest diversity found in the organic orchards.

Résumé

La faune des coléoptères a été étudiée dans des vergers de pommiers traditionnels, organiques et abandonnés de la vallée d’Annapolis, Nouvelle-Ecosse, entre mai et septembre 1991. Les trois types de vergers différaient par les traitements qui y étaient appliqués, lutte contre les mauvaises herbes et les maladies, addition d’engrais, soins généraux. Les coléoptères les plus communs dans les trois types de vergers étaient les carabes, notamment Carabus nemoralis Müller, Carabus granulatus Linné, Harpalus rufipes (DeGeer) et Pterostichus coracinus (Newman). Généralement, c’est dans les vergers traditionnels que l’abondance des coléoptères prédateurs était le plus élevée et dans les vergers abandonnés qu’elle l’était le moins. La composition générique des communautés de coléoptères prédateurs était semblable d’un verger à l’autre, mais les vergers abandonnés contenaient des proportions plus élevées de gros carabes, C. nemoralis et C. granulatus, alors que les deux autres types de vergers étaient dominés par les carabes plus petits, H. rufipes et P. coracinus. Bien que nous n’ayons pas relevé de différences significatives entre les types de vergers quant à l’abondance totale des coléoptères non prédateurs, c’est dans les vergers abandonnés que nous avons constaté la plus grande diversité de coléoptères non prédateurs et c ’ est dans les vergers organiques que la diversité était le plus faible.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altieri, M.A., and Schmidt, L.L. 1986. Cover crops affect insect and spider populations in apple orchards. California Agriculture 40: 1517.Google Scholar
Briggs, J.B. 1961. A comparison of pitfall trapping and soil sampling in assessing populations of two species of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Reports of the East Malling Research Station for 1960: 108112.Google Scholar
Cárcamo, H.A., and Spence, J.R.. 1994. Crop type effects on the activity and distribution of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae).Environmental Entomology 23(3): 684692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, R. 1974. Predation on the soil-dwelling stages of the winter moth at Wytham Woods, Berkshire. Journal of Animal Ecology 43: 611625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas, J., Kadar, F., and Lovei, G.L.. 1992. Comparison of ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of an abandoned apple orchard and the bordering forest. Acta Phytopathalogica et Entomologica Hungarica 27: 233238.Google Scholar
Frank, J.H. 1967 a. The insect predators of the pupal stage of winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.) (Lepidoptera: Hydriomenidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 36: 375389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, J.H. 1967 b. The effect of pupal predators on a population of winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.) (Hydriomenidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 36: 611621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilgenberg-Harbung, A. 1990. Influence of ground cover in an intensively managed orchard on the carabid and staphylinid fauna (Col.). Gesunde Pflanzen1 42: 427432.Google Scholar
Good, J.A., and Giller, P.S.. 1991. The effect of cereal and grass management on staphylinid (Coleoptera) assemblages in South-west Ireland. Journal of Applied Ecology 28: 810826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenslade, P.J.M. 1964. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology 33: 301310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, S. 1987. On the epigaeic macrofauna of xerothermic and cultivated localities in Albeins (South Tyrol, Italy); with special attention to ground beetles (Carabidae). Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 60 (3–4): 294.Google Scholar
Hagley, E.A.C. 1975. The arthropod fauna in unsprayed apple orchards in Ontario. II. Some predacious species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 105: 2840.Google Scholar
Hassell, M.P. 1980. Foraging strategies, population models and biological control: A case study. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 288295.Google Scholar
Holliday, N.J., and Hagley, E.A.C.. 1978. Occurrence and activity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a pest management apple orchard. The Canadian Entomologist 110: 113119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, N.J., and Hagley, E.A.C. 1979. Distribution and density of carabid beetles (Coleoptera) in a pest management apple orchard. The Canadian Entomologist 111: 759770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, N.J., and Hagley, E.A.C. 1984. The effect of sod type on the occurrence of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a pest management apple orchard. The Canadian Entomologist 116: 165171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, P.R., Boyce, D.C., and Reed, D.K.. 1993. The ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) fauna of Welsh peatland biotypes: Factors influencing the distribution of ground beetles and conservation implications. Biological Conservation 63: 153161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honek, A. 1988. The effect of crop density and microclimate on pitfall trap catches of Carabidae, Staphylinidae (Coleoptera), and Lycosidae (Araneae) in cereal fields. Pedobiologia 32: 233242.Google Scholar
Kadar, F., and Lovei, G.L.. 1992. Flight activity of some carabid beetles abundant in light traps in Hungary. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 22: 383389.Google Scholar
Krebs, C.J. 1979. Ecological Methodology. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY. 654 pp.Google Scholar
Kromp, B. 1989. Carabid beetle communities (Carabidae: Coleoptera) in biologically and conventionally farmed agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27: 241251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loreau, M. 1992. Species abundance patterns and the structure of ground-beetle communities. Annales Zoologica Fennici 28: 4856.Google Scholar
MacPhee, A., Newton, A., and McRae, K.B.. 1988. Population studies on the winter moth Operophtera brumata (L.) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in apple orchards in Nova Scotia. The Canadian Entomologist 120: 7383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1963. Ecology of two carabid beetles, Bembidion lampros (Herbst) and Trechus quadristriatus (Shrank). 11. Studies on populations of adults in the field, with special reference to the techniques of pitfall trapping. Journal of Animal Ecology 32: 377392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinari, F., Cravedi, P., and Spada, G.. 1989. Studies on the populations of carabids (Coleoptera) in peach orchards in northern Italy. Frustula Entomologia 12: 1533.Google Scholar
Pearsall, I.A. 1992. Mortality of Winter Moth Populations in Nova Scotian Apple Orchards. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.Google Scholar
Pearsall, I.A., and Walde, S.J.. 1994. Parasitism and predation as agents of mortality of winter moth populations in neglected apple orchards in Nova Scotia. Ecological Entomology 19: 190198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, M.A., Kepner, R.L., Walgenbach, D.D., Foster, R. Nelson, Bohls, R.A., Pooler, P.D., Reuter, K.C., and Swain, J.L.. 1991. Effect of habitat characteristics and perturbation from insecticides on the community of dynamics of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on mixed-grass rangeland. Environmental Entomology 20(5): 12851294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivard, I. 1965. Dispersal of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on soil surface. Canadian Journal of Zoology 43: 465473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, J. 1988. Decline in winter moth populations in North America: Direct versus indirect effect of introduced parasites. Journal of Animal Ecology 57: 523531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, J. 1990. Interaction of parasitism and predation in the decline of winter moth in Canada. pp. 289–302 in Watt, A.D., Kidd, N., Leather, S., and Hunter, M. (Eds.), Population Dynamics of Forest Insects. Intercept Publishers, Andover, Hampshire. 408 pp.Google Scholar
Rushton, S.P., Luff, M.L., and Eyre, M.D.. 1991. Habitat characteristics of grassland Pterostichus sp. (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ecological Entomology 16: 91104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciaky, R., and Trematerra, P.. 1991. Carabidae (Coleoptera) present in apple orchards in Valtellina. Bollettino di Zoologia Agraria et di Bachicoltura 23: 95111.Google Scholar
Speight, M.R., and Lawton, J.H.. 1976. The influence of weed-cover on the mortality imposed on artificial prey by predatory ground beetles in cereal fields. Oecologia 23: 211223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szentkiralyi, F., and Kozar, F.. 1991. How many species are there in apple insect communities?: Testing the resource diversity and intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Ecological Entomology 16: 491503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiele, H.U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environment. Springer, Berlin. 369 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varley, G.C., and Gradwell, G.R.. 1968. Population models for the winter moth. Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London 4: 132142.Google Scholar
Varley, G.C., and Gradwell, G.R. 1970. Recent advances in insect population dynamics. Annual Review of Entomology 15: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, L. 1992. SYSTAT: Statistics, Version 5.2 Edition. Systat, Inc., Evanston, IL. 724 pp.Google Scholar
Zelenkova, J., and Hurka, K.. 1990. Carabids (Col., Carabidae) in the epigeon of pest management apple orchards in South Bohemia. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemoslovacae 54(2): 133145.Google Scholar
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A COMPARISON OF EPIGAEIC COLEOPTERA ASSEMBLAGES IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL, AND ABANDONED ORCHARDS IN NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A COMPARISON OF EPIGAEIC COLEOPTERA ASSEMBLAGES IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL, AND ABANDONED ORCHARDS IN NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A COMPARISON OF EPIGAEIC COLEOPTERA ASSEMBLAGES IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL, AND ABANDONED ORCHARDS IN NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *