1. |
- Ahrenfeldt, E J, et al.
(author)
-
Pollinator communities in strawberry crops - variation at multiple spatial scales.
- 2015
-
In: Bulletin of Entomological Research. - 1475-2670. ; 105:4, s. 497-506
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Predicting potential pollination services of wild bees in crops requires knowledge of their spatial distribution within fields. Field margins can serve as nesting and foraging habitats for wild bees and can be a source of pollinators. Regional differences in pollinator community composition may affect this spill-over of bees. We studied how regional and local differences affect the spatial distribution of wild bee species richness, activity-density and body size in crop fields. We sampled bees both from the field centre and at two different types of semi-natural field margins, grass strips and hedges, in 12 strawberry fields. The fields were distributed over four regions in Northern Europe, representing an almost 1100 km long north-south gradient. Even over this gradient, daytime temperatures during sampling did not differ significantly between regions and did therefore probably not impact bee activity. Bee species richness was higher in field margins compared with field centres independent of field size. However, there was no difference between centre and margin in body-size or activity-density. In contrast, bee activity-density increased towards the southern regions, whereas the mean body size increased towards the north. In conclusion, our study revealed a general pattern across European regions of bee diversity, but not activity-density, declining towards the field interior which suggests that the benefits of functional diversity of pollinators may be difficult to achieve through spill-over effects from margins to crop. We also identified dissimilar regional patterns in bee diversity and activity-density, which should be taken into account in conservation management.
|
|
2. |
- Baroffio, C. A., et al.
(author)
-
Combining plant volatiles and pheromones to catch two insect pests in the same trap : Examples from two berry crops
- 2018
-
In: Crop Protection. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0261-2194 .- 1873-6904. ; 109, s. 1-8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Most horticultural crops are attacked by more than one insect pest. As broad-spectrum chemical control options are becoming increasingly restricted, there is a need to develop novel control methods. Semiochemical attractants are available for three important horticultural pests, strawberry blossom weevil, Anthonomus rubi Herbst (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), European tarnished plant bug, Lygus rugulipennis Poppius (Hemiptera: Miridae) and raspberry beetle, Byturus tomentostts deGeer (Coleoptera: Byturidae). Traps targeting more than one pest species would be more practical and economical for both monitoring and mass trapping than traps for single-species. In this study we aimed to (1) improve the effectiveness of existing traps for insect pests in strawberry and raspberry crops by increasing catches of each species, and (2) test if attractants for two unrelated pest species could be combined to capture both in the same trap without decreasing the total catches. Field tests were carried out in four European countries and different combinations of semiochemicals were compared. A volatile from strawberry flowers, 1,4 dimethoxybenzene (DMB), increased the attractiveness of the aggregation pheromone to both sexes of A. rubi. The host-plant volatile, phenylacetaldehyde (PAA), increased the attraction of female L. rugulipennis to the sex pheromone, and, in strawberry, there was some evidence that adding DMB increased catches further. Traps baited with the aggregation pheromone of A. rubi, DMB, the sex pheromone of L rugulipennis and PAA attracted both target species to the same trap with no significant difference in catches compared to those single-species traps. In raspberry, catches in traps baited with a combination of A. rubi aggregation pheromone, DMB and the commercially available lure for B. tomentosus, based on raspberry flower volatiles, were similar to those in single-species traps. In both crops the efficiency of the traps still needs improvement, but the multi species traps are adequate for monitoring and should not lead to confusion for the user as the target species are easy to distinguish from each other.
|
|