Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-hb754 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T17:24:08.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of organic transition systems on beneficial ground-dwelling arthropods and predation of insects and weed seeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2007

Jonathan G. Lundgren*
Center for Ecological Entomology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 1618 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
John T. Shaw
Center for Ecological Entomology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 1618 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
Edmond R. Zaborski
Center for Ecological Entomology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 1618 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
Catherine E. Eastman
Center for Ecological Entomology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 1618 South Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
*Corresponding author:


The influence of farm management practices on ground-dwelling natural enemy communities and predation of insects and weed seeds was investigated over the first 2 years of the transition from conventional to organic production. Three transition strategies were selected that differed in their management and input intensities, and were characteristic of pasture/ley systems (low intensity), cash grain systems (intermediate intensity), and vegetable production (high intensity). Beneficial arthropods (insectivores and granivores) were monitored using pitfall (arthropod activity) and quadrat (arthropod density) samples. The frequency of predation on restrained larvae of Galleria mellonella and the species observed feeding were recorded. Weekly removal rates of weed seeds representative of abundant species at our site were monitored over a 3-week period during fall. Management intensity affected the activity and abundance of biological control agents. In year two of the transition, biological control agent densities were higher in the low-intensity treatment than in the other two treatments, but activity of insectivores and granivores was reduced in this treatment relative to the higher intensity systems. The patterns in the abundances of biological control agents may be explained by habitat stability within the different cropping systems. Quadrat samples were strongly correlated with the insectivory index, although pitfall samples were not. Insectivory rates were highest (>80% of G. mellonella larvae) in the low-intensity treatment. Predation patterns over a 17-h period differed substantially among the management treatments, indicating behaviorally distinct insectivore communities. Seed removal was also highest in the low-intensity treatment. We conclude that low-intensity cropping systems are most favorable to the abundance and function of beneficial ground-dwelling arthropod communities (insectivores and granivores) during the transition process.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 Thiele, H.U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. Zoophysiology and Ecology. Vol. 10. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. p. 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Kromp, B. 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74:187228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Hance, T. 2002. Impact of cultivation and crop husbandry practices. In Holland, J.M. (ed.). The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Intercept Ltd, Andover, UK. p. 231249.Google Scholar
4 Döring, T.F. and Kromp, B. 2003. Which carabid beetles benefit from organic agriculture?—a review of comparative studies in winter cereals from Germany and Switzerland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98:153161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Anderson, A. 1999. Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. II. Pest and beneficial insects. Crop Protection 18:651657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Tooley, J. and Brust, G.E. 2002. Weed seed predation by carabid beetles. In Holland, J.M. (ed.). The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Intercept Ltd, Andover, UK. p. 215230.Google Scholar
7 Brust, G.E., Stinner, B.R., and McCartney, D.A. 1985. Tillage and soil insecticide effects on predator–black cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) interactions in corn agroecosystems. Journal of Economic Entomology 78:13891392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Holland, J.M. and Luff, M.L. 2000. The effects of agricultural practices on Carabidae in temperate agroecosystems. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5:109129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Baguette, M. and Hance, T. 1997. Carabid beetles and agricultural practices: influence of soil ploughing. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 15:269277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Cromar, H.E., Murphy, S.D., and Swanton, C.J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Science 47:184194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Purvis, G. and Curry, J.P. 1984. The influence of weeds and farmyard manure on the activity of Carabidae and other ground-dwelling arthropods in a sugar beet crop. Journal of Applied Ecology 21:271283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Reichert, S.E. and Bishop, L. 1990. Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: spiders in garden test systems. Ecology 71:14411450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Booij, K. 1994. Diversity pattern assemblages in relation to crops and farming systems. In Desender, K., Dufrene, M., Moreau, M., Luff, M.L. and Maelfeit, J.P. (eds). Carabid Beetles, Ecology and Evolution. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. p. 425431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Ellsbury, M.M., Powell, J.E., Forcella, F., Woodson, W.D., Clay, S.A., and Riedell, W.E. 1998. Diversity and dominant species of ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in crop rotation and chemical input systems for the Northern Great Plains. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91:619625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Brust, G.E., Stinner, B.R., and McCartney, D.A. 1986. Predator activity and predation in corn agroecosystems. Environmental Entomology 15:10171021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Honěk, A., Martinkova, Z., and Jarošík, V. 2003. Ground beetles (Carabidae) as seed predators. European Journal of Entomology 100:531544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Weinzierl, R. and Cloyd, R.A. 2004. Insect pest management for commercial vegetable crops. In Bissonnette, S. (ed.). 2004 Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 36 p.Google Scholar
