Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The impact of field margins on biological pest ...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The impact of field margins on biological pest control: a meta‑analysis

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The impact of field margins on biological pest control: a meta‑analysis. / Crowther, Lucy; Wilson, Kenneth; Wilby, Andy.
In: BioControl, Vol. 68, No. 4, 30.08.2023, p. 387-396.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Crowther L, Wilson K, Wilby A. The impact of field margins on biological pest control: a meta‑analysis. BioControl. 2023 Aug 30;68(4):387-396. Epub 2023 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s10526-023-10205-6

Author

Crowther, Lucy ; Wilson, Kenneth ; Wilby, Andy. / The impact of field margins on biological pest control : a meta‑analysis. In: BioControl. 2023 ; Vol. 68, No. 4. pp. 387-396.

Bibtex

@article{baf0eec249ea4b23813f9b52085219be,
title = "The impact of field margins on biological pest control: a meta‑analysis",
abstract = "Floral field margins are known to benefit invertebrate species diversity and abundance within agricultural landscapes, but variation in success limits widespread uptake. Understanding how variation within floral field margins can affect certain entomological groupings is lacking but would allow for a more individualised design of margins to enhance biological control. This meta-analysis aims to answer the question; do floral field margins benefit biological pest control over grassy field margins? We found that floral margins significantly benefit the natural enemy community and biological control services, relative to non-floral grass margins. We confirm that field mar-gin type is linked to higher abundance and diversity of natural enemies, lower numbers of herbivorous invertebrate pests, and reduced crop damage. We consider whether specific characterisations of natural enemies and pest communities vary between these margin types, finding key differences in the abundances of aerial and epigeal enemies, the diversity of parasitoid and predatory enemies and pest abundances found in naturally regenerating and sown floral field margins. The finding here cements the implementation of floral field margins as a legitimate control method for crop pests in the face of losses due to pesticides and high-lights design and management considerations for the success of floral margins.",
keywords = "Biological control, Floral field margins, Natural enemies, Ecosystem service, Natural regeneration",
author = "Lucy Crowther and Kenneth Wilson and Andy Wilby",
year = "2023",
month = aug,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1007/s10526-023-10205-6",
language = "English",
volume = "68",
pages = "387--396",
journal = "BioControl",
issn = "1386-6141",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of field margins on biological pest control

T2 - a meta‑analysis

AU - Crowther, Lucy

AU - Wilson, Kenneth

AU - Wilby, Andy

PY - 2023/8/30

Y1 - 2023/8/30

N2 - Floral field margins are known to benefit invertebrate species diversity and abundance within agricultural landscapes, but variation in success limits widespread uptake. Understanding how variation within floral field margins can affect certain entomological groupings is lacking but would allow for a more individualised design of margins to enhance biological control. This meta-analysis aims to answer the question; do floral field margins benefit biological pest control over grassy field margins? We found that floral margins significantly benefit the natural enemy community and biological control services, relative to non-floral grass margins. We confirm that field mar-gin type is linked to higher abundance and diversity of natural enemies, lower numbers of herbivorous invertebrate pests, and reduced crop damage. We consider whether specific characterisations of natural enemies and pest communities vary between these margin types, finding key differences in the abundances of aerial and epigeal enemies, the diversity of parasitoid and predatory enemies and pest abundances found in naturally regenerating and sown floral field margins. The finding here cements the implementation of floral field margins as a legitimate control method for crop pests in the face of losses due to pesticides and high-lights design and management considerations for the success of floral margins.

AB - Floral field margins are known to benefit invertebrate species diversity and abundance within agricultural landscapes, but variation in success limits widespread uptake. Understanding how variation within floral field margins can affect certain entomological groupings is lacking but would allow for a more individualised design of margins to enhance biological control. This meta-analysis aims to answer the question; do floral field margins benefit biological pest control over grassy field margins? We found that floral margins significantly benefit the natural enemy community and biological control services, relative to non-floral grass margins. We confirm that field mar-gin type is linked to higher abundance and diversity of natural enemies, lower numbers of herbivorous invertebrate pests, and reduced crop damage. We consider whether specific characterisations of natural enemies and pest communities vary between these margin types, finding key differences in the abundances of aerial and epigeal enemies, the diversity of parasitoid and predatory enemies and pest abundances found in naturally regenerating and sown floral field margins. The finding here cements the implementation of floral field margins as a legitimate control method for crop pests in the face of losses due to pesticides and high-lights design and management considerations for the success of floral margins.

KW - Biological control

KW - Floral field margins

KW - Natural enemies

KW - Ecosystem service

KW - Natural regeneration

U2 - 10.1007/s10526-023-10205-6

DO - 10.1007/s10526-023-10205-6

M3 - Journal article

VL - 68

SP - 387

EP - 396

JO - BioControl

JF - BioControl

SN - 1386-6141

IS - 4

ER -