Search

The effectiveness of natural enemies to control pests can be enhanced through habitat manipulation. However, due to the differences in their ecology, generalist and specialist species may respond differently to the same manipulation. Moreover, interactions among natural enemies (i.e. cannibalism, intraguild predation, hyperparasitism) may complicate the assumption that a higher density of natural enemies would increase the level of biological control. We investigated the natural enemy guild composition and the predation rate along flower vs. grass margins at the edge of winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum) fields in Denmark. Natural enemies were sampled by pitfall trapping and by suction sampling; predation intensity was measured using two different sentinel prey methods: artificial caterpillars made of plasticine, and sentinel aphid colonies. Specialist and generalist species responded differently to the two margin types: specialists (mostly parasitic wasps) were attracted by the flower margins, while generalists (ground beetles, rove beetles and spiders) were more active in grass margins. The number of artificial caterpillars attacked was significantly greater in grass margins (mean = 48.9%, SD = 24.3) than in flower margins (mean = 30.7%, SD = 17.4). We found a significant positive relationship between the number of artificial caterpillars attacked by chewing insects, and activity density for large (≥15 mm) ground beetles. Predation of sentinel aphids in wheat fields did not vary significantly in relation to margin type. Our results suggest that flowering margins may be beneficial for canopy-active specialist natural enemies, but grassy margins are more useful for ground-active generalist predators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food and feed safety risk assessment uses multi-parameter models to evaluate the likelihood of adverse events associated with exposure to hazards in human health, plant health, animal health, animal welfare, and the environment. Systematic review and meta-analysis are established methods for answering questions in health care, and can be implemented to minimize biases in food and feed safety risk assessment. However, no methodological frameworks exist for refining risk assessment multi-parameter models into questions suitable for systematic review, and use of meta-analysis to estimate all parameters required by a risk model may not be always feasible. This paper describes novel approaches for determining question suitability and for prioritizing questions for systematic review in this area. Risk assessment questions that aim to estimate a parameter are likely to be suitable for systematic review. Such questions can be structured by their “key elements” [e.g., for intervention questions, the population(s), intervention(s), comparator(s), and outcome(s)]. Prioritization of questions to be addressed by systematic review relies on the likely impact and related uncertainty of individual parameters in the risk model. This approach to planning and prioritizing systematic review seems to have useful implications for producing evidence-based food and feed safety risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dispersal within agricultural fields and the effects of different barriers on between-field movement of the New Zealand hover fly Melanostoma fasciatum were studied using ingested pollen as markers. Hover flies did not generally disperse more than 20 m from the pollen source. Gravid females had no significant wind-directed movement pattern whereas males significantly flew downwind. Flies tended to avoid flying over barren land: a dirt track, an asphalt road or a ploughed field all seemed to hamper hover fly dispersal equally. The implications for spatial arrangement of the flowering strips to enhance the biocontrol potential of hover flies are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]