18 Spence, J.P. and Niemelä, J.K. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Canadian Entomologist 126:881894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 SYSTAT Software. 2004. SYSTAT 11. SYSTAT Software, Inc. Richmond, CA.Google Scholar
20 Methven, K.R., Jeffords, M.R., Weinzierl, R.A., and McGiffen, K.C. 1995. How to collect and preserve insects. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 17, p. 76.Google Scholar
21 Frank, S.D. and Shrewsbury, P.M. 2004. Effect of conservation strips on the abundance and distribution of natural enemies and predation on Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on golf course fairways. Environmental Entomology 33:16621672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Forcella, F., Wilson, R.G., Renner, K.A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R.G., Alm, D.A., Buhler, D.D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U. S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and applications. Weed Science 40:636644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Cardina, J., Norquay, H.M., Stinner, B.R., and McCartney, D.A. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Science 44:534539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Brust, G.E. and House, G.J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3:1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Desender, K. and Maelfait, J.P. 1986. Pitfall trapping within enclosures: a method for estimating the relationship between the abundances of coexisting carabid species (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Holarctic Ecology 9:245250.Google Scholar
26 Adis, J. 1979. Problems of interpreting arthropod sampling with pitfall traps. Zoologischer Anzeiger 202:177184.Google Scholar
27 Greenslade, P.J.M. 1964. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology 33:301310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Niemelä, J., Halme, E., and Haila, Y. 1990. Balancing sampling effort in pitfall trapping of carabid beetles. Entomologica Fennica 1:233238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Clark, M.S., Luna, J.M., Stone, N.D., and Youngman, R.R. 1994. Generalist predator consumption of armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and effect of predator removal on damage in no-till corn. Environmental Entomology 23:617622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Cárcamo, H.A. and Spence, J.R. 1994. Crop type effects on the activity and distribution of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Environmental Entomology 23:684692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Janzen, D.H. 1971. Seed predation by animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2:465492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Pausch, R.D. and Pausch, L.M. 1980. Observations on the biology of the slender seedcorn beetle, Clivina impressifrons (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Great Lakes Entomologist 13:189194.Google Scholar
33 Larochelle, A. 1990. The food of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae, including Cicindelinae). Fabreries, Supplement 5:1132.Google Scholar
34 Allen, R.T. 1979. The occurrence and importance of ground beetles in agricultural and surrounding habitats. In Erwin, T.L., Ball, G.E., Whitehead, D.R., and Halpern, A.L. (eds). Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands. p. 485506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Johnson, N.E. and Cameron, R.S. 1969. Phytophagous ground beetles. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 62:909914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Forbes, S.F. 1881. Notes on insectivorous Coleoptera. Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History 1(3):153160.Google Scholar
37 Lundgren, J.G. 2005. Ground beetles as weed control agents: effects of farm management on granivory. American Entomologist 51(4):224226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Hagley, E.A.C., Holliday, N.J., and Barber, D.R. 1982. Laboratory studies of the food preferences of some orchard carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Canadian Entomologist 114:431437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Lindroth, C.H. 1961–9. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska, Parts 1–6. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 20, 24, 29, 33, 34 and 35:1192.Google Scholar
40 Forbes, S.F. 1883. The food relations of the Carabidae and Coccinellidae. Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History 3:3364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Kirk, V.M. 1973. Biology of a ground beetle, Harpalus pensylvanicus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 66: 513518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Kirk, V.M. 1972. Seed-caching by larvae of two ground beetles, Harpalus pensylvanicus and H. erraticus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 65:14261428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Best, R.L. and Beegle, C.C. 1977. Food preferences of five species of carabids commonly found in Iowa cornfields. Environmental Entomology 6:912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Chiverton, P.A. and Sotherton, N.W. 1991. The effects on beneficial arthropods of the exclusion of herbicides from cereal crop edges. Journal of Applied Ecology 28:10271039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Pausch, R.D. 1979. Observations on the biology of the seed corn beetles, Stenolophus comma and Stenolophus lecontei. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 72:151152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Carmona, D.M., Menalled, F.D., and Landis, D.A. 1999. Northern field cricket, Gryllus pennsylvanicus Burmeister (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): laboratory weed seed predation and within field activity-density. Journal of Economic Entomology 92:825829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar