Impact of Post-Harvest Management Practices in Corn (Zea mays L.) Fields on Arthropods in Subsequent Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) Plantings
- PMID: 36662021
- PMCID: PMC9861304
- DOI: 10.3390/insects14010093
Impact of Post-Harvest Management Practices in Corn (Zea mays L.) Fields on Arthropods in Subsequent Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) Plantings
Abstract
There is increased adoption of cover cropping and conservation tillage in the USA. Many farmers view these practices as methods for improving their soils. However, different cover cropping and tillage practices conducted post-harvest can have a disparate impact on arthropods within the subsequent cash crop. Field experiments were conducted during 2017 and 2018 at two experimental sites to examine the influences of different post-harvest practices following corn (Zea mays L.) harvest on pests and beneficials in subsequent soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plantings. Experimental treatments included: (1) tillage via chisel plow (CP), (2) no-tillage in which corn residue/stubble remained on the soil surface (CS), and (3) planting a cover crop into corn residue (CC) following corn harvest. Overall, insect herbivore abundance was greater in the CP treatment. Foliar predator numbers were similar among treatments or of greater abundance in CP. The activity density of epigeal insect predators varied according to site and feeding guild. However, spider activity density was greatest in CP. Stink bug egg mortality due to predation and parasitism varied among treatments. However, the percentage of stink bug eggs that hatched was greatest in the CC during both years. Findings suggest that post-harvest practices investigated during this study will have a similar influence on most epigeal and foliar arthropods in soybean.
Keywords: herbivore; natural enemies; parasitism; predation; stink bug; tillage.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Effect of tillage system on epigeal and foliar insect predation in an organic cropping system in Pennsylvania, USA.PLoS One. 2025 Jul 31;20(7):e0328896. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328896. eCollection 2025. PLoS One. 2025. PMID: 40743106 Free PMC article.
-
Tillage and crop residue effects on soil carbon and carbon dioxide emission in corn-soybean rotations.J Environ Qual. 2005 Mar-Apr;34(2):437-45. doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0437. J Environ Qual. 2005. PMID: 15758095
-
The stink bug Dichelops furcatus: a new pest of corn that emerges from soybean stubble.Pest Manag Sci. 2022 Jun;78(6):2113-2120. doi: 10.1002/ps.6821. Epub 2022 Feb 13. Pest Manag Sci. 2022. PMID: 35102678 Review.
-
Early-season plant cover supports more effective pest control than insecticide applications.Ecol Appl. 2022 Jul;32(5):e2598. doi: 10.1002/eap.2598. Epub 2022 May 30. Ecol Appl. 2022. PMID: 35343024
-
Integrating soil conservation practices and glyphosate-resistant crops: impacts on soil.Pest Manag Sci. 2008 Apr;64(4):457-69. doi: 10.1002/ps.1549. Pest Manag Sci. 2008. PMID: 18275105 Review.
References
-
- USDA, 2018. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. WASDEE-577, 10 May 2018. [(accessed on 15 May 2018)]. Available online: https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/tariff-conflict-change-value-f....
-
- van Ittersum M.K., Cassman K.G., Grassini P., Wolf J., Tittonell P., Hochman Z. Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—A review. Field Crops Res. 2013;143:4–17. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.009. - DOI
-
- Miller J.J., Schepers J.S., Shapiro C.A., Arneson N.J., Eskridge K.M., Oliveira M.C., Giesle L.J. Characterizing soybean vigor and productivity using multiple crop canopy sensor readings. Field Crops Res. 2018;216:22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.11.006. - DOI
-
- Oerke E. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006;144:31–43. doi: 10.1017/S0021859605005708. - DOI
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous