The role of natural enemy guilds in Aphis glycines suppression

Costamagna, Alejandro C.; Landis, Douglas A.; Brewer, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.01.018

Cited by 83 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This community is comprised mostly of predators (Schmidt et al 2008) that can respond in a density-dependent manner to A. glycines population growth (Donaldson et al 2007). Both O. insidiosus (Desneux et al 2006) and coccinellids (Costamagna et al 2008) have been identiÞed as important components of this community. However, it is not known whether these predators interact in a positive or negative manner as it relates to A. glycines mortality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Reduced-Risk Insecticides on Soybean Aphid and Associated Natural Enemies

Ohnesorg¹,

Johnson²,

O’Neal³

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insect predators in North America suppress Aphis glycinesMatsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations; however, insecticides are required when populations reach economically damaging levels. Currently, insecticides used to manage A. glycines are broad-spectrum (pyrethroids and organophosphates), and probably reduce beneficial insect abundance in soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Our goal was to determine whether insecticides considered reduced-risk by the Environmental Protection Agency could protect soybean yield from A. glycines herbivory while having a limited impact on the aphid's natural enemies. We compared three insecticides (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and pymetrozine,) to a broad-spectrum insecticide (λ-cyhalothrin) and an untreated control using two application methods. We applied neonicotinoid insecticides to seeds (imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) as well as foliage (imidacloprid); pymetrozine and λ-cyhalothrin were applied only to foliage. Foliage-applied insecticides had lower A. glycines populations and higher yields than the seed-applied insecticides. Among foliage-applied insecticides, pymetrozine and imidacloprid had an intermediate level of A. glycines population and yield protection compared with λ-cyhalothrin and the untreated control. We monitored natural enemies with yellow sticky cards, sweep-nets, and direct observation. Before foliar insecticides were applied (i.e., before aphid populations developed) seed treatments had no observable effect on the abundance of natural enemies. After foliar insecticides were applied, differences in natural enemy abundance were observed when sampled with sweep-nets and direct observation but not with yellow sticky cards. Based on the first two sampling methods, pymetrozine and the foliage-applied imidacloprid had intermediate abundances of natural enemies compared with the untreated control and λ-cyhalothrin. KeywordsGlycine max, biological control, insecticide regulation, conservation, nontarget impacts Disciplines Agriculture | Entomology CommentsThis article is from Journal of Economic Entomology 102 (5) ABSTRACT Insect predators in North America suppress Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations; however, insecticides are required when populations reach economically damaging levels. Currently, insecticides used to manage A. glycines are broad-spectrum (pyrethroids and organophosphates), and probably reduce beneÞcial insect abundance in soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Our goal was to determine whether insecticides considered reduced-risk by the Environmental Protection Agency could protect soybean yield from A. glycines herbivory while having a limited impact on the aphidÕs natural enemies. We compared three insecticides (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and pymetrozine,) to a broad-spectrum insecticide (-cyhalothrin) and an untreated control using two application methods. We applied neonicotinoid insecticides to seeds (imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) as well as foliage (imidacloprid); pymetrozine and -cyhalothrin were applied only to ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Reduced-Risk Insecticides on Soybean Aphid and Associated Natural Enemies

Ohnesorg¹,

Johnson²,

O’Neal³

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PCA ordination for principal components 1 and 2 of landscape elements surrounding soybean fields sampled at a radius of 1.5 km. (2007) found that a diverse generalist natural enemy complex significantly reduced soybean aphid populations in individual soybean fields, whereas parasitoids are currently not major contributors (Costamagna et al 2008). Because of the potential for rapid population growth of aphids (Costamagna et al 2007b), predation early in the season is key to preventing aphids from reaching threshold levels.…”

Section: Impact Of Biological Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Soybean aphid is consumed by a diversity of natural enemies that can provide strong top-down regulation of its populations (Costamagna and Landis 2007) and result in a trophic cascade of increased crop yields (Costamagna et al 2007a). Although several parasitoids can be found attacking soybean aphid, generalist predators currently dominate the natural enemy community (Costamagna et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape diversity enhances biological control of an introduced crop pest in the north‐central USA

Gardiner

Landis

Gratton

et al. 2009

Ecological Applications

493

334

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Arthropod predators and parasitoids provide valuable ecosystem services in agricultural crops by suppressing populations of insect herbivores. Many natural enemies are influenced by non-crop habitat surrounding agricultural fields, and understanding if, and at what scales, land use patterns influence natural enemies is essential to predicting how landscape alters biological control services. Here we focus on biological control of soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matumura, a specialist crop pest recently introduced to the north-central United States. We measured the amount of biological control service supplied to soybean in 26 replicate fields across Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota across two years (2005)(2006). We measured the impact of natural enemies by experimentally excluding or allowing access to soybean aphid infested plants and comparing aphid population growth over 14 days. We also monitored aphid and natural enemy populations at large in each field. Predators, principally coccinellid beetles, dominated the natural enemy community of soybean in both years. In the absence of aphid predators, A. glycines increased significantly, with 5.3-fold higher aphid populations on plants in exclusion cages vs. the open field after 14 days. We calculated a biological control services index (BSI) based on relative suppression of aphid populations and related it to landscape diversity and composition at multiple spatial scales surrounding each site. We found that BSI values increased with landscape diversity, measured as Simpson's D. Landscapes dominated by corn and soybean fields provided less biocontrol service to soybean compared with landscapes with an abundance of crop and non-crop habitats. The abundance of Coccinellidae was related to landscape composition, with beetles being more abundant in landscapes with an abundance of forest and grassland compared with landscapes dominated by agricultural crops. Landscape diversity and composition at a scale of 1.5 km surrounding the focal field explained the greatest proportion of the variation in BSI and Coccinellidae abundance. This study indicates that natural enemies provide a regionally important ecosystem service by suppressing a key soybean pest, reducing the need for insecticide applications. Furthermore, it suggests that management to maintain or enhance landscape diversity has the potential to stabilize or increase biocontrol services.

show abstract

“…Since its detection in 2000 and subsequent outbreaks in North America, there has been a concerted effort to describe the soybean aphid predator community, quantify the extent to which it exerts biological control, and understand the role of habitat in mediating those interactions Rutledge et al 2004;Landis 2006, 2007;Mignault et al 2006;Costamagna et al , 2008Gardiner et al 2009;Gagnon et al 2011;Koh et al 2013). There are several significant predators of soybean aphid, including ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), the insidious flower bug Orius insidiosus Say (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), predatory midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza Rondani (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), and lacewing species (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae) (Desneux et al 2006, Donaldson et al 2007, Costamagna et al 2008, Gardiner et al 2009). Predation from these and other arthropods can exert strong biological control, often providing adequate population suppression to keep soybean aphids below the economic threshold and thus protecting soybean yield and reducing insecticide use , Gardiner et al 2009.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Abundance and Performance of Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) on Soybean Aphid

Eckberg

Peterson

Borsh

et al. 2014

Annals of the Entomological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of natural enemy guilds in Aphis glycines suppression

Cited by 83 publications

References 55 publications

Impact of Reduced-Risk Insecticides on Soybean Aphid and Associated Natural Enemies

Impact of Reduced-Risk Insecticides on Soybean Aphid and Associated Natural Enemies

Landscape diversity enhances biological control of an introduced crop pest in the north‐central USA

Field Abundance and Performance of Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) on Soybean Aphid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About