1 Studies of the epigeal coleopteran fauna on five pairs of organic and conventional farms were carried out between May and July 1994 in southern England using pitfall trapping. A total of 27 749 individuals and 140 species were identified. Overall, abundance of Coleoptera was greatest on organically managed farms. 2 Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and staphylinid beetles (Col. Staphylinidae) formed 79.7% and 16.7%, respectively, of the total catch. Pterostichus melanarius was the dominant carabid among the 45 species captured and significantly higher numbers were found in organic farms. Tachinus signatus was the most common of 44 staphylinid species, and was significantly more abundant on conventional farms. 3 For carabids, the log-series a diversity index was higher on conventional farms but was not statistically different from that calculated for organic farms. The a index was identical for staphylinid species from organic and conventional farms. Diversity was significantly higher from conventional farms when data were combined for all of the recorded coleopteran species. 4 From this study, it appears that the main effect of farming practice is to influence the overall abundance and dominance of particular species, and the lower diversity of organic farms is a consequence of the large increase in dominance of a single species, namely P. melanarius.
Disposal methods for straw from continuous winter wheat were tested on two soil types, a flinty silty clay loam and a sandy loam, over 7 years . The methods tested were burnt or chopped straw in full factorial combination with four cultivation methods (tined to 10 cm, tined to 10 cm then to 20 cm; ploughed to 20 cm; tined to 10 cm then ploughed to 20 cm). Measurements were taken to determine the effects on crop establishment and growth, pest and disease incidence, and the consequent effects on yield. Another experiment (1985-91) on the flinty silty clay loam site, investigated the interactions between straw treatments (burnt, baled or chopped in plots that were all shallow cultivated to 10 cm) and five other factors; namely, time of cultivation, insecticides, molluscicides, fungicides and autumn nitrogen. All the straw x cultivation systems allowed satisfactory crops to be established but repeated incorporation of straw using shallow, non-inversion cultivations resulted in very severe grass-weed problems. Early crop growth, as measured by aboveground dry matter production, was frequently decreased by straw residues, but the effect rarely persisted beyond anthesis. Pests were not a problem and their numbers were not greatly affected either by straw or cultivation treatments, apart from yellow cereal fly which, especially on the heavier soil, was decreased by treatments which left much straw debris on the soil surface. Incorporating straw also caused no serious increases in the incidence of diseases. Indeed, averaged over all sites and years, eyespot and sharp eyespot were both slightly but significantly less severe where straw was incorporated than where it was burnt. Eyespot, and even more consistently sharp eyespot, were often more severe after ploughing than after shallow, non-inversion cultivations. Effects on take-all were complex but straw residues had much smaller effects than cultivations. Initially the disease increased most rapidly in the shallow cultivated plots but these also tended to go into the decline phase more quickly so that in the fourth year (fifth cereal crop) take-all was greater in the ploughed than in the shallow cultivated plots. On average, yields did not differ greatly with straw or cultivation systems, although there were clear effects of take-all in those years when the disease was most severe. In the last 2 years, yields were limited by the presence of grass weeds in the plots testing chopped straw incorporated by tining to 10 cm.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.