DOCSLIB.ORG

Cover Crop Establishment and Potential Benefits to Arkansas Farmers Ashley Elizabeth Humphreys University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cover Crop Establishment and Potential Benefits to Arkansas Farmers Ashley Elizabeth Humphreys University of Arkansas, Fayetteville University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Cover Crop Establishment and Potential Benefits to Arkansas Farmers Ashley Elizabeth Humphreys University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, and the Soil Science Commons Recommended Citation Humphreys, Ashley Elizabeth, "Cover Crop Establishment and Potential Benefits ot Arkansas Farmers" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1867. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1867 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Cover Crop Establishment and Potential Benefits to Arkansas Farmers A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences by Ashley Elizabeth Humphreys University of Arkansas Bachelor of Science in Food, Human Nutrition, and Life Sciences, 2011 December 2016 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ______________________________ Dr. Trenton L. Roberts Thesis Director ______________________________ ______________________________ Dr. David Miller Dr. Edward Gbur Committee Member Committee Member ______________________________ Dr. Jeremy Ross Committee Member ABSTRACT Soybean farmers in Arkansas need best management practices (BMPs) that maximize the benefits of using cover crops including planting date and fertilization recommendations. An evaluation of cover crop species, planting dates, seeding rates, fertilizer rates, and N accumulation aids in providing these BMPs. The first objective of this research is to assess the effect of planting date on biomass production, as well as looking at the interaction of seeding rate or fertilizer rate for legumes or non-legumes, respectively, using Austrian winter pea ( Pisum sativum ), cereal rye ( Secale cereale), black oats ( Avena strigosa ), wheat ( Triticum aestivum ), and tillage radish ( Raphanus sativus ). Crops were planted on five dates in three locations across the primary crop production regions of Arkansas, using either variable Agrotain-treated urea rates or variable seeding rates. Agrotain is a N fertilizer additive that inhibits urease activity and limits ammonia volatilization loss potential. A 0.9 x 0.9 m sample of above-ground biomass was oven- dried and weighed to determine total cover crop biomass production. This research found that earlier planting dates were preferable for all species and that fertilizer or seeding rates did not have much effect on establishment and biomass across all planting dates. The second objective was to gauge the potential N credits by assessing the N accumulation via biological N fixation of three legumes in two locations. Three species were evaluated and compared for N accumulation at termination – Austrian winter pea, hairy vetch (Vicia villosa ) and crimson clover ( Trifolium incarnatum ). Pea biomass was taken from the above study, and pea, vetch, and clover biomasses were taken from an herbicide tolerance study. A 0.9x0.9 meter sample of above-ground biomass was oven-dried, ground, and analyzed for total N. This study found that Austrian winter pea generated more biomass on average, and accumulated the most N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 History........................................................................................................................ 2 Broad Benefit ............................................................................................................. 3 Arkansas ..................................................................................................................... 4 Soybean ...................................................................................................................... 5 Soil Quality ................................................................................................................ 6 Weed Control ............................................................................................................. 7 Pest Control ................................................................................................................ 7 Erosion ....................................................................................................................... 9 Leaching ..................................................................................................................... 10 Catch Crops and Fertilizer ......................................................................................... 11 Legumes ..................................................................................................................... 12 Non-Legumes ............................................................................................................. 13 Microbiology.............................................................................................................. 13 Rye ............................................................................................................................. 15 Black Oats .................................................................................................................. 16 Radish ........................................................................................................................ 16 Wheat ......................................................................................................................... 17 Peas ............................................................................................................................ 18 Hairy Vetch ................................................................................................................ 19 Crimson Clover .......................................................................................................... 20 References .................................................................................................................. 21 Chapter 2 Effects of Planting Date, Seeding Rate and Fertilization Rate on Cover Crop Biomass Production ................................................................................................. 27 Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 28 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................... 30 Total Above-Ground Biomass ................................................................................... 31 Soybean Response and Statistical Analysis ............................................................... 32 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................. 32 Soybean Yield as Influenced by Cover Crop Biomass .............................................. 35 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 36 References .................................................................................................................. 43 Chapter 3 Nitrogen Accumulation in Leguminous Cover Crops .......................................... 44 Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 45 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 45 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................... 47 Tissue Sampling and Analysis ................................................................................... 48 Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................................... 49 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................. 49 Nitrogen Accumulation by Species ........................................................................... 49 Nitrogen Credits ......................................................................................................... 50 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 50 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 51 References .................................................................................................................. 57 Chapter 4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 58 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 59 References .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pohoria Burda Na Dostupných Historických Mapách Je Aj Cieľom Tohto Príspevku
    OCHRANA PRÍRODY NATURE CONSERVATION 27 / 2016 OCHRANA PRÍRODY NATURE CONSERVATION 27 / 2016 Štátna ochrana prírody Slovenskej republiky Banská Bystrica Redakčná rada: prof. Dr. Ing. Viliam Pichler doc. RNDr. Ingrid Turisová, PhD. Mgr. Michal Adamec RNDr. Ján Kadlečík Ing. Marta Mútňanová RNDr. Katarína Králiková Recenzenti čísla: RNDr. Michal Ambros, PhD. Mgr. Peter Puchala, PhD. Ing. Jerguš Tesák doc. RNDr. Ingrid Turisová, PhD. Zostavil: RNDr. Katarína Králiková Jayzková korektúra: Mgr. Olga Majerová Grafická úprava: Ing. Viktória Ihringová Vydala: Štátna ochrana prírody Slovenskej republiky Banská Bystrica v roku 2016 Vydávané v elektronickej verzii Adresa redakcie: ŠOP SR, Tajovského 28B, 974 01 Banská Bystrica tel.: 048/413 66 61, e-mail: [email protected] ISSN: 2453-8183 Uzávierka predkladania príspevkov do nasledujúceho čísla (28): 30.9.2016. 2 \ Ochrana prírody, 27/2016 OCHRANA PRÍRODY INŠTRUKCIE PRE AUTOROV Vedecký časopis je zameraný najmä na publikovanie pôvodných vedeckých a odborných prác, recenzií a krátkych správ z ochrany prírody a krajiny, resp. z ochranárskej biológie, prioritne na Slovensku. Príspevky sú publikované v slovenskom, príp. českom jazyku s anglickým súhrnom, príp. v anglickom jazyku so slovenským (českým) súhrnom. Členenie príspevku 1) názov príspevku 2) neskrátené meno autora, adresa autora (vrátane adresy elektronickej pošty) 3) názov príspevku, abstrakt a kľúčové slová v anglickom jazyku 4) úvod, metodika, výsledky, diskusia, záver, literatúra Ilustrácie (obrázky, tabuľky, náčrty, mapky, mapy, grafy, fotografie) • minimálne rozlíšenie 1200 x 800 pixelov, rozlíšenie 300 dpi (digitálna fotografia má väčšinou 72 dpi) • každá ilustrácia bude uložená v samostatnom súbore (jpg, tif, bmp…) • používajte kilometrovú mierku, nie číselnú • mapy vytvorené v ArcView je nutné vyexportovať do formátov tif, jpg,..
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus Bruchus Was Restricted by Schilsky (6
    THE HAIRY-VETCH BRUCHID, BRUCHUS BRACHIALIS FAHRAEUS, IN THE UNITED STATES ' By J. C. BRIDWELL, formerly Specialist in Bruchidae and Their Parasites, Division of Stored Product Insects^ Bureau of Entomology, and L. J. BOTTIMER, Assistant Entomologist^ Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture INTRODUCTION The genus Bruchus was restricted by Schilsky (6) ^ to include only the immediate allies of Bruchus pisorum (L.), the pea weevil, of which he tabulated 24 species knowQ to him. To these may be added others doubtfully distinct, imperfectly known, or more recently described, which increase the nominal species of the genus to a total of about 46. All these species are native to the Palearctic region. Two of them are already well known in the United States as major pests of the plants affected. B. pisorum was the first of the genus and one of the first species of the family to be recognized. It was described in 1752, and was recorded as having destroyed in the 1740's the flourishing colonial American industry of producing dry peas for ships' stores. B. ruß- manus Boheman, the broadbean weevil, has now practically destroyed the broadbean industry of Caüfornia. A third species, B, hrachialis Fahraeus, has in recent years gained a foothold in this country, for in 1931 the junior author found it heavily infesting the seeds of vetches growing in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina, and in 1932 it was found in Virginia. In view of these facts it seems wise to present a brief summary of the knowledge at present available of the habits of the members of this genus and to point out the increased danger of their estabhshment in the United States as a result of changed commercial conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS 2012-2016 BIOBLITZ VASHON ISLAND List Compiled By: Harsi Parker
    COMPLETE LIST OF TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS 2012-2016 BIOBLITZ VASHON ISLAND List compiled by: Harsi Parker Number Species name Common name Notes Year Location Taxonomic Order 1 Gammaridae sp. scud 2016 J Amphipoda – Gammaridae 2 Hyalella sp. amphipod 2014, 2016 CH, J Amphipoda – Hyalellidae 3 Acari sp. #1 mite 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 NP, SH, M, J Arachnida 4 Acari sp. #2 mite 2014 CH Arachnida 5 Opiliones sp. harvestman 2013, 2015 SH, M Arachnida 6 Callobius sp. hacklemesh weaver 2012 NP Arachnida – Amaurobiidae 7 Araneidae sp. orb weaver 2016 J Arachnida – Araneidae 8 Araneus diadematus Cross Orbweaver 2012, 2014 NP, CH Arachnida – Araneidae 9 Clubiona sp. leafcurling sac spider 2012 NP Arachnida – Clubionidae 10 Linyphiinae sp. sheetweb spider tentative ID 2012 NP Arachnida – Linyphiidae 11 Neriene sp. sheetweb spider tentative ID 2014 CH Arachnida – Linyphiidae 12 Pardosa sp. thinlegged wolf spider 2012 NP Arachnida – Lycosidae 13 Philodromus dispar running crab spider 2012 NP Arachnida – Philodromidae 14 Tibellus sp. slender crab spider tentative ID 2014 CH Arachnida – Philodromidae 15 Eris militaris Bronze Jumper tentative ID 2014 CH Arachnida – Salticidae 16 Metaphidippus manni jumping spider tentative ID 2014, 2016 CH, J Arachnida – Salticidae 17 Salticidae sp. #1 jumping spider 2014 CH Arachnida – Salticidae 18 Salticidae sp. #2 jumping spider 2015 M Arachnida – Salticidae 19 Salticus scenicus Zebra Jumper 2013, 2014, 2015 SH, CH, M Arachnida – Salticidae 20 Metellina sp. long-jawed orb weaver 2012 NP Arachnida – Tetragnathidae 21 Tetragnatha sp. long-jawed orb weaver 2013 SH Arachnida – Tetragnathidae 22 Theridiidae sp. cobweb spider 2012 NP Arachnida – Theridiidae 23 Misumena vatia Goldenrod Crab Spider 2013, 2016 SH, J Arachnida – Thomisidae 24 Thomisidae sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan
    Oregon Invasive Species Action Plan June 2005 Martin Nugent, Chair Wildlife Diversity Coordinator Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 872-5260 x5346 FAX: (503) 872-5269 [email protected] Kev Alexanian Dan Hilburn Sam Chan Bill Reynolds Suzanne Cudd Eric Schwamberger Risa Demasi Mark Systma Chris Guntermann Mandy Tu Randy Henry 7/15/05 Table of Contents Chapter 1........................................................................................................................3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 What’s Going On?........................................................................................................................................ 3 Oregon Examples......................................................................................................................................... 5 Goal............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Invasive Species Council................................................................................................................. 6 Statute ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Functions .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Ent~~S&O'gis T
    The Canadian Ent~~s&o'gist - - Vol. 100 Ottawa, Canada, October 1 29 1968 No. 10 NOTES ON BRUCHIDAE OF AMERICA NORWFMEXICO WITH A LIST OF WORLD GEI^~^^~'~^ L. J. BOTTIMER' Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa Abstract Can. Ent. 100: 1009-1049 (1968) This paper contains notes affecting the classification of the Bruchidae of United States and Canada, a list of all species found north of AfIexico, and a list of World genera and their type-species. The Mexican Merobrzichzis vacillator (Sharp) is added to the fauna of this area. Transferred from our list to that of Latin America are: Acanthoscelides ca1ifornicu.r (Boheman), Megacerus ez~genie new name for Brucbus micornis Boheman nec Erichson, and Mimosestes innotatits (Pic.). The following are synonynlizecl: Spernwpl~gzis (Zabrotes) se~fiicinctzisHorn (1894) with Zabrotes snbfasciatzis (Bohenlan 1833) ; Brzicbus siibserripes Fall (1910) with Acanthoscelides compressicornis (Schaeffer 1907); Litl~raeus electus Bridwell (1952) with Litbraens elegans (Blanchard 1851); Brzicbus a/lioguttatus Motschoulsky (1874) with Meibomeus in-iisculiis (Say 1831) ; Britcbzis bivzilneratus Horn ( 1873) with Brzicbus abbreviates, inadvertently validated by Say = Sennius abbreviates (Say 1824); Br-nc/~zisnigrinus Horn (1873), B. nictitans Motschoulsliy (1874), and B. depresses Fall (1912) with Sennius cmentatits (Horn 1873) ; Br-nchus pytboniciis Pic (191 3) with Stator midialis (Schaeffer 1907) ; and Brzicl7zis bigzittatus Fabricius (1801) = Bruclms bignttellzis Schocnherr (1833) with Callosobr-ncbus chinensis (Linnaeus 1758). Original spellings of the specific names of two species are revived: Megacerus pygidatis (Mot~~h~~l~liy)nec pygidialis Pic, and Megacms discoidus (Say) nec discoidens: authors. Knichus lividus J. E. LeContc 1824 is placed in our list as an unrccogni~cdspecies.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Agriculture LIST of INTERCEPTED
    Bur.Ent. & P. Q. Issued May 1939 United States Department of Agriculture BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY AND PLANT QUARANTINE SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS LIST OF INTERCEPTED PLANT PESTS, 1937 (List of Pests Recorded During the Period July 1, 1936, to June 30, 1937, In- clusive, as Intercepted in, on, or with Plants and Plant Products Entering United States Territory.) INTRODUCTION The period covered by this report represents the twenty-fourth year for which lists of intercepted plant pests have been issued. While the earlier reports gave the details regarding practically all organisms found on the plant material in- spected, the present paper omits many organisms entirely and summarizes the interceptions of many common or incompletely determined pests in short para- graphs, hence the detailed table contains only a fraction of the total findings. This report is based on interceptions for which determinations were received and indexed during the fiscal year. Determinations for collections made late in the year are often received after the close of the year and are included with those of the following year. The summarized records cover pests intercepted in, on, or with plants and plant products (1) imported, (2) offered for but refused entry, (3) held as ships' stores, etc., and hence not imported through customs, (4) offered for entry for immediate export or for immediate transportation and exportation in bond, and (5) in domestic shipments reaching the mainland from Hawaii and Puerto Rico. A cross-indexed file covering the more important and interesting interceptions is maintained in Washington and serves as the basis for this list.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of the Bruchidae of the United States and Canada Introduction to the Acrobat Pdf Edition
    Handbook of the Bruchidae of the United States and Canada Introduction to the Acrobat pdf edition The Acrobat pdf version of this publication, though identical in content to the print version, differs slightly in format from the print version. Also, in volume 2 the items on the errata list for the print version have been corrected. [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] United States Department of Agriculture Handbook of the Agricultural Research Bruchidae of the United Service Technical States and Canada Bulletin Number 1912 November 2004 (Insecta, Coleoptera) Volume I I II United States Department of Agriculture Handbook of the Agricultural Research Bruchidae of the United Service Technical States and Canada Bulletin Number 1912 November 2004 (Insecta, Coleoptera) John M. Kingsolver Volume I Kingsolver was research entomologist, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. He is presently research associate with the Florida State Collection of Arthropods. III Abstract Hemisphere. It provides the means to identify these insects for taxonomists, students, museum curators, biodiver- Kingsolver, John M. 2004. Handbook of sity workers, port identifiers, and ecolo- the Bruchidae of the United States and gists conducting studies in rangeland, Canada (Insecta, Coleoptera). U.S. Depart- pasture, and forest management in the ment of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin United States and Canada. 1912, 2 vol., 636 pp. Mention of commercial products in this Distinguishing characteristics and diag- publication is solely for the purpose of nostic keys are given for the 5 subfami- providing specific information and does lies, 24 genera, and 156 species of the not imply recommendation or endorse- seed beetle family Bruchidae of the Unit- ment by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • F:\REJ\16-2\213-218 (Delobel Delobel)
    Russian Entomol. J. 16(2): 213–218 © RUSSIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL JOURNAL, 2007 Contribution to the knowledge of Bulgarian seed beetles (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Ê ïîçíàíèþ æóêîâ-çåðíîâîê Áîëãàðèè (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) Alex Delobel1 & Bernard Delobel2 Àëåêñ Äåëîáåëü1 & Áåðíàðä Äåëîáåëü2 1 Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle, Entomologie,45 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Laboratoire BF21, Bâtiment Louis Pasteur, INRA/INSA, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France KEY WORDS: Bruchidae, seed beetle, host plant, Bruchidius, Bruchus, Spermophagus, Acanthoscelides Leguminosae, Cistaceae КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: Bruchidae, зерновки, кормовые растения, Bruchidius, Bruchus, Spermophagus, Acanthoscelides Leguminosae, Cistaceae ABSTRACT. In 2006, 126 samples of seeds or fruits Introduction of Leguminoseae and Cistaceae, corresponding to 80 plant species, were collected in various regions of Bul- garia. Twenty-two species of Bruchidius were obtained The taxonomy of Bulgarian seed beetles is mainly known through the works of Borowiec [1980, 1983, from these samples, among which 4 species are new for 1984, 1986] and Wendt [1984]. Borowiec & Anton Bulgaria: B. astragali, B. borowieci, B. marginalis and B. varipes. In this process, 12 plants were identified as [1993], Decelle [1983], Decelle & Lodos [1989], Anton [2001] and Zampetti [1981] also contributed to this new Bruchidius hosts; among these, B. lineatus was knowledge in various ways. Borowiec [1983] showed reared from seeds of Lathyrus aphaca, the only ascer- tained host of a Bruchidius species to belong to the that the Bulgarian fauna is predominantly composed of circum-Mediterranean elements, completed by a few subtribe Vicieae. Male genitalia of two Bruchidius, B. elements of Euro-Palaearctic, Euro-Siberian and Cau- astragali and B.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Phylogenetic Usefulness of a Previously Neglected Morphological Structure Through Elliptic Fourier Analyses
    Systematic Entomology (2008), 33, 289–300 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2007.00405.x Assessing the phylogenetic usefulness of a previously neglected morphological structure through elliptic Fourier analyses: a case study in Bruchus seed-beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) G A E¨ L J . K E R G O A T 1 and N A D I R A L V A R E Z 2 1INRA – UMR CBGP, Campus International de Baillarguet, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France and 2Laboratoire d’Entomologie Evolutive, Institut de Biologie, Universite´ de Neuchaˆ tel, Neuchatel, Switzerland Abstract. We address the systematics of Bruchus seed-beetles through the use of a geometric morphometric outline approach, namely elliptic Fourier analysis. We found that a previously neglected genitalic structure, the ventral plate, provides new evidence in the discussion of taxonomic issues raised by recent molecular studies. Three methods of hierarchical clustering allow investigation of the phylogenetic relationships of the key species that cause the paraphyly of two species groups in recent molecular studies. The resulting reconstructions reveal the phylogenetic usefulness of the structure of interest in recovering consistent relationships of Bruchus. Our analyses support the monophyly of the species group whose paraphyletic status was weakly supported by statistical tests in molecular analyses. Our results agree with those molecular and morphological studies that indicate, with relatively strong support, the paraphyletic status of the other species group. We highlight the need to reappraise the use of neglected or presumably uninformative (in traditional morphometrics) morphological charac- ters with geometric morphometrics methods. In addition, we assess the utility of the combination of morphometric descriptors with other sources of phylogenetic information by analysing together an extant molecular dataset and matrix representations based on the results of the elliptic Fourier analyses (to our knowledge our study is the first to investigate such a combination of datasets within a Bayesian framework).
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 53 Numbers 3 & 4 - Fall/Winter 2020 Numbers 3 & Article 9 4 - Fall/Winter 2020 December 2020 Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan Robert A. Haack USDA Forest Service, [email protected] Bill Ruesink [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Forest Biology Commons Recommended Citation Haack, Robert A. and Ruesink, Bill 2020. "Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 53 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol53/iss2/9 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Haack and Ruesink: Coleoptera Collected at Grass River Natural Area 138 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 53, Nos. 3–4 Coleoptera Collected Using Three Trapping Methods at Grass River Natural Area, Antrim County, Michigan Robert A. Haack1, * and William G. Ruesink2 1 USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 3101 Technology Blvd., Suite F, Lansing, MI 48910 (emeritus) 2 Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 S Oak St, Champaign, IL 61820 (emeritus) * Corresponding author: (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract Overall, 409 Coleoptera species (369 identified to species, 24 to genus only, and 16 to subfamily only), representing 275 genera and 58 beetle families, were collected from late May through late September 2017 at the Grass River Natural Area (GRNA), Antrim Coun- ty, Michigan, using baited multi-funnel traps (210 species), pitfall traps (104 species), and sweep nets (168 species).
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Changes in Bruchid (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) Assemblages Along Managed Highway Ecotones*
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGYENTOMOLOGY ISSN (online): 1802-8829 Eur. J. Entomol. 114: 488–499, 2017 http://www.eje.cz doi: 10.14411/eje.2017.062 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Seasonal changes in bruchid (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) assemblages along managed highway ecotones* ÁRPÁD SZENTESI 1, ZOLTÁN GYÖRGY 2, TIBOR JERMY 3, ** and BALÁZS KISS 3 1 Department of Systematic Zoology and Ecology, Loránd Eötvös University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, Budapest, H-1117 Hungary; e-mail: [email protected] 2 Division of Strategy and Marketing, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Hungary; e-mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Zoology, Plant Protection Institute, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Herman Ottó út 15., H-1025 Hungary; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Chrysomelidae, Bruchinae, seasonal changes, road ecology, Fabaceae, introduced species, seed predation, host plant, guild Abstract. Spring and summer composition and species richness of bruchid pre-dispersal seed predator assemblages associated with species of leguminous plants were monitored in a four-year non-experimental survey of 32 service areas along fi ve high- ways in Hungary. The vegetation bands along highways (delimited by fences) were considered a special type of ecotone where herbaceous plants are exposed to regular mowing and therefore the composition of the vegetation there is very different from the adjacent vegetation. Altogether 57 herbaceous and woody species of leguminous plants were recorded at these sites, harbouring 20 autochthonous, 3 allochthonous, but established, and 4 recently introduced species of bruchid seed predators (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). The species of leguminous plants recorded along highway verges during this project make up ap- proximately one fourth of the Fabaceae in Hungary and of the bruchids ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles, 2012 Edition
    Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles 2nd Edition Edited by A.G. Duff with an Introduction by D.A. Lott and a chapter on Fossil Beetles by P.I. Buckland & P.C. Buckland Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles Copyright © A.G. Duff, 2012. First edition 2008 published by A.G. Duff Revised edition 2012 ISBN: 978-0-9573357-0-7 Published by Pemberley Books (Publishing), United Kingdom. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without written permission from the publisher. Although every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher and authors assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. Neither is any liability assumed for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein. Within the meaning of Article 8.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999), this work is not issued for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. Pemberley Books 18 Bathurst Walk, Iver SL0 9AZ United Kingdom Tel.: +44(0)1753 631114 Fax: +44(0)1753 631115 E-mail: [email protected] WWW: www.pemberleybooks.com Cover: Platyrhinus resinosus (Scopoli, 1763) (Anthribidae) © John Walters Summary of changes in the 2012 edition This section details the main changes in the current edition of the checklist, compared to the previous edition (Duff, 2008). For further details of these changes, please refer to the endnotes. Family-group names: . Nomenclature of family-group names follows Bouchard et al. (2011) . Family PAELOBIIDAE is renamed to HYGROBIIDAE .
    [Show full text]