Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T15:08:34.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strip-intercropping canola with annual alfalfa improves biological control of Plutella xylostella (L.) and crop yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2017

Pejman Tajmiri ,
Seyed Ali Asghar Fathi ,
Ali Golizadeh  and
Gadir Nouri-Ganbalani
Pejman Tajmiri
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Seyed Ali Asghar Fathi*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Ali Golizadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Gadir Nouri-Ganbalani
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
*
*Email: saafathi@gmail.com, fathi@uma.ac.ir
Get access

Abstract

The population density of the diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.), the species diversity of its predators, parasitism on eggs, larvae and pupae, and associated yield of canola were evaluated in experimental plots where spring canola was grown either as a monoculture or strip-intercropped with annual alfalfa in the ratio of 3C:3A, 6C:3A and 9C:3A over a 2-year period. The egg density was significantly higher in monoculture than in intercrops. The highest and lowest densities of larvae and pupae of DBM were recorded in monoculture (2.9–3.2 larvae per plant and 1.14–1.20 pupae per plant) and intercrop 3C:3A (0.7–0.6 larvae per plant and 0.34–0.29 pupae per plant), respectively. Shannon diversity index (H') for species composition of the predators of DBM immature stages was lower in monoculture than in intercrops, and was similar amongst the three intercrops. Moreover, the percent parasitism for eggs, larvae and pupae was higher in intercrops than in monoculture. The dry seed weight loss was higher in monocrop (37.6–40.1%) compared to 3C:3A (7.9–8.6%), 6C:3A (19.5–21.4%) and 9C:3A (21.6–25.4%). Our results indicate that intercropping canola with annual alfalfa, especially in the ratio 3C:3A, can increase the species diversity, parasitism rates of DBM immature stages, and enhance the yield of canola. The implications of these findings, in relation to integrated pest management (IPM) in canola cropping systems, are discussed.

Keywords

Biodiversitydiamondback mothparasitism rateintegrated pest management
Type
Research Paper
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 208 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © icipe 2017 

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.)

References

Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I. and Ponti, L. (2009) Crop diversification strategies for pest regulation in IPM systems, pp. 116–130. In Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies (edited by Radcliffe, E. B., Hutchinson, W. D. and Cancelado, R. E.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Andow, D. A. (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 561–586.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2013) Agricultural Statistics; Volume I Crop Production (2013–2014). Bureau of Statistics and Information Technology (BSIT), Planning and Economical Division, Ministry of Jihad and Agriculture, Iran.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Diamondback moth – canola council of Canada. Available at: http://www.canolacouncil.org/canola-encyclopedia/insects/diamondback-moth.Google Scholar
Asare-Bediako, E., Addo-Quaye, A. A. and Mohammed, A. (2010) Control of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) on cabbage (Brassica oleracea var capitata) using intercropping with non-host crops. American Journal of Food Technology 5, 269–274.Google Scholar
Åsman, K., Ekbom, B. and Rämert, B. (2001) Effect of intercropping on oviposition and emigration behavior of the leek moth (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae) and the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environmental Entomology 30, 288–294.Google Scholar
Bei-Bienko, G. Y., Blagoveshchenskii, D. I., Chernova, O. A., Dantsing, E. M., Emilianov, A. F., Kerzhner, I. M., Loginova, M. M., Martinova, E. F., Shaposhnikov, G. K., Sharov, A. G., Spuris, Z. D., Yaczewski, T. L., Yakhontov, V. V. and Zhiltsoo, L. A. (1969) Keys to the Insects of the European USSR Volume 1 – Apterygota, Palaeoptera, Hemimetabola. Sue Lowell Natural History & Travel Books, UK. 1214 pp.Google Scholar
Brooks, S. J. and Barnard, P. C. (1990) The green lacewings of the world: A generic review (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology Series 59, 117–286.Google Scholar
Colley, M. R. and Luna, J. M. (2000) Relative attractiveness of potential beneficial insectary plants to aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Environmental Entomology 29, 1054–1059.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, E. B., Suárez, S. A., Lenardis, A. E. and Poggio, S. L. (2014) Intercropping sunflower and soybean in intensive farming systems: Evaluating yield advantage and effect on weed and insect assemblages. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 70–71, 47–52.Google Scholar
Fathi, S. A. A., Bozorg-Amirkalaee, M. and Sarfaraz, R. M. (2011) Preference and performance of Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) on canola cultivars. Journal of Pest Science 84, 41–47.Google Scholar
Fathi, S. A. A., Bozorg-Amirkalaee, M., Sarfraz, R. M. and Rafiee-Dastjerdi, H. (2012) Parasitism and developmental parameters of the parasitoid Diadegma majale (Gravenhorst) in control of Plutella xylostella (L.) on selected cultivars of canola. BioControl 57, 49–59.Google Scholar
Fujita, K., Ofosu-Budu, K.G. and Ogata, S. (1992) Biological nitrogen fixation in mixed legume–cereal cropping systems. Plant and Soil 141, 155–175.Google Scholar
Garratt, M. P. D., Wright, D. J. and Leather, S. R. (2011) The effects of farming system and fertilisers on pests and natural enemies: A synthesis of current research. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 141, 261–270.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. D. (1985) The Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) of America north of Mexico. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 93, 1–912.Google Scholar
Javaid, I., Saifudine, N., Tombolane, L. and Rafael, E. (2000) Efficacy of aqueous neem extracts in the control of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) on cabbage. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 20, 167–170.Google Scholar
Kahuthia-Gathu, R., Löhr, B. and Poehling, H. M. (2008) Development and reproductive potential of diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) on cultivated and wild crucifer species in Kenya. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 28, 19–29.Google Scholar
Leatemia, J. A. and Isman, M. B. (2004) Toxicity and antifeedant activity of crude seed extracts of Annona squamosa (Annonaceae) against lepidopteran pests and natural enemies. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 24, 150–158.Google Scholar
Liu, S. S., Wang, X. G., Guo, S. J., He, J. H. and Shi, Z.-H. (2000) Seasonal abundance of the parasitoid complex associated with the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in Hangzhou, China. Bulletin of Entomological Research 90, 221–231.Google Scholar
Liu, S.-S. and Jiang, L. (2003) Differential parasitism of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) larvae by the parasitoid Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on two host plant species. Bulletin of Entomological Research 93, 65–72.Google Scholar
Lubanga, U. K., Karungi, J., Kyamanywa, S. and Ekbom, B. (2012) Assessing the potential of trap cropping in the management of different insect taxa on white cabbage. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 32, 218–223.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 264 pp.Google Scholar
Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., Laurans, M., Makowski, D., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., Rapidel, B., de Tourdonnet, S. and Valantin-Morison, M. (2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: Concepts, tools and models: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 43–62. doi: doi:10.1051/agro:2007057.Google Scholar
Naseri, R., Kazemi, E., Mahmoodian, L., Mirzaei, A. and Soleymanifard, A. (2012) Study effects of different plant density on seed yield, oil and protein content of four canola cultivars in western Iran. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Science 4, 70–78.Google Scholar
Odhiambo, J. A. O. (2005) Insecticide resistance in diamondback moth, Plutella xyllostella from selected cabbage farms associated with pyrethroid and organophosphate use in Southern Ghana. MPhil thesis. University of Ghana, Legon. 176 pp. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/7068.Google Scholar
Ogol, C. K. P. O. and Makatiani, J. (2007) Potential of companion crops in managing the diamondback moth in cabbage/kale cropping system in Kenya. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings 8, 1029–1033.Google Scholar
Okoth, S., Ogol, C. K. P., Basimike, M. and Varela, M. (2002) Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of aqueous neem extract and Dipel 2x on diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella Linn., on cabbage in Kenya. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 22, 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadeghpour, A. and Jahanzad, E. (2012) Seed yield and yield components of intercropped barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and annual medic (Medicago scutellata L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Engineering 3, 47–50.Google Scholar
Sarfraz, M., Dosdall, L. M. and Keddie, B. A. (2006) Diamondback moth–host plant interactions: Implications for pest management. Crop Protection 25, 625–639.Google Scholar
Sarfraz, M., Keddie, A. B. and Dosdall, L. M. (2005) Biological control of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.): A review. Biocontrol Science and Technology 15, 763–789.Google Scholar
Sarfraz, M. and Keddie, B. A. (2005) Conserving the efficacy of insecticides against Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lep., Plutellidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 129, 149– 157.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (1999) SAS/STAT User's Guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Shelton, A. M., Wilsey, W. T., Hoebeke, E. R. and Schmaedick, M. A. (2002) Parasitoids of cabbage Lepidoptera in Central New York. Journal of Entomological Science 37, 270–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Z.-H., Li, Q.-B. and Li, X. (2004) Interspecific competition between Diadegma semiclausum Hellen (Hym., Ichneumonidae) and Cotesia plutellae (Kurdjumov) (Hym., Braconidae) in parasitizing Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lep., Plutellidea). Journal of Applied Entomology 128, 437–444.Google Scholar
Sow, G., Arvanitakis, L., Niassy, S., Diarra, K. and Bordat, D. (2013) Performance of the parasitoid Oomyzus sokolowskii (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) on its host Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) under laboratory conditions. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 33, 38–45.Google Scholar
Talekar, N. S., Lee, S. T. and Huang, S. W. (1986) Intercropping and modification of irrigation method for the control of diamondback moth, pp. 145–151. In Diamondback Moth Management (edited by Talekar, N. S. and Griggs, T. D.). Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Talekar, N. S. and Shelton, A. M. (1993) Biology, ecology, and management of the diamondback moth. Annual Review of Entomology 38, 275–301.Google Scholar
Tobias, V. I. (1995) Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR, Vol. 3, Hymenoptera. Science Publishers, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 883 pp.Google Scholar
Wold-Burkness, S. J., Hutchison, W. D., Lee, J. C., Hines, R. L., Bolin, P. C. and Heimpel, G. E. (2005) A long-term survey of parasitoid species composition and parasitism of Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in Minnesota cabbage. Journal of Entomological Science 40, 211–221.Google Scholar
Zhang, F. and Li, L. (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil 248, 305–312.Google Scholar