California Agriculture
California Agriculture
California Agriculture
University of California
California Agriculture

Archive

Beneficial insects move from flowering plants to nearby crops

Share using any of the popular social networks Share by sending an email Print article
Share using any of the popular social networks Share by sending an email Print article

Authors

Jeff Chandler, Corn Flower Farms
Andrew Corbett, Entomology
Celia Lamb, Agronomy
Rachael Freeman Long, UC Cooperative Extension Farm
Chris Reberg-Horton, Agronomy
Michael Stimmann, Extension Environmental Toxicologist

Publication Information

California Agriculture 52(5):23-26. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v052n05p23

Published September 01, 1998

PDF  |  Citation  |  Permissions  |  Cited by 42 articles

Author Affiliations show

Abstract

Marking studies demonstrated that lady beetles, lacewings, syrphid flies and parasitic wasps fed on nectar or pollen provided by borders of flowering plants around farms; many insects moved 250 feet into adjacent field crops. Studies using the elemental marker rubidium also showed that syrphid flies, parasitic wasps and lacewings fed on flowering cover crops in orchards and that some moved 6 feet high in the tree canopy and 100 feet away from the treated area. The use of nectar or pollen by beneficial insects helps them survive and reproduce. Therefore, planting flowering plants and perennial grasses around farms may lead to better biological control of pests in nearby crops.

Full text

Entomologist Andrew Corbett sprays a rubidium solution onto toothpick weed (A. visnaga) at Lindell Farms in Fresno County to track the movement of beneficial insects.

A close up of toothpick weed (A. visnaga) covered with beneficial insects.

California farmers are planting strips or borders of flowering plants and perennial grasses, termed insectary plantings, around their farms to attract beneficial insects and thus get better biological control of pests in their crops. The idea behind these plantings is that many adult beneficial insects feed on nectar or pollen as a sole food source or to supplement their diet during periods of prey scarcity. These critical nutrients help them survive and increase their egg-laying ability. To the extent that these food resources lead to more beneficial insects around farms, insectary plantings may result in greater biological pest control.

While these plantings seem like a good idea, there are few data to support their application as an effective biocontrol tool. The objective of this study was to determine if beneficial insects feed on insectary plants and then move into associated crops.

Insectary plants

Insectary plants are those that produce nectar or pollen and attract beneficial insects. These include perennial and annual plants (tables 1 and 2) and perennial grasses such as deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens), purple needle-grass (Nassella pulchra), blue wild rye (Elymns glaucus), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), California brome (Bromus carinatus) and Yolo slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus majus). Insectary plantings that contain a variety of plants with different flowering periods provide a year-round food supply for beneficial insects.

Using rubidium to track insects

Rubidium (Rb) was used to document the feeding by beneficial insects at insectary plantings and their movement into adjacent crops. This element substitutes for the potassium in plant and insect tissues. Tests have shown that at low concentrations rubidium does not have any detectable effects on longevity or behavior of most insects (Stimmann et al. 1973). It can also be easily tracked in biological systems through the use of a flame emission spectrophotometer.

Beneficial insects were labeled by injecting or spraying solutions of rubidium chloride (RbC1) into or on insectary plants. The insects obtained the label through feeding on Rb-rich nectar and pollen sources that concentrated in the plant. Because Rb occurs naturally in plant and insect tissues at fairly low and uniform levels, relatively small increases in Rb result in a measurable label at levels above the natural background concentration normally found in insects (Berry et al. 1972).

At the almond orchard site, lacewings, syrphid flies and parasitic wasps moved up to 100 feet away from the insectary plantings.

Three field sites

From 1994 to 1995, we conducted studies at three field sites where insectary plantings are being used by growers. The first site was at Hedgerow Farms in Yolo County, with fourteen 10-year-old California lilac (Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’) bushes located directly across from a wheat field. The second site was at Lindell Farms in Fresno County, with a 2-year-old, 20-foot-wide-by-660-foot-long hedgerow of perennials (table 1) and annual toothpick weed (Ammi visnaga). This insectary planting was surrounded by organic vegetables including beans, corn and tomatoes, and a small orchard of peaches and walnuts. The third site was in an almond orchard in Merced County, where a grower planted a mix of winter insectary annuals in 1 out of every 10 tree rows (table 2).

Rubidium applied to plants

We injected RbC1 into the California lilac plants at Hedgerow Farms. This was done once before bloom, by drilling one or two holes into each main branch at the base of the plant and injecting 7 milliliters of RbC1 solution (at a very high concentration of 0.25 gm per mL) into each hole with a syringe. Injections increased the Rb content of plants by about 10 times the naturally occurring background levels. The Lindell Farms site was sprayed with RbC1 at 3,000 ppm about every 2 weeks from June until August. At the almond orchard site, four cover crop strips (6 ft by 1,000 ft) were sprayed with RbC1 at 3,000 ppm about every 2 weeks from May to July. RbC1 sprays increase the Rb content by 200 times the naturally occurring background levels.

TABLE 1. Perennial insectary plants with flowering periods designated by shaded areas

Sampling beneficial insects

Following RbC1 applications, we collected beneficial insects from the insectary plants and the associated crop using 6-inch-by-12-inch sticky cards of similar color to standard yellow white-fly traps. Only those beneficial insects believed important to pest management in the crops were collected for Rb analysis (table 3).

At Hedgerow Farms, we suspended 8 traps in the canopy of individual California lilac shrubs. In the adjacent wheat, we stapled 20 traps onto wooden stakes at the level of the crop at distances of 50 feet, 150 feet, 250 feet and 450 feet from the California lilac. We changed all of the traps every 2 weeks from April until May.

At Lindell Farms, we placed 10 traps on wooden stakes every 50 feet, adjacent to and just below the height of the insectary plants. In the adjacent vegetable crops, 20 traps were stapled onto wooden stakes below the level of the crop at distances of 20 feet and 250 feet from the insectary plants. In the adjacent orchard, 20 traps were placed 6 feet high in individual trees at 50-foot intervals, from 20 feet to 250 feet away from the hedgerow. Traps were changed every 2 weeks from June to August. We collected Hyposoter wasps using a handheld aspirator, as we did not find them on sticky traps.

At the almond orchard site, we placed 36 traps 6 feet high in individual trees (24 ft by 24 ft spacing) at 1, 3 and 5 tree rows from the insectary mix strips. Traps were changed every 2 weeks from May until July.

We removed the beneficial insects from the traps, then identified and analyzed them for Rb content. Similar beneficial insect species were collected from „control“ fields, located more than 2 miles away from treated hedgerows, to determine the naturally occurring background Rb content. Trichogramma controls were obtained from a laboratory colony. These data provided the criteria for deciding if an individual beneficial insect captured within the insectary plantings and associated crops was labeled (table 4).

Analysis of samples

Insects were chemically digested and analyzed for Rb content using standard methodologies (Berry et al. 1972). Insects were considered labeled if their Rb concentration was more than three standard deviations greater than the control means. In this way, the probability of incorrectly identifying an insect as labeled with Rb is very low (less than 1%).

Labeling of beneficial insects

Hedgerow Farms. In the California lilac, 67% (sample size of n = 15) of the green lacewings, and 40% (n = 10) of the lady beetles were labeled with Rb, following injections with RbC1. In the adjacent wheat, 2% of the green lacewings were labeled at 50 feet and 2% were labeled at 450 feet (n = 47). We did not find any labeled lady beetles in the adjacent wheat.

Lindell Farms. RbC1 sprays in the insectary hedgerow also resulted in marking of beneficial insects (fig. 1. In the insectary plantings, 61% of the green lacewings were labeled, plus 20% of the Trichogramma, and 55% of the lady beetles. We did not find any labeled Hyposoter wasps in the insectary plantings, even though these wasps are known to feed on nectar of flowering plants. We suspect that these wasps were visiting the plants in a manner that escaped our detection, possibly due to the time of day or their foraging behavior.

In the adjacent vegetables (fig. 1), 24% of the green lacewings were labeled 20 feet from the hedgerow, but none were labeled at 250 feet. For lady beetles, 27% were labeled at 20 feet and 23% were labeled at 250 feet from the hedgerow. For Hyposoter wasps, 17% were labeled at 20 feet and 47% were labeled at 250 feet from the hedgerow. None of the Trichogramma were labeled in the nearby crops.

In the adjacent orchard, 10% of the green lacewings were labeled at 20 feet (n = 31) and 33% (n = 3) were labeled at 150 feet from the hedgerow. No labeled green lacewings were found in the trees at any other distances (n ? 3 for all these samples). Ten percent of the lady beetles (n = 10) and 2.5% (n = 40) of the Trichogramma were labeled at 20 feet from the hedgerow.

Almond orchard site. RbC1 marking of the annual insectary mix also showed labeling of beneficial insects (fig. 2). In the trees, 27% of the green lacewings were labeled adjacent to the insectary mix, but none were labeled further away. For brown lacewings, 39% were labeled next to the insectary mix, 28% were labeled at 50 feet and 17% were labeled at 100 feet. For syrphid flies, 81% were labeled adjacent to the insectary mix, 74% were labeled at 50 feet, and 70% were labeled at 100 feet. For Macrocentrus wasps, 8.1% were labeled next to the insectary mix, 4.3% were labeled at 50 feet, and 4.5% were labeled at 100 feet.

Underestimation of numbers

Although the percentage of labeled beneficial insects was low in some samples, these data probably underestimate the numbers of beneficial insects that are using the insectary plants. Our laboratory studies showed that green lacewings need to feed on Rb-marked floral resources for up to 24 hours to acquire detectable levels of Rb. If beneficial insects are feeding on both marked and unmarked plants in the field, the impact of the Rb label will likely be diluted. For example, at Hedgerow Farms, where we had low levels of labeling, there is an abundance of floral resources other than our Rb-marked California lilac for beneficial insects to feed on. In addition, our laboratory studies showed that green lacewings excrete the label within 24 hours.

TABLE 2. Winter annual insectary plants at the almond orchard

TABLE 3. Dominant beneficial insects collected and analyzed for rubidium content at our study sites

TABLE 4. Highest rubidium level found in beneficial insects in crops versus naturally occurring background levels (controls)

Hedgerow of insectary shrubs and native grasses, Yolo County.

Scientists found that 70% of the syrphid flies in almond trees were marked with rubidium 100 feet away from the insectary planting.

Fig. 1. Percent Rb-labeled beneficial insects in the insectary hedgerow (0 ft) and in the adjacent vegetable crop at 20 ft and 250 ft (n = total number of insects captured).

Fig. 2. Percent Rb-labeled beneficial insects trapped in the almond trees at 0, 50 and 100 ft from the Rb-labeled insectary cover crop mix (n = total number of insects captured).

The results of this study demonstrate that beneficial insects feed on nectar or pollen provided by insectary plants, and that they move into associated crops. Because many Rb-labeled individuals were trapped 250 feet from the insectary plants, our data suggest strips or borders of flowering plants may help beneficial insects — even at long distances. The survival of many beneficial insect species depends on nectar or pollen so adding insectary plantings to the agricultural landscape may enlarge their populations and increase their activity in crops.

Return to top

Author notes

This research was supported by the California Tomato Research Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

References

Berry WL, Stimmann MW, Wolf WW. Marking of phytophagous native insects with rubidium: A proposed technique. Annals Ento. 1972. 65:8.

Stimmann MW, Wolf WW, Berry WL. Cabbage loopers: The biological effects of rubidium in the larval diet. J Econ Entomol. 1973. 66:6.

Bugg RL, Anderson JH, Thomsen CD, Chandler J. Pickett CH, Bugg RL. Farmscaping: Restoring native biodiversity to agricultural settings. Enhancing biological control: habitat management to promote natural enemies of agricultural pests. 1998. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. (In press).

Citations

Manipulating the abundance of natural enemies in ornamental landscapes with floral resource plants
Eric J. Rebek et al. 2005. Biological Control 33(2):203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.02.011

Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields
Lora A. Morandin and Claire Kremen 2013. Ecological Applications 23(4):829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-1051.1

Factors affecting adoption of hedgerows and other biodiversity-enhancing features on farms in California, USA
Sonja Brodt et al. 2009. Agroforestry Systems 76(1):195
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9168-8

Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops
Maria Simpson et al. 2011. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3):580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01946.x

Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands: Implications for the Conservation of Ecosystem Service Providers in Agricultural Environments
Thomas Crist and Valerie Peters 2014. Land 3(3):693
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land3030693

An evaluation of insectary plants for management of insect pests in a hydroponic cropping system
Jane Tavares et al. 2015. Biological Control 91:1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.07.004

Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on adjacent tomato fields in an intensive agricultural landscape
Lora A. Morandin et al. 2014. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 189:164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.030

Field evaluation of the ‘attract and reward’ biological control approach in vineyards
M. Simpson et al. 2011. Annals of Applied Biology 159(1):69
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00477.x

Biodiversity and Insect Pests
Douglas A. Landis et al. 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118231838.ch17

Measuring parasitoid movement from floral resources in a vineyard
S.L. Scarratt et al. 2008. Biological Control 46(2):107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.03.016

Laboratory validation of rubidium marking of herbivorous insects and their predators
Amanda J Kobelt et al. 2009. Australian Journal of Entomology 48(3):204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2009.00704.x

Resource connectivity for beneficial insects in landscapes dominated by monoculture tree crop plantations
Manu E. Saunders 2016. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 14(1):82
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2015.1025496

Relative Densities of Natural Enemy and Pest Insects Within California Hedgerows
Tara L. Pisani Gareau et al. 2013. Environmental Entomology 42(4):688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN12317

Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest-site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground-nesting bees
Hillary S. Sardiñas et al. 2016. Restoration Ecology 24(4):499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12338

Enhancing the effectiveness of the parasitoid Diadegma semiclausum (Helen): Movement after use of nectar in the field
Blas Lavandero et al. 2005. Biological Control 34(2):152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.04.013

Larger wildflower plantings increase natural enemy density, diversity, and biological control of sentinel prey, without increasing herbivore density
BRETT R. BLAAUW and RUFUS ISAACS 2012. Ecological Entomology 37(5):386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01376.x

Impact of neonicotinoid insecticides on natural enemies in greenhouse and interiorscape environments
Raymond A Cloyd and James A Bethke 2011. Pest Management Science 67(1):3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.2015

Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop
Brett R. Blaauw et al. 2014. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(4):890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12257

Breeding Oilseed Crops for Sustainable Production
Uma Shankar and Dharam P. Abrol 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801309-0.00017-3

Influência de plantas invasoras na abundância de himenópteros parasitoides (Insecta, Hymenoptera) coletados em cultura de coqueiro anão verde, em Linhares, ES, Brasil
E.F. Comério et al. 2013. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico 80(1):117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-16572013000100018

Spatial distribution of flower vs. honeydew resources in cereal fields may affect aphid parasitism
Ines M.G. Vollhardt et al. 2010. Biological Control 53(2):204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.12.011

Forb responses to grazing and rest management in a critically endangered Australian native grassland ecosystem
Heidi C. Zimmer et al. 2010. The Rangeland Journal 32(2):187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ09069

Pollination services from field-scale agricultural diversification may be context-dependent
Hillary S. Sardiñas and Claire Kremen 2015. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 207:17
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.020

Determinants of field edge habitat restoration on farms in California's Sacramento Valley
Kelly Garbach and Rachael Freeman Long 2017. Journal of Environmental Management 189:134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.036

Should increasing the field size of monocultural crops be expected to exacerbate pest damage?
Moran Segoli and Jay A. Rosenheim 2012. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 150:38
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.01.010

Predators and Parasitoids
Opender Koul 2003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780203302569.ch1

Ground cover and floral resources in shelterbelts increase the abundance of beneficial hymenopteran families
Ian M. Smith et al. 2015. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 17(2):120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/afe.12086

Effects of flower attractiveness and nectar availability in field margins on biological control by parasitoids
Felix J.J.A. Bianchi and Felix L. Wäckers 2008. Biological Control 46(3):400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.04.010

Abundance, movements and biodiversity of flying predatory insects in crop and non-crop agroecosystems
Juan Sorribas et al. 2016. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0360-3

Relative Frequencies of Visits to Selected Insectary Plants by Predatory Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), Other Beneficial Insects, and Herbivores
M. D. Ambrosino et al. 2006. Environmental Entomology 35(2):394
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.2.394

Spatial Density and Movement of theLygusspp. ParasitoidPeristenus relictus(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Organic Strawberries With Alfalfa Trap Crops
Sean L. Swezey et al. 2014. Environmental Entomology 43(2):363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN13128

Landscape simplification and altitude affect biodiversity, herbivory and Andean potato yield
Katja Poveda et al. 2012. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(2):513
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02120.x

Landscape configuration of crops and hedgerows drives local syrphid fly abundance
Sebastian Haenke et al. 2014. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2):505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12221

Influence of floral resource plants on control of an armored scale pest by the parasitoid Encarsia citrina (Craw.) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae)
Eric J. Rebek et al. 2006. Biological Control 37(3):320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.10.009

Habitat and plant specificity of Trichogramma egg parasitoids—underlying mechanisms and implications
Jörg Romeis et al. 2005. Basic and Applied Ecology 6(3):215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.10.004

Influence of Native Flowering Plant Strips on Natural Enemies and Herbivores in Adjacent Blueberry Fields
Nathaniel J. Walton and Rufus Isaacs 2011. Environmental Entomology 40(3):697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN10288

Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on farms in California's Central Valley
Lora Morandin et al. 2011. California Agriculture 65(4):197
http://dx.doi.org/10.3733/ca.v065n04p197

Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: The role of habitat management
Anna K. Fiedler et al. 2008. Biological Control 45(2):254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.12.009

Insect Diversity in Phytoremediation and Bioaccumulation of Se
G. S. Bañuelos et al. 1999. International Journal of Phytoremediation 1(4):311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15226519908500022

Influence of Commercially Available Wildflower Mixes on Beneficial Arthropod Abundance and Predation in Turfgrass
S. K. Braman et al. 2002. Environmental Entomology 31(3):564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.3.564

Coccinellid abundance in shelterbelts is affected more by adjacent crop type and aphid abundance than vegetation characteristics
Ian M. Smith et al. 2015. Biological Control 87:47
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.04.004

Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) pollination in California's Central Valley is limited by native bee nest site location
Hillary S. Sardiñas et al. 2016. Ecological Applications 26(2):438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/15-0033

Beneficial insects move from flowering plants to nearby crops

Jeff Chandler, Andrew Corbett, Celia Lamb, Rachael Freeman Long, Chris Reberg-Horton, Michael Stimmann
Webmaster Email: wsuckow@ucanr.edu

Beneficial insects move from flowering plants to nearby crops

Share using any of the popular social networks Share by sending an email Print article
Share using any of the popular social networks Share by sending an email Print article

Authors

Jeff Chandler, Corn Flower Farms
Andrew Corbett, Entomology
Celia Lamb, Agronomy
Rachael Freeman Long, UC Cooperative Extension Farm
Chris Reberg-Horton, Agronomy
Michael Stimmann, Extension Environmental Toxicologist

Publication Information

California Agriculture 52(5):23-26. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v052n05p23

Published September 01, 1998

PDF  |  Citation  |  Permissions  |  Cited by 42 articles

Author Affiliations show

Abstract

Marking studies demonstrated that lady beetles, lacewings, syrphid flies and parasitic wasps fed on nectar or pollen provided by borders of flowering plants around farms; many insects moved 250 feet into adjacent field crops. Studies using the elemental marker rubidium also showed that syrphid flies, parasitic wasps and lacewings fed on flowering cover crops in orchards and that some moved 6 feet high in the tree canopy and 100 feet away from the treated area. The use of nectar or pollen by beneficial insects helps them survive and reproduce. Therefore, planting flowering plants and perennial grasses around farms may lead to better biological control of pests in nearby crops.

Full text

Entomologist Andrew Corbett sprays a rubidium solution onto toothpick weed (A. visnaga) at Lindell Farms in Fresno County to track the movement of beneficial insects.

A close up of toothpick weed (A. visnaga) covered with beneficial insects.

California farmers are planting strips or borders of flowering plants and perennial grasses, termed insectary plantings, around their farms to attract beneficial insects and thus get better biological control of pests in their crops. The idea behind these plantings is that many adult beneficial insects feed on nectar or pollen as a sole food source or to supplement their diet during periods of prey scarcity. These critical nutrients help them survive and increase their egg-laying ability. To the extent that these food resources lead to more beneficial insects around farms, insectary plantings may result in greater biological pest control.

While these plantings seem like a good idea, there are few data to support their application as an effective biocontrol tool. The objective of this study was to determine if beneficial insects feed on insectary plants and then move into associated crops.

Insectary plants

Insectary plants are those that produce nectar or pollen and attract beneficial insects. These include perennial and annual plants (tables 1 and 2) and perennial grasses such as deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens), purple needle-grass (Nassella pulchra), blue wild rye (Elymns glaucus), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), California brome (Bromus carinatus) and Yolo slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus majus). Insectary plantings that contain a variety of plants with different flowering periods provide a year-round food supply for beneficial insects.

Using rubidium to track insects

Rubidium (Rb) was used to document the feeding by beneficial insects at insectary plantings and their movement into adjacent crops. This element substitutes for the potassium in plant and insect tissues. Tests have shown that at low concentrations rubidium does not have any detectable effects on longevity or behavior of most insects (Stimmann et al. 1973). It can also be easily tracked in biological systems through the use of a flame emission spectrophotometer.

Beneficial insects were labeled by injecting or spraying solutions of rubidium chloride (RbC1) into or on insectary plants. The insects obtained the label through feeding on Rb-rich nectar and pollen sources that concentrated in the plant. Because Rb occurs naturally in plant and insect tissues at fairly low and uniform levels, relatively small increases in Rb result in a measurable label at levels above the natural background concentration normally found in insects (Berry et al. 1972).

At the almond orchard site, lacewings, syrphid flies and parasitic wasps moved up to 100 feet away from the insectary plantings.

Three field sites

From 1994 to 1995, we conducted studies at three field sites where insectary plantings are being used by growers. The first site was at Hedgerow Farms in Yolo County, with fourteen 10-year-old California lilac (Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’) bushes located directly across from a wheat field. The second site was at Lindell Farms in Fresno County, with a 2-year-old, 20-foot-wide-by-660-foot-long hedgerow of perennials (table 1) and annual toothpick weed (Ammi visnaga). This insectary planting was surrounded by organic vegetables including beans, corn and tomatoes, and a small orchard of peaches and walnuts. The third site was in an almond orchard in Merced County, where a grower planted a mix of winter insectary annuals in 1 out of every 10 tree rows (table 2).

Rubidium applied to plants

We injected RbC1 into the California lilac plants at Hedgerow Farms. This was done once before bloom, by drilling one or two holes into each main branch at the base of the plant and injecting 7 milliliters of RbC1 solution (at a very high concentration of 0.25 gm per mL) into each hole with a syringe. Injections increased the Rb content of plants by about 10 times the naturally occurring background levels. The Lindell Farms site was sprayed with RbC1 at 3,000 ppm about every 2 weeks from June until August. At the almond orchard site, four cover crop strips (6 ft by 1,000 ft) were sprayed with RbC1 at 3,000 ppm about every 2 weeks from May to July. RbC1 sprays increase the Rb content by 200 times the naturally occurring background levels.

TABLE 1. Perennial insectary plants with flowering periods designated by shaded areas

Sampling beneficial insects

Following RbC1 applications, we collected beneficial insects from the insectary plants and the associated crop using 6-inch-by-12-inch sticky cards of similar color to standard yellow white-fly traps. Only those beneficial insects believed important to pest management in the crops were collected for Rb analysis (table 3).

At Hedgerow Farms, we suspended 8 traps in the canopy of individual California lilac shrubs. In the adjacent wheat, we stapled 20 traps onto wooden stakes at the level of the crop at distances of 50 feet, 150 feet, 250 feet and 450 feet from the California lilac. We changed all of the traps every 2 weeks from April until May.

At Lindell Farms, we placed 10 traps on wooden stakes every 50 feet, adjacent to and just below the height of the insectary plants. In the adjacent vegetable crops, 20 traps were stapled onto wooden stakes below the level of the crop at distances of 20 feet and 250 feet from the insectary plants. In the adjacent orchard, 20 traps were placed 6 feet high in individual trees at 50-foot intervals, from 20 feet to 250 feet away from the hedgerow. Traps were changed every 2 weeks from June to August. We collected Hyposoter wasps using a handheld aspirator, as we did not find them on sticky traps.

At the almond orchard site, we placed 36 traps 6 feet high in individual trees (24 ft by 24 ft spacing) at 1, 3 and 5 tree rows from the insectary mix strips. Traps were changed every 2 weeks from May until July.

We removed the beneficial insects from the traps, then identified and analyzed them for Rb content. Similar beneficial insect species were collected from „control“ fields, located more than 2 miles away from treated hedgerows, to determine the naturally occurring background Rb content. Trichogramma controls were obtained from a laboratory colony. These data provided the criteria for deciding if an individual beneficial insect captured within the insectary plantings and associated crops was labeled (table 4).

Analysis of samples

Insects were chemically digested and analyzed for Rb content using standard methodologies (Berry et al. 1972). Insects were considered labeled if their Rb concentration was more than three standard deviations greater than the control means. In this way, the probability of incorrectly identifying an insect as labeled with Rb is very low (less than 1%).

Labeling of beneficial insects

Hedgerow Farms. In the California lilac, 67% (sample size of n = 15) of the green lacewings, and 40% (n = 10) of the lady beetles were labeled with Rb, following injections with RbC1. In the adjacent wheat, 2% of the green lacewings were labeled at 50 feet and 2% were labeled at 450 feet (n = 47). We did not find any labeled lady beetles in the adjacent wheat.

Lindell Farms. RbC1 sprays in the insectary hedgerow also resulted in marking of beneficial insects (fig. 1. In the insectary plantings, 61% of the green lacewings were labeled, plus 20% of the Trichogramma, and 55% of the lady beetles. We did not find any labeled Hyposoter wasps in the insectary plantings, even though these wasps are known to feed on nectar of flowering plants. We suspect that these wasps were visiting the plants in a manner that escaped our detection, possibly due to the time of day or their foraging behavior.

In the adjacent vegetables (fig. 1), 24% of the green lacewings were labeled 20 feet from the hedgerow, but none were labeled at 250 feet. For lady beetles, 27% were labeled at 20 feet and 23% were labeled at 250 feet from the hedgerow. For Hyposoter wasps, 17% were labeled at 20 feet and 47% were labeled at 250 feet from the hedgerow. None of the Trichogramma were labeled in the nearby crops.

In the adjacent orchard, 10% of the green lacewings were labeled at 20 feet (n = 31) and 33% (n = 3) were labeled at 150 feet from the hedgerow. No labeled green lacewings were found in the trees at any other distances (n ? 3 for all these samples). Ten percent of the lady beetles (n = 10) and 2.5% (n = 40) of the Trichogramma were labeled at 20 feet from the hedgerow.

Almond orchard site. RbC1 marking of the annual insectary mix also showed labeling of beneficial insects (fig. 2). In the trees, 27% of the green lacewings were labeled adjacent to the insectary mix, but none were labeled further away. For brown lacewings, 39% were labeled next to the insectary mix, 28% were labeled at 50 feet and 17% were labeled at 100 feet. For syrphid flies, 81% were labeled adjacent to the insectary mix, 74% were labeled at 50 feet, and 70% were labeled at 100 feet. For Macrocentrus wasps, 8.1% were labeled next to the insectary mix, 4.3% were labeled at 50 feet, and 4.5% were labeled at 100 feet.

Underestimation of numbers

Although the percentage of labeled beneficial insects was low in some samples, these data probably underestimate the numbers of beneficial insects that are using the insectary plants. Our laboratory studies showed that green lacewings need to feed on Rb-marked floral resources for up to 24 hours to acquire detectable levels of Rb. If beneficial insects are feeding on both marked and unmarked plants in the field, the impact of the Rb label will likely be diluted. For example, at Hedgerow Farms, where we had low levels of labeling, there is an abundance of floral resources other than our Rb-marked California lilac for beneficial insects to feed on. In addition, our laboratory studies showed that green lacewings excrete the label within 24 hours.

TABLE 2. Winter annual insectary plants at the almond orchard

TABLE 3. Dominant beneficial insects collected and analyzed for rubidium content at our study sites

TABLE 4. Highest rubidium level found in beneficial insects in crops versus naturally occurring background levels (controls)

Hedgerow of insectary shrubs and native grasses, Yolo County.

Scientists found that 70% of the syrphid flies in almond trees were marked with rubidium 100 feet away from the insectary planting.

Fig. 1. Percent Rb-labeled beneficial insects in the insectary hedgerow (0 ft) and in the adjacent vegetable crop at 20 ft and 250 ft (n = total number of insects captured).

Fig. 2. Percent Rb-labeled beneficial insects trapped in the almond trees at 0, 50 and 100 ft from the Rb-labeled insectary cover crop mix (n = total number of insects captured).

The results of this study demonstrate that beneficial insects feed on nectar or pollen provided by insectary plants, and that they move into associated crops. Because many Rb-labeled individuals were trapped 250 feet from the insectary plants, our data suggest strips or borders of flowering plants may help beneficial insects — even at long distances. The survival of many beneficial insect species depends on nectar or pollen so adding insectary plantings to the agricultural landscape may enlarge their populations and increase their activity in crops.

Return to top

Author notes

This research was supported by the California Tomato Research Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

References

Berry WL, Stimmann MW, Wolf WW. Marking of phytophagous native insects with rubidium: A proposed technique. Annals Ento. 1972. 65:8.

Stimmann MW, Wolf WW, Berry WL. Cabbage loopers: The biological effects of rubidium in the larval diet. J Econ Entomol. 1973. 66:6.

Bugg RL, Anderson JH, Thomsen CD, Chandler J. Pickett CH, Bugg RL. Farmscaping: Restoring native biodiversity to agricultural settings. Enhancing biological control: habitat management to promote natural enemies of agricultural pests. 1998. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press. (In press).

Citations

Manipulating the abundance of natural enemies in ornamental landscapes with floral resource plants
Eric J. Rebek et al. 2005. Biological Control 33(2):203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.02.011

Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields
Lora A. Morandin and Claire Kremen 2013. Ecological Applications 23(4):829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-1051.1

Factors affecting adoption of hedgerows and other biodiversity-enhancing features on farms in California, USA
Sonja Brodt et al. 2009. Agroforestry Systems 76(1):195
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9168-8

Attract and reward: combining chemical ecology and habitat manipulation to enhance biological control in field crops
Maria Simpson et al. 2011. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3):580
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01946.x

Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands: Implications for the Conservation of Ecosystem Service Providers in Agricultural Environments
Thomas Crist and Valerie Peters 2014. Land 3(3):693
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land3030693

An evaluation of insectary plants for management of insect pests in a hydroponic cropping system
Jane Tavares et al. 2015. Biological Control 91:1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.07.004

Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on adjacent tomato fields in an intensive agricultural landscape
Lora A. Morandin et al. 2014. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 189:164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.030

Field evaluation of the ‘attract and reward’ biological control approach in vineyards
M. Simpson et al. 2011. Annals of Applied Biology 159(1):69
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00477.x

Biodiversity and Insect Pests
Douglas A. Landis et al. 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118231838.ch17

Measuring parasitoid movement from floral resources in a vineyard
S.L. Scarratt et al. 2008. Biological Control 46(2):107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.03.016

Laboratory validation of rubidium marking of herbivorous insects and their predators
Amanda J Kobelt et al. 2009. Australian Journal of Entomology 48(3):204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2009.00704.x

Resource connectivity for beneficial insects in landscapes dominated by monoculture tree crop plantations
Manu E. Saunders 2016. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 14(1):82
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2015.1025496

Relative Densities of Natural Enemy and Pest Insects Within California Hedgerows
Tara L. Pisani Gareau et al. 2013. Environmental Entomology 42(4):688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN12317

Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest-site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground-nesting bees
Hillary S. Sardiñas et al. 2016. Restoration Ecology 24(4):499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12338

Enhancing the effectiveness of the parasitoid Diadegma semiclausum (Helen): Movement after use of nectar in the field
Blas Lavandero et al. 2005. Biological Control 34(2):152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.04.013

Larger wildflower plantings increase natural enemy density, diversity, and biological control of sentinel prey, without increasing herbivore density
BRETT R. BLAAUW and RUFUS ISAACS 2012. Ecological Entomology 37(5):386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01376.x

Impact of neonicotinoid insecticides on natural enemies in greenhouse and interiorscape environments
Raymond A Cloyd and James A Bethke 2011. Pest Management Science 67(1):3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.2015

Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop
Brett R. Blaauw et al. 2014. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(4):890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12257

Breeding Oilseed Crops for Sustainable Production
Uma Shankar and Dharam P. Abrol 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801309-0.00017-3

Influência de plantas invasoras na abundância de himenópteros parasitoides (Insecta, Hymenoptera) coletados em cultura de coqueiro anão verde, em Linhares, ES, Brasil
E.F. Comério et al. 2013. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico 80(1):117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-16572013000100018

Spatial distribution of flower vs. honeydew resources in cereal fields may affect aphid parasitism
Ines M.G. Vollhardt et al. 2010. Biological Control 53(2):204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.12.011

Forb responses to grazing and rest management in a critically endangered Australian native grassland ecosystem
Heidi C. Zimmer et al. 2010. The Rangeland Journal 32(2):187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ09069

Pollination services from field-scale agricultural diversification may be context-dependent
Hillary S. Sardiñas and Claire Kremen 2015. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 207:17
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.020

Determinants of field edge habitat restoration on farms in California's Sacramento Valley
Kelly Garbach and Rachael Freeman Long 2017. Journal of Environmental Management 189:134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.036

Should increasing the field size of monocultural crops be expected to exacerbate pest damage?
Moran Segoli and Jay A. Rosenheim 2012. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 150:38
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.01.010

Predators and Parasitoids
Opender Koul 2003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9780203302569.ch1

Ground cover and floral resources in shelterbelts increase the abundance of beneficial hymenopteran families
Ian M. Smith et al. 2015. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 17(2):120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/afe.12086

Effects of flower attractiveness and nectar availability in field margins on biological control by parasitoids
Felix J.J.A. Bianchi and Felix L. Wäckers 2008. Biological Control 46(3):400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.04.010

Abundance, movements and biodiversity of flying predatory insects in crop and non-crop agroecosystems
Juan Sorribas et al. 2016. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36(2)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0360-3

Relative Frequencies of Visits to Selected Insectary Plants by Predatory Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), Other Beneficial Insects, and Herbivores
M. D. Ambrosino et al. 2006. Environmental Entomology 35(2):394
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.2.394

Spatial Density and Movement of theLygusspp. ParasitoidPeristenus relictus(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Organic Strawberries With Alfalfa Trap Crops
Sean L. Swezey et al. 2014. Environmental Entomology 43(2):363
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN13128

Landscape simplification and altitude affect biodiversity, herbivory and Andean potato yield
Katja Poveda et al. 2012. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(2):513
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02120.x

Landscape configuration of crops and hedgerows drives local syrphid fly abundance
Sebastian Haenke et al. 2014. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2):505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12221

Influence of floral resource plants on control of an armored scale pest by the parasitoid Encarsia citrina (Craw.) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae)
Eric J. Rebek et al. 2006. Biological Control 37(3):320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.10.009

Habitat and plant specificity of Trichogramma egg parasitoids—underlying mechanisms and implications
Jörg Romeis et al. 2005. Basic and Applied Ecology 6(3):215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.10.004

Influence of Native Flowering Plant Strips on Natural Enemies and Herbivores in Adjacent Blueberry Fields
Nathaniel J. Walton and Rufus Isaacs 2011. Environmental Entomology 40(3):697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EN10288

Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on farms in California's Central Valley
Lora Morandin et al. 2011. California Agriculture 65(4):197
http://dx.doi.org/10.3733/ca.v065n04p197

Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: The role of habitat management
Anna K. Fiedler et al. 2008. Biological Control 45(2):254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.12.009

Insect Diversity in Phytoremediation and Bioaccumulation of Se
G. S. Bañuelos et al. 1999. International Journal of Phytoremediation 1(4):311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15226519908500022

Influence of Commercially Available Wildflower Mixes on Beneficial Arthropod Abundance and Predation in Turfgrass
S. K. Braman et al. 2002. Environmental Entomology 31(3):564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.3.564

Coccinellid abundance in shelterbelts is affected more by adjacent crop type and aphid abundance than vegetation characteristics
Ian M. Smith et al. 2015. Biological Control 87:47
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.04.004

Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) pollination in California's Central Valley is limited by native bee nest site location
Hillary S. Sardiñas et al. 2016. Ecological Applications 26(2):438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/15-0033


University of California, 2801 Second Street, Room 184, Davis, CA, 95618
Email: calag@ucanr.edu | Phone: (530) 750-1223 | Fax: (510) 665-3427
Website: http://calag.ucanr.edu