Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
WHICH TYPES OF LANDSCAPE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT ARE EFFECTIVE AT
PROVIDING NATURAL PEST CONTROL ?
LIVOREIL, Barbara.1, HUTCHISON, James2, ZULKA, Klaus Peter3, , GRENIER, Anne-Sophie 4,
LEPERCHEC, Sophie 5, DICKS, Lynn2 & SUTHERLAND, William. J.2
1. Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité, 195 rue St Jacques, 75013 Paris, France. 2. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,
Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK 3. Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria 4 INRA, UMR 1349 IGEPP, F-35653 Le Rheu, France 5 INRA Centre de Recherche de Rennes, DV-IST Erist - Délégation à l’expertise scientifique collective,
à la prospective et aux études (DEPE) - Bibliothèque UMR SAS, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc 35042 Rennes
cedex
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Telephone +00 33 180 05 89 54
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
ABSTRACT
Background
To provide resources to 9 billion human beings in the near future, to preserve ecosystem services
and biodiversity altogether, and to face climate change are challenging agriculture. Using fewer
pesticides should help restoring populations of natural enemies acting against these pests. Relying on
local ecosystems to effectively provide natural pest control allows farmers to decrease costs on
pesticides and to avoid costs linked to release of commercially captive-bred bio-control agents. This
review aims at listing the interventions on habitat management which favour a sustainable presence
of natural pest control agents. A second objective is to assess the effectiveness of such interventions
on control agents and/or pests and/or yield.
Methods
Searches will be made on CAB Abstracts and secondarily on Web of Science. Consultation of
stakeholders will be initiated to collect grey literature and if possible traditional knowledge in order
to examine how this could be included in a systematic approach. This type of knowledge should be
taken into account in future IPBES assessments. Searches will be conducted in English, on all years,
and will be filtered to retain those which strictly examine habitat management intervention in
terrestrial landscapes, with a measured impact on natural pest control agents.
Results
Expected results are a list of interventions on habitat and landscape elements, which will form the
squeletton of a systematic map. Depending on the availability of experts, some subtopics may be
developed into a full systematic review, or will be acknowledged as knowledge gaps. Reviews
identified during the searches may be examined to assess their characteristics compared to a
systematic review.
Conclusion
This work is conducted as a case-study aiming at testing the prototype of network of knowledge
synthesis and transfer elaborated within the FP7 programme “Biodiversity Knowledge”
(www.biodiversityknowledge.eu). Other aspects of this project are the evaluation of the availability
of stakeholders and experts, barriers to knowledge transfer, and incorporation of various types of
knowledge in the synthesis. This case study benefits from the cooperation with a current programme
led at Cambridge University, UK, (www.conservationevidence.org).
KEYWORDS pest control, semi-natural habitat, ecosystem service, agrofunctional biodiversity, beneficial fauna,
non-crop habitat
BACKGROUND
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
The need to provide resources to 9 billion human beings in the near future, whilst altogether
preserving ecosystem services and biodiversity and facing climate change poses new challenges to
agriculture (Tillman et al. 2001). The 1996 UN summit in Rome has expressed the goal to halve the
number of malnourished people by 2015, which may not be attained (von Witzke 2008). The
European Union, the United States, China and India have also set ambitious biofuel targets that
further increase the strain on production capacities (Ravindranath et al. 2009). Without doubt,
agricultural production has to be increased at many levels and in many countries.
In Europe, agricultural intensification has led to a substantial yield increase since between 1960 and
1980. It also triggered amalgamation of fields, structural simplification of agricultural landscapes and
reduction of seminatural remnant areas, with severe consequences for many farmland bird species
(Donald et al. 2001), farmland biodiversity (Benton et al. 2003, Tews et al. 2004) and associated
ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al. 2005). Broad spectrum pecticides1 initially used in intensive
agricultural practices have caused a degradation of regulatory ecosystem services such as pest
regulation by natural enemies (Bianchi et al. 2006). Modern pesticides are more efficient at targeting
only the pest of concern. Even if the quantity of pesticide seems to have declined, the number and
extent of applications has increased (Robinson & Sutherland 2002). Overuse of pesticides can induce
new pest outbreaks (pest resurgence), selects resistant pest populations (insects, bacteria, and
weeds), increases risks to human health (of the farmers as well as the consumers downstream, e.g.
Buckley et al. 2011) and poses obstacles to trade in the form of residues (e.g. Pimentel et al. 1992,
Fawcett et al 1994, Simpson & Roger 1995, WHO/UNEP 1989).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (www.fao.org) acknowledges that
“increasing agricultural production with little or no consideration for long-term environmental
sustainability led to negative consequences such as degraded land and a reduction of ecosystem
goods and services. In turn, these environmental consequences have negative repercussions on the
ability of agro-ecosystems to produce desired quantities of safe and quality foods. Increased
agricultural productivity can happen through improved use and management of agricultural
biodiversity resources (such as seeds, pollination, beneficial fauna, etc), to achieve higher yields while
promoting the sustainability of the farming systems (…) This will also contribute to implementing
adaptation strategies for climate change” (http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-
themes/theme/spi/scpi-home/framework/ sustainable-intensification-in-fao/four-key-areas-of-
1 Pesticides and pests are defined by FAO (www.fao.org) as “any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest, including vectors of human or animal
disease, unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm during or otherwise interfering with the
production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of food, agricultural commodities, wood and
wood products or animal feedstuffs, or substances which may be administered to animals for the
control of insects, arachnids or other pests in or on their bodies. The term includes substances
intended for use as a plant growth regulator, defoliant, desiccant or agent for thinning fruit or
preventing the premature fall of fruit. Also used as substances applied to crops either before or after
harvest to protect the commodity from deterioration during storage and transport”.
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
scpi/en/). New ways are sought to reconcile agricultural production and the preservation of diversity
in agricultural landscapes, and changes in regulation and practices can help to achieve such goals.
Countries use policy reform to apply alternatives to pesticides. In 1992, the European Common
Agricultural Policy created agri-environment programmes to encourage low input (e.g. fertilizers and
pesticides), better protection of natural habitats within agricultural landscapes, and change of land
use for environmental needs. (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/ fr/som_fr/report.htm).
Use of pesticides in agriculture has declined since the 90s in the European Community, although this
varies greatly depending on crop and forecast (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/fr/
som_fr/report.htm). The efficiency of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to meet environmental
challenges remains controversial, especially for pollution and consumption of water, land conversion
and wildlife destruction (EC 2006, Barbut & Baschet 2005, Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003). At the national
level, Sweden and Denmark adopted policies targeting a reduction of 50% of pesticides since 1986
(Thonke 1991), but reductions were also observed in Norway and Finland without any formal policies
(Gianessi et al 2001). The programme ECOPHYTO2018 in France aims at a progressive eradication of
53 of the most dangerous chemicals, and a decrease of 50% in the use of pesticides within 10 years
(2018). The meta-programme SMaCH (Sustainable Management of Crop Health,
www.inra.fr/les_recherches/metaprogrammes) combines research and adaptive management to
favor biodiversity as a way to control diseases and decrease pesticides, via the organization and
management of landscapes.
With regard to practices, Integrated Pest Management (IPM2) is an ecological approach to managing
pests to improve crop production and protection by using less pesticides and relying on natural
biological processes (e.g. www.endure-network.eu, www.pure-imp.eu). The recent concept of
Functional Agrobiodiversity aims at identifying which elements of biodiversity provide key services
for agroecosystems (ELN-FAB, the European Network for Functional Agrobiodiversity, www.eln-
fab.eu). DIVERSITAS defines agrobiodiversity as “managed and unplanned biodiversity in agricultural
ecosystems, which closely interact with wild biodiversity within the larger landscape matrix”
(www.agrobiodiversity-diversitas.org). DIVERSITAS is already developing a science plan and
implementation strategy on agrobiodiversity and several projects are endorsed which should end in
2012. APPEAL (www.biodiversa.org/87) is a research project funded under the ERA-Net scheme,
aiming at assessing ecosystem services including biological pest control provided by natural enemies.
It focus mostly on aphids and their natural predators and examines how the natural enemy’s fauna is
affected by land-use change.
Using fewer pesticides (quantity, spectrum) may prevent a strong control of the quantity and
diversity of pests, but it should help restoring populations of natural enemies which will act against
2 FAO definition: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means the careful consideration of all
available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that
discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to
levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the
environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to
agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
these pests. Aubertot et al. (2005) describe bio-control as the use of live beings to prevent or
decrease damages caused by pests. They report 3 types of bio-control: a/ introduction of a new
species, b/ release of captive-bred natural control agents to increase local populations, this release
being massive (flooding effect) or in small quantity aiming at establishing viable population
(inoculation); c/ habitat manipulation in order to enhance beneficial effect of indigenous control
agents (e.g. Bianchi et al. 2006, Champlin-Kramer et al, 2011, Veres et al. 2011). This last option
matches requirements of preservation of local biodiversity whilst releases of exotic species or natural
species outside of their natural range may be criticized. Relying on local ecosystems to effectively
provide natural pest control allows farmers not only to decrease costs on pesticides but also those
linked to release of commercially captive-bred bio-control agents.
To provide an efficient regulatory service, the populations of natural enemies must be in good status.
Provision of shelters, food, reproduction areas, can play an essential role in maintaining such
populations (and other biodiversity as well) and this role can be filled by non-crop habitats (Bianchi
et al. 2006). According to ELN-FAB, the knowledge about how to use ecosystem services is still
scattered and often poorly accessible. Allocating means for sown wildflower strips, beetle banks or
other landscape elements to promote natural pest control requires a clear understanding of the
potentials and limitations of such measures, if possible before the launch of the new 2014–2020
Common Agricultural Policy. The goal of this work is to contribute to the synthesis of knowledge
concerning agrobiodiversity and its related ecosystem services by assessing the effectiveness of
interventions aiming at manipulating non-crop habitat or landscape features in order to maintain or
support natural (indigenous) population of pest control agents.
This work is conducted as a case-study aiming at testing the prototype of network of knowledge
synthesis and transfer elaborated within the FP7 programme “Biodiversity Knowledge”
(www.biodiversityknowledge.eu, Annex 1). This programme is envisioned as an embryo of the
establishment of an EU Mechanism, linked to IPBES. This case study also benefits from the
cooperation with a current programme led at Cambridge University, UK, aiming at producing a
synopsis of evidence of the effect of interventions enhancing natural pest control in food-producing
systems (www.conservationevidence.org).
OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT
Unlike a traditional systematic review, the question was not addressed by a commissioner but
originated from a consultation of policy-makers by FRB and EAA within the conduct of the
Biodiversity Knowledge project. In France, discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture (MAAPRAT), in
relationship with INRA, led to the topic of biological control and landscape management
interventions in connection with Ecophyto 2018. In Austria, the Ministry of Agriculture and
Environment was contacted and particularly emphasized the need for synthetic knowledge about
flower strips. Finally, the following concern emerged: Within the context of a reduction of the use of
pesticides, we expect a positive feedback in return on biological control of pests resulting from a
better preservation of functional biodiversity. The question which could be addressed to a NoK could
be to know if any landscape management interventions could sustain or improve this ecosystem
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
service provided to agriculture. (the agricultural context may need to be refined according to the type
of agriculture and/or landscape)
This work will address separately the two aspects of this request:
1) To list the interventions on habitat and landscape that are favorable to natural pest control (Part
I), and
2)/ to establish the state of evidence for each of them as far as possible (Part II).
To establish a list of interventions, a collaboration was set up with the Cambridge Conservation
Science Group (CCSG) which has started to work on a similar topic in June 2012 (“Enhancing natural
pest control in food-producing ecosystems: evidence for the effects of interventions”,
www.conservationevidence.com). CCSG contacted us after we FRB launched a call to the current
Biodiversity Knowledge “Network of Knowledge” as established by the first work package team
(Biodiversity Knowledge WP1, 2011). The first part of CCSG’s work consists in listing all interventions
found in a selection of peer-reviewed journals. All interventions that promote natural pest control
whilst altogether having a positive effect on the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services
are retained. We will thus rely on this list and complement it if needed with the results of searches
for knowledge conducted at FRB/INRA (see below).
To address the effectiveness of interventions, we will use the methodology of a systematic review for
environmental management (www.environmentalevidence.org) combined with the approach used in
Cambridge. INRA will conduct a comprehensive and systematic search using keywords and search
strings and various databases based on a list of search terms provided by FRB, using the literature
identified by Cambridge as a benchmark list to test the efficiency of the search. FRB and EEA will then
conduct a critical appraisal (CEE 2010) of a subset of papers as a wide number of publications are
expected and we will probably lack time to examine them all. Consultation with stakeholders and
decision-makers will help give priority to interventions of timely policy-relevance, rather than
extracting a random subset of papers. This decision will also be influenced by the availability of
volunteer experts to form working groups, assess the papers relevant to the topic, and contribute to
reporting results. Meta-analysis will be conducted only if good relevant data are identified and expert
statistician can contribute. The BiodiversityKnowledge project does not allow to hire working groups
as would normally be the case for the conduct of a systematic review.
Combining the Cambridge synopsis of evidence approach and a critical appraisal approach should
lead to the establishment of a systematic map, with knowledge gaps highlighted as well as possible
recommendations for the conduct of full systematic reviews.
The Biodiversity Knowledge project is related to the establishment of an EU Mechanism, linked itself
to IPBES (www.ipbes.net). As a consequence, we will explore the opportunity to include in this work
some non-academic knowledge (practitioners, managers, networks of farmers) as this type of
knowledge will be taken into account in IPBES assessments
(http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/intersessional.html, see for instance Annex 3 of
http://www.ipbes.net/component/docman/doc_download/1021-ipbes-draft-procedures-for-the-
preparation-review-and-acceptance-of-ipbes-publications-for-review.html?Itemid=159). A narrative
synthesis of non-academic knowledge will be added as a specific chapter and its outcomes will be
compared to that provided by the scientific papers. . To achieve this, collection of knowledge will be
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
established by consultation (questionnaires) and/or workshops of stakeholders based on
identification of specialized hubs (Biodiversity Knowledge WP1 work, ELN-Fab, Alter-Net and other
identified networks). Synergies and discrepancies with academic knowledge will be discussed.
METHODS / DESIGN
SEMANTICS:
A large part of the confusion in landscape ecology literature comes from the fact that habitat =
remnant = patch <> matrix. This oversimplification hides the adequate terminology to account for
differential use of landscape elements (for example a species forages in highly disturbed fields,
hibernates in field margins and reproduces in fallow areas because the larvae do not tolerate soil
treatment). In the following, we will distinguish between landscape, landscape elements (hedgerows,
flower strips, seminatural patches) and habitat (where a particular species or an ensemble of species
can live). Habitat management means then to improve habitat conditions by intervening on
landscape elements for particular species. Relevant literature on this topic is for instance papers by
Fahrig (2003), FIshcher & Lindenmayer (2006), Lindenmayer & Fischer (2007).
In the following, we define “landscape” as a spatial arrangement of landscape elements and
ecosystems. This can include seminatural grassland as well as agroecosytems, private gardens and
semi-urbanised area in an agricultural context. “Landscape elements” refer to some vegetation
ensembles defined by a given structure (e.g. hedgerow, forest patches) and/or composition/function
(e.g. flower strip, riparian areas,…). In this study, landscape elements are mostly described at the
scale of the field or cultivated parcel.
We may thus face two situations:
- Macro-level: impact of landscape structure, composition, alteration, configuration of
landscape elements.
- Micro-level: impact of structure, conditions, quality (e.g. vegetation height, density, plant
species composition
PART I – List of interventions
SEARCHES
Cambridge Conservation Science Group
The guidelines for the conduct of a synopsis of evidence are available upon request at
www.conservationevidence.org. The content (list of titles) of a selection of a selection of the most
relevant peer-reviewed scientific journals is perused (all volumes, issues, and years) in order to
identify titles of papers that are eligible for the request. Papers are then extracted and stored in End
Note libraries. The list of interventions is built up incrementally as soon as a new type of intervention
is identified.
FRB and EAA working group
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
To help with the search and selection of relevant literature, the question is divided into components
called PICO (Population, Intervention or exposure, Comparator and Outcomes; CEE, 2010).
Population Intervention Comparators Outcomes
Any indigenous
regulators of pests (all
taxa)
Any intervention
consisting in creating,
restoring, or
maintaining natural or
seminatural landscape
elements , improving
habitat conditions for
species, as well as their
respective proportion
at the landscape level
e.g. sowing flower
strips, keeping
hedgerows, growing
ground cover…
No intervention,
destruction, other
types of interventions,
control plots
Species richness,
abundance, density,
biomass, dispersion,
occupation, presence,
reproduction,
settlement, viability,
Searches have been designed by an iterative exchange between FRB (BL) and INRA (ASG & SL) and
will be conducted at INRA (Search Working Group). These searches aim to extract a comprehensive
and unbiased range of literature relevant to the topic. It will rely on a list of search terms related to
the different components of the question (subject, intervention, outcome, context) combined into
one or several search strings (or search equations) which will be used in one or several databases. In
order to define the best possible search strings, we first conducted a scoping exercise, then used its
results to elaborate the final list of search terms and search strategies.
SCOPING Scoping is used to conduct a preliminary assessment of the amount of literature available, a first set
of keywords and references and to help plan the rest of the work. PZ scoped the literature on BIOSIS
and SCOPUS whilst BL scoped Web of Knowledge using generic keywords and simple search strings
(Annex 2). From the outcomes of this scoping exercise, and a preliminary list of interventions from
the Cambridge CSG (Annex 3), we established a preliminary list of keywords according to the
elements composing the question (see Annex 4), and a first list of references (Annex 5) in order to
test the comprehensiveness of subsequent searches. A second benchmark list of references was
provided later by Cambridge CSG, independently from our scoping exercise, as a result of the
completed perusal of the journal Biological Control to extract all possible interventions related to
pest control (Annex 5). It was also used to test the efficiency of our search strings at a later stage.
SEARCH TERMS AND LANGUAGES
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
Search terms are organized according to the elements identified previously in the request. Searches
will be conducted in English language but may retrieve papers written in other languages (when
abstracts in English are provided). The initial list of keywords is given in Annex 4. We could not obtain
a comprehensive list of names of natural enemies of pest. In order to narrow the search to pests
related to agriculture, we used a list of pest species obtained from INRA (www.inra.fr/hyppz/) using
the Latin names of genus for all pests identified in this website (see search string below).
SEARCH STRINGS AND/OR COMBINATIONS OF SEARCHES Given the breadth of the topic, crops, interventions, pests and pest’s natural enemies, the literature
will be extracted using a combination of search strings that each relate to the different components
of the question.
The explanation of search strings given below addresses searches conducted in CAB Abstracts, where
the strings can be identified as DE (descriptors) or TS (topics). Descriptors are subject index terms
and phrases assigned to each record to characterize the substantive content of the original
document. Descriptors are assigned from the CAB thesaurus. With a total of 59,000 terms (48,500
preferred terms; 10,500 non-preferred terms) it is the largest thesaurus covering agriculture and
related subjects. To identify descriptors appropriate for the search in CAB Abstracts, each initial
keyword is compared to the CAB Thesaurus and its corresponding Descriptor or Cabicode is
identified. This allows to reduce the number of search terms without reducing the number of
keywords actually searched by the search engine. This also allows the search to retrieve papers
whose keywords may not have been identified by the researchers.
Search string 1: POPULATION
This string combines the list of names of pest (latin names, genus only) OR a list of natural enemies as
defined by broad categories.
1. DE=(predatory insects OR predatory arthropods OR predatory birds OR predatory mites OR natural enemies OR predators OR Biological control agent OR pest OR predator prey relationships OR pests)
OR
2. TS=(Acalitus OR Acanthoscelides OR AcidiaOR Aclypea OR Acrolepiopsis OR Aculops OR Aculus OR Acyrthosiphon OR Adoxophyes OR Aegeria OR Aglaope OR Agriotes OR Agromyza OR Agrotis OR Aleurolobus OR Aleurothrixus OR Anarsia OR Anthonomus OR Aonidiella OR Aphanostigma OR Aphelenchoides OR Aphelenchus OR Aphidula OR Aphis OR Apion OR Apodemus OR Arammichnus Archips OR Argyrotaenia OR Arion OR Aspidiotus OR Athalia OR Atomaria OR Aulacaspis OR Aulacorthum OR Autographa OR Bemisia OR Blaniulus OR Blitophaga OR Brachycaudus OR Brachycorynella OR Brevicoryne OR Bruchus OR Byturus OR Cacoecia OR Cacopsylla OR Calepitrimerus OR Capitophorus OR Capnodis OR Capua OR Carduelis OR Cecidophyes OR Cecidophyopsis OR Ceratitis OR Ceroplastes OR Ceuthorhynchus OR Chaetosiphon OR Chromaphis OR Chrysomphalus OR Cirphis OR Clysia OR Cnephasia OR Coenorhinus OR Colaspidema OR Coleophora Colomerus Columba OR Conorhynchus OR Contarinia OR Coroebus OR Corvus OR Corylobium OR Cossus OR Crioceris OR Cryptomyzus OR Curculio OR Cydia OR Dactylosphaera OR Dacus OR Dasineura OR Delia OR Deroceras OR Dialeurodes OR Ditylenchus OR Dysaphis OR Dysaulacorthum OR Empoasca OR Eotetranychus OR Epidiaspis OR Eriophyes OR Eriosoma OR Eulecanium OR Euparypha OR Euphyllura OR Eupoecilia OR Eurydema OR Euxoa OR Euzophera OR Forficula OR Frankliniella OR Fringilla OR Geoktapia OR Globodera OR Gortyna OR Grapholitha OR Gryllotalpa OR Gymnoscelis OR
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
Haltica OR Haplodiplosis OR Haplothrips OR Hapsidolema OR Harpalus OR Hedya OR Helicoverpa OR Heliothis OR Helix OR Heterodera OR Homoeosoma OR Hoplocampa OR Hyalopterus OR Hylemyia OR Hypera OR Hyperomyzus OR Hypoborus OR Hyponomeuta OR Icerya OR Jacobiasca OR Kakothrips OR Korscheltellus OR Laspeyresia OR Lepidosaphes OR Leptinotarsa OR Leptohylemyia OR Lepus OR Leucoptera OR Limothrips OR Liothrips OR Liriomyza OR Lobesia OR Lycophotia OR Lyonetia OR Macrosiphum OR Mamestra OR Melanaphis OR Melanchra OR Meligethes OR Meloidogyne OR Melolontha OR Metatetranychus OR Metopolophium OR Metriochroa OR Micractis OR Microtus OR Monostira OR Mythimna OR Mytilococcus OR Myzocallis OR Myzus OR Nasonovia OR Oberea OR Oecophyllembius OR Operophtera OR Ophiomyia OR Ophonus OR Oryctolagus OR Oscinella OR Ostrinia OR Otiorhynchus OR Oulema OR Palomena OR Palpita OR Pammene OR Pandemis OR Panonychus OR Parahypopta OR Parus OR Passer OR Passerinia OR Pegomyia OR Pemphigus OR Peribatodes OR Phasianus OR Philophylla OR Phloeotribus OR Phorbia OR Phorodon OR Phthorimaea OR Phyllocoptes OR Phyllonorycter OR Phyllotreta OR Phytocoptella OR Phytometra OR Phytonemus OR Phytonomus OR Phytoptus OR Pica OR Pieris OR Platyparea OR Plutella OR Polia OR Polyphylla OR Pratylenchus OR Prays OR Prolasioptera OR Protrama OR Pseudaulacaspis OR Psila OR Psylliodes OR Pyrrhula OR Quadraspidiotus OR Radopholus OR Resseliella OR Rhagoletis OR Rhopalosiphum OR Rhynchites OR Ruguloscolytus OR Saissetia OR Scaphoideus OR Scotia OR Scrobipalpa OR Scutigerella OR Sesamia OR Sitobion OR Sitodiplosis OR Sitona OR Sparganothis OR Spilonota OR Spodoptera OR Stephanitis OR Stigmella OR Sturnus OR Sus OR Synanthedon OR Talpa OR Tetranychus OR Thrips OR Tipula OR Toxoptera OR Trialeurodes OR Trichodorus OR Tylenchulus OR Vasates OR Vespa OR Vesperus OR Vespula OR Viteus OR Xiphinema OR Xyleborus OR Yponomeuta OR Zabrus OR Zeuzera OR Zophodia)
Search string 2: INTERVENTION As before, the first part of this string is composed of generic descriptors which actually target a larger number of keywords.
3. DE=(Companion crops OR Farming systems OR grassland* OR Border effects OR forest borders OR Intercropping OR crop management OR cropping systems OR crop establishment OR habitats OR territory OR biotopes OR hedges OR Landscape OR land use OR fallow OR strip* OR linear plantations OR shelterbelts OR ground cover OR trap crops OR Tillage OR agricultural land OR interspecific competition OR grazing OR cultural control)
OR
4. TS=("Banker plant* system*" OR "companion vegetation*" OR "companion plant* " OR "Buffer width*" OR "buffer zone*" OR corridor* OR "field margin*" OR farmscaping OR "integrated production" OR "repellent plant*" OR "spatial arrangement*" OR "set-aside" OR "set aside" OR refuge OR Compost* OR "integrated crop management" OR habitat OR "crop system" OR groundcover OR "flowering borders" OR landscape OR interplanting
Search string 3: OUTCOMES
5. #7 TS=((increas* OR decreas* OR declin* OR regulat* OR impact* OR variabilit* OR reduc* OR effect* OR intensit* OR sustain* OR maintain* OR support* OR chang* OR enhanc* OR affect* OR abundance) SAME (abundance OR "population size" OR presence OR "species richness" OR "species diversity" OR biocontrol OR "pest control"))
Final search combination: String 1 AND string 2 AND String 3
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
These strings were adapted for use in Web of Science by using wildcards (*) and commas to delimit
expressions (see Annex 7). In Web of Science, descriptors do not exist, all keywords are identified as
Topic. Due to lack of resources, we could build a search in WoS as an iterative process and we are
aware that this current search may not be comprehensive. Examination of results will tell us if we
need to run more specific searches using precise keywords for some subgroups of topics.
PUBLICATION DATABASES SEARCHED Due to resource limitations, we will only peruse 2 databases: CAB Abstracts and Web of Science.
Priority will be given to CAB Abstracts as this database typically addresses topics related to
agriculture. Moreover, its thesaurus allows to simplify the search whilst ensuring its breadth.
CAB Abstracts and Web of Science will be consulted over all years (CAB: 1973-now; WoS: 1975-now),
without lemmatization in WoS (using wildcards).
All literature extracted will be stored as EndNote files.
INTERNET SEARCHES CONDUCTED (E.G. GOOGLE SCHOLAR) No searches were conducted on Google due to the expected huge number of references already
identified from the databases (but see below).
Two website will be perused to find existing synthetic evidence
- www.conservationevidence.com for synopsis
- www.environementalevidence.org for systematic reviews
SPECIALIST SEARCHES AND SUPPLEMENTARY SEARCHES (NON ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE) Searches will be conducted on organizational websites upon recommendations of experts. Similarly,
snowballing (perusing literature cited at the end of papers) will be implemented on reviews and
books when identified. Literature provided by stakeholders will be stored on a special file when not
already identified by the searches.
A list of organizations that will be contacted in order to get some grey literature, reports, or collect
traditional/practitioner’s knowledge is provided in Annex 7 and will be completed subsequently. The
networks ELN-FAB and Alternet will relay calls for knowledge to a wider audience.
STUDY INCLUSION CRITERIA Relevance of the studies to the request is assessed initially both by Cambridge CSG and by FRB-EAA
based on title. When in doubt, a paper is kept and assessed again at next stage (abstract, full text) to
benefit from more information. For the papers extracted by INRA, given limitations of resources, a
decision will be made with stakeholders whether to limit selection at abstract and full text stages to
some subtopics of particular interest, but the complete database (EndNote) will be available for
subsequent finalization if possible.
From the list extracted by INRA, the two reviewers (BL, PZ) will compare their decision-making about
relevance of papers by conducting a Kappa test on a random extract of 30 papers at title (and
possibly abstract) stage. The Kappa statistics (Edwards et al. 1985) will have to be lower than 0.6,
otherwise the two reviewers will discuss reasons for discrepancy and clarify rules for
inclusion/exclusion, eventually reporting about any modification of the criteria listed above. At
abstract and full-text, we hope to include expert groups that will examine a group of references
related to their field of expertise (e.g. agroforestry, hedgerows, flower strips… or some specific pests
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
like aphids). Experts will meet at workshops organized for this purpose (as well as critical appraisal).
Kappa tests will be conducted as often as possible.
A priori criteria for inclusion or rejection of paper at any stage are given below. When in doubt about
accepting or discarding a paper, it will be retained until examined at the next stage.
Relevant populations:
Any natural (live) control agent which may impact populations of pests, except in freshwater or
marine waters. Papers on pests not attacking resources (e.g. mosquitos) will not be retained. Pest
control agents such as microbes, viruses, protozoans, fungi, parasites will not be retained unless they
are clearly native and linked to some habitat features. It is here considered that enhancing such
populations rely mostly on release procedure rather than interventions on landscape elements
Biocontrol of pests affecting livestock and poultry (but not captive bred animals in zoos or fur
market…) will be retained, as well as those affecting any resource that may not be food (e.g. timber,
horticulture, pharmaceuticals, and so on).
Relevant interventions
Any modification of habitat features or landscape (maintaining, restoring, transforming,
manipulating, creating) at the field scale or at a larger scale is eligible. Some studies will probably be
situations of exposure, where no intervention occurs but the effect of the landscape
structure/composition/design is assessed by comparing different sites or plots. Introduction of exotic
biological control agents will be discarded (augmentative release of native pest control agents may
be covered by Cambridge University), as well as food supplementation, physical barriers (nets),
artificial traps, repellent pheromones, mating disruption techniques as they are not linked to habitat
features.
Relevant outcomes
Increase of indigenous biocontrol agents (ladybugs, spiders, birds...) measured as species richness,
abundance, survival rates, reproduction rates, ... AND/OR eventually as a secondary effect,
decreased or maintained populations of pests. It could also be a reduced latency in regulation by
natural predators at the onset of an infestation by pests. In case of control-agents of very small size,
cryptic or as acting as parasites or parasitoids, measuring changes in the pest population may be
easier than verifying that these changes have been created by a successful infestation. Papers just
reporting increase in population or efficiency of pest control agents will be retained, papers
measuring both an increase of pest control action and a decrease of pests would be even better but
may be more difficult to find. Papers just reporting changes in the pest population may be biased by
the possible lack of demonstration of direct causality between the pest-control agent and the pest
population and will be retained but examined only if time/manpower allow us to do so.
Relevant context
The studies should preferably include a reported decrease of the use of pesticides in the field and
even in the neighborhood (no spillage). This decrease could be measured as a total quantity of
pesticide used, a decreased frequency of use, a decreased range of pesticides or a change towards
pesticides with a more specific and narrow spectrum, or better by some chemical proxys measured in
the field and its surroundings indicating the decrease of presence of the molecules of pesticide. It
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
could also encompass a change from conventional agriculture to integrated pest management
programmes or biological agriculture.
Relevant types of study design and papers
Any study conducted in the field. Simulations, models or scenario will be discarded. Reviews with
quantitative analysis (meta-analysis or re-analysis of data) will be considered as papers. Narrative
reviews will be examined as opinion papers or as a special category.
The best expected study design would be one with a BACI design (before/after/control/intervention),
or with multiple replicates in time and space (beyond BACI, Underwood 1996). Plots would be far
away from each other to prevent spillage but not too much to prevent heterogeneity in microclimate
or soil. However, a random allocation of plots to treatment/control seems rarely possible in
landscape studies (Hargrove & Pickering 1992).
PART II – Effectiveness of interventions
A first insight of the evidence of an effectiveness of an intervention will be provided in published
literature by the results of statistics and discussion from the authors. Yet, to draw a conclusion across
several studies, their respective contribution at providing sound results must be taken into account.
Indeed, the strength of the evidence can be affected by the research design, which controls more or
less for biases and confounding variables. Ability of authors to take into account these problems in
their research design and the discussion of the results contribute to the establishment of a level of
confidence in these results (“critical appraisal”). This can be expressed in a narrative way (level of
confidence, based on explicit criteria), or as a weight attributed to effect sizes in a meta-analysis
(Borenstein et al 2009).
Cambridge Conservation Science Group
The effectiveness of interventions is by reading relevant papers and by extracting information using a
standardized methodology (Conservation Evidence, 2012). It relies on identification of the research
design of each study, and report of the results as provided by the authors.
FRB-EAA and experts
The critical appraisal recommended in a systematic review approach goes further than that of
Conservation Evidence in several ways. The research design and identification of biases and
confounding variables as described by the authors of the study will be compared to a “golden
standard” which is the ideal experimental design that should be implemented to get as close as
possible to a robust answer. This standard provides explicit scientific criteria explaining why the peer-
evaluators conclude that the results of a study is of high, medium or low confidence (see below).
Preliminary criteria are presented in the following chapters but may need to be completed. Each
study will thus be assessed based for its susceptibility to biases. A subset of all relevant papers
(related to one or several interventions, depending on experts available), will be examined at full text
to extract descriptive information, using the Cambridge CGS working grid as a template and
complementing it with information about effect modifiers and biases as given below.
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
For non academic knowledge, effectiveness of an intervention will rely on the opinion of
stakeholders. As for a survey, the number of independent opinion reporting effectiveness out of the
number of opinions reporting ineffectiveness or no opinion will be an indicator of the perceptions of
stakeholders concerning a given intervention. Attention will be paid to the number of answers and
the affiliation of answerers as we do not have resources to conduct a structured survey with samples
representative of the population of farmers or conservationists.
POTENTIAL EFFECT MODIFIERS AND REASONS FOR HETEROGENEITY
Effect modifiers are confounding variables that may impact the value or sign of the effect size (i.e.
intensity of the impact of the intervention calculated as a difference or ratio between a “Before” and
a “After” measurement) (Borenstein et al 2009, CEE 2010). Trying to establish a comprehensive list of
possible sources of bias affecting the results of an experiment or observation is important prior to
the conduct of the study in order to guide the reading at full text and assessment of the quality of
each study. Well-conducted studies will have a research design aiming at minimizing bias or
controlling them. Less rigorous studies may nevertheless report bias and try to take them into
account, which should be acknowledged.
Given the breadth of the question, we expect to identify a long list of confounding variables/effect
modifiers and causes for heterogeneity. Bases on preliminary reading of some literature, a
preliminary list of biases is given below:
1. The increase of populations of natural pest control agents could be simply due to the
decrease of pesticides, rather than to the effect of habitat manipulation itself. The two
factors can interact in synergy or in opposition. Discriminating among the respective role of
each factor implies to have measured them.
2. The quality of soil, diversity of cultivars (varieties of crop), history of the use of pesticides will
often vary across sites without any possible experimental manipulation of these parameters.
Reporting them is an asset of any publication.
3. Wind can affect spillover of pesticides, dispersion of pests and natural enemies. Some hedges
are primarily designed to stop wind (damages on orchards) rather than to favor natural pest
control. As a consequence, the existence of hedges, the linear of hedges may not be a good
indicator of functional agrobiodiversity.
4. Insects move across fields or habitats, for instance for reproduction, or to overwintering
sites. They can change crop according to their life-cycle or stage (egg/larvae/adult).
Monitoring should take into account season, life cycle and mobility.
5. Surroundings can affect results. A pesticide-free site may be impacted by high pesticide
impacted surrounding fields but also by non agricultural habitats (roads, water, other
crops)… Discriminating among these confounding variable may be tricky. Similarly, creating a
new landscape element in an area where there are plenty of them already (and hedge in a
semi open area) may be successful in terms of rapid colonization by biocontrol agents, but
may not have a huge impact on pests as regulation would have occurred already. On the
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
other hand, creating an hedge in a widely open area may be very beneficial for biodiversity
(new niche) but hard to colonize if isolated.
6. One crop may have several pests (specialists vs generalist), one pest may have several
enemies, one enemy can target several pests, can switch according to season and lifecycle,
one enemy also has its own enemies.
7. Parasitoids, diseases or predators do not act the same way, there may be a latency before
effectiveness can be observed.
8. Eradicating one pest can create an empty niche and attract other pests, so yield may not
increase in spite of effective pest control on the targeted pest.
STUDY QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Study quality will be assessed based on a hierarchy of evidence established in medicine and
conservation (Stevens & Milne, 1997; Pullin & Knight 2001) and refined to match the specificities or
limitations of research designs observed in the context of this review. Expert consultation
(workshops) will be organized to reach a consensus about the various study designs, bias and quality
available and agree on criteria to rank them according to quality.
A range of a priori criteria defining the robustness of the research design, the ideal and optimal
research protocol needs to be established before the literature is read. Following the classification
used by Cambridge CSGG, correlative studies will be distinguished from those testing a causality.
Indeed, the impact of an intervention can only be assessed if its effect is measured in comparison to
what was observed before it took place. With this in mind, a preliminary list is proposed below,
ranking study designs according to their low to high susceptibility to biases.
1. BACI experiment, replicated or not, with randomized allocation of plots to treatment, double
blinded monitoring
2. BACI Experiments, replicated or not with randomized allocation of plots to treatment
3. BACI experiment, no replicate, no randomization, no blinded measurement (probably very
common)
4. Time series, replicated in space, with control plots
5. Time series, replicated, without control (correlative)
6. Comparisons of two or more plots, no replication in time (correlative)
7. Time series on one plot (correlative)
8. Observations with no specific design (common in traditional knowledge; correlative)
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction will only be conducted if time and experts allow to do so. If possible, this will only
occur on a sub-topic (one or a few interventions).
Other information that will be extracted from papers read at full-text is the following:
WHERE: How many sites, Habitat, Region and country
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
WHEN: Year & season
RESOURCE, PEST and NATURAL CONTROL AGENT: RESOURCE targeted by pest, Pest latin and
common name, Pest broad taxon, Control agent latin and common, Control agent broad taxon.
INTERVENTION: Intervention 1, Intervention 2, Intervention 3 (…), Use of pesticides
STUDY DESIGN: Sample size & unit, Details of sampling or techniques (interventions): Replication
(over sites or population/indiv), Randomisation of intervention, Site comparison , Time-series,
Control, Baseline, Paired sites, Before/after, Statistics, Critical appraisal/ Comments
RESULTS: Main results, Extra results, Conflicting results
BIASES AND CONFOUNDING VARIABLES: Biases identified by authors, Confounding variables as
described by authors, Subgroup analysis
COMPETING INTEREST The authors declare that they have no competing interests
AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS The work presented here was carried out in collaboration between all authors. PZ initiated dialogue
with decision-makers in Austria; Claude-Anne Gauthier, Cécile Blanc and Aurélien Carbonnière (FRB)
did the same in France. BL initiated and wrote the manuscript, established the list of initial search
terms. PZ and BL conducted the scoping of the bibliography. SL and ASG elaborated the search strings
by iteration, in constant dialogue with BL. JH provided guidance and explanation regarding synopsis
of evidence, list of interventions, and bibliography extracted from Biological control. Collaboration
with the Cambridge Conservation Science Group occurred all along the establishment of this protocol
n order to prevent duplication and redundancy and ensure the articulation of our respective
programmes. The interest of the two methodologies of evidence-based approaches will be further
highlighted in the final report.
Other authors are expected to join the review. Given strict time limitations and poor availability of
experts at the onset of this work, we will use this draft protocol as a dissemination tool to get them
involved in its revision and in the improvement of the whole project.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BL and PZ are funded by the FP7 KNEU “Biodiversity knowledge” project (project 265299). ASG and
SL have worked within the context of a Search Working Group planned within the KNEU mission of
FRB. LVD, JH and WJS are funded by NERC as part of the Knowledge Exchange Programme on
Sustainable Food Production. WJS is funded by Arcadia.
REFERENCES
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
Aubertot JN, Barbier JM, Carpentier, Gril JJ, Guichard L, Lucas P, Savary S, Savini I, Voltz M (Eds):
Pesticides, agriculture et environnement. Réduire l'utilisation des pesticides et limiter leurs
impacts environnementaux. In Rapport d'Expertise Scientifique Collective INRA et Cemagref;
2005.
Barbut L, Baschet J-F: L’évaluation des politiques de soutien de l’agro-environnement. Notes et
études économiques 2005, 22: 37-68.
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD: Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 2003, 50: 182–188.
BIanchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a
review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc Roy Soc 2006,
273:1715-1727.
Biodiversity Knowledge WP1: Mapping the knowledge landscape 2011:
http://www.biodiversityknowledge.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:wp1
mapping-the-knowledge-landscape&catid=8:the-project-steps.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR: Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley &
Sons; 2009.
Buckley NA, Eddleston M, Li Y, Bevan M, Robertson J: Oximes for acute organophosphate pesticide
poisoning. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005085. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD005085.pub2.
CEE Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (Ed.): Guidelines for Systematic reviews in
Environmental Management 2010: version 4, 71pp. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/
Documents/Guidelines.pdf
Chaplin-Kramer R, O’Rourke ME, Blitzer EJ, Kremen C: A meta-analysis of cropt pest and natural
enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecology Letters 2011, 14:922-932.
Conservation Evidence: Guide to writing for Conservation Evidence. Cambridge University; July
2012.
European Commission: EU rural development monitoring data, synthesis report 2001-3, SEC 2006,
508: 11.4.2006.
Fahrig L: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
2003, 34: 487-515.
Fawcett RS, Christensen BR, Tierney DP: The impact of conservation tillage on pesticide runoff into
surface water: a review and analysis. Journal of soil and water conservation 1994, 49:126-135
Ferron P, Deguine JP: Crop protection, biological control, habitat management and integrated farming. A review. Agronomy forSustainable Development 2005, 25: 17-24.
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB: Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and
conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos, 2006, 112: 473-480.
Giannessi L, Rury K, Rinkus A: An evaluation of pesticide use reduction policies in Scandinavia. Outlooks on Pest Management 2009, October: 1-7.
Hargrove WW, Pickering J : Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape
Ecology 1992, 6: 251–258.
Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ: How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and
promoting biodiversity. Journal of applied ecology 2003, 40: 947-969
Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J: Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 2007, 22: 127–132.
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner V, Giodano S, Horowitz A,
D’Amore M: Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 1992, 42:750-760.
Ravindranath NH, Manuvie R, Fargione J, Canadell JG, Berndes G, Woods J, Watson H, Sathaye J :
Greenhouse gas implications of land use and land conversion to biofuel crop. In Proceedings of
the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project
Rapid Assessmen: 22-25 September 2008; Gummersbach Germany. Edited by Howarth RW,
Bringezu S. Ithaca NY: Cornel University; 2009: 111–125.
Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ: Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain.
Journal of Applied Ecology 2002, 39: 157–176.
Simpson IC, Roger PA: The impact of pesticides on nontarget aquatic invertebrates in wetland
ricefields : a review. Natural Resource Management and Policy 1995, 7: 249-270.
Thonke KE: Political and Practical Approaches in Scandinavia to Reduce Herbicide Inputs. In: Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference – Weeds; 1991: 1183-1190.
Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, 2005. Landscape perspectives on
agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters
2005, 8: 857–874.
Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielboerger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F: Animal species
diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: The importance of keystone structures.
Journal of Biogeography, 2004, 31: 79-92.
Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, Schindler D, Schlesinger W,
Simberloff D, Swackhamer D, 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental
change. Science 2001, 292: 281–284.
Underwood AJ: Spatial and temporal problems with monitoring. In River restoration. Selected
extracts from The Rivers Handbook. Edited by Petts G, Calow P. Oxford: Blackwell Science;
1996:182-204.
Veres A, Petit S, Conord C, Lavigne C: Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their
control by natural enemies? A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2011,
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.027.
von Witzke H: Agriculture, world food security, bio-energy and climate change: some
inconvenient facts. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 2008, 47: 1–4.
WHO./UNEP: Public Health Impact of Pesticides used in Agriculture.OMS & PNUE, Geneva,
Switzerland; 1989.
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
ADDITIONAL FILES - ANNEXES
Annex 1. Presentation of the KNEU Project
To organize and facilitate knowledge exchange at the European level and sustain a regional node of
IPBES, the FP7-KNEU project (renamed Biodiversity knowledge, www.biodiversityknowledge.eu) is in
charge of developing a knowledge network (NoK) for European expertise on biodiversity and
ecosystem services to inform policy making and economic actors (KNEU Description of Work
document, 2010). The project begins with the mapping of the biodiversity knowledge hubs in Europe,
develops a prototype (see website) which is used as a vehicle to carry out case studies in relevant
policy fields (agriculture, biodiversity conservation, marine issues) in order to test its functioning and
effectiveness. The experience gained provides input for refining the recommended design of a future
functional Network of Knowledge (NoK). More specifically, the test cases aim at evaluating the
virtues, limitations and the sphere of applicability of various approaches to knowledge assessment
and communication, and how the NoK prototype can address these issues.
Annex 2. Scoping exercise conducted preliminary to searches, results from BIOSIS and SCOPUS
(years 1969 to 2012) scoped in March 2012 and Web of Knowledge (all years) in April 2012 using
the following search terms
Search Terms Results
BIOSIS & SCOPUS Topic=(ecosystem services AND method*) 3194
Topic=(flower strip* AND ecosystem service*) 3
Topic=(flower strip* AND biodiversity) 33
Topic=(pollination AND ecosystem service* AND yield) 20
Topic=(set-asides AND ecosystem services) 12
Topic=(agricultural input AND biodiversity) 230
Topic=(pesticid* AND biodiversity) 2115
Topic = (pest control AND generalist predator) 28 (BIOSIS) and 20 (SCOPUS)
Web of Knowlegde
Landscape management AND (pest control OR (bio* control)) 5456 (bio*control OR integr*pest*OR lutte biol*) AND (biodivers* OR conserv*) 2762 Integrated pest management AND (biodiv* OR conserv* OR restor* OR landscape 1437 Decrease* AND pesticide*) AND (biodiv* OR conserv*) 1406 Integrated pest management AND edge* 103 Integrated pest management AND orchard* 1046
Annex 3 – Preliminary list of interventions provided by Cambridge Conservation Science Group
Around the field or dividing it Create/maintain/manage field margins as banks of natural enemies
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
Develop flower strips Plant or develop barriers to stop or limit infestation by pests Grow repellent or confusing plants/strips Provide bird perches for predatory birds to rest and to look for prey (rodents or other birds, e.g. starlings). Grow attractive plants to trap pests (trap crop) Use push-pull techniques (combination of attractant and repellant) Provide holes in the soil to enhance habitat for spiders Practice timely cutting of non-crop plants utilized by natural enemies (for food, shelter etc) to encourage dispersal into the crop Manage hedges and habitat corridors to benefit natural enemies (keep unsprayed, fill gaps). Mixed with crop, directly affecting cultivation practices Use mulching to create habitats and food whilst suppressing weeds Plant cover crop in the field to provide shelter for natural enemies Cultivate several crops altogether (decrease attractiveness) Ploughing under live (green manuring) and dead organic material to provide shelter and alternative food for natural enemies of pests and to make the soil more suppressive against plant pathogens. Reduce tillage to restore soil natural enemies At the landscape level Divide crops into smaller areas, increase the perimeter-to-area ratio of agricultural fields to facilitate spillover of natural enemies of agricultural pests Provide set-aside areas of natural habitat on farmland Increase heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes, including natural habitat remnants. Improve landscape-scale connectivity between natural or non-crop habitat remnants to enhance dispersal of natural enemies of pests Decrease the level of land-use intensity in the landscape, e.g. through large-scale conversion to organic farming Increase the availability of shelter belts, hedgerows and other woody habitats in the landscape to provide habitat for natural enemies Increase the availability of perennial crops in the landscape (e.g. through crop rotation with ley) to enhance natural enemies Restore flower-rich natural habitats such as species-rich grassland, road verges, areas beneath power lines
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
Annex 4. Initial list of keywords used to build up the search strategy
Population/Sub
ject (statistical
unit)
Targeted pest Intervention/Exposure Outcome Filtering by type of
crop/resource
Habitat/landscape
features
Action Immediate Secondary Tertiary
Pest control agents Predators Entomophag* Control agents (Latin names, common names) Mammals Birds Insects Arthropods Arachnids Plants Parasitoids Parasites,
(latin names, common names) Birds, insects Acarians Arthropods Nematods Diseases Rodents Weeds Fungi Mold Parasites Mammals Fish Helminths Ravageurs Bio-agresseurs Pest competitors
agrosystem* seminatural habitat* set-aside vegetation crop* edge* OR hedge* field margin* ground-cover habitat* hedge* landscape non-crop habitat* ((bankerOR companion OR beneficial)SAME plant*) plantes de service auxilliaires functional agrobiodiversity stand* strip* flower strip* ground$cover perimeter trap crop set$aside* channels
Design* Compos* Arrang* Structur* Proportion Manipulati* Manag* Spatial arrangement farmscaping Repell* (plants) Attracti* (plants) Grow* Maintain* sheep-grazing enherbement tillage intercrop (conservation biological control CBC) diversification (integrated pest management) integrated production inter-guild interactions
Increased population of control agents Increased efficiency of CA Sustainable pop of CA Increased diversity of CA Decreased latency of regulation of pest (latency of presence in the field, targeted dispersal…) Spill-over
Decrease of pest Decline of pest outbreaks increased mortality (of pest), predation on pest, infestation (of pests by parasitoids or diseases)
Increased crop yield Increased crop quality
(cotton) Grapevine Vineyard Garden* Orchard Apple Citrus Meadows Road verges/margins Tree lines Cereal* (maize, wheat…?) Biofuel* Timber Horticulture Green/Glasshouses EDF underline Roundabouts Greenwalls? Game/hunters Pharmaceuticals Essential oils Cosmetics Ornament (inc fur) Sugar and starch Seeds
KNEU WP3 – Habitat management for natural pest control
diseases (bact, viruses) Mold, fungi Genes, molecules Vectors (transportant bees and molecules) Agents de lute, auxiliaires
buffer inter$crop fallow* wood lot* (biodiversity reservoir*) margin* corridors shelterbeds Border trapping Flower beds Tree lines, tree planting refuges road verges holes barriers grassland
intra-guild interactions IPM lutte intégrée manipulating multi-crop multi-enemy vegetation types agroforestry (functional agrobiodiversity) Push-pull Rotation
Fibers (clothes, insulation) Recreational (tobacco, … drugs?)
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Annex 5. Lists of references used to test the comprehensiveness of the searches
A. From the scoping exercise (83 references)
Adler, L. S. H., R. V.; 2009; Comparison of Perimeter Trap Crop Varieties: Effects on Herbivory, Pollination, and Yield in Butternut Squash
Alhmedi, A. H., E.; Bodson, B.; Francis, F.; 2006; Inter- and intra-guild interactions related to aphids in nettle (Urtica dioica L.) strips closed to field crops
Altieri, M. A. S., L. L.; 1985; COVER CROP MANIPULATION IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ORCHARDS AND VINEYARDS - EFFECTS ON ARTHROPOD COMMUNITIES
Aluja, M. J., A.; Camino, M.; Pinero, J.; Aldana, L.; Castrejon, V.; Valdes, M. E.; 1997; Habitat manipulation to reduce papaya fruit fly (Diptera : Tephritidae) damage: Orchard design, use of trap crops and border trapping
Arlettaz, R. M., Melanie Linda; Mosimann-Kampe, Paul; Nussle, Sebastien; Abadi, Fitsum; Braunisch, Veronika; Schaub, Michael; 2012; New vineyard cultivation practices create patchy ground vegetation, favouring Woodlarks
Baveco Hans; Bianchi Felix; ; Pest-suppressive landscapes from a natural enemy perspective Baverstock, J. P., M.; Clark, S. J.; Copeland, J. E.; Pell, J. K.; 2011; Potential value of the fibre nettle
Urtica dioica as a resource for the nettle aphid Microlophium carnosum and its insect and fungal natural enemies
Bell, J. R. T., Michael; Sunderland, Keith D.; Skirvin, David J.; Mead, Andrew; Kravar-Garde, Lidija; Reynolds, Kelly; Fenlon, John S.; Symondson, William O. C.; 2008; Beneficial links for the control of aphids: the effects of compost applications on predators and prey
Bianchi F. J. J. A.; Goedhart P. W.; Baveco J. M.; ; Enhanced pest control in cabbage crops near forest in The Netherlands
Bianchi, Booij & Tscharntke; 2006; Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control
Boutin, C. J., B.; Desgranges, J. L.; 1994; MODIFICATIONS OF FIELD MARGINS AND OTHER HABITATS IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS IN QUEBEC, CANADA, AND EFFECTS ON PLANTS AND BIRDS
Brewer, M. J. N., Takuji; 2010; Habitat Affinity of Resident Natural Enemies of the Invasive Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), on Soybean, With Comments on Biological Control
Brown, M. W.; Johnson, R. S. C. C. H.; 2002; Are flowering plants taboo in peach orchards? Brust_1994_Natural Enemies in Straw-Mulch Reduce Colorado Potato Beetle Populations and.pdf;
1994; Canal, N. A. P. O., Maria L.; Gonzales, Luisa F.; 2010; Human urine as a natural attractant of
Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera: Tephritidae) Cavanagh, A. F. A., Lynn S.; Hazzard, Ruth V.; 2010; Buttercup Squash Provides a Marketable
Alternative to Blue Hubbard as a Trap Crop for Control of Striped Cucumber Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)
Chen, M.; 2011; Evaluating alfalfa cutting as a potential measure to enhance abundance of predators to Aphis gossypii in cotton-alfalfa intercropping system
Choate, B. D., Frank; 2011; Ants as biological control agents in agricultural cropping systems Coli, W. M.; 1993; Effect of bare ground, all grass, or all broadleaf ground covers on biological mite
control and on tree growth and productivity Collins, K. L. B., N. D.; Wilcox, A.; Holland, J. M.; Chaney, K.; 2002; Influence of beetle banks on cereal,
aphid predation in winter wheat Conlong, D. E. R., R. S.; 2009; Conventional and New Biological and Habitat Interventions for
Integrated Pest Management Systems: Review and Case Studies using Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
Conlong, D. E. R., R. S.; 2010; Biological and habitat interventions for integrated pest management systems
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Cuthbertson, A. G. S. M., A. K.; 2010; Ecological benefits of Anystis baccarum in an orchard ecosystem and the need for its conservation
De Veres, Petit, Conord & Lavigne; Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review
Debras, J. F. S., R.; Dutoit, T.; 2011; Hedgerow effects on the distribution of beneficial arthropods in a pear orchard in Southern France
Debras, J.-F. D., Audrey; Rieux, Rene; Dutoit, Thierry; 2007; A prospective research on the hedgerow's 'source' function
Diaz, Fernanda M. R., Augusto; Poveda, Katja; 2012; Efficiency of different egg parasitoids and increased floral diversity for the biological control of noctuid pests
Dickler, E.; 1978; INFLUENCE OF BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS ON THE CODLING MOTH IN AN ORCHARD WITH GREEN COVERED AND CLEAN CULTIVATED SOIL
El Titi, A.; 1988; CONSERVATION OF BENEFICIAL AGENTS BY REDUCED TILLAGE REGIME AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOIL PESTS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SUGAR BEETS IN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Ellis, J. A. W., A. D.; Tooker, J. F.; Ginzel, M. D.; Reagel, P. F.; Lacey, E. S.; Bennett, A. B.; Grossman, E. M.; Hanks, L. M.; 2005; Conservation biological control in urban landscapes: Manipulating parasitoids of bagworm (Lepidoptera : Psychidae) with flowering forbs
Frank, S. D.; 2010; Biological control of arthropod pests using banker plant systems: Past progress and future directions
Gladbach David J.; Holzschuh Andrea; Scherber Christoph; et al.; ; Crop-noncrop spillover: arable fields affect trophic interactions on wild plants in surrounding habitats
Gurr, G. M. R., Donna M. Y.; Catindig, Josie Lynn A.; Cheng, Jiuan; Liu, Jian; La Pham, Lan; Heong, Kong Luen; 2012; Parasitoids of the rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and prospects for enhancing biological control with nectar plants
Hagy, H. M. L., George M.; Bleier, William J.; 2008; Optimizing the use of decoy plots for blackbird control in commercial sunflower
Hald, A. B.; 1994; COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT-TECHNIQUES FOR CROP MARGINS IN RELATION TO WILD PLANTS (WEEDS) AND ARTHROPODS
Hart, B. J. M., W. J.; Limb, T. M.; Davies, W. P.; 1994; HABITAT CREATION IN LARGE FIELDS FOR NATURAL PEST REGULATION
Harwood, R. W. J. H., J. M.; Macleod, A.; Sherratt, T. N.; Wratten, S. D.; 1994; MANAGING FIELD MARGINS FOR HOVERFLIES
Hossain, Z. G., G. M.; Wratten, S. D.; Raman, A.; 2002; Habitat manipulation in lucerne Medicago sativa: arthropod population dynamics in harvested and 'refuge' crop strips
Jobin, B. C., L.; Belanger, L.; 2001; Bird use of three types of field margins in relation to intensive agriculture in Quebec, Canada
Karg, J. B., Stanislaw; 2009; Effect of landscape structure on the occurrence of agrophagous pests and their antagonists
Khan, Z. M., Charles; Pittchar, Jimmy; Pickett, John; Bruce, Toby; 2011; Push-pull technology: a conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa UK government's Foresight Food and Farming Futures project
Landis, D. A. W., S. D.; Gurr, G. M.; 2000; Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture
Lassiter, B. R. J., David L.; Wilkerson, Gail G.; Shew, Barbara B.; Brandenburg, Rick L.; 2011; Influence of Cover Crops on Weed Management in Strip Tillage Peanut
Lovei, G. L.; 1981; COCCINELLID COMMUNITY IN AN APPLE ORCHARD BORDERING A DECIDUOUS FOREST
May, M. J. E., C.; Mott, J.; Pack, R.; Russell, C.; 1994; COMPARISON OF 5 DIFFERENT BOUNDARY STRIPS - INTERIM-REPORT OF 1ST 2 YEARS STUDY
Merwin, I. A. R., J. A.; Curtis, P. D.; 1999; Orchard groundcover management systems affect meadow vole populations and damage to apple trees
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Michael, D. R. L., David B.; Cunningham, Ross B.; 2010; Managing rock outcrops to improve biodiversity conservation in Australian agricultural landscapes
Mikunthan, G. M., M.; 2008; Impact of habitat manipulation on mycopathogen, Fusarium semitectum to control Scirtothrips dorsalis and Polyphagotarsonemus latus of chilli
Milsom, T. P. T., D.; Lane, P.; Wright, B.; Donaghy, S. J.; Moodie, P.; 1994; BOUNDARY STRIPS IN CEREAL FIELDS - DYNAMICS OF FLORA, WEED INGRESS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CROP YIELD UNDER DIFFERENT STRIP MANAGEMENT REGIMES
Mitchell, E. R. H., G. G.; Johanowicz, D.; 2000; Management of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera : plutellidae) in cabbage using collard as a trap crop
Miyazawa, K. T., H.; Yamagata, M.; Nakano, H.; Nakamoto, T.; 2002; The effects of cropping systems and fallow managements on microarthropod populations
Mols, C. M. M. V., Marcel E.; 2007; Great Tits (Parus major) Reduce Caterpillar Damage in Commercial Apple Orchards
Naranjo, S. E.; 2001; Conservation and evaluation of natural enemies in IPM systems for Bemisia tabaci
Ohno, S. M., Akiko; Ganaha-Kikumura, Tomoko; Gotoh, Tetsuo; Kijima, Keisuke; Ooishi, Tsuyoshi; Moromizato, Chie; Haraguchi, Dai; Yonamine, Kaname; Uezato, Takumi; 2010; Non-crop host plants of Tetranychus spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) in the field in Okinawa, Japan: Determination of possible sources of pest species and inference on the cause of peculiar mite fauna on crops
Paulson, G. S. A., R. D.; 1992; INTRODUCING ANTS (HYMENOPTERA, FORMICIDAE) INTO PEAR ORCHARDS FOR THE CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA, CACOPSYLLA-PYRICOLA (FOERSTER) (HOMOPTERA, PSYLLIDAE)
Pearce, S. Z., M. P.; 2005; Does the cutting of lucerne (Medicago sativa) encourage the movement of arthropod pests and predators into the adjacent crop?
Prokopy, R. J.; 2003; Two decades of bottom-up, ecologically based pest management in a small commercial apple orchard in Massachusetts
Prokopy, R. J. C., W. M.; 1994; Influence of understory cover and surrounding habitat on interactions between beneficial arthropods and pests in orchards. Papers presented at the 19th International Congress of Entomology, 28 June-4 July 1992, Beijing, People's Republic of China
Rieux, R. S., S.; Defrance, H.; 1999; Role of hedgerows and ground cover management on arthropod populations in pear orchards
Rusch, A. V.-M., Muriel; Sarthou, Jean-Pierre; Roger-Estrade, Jean; 2010; BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS IN AGROECOSYSTEMS: EFFECTS OF CROP MANAGEMENT, FARMING SYSTEMS, AND SEMINATURAL HABITATS AT THE LANDSCAPE SCALE: A REVIEW
Samu, F. R., V.; Erdelyi, C.; Balazs, K.; 1997; Spiders of the foliage and herbaceous layer of an IPM apple orchard in Kecskemet-Szarkas, Hungary
Scheid Barbara E.; Thies Carsten; Tscharntke Teja; ; Enhancing rape pollen beetle parasitism within sown flower fields along a landscape complexity gradient
Schmidt, Roschewitz, Thies & Tscharntke; ; Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders
Schmutterer, H.; 1997; Side-effects of neem (Azadirachta indica) products on insect pathogens and natural enemies of spider mites and insects
Shi, G. L., Suqi; Zhao, Lilin; Cao, Hui; Miao, Zhenwang; Li, Dengke; Feng, Jin; Zhang, Jiugang; 2006; Functional groups of natural enemies and their temporal-spatial dynamics in jujube orchard intercropped with herbage
Simon, S. D., H.; Rieux, R.; Reboulet, J. N.; 1998; Hedgerows as reservoirs of arthropods for crop protection
Singh, S. K. S., G.; 2003; Management of termite infestation in mango orchard by cultural practices and organic amendments
Smith et al_1996_Influence of Ground Cover on Beneficial Arthropods in Pecan.pdf; ;
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Smith, M. W. M., Phillip G., Jr.; Koul, O. C. G. W.; 2007; Role of Cover Crops in the Management of Arthropod Pests in Orchards
Stanyard, M. J. F., Rick E.; Gibb, Timothy J.; 1997; Effects of orchard ground cover and mite management options on the population dynamics of European red mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Amblyseius fallacis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in apple
Takemoto, H. O., Kazuro; 1996; Integrated pest management of Thrips palmi in eggplant fields, with conservation of natural enemies: effects of the surroundings and thrips community on the colonization of Orius spp
Tao, Z.-L. L., Zhi-Yi; 1993; Effect of floral undergrowth in citrus orchards on predatory mite population Tavares, W. S. C., I.; Silva, R. B.; Figueiredo, M. L. C.; Ramalho, F. S.; Serrao, J. E.; Zanuncio, J. C.; 2011;
SOIL ORGANISMS ASSOCIATED TO THE WEED SUPPRESSANT Crotalaria juncea (FABACEAE) AND ITS IMPORTANCE AS A REFUGE FOR NATURAL ENEMIES
Thomas et al_1991_Creation of 'Island' Habitats in Farmland to Manipulate Populations of.pdf; ; Tsitsilas, A. H., Ary A.; Weeks, Andrew R.; Umina, Paul A.; 2011; Impact of groundcover manipulations
within windbreaks on mite pests and their natural enemies Vollhardt Ines M. G.; Bianchi Felix J. J. A.; Waeckers Felix L.; et al.; ; Spatial distribution of flower vs.
