DOCSLIB.ORG

Crops, Weeds and Pollinators Understanding Ecological Interaction for Better Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crops, Weeds and Pollinators Understanding Ecological Interaction for Better Management CROPS, WEEDS AND POLLINATORS UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT BIODIVERSITY & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS BIODIVERSITY & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS CROPS, WEEDS AND POLLINATORS UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORS Miguel A. Altieri University of California, Berkeley Clara I. Nicholls University of California, Berkeley Mark Gillespie University of Leeds, United Kingdom Ben Waterhouse Lincoln University, New Zealand Steve Wratten Lincoln University, New Zealand Gualbert Gbèhounou FAO, Rome, Italy Barbara Gemmill-Herren FAO, Rome, Italy FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, ROME 2015 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. E-ISBN 978-92-5-108399-4 (PDF) © FAO, 2015 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected]. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]. CROPS, WEEDS AND POLLINATORS UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ..................................................................................................................................vii 1 WEEDS AND POLLINATORS IN AgRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SySTEMS ..................................1 1.1 The importance of pollination as a biodiverse ecosystem service .............................................. 1 1.2 Threats facing crop pollinators ........................................................................................... 3 1.3 Habitat management to promote pollinators in farmland: the potential role of weeds ................. 4 1.4 The international response ................................................................................................. 5 2 THE IMPORTANCE OF WEEDS TO POLLINATORS .................................................................6 2.1 Mapping the linkages between weeds and pollinators ............................................................. 7 2.2 The importance of non-crop flowers to honey bees (Apis spp.) ...............................................10 2.3 The importance of non-crop flowers to bumble bees (Bombus spp.) .........................................14 2.4 The importance of non-crop flowers to stingless bees ......................................................... 17 2.5 The importance of non-crop flowers to solitary and other bees ...............................................19 2.6 The importance of non-crop flowers to hoverflies .................................................................23 2.7 Other important factors of pollinator conservation ...............................................................25 3 ECOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS AMONG CROPS, WEEDS AND BENEFICIAL INSECTS ..................28 3.1 Weed vegetation management as a tool to enhance pollination services ..................................28 3.2 Weeds as habitats for pollinators .......................................................................................29 3.3 Effects of agricultural practices on wild pollinators ...............................................................32 4 AgRONOMIC STRATEGIES TO ENCOURAGE WEEDS BENEFICIAL TO POLLINATORS ...................40 4.1 Establishing or restoring weedy hedgerows ..........................................................................41 4.2 Maintaining tolerable levels of weed densities in the field .....................................................41 4.3 Attaining desirable weed species composition in the field .....................................................46 iii BIODIVERSITY & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 5 WHOLE CROP MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON WEEDS AND POLLINATORS ....51 5.1 The effects of intensive agricultural systems on weeds and pollinators ....................................52 5.2 The importance of less intensive farming systems .................................................................54 5.3 Pollinator management and farming systems ........................................................................56 5.4 An assessment of the effectiveness of pollinator management systems ....................................58 6 COST-BENEFITS TO CROP PRODUCTIVITY OF PROMOTING POLLINATOR FRIENDLY WEEDS .......61 6.1 Contribution of weeds to crop productivity (via pollination) ...................................................61 6.2 Broader economic considerations .......................................................................................64 7 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................66 References ............................................................................................................................71 Photocredits .........................................................................................................................96 iv CROPS, WEEDS AND POLLINATORS UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT LIST OF FIGURES AND BOXES Figure 1. Response of leading crops and commodities to annual pollination ...................................... 2 Figure 2. The influence of time of weed emergence or weed removal on percent yield of the check and magnitude of the weed-free critical period ..................................................................... 43 Figure 3. Area of influence of common cocklebur on total plant dry weight of (a) “forrest” and (b) “centennial” soybeans at 16 weeks after emergence (averaged over 1983 and 1984). ........ 44 Figure 4. Temporal trends in total crop production from 1961 to 2006 ........................................... 67 Figure 5. Effects of distance from native vegetation on similarity of pollinator species richness for grapefruit crops in Argentina ......................................................................................... 68 Figure 6. Strategies to encourage weed floral diversity within and around crop fields to conserve and enhance insect pollinators ............................................................................................. 69 Box 1. Practical tips for encouraging pollinator friendly weeds .................................................. 50 v BIODIVERSITY & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Lipotriches bee gathering pollen from Buffel grass. vi CROPS, WEEDS AND POLLINATORS UNDERSTANDING ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT PREFACE t is increasingly recognized that it is both possible and highly advantageous to address I future needs by transitioning to systems of food production that are based on an effective use of ecosystem services, in ways that are regenerative and minimize negative impacts. In managing agricultural systems through an ecological approach, it is often possible to build on beneficial biological interactions and find positive synergies. FAO’s Strategic Framework, through it Strategic Objective 2 – to increase and improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a sustainable manner – recognizes that production systems can be managed to provide multiple benefits. One area of synergy that merits closer investigation is that of weed and pollination management. These two aspects of agriculture consist of a multitude of interactions, both beneficial and harmful for the farmer and agriculture in general. If the practices applied to effectively control weeds can also benefit pollinators, there may be multiple benefits. Another area of positive synergy is related to the practices enhancing populations of pollinators and favouring natural enemies. Under ecological management, some aspects of the farming system that are conventionally seen as problems, can become assets. Animal waste, for example, is a tremendous problem in intensive animal production systems, but becomes a valuable asset when crops and livestock are better integrated. Similarly, weeds in agricultural fields do provide resources to both pollinators and natural enemies, and in this respect can be better managed to provide such resources, while still managed to ensure that they do not impact on crop yields.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wild Bees of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: Richness, Abundance, and Spatio-Temporal Beta-Diversity
    Wild bees of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: richness, abundance, and spatio-temporal beta-diversity Olivia Messinger Carril1, Terry Griswold2, James Haefner3 and Joseph S. Wilson4 1 Santa Fe, NM, United States of America 2 USDA-ARS Pollinating Insects Research Unit, Logan, UT, United States of America 3 Biology Department, Emeritus Professor, Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States of America 4 Department of Biology, Utah State University - Tooele, Tooele, UT, United States of America ABSTRACT Interest in bees has grown dramatically in recent years in light of several studies that have reported widespread declines in bees and other pollinators. Investigating declines in wild bees can be difficult, however, due to the lack of faunal surveys that provide baseline data of bee richness and diversity. Protected lands such as national monuments and national parks can provide unique opportunities to learn about and monitor bee populations dynamics in a natural setting because the opportunity for large-scale changes to the landscape are reduced compared to unprotected lands. Here we report on a 4-year study of bees in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), found in southern Utah, USA. Using opportunistic collecting and a series of standardized plots, we collected bees throughout the six-month flowering season for four consecutive years. In total, 660 bee species are now known from the area, across 55 genera, and including 49 new species. Two genera not previously known to occur in the state of Utah were discovered, as well as 16 new species records for the state. Bees include ground-nesters, cavity- and twig-nesters, cleptoparasites, narrow specialists, generalists, solitary, and social species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chemical Ecology and Evolution of Bee–Flower Interactions: a Review and Perspectives1
    668 REVIEW / SYNTHE` SE The chemical ecology and evolution of bee–flower interactions: a review and perspectives1 S. Do¨ tterl and N.J. Vereecken Abstract: Bees and angiosperms have shared a long and intertwined evolutionary history and their interactions have re- sulted in remarkable adaptations. Yet, at a time when the ‘‘pollination crisis’’ is of major concern as natural populations of both wild and honey bees (Apis mellifera L., 1758) face alarming decline rates at a worldwide scale, there are important gaps in our understanding of the ecology and evolution of bee–flower interactions. In this review, we summarize and dis- cuss the current knowledge about the role of floral chemistry versus other communication channels in bee-pollinated flow- ering plants, both at the macro- and micro-evolutionary levels, and across the specialization–generalization gradient. The available data illustrate that floral scents and floral chemistry have been largely overlooked in bee–flower interactions, and that pollination studies integrating these components along with pollinator behaviour in a phylogenetic context will help gain considerable insights into the sensory ecology and the evolution of bees and their associated flowering plants. Re´sume´ : Les abeilles et les angiospermes partagent une grande partie de leur histoire e´volutive, et leurs interactions ont produit de remarquables exemples d’adaptations mutuelles. Cependant, a` une e´poque ou` la « crise de la pollinisation » de- vient une pre´occupation majeure et ou` les populations d’abeilles sauvages et mellife`res (Apis mellifera L., 1758) font face a` des de´clins massifs a` l’e´chelle mondiale, notre compre´hension de l’e´cologie et de l’e´volution des relations abeilles- plantes demeure fragmentaire.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamium Album L. Common Name: White Deadnettle Assessors: Timm Nawrocki Helen I
    ALASKA NON-NATIVE PLANT INVASIVENESS RANKING FORM Botanical name: Lamium album L. Common name: white deadnettle Assessors: Timm Nawrocki Helen I. Klein Research Technician Research Technician Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, 707 A Street, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 257-2798 (907) 257-2798 Lindsey A. Flagstad Matthew L. Carlson, Ph.D. Research Technician Associate Professor Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, 707 A Street, 707 A Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 257-2786 (907) 257-2790 Reviewers: Ashley Grant Bonnie M. Million. Invasive Plant Program Instructor Alaska Exotic Plant Management Team Liaison Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Fairbanks Department of the Interior 1675 C Street, 240 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Anchorage, Alaska, 99501 (907) 786-6315 (907) 644-3452 Gino Graziano Whitney Rapp Natural Resource Specialist Katmai, Lake Clark, Alagnak, and Aniakchak Planning, Plant Materials Center, Division of Agriculture, Department of Research Permitting, GIS/GPS, and Invasive Species Natural Resources, State of Alaska National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 5310 S. Bodenburg Spur, P.O. Box 7 Palmer, Alaska, 99645 King Salmon, Alaska, 99613 (907) 745-4469 (907) 246-2145 Date: 2/9/2011
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Alternative Pollinators a Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists
    Managing Alternative Pollinators A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists ERIC MADER • MARLA SPIVAK • ELAINE EVANS Fair Use of this PDF file of Managing Alternative Pollinators: A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists, SARE Handbook 11, NRAES-186 By Eric Mader, Marla Spivak, and Elaine Evans Co-published by SARE and NRAES, February 2010 You can print copies of the PDF pages for personal use. If a complete copy is needed, we encourage you to purchase a copy as described below. Pages can be printed and copied for educational use. The book, authors, SARE, and NRAES should be acknowledged. Here is a sample acknowledgement: ----From Managing Alternative Pollinators: A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists, SARE Handbook 11, by Eric Mader, Marla Spivak, and Elaine Evans, and co- published by SARE and NRAES.---- No use of the PDF should diminish the marketability of the printed version. If you have questions about fair use of this PDF, contact NRAES. Purchasing the Book You can purchase printed copies on NRAES secure web site, www.nraes.org, or by calling (607) 255-7654. The book can also be purchased from SARE, visit www.sare.org. The list price is $23.50 plus shipping and handling. Quantity discounts are available. SARE and NRAES discount schedules differ. NRAES PO Box 4557 Ithaca, NY 14852-4557 Phone: (607) 255-7654 Fax: (607) 254-8770 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nraes.org SARE 1122 Patapsco Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-6715 (301) 405-8020 (301) 405-7711 – Fax www.sare.org More information on SARE and NRAES is included at the end of this PDF.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Carpophilus Beetle in Almonds
    JANUARY 2016 ALL ABOUT ALMONDS ORCHARD MANAGEMENT MANAGING CARPOPHILUS BEETLE IN ALMONDS PRELIMINARY MONITORING GUIDELINES, ATTRACT & KILL GUIDELINES FOR 2016 - 2017 SEASON CARPOPHILUS IN ALMONDS project includes research on the KEY POINTS distribution of different Carpophilus Carpophilus beetles comprise many species throughout orchards and in species with different preferences different almond growing regions, Almonds are most vulnerable to attack from for fruit type and fruit ripening/ testing whether the “stonefruit” lure Carpophilus Beetle during hull split. maturing stage. In recent years, is effective in almonds and how its Pheromone and co-attractant are much less almond growers have indicated potency might be improved, and effective when used separately rather than in significant crop losses due to determining the most effective combination. Carpophilus, and there is an urgent spacing of A&K traps to achieve need for an Attract and Kill (A&K) control. High priority blocks to monitor are likely to system that can control these This article contains information on include those that experience excessive pests, particularly in the ‘hull-split’ how best to apply an A&K strategy to moisture retention and humidity. development stage when almonds monitor and control Carpophilus in are most vulnerable to attack. During It is suggested that growers start with at least almonds using the current stonefruit the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons, one trap per orchard block (approx. 20 ha). lure. We consider this an interim five species of Carpophilus were guide for interested growers, and as detected in samples from traps in Carpophilus starts to become active and able we continue our research we aim to almond orchards, and concerns that to fly to traps as temperatures increase in provide growers with more detailed beetle populations could escalate late winter/early spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigations Into Stability in the Fig/Fig-Wasp Mutualism
    Investigations into stability in the fig/fig-wasp mutualism Sarah Al-Beidh A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Imperial College London. Declaration I hereby declare that this submission is my own work, or if not, it is clearly stated and fully acknowledged in the text. Sarah Al-Beidh 2 Abstract Fig trees (Ficus, Moraceae) and their pollinating wasps (Chalcidoidea, Agaonidae) are involved in an obligate mutualism where each partner relies on the other in order to reproduce: the pollinating fig wasps are a fig tree’s only pollen disperser whilst the fig trees provide the wasps with places in which to lay their eggs. Mutualistic interactions are, however, ultimately genetically selfish and as such, are often rife with conflict. Fig trees are either monoecious, where wasps and seeds develop together within fig fruit (syconia), or dioecious, where wasps and seeds develop separately. In interactions between monoecious fig trees and their pollinating wasps, there are conflicts of interest over the relative allocation of fig flowers to wasp and seed development. Although fig trees reap the rewards associated with wasp and seed production (through pollen and seed dispersal respectively), pollinators only benefit directly from flowers that nurture the development of wasp larvae, and increase their fitness by attempting to oviposit in as many ovules as possible. If successful, this oviposition strategy would eventually destroy the mutualism; however, the interaction has lasted for over 60 million years suggesting that mechanisms must be in place to limit wasp oviposition. This thesis addresses a number of factors to elucidate how stability may be achieved in monoecious fig systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro Outline
    THE REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY OF TWO TERRESTRIAL ORCHIDS, CALADENIA RIGIDA AND CALADENIA TENTACULATA RENATE FAAST Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Adelaide, South Australia December, 2009 i . DEcLARATION This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution to Renate Faast and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. The author acknowledges that copyright of published works contained within this thesis (as listed below) resides with the copyright holder(s) of those works. I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web, via the University's digital research repository, the Library catalogue, the Australasian Digital Theses Program (ADTP) and also through web search engines. Published works contained within this thesis: Faast R, Farrington L, Facelli JM, Austin AD (2009) Bees and white spiders: unravelling the pollination' syndrome of C aladenia ri gída (Orchidaceae). Australian Joumal of Botany 57:315-325. Faast R, Facelli JM (2009) Grazrngorchids: impact of florivory on two species of Calademz (Orchidaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 57:361-372. Farrington L, Macgillivray P, Faast R, Austin AD (2009) Evaluating molecular tools for Calad,enia (Orchidaceae) species identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Resolving Lamiales Relationships
    Schäferhoff et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2010, 10:352 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/352 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Towards resolving Lamiales relationships: insights from rapidly evolving chloroplast sequences Bastian Schäferhoff1*, Andreas Fleischmann2, Eberhard Fischer3, Dirk C Albach4, Thomas Borsch5, Günther Heubl2, Kai F Müller1 Abstract Background: In the large angiosperm order Lamiales, a diverse array of highly specialized life strategies such as carnivory, parasitism, epiphytism, and desiccation tolerance occur, and some lineages possess drastically accelerated DNA substitutional rates or miniaturized genomes. However, understanding the evolution of these phenomena in the order, and clarifying borders of and relationships among lamialean families, has been hindered by largely unresolved trees in the past. Results: Our analysis of the rapidly evolving trnK/matK, trnL-F and rps16 chloroplast regions enabled us to infer more precise phylogenetic hypotheses for the Lamiales. Relationships among the nine first-branching families in the Lamiales tree are now resolved with very strong support. Subsequent to Plocospermataceae, a clade consisting of Carlemanniaceae plus Oleaceae branches, followed by Tetrachondraceae and a newly inferred clade composed of Gesneriaceae plus Calceolariaceae, which is also supported by morphological characters. Plantaginaceae (incl. Gratioleae) and Scrophulariaceae are well separated in the backbone grade; Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae appear in distant clades, while the recently described Linderniaceae are confirmed to be monophyletic and in an isolated position. Conclusions: Confidence about deep nodes of the Lamiales tree is an important step towards understanding the evolutionary diversification of a major clade of flowering plants. The degree of resolution obtained here now provides a first opportunity to discuss the evolution of morphological and biochemical traits in Lamiales.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) on Annona Spp
    Scientific Notes 475 EFFECT OF PHEROMONE BAIT STATIONS FOR SAP BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: NITIDULIDAE) ON ANNONA SPP. FRUIT SET J. E. PEÑA1, A. CASTIÑEIRAS1, R. BARTELT2 AND R. DUNCAN1 1University of Florida, Tropical Research and Education Center, 18905 SW 280 St., Homestead FL 33031 2USDA-ARS-Midwest Area National Center for Agriculture, 1815 N University St., Peoria IL 61604 Atemoya, Annona squamosa L. x Annona cherimola Miller, and sugar apple, A. squamosa, have importance for the tropical fruit industry in Florida, but their yields are unreliable. This is so because fruit set is erratic due to highly variable pollination and physiological stress. Flowers of atemoyas and sugar apples initially undergo a fe- male phase during which stigmas are receptive, and later they have a male phase when the anthers split to shed pollen, but the stigmas are no longer receptive (Gotts- berger 1970). This prevents autogamy (i.e., fertilization of ovules by pollen from the same flower) (Nadel and Peña 1994). Most Annonaceae species are cantharophilous (beetle-pollinated), and a few are sapromyophilus (fly-pollinated) or thrips-pollinated (Gottsberger 1985). Cross pollination of Annona spp. can be carried out by sap beetles (Nitidulidae) (Reiss 1971, Nagel et al. 1989, George et al. 1992). In south Florida, nit- idulid pollinators are in the genera Carpophilus (six species) and Haptoncus (one spe- cies) (Nadel and Peña 1994). Gottsberger (1985) suggested that the Annonaceae and other primitive plants with cantharophilous pollination had evolved a specialized pol- lination system by releasing heavy floral volatiles that attract certain beetle species. For example, atemoya flowers open mid- to late afternoon and allow beetles enter.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating the Use of Buckwheat Strips for the Management of Colorado Potato Beetles in Potato Production and As an Attractan
    Investigating the Use of Buckwheat Strips for the Management of Colorado Potato Beetles in Potato Production and as an Attractant of Native Pollinators for Vine Crops 1. Project Summary This project consisted of two parts. The first was to see if buckwheat strips would attract beneficial predatory insects over to adjacent planted potato rows. My hypothesis was that Colorado potato beetle larvae would have reduced numbers due to the predation by beneficial insect predators attracted by the nearby buckwheat. Compared to the control plot where no buckwheat was planted, the treatment plots showed a significant increase in larvae reduction and predation by four species of predators. The second part of the project was to see if strips of buckwheat planted next to rows of cucumbers would attract native pollinators over to the vine crops to help improve pollination (and increase marketable fruit). Compared to the control plot where no buckwheat was planted, the treatment plots had greater numbers of native bees and wasps. There also was a significant difference between the number of marketable cucumbers and those that were misshapen due to poor pollination. 2. Introduction to Topic Cover crops have great benefits for vegetable production. The cover crops can suppress weeds, reduce erosion, act as a green manure providing nutrients, and adds organic matter back to the soil. Still with all of these fine properties, cover crops still are not as commonplace on an organic farm as they should be. Many small growers have land restrictions so that every piece is needed for production. Having some tied up in cover crops means reduced sales potential in the short run.
    [Show full text]
  • (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) Reared on Artificial Diets: Effects of a Lipid Extract from Host Pupae and Culture Media Conditioned with an Insect Cell Line
    Armyworm Symposium 2000: Carpenter et al. 43 FECUNDITY AND LONGEVITY OF DIAPETIMORPHA INTROITA (CRESSON) (HYMENOPTERA: ICHNEUMONIDAE) REARED ON ARTIFICIAL DIETS: EFFECTS OF A LIPID EXTRACT FROM HOST PUPAE AND CULTURE MEDIA CONDITIONED WITH AN INSECT CELL LINE J. E. CARPENTER, S. M. FERKOVICH2 AND P. D. GREANY3 1Crop Protection and Management Research Unit Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Tifton, GA 31793-0748 2Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, USDA, ARS 1700 SW 23rd Drive, PO Box 14565, Gainesville, FL 32604 3University of Florida, Gainesville, FL ABSTRACT Diapetimorpha introita (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) is a native ectoparasitoid of Spodoptera spp. pupae. This parasitoid has been reared in the laboratory on an artificial diet devoid of any insect host components. However, wasps reared on this artificial diet had reduced fecundity. Efforts to increase fecundity included supplementing the diet with cell culture media conditioned with a cell line from ovaries of the fall armyworm, S. frugiperda, in one experiment and fortifying the diet with lipids extracted from pupae of S. frugiperda in a second experiment. In the first experiment, differences in mean oviposition and mean longevity among females reared on the artificial control diet (artificial diet), cell line-supple- mented diet (Sf9Cell), and natural host (Host) were not significant. However, during the first 10 days of oviposition, Sf9Cell-reared females oviposited at a rate similar to the Host-reared parasitoids and at a rate faster than artificial-diet reared females. In the second experiment, females reared on the diet with added host lipid (host lipid) laid significantly more eggs than females on the artificial diet, however, longevity was not significantly affected by diet treat- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Trophic Level Interactions Between the Invasive Plant
    MULTI-TROPHIC LEVEL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE INVASIVE PLANT CENTAUREA STOEBE, INSECTS AND NATIVE PLANTS by Christina Rachel Herron-Sweet A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Land Resources and Environmental Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana May 2014 ©COPYRIGHT by Christina Rachel Herron-Sweet 2014 All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION To my parents and grandparents, who instilled in me the value of education and have been my biggest supporters along the way. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks go to my two advisers Drs. Jane Mangold and Erik Lehnhoff for all their tremendous support, advice and feedback during my graduate program. My two other committee members Drs. Laura Burkle and Jeff Littlefield also deserve a huge thank you for the time and effort they put into helping me with various aspects of my project. This research would not have been possible without the dedicated crew of field and lab helpers: Torrin Daniels, Darcy Goodson, Daniel France, James Collins, Ann de Meij, Noelle Orloff, Krista Ehlert, and Hally Berg. The following individuals deserve recognition for their patience in teaching me pollinator identification, and for providing parasitoid identifications: Casey Delphia, Mike Simanonok, Justin Runyon, Charles Hart, Stacy Davis, Mike Ivie, Roger Burks, Jim Woolley, David Wahl, Steve Heydon, and Gary Gibson. Hilary Parkinson and Matt Lavin also offered their expertise in plant identification. Statistical advice and R code was generously offered by Megan Higgs, Sean McKenzie, Pamela Santibanez, Dan Bachen, Michael Lerch, Michael Simanonok, Zach Miller and Dave Roberts. Bryce Christiaens, Lyn Huyser, Gil Gale and Craig Campbell provided instrumental consultation on locating field sites, and the Circle H Ranch, Flying D Ranch and the United States Forest Service graciously allowed this research to take place on their property.
    [Show full text]