Providing evidence to improve practice
Collected Evidence: Individual Study: 'Beetle banks' as refuges for beneficial arthropods in farmland: long-term changes in predator communities and habitatIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F2835http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F2835Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:15:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Assessing the value of beetle banks for enhancing farmland biodiversityIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F3036http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F3036Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:15:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nematodes are involved in negative feedback on a dual culture of alfalfa and Russian wildryeIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4077http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4077Wed, 29 May 2013 14:04:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A study of the pest status and control of maize stem borers on the Niassa Plateau, MozambiqueIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4098http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4098Wed, 29 May 2013 14:04:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A comparison of four processing tomato production systems differing in cover crop and chemical inputsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4095http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4095Wed, 29 May 2013 14:04:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Alfalfa harvest strategy effect on lygus bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) and insect predator population density: implications for use as trap crop in cottonIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4112http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4112Wed, 29 May 2013 14:04:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Adult monitoring improves control of the flavescence doree leafhopper Scaphoideus titanus in Gironde (France) while using less pesticide!Individual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4116http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4116Wed, 29 May 2013 14:19:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: An adjustable action threshold using larval parasitism of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in IPM for processing tomatoesIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4196http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4196Wed, 29 May 2013 14:20:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Convert to organic farmingThis synopsis includes experimental tests of organic farming only. Comparative studies of existing organic systems are not included. Parasitism and mortality (caused by natural enemies): One of five studies (three replicated, controlled tests and two also randomised) from Europe, North America, Asia and Australasia found that organic farming increased parasitism or natural enemy-induced mortality of pests. Two studies found mixed effects of organic farming and two randomised, replicated, controlled studies found no effect. Natural enemies: Eight of 12 studies (including six randomised, replicated, controlled tests) from Europe, North America Asia and Australasia found more natural enemies under organic farming, although seven of these found effects varied over time or between natural enemy species or groups and/or crops or management practices. Three studies (one randomised, replicated, controlled) found no or inconsistent effects on natural enemies and one study found a negative effect. Pests and diseases: One of eight studies (including five randomised, replicated, controlled tests) found that organic farming reduced pests or disease, but two studies found more pests. Three studies found mixed effects and two studies found no effect. Crop damage: One of seven studies (including five randomised, replicated, controlled tests) found less crop damage in organic fields but two studies found more. One study found a mixed response and three studies found no or inconsistent effects. Weed seed predation and weed abundance: One randomised, replicated, controlled study from the USA found mixed effects of organic farming on weed seed predation by natural enemies. Three randomised, replicated, controlled studies from the USA found more weeds in organically farmed fields, but in one of these studies this effect varied between crops and years. One study found no effect. Yield and profit: Six randomised, replicated, controlled studies measured yields and found one positive effect, one negative effect and one mixed effect, plus no or inconsistent effects in three studies. One study found net profit increased if produce received a premium, but otherwise profit decreased. Another study found a negative or no effect on profit.   Crops studied were apple, barley, beans, cabbage, carrot, gourd, maize, mixed vegetables, pea, pepper, safflower, soybean, tomato and wheat.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F717http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F717Thu, 30 May 2013 09:37:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow natural regeneration of ground cover beneath perennial cropsNatural enemies on crop trees and vines: Five studies (including one replicated, randomised, controlled test) from Australia, China, Italy and Portugal compared natural and bare ground covers by measuring numbers of natural enemies in fruit tree or vine canopies. Three found effects varied between groups of natural enemies, two found no difference. Two studies from Australia and France compared natural to sown ground cover and found no effect on enemies in crop canopies. Natural enemies on the ground: Five studies (including three replicated, randomised, controlled trials) from Australia, Canada, China, France, and Spain compared natural and bare ground covers by measuring natural enemies on the ground. Two studies found more natural enemies in natural ground cover, but in one the effects were only short-term for most natural enemy groups. Three studies found mixed effects, with higher numbers of some natural enemy groups but not others. Two studies compared natural and sown ground covers, one study found more natural enemies and one found no effect. Pests and crop damage: Four studies (three controlled, one also replicated and randomised) from Italy, Australia and China measured pests and crop damage in regenerated and bare ground covers. Two studies found fewer pests, whilst two studies found effects on pests and crop damage varied for different pest or disease groups. One study found more pests in natural than in sown ground covers. Crops studied were apple, grape, lemon, olive and pear.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F720http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F720Thu, 30 May 2013 11:41:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Grow plants that compete with damaging weedsWeed weight and cover: Nine studies from Australia, Slovakia, the UK and the USA tested the effects of planting species to compete with weeds. All (including four replicated, randomised, controlled trials) found reduced weed plant weight or ground cover, although two found this only in some years or conditions. Weed reproduction and survival: Five studies (including three replicated, randomised, controlled trials) also found that competition reduced weed reproduction, survival or both. One of these found an effect only in one year only. Crops studied were clovers, fescues, ryegrass, other grasses and turnip.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F722http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F722Thu, 30 May 2013 12:00:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Alter the timing of insecticide useNatural enemies: One controlled study from the UK reported more natural enemies when insecticides were sprayed earlier rather than later in the growing season. Pests: Two of four studies from Mozambique, the UK and the USA found fewer pests or less disease damage when insecticides were applied early rather than late. Effects on a disease-carrying pest varied with insecticide type. Two studies (one a randomised, replicated, controlled test) found no effect on pests or pest damage. Yield: Four studies (including one randomised, replicated, controlled test) from Mozambique, the Philippines, the UK and the USA measured yields. Two studies found mixed effects and one study found no effect on yield when insecticides were applied early. One study found higher yields when insecticides were applied at times of suspected crop susceptibility.Profit and costs: One controlled study from the Philippines found higher profits and similar costs when insecticides were only applied at times of suspected crop susceptibility. Crops studied were aubergine, barley, maize, pear and stringbean.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F723http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F723Thu, 30 May 2013 12:36:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Grow non-crop plants that produce chemicals that attract natural enemiesNatural enemies: Four studies from China, Germany, India and Kenya tested the effects of growing plants that produce chemicals that attract natural enemies. Three (including one replicated, randomised, controlled trail) found higher numbers of natural enemies in plots with plants that produce attractive chemicals, and one found that the attractive plant also attracted natural enemies in lab studies. One found no effect on parasitism but the plant used was found not to be attractive to natural enemies in lab studies. Pests: All four studies found a decrease in either pest population or pest damage in plots with plants that produce chemicals that attract natural enemies. Yield: One replicated, randomised, controlled study found an increase in crop yield in plots with plants that produce attractive chemicals. Crops studied were lettuce, orange, safflower and sorghum.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F724http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F724Thu, 30 May 2013 13:11:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grasslandNatural enemy abundance: One replicated, randomised, controlled study found fewer predatory spiders with delayed cutting. Three studies from the UK (two of them replicated, randomised and controlled) found no change in insect predator numbers and one replicated study from Sweden found mixed effects between different predator groups. Natural enemy diversity: One replicated study from Sweden found a decrease in ant diversity with delayed cutting and one replicated, randomised, controlled study from the UK found no effect on spider and beetle diversity. Pests: One of two replicated, randomised, controlled studies from the UK and USA found more pest insects in late-cut plots and one found no effect. Insects in general: Four replicated, randomised, controlled studies measured the abundance of insect groups without classifying them as pests or natural enemies. One UK study found lower numbers in late-cut plots, while two found effects varied between groups. Two studies from the UK and USA found no effect on insect numbers. Crops studied were barley, bird’s-foot trefoil, clovers, fescues, rapeseed, ryegrass, other grasses and wheat.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F727http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F727Thu, 30 May 2013 13:34:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banksNatural enemies in fields: Six studies from Canada, the UK and USA (three replicated, controlled, of which two were also randomised) examined the effects on predator numbers in adjacent crops. A review found that predators increased in adjacent crops, but one study found effects varied with time and another found no effect. Two studies found small or slow movements of predators from banks to crops. One study found greater beetle activity in fields but this did not improve pest predation. Natural enemies on banks: Four studies and a review found more invertebrate predators on beetle banks than in surrounding crops, but one of these found that effects varied with time. Eight studies from the UK and USA (including two randomised, replicated, controlled trials and two reviews) compared numbers of predatory invertebrates on beetle banks with other refuge habitats. Two studies found more natural enemies on beetle banks, but one of these found only seasonal effects. One review found similar or higher numbers of predators on beetle banks and four studies found similar or lower numbers. Pests: A replicated, randomised study and a review found the largest pest reductions in areas closest to a beetle bank or on the beetle bank itself. One review found fewer pests in fields with than without a beetle bank. Economics: One replicated, randomised, controlled trial and a review showed that beetle banks could make economic savings if they prevented pests from reaching a spray threshold or causing 5% yield loss. Beetle bank design: Two studies from the UK found certain grass species held higher numbers of predatory invertebrates than others. Crops studied were barley, field bean, maize, oats, pea, radish, rapeseed, soybean, wheat and pasture.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F729http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F729Thu, 30 May 2013 14:45:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Alternative soil and pest management practices for sustainable production of fresh-market cabbageIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5200http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5200Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:25:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull systemParasitism: Two randomised, replicated, controlled studies from Kenya found that push-pull cropping systems increased parasitism of stem borer larvae. One of the studies found no effect on egg parasitism. Natural enemies: Two randomised, replicated, controlled studies from Kenya and South Africa found push-pull systems had more natural predators, both in overall totals and the abundance of different predator groups. Pests: Two of three studies (two randomised, replicated, controlled) in Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa found fewer pests. One study found no effect on pest infestation, but pests were scarce throughout. Two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomised) found fewer witchweeds. Crop damage: Two of three replicated, controlled studies (one also randomised) found less pest damage, but one study (where pest numbers were low) found effects varied between years and types of damage symptom. Yield: Four of five replicated, controlled studies (two also randomised) found higher yields and one found no effect. Profit and cost: Two studies in Kenya and a review found greater economic benefits. One study found higher production costs in the first year, but equal or lower costs in the following five years. Crops studied were maize and beans.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F753http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F753Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:41:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Delay herbicide useNatural enemies: Two randomised, replicated, controlled trials from Australia and Denmark found more natural enemies when herbicide treatments were delayed. One of the studies found some but not all natural enemy groups benefited and fewer groups benefitted early in the season. Weeds: One randomised, replicated, controlled study found more weeds when herbicide treatments were delayed. Insect pests and damage: One of two randomised, replicated, controlled studies from Canada and Denmark found more insect pests, but only for some pest groups, and one study found fewer pests in one of two experiments and for one of two crop varieties. One study found lower crop damage in some but not all varieties and study years. Yield: One randomised, replicated, controlled study found lower yields and one study found no effect. Crops studied were beet and oilseed.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F774http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F774Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:05:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Argentine ant management in cherimoyasIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5279http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5279Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:08:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude ants that protect pestsParasitism: One of two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomised) from Japan and the USA found greater parasitism of pests by natural enemies when ants were excluded from trees. The other study found greater parasitism at one site but no effect at another. Natural enemies: Five studies (including four randomised, replicated, controlled trials) from Japan, Switzerland and the USA found effects varied between natural enemy species and groups, sampling dates, sites, crop varieties and ground cover types beneath trees. Pests: Three of seven studies (including four randomised, replicated, controlled trials) found fewer pests and another found fewer pests at times of peak abundance only. One study found mixed effects depending on date and other actions taken simultaneously (predator attractant and ground cover treatments). One study found no effect. Damage and tree growth: One study found no effect on damage to tree foliage but one study found greater tree growth. Ants: Six studies found that glue or pesticide barriers reduced ant numbers in tree or vine canopies. One study found that citrus oil barriers had no effect. Crops studied were cherimoyas, cherry, grape, grapefruit, orange, pecan and satsuma mandarin.Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F886http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F886Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:13:44 +0100