honeydew resources in cereal fields may affect aphid parasitism Walton, N. J. I., Rufus; 2011; Influence of Native Flowering Plant Strips on Natural Enemies and
Herbivores in Adjacent Blueberry Fields Warlop, F.; 2006; Limitation of olive pest populations through the development of conservation
biocontrol Weaver, D. B. R., R.; Carden, E. L.; 1995; Comparison of crop rotation and fallow for management of
Heterodera glycines and Meloidogyne spp in soybean Wielgoss Arno; Clough Yann; Fiala Brigitte; et al.; ; A minor pest reduces yield losses by a major pest:
plant-mediated herbivore interactions in Indonesian cacao Wyss, E.; 1995; THE EFFECTS OF WEED STRIPS ON APHIDS AND APHIDOPHAGOUS PREDATORS IN AN
APPLE ORCHARD Zajac, R.; 1979; THE INFLUENCE OF BIRD FEEDING ON THE NUMBER OF OVER WINTERING LARVAE OF
THE CODLING MOTH LASPEYRESIA-POMONELLA IN ORCHARDS OF CENTRAL POLAND Zehnder et al. ;Arthropod pest management in organic crops, Ann Rev Entomol 2007 Zhan, Z.-x. Q., Liang-miao; Lin, Ren-kui; Wei, Hui; Ying, Zhao-yang; Weng, Bo-qi; 2005; The structure
and stability of arthropod community in the longan orchards interplanting with Chamaecrista nictitans cv. Minyin
B. From Biological Control journal as extracted by Cambridge Conservation Science Group (264
references)
Acheampong, S. S., John D.; 2004; Effects of the agricultural adjuvant Sylgard 309 and the insecticide pymetrozine on demographic parameters of the aphid parasitoid, Diaeretiella rapae; 31; 133-137
Aguilar-Fenollosa, E. I.-G., M. V.; Pascual-Ruiz, S.; Hurtado, M.; Jacas, J. A.; 2011; Effect of ground-cover management on spider mites and their phytoseiid natural enemies in clementine mandarin orchards (I): Bottom-up regulation mechanisms; 59; 158-170
Aguilar-Fenollosa, E. I.-G., M. V.; Pascual-Ruiz, S.; Hurtado, M.; Jacas, J. A.; 2011; Effect of ground-cover management on spider mites and their phytoseiid natural enemies in clementine mandarin orchards (II): Top-down regulation mechanisms; 59; 171-179
Ahonsi, M. O. B., Dana K.; Emechebe, Alphonse M.; Lagoke, Segun T.; Sanginga, Nteranya; 2003; Potential of ethylene-producing pseudomonads in combination with effective N2-fixing bradyrhizobial strains as supplements to legume rotation for Striga hermonthica control; 28; 01-oct
Albajes, R. L., Belén; Pons, Xavier; 2011; Two heteropteran predators in relation to weed management in herbicide-tolerant corn; 59; 30-36
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Al-Dobai, S. R., Stuart; Sivinski, John; 2012; Tachinidae (Diptera) associated with flowering plants: Estimating floral attractiveness; 61; 230-239
Alfano, G. L., Giuseppe; Lima, Giuseppe; Vitullo, Domenico; Ranalli, Giancarlo; 2011; Characterization of composted olive mill wastes to predict potential plant disease suppressiveness; 58; 199-207
Alumai, A. G., Parwinder S.; Hoy, Casey W.; Willoughby, David A.; 2006; Factors affecting the natural occurrence of entomopathogenic nematodes in turfgrass; 36; 368-374
Ang, B. N. K., L. T.; Holtzman, G. I.; Wolf, D. D.; 1994; Competitive Growth of Canada Thistle, Tall Fescue, and Crownvetch in the Presence of a Thistle Defoliator, Cassida rubiginosa Müller (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae); 4; 277-284
Ang, B. N. K., L. T.; Holtzman, G. I.; Wolf, D. D.; 1995; Canada Thistle [Cirsium arvense (L) Scop.] Response to Density of Cassida rubiginosa Müller (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Plant Competition; 5; 31-38
Araj, S.-E. W., Steve; Lister, Alison; Buckley, Hannah; Ghabeish, Ihab; 2011; Searching behavior of an aphid parasitoid and its hyperparasitoid with and without floral nectar; 57; 79-84
Arthurs, S. P. L., Lawrence A.; Miliczky, Eugene R.; 2007; Evaluation of the codling moth granulovirus and spinosad for codling moth control and impact on non-target species in pear orchards; 41; 99-109
Arthurs, S. T., Matthew B.; Langewald, Juergen; 2003; Field observations of the effects of fenitrothion and Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum on non-target ground dwelling arthropods in the Sahel; 26; 333-340
Azzouz, H. G., Philippe; Wäckers, Felix L.; Kaiser, Laure; 2004; Effects of feeding frequency and sugar concentration on behavior and longevity of the adult aphid parasitoid: Aphidius ervi (Haliday) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 31; 445-452
Baggen, L. R. G., Geoff M.; 1998; The Influence of Food on Copidosoma koehleri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and the Use of Flowering Plants as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance Biological Control of Potato Moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae); 11; sept-17
Baggen, L. R. G., Geoff M.; 1998; The Influence of Food on Copidosoma koehleri(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and the Use of Flowering Plants as a Habitat Management Tool to Enhance Biological Control of Potato Moth,Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae); 11; sept-17
Barbour, J. D. F. J., R. R.; Kennedy, G. G.; 1997; Populations of Predaceous Natural Enemies Developing on Insect-Resistant and Susceptible Tomato in North Carolina; 9; 173-184
Bardin, S. D. H., H. C.; Moyer, J. R.; 2004; Control of Pythium damping-off of sugar beet by seed treatment with crop straw powders and a biocontrol agent; 29; 453-460
Bargabus, R. L. Z., N. K.; Sherwood, J. E.; Jacobsen, B. J.; 2004; Screening for the identification of potential biological control agents that induce systemic acquired resistance in sugar beet; 30; 342-350
Barraclough, E. I. B., E. P. J.; Philip, B. A.; Wohlers, M. W.; Malone, L. A.; 2009; Tritrophic impacts of Bt-expressing transgenic pine on the parasitoid Meteorus pulchricornis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) via its host Pseudocoremia suavis (Lepidoptera: Geometridae); 49; 192-199
Baur, M. E. B., D. J.; 2003; Effect of Bt-cotton expressing Cry1A(c) on the survival and fecundity of two hymenopteran parasitoids (Braconidae, Encyrtidae) in the laboratory; 26; 325-332
Bayram, A. S., Gianandrea; Onofri, Andrea; Conti, Eric; 2010; Sub-lethal effects of two pyrethroids on biological parameters and behavioral responses to host cues in the egg parasitoid Telenomus busseolae; 53; 153-160
Begum, M. G., Geoff M.; Wratten, Steve D.; Nicol, Helen I.; 2004; Flower color affects tri-trophic-level biocontrol interactions; 30; 584-590
Berndt, L. A. W., Steve D.; 2005; Effects of alyssum flowers on the longevity, fecundity, and sex ratio of the leafroller parasitoid Dolichogenidea tasmanica; 32; 65-69
Berndt, L. A. W., Steve D.; Scarratt, Samantha L.; 2006; The influence of floral resource subsidies on parasitism rates of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand vineyards; 37; 50-55
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Boulter, J. I. B., Greg J.; Trevors, Jack T.; 2002; Assessment of compost for suppression of Fusarium Patch (Microdochium nivale) and Typhula Blight (Typhula ishikariensis) snow molds of turfgrass; 25; 162-172
Broatch, J. S. D., Lloyd M.; O’Donovan, John T.; Harker, K. Neil; Clayton, George W.; 2010; Responses of the specialist biological control agent, Aleochara bilineata, to vegetational diversity in canola agroecosystems; 52; 58-67
Brust, G. E.; ; 1994; Natural Enemies in Straw-Mulch Reduce Colorado Potato Beetle Populations and Damage in Potato; 4; 163-169
Bugg, R. L. D., James D.; McNeill, Patrick J.; 1991; Cool-season cover crops in the pecan orchard understory: Effects on coccinellidae (Coleoptera) and pecan aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae); 1; août-15
Bugg, R. L. W., L. Theodore; 1989; Ammi visnaga (L.) Lamarck (Apiaceae): Associated Beneficial Insects and Implications for Biological Control, with Emphasis on the Bell-Pepper Agroecosystem; 6; 241-268
Burgess, E. P. J. P., Bruce A.; Barraclough, Emma I.; Marshall, Richelle K.; Christeller, John T.; 2009; Impacts on the predatory carabid beetle Ctenognathus novaezelandiae of pure and mixed diets of natural field-collected prey and Spodoptera litura fed control or transgenic avidin tobacco; 48; 55-62
Burkett-Cadena, M. K.-B., Nancy; Lawrence, Kathy S.; van Santen, Edzard; Kloepper, Joseph W.; 2008; Suppressiveness of root-knot nematodes mediated by rhizobacteria; 47; 55-59
Byrne, F. J. T., Nick C.; 2007; Lethal toxicity of systemic residues of imidacloprid against Homalodisca vitripennis (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) eggs and its parasitoid Gonatocerus ashmeadi (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae); 43; 130-135
Cai, Q.-N. M., Xiao-Mu; Zhao, Xin; Cao, Ya-Zhong; Yang, Xiao-Qin; 2009; Effects of host plant resistance on insect pests and its parasitoid: A case study of wheat-aphid–parasitoid system; 49; 134-138
Cárdenas, M. R., Francisca; García, Pedro; Pascual, Felipe; Campos, Mercedes; 2006; Impact of agricultural management on spider populations in the canopy of olive trees; 38; 188-195
Casey, C. A. P., Michael P.; 2005; Evaluation of a mechanical dispenser and interplant bridges on the dispersal and efficacy of the predator, Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in greenhouse cut roses; 32; 130-136
Cavalcanti, F. R. R., M. L. V.; Carvalho, C. P. S.; Silveira, J. A. G.; Oliveira, J. T. A.; 2006; Induced defence responses and protective effects on tomato against Xanthomonas vesicatoria by an aqueous extract from Solanum lycocarpum infected with Crinipellis perniciosa; 39; 408-417
Chacón, J. M. A., Mark K.; Heimpel, George E.; 2012; Combined effects of host-plant resistance and intraguild predation on the soybean aphid parasitoid Binodoxys communis in the field; 60; 16-25
Chalfoun, N. R. C., A. P.; Díaz Ricci, J. C.; 2011; Induced resistance activated by a culture filtrate derived from an avirulent pathogen as a mechanism of biological control of anthracnose in strawberry; 58; 319-329
Charleston, D. S. K., Rami; Dicke, Marcel; Vet, Louise E. M.; 2005; Impact of botanical pesticides derived from Melia azedarach and Azadirachta indica on the biology of two parasitoid species of the diamondback moth; 33; 131-142
Charleston, D. S. K., Rami; Dicke, Marcel; Vet, Louise E. M.; 2006; Impact of botanical extracts derived from Melia azedarach and Azadirachta indica on populations of Plutella xylostella and its natural enemies: A field test of laboratory findings; 39; 105-114
Chen, L.-L. Y., Min-Sheng; Chen, Shao-Bo; 2011; Effects of cover crops on spider communities in tea plantations; 59; 326-335
Chen, M. L., Zhi-cheng; Ye, Gong-yin; Shen, Zhi-cheng; Hu, Cui; Peng, Yu-fa; Altosaar, Illimar; Shelton, Anthony M.; 2007; Impacts of transgenic cry1Ab rice on non-target planthoppers and their main predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Hemiptera: Miridae)—A case study of the compatibility of Bt rice with biological control; 42; 242-250
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Chen, S. D., Hezhong; Fan, Yuqin; Li, Weijiang; Cohen, Yigal; 2006; Dry mycelium of Penicillium chrysogenum induces expression of pathogenesis-related protein genes and resistance against wilt diseases in Bt transgenic cotton; 39; 460-464
Chen, S.-Y. D., D. W.; Mitchell, D. J.; 1996; Population Development of Heterodera glycines in Response to Mycoflora in Soil from Florida; 6; 226-231
Chithrashree, U., A. C.; Chandra Nayaka, S.; Reddy, M. S.; Srinivas, C.; 2011; Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mediate induced systemic resistance in rice against bacterial leaf blight caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae; 59; 114-122
Corbett, A. L., Thomas F.; Theodore Wilson, L.; 1991; Interplanting alfalfa as a source of Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) for managing spider mites in cotton; 1; 188-196
Cordero, R. J. B., Jeffrey R.; Kuhar, Thomas P.; 2007; Susceptibility of two diamondback moth parasitoids, Diadegma insulare (Cresson) (Hymenoptera; Ichneumonidae) and Oomyzus sokolowskii (Kurdjumov) (Hymenoptera; Eulophidae), to selected commercial insecticides; 42; 48-54
Cui, L.-L. F., Frédéric; Heuskin, Stéphanie; Lognay, Georges; Liu, Ying-Jie; Dong, Jie; Chen, Ju-Lian; Song, Xu-Ming; Liu, Yong; 2012; The functional significance of E-β-Farnesene: Does it influence the populations of aphid natural enemies in the fields?; 60; 108-112
Cutler, G. C. S.-D., C. D.; Tolman, J. H.; Harris, C. R.; 2006; Toxicity of the insect growth regulator novaluron to the non-target predatory bug Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae); 38; 196-204
Daugherty, M. P. B., Cheryl J.; Welter, S. C.; 2007; Bottom-up and top-down control of pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola): Fertilization, plant quality, and the efficacy of the predator Anthocoris nemoralis; 43; 257-264
Davidson, M. M. B., R. C.; Wratten, S. D.; Conner, A. J.; 2006; Impacts of insect-resistant transgenic potatoes on the survival and fecundity of a parasitoid and an insect predator; 37; 224-230
Davies, J. T. I., John E.; Allen, Geoff R.; 2005; The impact of gorse thrips, ryegrass competition, and simulated grazing on gorse seedling performance in a controlled environment; 32; 280-286
De Bruijn, S. L. B., Edward W.; 2006; Biological control of Canada thistle in temperate pastures using high density rotational cattle grazing; 36; 305-315
Defagó, M. T. D., Analía; Avalos, Delia S.; Palacios, Sara M.; Valladares, Graciela; 2011; Effects of Melia azedarach extract on Cotesia ayerza, parasitoid of the alfalfa defoliator Colias lesbia; 57; 75-78
Demers, A. M. B., D. K.; Backman, P. A.; 2006; Enhancing incidence of Puccinia punctiformis, through mowing, to improve management of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense); 39; 481-488
Díaz, M. F. R., Augusto; Poveda, Katja; 2012; Efficiency of different egg parasitoids and increased floral diversity for the biological control of noctuid pests; 60; 182-191
Duso, C. M., Valeria; Pozzebon, Alberto; Castagnoli, Marisa; Liguori, Marialivia; Simoni, Sauro; 2008; Comparative toxicity of botanical and reduced-risk insecticides to Mediterranean populations of Tetranychus urticae and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae); 47; 16-21
Duso, C. P., Alberto; Capuzzo, Caterina; Maria Bisol, Paolo; Otto, Stefan; 2003; Grape downy mildew spread and mite seasonal abundance in vineyards: evidence for the predatory mites Amblyseius andersoni and Typhlodromus pyri; 27; 229-241
Dutton, A. K., Heiri; Romeis, Jörg; Bigler, Franz; 2003; Prey-mediated effects of Bacillus thuringiensis spray on the predator Chrysoperla carnea in maize; 26; 209-215
Eben, A. B., Mary E.; 1997; Host Plant and Substrate Effects on Mortality of Southern Corn Rootworm from Entomopathogenic Nematodes; 8; 89-96
Eilers, E. J. K., Alexandra-Maria; 2009; Landscape context and management effects on an important insect pest and its natural enemies in almond; 51; 388-394
Ekesi, S. M., Nguya K.; Mohamed, Samira A.; Lux, Slawomir A.; 2005; Effect of soil application of different formulations of Metarhizium anisopliae on African tephritid fruit flies and their associated endoparasitoids; 35; 83-91
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Ellis, J. A. W., A. D.; Tooker, J. F.; Ginzel, M. D.; Reagel, P. F.; Lacey, E. S.; Bennett, A. B.; Grossman, E. M.; Hanks, L. M.; 2005; Conservation biological control in urban landscapes: Manipulating parasitoids of bagworm (Lepidoptera: Psychidae) with flowering forbs; 34; 99-107
Epstein, D. L. Z., R. S.; Brunner, J. F.; Gut, L.; Brown, J. J.; 2001; Ground Beetle Activity in Apple Orchards under Reduced Pesticide Management Regimes; 21; 97-104
Er, M. K. G., Ayhan; 2004; Effects of selected pesticides used against glasshouse tomato pests on colony growth and conidial germination of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus; 31; 398-404
Escribano, A. W., Trevor; Goulson, David; Cave, Ronald D.; Caballero, Primitivo; 2000; Parasitoid–Pathogen–Pest Interactions of Chelonus insularis, Campoletis sonorensis, and a Nucleopolyhedrovirus in Spodoptera frugiperda Larvae; 19; 265-273
Fadamiro, H. Y. C., Li; 2005; Utilization of aphid honeydew and floral nectar by Pseudacteon tricuspis (Diptera: Phoridae), a parasitoid of imported fire ants, Solenopis spp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae); 34; 73-82
Fagan, W. F. H., Arief Lukman; Ariawan, Hartjahyo; Yuliyantiningsih, Sri; 1998; Interactions between Biological Control Efforts and Insecticide Applications in Tropical Rice Agroecosystems: The Potential Role of Intraguild Predation; 13; 121-126
Farinós, G. P. d. l. P., Marta; Hernández-Crespo, Pedro; Ortego, Félix; Castañera, Pedro; 2008; Diversity and seasonal phenology of aboveground arthropods in conventional and transgenic maize crops in Central Spain; 44; 362-371
Fernández, C. R. g.-K., Rodrigo; Warrior, Prem; Kloepper, Joseph W.; 2001; Induced Soil Suppressiveness to a Root-Knot Nematode Species by a Nematicide; 22; 103-114
Ferry, A. L. T., S.; Dugravot, S.; Cortesero, A. M.; 2009; Field evaluation of the combined deterrent and attractive effects of dimethyl disulfide on Delia radicum and its natural enemies; 49; 219-226
Filippi, M. C. C. d. S., Gisele Barata; Silva-Lobo, Valácia L.; Côrtes, Márcio Vinícius C. B.; Moraes, Alessandra Jackeline G.; Prabhu, Anne S.; 2011; Leaf blast (Magnaporthe oryzae) suppression and growth promotion by rhizobacteria on aerobic rice in Brazil; 58; 160-166
Franco, J. C. S., Elsa Borges da; Fortuna, Taiadjana; Cortegano, Elisabete; Branco, Manuela; Suma, Pompeo; Torre, Ivan La; Russo, Agatino; Elyahu, Miriam; Protasov, Alex; Levi-Zada, Anat; Mendel, Zvi; 2011; Vine mealybug sex pheromone increases citrus mealybug parasitism by Anagyrus sp. near pseudococci (Girault); 58; 230-238
Frank, S. D. S., Paula M.; Denno, Robert F.; 2011; Plant versus prey resources: Influence on omnivore behavior and herbivore suppression; 57; 229-235
Galvan, T. L. K., R. L.; Hutchison, W. D.; 2005; Effects of spinosad and indoxacarb on survival, development, and reproduction of the multicolored Asian lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae); 34; 108-114
García, M. O., Félix; Castañera, Pedro; Farinós, Gema P.; 2010; Effects of exposure to the toxin Cry1Ab through Bt maize fed-prey on the performance and digestive physiology of the predatory rove beetle Atheta coriaria; 55; 225-233
Gardiner, M. M. L., D. A.; Gratton, C.; Schmidt, N.; O’Neal, M.; Mueller, E.; Chacon, J.; Heimpel, G. E.; 2010; Landscape composition influences the activity density of Carabidae and Arachnida in soybean fields; 55; nov-19
Garrido-Jurado, I. R., F.; Campos, M.; Quesada-Moraga, E.; 2011; Effects of soil treatments with entomopathogenic fungi on soil dwelling non-target arthropods at a commercial olive orchard; 59; 239-244
Garrido-Jurado, I. T., J.; Barrón, V.; Corpas, A.; Quesada-Moraga, E.; 2011; Soil properties affect the availability, movement, and virulence of entomopathogenic fungi conidia against puparia of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae); 58; 277-285
Gerling, D. N., Steven E.; 1998; The Effect of Insecticide Treatments in Cotton Fields on the Levels of Parasitism of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) sl; 12; 33-41
Gillespie, M. W., Steve; Sedcole, Richard; Colfer, Ramy; 2011; Manipulating floral resources dispersion for hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in a California lettuce agro-ecosystem; 59; 215-220
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Goertz, D. L., Andreas; Solter, Leellen F.; 2004; Influence of Dimilin on a microsporidian infection in the gypsy moth Lymantria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae); 30; 624-633
Grafton-Cardwell, E. E. O., Yuling; Bugg, Robert L.; 1999; Leguminous Cover Crops to Enhance Population Development of Euseius tularensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in Citrus; 16; 73-80
Hariprasad, P. N., H. M.; Chandra nayaka, S.; Niranjana, S. R.; 2009; Advantage of using PSIRB over PSRB and IRB to improve plant health of tomato; 50; 307-316
Harish, S. K., M.; Kumar, N.; Balasubramanian, P.; Samiyappan, R.; 2009; Induction of defense-related proteins by mixtures of plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria against Banana bunchy top virus; 51; 16-25
Harvey, C. D. A., Khalil M.; Griffin, Christine T.; 2012; The impact of entomopathogenic nematodes on a non-target, service-providing longhorn beetle is limited by targeted application when controlling forestry pest Hylobius abietis; 62; 173-182
Harvey, C. T. E., Micky D.; 2004; Effect of habitat complexity on biological control by the red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in collards; 29; 348-358
Henderson, D. R. R., Ekaterini; Ramirez, Ricardo A.; Wilson, John; Snyder, William E.; 2009; Mustard biofumigation disrupts biological control by Steinernema spp. nematodes in the soil; 48; 316-322
Heping, W. L., Meng; Baoping, Li; 2008; Effects of feeding frequency and sugar concentrations on lifetime reproductive success of Meteorus pulchricornis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 45; 353-359
Héraux, F. M. G. H., Steven G.; Weller, Stephen C.; 2005; Combining Trichoderma virens-inoculated compost and a rye cover crop for weed control in transplanted vegetables; 34; 21-26
Higaki, M. A., Ishizue; 2011; Response of a parasitoid fly, Gymnosoma rotundatum (Linnaeus) (Diptera: Tachinidae) to the aggregation pheromone of Plautia stali Scott (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and its parasitism of hosts under field conditions; 58; 215-221
Hilbeck, A. K., George G.; 1996; Predators Feeding on the Colorado Potato Beetle in Insecticide-Free Plots and Insecticide-Treated Commercial Potato Fields in Eastern North Carolina; 6; 273-282
Hogg, B. N. B., Robert L.; Daane, Kent M.; 2011; Attractiveness of common insectary and harvestable floral resources to beneficial insects; 56; 76-84
Holland, J. M. O., H.; Southway, S.; Moreby, S.; 2008; The effectiveness of field margin enhancement for cereal aphid control by different natural enemy guilds; 47; 71-76
Hoy, C. W. G., Parwinder S.; Lawrence, Janet L.; Jagdale, Ganpati; Acosta, Nuris; 2008; Canonical correspondence analysis demonstrates unique soil conditions for entomopathogenic nematode species compared with other free-living nematode species; 46; 371-379
Hummel, J. D. D., Lloyd M.; Clayton, George W.; Harker, K. Neil; O’Donovan, John T.; 2010; Responses of the parasitoids of Delia radicum (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) to the vegetational diversity of intercrops; 55; 151-158
Hwang, J. B., D. M.; 2003; Expression of induced systemic resistance in poinsettia cuttings against Rhizoctonia stem rot by treatment of stock plants with binucleate Rhizoctonia; 27; 73-80
Iriti, M. C., Giulia; Vitalini, Sara; Mignani, Ilaria; Soave, Carlo; Fico, Gelsomina; Faoro, Franco; 2010; Chitosan-induced ethylene-independent resistance does not reduce crop yield in bean; 54; 241-247
Irvin, N. A. H., Mark S.; Castle, Steven J.; 2007; The effect of resource provisioning and sugar composition of foods on longevity of three Gonatocerus spp., egg parasitoids of Homalodisca vitripennis; 40; 69-79
Irvin, N. A. H., Mark S.; 2007; Evaluation of floral resources for enhancement of fitness of Gonatocerus ashmeadi, an egg parasitoid of the glassy-winged sharpshooter, Homalodisca vitripennis; 40; 80-88
Jabbour, R. B., Mary E.; 2009; Soil management effects on entomopathogenic fungi during the transition to organic agriculture in a feed grain rotation; 51; 435-443
Jacometti, M. A. W., S. D.; Walter, M.; 2007; Management of understorey to reduce the primary inoculum of Botrytis cinerea: Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards; 40; 57-64
Jacometti, M. J., Nina; Wratten, Steve; 2010; Enhancing biological control by an omnivorous lacewing: Floral resources reduce aphid numbers at low aphid densities; 55; 159-165
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Jagdale, G. B. K., S.; Grewal, P. S.; 2009; Entomopathogenic nematodes induce components of systemic resistance in plants: Biochemical and molecular evidence; 51; 102-109
Jaros-Su, J. G., Eleanor; Zhang, Jianxin; 1999; Effects of Selected Fungicides and the Timing of Fungicide Application on Beauveria bassiana-Induced Mortality of the Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae); 15; 259-269
Jetiyanon, K. K., Joseph W.; 2002; Mixtures of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for induction of systemic resistance against multiple plant diseases; 24; 285-291
Jeun, Y. C. P., K. S.; Kim, C. H.; Fowler, W. D.; Kloepper, J. W.; 2004; Cytological observations of cucumber plants during induced resistance elicited by rhizobacteria; 29; 34-42
Jones, V. P. S., Shawn A.; Wiman, Nik G.; Horton, David R.; Miliczky, Eugene; Zhang, Qing-He; Baker, Callie C.; 2011; Evaluation of herbivore-induced plant volatiles for monitoring green lacewings in Washington apple orchards; 56; 98-105
Jones, W. A. C., M. A.; Wolfenbarger, D. A.; 1998; Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Insecticides on Two Parasitoids Attacking Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae); 11; 70-76
Kaplan, I. T., Jennifer S.; 2011; Do plant defenses enhance or diminish prey suppression by omnivorous Heteroptera?; 59; 53-60
Kaspi, R. P., Michael P.; 2005; Abamectin compatibility with the leafminer parasitoid Diglyphus isaea; 35; 172-179
Kehrli, P. L., Michael; Bacher, Sven; 2005; Mass-emergence devices: a biocontrol technique for conservation and augmentation of parasitoids; 32; 191-199
Kilic-Ekici, O. Y., Gary Y.; 2004; Comparison of strains of Lysobacter enzymogenes and PGPR for induction of resistance against Bipolaris sorokiniana in tall fescue; 30; 446-455
Klingen, I. W., Karin; 2007; The effect of pesticides used in strawberries on the phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its fungal natural enemy Neozygites floridana (Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales); 43; 222-230
Koné, S. B. D., Antoine; Tweddell, Russell J.; Antoun, Hani; Avis, Tyler J.; 2010; Suppressive effect of non-aerated compost teas on foliar fungal pathogens of tomato; 52; 167-173
Kramarz, P. S., John D.; 2003; Population level effects of cadmium and the insecticide imidacloprid to the parasitoid, Aphidius ervi after exposure through its host, the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris); 27; 310-314
Kurek, E. J.-Ś., J.; 2003; Rye (Secale cereale) growth promotion by Pseudomonas fluorescens strains and their interactions with Fusarium culmorum under various soil conditions; 26; 48-56
Kuske, S. W., Franco; Edwards, Peter J.; Turlings, Ted C. J.; Babendreier, Dirk; Bigler, Franz; 2003; Dispersal and persistence of mass released Trichogramma brassicae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) in non-target habitats; 27; 181-193
Kyei-Poku, G. K. K., Yasuhisa; 1998; Nondevelopment of Cotesia kariyai (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Entomopoxvirus-Infected Larvae of Pseudaletia separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae); 11; 209-216
Lacoume, S. B., Christophe; Chevrier, Claude; 2009; Male hypofertility induced by Paraquat consumption in the non-target parasitoid Anisopteromalus calandrae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae); 49; 214-218
Latha, P. A., T.; Ragupathi, N.; Prakasam, V.; Samiyappan, R.; 2009; Antimicrobial activity of plant extracts and induction of systemic resistance in tomato plants by mixtures of PGPR strains and Zimmu leaf extract against Alternaria solani; 50; 85-93
Laubertie, E. A. W., Steve D.; Hemptinne, Jean-Louis; 2012; The contribution of potential beneficial insectary plant species to adult hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) fitness; 61; 01-juin
Lavandero, B. W., Steve; Shishehbor, Parviz; Worner, Sue; 2005; Enhancing the effectiveness of the parasitoid Diadegma semiclausum (Helen): Movement after use of nectar in the field; 34; 152-158
Lawo, N. C. R., Jörg; 2008; Assessing the utilization of a carbohydrate food source and the impact of insecticidal proteins on larvae of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea; 44; 389-398
Lawrence, J. L. H., Casey W.; Grewal, Parwinder S.; 2006; Spatial and temporal distribution of endemic entomopathogenic nematodes in a heterogeneous vegetable production landscape; 37; 247-255
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Lee, D.-H. N., Jan P.; Sanderson, John P.; 2011; Avoidance of natural enemies by adult whiteflies, Bemisia argentifolii, and effects on host plant choice; 58; 302-309
Lee, J. C. H., George E.; 2005; Impact of flowering buckwheat on Lepidopteran cabbage pests and their parasitoids at two spatial scales; 34; 290-301
Li, Y. R., Jörg; ; 2010; Bt maize expressing Cry3Bb1 does not harm the spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, or its ladybird beetle predator, Stethorus punctillum; 53; 337-344
Liu, T.-X. S., Philip A.; 2004; Lethal and sublethal effects of two insect growth regulators on adult Delphastus catalinae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a predator of whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae); 30; 298-305
Liu, X.-x. Z., Qing-wen; Zhao, Jian-Zhou; Li, Jian-cheng; Xu, Bao-liang; Ma, Xiao-mu; 2005; Effects of Bt transgenic cotton lines on the cotton bollworm parasitoid Microplitis mediator in the laboratory; 35; 134-141
Ludy, C. L., A.; 2006; A 3-year field-scale monitoring of foliage-dwelling spiders (Araneae) in transgenic Bt maize fields and adjacent field margins; 38; 314-324
Luo, S. L., Jiancheng; Liu, Xiaoxia; Lu, Ziyun; Pan, Wenliang; Zhang, Qingwen; Zhao, Zhangwu; 2010; Effects of six sugars on the longevity, fecundity and nutrient reserves of Microplitis mediator; 52; 51-57
Maingay, H. M. B., Robert L.; Carlson, Robert W.; Davidson, Nita A.; 1991; Predatory and Parasitic Wasps (Hymenoptera) Feeding at Flowers of Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Miller var. dulce Battandier & Trabut, Apiaceae) and Spearmint (Mentha spicata L., Lamiaceae) in Massachusetts; 7; 363-383
Malandraki, I. T., Sotirios E.; Pantelides, Iakovos S.; Paplomatas, Epaminondas J.; 2008; Thermal inactivation of compost suppressiveness implicates possible biological factors in disease management; 44; 180-187
Maoz, Y. G., Shira; Argov, Yael; Coll, Moshe; Palevsky, Eric; 2011; Biocontrol of persea mite, Oligonychus perseae, with an exotic spider mite predator and an indigenous pollen feeder; 59; 147-157
Markó, V. K., Balázs; Fountain, Michelle T.; Cross, Jerry V.; 2009; Prey availability, pesticides and the abundance of orchard spider communities; 48; 115-124
Martinson, T. W. I., Livy; English-Loeb, Greg; 2001; Compatibility of Chemical Disease and Insect Management Practices Used in New York Vineyards with Biological Control by Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), Parasitoids of Erythroneura Leafhoppers; 22; 227-234
Martinuz, A. S., A.; Menjivar, R. D.; Sikora, R. A.; 2012; Effectiveness of systemic resistance toward Aphis gossypii (Hom., Aphididae) as induced by combined applications of the endophytes Fusarium oxysporum Fo162 and Rhizobium etli G12; 62; 206-212
Masetti, A. L., Alberto; Burgio, Giovanni; 2010; Effects of flowering plants on parasitism of lettuce leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae); 54; 263-269
Mathews, C. R. B., Dale G.; Brown, M. W.; 2004; Habitat manipulation of the apple orchard floor to increase ground-dwelling predators and predation of Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae); 30; 265-273
McVean, R. I. K. S., S. M.; Thompson, D. J.; Begon, M.; 2002; Dietary stress reduces the susceptibility of Plodia interpunctella to infection by a granulovirus; 25; 81-84
Medo, J. C., Ľudovít; 2011; Factors affecting the occurrence of entomopathogenic fungi in soils of Slovakia as revealed using two methods; 59; 200-208
Mendel, Z. A., Fabienne; Dunkelblum, Ezra; 2004; Kairomonal attraction of predatory bugs (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) and brown lacewings (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) to sex pheromones of Matsucoccus species (Hemiptera: Matsucoccidae); 30; 134-140
Mesquita, A. L. M. L., Lawrence A.; 2001; Interactions among the Entomopathogenic Fungus, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes), the Parasitoid, Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), and Their Aphid Host; 22; 51-59
Messina, F. J. S., Suzann M.; 2001; Effectiveness of Lacewing Larvae in Reducing Russian Wheat Aphid Populations on Susceptible and Resistant Wheat; 21; 19-26
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Meyling, N. V. T.-K., Kristian; Eilenberg, Jørgen; 2011; Below- and aboveground abundance and distribution of fungal entomopathogens in experimental conventional and organic cropping systems; 59; 180-186
Michalková, V. P., S.; 2009; How glyphosate altered the behaviour of agrobiont spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) and beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae); 51; 444-449
Michaud, J. P. G., Angela K.; 2005; Suitability of pollen sources for the development and reproduction of Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) under simulated drought conditions; 32; 363-370
Millar, L. C. B., Mary E.; 2002; Effects of tillage practices on entomopathogenic nematodes in a corn agroecosystem; 25; 01-nov
Mmbaga, M. T. S., R. J.; 2009; Epiphytic microbial communities on foliage of fungicide treated and non-treated flowering dogwoods; 49; 97-104
Monot, C. P., Emmanuel; Le Corre, Daniel; Silué, Drissa; 2002; Induction of systemic resistance in broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) against downy mildew (Peronospora parasitica) by avirulent isolates; 24; 75-81
Moser, S. E. O., John J.; 2009; Non-target effects of neonicotinoid seed treatments; mortality of coccinellid larvae related to zoophytophagy; 51; 487-492
Moura, R. G., Patrı´cia; Cabral, Susana; Soares, António Onofre; 2006; Does pirimicarb affect the voracity of the euriphagous predator, Coccinella undecimpunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)?; 38; 363-368
Nafziger Jr, T. D. F., Henry Y.; 2011; Suitability of some farmscaping plants as nectar sources for the parasitoid wasp, Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Effects on longevity and body nutrients; 56; 225-229
Nakai, M. K., Yasuhisa; 1997; Granulosis Virus Infection of the Smaller Tea Tortrix (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Effect on the Development of the Endoparasitoid,Ascogaster reticulatus(Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 8; 74-80
Nakai, M. K., Yasuhisa; 1998; Effects of the Timing of Entomopoxvirus Administration to the Smaller Tea Tortrix, Adoxophyes sp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on the Survival of the Endoparasitoid, Ascogaster reticulatus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 13; 63-69
Nantawanit, N. C., Arun; Panijpan, Bhinyo; Ruenwongsa, Pintip; 2010; Induction of defense response against Colletotrichum capsici in chili fruit by the yeast Pichia guilliermondii strain R13; 52; 145-152
Naranjo, S. E. E., Peter C.; Hagler, James R.; 2004; Conservation of natural enemies in cotton: role of insect growth regulators in management of Bemisia tabaci; 30; 52-72
Naranjo, S. E. E., Peter C.; 2009; The contribution of conservation biological control to integrated control of Bemisia tabaci in cotton; 51; 458-470
Nash, M. A. T., Linda J.; Hoffmann, Ary A.; 2008; Effect of remnant vegetation, pesticides, and farm management on abundance of the beneficial predator Notonomus gravis (Chaudoir) (Coleoptera: Carabidae); 46; 83-93
Navie, S. C. P., T. E.; McFadyen, R. E.; Adkins, S. W.; 1998; Efficacy of the Stem-Galling Moth Epiblema strenuana Walk. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) as a Biological Control Agent for Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.); 13; 01-août
Navntoft, S. W., S. D.; Kristensen, K.; Esbjerg, P.; 2009; Weed seed predation in organic and conventional fields; 49; nov-16
Niranjan Raj, S. L., S. N.; Amruthesh, K. N.; Niranjana, S. R.; Reddy, M. S.; Shetty, H. S.; 2012; Histo-chemical changes induced by PGPR during induction of resistance in pearl millet against downy mildew disease; 60; 90-102
Nusawardani, T. R., John R.; Obrycki, John J.; Bonning, Bryony C.; 2005; Effects of a protease-expressing recombinant baculovirus insecticide on the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris (Cresson); 35; 46-54
Okubara, P. A. C., Douglas R.; Kwak, Youn-sig; Skinner, Daniel Z.; 2010; Induction of defense gene homologues in wheat roots during interactions with Pseudomonas fluorescens; 55; 118-125
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Olson, D. M. C., A. M.; Rains, G. C.; Potter, T.; Lewis, W. Joe; 2009; Nitrogen and water affect direct and indirect plant systemic induced defense in cotton; 49; 239-244
Olson, H. A. B., D. Michael; 2007; Induced systemic resistance and the role of binucleate Rhizoctonia and Trichoderma hamatum 382 in biocontrol of Botrytis blight in geranium; 42; 233-241
Orre, G. U. S. W., S. D.; Jonsson, M.; Hale, R. J.; 2010; Effects of an herbivore-induced plant volatile on arthropods from three trophic levels in brassicas; 53; 62-67
Paine, T. D. H., C. C.; Byrne, F. J.; 2011; Potential risks of systemic imidacloprid to parasitoid natural enemies of a cerambycid attacking Eucalyptus; 56; 175-178
Pane, C. S., Riccardo; Piccolo, Alessandro; Scala, Felice; Bonanomi, Giuliano; 2011; Compost amendments enhance peat suppressiveness to Pythium ultimum, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia minor; 56; 115-124
Papachristos, D. P. M., Panagiotis G.; 2008; Adverse effects of soil applied insecticides on the predatory coccinellid Hippodamia undecimnotata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae); 47; 77-81
Park, K. S. K., Joseph W.; 2000; Activation of PR-1a Promoter by Rhizobacteria That Induce Systemic Resistance in Tobacco against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci; 18; 02-sept
Pavuk, D. M. S., Benjamin R.; 1992; Influence of weed communities in corn plantings on parasitism of Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by Eriborus terebrans (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae); 2; 312-316
Perazzolli, M. D., Silvia; Ferrari, Alessandro; Elad, Yigal; Pertot, Ilaria; 2008; Induction of systemic resistance against Plasmopara viticola in grapevine by Trichoderma harzianum T39 and benzothiadiazole; 47; 228-234
Perazzolli, M. R., Benedetta; Bozza, Elisa; Pertot, Ilaria; 2011; Trichoderma harzianum T39 induces resistance against downy mildew by priming for defense without costs for grapevine; 58; 74-82
Pereira, P. N., Andrea; Etcheverry, Miriam; 2007; Effects of biocontrol agents on Fusarium verticillioides count and fumonisin content in the maize agroecosystem: Impact on rhizospheric bacterial and fungal groups; 42; 281-287
Pfannenstiel, R. S. M., Bruce E.; Unruh, Thomas R.; 2012; Leafroller parasitism across an orchard landscape in central Washington and effect of neighboring rose habitats on parasitism; 62; 152-161
Pina, T. A., Poliane Sá; Urbaneja, Alberto; Jacas, Josep A.; 2012; Effect of pollen quality on the efficacy of two different life-style predatory mites against Tetranychus urticae in citrus; 61; 176-183
Poletti, M. M., A. H. N.; Omoto, C.; 2007; Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to Neoseiulus californicus and Phytoseiulus macropilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and their impact on functional response to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae); 40; 30-36
Porcel, M. C., B.; Campos, M.; 2011; Biological and behavioral effects of kaolin particle film on larvae and adults of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae); 59; 98-105
Powell, J. R. W., John M.; 2004; Interguild antagonism between biological controls: impact of entomopathogenic nematode application on an aphid predator, Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae); 30; 110-118
Prasad, R. P. S., W. E.; 2004; Predator interference limits fly egg biological control by a guild of ground-active beetles; 31; 428-437
Prasifka, J. R. K., Peter C.; Heinz, Kevin M.; Sansone, Christopher G.; Minzenmayer, Richard R.; 1999; Predator Conservation in Cotton: Using Grain Sorghum as a Source for Insect Predators; 16; 223-229
Prischmann, D. A. J., David G.; Wright, Lawrence C.; Teneyck, Roak D.; Snyder, William E.; 2005; Effects of chlorpyrifos and sulfur on spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their natural enemies; 33; 324-334
Pumariño, L. A., Oscar; 2012; The role of omnivory in the conservation of predators: Orius majusculus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) on sweet alyssum; 62; 24-28
Ramirez Ii, R. A. H., Donna R.; Riga, Ekaterini; Lacey, Lawrence A.; Snyder, William E.; 2009; Harmful effects of mustard bio-fumigants on entomopathogenic nematodes; 48; 147-154
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Rapusas, H. R. B., Dale G.; Coll, Moshe; 1996; Intraspecific Variation in Chemical Attraction of Rice to Insect Predators; 6; 394-400
Rebek, E. J. S., Clifford S.; Hanks, Lawrence M.; 2005; Manipulating the abundance of natural enemies in ornamental landscapes with floral resource plants; 33; 203-216
Rebek, E. J. S., Clifford S.; Hanks, Lawrence M.; 2006; Influence of floral resource plants on control of an armored scale pest by the parasitoid Encarsia citrina (Craw.) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae); 37; 320-328
Rehman, S. U. B., Harold W.; Nigg, Herbert N.; Harrison, Jay M.; 1999; Residual Effects of Carbaryl and Dicofol on Aphytis holoxanthus Debach (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae); 16; 252-257
Rehman, S. U. B., H. W.; Nigg, H. N.; Harrison, J. M.; 2000; Increases in Florida Red Scale Populations through Pesticidal Elimination of Aphytis holoxanthus Debach in Florida Citrus; 18; 87-93
Roberts, J. M. K. W., Andrew R.; Hoffmann, Ary A.; Umina, Paul A.; 2011; Does Bdellodes lapidaria (Acari: Bdellidae) have a role in biological control of the springtail pest, Sminthurus viridis (Collembola: Sminthuridae) in south-eastern Australia?; 58; 222-229
Rodriguez-Saona, C. K., Ian; Braasch, Joseph; Chinnasamy, Durairaj; Williams, Livy; 2011; Field responses of predaceous arthropods to methyl salicylate: A meta-analysis and case study in cranberries; 59; 294-303
Rogers, M. A. K., Vera A.; Martin, Luis A.; 2007; Effect of soil application of imidacloprid on survival of adult green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), used for biological control in greenhouse; 42; 172-177
Rostás, M. T., Ted C. J.; 2008; Induction of systemic acquired resistance in Zea mays also enhances the plant’s attractiveness to parasitoids; 46; 178-186
Ruiu, L. S., A.; Floris, I.; 2007; Susceptibility of the house fly pupal parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to the entomopathogenic bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis and Brevibacillus laterosporus; 43; 188-194
Ruiu, L. S., A.; Floris, I.; 2008; Effects of an azadirachtin-based formulation on the non-target muscoid fly parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae); 47; 66-70
Ruiz, L. F., Salvador; Cancino, Jorge; Arredondo, José; Valle, Javier; Díaz-Fleischer, Francisco; Williams, Trevor; 2008; Lethal and sublethal effects of spinosad-based GF-120 bait on the tephritid parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 44; 296-304
Sáenz-de-Cabezón Irigaray, F. J. Z., Frank G.; Thompson, Patricia B.; 2007; Residual toxicity of acaricides to Galendromus occidentalis and Phytoseiulus persimilis reproductive potential; 40; 153-159
Sanchez, J. A. G., David R.; McGregor, Robert R.; 2003; The effects of mullein plants (Verbascum thapsus) on the population dynamics of Dicyphus hesperus (Heteroptera: Miridae) in tomato greenhouses; 28; 313-319
Sanders, C. J. P., Judith K.; Poppy, Guy M.; Raybould, Alan; Garcia-Alonso, Monica; Schuler, Tanja H.; 2007; Host-plant mediated effects of transgenic maize on the insect parasitoid Campoletis sonorensis (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae); 40; 362-369
Sant'Ana, J. B., Roberto; Abdul-Baki, Aref A.; Aldrich, Jeffrey R.; 1997; Pheromone-Induced Movement of Nymphs of the Predator,Podisus maculiventris(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae); 10; 123-128
Sarfraz, R. M. D., L. M.; Keddie, B. A.; 2012; Influence of the herbivore host’s wild food plants on parasitism, survival and development of the parasitoid Diadegma insulare; 62; 38-44
Sarvary, M. A. N., Jan; Reissig, Harvey; Gifford, Kathleen M.; 2007; Potential for conservation biological control of the obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR) Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) in orchard systems managed with reduced-risk insecticides; 40; 37-47
Schneider, M. I. S., G.; Pineda, S.; Viñuela, E.; 2004; Action of insect growth regulator insecticides and spinosad on life history parameters and absorption in third-instar larvae of the endoparasitoid Hyposoter didymator; 31; 189-198
Shakya, S. W., Phyllis G.; Coll, Moshe; 2009; Effect of pollen supplement on intraguild predatory interactions between two omnivores: The importance of spatial dynamics; 50; 281-287
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Shanmugam, V. K., Nandina; 2011; Biological management of vascular wilt of tomato caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycospersici by plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial mixture; 57; 85-93
Sher, R. B. P., Michael P.; Kaya, Harry K.; 2000; Biological Control of the Leafminer Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess): Implications for Intraguild Predation between Diglyphus begini Ashmead and Steinernema carpocapsae (Weiser); 17; 155-163
Shi, J. L., Aiyuan; Li, Xueping; Feng, Shujie; Chen, Weixin; 2011; Inhibitory mechanisms induced by the endophytic bacterium MGY2 in controlling anthracnose of papaya; 56; 02-août
Siddiqui, Y. M., Sariah; Ismail, Razi; Rahmani, Mawardi; 2009; Bio-potential of compost tea from agro-waste to suppress Choanephora cucurbitarum L. the causal pathogen of wet rot of okra; 49; 38-44
Silva, H. S. A. R., Reginaldo da Silva; Macagnan, Dirceu; Halfeld-Vieira, Bernardo de Almeida; Pereira, Maria Cristina Baracat; Mounteer, Ann; 2004; Rhizobacterial induction of systemic resistance in tomato plants: non-specific protection and increase in enzyme activities; 29; 288-295
Simmons, A. T. G., Geoff M.; 2006; The effect on the biological control agent Mallada signata of trichomes of F1 Lycopersicon esculentum × L. cheesmanii f. minor and L. esculentum × L. pennellii hybrids; 38; 174-178
