Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 24;10(1):7.
doi: 10.3390/biology10010007.

Effect of Weed Management on the Parasitoid Community in Mediterranean Vineyards

Möller Gabriella  1 , Keasar Tamar  2 , Shapira Idan  3   4 , Möller Daniella  1 , Ferrante Marco  5 , Segoli Michal  1
Affiliations

Effect of Weed Management on the Parasitoid Community in Mediterranean Vineyards

Möller Gabriella et al. Biology (Basel). .

Abstract

Enriching agroecosystems with non-crop vegetation is a popular strategy for conservation biocontrol. In vineyards, the effects of specific seeded or planted cover crops on natural enemies are well-studied, whereas conserving spontaneously developing weeds received less attention. We compared parasitoid communities between matched pairs of vineyard plots in northern Israel, differing in weed management practices: "herbicide", repeated herbicide applications vs. "ground cover", maintaining resident weeds and trimming them when needed. Using suction sampling, we assessed the parasitoids' abundance, richness, and composition during three grape-growing seasons. Ground cover plots had greater parasitoid abundances and cumulative species richness than herbicide-treated plots, possibly because of their higher vegetation cover and richness. Dominant parasitoid species varied in their magnitude and direction of response to weed management. Their responses seem to combine tracking of host distributions with attraction to additional vegetation-provided resources. Parasitoid community composition was mildly yet significantly influenced by weed management, while season, year, and habitat (weeds vs. vine) had stronger effects. Vineyard weeds thus support local biocontrol agents and provide additional previously demonstrated benefits (e.g., soil conservation, lower agrochemical exposure) but might also attract some crop pests. When the benefits outweigh this risk, weed conservation seems a promising step towards more sustainable agricultural management.

Keywords: community composition; conservation biological control; natural enemies; non-crop vegetation; parasitoids; vineyards; weed management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Top: Median vegetation cover scores (on a 1–5 scale) with their associated interquartile intervals, grouped by weed management treatment and season. Note that the 75% quartile line overlaps with the median in the ground cover treatment, while the 25% quartile line overlaps with the median in the herbicide treatment. Bottom: Mean ± SE plant species richness. ** Significant effect of treatment (p < 0.01) in a post-hoc test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean ± SE abundance of all parasitoids combined (a) and of the five dominant species in the suction samples from the grass (grey bars) and vine (white bars) habitats. (b) Anagrus sp.; (c) Lymaenon litoralis; (d) Telenomus sp.; (e) Oligosita sp.; (f) Ceranisus sp. * denotes a significant difference between treatments in Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean ± SE abundance of all parasitoids combined (a) and of the five dominant species in the suction samples from the grass (grey bars) and vine (white bars) habitats. (b) Anagrus sp.; (c) Lymaenon litoralis; (d) Telenomus sp.; (e) Oligosita sp.; (f) Ceranisus sp. * denotes a significant difference between treatments in Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean ± SE abundance of all parasitoids combined (a) and of the five dominant species in the suction samples from the grass (grey bars) and vine (white bars) habitats. (b) Anagrus sp.; (c) Lymaenon litoralis; (d) Telenomus sp.; (e) Oligosita sp.; (f) Ceranisus sp. * denotes a significant difference between treatments in Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean ±SE abundance of leafhoppers (a) and thrips (b) in the suction samples from the grass (grey bars) and vine (white bars) habitats. Asterisks denote significant differences between treatments in Tukey’s post-hoc tests (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).
Figure 4
Figure 4
The cumulative number of parasitoid species in the ground cover and herbicide plots, with associated 95% confidence intervals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barbosa P.A. Conservation Biological Control. Academic Press; San Diego, CA, USA: 1998.
    1. Begg G.S., Cook S.M., Dye R., Ferrante M., Franck P., Lavigne C., Lövei G.L., Mansion-Vaquie A., Pell J.K., Petit S. A functional overview of conservation biological control. Crop Prot. 2017;97:145–158. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.008. - DOI
    1. Mansion-Vaquié A., Ferrante M., Cook S., Pell J., Lövei G.L. Manipulating field margins to increase predation intensity in fields of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) J. Appl. Entomol. 2017;141:600–611. doi: 10.1111/jen.12385. - DOI
    1. Fiedler A.K., Landis D.A., Wratten S.D. Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: The role of habitat management. Biol. Cont. 2008;45:254–271. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.12.009. - DOI
    1. Hassan K., Pervin M., Mondal F., Mala M. Habitat management: A key option to enhance natural enemies of crop pest. Univ. J. Plant. Sci. 2016;4:50–57. doi: 10.13189/ujps.2016.040402. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources