Next Article in Journal
Effects of α-Naphthylacetic Acid on Cadmium Stress and Related Factors of Tomato by Regulation of Gene Expression
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Crop Spectral Reflectance Sensor
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy12092140
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Response of the Coccinellidae Community within Sustainable Vineyards to the Surrounding Landscape

by
Luísa Taranto
1,2,
Isabel Rodrigues
1,2,
Sónia A. P. Santos
3,4,
María Villa
1,2,* and
José Alberto Pereira
1,2,*
1
Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
2
Laboratório Associado para a Sustentabilidade e Tecnologia em Regiões de Montanha (SusTEC), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
3
CIQuiBio, Barreiro School of Technology, Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal, Rua Américo da Silva Marinho, 2839-001 Lavradio, Portugal
4
Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food (LEAF), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(9), 2140; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092140
Submission received: 18 August 2022 / Revised: 3 September 2022 / Accepted: 5 September 2022 / Published: 9 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Agroecology Innovation: Achieving System Resilience)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The family Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) includes important predatory natural enemies in agricultural crops. To survive, this group uses different occurring resources across the landscape; therefore, the landscape can influence the Coccinellidae community in agroecosystems. In this context, this work aims to evaluate the response of the Coccinellidae community to the landscape context within a gradient of distances from vineyards managed under sustainable production methods. For that, Coccinellidae were sampled in thirty-five vineyards distributed by six wine Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) regions of Portugal, and landscape metrics—composition and configuration—were calculated in a 2000 m, 1500 m, 1000 m, 750 m, and 500 m buffers around the vineyards. Then, Coccinellidae species were identified, and the response of the Coccinellidae to the landscape metrics was analyzed. In total, 326 Coccinellidae from 21 species were collected. The most abundant species were Scymnus apetzi, Scymnus interruptus, Scymnus subvillosus, Coccinella septempunctata, and Stethorus pusillus, which together represented 83.4% of the total collected individuals. Most specimens were concentrated in July and at the vegetation cover. Results from the statistical analysis (Generalized Linear Mixed Models) indicated that the presence of seminatural habitat surrounding the crop may favor Coccinellidae, while habitat fragmentation seems detrimental for them. The potential relevance of the identified Coccinellidae for pest control in vineyards is discussed.

1. Introduction

Vineyards occupy a large proportion of Portugal’s territory, the fifth largest wine producer country in Europe and the eleventh worldwide [1]. One of the most important challenges for grapevine growers is arthropod pests due to their significant production and economic losses [2,3]. Pest populations in vineyards can be influenced by different factors such as climatic conditions [4,5], local management practices [6,7,8], or the structure of the agricultural landscape [9]. There is growing evidence that landscapes composed of complex habitat mosaics generally provide more crop protection against pests than a simplified landscape [10]; however, in some cases, complex landscapes may also favor colonization by crops’ pests [11]. In vineyards, a complex mosaic of both managed and natural habitats may maximize various ecosystem services (e.g., crop pollination and yield, biological pest control) [12], while the landscape simplification would have negative effects on natural pest control in vineyards [7,13,14,15,16]. Moreover, complex trophic interaction networks integrated by co-existing arthropods in the vine ecosystem [4,6], can maintain the pest populations under economic threshold levels [17]. Several works indicated that beneficial arthropods in Mediterranean vineyards can be enhanced through habitat manipulation, namely, establishing or maintaining non-crop vegetation within and/or surrounding the vineyards [15,18,19,20,21,22]. Ground cover vegetation promotes habitat complexity in vineyards, creating a microclimate that benefits natural enemies, e.g., mitigating temperature and increasing humidity [23], or providing shelter and food resources for arthropods [24,25]. On a broader scale, this can be promoted by: encouraging land uses that sustain the presence of natural or seminatural edge habitats; or large areas of uncultivated lands such as grasslands and natural or planted forests [26].
The family Coccinellidae (Coleoptera), commonly referred to as ladybirds or lady beetles, is considered one of the most important groups of predatory natural enemies, presenting species with different degrees of prey specialization [27]. Coccinellidae species can feed on the hemipteran suborder Sternorrhyncha (aphids, adelgids, scales, mealybugs, whiteflies, psyllids), ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), mites (Acari: Tetranychidae), leaves of plants, pollen, nectar honeydews, and fungi [28,29,30,31]. In vineyards, Coccinellidae may be important predators of several pests belonging to latter insect groups, such as vine mealybug Planococcus ficus Signoret (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) [32], or the Acari European red mite Panonychus ulmi Koch and the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch (Tetranychidae). These pests feed on the leaves of the vines, weakening them [33]. Coccinellidae have also been referred to as potential predators of lepidopteran pests in Australia [24], and therefore they may also be potential predators of the European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana Denis and Schiffermüller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) [11,34].
Coccinellidae are widely known for their predatory feeding habits [35], but can supplement their most common diet with non-prey supplementary foods, such as pollen, nectar, or insect honeydew [36], and even rely on them when food is scarce [29,37]. Moreover, both preys and supplementary foods (e.g., flowers) occur seasonally and patchily across the landscape where predators disperse, searching for food [38,39]. The effect of the landscape on Coccinellidae within vineyards was demonstrated in some cases. For example, in vineyards from Australia, several species of Coccinellidae from the vine canopy were aggregated within the crop, in rows near woody vegetation [24], and in vineyards from Spain, the richness and diversity of Coccinellidae were positively related with a more complex shape of the landscape within a 200 m buffer [40]. However, there is not sufficient investigation about how the landscape structure at different distances from the vineyards affects Coccinellidae populations within the crop. In Portugal, the coccinellidofauna was described by Raimundo and Alves [41], but habitats and the basic ecology knowledge about this group in Portugal are still insufficient. In the northeastern of the country, several species of Coccinellidae were previously found as important potential predators of aphids, coccids, mites, and scale pests in olive, chestnut, and almond groves [31,42,43]. In olive groves, Coccinellidae prey on the black scale, Saissetia oleae (Olivier) [44], and they were a well-represented group of natural predators in citrus [45]. However, there is a gap in knowledge of coccinellidofauna in Portuguese vineyards. In this context, this research aims to analyze the response of the Coccinellidae community to the surrounding landscape at different scales in the most important wine producer regions of Portugal, considering a period with suitable conditions for Coccinellidae (end of spring/ beginning of summer) and a period with unsuitable conditions (autumn).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

A total of 35 vineyards in six wine Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) regions of Portugal were selected to include a vast extension of territory and maximize the recorded information about the Coccinellidae community in sustainable Portuguese vineyards. The surveyed Wine regions were Bairrada, Beira Interior, Douro, Trás-os-Montes, Península de Setúbal, and Vinhos Verdes (Figure 1). Among them, the climate varies across two climate regions, according to Koppen-Geiger’s classification: one with a temperate climate with rainy winter and dry and hot summer (Csa), including the interior regions of Douro Valley, Trás-os-Montes, and Península de Setúbal, and the other with temperate climate with rainy winter and dry and mild summer (Csb), including Vinhos Verdes, Bairrada and Beira Interior [46], commonly observed in Mediterranean areas [47,48].
All the sampled vineyards are under sustainable production management (certified organic or integrated production). Spontaneous vegetation cover was maintained in the inter-rows during the collection periods. Additional data are given in Table S1 and shows the vineyard’s location, phenological stage, area, spacing, vine variety, orientation, training system, chemical treatments (when applied), and soil management.

2.2. Experimental Design and Species Identification

Sampling was performed on three dates: July (beginning of summer—with suitable conditions for Coccinellidae), September, and October (autumn—with unsuitable conditions for Coccinellidae) of 2019. In each vineyard, 10 samples of vegetation cover and 10 samples of the canopy were collected using an entomological sweep net of 38 cm diameter. Each sweep was performed by moving the entomological sweep net 180 degrees, 10 times at the vegetation cover and 50 times at the canopy. The net was emptied into plastic bags, and 0.3 mL of diethyl ether was added to kill the arthropods immediately and avoid intraguild predation within the bags. In the laboratory, they were stored in a freezer at −20 °C until identification.
Identifications at the species level were carried out using Raimundo and Alves [41]. Genitalia was extracted and observed when needed. For the extraction of the genitalia, a modified Majerus and Kearns [49], method was followed. Thus, the abdomen was detached from the body with a scalpel blade and boiled into 10% potassium hydroxide solution for 2 to 5 min to soften the hard body structures and partially clear the tissues. The processed abdomen was moved to a petri dish with a drop of glycerin, and the genitalia was operated on with the help of two needles under the binocular stereoscopic. Male and female genitalia were put into glass microscope slides with a drop of glycerin, fixed with coverslips, sealed on the edges, and identified. All specimens were stored in the Mountain Research Center (CIMO) collection at the Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Bragança, Portugal.

2.3. Landscape Variables

Landscape configuration and composition metrics were calculated within 2000, 1500, 1000, 750, and 500 m diameter buffers constructed around each vineyard (overlapping vineyards were excluded to avoid spatial autocorrelation. Thus, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 30 vineyards were selected respectively for 2000, 1500, 1000, 750, and 500 m buffers. The map “Carta de Uso e Ocupação do Solo de Portugal Continental para 2018″ [50], was used to obtain the land uses and respective areas within each circle. The map buffers were constructed using the buffer, intersect, and aggregate functions from the “raster” package [51], and the msexplode function from “rmapshaper” package [52], in R software [53]. To obtain more accurate landscape variables, the small polygons (<25 m2 because the resolution of orthophotos for COS2018 is 25 m2) generated in the buffer edges during the intersection process were merged to a larger adjacent polygon using ArcGIS, version 10.3.1 [54]. Then, landscape variables were calculated using the extension Patch Analyst of the ArcGIS.
The land-use classes considered to calculate the landscape metrics were vineyards, seminatural areas, olive orchards, other crops, other orchards, pasture, bared areas, artificial territory (i.e., urban territory, buildings), and water/humid areas.
At the landscape level (i.e., considering all land uses), the calculated metrics for further analysis were the Simpson’s diversity index (SEI) and the mean patch fractal dimension (MPFD). SEI was calculated to quantify the landscape composition and represents the probability that any land types randomly selected would be different from one another. MPFD was calculated to quantify the degree of complexity of the landscape by measuring the complexity of a polygon by relating perimeter and area [55]. At the class level, the considered landscape metrics were the areas of artificial territories (AT), olive orchards (Oli), vineyards (Vin), other crops (Oth), and seminatural areas (SNA) because they were the most variable across regions or because of its potential importance for Coccinellidae.

2.4. Coccinellidae Response to Landscape Variables

The response of Coccinellidae (richness and abundance) and of the tribe Scymnini (the most abundant tribe) abundance to the calculated landscape variables at the different buffers along the sampling period were analyzed using a series of separated generalized mixed models (GLMMs) (one model for each buffer: 500, 750, 1000, 1500, and 2000 m). Thus, the following explanatory variables were considered for the models construction: the coordinates of the sampling sites (longitude -X and latitude -Y), the landscape diversity index (SEI), the landscape complexity (MPFD), areas of artificial territories (AT), olive orchards (Oli), vineyards (Vin), other crops (Oth) and seminatural vegetation (SNA), the date (July, September, and October), and the habitats (two levels: ground cover vegetation and canopy). Before running the models, collinearity among the standardized continuous explanatory variables was evaluated, and non-collinear variables were selected for each buffer. For that, a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value higher than 3.5 was not allowed, and the Pearson correlations (calculated using the function cor from base R [53]) were lower than 0.7 in all cases, minimizing potential model misspecifications [56]. Thus, the selected explanatory variables for the full models were:
-
At 2000, 1500, and 500 m buffers the full models included Y, SEI, MPFD, AT, Oli, Vin, SNA, Date, and Habitat. X and Oth were excluded because X was negatively correlated with AT, and Vin with Oth. The maximum VIF among the continuous variables was 3.48, 2.75, and 2.89, respectively.
-
At the 1000 and 750 m buffers the full model included X, Y, SEI, MPFD, AT, Oli, Vin, SNA, Date, and Habitat. Oth was excluded from the model because it was negatively correlated with Vin. The maximum VIF among the continuous variables was 2.82, 2.89, respectively.
The Poisson (for count data) and negative binomial—quadratic parameterization (nbinom2)—to account with overdispersion distributions [57], were used for the models. The distribution used for each model is indicated in Table S2. Backward selection was performed until all explanatory variables were significant or the model validation failed. The most explanatory model (keeping the highest number of explanatory variables) within <2 ΔAIC was selected [58]. The function glmmTMB from the glmmTMB package was used for the models fit [59]. Models were validated using the simulateResiduals function from DHARMa package [60].

3. Results

3.1. Community Description

In total, 326 Coccinellidae individuals belonging to 21 species were identified. Six of the most abundant Coccinellidae species represented 87.1% of the total collected individuals and belonged to three tribes: Scymnini [Scymnus apetzi (Mulsant) totaling 96 individuals, Scymnus interruptus (Goeze) 64 individuals, Scymnus subvillosus (Goeze) 44 individuals], Coccinellini [Coccinella septempunctata (Linnaeus) 43 individuals, Hippodamia variegata (Goeze) 18 individuals] and Stethorini [Stethorus pusillus (Herbst) 19 individuals] (Table 1). The highest abundance was recorded in July, with 210 individuals and 13 species, followed by October, with 63 individuals and 14 species. September had the lowest abundance and richness, with nine species and 52 individuals, and 10 species (Table 1 and Figure 2). The GLMM results showed that Coccinellidae and Scymnini were more abundant in July than in September and October and in the vegetation ground cover than in the canopy (Table S2).

3.2. Coccinellidae Response to Landscape Structure

Results showed that some of the landscape metrics affected Coccinellidae and that the effects depended on the buffer size where the metrics were calculated. At 500 m, 750 m, and 1000 m, seminatural vegetation (SNA) areas significantly increased the Coccinellidae abundance. Scymnini abundance also had a positive influence by seminatural areas at 500 m, 750 m, 1500 m, and 2000 m buffers (Figure 3). Landscape diversity (SEI) significantly decreased the Coccinellidae abundance (at 1500 m) and Scymnini abundance at 500 m and 1000 m buffers (Figure 4).
The presence of artificial territory and vineyards increased Scymnini abundance at 750 m but not at the other buffers. Coccinellidae abundance was also positively influenced by the complexity of the landscape configuration (MPFD) at larger buffers (2000 m and 1500 m) (Figure 5), and vineyards showed a positive influence on Scymnini abundance at 2000 m, 1500 m, and 750 m (Table S2).
The richness of Coccinellidae was not affected by the landscape composition or configuration (Table S2).

4. Discussion

In this study, Coccinellidae, and particularly Scymnini abundances, responded to the composition and configuration of the surrounding landscape in Portuguese PDO regions. However, Coccinellidae richness did not vary with the landscape.
Commonly, a diverse landscape mosaic enhances beneficial arthropods [7,13,14,15,16]. However, in this study, the landscape diversity (SEI) decreased Scymnini abundance (at 500 and 1000 m buffers) and the abundance of Coccinellidae at 1500 m. A more diverse landscape mosaic may mean more resources for organisms but also implies a higher number of smaller patches and, therefore, a more fragmented area. Fragmented habitats reduce the possible habitat area and increase edge effects [61]. On the other hand, in a less diverse landscape (lower SEI) with larger patches, a larger center area not affected by external factors (such as the environmental and biotic changes associated with edges) will be available [62]. This suggests the need to find an equilibrium between the greater range of habitats provided by more diverse landscapes and the negative effects of habitat fragmentation. As mentioned, this effect was not detected at all buffers, and a partner on the scale effect was not revealed, indicating that more research is needed to confirm the results. However, the abundance of Coccinellidae and Scymnini were generally positively affected by the area of seminatural vegetation around the vineyards, indicating that the specific composition of the land use (SNA) and not the diversity of land uses (SEI) would favor the abundance of Coccinellidae and particularly of Scyminini. That agrees with Thomson and Hoffmann [63], who found a higher abundance of Coccinellidae in vineyards with adjacent woody vegetation, and with Ammann et al. [38], who found landscapes with higher proportions of forest edge to support higher abundance and densities of aphid predators (including Coccinellidae) as well as reduced aphid infestation on fava bean. Uncultivated habitats can provide refuge where Coccinellidae can survive for short periods when prey within the crop is insufficient [64]. Wood trees, like Arbutus unedo L., common in seminatural habitats from the studied areas [65], can host important natural enemies of vineyard pests, including Coccinellidae [21]. Also, increasing distances from adjacent vegetation were related to a predator reduction during spring [14], highlighting the positive impact of these habitats on Coccinellidae and other beneficial arthropods nearby vineyards [20,66]. These results indicate that land management focused on maintaining natural or seminatural habitats may support the Coccinellidae community preservation [26]. However, not all studies agree with this conclusion. For example, Judt et al. [22] did not find seminatural habitats to affect arthropods in vineyards, but in this case, although arthropods were collected in May and July, only two Coccinellidae individuals were recovered.
Results also indicated that the complexity of the landscape configuration (MPDF) favored the Coccinellidae abundance at the largest buffers (2000 and 1500 m), being more abundant in vineyards when irregular patches constituted the landscape. The same pattern was observed in several studies when studying Coccinellidae assemblages [67,68,69], which found that higher configurational heterogeneity (normally related to higher intensification of agricultural landscapes) reduced Coccinellidae diversity and abundance.
In this study, the vineyard areas were related with an increase of Scymnini at 2000 m, 1500 m, and 750 m, which was expectable because they are common insects within vineyards [21,43].
Regarding the Coccinellidae community composition, the most abundant tribe was Scymnini. Scymnini species are voracious predators of aphids and coccids [29,70,71]. Among the five most abundant Coccinellidae, three species (S. apetzi, S. interruptus, and S. subvillosus) belong to Scymnini, and they occur in the canopy and the vegetation cover. These species are common in other Portuguese crops, such as chestnut, almond, or olive groves [31,43,72]. Scymnus apetzi and S. interruptus were also frequent species in Portuguese citrus groves [45], preying mainly on aphids [27,39,41]. Their high abundance in olive and citrus groves suggested that they probably feed on the black scale, S. oleae, a frequent coccid pest in both crops, as well as other coccids and pseudococcids [31,44]. Scymnus subvillosus is frequent in Mediterranean olive groves [72], and can feed on coccids, diaspidids, or aphids [45]. Scymnus are also considered abundant pseudococcid predators in vineyards [73]. The phenology of these species in other Portuguese crops is in accordance with our results [45,72]. The high abundance of these species in vineyards suggests their role as biological control agents.
Coccinellini was the second most abundant tribe found in the vineyards. This tribe is mainly composed by predators of aphids [74], psyllids, and Chrysomelidae [27]. It includes C. septempunctata, the third more abundant species in the study, which besides aphids [39], feed on pollen [27]. In Portugal, this species is frequent in chestnuts [43], citrus groves [45], and almond trees [42]. Its peak was in July, in September was not found, and reappeared with less abundance in October. The same pattern occurred in chestnuts [43], where C. septempunctata had its peak in August, was almost null in September, and recovered its activity in October. Hippodamia variegate, also Coccinellini, is an aphidophagous species [29,39], which was only found in the vegetation cover. Hippodamia genus is frequent in perennial crops [42,43,45,72], and in the spontaneous vegetation cover of legume crops [19]. In this agroecosystem, H. variegata was also found in the blooming herbaceous vegetation cover [9].
The tribe Stethorini was the third most abundant in this survey, and it was composed of only S. pusillus, the fifth more numerous collected species. This species is a well-known specialist of Tetranychidae [28], actively prey P. ulmi, and T. urticae [33], and can feed on extrafloral nectaries in the absence of prey [27]. Stethorus pusillus is extensively distributed throughout the most geographically diverse areas, and crops being successfully used in biological control in woody perennial systems, like vineyards [28].

5. Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that larger areas of seminatural habitats surrounding the vineyards would result in higher abundances of Coccinellidae, particularly of Scymnini, and that fragmentation may be detrimental for them, while the Coccinellidae richness would not be affected by the landscape. Moreover, Coccinellidae were concentrated in the ground cover vegetation and in July. This Coccinellidae relationship with the surrounding landscape and its community composition in Portuguese vineyards indicate that managing landscapes toward mosaics of less fragmented habitats, with prioritization of the presence of large natural areas, may benefit Coccinellidae species with important roles in biological control against vineyard pests.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12092140/s1, Table S1: Wine Regions climatic information [46], vineyards’ sampling dates, and management data of the plots. Tmin—Medium of the minimum temperature; Tmax—Medium of the maximum temperature; Total Prec.—Total Precipitation. Table S2: General Liner Mixed Models (GLMMs) for the Coccinellidae abundance and richness, and Scymnini abundance response to landscape variables, sampling period and habitat at different buffers (2000 m, 1500 m, 1000 m, 750 m, and 500 m). SEI—Simpson’s diversity index; MPFD—mean patch fractal dimension; S- September; O—October; J—July; H—Herbaceous; C—Canopy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: J.A.P., I.R. and M.V.; Methodology: L.T., I.R., S.A.P.S. and J.A.P.; Statistical analysis: M.V.; Writing—Original draft preparation, review and editing, all authors contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors are grateful to the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) for financial support by national funds FCT/MCTES to CIMO (UIDB/00690/2020 and UIDP/00690/2020) to the Associate Laboratory SusTEC (LA/P/0007/2020), and to the project OLIVESIM-Managing ecosystem services in olive groves using advanced landscape agent-based models PTDC/ASP-PLA/30003/2017.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. OIV—International Organisation of Vine and Wine. Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/6782/oiv-2019-statistical-report-on-world-vitiviniculture.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2021).
  2. Culliney, T. Crop Losses to Arthropods. In Integrated Pest Management; Pimentel, D., Peshin, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mani, M.; Shivaraju, C.; Kulkarni, N.S. The Grape Entomology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Reineke, A.; Thiéry, D. Grapevine insect pests and their natural enemies in the age of global warming. J. Pest. Sci. 2016, 89, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bois, B.; Zito, S.; Calonnec, A. Climate vs grapevine pests and diseases worldwide: The first results of a global survey. OENO One 2017, 51, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Wilson, H.; Miles, A. Habitat Management in Vineyards. A Growers Manual for Enhancing Natural Enemies. Laboratory of Agroecology, College of Natural Resources University of California, USA. 2010. Available online: http://agroecology.berkeley.edu (accessed on 12 February 2021).
  7. Caprio, E.; Nervo, B.; Isaia, M.; Allegro, G.; Rolando, A. Organic versus conventional systems in viticulture: Comparative effects on spiders and carabids in vineyards and adjacent forests. Agric. Syst. 2015, 136, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sáenz-Romo, M.G.; Veas-Bernal, A.; Martínez-García, H.; Ibáñez-Pascual, S.; Martínez-Villar, E.; Campos-Herrera, R.; Marco-Mancebón, V.S.; Perez-Moreno, I. Effects of ground cover management on insect predators and pests in a Mediterranean vineyard. Insects 2019, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Franin, K.; Barić, B.; Kuštera, G. The role of ecological infrastructure on beneficial arthropods in vineyards. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 14, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Rand, T.A.; Didham, R.K.; Fahrig, L.; Batáry, P.; Bengtsson, J.; Clough, Y.; Crist, T.O.; Dormann, C.F.; et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—Eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 2012, 87, 661–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Alignier, A.; Raymond, L.; Deconchat, M.; Menozzi, P.; Monteil, C.; Sarthou, J.P.; Vialatte, A.; Ouin, A. The effect of seminatural habitats on aphids and their natural enemies across spatial and temporal scales. Biol. Control 2014, 77, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meehan, T.D.; Werling, B.P.; Landis, D.A.; Gratton, C. Agricultural landscape simplification and insecticide use in the Midwestern United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 11500–11505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rusch, A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Gardiner, M.M.; Hawro, V.; Holland, J.; Landis, D.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T.; Weisser, W.W.; Winqvist, C.; et al. Agricultural landscape simplification reduces natural pest control: A quantitative synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 221, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Gonçalves, F.; Carlos, C.; Aranha, J.; Torres, L. Does habitat heterogeneity affects soil-surface active arthropods diversity in vineyards? Agric. For. Entomol. 2018, 20, 366–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gonçalves, F.; Nunes, C.; Carlos, C.; López, Á.; Oliveira, I.; Crespí, A.; Teixeira, B.; Pinto, R.; Costa, C.A.; Torres, L. Do soil management practices affect the activity density, diversity, and stability of soil arthropods in vineyards? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 294, 106863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hall, R.M.; Penke, N.; Kriechbaum, M.; Kratschmer, S.; Jung, V.; Chollet, S.; Guernionc, M.; Nicolaic, A.; Burelc, F.; Fertil, A.; et al. Vegetation management intensity and landscape diversity alter plant species richness, functional traits and community composition across European vineyards. Agric. Syst. 2020, 177, 102706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carlos, C.; Tão, C.B.; Domingos, J.A.; Costa, J.R.; Alves, F.; Torres, L.M. Insectos predadores associados à vinha na Região Demarcada do Douro. In Proceedings of the VII Encontro Nacional de Protecção Integrada, Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 5–7 December 2005; pp. 388–397. [Google Scholar]
  18. Campos, L.; Franco, J.C.; Monteiro, A.; Lopes, C. Influence of cover cropping on arthropod associated to a vineyard in Estremadura. Cien. Tec. Vitivinic. 2006, 21, 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bertolaccini, I.; Núñez-Pérez, E.; Tizado, E. Alternative Plants Hosts of Legume Aphids and Predators, in the Province of León (Spain). Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2011, 38, 233–242. Available online: http://ijanr.cl/index.php/ijanr/article/view/119 (accessed on 12 February 2021). [CrossRef]
  20. Carlos, C.; Gonçalves, F.; Crespo, L.; Zina, V. How does habitat diversity affect ground-dwelling arthropods assemblages in Douro Demarcated Region terraced vineyards? J. Insect Conserv. 2019, 23, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gonçalves, F.; Carlos, C.; Crespi, A.; Villenant, C.; Trivellone, V.; Goula, M.; Canovai, R.; Zina, V.; Crespo, L.; Pinheiro, L.; et al. The functional agrobiodiversity in the Douro demarcated region viticulture: Utopia or reality? Arthropods as a case-study a review. Cien. Tec. Vitivinic. 2019, 34, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Judt, C.; Guzmán, G.; Gómez, J.A.; Cabezas, J.M.; Entrenas, J.A.; Winter, S.; Zaller, J.G.; Paredes, D. Diverging effects of landscape factors and inter-row management on the abundance of beneficial and herbivorous arthropods in Andalusian vineyards (Spain). Insects 2019, 10, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vogelweith, F.; Thiéry, D. Cover crop differentially affects arthropods, but not diseases, occurring on grape leaves in vineyards. Aust. J. Grape Wine R. 2017, 23, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thomson, L.J.; Hoffmann, A.A. Vegetation increases the abundance of natural enemies in vineyards. Biol. Control 2009, 49, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shapira, I.; Gavish-Regev, E.; Sharon, R.; Harari, A.R.; Kishinevsky, M.; Keasar, T. Habitat use by crop pests and natural enemies in a Mediterranean vineyard agroecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 267, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Grez, A.A.; Rand, T.A.; Zaviezo, T.; Castillo-Serey, F. Land use intensification differentially benefits alien over native predators in agricultural landscape mosaics. Divers. Distrib. 2013, 19, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hodek, I.; Evans, E.W. Food relationships. In Ecology and Behaviour of the Ladybird Beetles (Coccinellidae); Hodek, I., Honek, A., Van Emden, H.F., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 143–238. [Google Scholar]
  28. Biddinger, D.J.; Weber, D.C.; Hull, L.A. Coccinellidae as predators of mites: Stethorini in biological control. Biol. Control 2009, 51, 268–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giorgi, J.A.; Vandenberg, N.J.; McHugh, J.V.; Forrester, J.A.; Slipinski, S.A.; Miller, K.B.; Shapiro, L.R.; Whiting, M.F. The evolution of food preferences in Coccinellidae. Biol. Control 2009, 51, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hodek, I.; Honěk, A. Scale insects, mealybugs, whiteflies and psyllids (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha) as prey of ladybirds. Biol. Control 2009, 51, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santos, S.A.P.; Bento, A.; Pereira, J.A. Biological Control in Agroecosystems: The Case of Coccidophagy by Coccinellids—Biocontrol: Management Processes and Challenges; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 19–36. ISBN 978-1-61942-803-4. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharma, L.; Gonçalves, F.; Oliveira, I.; Torres, L.; Marques, G. Insect-associated fungi from naturally mycosed vine mealybug Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2018, 28, 122–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Duso, C.; Pozzebon, A.; Kreiter, S.; Tixier, M.S.; Candolfi, M. Management of phytophagous mites in European vineyards. In Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 191–217. [Google Scholar]
  34. Carlos, C.G.F.; Sousa, S.; Salvação, J.; Sharma, L.; Soares, R.; Manso, J.; Nóbrega, M.; Lopes, A.; Soares, S.; Aranha, J.; et al. Environmentally safe strategies to control the European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) in the Douro demarcated region. Cien. Tec. Vitivinic. 2013, 28, 1006–1011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Che, L.H.; Zhang, P.; Deng, S.H.; Escalona, H.E.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Pang, H.; Vandenberg, N.; Ślipiński, A.; Tomaszewska, W.; et al. New insights into the phylogeny and evolution of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) by extensive sampling of genes and species. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2021, 156, 107045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lundgren, J.G.; Fergen, J.K. The effects of a winter cover crop on Diabrotica virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) populations and beneficial arthropod communities in no-till maize. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1816–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Iperti, G. Biodiversity of predaceous Coccinellidae in relation to bioindication and economic importance. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ammann, L.; Bosem-Baillod, A.; Eckerter, P.W.; Entling, M.H.; Albrecht, M.; Herzog, F. Comparing floral resource maps and land cover maps to predict predators and aphid suppression on field bean. Landscape Ecol. 2021, 36, 2997–3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stowe, H.E.; Michaud, J.P.; Kim, T.N. Floral resources enhance fecundity, but not flight activity, in a specialized aphid predator, Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 748870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jiménez-García, L.; García-Martínez, Y.G.; Marco-Mancebón, V.; Pérez-Moreno, I.; Jiménez-García, D. Biodiversity analysis of natural arthropods enemies in vineyard agroecosystems in La Rioja, Spain. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Raimundo, A.A.C.; Alves, M.L.G. Revisão dos Coccinellídeos de Portugal; Universidade de Évora: Évora, Portugal, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  42. Benhadi-Marín, J.; Pereira, J.A.; Barrientos, J.A.; Bento, A.; Santos, S.A.P. Diversity of predaceous arthropods in the almond tree canopy in Northeastern Portugal: A methodological approach. Entomol. Sci. 2011, 14, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Santos, S.A.P.; Raimundo, A.; Bento, A.; Pereira, J.A. Species abundance patterns of coccinellid communities associated with olive, chestnut and almond crops in northeastern Portugal. Agric. For. Entomol. 2012, 14, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Santos, S.A.P.; Pereira, J.A.; Rodrigues, M.C.; Torres, L.M.; Pereira, A.M.N.; Nogueira, A.J.A. Identification of predator-prey relationships between coccinellids and Saissetia oleae (Hemiptera: Coccidae), in olive groves, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J. Pest Sci. 2009, 82, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Magro, A.; Hemptinne, J.L. The pool of coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to control coccids (Homoptera: Coccoidea) in Portuguese citrus groves. Bol. Sanid. Veg. 1999, 25, 311–320. [Google Scholar]
  46. IPMA—Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera. Normais Climatológicas. Portugal Continental. Available online: https://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/normais.clima/ (accessed on 4 May 2021).
  47. Lionello, P.; Malanotte-Rizzoli, P.; Boscolo, R.; Alpert, P.; Artale, V.; Li, L.; Luterbacher, J.; May, W.; Trigo, R.; Tsimplis, M.; et al. An overview of the main characteristics and issues. In The Mediterranean Climate; Lionello, P., Malanotte-Rizzoli, P., Boscolo, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; p. 438. [Google Scholar]
  48. Andrade, C.; Contente, J. Köppen’s climate classification projections for the Iberian Peninsula. Clim. Res. 2020, 81, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Majerus, M.; Kearns, P. Ladybirds Naturalists’ Handbooks; Richmond Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  50. DGT—Direção-Geral do Território. Carta de Uso e Ocupação do Solo (COS) para 2018. Available online: https://snig.dgterritorio.gov.pt (accessed on 19 May 2021).
  51. Hijmans, R.J. Raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R Package Version 3.4-10. 2021. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (accessed on 26 June 2021).
  52. Teucher, A.; Russell, R. Rmapshaper: Client for ‘Mapshaper’ for ‘Geospatial’ Operations. R Package Version 0.4.5. 2021. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rmapshaper (accessed on 26 May 2021).
  53. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 13 May 2021).
  54. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.3.1; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. McGarigal, K.; Marks, B.J. Fragstats. Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure; General Technical Report No. PNW-GTR-351; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 1995.
  56. Dormann, C.F.; Elith, J.; Bacher, S.; Buchmann, C.; Carl, G.; Carre, G.; Garcia Marquez, J.R.; Gruber, B.; Lafourcade, B.; Leitão, P.J.; et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 2013, 36, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bolker, B. Getting Started with the glmmTMB Package. 2021. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glmmTMB/vignettes/glmmTMB.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  58. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res. 2004, 33, 261–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brooks, M.E.; Kristensen, K.; van Benthem, K.J.; Magnusson, A.; Berg, C.W.; Nielsen, A.; Skaug, H.J.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B.M. glmmTMB Balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling. R J. 2017, 9, 378–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R Package Version. 4.3. 2021. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa (accessed on 18 June 2021).
  61. Saunders, D.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Margules, C.R. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conserv. Biol. 1991, 5, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Holland, M.M.; Risser, P.G. The role of landscape boundaries in the management and restoration of changing environments: Introduction. In Ecotones; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  63. Thomson, L.J.; Hoffmann, A.A. Spatial scale of benefits from adjacent woody vegetation on natural enemies within vineyards. Biol. Control 2013, 64, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Honek, A.; Dixon, A.F.; Soares, A.O.; Skuhrovec, J.; Martinkova, Z. Spatial and temporal changes in the abundance and composition of ladybird (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) communities. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2017, 20, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Flora-On—Sociedade Portuguesa de Botânica. Flora de Portugal Interactiva—Flora-On. Available online: www.flora-on.pt (accessed on 3 June 2021).
