Abstract
Abstract Lucerne ( Medicago sativa ) has been suggested as an ideal refuge habitat as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) program because it harbours high numbers of beneficial arthropods. Whether or not cutting of lucerne encourages the movement of these beneficials into adjacent target crops is unknown. Vacuum samples were used to determine the effects of cutting lucerne on arthropod abundance (pests and predators) within lucerne and adjacent soybean ( Glycine max ) crops. Vacuum‐sample collections of arthropods were conducted before and after lucerne cutting on seven occasions in four fields over two seasons. In the lucerne, 10 m by 1 m strips parallel to the crop interface were sampled at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 m from the interface. In the soybean, 10 m of row were sampled at the same distances from the crop interface. The abundance of predators in lucerne was reduced immediately after cutting at all distances from the interface. Predator abundance in soybean did not show any change. The cutting of lucerne significantly reduced pest numbers within the lucerne but had little effect on pest abundance in the adjacent soybean. The temporal pattern in pest and predator abundance was very different for each field sampled. Generally, arthropods decreased in abundance after cutting and gradually increased as the lucerne grew back. In soybeans, arthropod numbers fluctuated regardless of the cutting of the lucerne. Cutting of lucerne alone does not guarantee movement of predators into the adjacent target crop. The presence of lucerne fields within a cropping area may have some impact on regional predator populations, and so still be useful for IPM programs, but this has yet to be tested critically.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Predator abundance in lucerne was reduced immediately after cutting at all distances from the crop interface.
- Taxon
- Medicago sativa
Medicago sativae1 - Treatment
- cuttinge2
- Interactor
- predatorse2biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- abundance of predators in lucernee2
- Direction
- reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Lucerne ( Medicago sativa ) has been suggested as an ideal refuge habitat”
e2“The abundance of predators in lucerne was reduced immediately after cutting at all distances from the interface”
Claim · model-written summary
Predator abundance in soybean did not change after lucerne cutting.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe3 - Treatment
- lucerne cuttinge4
- Interactor
- Predatore3biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- Predator abundance in soybeane3
- Direction
- did not show any changee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Predator abundance in soybean did not show any change”
e4“before and after lucerne cutting on seven occasions in four fields over two seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting of lucerne significantly reduced pest numbers within the lucerne.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae5
- Treatment
- cutting of lucernee5
- Interactor
- peste5pest
- Outcome
- pest numbers within the lucernee5
- Direction
- reducede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The cutting of lucerne significantly reduced pest numbers within the lucerne but had little effect on pest abundance in the adjacent soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting of lucerne had little effect on pest abundance in the adjacent soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe5
- Treatment
- cutting of lucernee5
- Interactor
- peste5pest
- Outcome
- pest abundance in the adjacent soybeane5
- Direction
- little effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The cutting of lucerne significantly reduced pest numbers within the lucerne but had little effect on pest abundance in the adjacent soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Arthropod abundance in lucerne generally decreased after cutting and gradually increased as the lucerne regrew.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae6
- Treatment
- cuttinge6
- Outcome
- arthropodse6
- Direction
- decreasede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Generally, arthropods decreased in abundance after cutting and gradually increased as the lucerne grew back”
Claim · model-written summary
Arthropod numbers in soybean fluctuated regardless of lucerne cutting.
- Taxon
- soybeansGlycine maxe7
- Treatment
- cutting of the lucernee7
- Outcome
- arthropod numberse7
- Direction
- fluctuated regardlesse7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“In soybeans, arthropod numbers fluctuated regardless of the cutting of the lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting of lucerne alone does not guarantee movement of predators into the adjacent target crop.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- Cutting of lucerne alonee1
- Interactor
- predatorse1biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- movement of predators into the adjacent target crope1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Cutting of lucerne alone does not guarantee movement of predators into the adjacent target crop”
The same questions in other papers
Medicago sativa · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
pruning · pest · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →pruning · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.