Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-s4lzp Total loading time: 0.27 Render date: 2022-07-06T23:03:22.268Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Cover Crop Effects on the Activity-Density of the Weed Seed Predator Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Amanda F. Shearin*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 04469
S. Chris Reberg-Horton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Eric R. Gallandt
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 04469
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: amanda.shearin@umit.maine.edu

Abstract

Cover crop systems were investigated in 2004 and 2005 for their effects on the activity-density (a function of movement and density) of a promising group of weed biocontrol organisms, the ground beetles collectively known as carabids, with particular emphasis on a beneficial carabid species Harpalus rufipes DeGeer. Marked H. rufipes released into pea/oat–rye/vetch cover crop plots were more than twice as likely to be recaptured within the same plots as beetles released in nonvegetated fallow plots (18 and 8%, respectively). Marked beetles released into fallow plots were more than twice as likely to leave their plots and be recaptured in pea/oat–rye/vetch plots as vice versa (13 vs. 5%), indicating a clear preference for habitat with vegetative cover. Overall recapture rates were not different between treatments. Unmarked H. rufipes activity-density was also higher in pea/oat–rye/vetch compared to fallow plots. Additionally, five cover crop systems, including the fallow and pea/oat–rye/vetch treatments, and two residue management methods (conventional and zone tillage) were investigated from June to August in 2005 for their effects on H. rufipes activity-density. Corn was planted in 2005 into residues of the five cover crop systems grown in 2004. H. rufipes activity-density was higher in zone and conventionally tilled corn planted in pea/oat–rye/vetch residues and conventionally tilled corn planted in red clover/oat residues than in any other cover crop and residue management combination. Pea/oat–rye/vetch cover crop systems are apparently beneficial for H. rufipes during the cover crop year as well as in subsequent crops planted into this cover crop's residues. This system was not the least disturbed system but, based on the number of tillage events, represented a medium level of disturbance among the various systems. Thus, some level of disturbance might be beneficial for H. rufipes, but how and when that soil disturbance occurs requires further research to determine the best means of conserving this species.

Type
Weed Management
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Bond, W. and Grundy, A. C. 2001. Nonchemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res. 41:383405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, J. B. 1961. A comparison of pitfall trapping and soil sampling in assessing populations of two species of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). East Malling Res. Sta. Ann. Rept. 1960:108112.Google Scholar
Briggs, J. B. 1965. Biology of some ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) injurious to strawberries. Bull. Entomol. Res. 56:7993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brust, G. E. 1994. Seed-predators reduce broadleaf weed growth and competitive ability. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 48:2734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carcamo, H. A. 1995. Effect of tillage on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae): a farm-scale study in central Alberta. Can. Entomol. 127:631639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmona, D. M. and Landis, D. A. 1999. Influence of refuge habitats and cover crops on seasonal activity-density of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in field crops. Biol. Contr. 28:11451153.Google Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 47:184194.Google Scholar
Croy, P. 1987. Faunistisch-okologische Untersuchungen der Carabiden im Umfeld eines industriellen Ballungsgebietes. Entomol. Nachr. Ber. 31:19.Google Scholar
Dritschilo, W. and Wanner, D. 1980. Ground beetle abundance in organic and conventional corn fields. Environ. Entomol. 9:629631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadl, A., Purvis, G., and Towey, K. 1996. The effect of time of soil cultivation on the incidence of Pterostichus melanarius (Illig.) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in arable land in Ireland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 33:207214.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Peterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:535543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Molloy, T., Lynch, R. P., and Drummond, F. A. 2005. Effect of cover-cropping system on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci. 53:6976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, T., Liebman, M., and Jemison, J. Jr. 2000. Cover crops for sweet corn production in a short-season environment. Agron. J. 92:144151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagvar, S., Ostbye, E., and Melaen, J. 1978. Pit-fall catches of surface-active arthropods in some high mountain habitats at Finse, south Norway: general results at group level, with emphasis on Opiliones, Araneida, and Coleoptera. Nor. J. Entomol. 25 (2):195205.Google Scholar
Hance, T. 2002. Impact of cultivation and crop husbandry practices. Pages 231249. in Holland, J. M. The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Andover, UK Intercept.Google Scholar
Hartke, A. H. 1996. Ecology and behavior of Harpalus rufipes DeGeer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) larvae in the northern Maine potato agroecosystem. . Orono, ME University of Maine. 82.Google Scholar
Jansen, M. J. W. and Metz, J. A. J. 1979. How many victims will a pitfall make. Acta Biotheor. 28 (2):98122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kromp, B. 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 74:187228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovei, G. L. and Sunderland, K. D. 1996. Ecology and behaviors of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41:231256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, M. L. 1980. The biology of the ground beetle Harpalus rufipes in a strawberry field in Northumberland. Ann. Appl. Biol. 94:153164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lys, J. and Nentwig, W. 1991. Surface activity of carabid beetles inhabiting cereal fields, seasonal phenology and the influence of farming operations on five abundant species. Pedobiologia. 35:129137.Google Scholar
Milner, M., Kung, K-J. S., Wyman, J. A., Feldman, J., and Nordheim, E. 1992. Enhancing overwintering mortality of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by manipulating the temperature of its diapause habitat. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:17011708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reader, R. J. 1993. Control of seedling emergence by ground cover and seed predation in relation to seed size for some old-field species. J. Ecol. 81:169175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivard, I. 1966. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in relation to agricultural crops. Can. Entomol. 98:189195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarrantonio, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 2003. The role of cover crops in North American Cropping Systems. J. Crop Prod. 8:5373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearin, A. F., Reberg-Horton, S. C., and Gallandt, E. R. 2007. Direct effects of tillage on the activity-density of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) weed seed predators. Environ. Entomol. 36:11401146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southwood, T. R. E. 1978. Ecological Methods with Particular Reference to the Study of Insect Populations. 2nd ed. London Chapman and Hall. 524.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 (Berlin) 23:211223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunderland, K. D. 1975. The diet of some predatory arthropods in cereal crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 12:507515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiele, H. U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in Their Environments, a Study on Habitat Selection and Adaptations in Physiology and Behavior. Berlin Springer-Velag. 369.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. F. G., Holland, J. M., and Brown, N. 2002. The spatial distribution of carabid beetles in agricultural landscapes. Pages 305344. in Holland, J. M. The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Andover, UK Intercept.Google Scholar
Thorbek, P. and Bilde, T. 2004. Reduced management of generalist arthropods after crops management. J. Appl. Ecol. 41:526538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallin, H. 1985. Spatial and temporal distribution of some abundant carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in cereal fields and adjacent habitats. Pedobiologia. 28:1934.Google Scholar
Wallin, H. and Ekbom, B. S. 1988. Movement of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a field tracing study. Oecologia. 77:3943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallin, H. and Ekbom, B. 1994. Influence of hunger level and prey densities on movement patterns in three species of Pterostichus beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Environ. Entomol. 23:11711181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Hofman, A., Vet, L. E. M., and van der Werf, W. 2003. Relative importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigaeic weed seed predation in organic cereal fields. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 95:417425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Liebman, M., Heggenstaller, A. H., and Forcella, F. 2006. Integrating measurements of seed availability and removal to estimate weed seed losses due to predation. Weed Sci. 54:566574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winder, L., Alexander, C. J., Holland, J. M., Symondson, W. O. C., Perry, J. N., and Woolley, C. 2005. Predatory activity and spatial pattern: the response of generalist carabids to their aphid prey. J. Anim. Ecol. 74:443454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J. 1993. Biology of Harpalus rufipes DeGeer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Maine and Dynamics of Seed Predation. . Orono, ME University of Maine. 154.Google Scholar
49
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.

Cover Crop Effects on the Activity-Density of the Weed Seed Predator Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
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.

Cover Crop Effects on the Activity-Density of the Weed Seed Predator Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
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.

Cover Crop Effects on the Activity-Density of the Weed Seed Predator Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
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? *