Singh, S. R. W., Keith F. A.; Port, Gordon R.; Northing, Phil; 2004; Consumption rates and predatory activity of adult and fourth instar larvae of the seven spot ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata (L.), following contact with dimethoate residue and contaminated prey in laboratory arenas; 30; 127-133
Singhai, P. K. S., B. K.; Srivastava, J. S.; 2011; Biological management of common scab of potato through Pseudomonas species and vermicompost; 57; 150-157
Sivinski, J. W., David; Holler, Tim; Dobai, Shoki Al; Sivinski, Robert; 2011; Conserving natural enemies with flowering plants: Estimating floral attractiveness to parasitic Hymenoptera and attraction’s relationship to flower and plant morphology; 58; 208-214
Smith, M. W. A., Don C.; Eikenbary, Raymond D.; Rice, Natasha R.; Shiferaw, Asrat; Cheary, Becky S.; Carroll, Becky L.; 1996; Influence of Ground Cover on Beneficial Arthropods in Pecan; 6; 164-176
Stavrinides, M. C. M., Nicholas J.; 2009; Demographic effects of pesticides on biological control of Pacific spider mite (Tetranychus pacificus) by the western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis); 48; 267-273
Stelinski, L. L. P.-S., K. S.; Liburd, O. E.; Gut, L. J.; 2006; Control strategies for Rhagoletis mendax disrupt host-finding and ovipositional capability of its parasitic wasp, Diachasma alloeum; 36; 91-99
Story, J. M. G., W. R.; White, L. J.; Smith, L.; 2000; Effects of the Interaction of the Biocontrol Agent Agapeta zoegana L. (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae) and Grass Competition on Spotted Knapweed; 17; 182-190
Stutz, S. E., Martin H.; 2011; Effects of the landscape context on aphid-ant-predator interactions on cherry trees; 57; 37-43
Sundaramoorthy, S. R., T.; Ragupathi, N.; Samiyappan, R.; 2012; Combinatorial effect of endophytic and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria against wilt disease of Capsicum annum L. caused by Fusarium solani; 60; 59-67
Sutherland, A. M. G., W. Douglas; Parrella, Michael P.; 2010; Effects of fungicides on a mycophagous coccinellid may represent integration failure in disease management; 54; 292-299
Szendrei, Z. W., Donald C.; 2009; Response of predators to habitat manipulation in potato fields; 50; 123-128
Takada, M. B. Y., Akira; Takagi, Shun; Iwabuchi, Shigeki; Washitani, Izumi; 2012; Multiple spatial scale factors affecting mirid bug abundance and damage level in organic rice paddies; 60; 169-174
Thomson, L. J. H., A. A.; 2006; Field validation of laboratory-derived IOBC toxicity ratings for natural enemies in commercial vineyards; 39; 507-515
Thomson, L. J. H., Ary A.; 2009; Vegetation increases the abundance of natural enemies in vineyards; 49; 259-269
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Thomson, L. J. H., Ary A.; 2010; Natural enemy responses and pest control: Importance of local vegetation; 52; 160-166
Thomson, L. J. M., Julia; Sharley, David J.; Nash, Michael A.; Tsitsilas, Angelos; Hoffmann, Ary A.; 2010; Effect of woody vegetation at the landscape scale on the abundance of natural enemies in Australian vineyards; 54; 248-254
Ting, A. S. Y. M., S. W.; Tee, C. S.; 2012; Evaluating the feasibility of induced host resistance by endophytic isolate Penicillium citrinum BTF08 as a control mechanism for Fusarium wilt in banana plantlets; 61; 155-159
Torres, J. B. R., John R.; 2006; Interactions of Bt-cotton and the omnivorous big-eyed bug Geocoris punctipes (Say), a key predator in cotton fields; 39; 47-57
Torres, R. T., N.; Usall, J.; Abadias, M.; Mir, N.; Larrigaudiere, C.; Viñas, I.; 2011; Anti-oxidant activity of oranges after infection with the pathogen Penicillium digitatum or treatment with the biocontrol agent Pantoea agglomerans CPA-2; 57; 103-109
Traugott, M. W., Sonja; Strasser, Hermann; 2005; Effects of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria brongniartii on the non-target predator Poecilus versicolor (Coleoptera: Carabidae); 33; 107-112
Trillas, M. I. C., Eva; Cotxarrera, Lurdes; Ordovás, José; Borrero, Celia; Avilés, Manuel; 2006; Composts from agricultural waste and the Trichoderma asperellum strain T-34 suppress Rhizoctonia solani in cucumber seedlings; 39; 32-38
Unruh, T. R. P., Robert S.; Peters, Catharine; Brunner, Jay F.; Jones, Vincent P.; 2012; Parasitism of leafrollers in Washington fruit orchards is enhanced by perimeter plantings of rose and strawberry; 62; 162-172
Vasiliauskas, R. L., V.; Thor, M.; Stenlid, J.; 2004; Impact of biological (Rotstop) and chemical (urea) treatments on fungal community structure in freshly cut Picea abies stumps; 31; 405-413
Vattala, H. D. W., S. D.; Phillips, C. B.; Wäckers, F. L.; 2006; The influence of flower morphology and nectar quality on the longevity of a parasitoid biological control agent; 39; 179-185
Velten, G. R., Anja S.; Cardona, César; Dorn, Silvia; 2007; Effects of a plant resistance protein on parasitism of the common bean bruchid Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) by its natural enemy Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae); 43; 78-84
Viji, G. U., W.; Romaine, C. P.; 2003; Suppression of gray leaf spot (blast) of perennial ryegrass turf by Pseudomonas aeruginosa from spent mushroom substrate; 26; 233-243
von Mérey, G. E. V., Nathalie; Lange, Elvira de; Degen, Thomas; Mahuku, George; Valdez, Raymundo López; Turlings, Ted C. J.; D’Alessandro, Marco; 2012; Minor effects of two elicitors of insect and pathogen resistance on volatile emissions and parasitism of Spodoptera frugiperda in Mexican maize fields; 60; juil-15
Wade, M. R. Z., Myron P.; Wratten, Steve D.; Robinson, Katherine A.; 2008; Conservation biological control of arthropods using artificial food sprays: Current status and future challenges; 45; 185-199
Walker, G. P. H., Tim J. B.; Kale, Alan J.; Wallace, Andrew R.; 2010; An adjustable action threshold using larval parasitism of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in IPM for processing tomatoes; 52; 30-36
Walker, M. K. S., M. A. W.; Wallace, A. R.; 2007; Indirect non-target effects of insecticides on Tasmanian brown lacewing (Micromus tasmaniae) from feeding on lettuce aphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri); 43; 31-40
Wang, X.-G. J., Ekhlass A.; McGraw, Benjamin K.; Bokonon-Ganta, Aimé H.; Messing, Russell H.; Johnson, Marshall W.; 2005; Effects of spinosad-based fruit fly bait GF-120 on tephritid fruit fly and aphid parasitoids; 35; 155-162
Wang, Y. L., Yunhe; Romeis, Jörg; Chen, Xiuping; Zhang, Jie; Chen, Hongyin; Peng, Yufa; 2012; Consumption of Bt rice pollen expressing Cry2Aa does not cause adverse effects on adult Chrysoperla sinica Tjeder (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae); 61; 246-251
Wehnert, M. M., Michael; 2012; ‘Allochthonous Kairomones’ in stands of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) – Approach for nature-based bark beetle management with clerid beetles (Thanasimus spp.); 62; 16-23
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Werling, B. P. H., Jason; Straub, Cory; Gratton, Claudio; 2012; Influence of native North American prairie grasses on predation of an insect herbivore of potato; 61; 15-25
Werling, B. P. M., Timothy D.; Gratton, Claudio; Landis, Douglas A.; 2011; Influence of habitat and landscape perenniality on insect natural enemies in three candidate biofuel crops; 59; 304-312
Williams Iii, L. P., Leslie D.; Manrique, Verónica; 2003; Toxicity of field-weathered insecticide residues to Anaphes iole (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), an egg parasitoid of Lygus lineolaris (Heteroptera: Miridae), and implications for inundative biological control in cotton; 26; 217-223
Winkler, K. W., Felix L.; Kaufman, Leyla V.; Larraz, Virginia; van Lenteren, Joop C.; 2009; Nectar exploitation by herbivores and their parasitoids is a function of flower species and relative humidity; 50; 299-306
Witting-Bissinger, B. E. O., D. B.; Linker, H. M.; 2008; Effects of floral resources on fitness of the parasitoids Trichogramma exiguum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) and Cotesia congregata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae); 47; 180-186
Xiao, Y. C., Jianjun; Cantliffe, Daniel; McKenzie, Cindy; Houben, Katherine; Osborne, Lance S.; 2011; Establishment of papaya banker plant system for parasitoid, Encarsia sophia (Hymenoptera: Aphilidae) against Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in greenhouse tomato production; 58; 239-247
Yogev, A. R., Michael; Hadar, Yitzhak; Cohen, Roni; Wolf, Shmuel; Gil, Lidor; Katan, Jaacov; 2010; Induced resistance as a putative component of compost suppressiveness; 54; 46-51
Youn, Y. N. S., M. J.; Shin, J. G.; Jang, C.; Yu, Y. M.; 2003; Toxicity of greenhouse pesticides to multicolored Asian lady beetles, Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae); 28; 164-170
Yu, T. Y., Chen; Lu, Huangping; Zunun, Mahbuba; Chen, Fangxia; Zhou, Tao; Sheng, Kuang; Zheng, Xiaodong; 2012; Effect of Cryptococcus laurentii and calcium chloride on control of Penicillium expansum and Botrytis cinerea infections in pear fruit; 61; 169-175
Zannou, I. D. H., Rachid; Agboton, Bonaventure; de Moraes, Gilberto José; Kreiter, Serge; Phiri, George; Jone, Abu; 2007; Native phytoseiid mites as indicators of non-target effects of the introduction of Typhlodromalus aripo for the biological control of cassava green mite in Africa; 41; 190-198
Zemková Rovenská, G. Z., Rostislav; Schmidt, Jörg E. U.; Hilbeck, Angelika; 2005; Altered host plant preference of Tetranychus urticae and prey preference of its predator Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on transgenic Cry3Bb-eggplants; 33; 293-300
Zhang, S. M., Anne-Laure; Reddy, M. S.; Kloepper, Joseph W.; 2002; The role of salicylic acid in induced systemic resistance elicited by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria against blue mold of tobacco; 25; 288-296
Zhang, S. S., David A.; Boehm, Michael J.; Slininger, Patricia J.; 2007; Utilization of chemical inducers of resistance and Cryptococcus flavescens OH 182.9 to reduce Fusarium head blight under greenhouse conditions; 42; 308-315
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Annex 6. Search terms and strings that will be used in Web of Science
#9 #8 AND #7 AND #4
#8 TS=((increas* OR decreas* OR declin* OR regulat* OR impact* OR variabilit* OR reduc* OR
effect* OR intensit* OR sustain* OR maintain* OR support* OR chang* OR enhanc* OR affect* OR
abundance) SAME (abundance OR "population size" OR presence OR "species richness" OR "species
diversity" OR biocontrol OR "pest control"))
#7 #6 OR #5
#6 TS=("Banker plant* system*" OR "companion vegetation*" OR "companion plant*" OR "Buffer
width*" OR "buffer zone*" OR corridor* OR "Field margin*" OR farmscaping OR "integrated
production" OR "repellent plant*" OR "Spatial arrangement*" OR "set-aside" OR "set aside" OR
refuge OR Compost* OR "integrated crop management" OR "crop system" OR groundcover OR
"flowering borders" OR interplanting)
#5 TS=("Companion crop*" OR "Farming system*" OR grassland* OR "Border effect*" OR "forest
border*" OR Intercropping OR "crop management" OR "cropping system*" OR "crop establishment"
OR habitat* OR territory OR biotope* OR hedge* OR Landscape* OR "land use" OR fallow OR strip*
OR "linear plantation*" OR shelterbelt* OR "ground cover" OR "trap crop*" OR Tillage OR
"agricultural land" OR "interspecific competition" OR grazing OR "cultural control")
;
#4 #1 OR #2 OR #3
#3 TS=(Acalitus OR Acanthoscelides OR AcidiaOR Aclypea OR Acrolepiopsis OR Aculops OR Aculus OR
Acyrthosiphon OR Adoxophyes OR Aegeria OR Aglaope OR Agriotes OR Agromyza OR Agrotis OR
Aleurolobus OR Aleurothrixus OR Anarsia OR Anthonomus OR Aonidiella OR Aphanostigma OR
Aphelenchoides OR Aphelenchus OR Aphidula OR Aphis OR Apion OR Apodemus OR Arammichnus
Archips OR Argyrotaenia OR Arion OR Aspidiotus OR Athalia OR Atomaria OR Aulacaspis OR
Aulacorthum OR Autographa OR Bemisia OR Blaniulus OR Blitophaga OR Brachycaudus OR
Brachycorynella OR Brevicoryne OR Bruchus OR Byturus OR Cacoecia OR Cacopsylla OR
Calepitrimerus OR Capitophorus OR Capnodis OR Capua OR Carduelis OR Cecidophyes OR
Cecidophyopsis OR Ceratitis OR Ceroplastes OR Ceuthorhynchus OR Chaetosiphon OR Chromaphis
OR Chrysomphalus OR Cirphis OR Clysia OR Cnephasia OR Coenorhinus OR Colaspidema OR
Coleophora Colomerus Columba OR Conorhynchus OR Contarinia OR Coroebus OR Corvus OR
Corylobium OR Cossus OR Crioceris OR Cryptomyzus OR Curculio OR Cydia OR Dactylosphaera OR
Dacus OR Dasineura OR Delia OR Deroceras OR Dialeurodes OR Ditylenchus OR Dysaphis OR
Dysaulacorthum OR Empoasca OR Eotetranychus OR Epidiaspis OR Eriophyes OR Eriosoma OR
Eulecanium OR Euparypha OR Euphyllura OR Eupoecilia OR Eurydema OR Euxoa OR Euzophera OR
Forficula OR Frankliniella OR Fringilla OR Geoktapia OR Globodera OR Gortyna OR Grapholitha OR
Gryllotalpa OR Gymnoscelis OR Haltica OR Haplodiplosis OR Haplothrips OR Hapsidolema OR
Harpalus OR Hedya OR Helicoverpa OR Heliothis OR Helix OR Heterodera OR Homoeosoma OR
Hoplocampa OR Hyalopterus OR Hylemyia OR Hypera OR Hyperomyzus OR Hypoborus OR
Hyponomeuta OR Icerya OR Jacobiasca OR Kakothrips OR Korscheltellus OR Laspeyresia OR
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Lepidosaphes OR Leptinotarsa OR Leptohylemyia OR Lepus OR Leucoptera OR Limothrips OR
Liothrips OR Liriomyza OR Lobesia OR Lycophotia OR Lyonetia OR Macrosiphum OR Mamestra OR
Melanaphis OR Melanchra OR Meligethes OR Meloidogyne OR Melolontha OR Metatetranychus OR
Metopolophium OR Metriochroa OR Micractis OR Microtus OR Monostira OR Mythimna OR
Mytilococcus OR Myzocallis OR Myzus OR Nasonovia OR Oberea OR Oecophyllembius OR
Operophtera OR Ophiomyia OR Ophonus OR Oryctolagus OR Oscinella OR Ostrinia OR Otiorhynchus
OR Oulema OR Palomena OR Palpita OR Pammene OR Pandemis OR Panonychus OR Parahypopta OR
Parus OR Passer OR Passerinia OR Pegomyia OR Pemphigus OR Peribatodes OR Phasianus OR
Philophylla OR Phloeotribus OR Phorbia OR Phorodon OR Phthorimaea OR Phyllocoptes OR
Phyllonorycter OR Phyllotreta OR Phytocoptella OR Phytometra OR Phytonemus OR Phytonomus OR
Phytoptus OR Pica OR Pieris OR Platyparea OR Plutella OR Polia OR Polyphylla OR Pratylenchus OR
Prays OR Prolasioptera OR Protrama OR Pseudaulacaspis OR Psila OR Psylliodes OR Pyrrhula OR
Quadraspidiotus OR Radopholus OR Resseliella OR Rhagoletis OR Rhopalosiphum OR Rhynchites OR
Ruguloscolytus OR Saissetia OR Scaphoideus OR Scotia OR Scrobipalpa OR Scutigerella OR Sesamia
OR Sitobion OR Sitodiplosis OR Sitona OR Sparganothis OR Spilonota OR Spodoptera OR Stephanitis
OR Stigmella OR Sturnus OR Sus OR Synanthedon OR Talpa OR Tetranychus OR Thrips OR Tipula OR
Toxoptera OR Trialeurodes OR Trichodorus OR Tylenchulus OR Vasates OR Vespa OR Vesperus OR
Vespula OR Viteus OR Xiphinema OR Xyleborus OR Yponomeuta OR Zabrus OR Zeuzera OR Zophodia)
#2 TS=("predatory insect*" OR "predatory arthropod*" OR "predatory bird*" OR "predatory mite*"
OR "natural enem*" OR predator* OR "BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT*" OR PEST* OR "predator prey
relationship*")
#1 TS=(parasitoid* OR bacteri* OR Nematod* OR fung* OR virus* OR insect* OR bird* or arthropod*
or mites)
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control
Annex 7. List of organization contacted to collect grey literature and non academic knowledge
A. In France, Strategic Orientation Council of FRB
KNEU WP3 – Pesticides, landscape and habitat management, and ecosystem services for natural pest control