  66. Carlos, C.C.R. Towards a Sustainable Control of Arthropod pests in Douro Demarcated Region Vineyards with Emphasis on the Grape Berry Moth, Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schifermüller). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  67. Grez, A.A.; Zaviezo, T.; Hernández, J.; Rodríguez-San Pedro, A.; Acuña, P. The heterogeneity and composition of agricultural landscapes influence native and exotic coccinellids in alfalfa fields. Agric. For. Entomol. 2014, 16, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grez, A.A.; Prado, E. Effect of plant patch shape and surrounding vegetation on the dynamics of predatory coccinellids and their prey Brevicoryne brassicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ. Entomol. 2000, 29, 1244–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. With, K.A.; Pavuk, D.M.; Worchuck, J.L.; Oates, R.K.; Fisher, J.L. Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Roy, H.; Migeon, A. Ladybeetles (Coccinellidae). Chapter 8.4. BioRisk 2010, 4, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bouvet, J.P.R.; Urbaneja, A.; Monzo, C. Life history traits of the coccinellids Scymnus subvillosus and S interruptus on their prey Aphis spiraecola and A gossypii: Implications for biological control of aphids in clementine citrus. Biol. Control 2019, 132, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Santos, S.A.; Pereira, J.A.; Nogueira, A.J.A. Response of coccinellid community to the dimethoate application in olive groves in northeastern Portugal. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 1, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Daane, K.M.; Bell, V.A.; Botton, M.; Fallahzadeh, M.; Mani, M.N.J. Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions; Bostanian, N.J., Isaacs, R., Vincent, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Slipinski, A. Australian Ladybird Beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): Their Biology and Classification; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 12 02140 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of Portugal with indicated sampled vineyards and, respectively PDO Wine Region. The map was projected in ETRS89/PT-TM06.
Figure 1. Map of Portugal with indicated sampled vineyards and, respectively PDO Wine Region. The map was projected in ETRS89/PT-TM06.
Agronomy 12 02140 g001
Agronomy 12 02140 g002 550
Figure 2. Relative abundance of Coccinellidae species found in the vineyards in July, September, and October (a); Venn diagram showing Coccinellidae species in vineyards in July, September, and October. The overlapping areas indicate species shared by two or three dates. The number of specimens (subscripts) is indicated (b).
Figure 2. Relative abundance of Coccinellidae species found in the vineyards in July, September, and October (a); Venn diagram showing Coccinellidae species in vineyards in July, September, and October. The overlapping areas indicate species shared by two or three dates. The number of specimens (subscripts) is indicated (b).
Agronomy 12 02140 g002
Agronomy 12 02140 g003 550
Figure 3. Response of the Coccinellidae and Scymnini abundance to Seminatural areas (SNA) (standardized) surrounding vineyards at different buffers (Coccinellidae: (a)—500 m; (b)—750 m; (c)—1000 m; Scymnini: (d)—500 m; (e)—750 m; (f)—1500 m; and (g)—2000 m).
Figure 3. Response of the Coccinellidae and Scymnini abundance to Seminatural areas (SNA) (standardized) surrounding vineyards at different buffers (Coccinellidae: (a)—500 m; (b)—750 m; (c)—1000 m; Scymnini: (d)—500 m; (e)—750 m; (f)—1500 m; and (g)—2000 m).
Agronomy 12 02140 g003
Agronomy 12 02140 g004 550
Figure 4. Response of the Scymnini and Coccinellidae abundance to landscape diversity (SEI) (standardized) surrounding vineyards at different buffers: (a) Scymnini—500 m; (b) Scymnini—1000 m; (c) Coccinellidae—1500 m.
Figure 4. Response of the Scymnini and Coccinellidae abundance to landscape diversity (SEI) (standardized) surrounding vineyards at different buffers: (a) Scymnini—500 m; (b) Scymnini—1000 m; (c) Coccinellidae—1500 m.
Agronomy 12 02140 g004
Agronomy 12 02140 g005 550
Figure 5. Response of the abundance of Scymnini to artificial territory and response of Coccinellidae to mean patch fractal dimension (MPFD) (standardized) surrounding vineyards at different buffers: (a) Scymnini—750 m; (b) Coccinellidae—2000 m; and (c) Coccinellidae—1500 m.
Figure 5. Response of the abundance of Scymnini to artificial territory and response of Coccinellidae to mean patch fractal dimension (MPFD) (standardized) surrounding vineyards at different buffers: (a) Scymnini—750 m; (b) Coccinellidae—2000 m; and (c) Coccinellidae—1500 m.
Agronomy 12 02140 g005
Table
Table 1. Number of individuals (n) and percentage per sampling date (%) of Coccinellidae by tribes.
Table 1. Number of individuals (n) and percentage per sampling date (%) of Coccinellidae by tribes.
TaxaJulySeptemberOctober
n%n%n%
Coccinellini
Adalia bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) 11.88
Adalia decempunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) 11.58
Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) 23.17
Coccinella novemnotata (Herbst, 1793) 11.8823.17
Coccinella septempunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)2913.81 1422.22
Oenopia conglobata (Linnaeus, 1758) 11.88
Propylaea quatuordecimpunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)10.47
Hippodamia variegata (Goeze, 1777)104.7611.88711.11
Coccidullini
Rhizobius chrysomeloides (Herbst, 1792)10.4723.7746.34
Rhizobius litura (Fabricius, 1787) 11.58
Coccidula rufa (Herbst, 1783)20.9523.77
Scymnini
Nephus binotatus (Brisout de Barneville, 1863) 46.34
Nephus helgae (Fürsch, 1965) 11.58
Nephus redtenbacheri (Mulsant, 1846)52.38
Scymnus abietis (Paykull, 1798)31.42
Scymnus apetzi (Mulsant, 1846)6832.381833.961015.87
Scymnus interruptus (Goeze, 1777)5124.2947.54914.29
Scymnus mediterraneus (Iablokoff-Khnzorian, 1972)41.91 23.17
Scymnus rufipes (Fabricius, 1798)20.95
Scymnus subvillosus (Goeze, 1777)188.572241.5146.34
Stethorini
Stethorus pusillus (Herbst, 1797)167.6111.8823.17
Total abundance2105363
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Taranto, L.; Rodrigues, I.; Santos, S.A.P.; Villa, M.; Pereira, J.A. Response of the Coccinellidae Community within Sustainable Vineyards to the Surrounding Landscape. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092140

AMA Style

Taranto L, Rodrigues I, Santos SAP, Villa M, Pereira JA. Response of the Coccinellidae Community within Sustainable Vineyards to the Surrounding Landscape. Agronomy. 2022; 12(9):2140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Taranto, Luísa, Isabel Rodrigues, Sónia A. P. Santos, María Villa, and José Alberto Pereira. 2022. "Response of the Coccinellidae Community within Sustainable Vineyards to the Surrounding Landscape" Agronomy 12, no. 9: 2140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092140

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop