Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:25:09.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Associated cultivated plants in tomato cropping systems structure arthropod communities and increase the Helicoverpa armigera regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2019

A.G. Dassou ,
S.D. Vodouhè ,
A. Bokonon-Ganta ,
G. Goergen ,
A. Chailleux ,
A. Dansi ,
D. Carval  and
P. Tixier Open the ORCID record for P. Tixier [Opens in a new window]
A.G. Dassou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Biotechnology, Genetic Resources and Plant and Animal Breeding (BIORAVE); Faculty of Sciences and Technology; BP 14 Dassa; UNSTIM, Benin
S.D. Vodouhè
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Socio-Anthropology and Communication for Rural Development (DESAC), Faculty of Agronomic Sciences (FSA), UAC, Cotonou, Benin
A. Bokonon-Ganta
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production (DPV), Faculty of Agronomic Sciences (FSA), University of Abomey-Calavi (UAC), 01 BP 526 RC, Cotonou, Benin
G. Goergen
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (Benin Station), 08 BP 0932 Tri Postal, Cotonou, Benin
A. Chailleux
Affiliation:
Biopass, Cirad-ISRA-UCAD-IRD, Dakar, Senegal CIRAD, UPR Hortsys, 18524 Dakar, Sénégal GECO, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France
A. Dansi
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Biotechnology, Genetic Resources and Plant and Animal Breeding (BIORAVE); Faculty of Sciences and Technology; BP 14 Dassa; UNSTIM, Benin
D. Carval
Affiliation:
GECO, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France CIRAD, UPR GECO, F-34398 Montpellier, France
P. Tixier*
Affiliation:
GECO, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France CIRAD, UPR GECO, F-34398 Montpellier, France
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +33 4 67 61 59 90 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cultivating plant mixtures is expected to provide a higher productivity and a better control of pests and diseases. The structure of the arthropod community is a major driver of the magnitude of natural pest regulations.

With the aim of optimizing pest management, a study was carried out to determine the effect of the cropping system type (tomato mono-cropping vs. mixed-cropping) on the diversity and abundance of arthropods from three trophic groups (herbivores, omnivores, predators) and the abundance of Helicoverpa armigera. Therefore, the diversity of cultivated plants and arthropod communities was assessed within tomato fields from 30 farmer's fields randomly selected in South of Benin. Results showed that the arthropod abundance was significantly higher in mixed-cropping systems compared with mono-cropping systems, although the crop type did not alter significantly the arthropod diversity, evenness, and richness. At the level of taxa, the abundances of generalist predators including ants (Pheidole spp., and Paltothyreus tarsatus) and spiders (Araneus spp. and Erigone sp.) were significantly higher in mixed fields than in mono-crop fields. Then, the abundances of omnivore-predator trophic groups have a negative significant effect on the H. armigera abundance. This study allowed better understanding of how plant diversity associated to tomato fields structures arthropod's food webs to finally enhance the ecological management of H. armigera.

Keywords

ecological managementfood webnatural regulationHelicoverpa armigeraants
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 109 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 733 - 740
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Andow, D.A. (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 561–586.Google Scholar
Baliddawa, C. (1985) Plant species diversity and crop pest control. An analytical review. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 6, 479–487.Google Scholar
Barratt, B.I.P., Derraik, J.G.B., Rufaut, C.G., Goodman, A.J. & Dickinson, K.J.M. (2003) Morphospecies as a substitute for Coleoptera species identification, and the value of experience in improving accuracy. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 33, 583–590.Google Scholar
Beecher, G.R. (1998) Nutrient content of tomatoes and tomato products. Experimental Biology and Medicine 218, 98–100.Google Scholar
Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Booij, C.J.H. & Tscharntke, T. (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273, 1715–1727.Google Scholar
Bolker, B.M., Brooks, M.E., Clark, C.J., Geange, S.W., Poulsen, J.R., Stevens, M.H.H. & White, J.S.S. (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 127–135.Google Scholar
Chailleux, A., Mohl, E.K., Teixeira Alves, M., Messelink, G.J. & Desneux, N. (2014) Natural enemy-mediated indirect interactions among prey species: potential for enhancing biocontrol services in agroecosystems. Pest Management Science 70, 1769–1779.Google Scholar
Cherry, A., Cock, M., Berg, H. & van den Kfir, R. (2003) Biological control of Helicoverpa armigera in Africa. pp. 329–346 in Neuenschwander, P., Borgemeister, C. & Langewald, J. (Eds) Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa. Wallingford, Oxon, UK, CABI Pub. in association with the ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J.P., Zalucki, M.P. & West, S.A. (1999) Learning in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): a new look at the behaviour and control of a polyphagous pest. Bulletin of Entomological Research 89, 201–207.Google Scholar
Dassou, A.G. & Tixier, P. (2016) Response of pest control by generalist predators to local-scale plant diversity: a meta-analysis. Ecology and Evolution 6, 1143–1153.Google Scholar
Dassou, A.G., Carval, D., Dépigny, S., Fansi, G.H. & Tixier, P. (2015) Ant abundance and Cosmopolites sordidus damage in plantain fields as affected by intercropping. Biological Control 81, 51–57.Google Scholar
Dassou, A.G., Dépigny, S., Canard, E., Vinatier, F., Carval, D. & Tixier, P. (2016) Contrasting effects of plant diversity across arthropod trophic groups in plantain-based agroecosystems. Basic and Applied Ecology 17, 11–20.Google Scholar
Dassou, A.G., Tixier, P., Dépigny, S. & Carval, D. (2017) Vegetation structure of plantain-based agrosystems determines numerical dominance in community of ground-dwelling ants. PeerJ 2017, 1–13.Google Scholar
Ebeling, A., Hines, J., Hertzog, L.R., Lange, M., Meyer, S.T., Simons, N.K. & Weisser, W.W. (2018) Plant diversity effects on arthropods and arthropod-dependent ecosystem functions in a biodiversity experiment. Basic and Applied Ecology 26, 50–63.Google Scholar
Elégbédé, M.T., Glitho, I.A., Dannon, E.A., Douro, O.K., Kpindou, M.A. & Tamň, M. (2014) Farmers knowledge and control of two major pests: Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)(Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) and Aphis gossypii (Glover)(Homoptera: Aphididae) in five agroecological zones in Benin (West Africa). International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR) 4, 94–107.Google Scholar
Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D. & Luna, J.M. (2003) Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology 4, 107–116.Google Scholar
Haddad, N.M., Crutsinger, G.M., Gross, K., Haarstad, J., Knops, J.M. & Tilman, D. (2009) Plant species loss decreases arthropod diversity and shifts trophic structure. Ecology Letters 12, 1029–1039.Google Scholar
Hooper, D.U., Chapin Iii, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. & Wardle, D.A. (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75, 3–35.Google Scholar
Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D. & Gurr, G.M. (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology 45, 175–201.Google Scholar
Letourneau, D.K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B.S., Lerma, J.M., Carmona, E.J., Daza, M.C., Escobar, S., Galindo, V., Gutiérrez, C. & López, S.D. (2011) Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecological Applications 21, 9–21.Google Scholar
Liu, W., Wan, F., Zhang, F., Meng, Z. & Wang, F. (2000) Evaluation on role of predators in Helicoverpa armigera control. Chinese Journal of Biological Control 16, 97–101.Google Scholar
Macfadyen, S., Davies, A.P. & Zalucki, M.P. (2015) Assessing the impact of arthropod natural enemies on crop pests at the field scale. Insect Science 22, 20–34.Google Scholar
Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., Laurans, M., Makowski, D., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., Rapidel, B., De Tourdonnet, S. & Valantin-Morison, M. (2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 43–62.Google Scholar
Mansfield, S., Elias, N.V. & Lytton-Hitchins, J.A. (2003) Ants as egg predators of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australian cotton crops. Australian Journal of Entomology 42, 349–351.Google Scholar
Mensah, R.K., Harris, W.E. & Beattie, G.A.C. (1995) Response of Helicoverpa spp. (Lep.: Noctuidae) and their natural enemies to petroleum spray oil in cotton in Australia. Entomophaga 40, 263–272.Google Scholar
Mollot, G., Tixier, P., Lescourret, F., Quilici, S. & Duyck, P.-F. (2012) New primary resource increases predation on a pest in a banana agroecosystem. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 14(3), 317–323.Google Scholar
Pfannenstiel, R.S. (2008) Spider predators of lepidopteran eggs in south Texas field crops. Biological Control 46(2), 202–208.Google Scholar
Poveda, K., Gómez, M.I. & Martínez, E. (2008) Diversification practices: their effect on pest regulation and production. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 34, 131–144.Google Scholar
Ratnadass, A., Fernandes, P., Avelino, J. & Habib, R. (2012) Plant species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 273–303.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Vienna. Austria, R Fundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Root, R.B. (1973) Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecological Monographs 43, 95–124.Google Scholar
Simeni, G.T., Adeoti, R., Abiassi, E., Kodjo, M.K. & Coulibaly, O. (2009) Caractérisation des systèmes de cultures maraîchères des zones urbaine et périurbaine dans la ville de Djougou au Nord-Ouest du Bénin. Bulletin de la Recherche Agronomique du Bénin 64, 34–49.Google Scholar
Song, B.Z., Wu, H.Y., Kong, Y., Zhang, J., Du, Y.L., Hu, J.H. & Yao, Y.C. (2010) Effects of intercropping with aromatic plants on the diversity and structure of an arthropod community in a pear orchard. BioControl 55, 741–751.Google Scholar
Van Den Berg, H. & Cock, M.J.W. (1995) Spatial association between Helicoverpa armigera and its predators in smallholder crops in Kenya. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 242–252.Google Scholar
Vandermeer, J.H. (1989) The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, H.L., Leite, M.F., Vilhena, J.M.S., Lima, A.P. & Magnusson, W.E. (2008) Ant diversity in an Amazonian savanna: relationship with vegetation structure, disturbance by fire, and dominant ants. Austral Ecology 33, 221–231.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Dassou et al. supplementary material

Dassou et al. supplementary material 1

Download Dassou et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 168.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Dassou et al. supplementary material

Dassou et al. supplementary material 2

Download Dassou et al. supplementary material(File)
File 66.2 KB