Skip navigation

Scope for non-crop plants to promote conservation biological control of crop pests and serve as sources of botanical insecticides

Scope for non-crop plants to promote conservation biological control of crop pests and serve as sources of botanical insecticides

Amoabeng, B.W., Stevenson, P.C. ORCID: 0000-0002-0736-3619, Mochiah, B.M., Asare, K.P. and Gurr, G.M. (2020) Scope for non-crop plants to promote conservation biological control of crop pests and serve as sources of botanical insecticides. Scientific Reports, 10:6951. ISSN 2045-2322 (Online) (doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63709-x)

[img]
Preview
PDF (Open Access Article)
27152 STEVENSON_Scope_for_Non-Crop_Plants_to_Promote_Conservation_Biological_Control_of_Crop_Pests_(OA)_2020.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
PDF (Author Accepted Manuscript)
27152 STEVENSON_Scope_for_Non-Crop_Plants_to_Promote_Conservation_Biological_Control_of_Crop_Pests_2020.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (3MB) | Preview

Abstract

Besides providing food and shelter to natural enemies of crop pests, plants used in conservation biological control interventions potentially provide additional ecosystem services including providing botanical insecticides. Here we concurrently tested the strength of these two services from six non-crop plants in managing cabbage pests in Ghana over three successive field seasons. Crop margin plantings of Ageratum conyzoides, Tridax procumbens, Crotalaria juncea, Cymbopogon citratus, Lantana camara and Talinum triangulare were compared with a bare earth control in a three-way split plot design such that the crop in each plot was sprayed with either a 10% (w/v) aqueous extract from the border plant species, a negative control (water) and a positive control (emamectin benzoate ‘Attack’ insecticide). Pests were significantly less numerous in all unsprayed treatments with non-crop plant margins and in corresponding sprayed treatments (with botanical or synthetic insecticide positive control) while treatments with bare earth margin or sprayed with water (negative controls) had the highest pest densities. Numbers of predators were significantly depressed by synthetic insecticide but higher in other treatments whether unsprayed or sprayed with botanical insecticide. We conclude that some plant species have utility in both conservation biological control and as source of botanical insecticides that are relatively benign to natural enemies. In this crop system, however, the additional cost associated with using botanical insecticides was not justified by greater levels of pest suppression than achieved from border plants alone.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Habitat manipulation, conservation biological control, botanical insecticides, net income, cost, benefit ratio
Subjects: S Agriculture > S Agriculture (General)
Faculty / Department / Research Group: Faculty of Engineering & Science
Faculty of Engineering & Science > Natural Resources Institute
Faculty of Engineering & Science > Natural Resources Institute > Agriculture, Health & Environment Department
Faculty of Engineering & Science > Natural Resources Institute > Chemical Ecology Research Group
Last Modified: 29 May 2020 13:44
Selected for GREAT 2016: None
Selected for GREAT 2017: None
Selected for GREAT 2018: None
Selected for GREAT 2019: None
Selected for REF2021: None
URI: http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/27152

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics