Next Article in Journal
Improvement in the Identification Technology for Asian Spongy Moth, Lymantria dispar Linnaeus, 1758 (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) Based on SS-COI
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of the Landscape on Insect Pests and Associated Natural Enemies in Greenhouses Crops: The Strawberry Study Case
Previous Article in Journal
Suitability of Raycell MK2 Blood X-ray Irradiator for the Use in the Sterile Insect Technique: Dose Response in Fruit Flies, Tsetse Flies and Mosquitoes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of Spodoptera exigua Population: Does the Nutritional Status Matter?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/insects14010093
insects-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

Impact of Post-Harvest Management Practices in Corn (Zea mays L.) Fields on Arthropods in Subsequent Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) Plantings

by
Alan W. Leslie
1,
Scott R. McCluen
2 and
Cerruti R. R. Hooks
2,*
1
University of Maryland Extension, University of Maryland, Charles County, Bel Alton, MD 20611, USA
2
Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010093
Submission received: 4 December 2022 / Revised: 6 January 2023 / Accepted: 13 January 2023 / Published: 15 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Insects Ecology and Biocontrol Applications)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Soybean plantings typically consist of a diversity of herbivores and beneficial arthropods. In many instances, soybean producers rely on insecticide sprays to suppress pestiferous insects. However, these sprays may prove more damaging than beneficial. Increased vegetation diversity aims to enhance natural enemy abundance and efficacy and subsequently reduce pest populations more sustainably. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of three post-harvest practices in corn, resulting in varying levels of plant residue remaining on the soil surface, on populations of arthropod pests and beneficials within a subsequent soybean crop. Overall, insect herbivore abundance was greater in soybean with no cover crop and/or corn plant residue. However, the abundance of predators within the soybean foliage was similar among plots with plant residue or most residue removed via plowing. Among ground predators, spider activity density was greatest in soybean where residue was plowed under. Stink bug egg mortality due to predation and parasitism were inconsistent among treatments. Findings suggest that post-harvest practices investigated during this study will have a similar influence on most ground and foliar arthropods. However, post-harvest practices that limit tillage and maintain plant residue on the surface promote long-term sustainable ecosystems that benefit society.

Abstract

There is increased adoption of cover cropping and conservation tillage in the USA. Many farmers view these practices as methods for improving their soils. However, different cover cropping and tillage practices conducted post-harvest can have a disparate impact on arthropods within the subsequent cash crop. Field experiments were conducted during 2017 and 2018 at two experimental sites to examine the influences of different post-harvest practices following corn (Zea mays L.) harvest on pests and beneficials in subsequent soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plantings. Experimental treatments included: (1) tillage via chisel plow (CP), (2) no-tillage in which corn residue/stubble remained on the soil surface (CS), and (3) planting a cover crop into corn residue (CC) following corn harvest. Overall, insect herbivore abundance was greater in the CP treatment. Foliar predator numbers were similar among treatments or of greater abundance in CP. The activity density of epigeal insect predators varied according to site and feeding guild. However, spider activity density was greatest in CP. Stink bug egg mortality due to predation and parasitism varied among treatments. However, the percentage of stink bug eggs that hatched was greatest in the CC during both years. Findings suggest that post-harvest practices investigated during this study will have a similar influence on most epigeal and foliar arthropods in soybean.

1. Introduction

Global soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production in 2017/2018 was estimated at ~ 337 million metric tons [1]. Notwithstanding, it has been suggested that farmers worldwide must increase crop production over the coming decades to keep pace with a rapidly growing international population [2]. Consequently, much of soybean research has centered on methods to increase yield [3]. Biophysical limits on crop growth are an important factor in determining yield potentials [2]: however, improving crop stress tolerance [4] and protecting crops from disease, insect and weed pests must be done concomitantly to improve crop yields [5]. Plant diversification in the form of greater vegetation complexity and/or diversity has been proposed as a natural and eco-friendly method to regulate agricultural pests and create resilient farming systems [6,7]. As such, a captious complaint of monoculture cropping systems is that reduced habitat complexity causes these systems to be more vulnerable to pest outbreaks [8]. In monoculture cropping systems, beneficial organisms are thought to be adversely affected by a lack of refuge, alternative prey and food sources, and other conditions required for optimal performance [8]. In variance, pestiferous organisms are forecasted to benefit from simple crop plantings [9]. The complexity of agroecosystems can be heightened via the added inclusion of plant residue and living plants [9,10,11,12]. Cover crops can influence arthropod communities within cropping systems by reducing herbivore colonization and enhancing natural enemy abundance, and can do so as a living mulch or organic residue [10,11,12].
Cover cropping with plants such as rye (Secale cereal L.), Vetch (Vicia villosa L.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) has been historically researched for its potential to provide arable lands with soil quality services such as reducing erosion [13], as well as increasing soil organic matter [14,15] and nutrient levels [16]. Retention of cover crop residue on the soil surface as part of conservation tillage has also been researched for its potential to prevent weed establishment [17,18,19]. Recently, cover crops have become of greater interest for use in manipulating organisms (e.g., nematodes, arthropods, and weeds) that may impose stress on field crops and subsequently reduce yield [20,21,22,23]. Studies have shown that cover crops can have a positive, negative or neutral effect on organisms in field crop agroecosystems [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Notwithstanding, a better understanding, of interactions between cover crops and living organisms is necessary to maximize their value to field crop systems [30].
Among some common post-harvest practices is conventional tillage, leaving the plant residue undisturbed (no-tillage), or planting a winter cover crop [13]. Conventional tillage with a chisel plow facilitates breaking compact layers and mixing large amounts of soil, and as a result, heavy plant residue can be effectively buried. However, tillage systems can negatively affect soil and water quality, as well as have a significant effect on nitrogen dynamics and nitrogen availability for plants [31]. No-tillage, which involves planting crops without tillage, limits soil disturbances. This approach has been primarily researched from the perspective of conservation agriculture [32]. Conservation tillage practices, which are often used with cover cropping, improve soil quality and decrease costs, labor, and soil erosion [33,34,35]. These benefits have impelled many soybean farmers to adopt conservation tillage practices in recent years [36].
Different post-harvest tillage and cover cropping practices could result in varying amounts of residue remaining on the soil surface within fields [13]. This variation in complexity could influence arthropod communities (herbivores, natural enemies) within a subsequent crop discordantly [10,27,29]. Nevertheless, how post-harvest field practices following a corn planting impact herbivorous pests, natural enemies, and yield within the subsequent soybean crop have not been well investigated. To address this paucity, we examined and compared the impact of three commonly used post-harvest practices in corn fields (tillage, no action, and planting a cover crop following corn harvest) on arthropod pests and beneficials, and yield within a subsequent soybean crop. It was hypothesized that herbivorous insect populations would be less abundant and arthropod natural enemies would be of greater abundance and have greater efficacy in soybean habitats consisting of more plant residue on the soil surface.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Treatment and Plot Layout

Field experiments were conducted at the Western Maryland Research and Education Center in Keedysville (WM, 39°30′34.271″ N, 77°44′0.128″ W, 150 m a.s.l.) and the Central Maryland Research and Education Center in Beltsville (CM, 39°0′44.7114″ N, 76°49′32.5626″ W, 51 m a.s.l.) Maryland during 2017 and 2018. Treatments were replicated four times and arranged in a randomized complete block design. Each block consisted of three post-harvest treatment methods following corn harvest: (1) conventional till in which plots were chisel plowed to remove corn residue (CP), (2) undisturbed in which corn residue/corn stubble was allowed to remain following harvesting (CS), and (3) cover crop was planted into the corn residue following harvest (CC). The CC treatment consisted of a rye/crimson clover (Secale cereale L. + Trifolium incarnatum L.) mixture planted at 9 and 76 kg/ha, respectively. Each plot was (10.7 × 9.1 m) and was separated by 9.1 m of regularly mowed, natural vegetation. Individual plots consisted of 12 soybean rows, which were no-till planted at a rate and inter-row spacing of 62,951 seeds ha−1 and 76.2 cm, respectively.

2.2. Management Tasks

Following corn harvest, conventionally tilled plots (CPs) were chisel plowed, rye/crimson clover mixture was drilled into corn residue in CC plots, and no post-harvest operations were performed in the CS plots. To prepare plots for soybean planting at the Keedysville site, CP plots were chisel plowed, disked, and the soil smooth with one pass of a roller harrow. At the Beltsville site, CP plots were disked twice, and a single pass was performed with the roller harrow. Burndown of cover crops and weeds was achieved in CM using a combination of 2,4-D ester at 0.40 kg ai ha−1 and paraquat at 1.05 kg ai ha−1 in both years. At WM, cover crops and weeds were terminated using 2,4-D ester at 0.53 kg ai ha−1 and paraquat at 1.26 ka ai ha−1 in 2017 and 2,4-D ester at 1.06 kg ai ha−1 and glyphosate at 1.89 kg ae ha−1 in 2018. Residual herbicides applied preemergence included S-metolachlor at 1.42 kg ai ha−1 and sulfentrazone (0.20 kg ai ha−1) + cloransulam methyl (0.025 kg ai ha−1) at both sites and years. The soybean variety (Pioneer P37T09L Maturity 3.7) planted was genetically modified to be tolerant to glufosinate. As such, postemergence weed control included glufosinate at 0.66 kg ai ha−1, with the addition of clethodim for better grass weed control. At CM, the postemergence spray included glufosinate and clethodim at 0.07 kg ai ha−1 in 2017 and clethodim only at 0.07 kg ai ha−1 in 2018. At WM, the postemergence spray included glufosinate only in 2017 and glufosinate plus clethodim at 0.28 kg ai ha−1 in 2018. To estimate yield at each site, all rows in each plot were harvested with a small plot combined at 13 to 14% moisture. The specific timing of field operations is indicated in Table 1.

2.3. Foliar Sampling of Pests and Beneficial Arthropods

Arthropods within the soybean foliage were sampled weekly with the use of a 38.1 cm diameter canvas sweep net for relative population estimates. A collected sweep sample consisted of two sets of five sweeps performed down and across two randomly selected row areas at a sweeping width of 1.0 m. Rows were randomly chosen for each sampling occasion. Sampling at both sites began approximately when soybean was in the beginning bloom (R1) stage of development, which occurred approximately four weeks after planting. Sampling continued each year until the early senescence or full seed (R6) stage and was conducted weekly between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. In 2017, eight sweep samples were collected weekly at each site from 30 June to 5 September; and in 2018, six samples were collected weekly from 11 July to 29 August. Arthropods were transferred into plastic Ziploc® storage bags (S.C. Johnson & Son, Rascine, WI, USA) and temporarily placed in a portable cooler while in the field. They were then transported to the laboratory and temporarily stored in a freezer at ~−20 °C for later identification and counting. Arthropod samples were initially sorted on white trays under a 10× desktop magnification lamp. Soybean leaves were brushed with a small horsehair brush to remove micro-parasitoids and other arthropods that were found in the plastic bags. Specimens were later identified to the family level and placed in 85% ethyl alcohol for storage.

2.4. Pitfall Trap Sampling

Epigeal predators were sampled at both sites weekly during the 2018 growing season by placing one pitfall trap in the inter-row area between two center rows. Each trap consisted of two 355 mL clear plastic cups. The top cup was placed inside the bottom cup, and approximately 60 mL of ethylene glycol was poured inside. The bottom cup was buried so that the top of the upper cup was just below the soil surface, and holes were drilled into the bottom cup to allow rainwater to drain. A 30 cm × 30 cm plastic cover supported by three 8 cm carriage bolts was centered ~2 cm above each cup and fastened by pushing the bolts into the soil to prevent weather and wildlife interference. Traps were replaced weekly over 7-days intervals from May through September. Captured arthropods were vacuum filtered and rinsed over fine organdy cloth in the laboratory to remove any ethylene glycol. Samples were then stored in 70% alcohol, pending further processing. Trap contents were transferred to Petri dishes and viewed under a dissecting microscope (Leica M60 stereo microscope, Leica Microsystems Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL, USA), where specimens were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level.

2.5. Natural Enemy Efficacy

To quantify treatment impact on natural enemy efficacy, the kudzu bug (KB), (Megacopta cribraria; Hemiptera: Plataspidae) predatory spined soldier bug (SSB), (Podisus maculiventris; Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and several herbivorous stink bugs were monitored: the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB), (Halyomorpha halys; Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) the brown stink bug (BSB); (Euschistus servus; Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) the green stink bug (GSB), (Chinavia hilaris; Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) the red-shouldered stink bug (RSSB), (Thyanta custator; Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and harlequin bug (HB) (Murgantia histrionica; Hemiptera: Pentatomidae).
Stink bug egg mortality due to predation and parasitism was quantified at the CM study site during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons. Their numbers were not high enough to monitor at the WM site. To quantify egg mortality, soybean plants in each plot were searched several days weekly once eggs appeared. Plants were sampled for approximately 14 weeks. If a stink bug egg mass was found, flagging tape was tied to the stem just below the trifoliate leaf containing the egg mass, and a circle was drawn around the egg mass with a permanent marker. Eggs were identified to species, counted, recorded, and checked several days weekly to determine their fate. Eggs were classified as (1) hatched, in which stink bug nymphs emerge; (2) missing, in which eggs disappear from the surface of the leaf; (3) mortality unknown, in which eggs did not hatch and showed no signs of predation or parasitism; (4) mortality due to parasitism, in which eggs were parasitized and (5) mortality due to predation, in which eggs were shrunken or collapsed and/or chewed. Eggs attacked by chewing predators were distinguished from those attacked by sucking predators. During each sampling occasion, if predators or parasitoids were found on or in the vicinity (next to the egg mass), their identity and activity were recorded. Eggs that did not hatch were taken to the laboratory for further screening under a dissecting microscope (Leica M60 stereo microscope, Leica Microsystems Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL, USA).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

This study produced five datasets for analysis: (a) sweep net sampling, (b) pitfall trap, (c) stink bug and kudzu bug egg fate, and (d) crop yield data. The total abundance of all arthropods and their abundances according to feeding guild, as well as soybean yield data, were recorded for each treatment and analyzed to determine the impact of treatment (three post-harvest practices in corn fields) on pests, beneficials, and crop yield in soybean. Data collected for each year (2017 and 2018) and study site [Beltsville (CM) and Keedysville (WM)] were analyzed separately.
For sweep samples, the abundance of all arthropods (all individuals collected in a sample, regardless of feeding guild) was calculated for each block and treatment, averaged across dates. The Mean abundance of arthropods was also calculated according to the feeding guild for each block and treatment, averaged across dates. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) using Poisson distribution (for count data) were fitted by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) to determine differences in arthropod abundances among treatments. Treatment was treated as a fixed effect, and date and block as random effects. The pitfall trap data were analyzed similarly.
For stink bug egg fate data, the percentage of stink bug egg mortality due to predation and parasitism and percentage that hatched were analyzed separately for GSB, BMSB, and BSB. Other stink bug species sampled did not occur in high enough numbers to warrant a separate analysis. All stink bug species were also analyzed as a group (Pentatomidae). For the kudzu bug, egg fate data was characterized and analyzed as mortality due to predation and unknown factors or successfully hatched. GLMMs using Poisson distribution were fitted by maximum likelihood to determine treatment differences in egg mortality due to natural enemy activity and successful hatching. Treatment was treated as a fixed effect, and date, block, and insect species were included in the model as random effects. Parasitism and predation rates, as well as the proportion of hatched individuals, were also compared across different stink bug species.
Total crop yield was calculated as a sum of yield values per each block and treatment. Three linear mixed models (LMMs) were fitted by REML to determine the differences in the total crop yield among treatments. Treatment was treated a as fixed effect, and blocks were included in the model as random effects. GLMMs and LMMs were performed using lme4 package in R [37]. For each significant term from GLMMs, multiple means comparisons were performed by computing estimated marginal means (aka least-squares means) using emmeans package in R.

3. Results

3.1. Foliar Sampling of Pests and Beneficial Arthropods

A total of 3889 arthropods representing 100 different taxa (families) were collected from both locations during the two-year study. A total of 1932 arthropods were collected from CM (1107 in 2017 and 825 in 2018), and 1957 arthropods were collected from WM (1282 in 2017 and 675 in 2018). A total of 1795 insect herbivores were assigned to feeding guilds, which represented 46% of all arthropods collected (14% and 32% for chewing and sucking herbivores, respectively) and represented 31 families. The most abundant chewing herbivores were Chrysomelidae (31%), Scarabaeidae (22%), and Acrididae (14%). Among sucking herbivores, the most abundant families were Cicadellidae (40%), Miridae (33%), and Thysanoptera (9%). A total of 824 insect predators were collected, which represented 21% of all arthropods collected (4% and 17% for chewing and sucking predators, respectively) in 22 families. The most abundant chewing predators were Formicidae (45%) and Coccinellidae (37%). Among sucking predators, the most abundant families were Anthocoridae (43%), Nabidae (29%), and Geocoridae (18%).
In 2017, at CM, total arthropod abundance was greater in CP than CS and CC treatments (padj = 0.002 and padj = 0.001 respectively), whereas no differences were detected between CC and CS (Table 2). A greater number of arthropods was observed for most feeding guilds in CP treatment (Table 2). The total abundance of all herbivores (chewing and sucking) was greater in CP than in CS and CC treatments (CC–CP: padj = 0.01, CP–CS: padj = 0.004). The number of chewing herbivores was also higher in CP than in CS and more sucking herbivores were found in CP than in CC treatment. The total abundance of all predators was higher in CP than CC treatment (padj = 0.01); however, no differences were detected for chewing and sucking predators when analyzed separately.
In 2017, at WM, no differences in the total abundance of arthropods were detected among treatments (Table 2). The abundance of different feeding guilds, however, varied among treatments. Similar to the CM location, the total abundance of all herbivores was higher in CP than in CC and CS treatments (padj = 0.02 and padj = 0.03, respectively; Table 2). and numbers were similar among CC and CS treatments. Similar results were observed for sucking herbivores, whereas no differences among treatments were detected for chewing herbivores. The total abundance of all predators, as well as chewing and sucking predator guilds, did not differ among treatments (Table 2).
In 2018, at the CM location, no differences were detected among treatments in the total abundance of arthropods. However, the total number of all herbivores and chewing herbivores were greater in CP than in CS (padj = 0.003 and padj = 0.04, respectively; Table 2). Similar numbers were observed in each treatment for the total number of predators as well as chewing and sucking guilds (Table 2). In 2018, in WM, total arthropod abundance was greater in CP than in CC treatment (padj = 0.009). No differences were found in the total abundance of herbivores or their abundance by feeding guild (Table 2). The total abundance of all predators was higher in CP than CC (padj = 0.003); and in CS than CC (padj = 0.0001; Table 2) treatment. The abundance of chewing predators was higher in CS than CP and in CS than CC treatment (padj = 0.0005 and padj = 0.02, respectively; Table 2). No differences were detected among treatments in the number of sucking predators.
A total of 487 parasitoids and 380 spiders were collected, which comprised 13% and 10% of all arthropods collected, respectively. The most abundant parasitoids encountered were Platygastridae (38%). Spiders were primarily represented by the following families: Oxyopidae (23%), Salticidae (20%), Lycosidae (16%), Thomisidae (16%), and Linyphiidae (14%). In 2017 and 2018, in CM and WM locations, the mean abundance of parasitoids and spiders did not differ among treatments (Table 2).

3.2. Pitfall Trap Sampling

A total of 1311 arthropods representing 86 different taxa (families) were collected from both locations. This included 551 arthropods from CM and 760 arthropods from the WM location. Of these, a total of 180 insect herbivores comprised of 23 families were collected. Insect herbivores represented approximately 14% of all arthropods collected (9% and 4% for chewing and sucking herbivores, respectively). The most abundant chewing herbivores were Nitidulidae (34%), Monotomidae (20%), and Scarabaeidae (20%). Among sucking herbivores, the most abundant family was Miridae (48%). A total of 174 insect predators comprised of 10 families were collected. Insect predators represented 13% of all arthropods collected (11% and 2% for chewing and sucking predators, respectively). The most abundant chewing predators were Staphylinidae (48%) and Carabidae (40%). Sucking predators were represented mostly by two families, Lampyridae (50%) and Cantharidae (47%). A total of 48 parasitoids and 183 spiders which comprised 4% and 14% of all arthropods collected, respectively, were sampled. The most abundant parasitoids encountered were Scelionidae (48%), and the most abundant spiders sampled were Lycosidae (75%).
In 2018, the total abundance of invertebrates differed among treatments at the CM and WM locations (Table 3). At the CM location, the highest number of invertebrates was observed in CP treatment (padj < 0.001). The abundance of all predators and chewing predators (including species from the family Carabidae, which was also analyzed separately) was higher in CC and CP than in CS treatment (padj < 0.001 and padj = 0.002, respectively; Table 3), while no differences were observed between CC and CP treatments. The abundance of sucking predators varied across treatments and was higher in CC and CP than in CS treatment (padj < 0.001). The abundance of cumulative (sucking + chewing) herbivores and chewing herbivores were higher in CC than in CP and CS treatments (padj < 0.001 and padj = 0.005, respectively); the highest abundance of sucking herbivores, however, was detected in CS treatment (padj = 0.002). No differences in the abundance of parasitoids were recorded among treatments. The abundance of spiders was higher in CP than in CC and CS treatments (padj = 0.004); and no differences were detected between CC and CS treatments (Table 3).
At the WM location, the highest number of invertebrates was observed in the CC treatment (padj < 0.001; Table 3). The abundance of cumulative and chewing predators was higher in CC than CP and CS treatment (padj < 0.001 and padj = 0.017, respectively); and no differences were observed between CS and CP treatments. The abundance of sucking predators, however, was higher in CC and CP than CS treatment (padj < 0.001). The highest abundance of cumulative herbivores and chewing herbivores was recorded in CP treatment (padj < 0.001 and padj = 0.015, respectively; Table 3), and no differences for sucking herbivores were observed. The abundance of parasitoids and spiders were similar among treatments.

3.3. Natural Enemy Efficacy

At the CM location, a total of 9365 stink bug eggs were monitored as part of the natural enemy efficacy survey. This included 4031 eggs in 2017 and 5334 in 2018. Of these, egg mortality due to parasitism, in both years, was recorded for 2544 eggs (27% of all stink bug eggs); egg mortality due to predation was recorded for 1193 eggs (13%); and a total of 4908 eggs (52%) successfully hatched. For both study years, a total of 3097 stink bug eggs (33% of the total number of eggs found) were encountered in CC, 3285 (35%) in CP and, 2983 eggs (32%) in CS treatment.
In 2017, the percentage of stink bug egg mortality due to parasitism was lower in CS than in CP and CC treatments (padj = 0.0005 and padj = 0.003, respectively; Table 4). However, no differences in percent egg mortality due to predation were observed among treatments. The proportion of hatched eggs, however, was significantly higher in CC than in CP and CS treatments (padj = 0.005 and padj = 0.002, respectively; Table 4). In 2018, percent egg mortality due to parasitism differed significantly among treatments. The percentage of parasitized eggs was lower in CC than in CP and CS treatments (padj < 0.0001). The percentage of egg mortality due to predation and proportion that hatched were higher in CC than in CP and CS treatments (padj = 0.0001) and were greater in CC and CS than CP (padj = 0.01 and padj = 0.0006, respectively; Table 4).
The most abundant stink bug eggs encountered were GSB (7229), BSB (1446), and BMSB (513), which comprised 77%, 15%, and 5% of all stink bug eggs, respectively. Because the greatest number of eggs found represented GSB and BSB, these species were analyzed separately according to treatments. During both studies years, differences in parasitism rate, predation rate, and proportion of hatched eggs for GSB and BSB were similar among CC, CP, and CS treatments.
In 2017, the analysis of egg mortality among stink bug species across all treatments indicated that the parasitism rate (calculated as a proportion of parasitized eggs) for H. halys (BMSB) was lower than for E. servus (BSB) and P. maculiventris (SSB) (padj < 0.0001; Table 5). In addition, the parasitism rate for C. hilaris (GSB) was lower than BSB and SSB (padj < 0.0001). The predation rate was higher for BMSB than BSB, GSB, and SSB (padj = 0.0001, padj = 0.0005, and padj = 0.004, respectively). The proportion of hatched eggs was higher in GSB than in BSB and SSB (padj < 0.0001 and padj = 0.01, respectively). Egg parasitism and predation rate, and the proportion of hatched eggs were similar among other stink bug species. In 2018, the parasitism rate was lower for GSB than BSB (padj < 0.0001; Table 5). The proportion of hatched eggs was higher in GSB than in BSB (padj < 0.0001). Rates of parasitism and predation, and the proportion of hatched eggs were similar among other stink bug species. M. histrionica (HB) and T. custator (RSSB) were not included in the analysis due to their small sample size.
A total of 3460 KB eggs were found (1640 in 2017 and 1820 in 2018). In 2017 and 2018 the percentage of kudzu bug (KB) egg mortality and the proportion of hatched eggs were similar among treatments (Table 6). During the two years, egg mortality among treatments ranged from approximately 5.8% to 19.2% and the proportion of hatched eggs ranged from 75.1% to 93.2%.

3.4. Crop Yield

In 2017, soybean yield was similar among treatments at the CM location. In WM, the yield was lower in the CC than in CP and CS treatments (padj = 0.017 and padj = 0.018, respectively; (Table 7), whereas no differences were observed between CP and CS treatments. In 2018, crop yields were similar among treatments at both study sites.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Arthropod and Crop Yield Responses

During this two-year field study, we evaluated the influences of three post-harvest field practices following corn on arthropod populations and crop yield in a subsequent soybean planting. It was hypothesized that the added vegetation diversity afforded by the corn residue/stubble (CS) or corn and cover crop residue (CC) would result in a greater abundance of beneficials and a lower number of insect herbivores compared to plots where the residue was removed via conventional tillage [chisel plow (CP)] after the corn was harvested. In addition, we hypothesized that the abundance of beneficial arthropods would be greater in habitats containing corn and cover crop residue than plots containing just corn residue. However, the findings mostly did not support our suppositions. Corn residue is an important overwintering site for numerous predaceous insects [38]. As such, the addition of cover crop to the corn residue may not have altered the habitat enough to have a marked influence on epigeal predators’ activity density. Pitfall trap catches are also influenced by arthropod movement, among other factors, and are not an adequate measurement of population size [39]. Thus, it is feasible that the added residue may have interfered with ground arthropod movement resulting in lower capture rates in CC and CS habitats. In some instances, the responses of herbivores and beneficial arthropods agreed with our supposition, and on other occasions, their response was at variance with what we hypothesized. Specifically, the abundance of some foliar pests, such as chewing and sucking herbivores, was greater in the CP treatment. However, the abundance of chewing and sucking predators was, in some instances, higher in CP treatment. Pitfall trap captures of spiders were consistently lower in CC than in CP treatment. The percentage of Pentatomidae (stink bug) eggs that successfully hatched was greatest in CC treatment. Soybean yield was only influenced by treatment at the WM site in 2017. During which, the yield was lower in the CC than in CS and CP treatment.

4.2. Epigeal Predators

Similar to some previous findings, results from this study showed no effect or a variable response of cover crops and residue disturbances on arthropod abundance in soybeans [23,40,41]. Overall, an increased abundance of all arthropods (cumulative feeding guilds) was recorded in the CC treatment. However, a positive effect of CC treatment on the activity density of beneficial arthropods was only observed for total and chewing predators collected from pitfall traps at the WM location. It is possible that the decreased abundance of foliar and ground chewing predators encountered in 2018 at the WM location in the CP treatment demonstrates the indirect effects of chisel plowing operation on beneficial arthropods through habitat deterioration and changes in food resources [42]. A similar positive effect of cover crops on chewing ground predators was described in a separate study [43]. Using five treatment systems, bare fallow, soybean, and three cover crop combinations (mustard/buckwheat/canola; oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch; and oat/red clover), authors of that study detected an increased activity density of two carabid species, Amara aenea; Coleoptera: Carabidae) and Harpalus pensylvanicus; (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in pitfall traps located in cover crop compared to bare fallow and soybean systems [43].
A greater abundance of epigeal predators is often associated with a lack of soil disturbances and increased complexity provided by plant residue [44]. However, in our study, there was a decreased abundance of chewing and sucking predators encountered in pitfall traps located in the CS treatment, which was left undisturbed after corn harvesting. An earlier study also found no adverse effects of chisel plowing on the activity density of carabid beetles compared to undisturbed control plots [42]. Notwithstanding, our findings contrast an investigation that found a higher number of predators in pitfall traps located in no-tillage compared to conventional tillage systems [33]. These conflicting findings suggest that the influence of conventional tillage operations on carabid beetles is not unequivocal, as some authors reported higher activity density [44] and other authors reported lower [45] or no discernable differences [46] compared to no-till systems. These variable findings may be partially contributable to arthropod species differences among study sites. Tillage impacts on arthropods may vary according to species as some may have greater sensitivity to tillage and, as such, have a more discernible response to various tillage operations. For example, a study that investigated the impact of the moldboard plow, chisel plow, and rotary tillage operations on four carabid weed seed predators found just one species was impacted by all tillage types, demonstrating species specific sensitivity to tillage [42]. During our study, arthropods were mainly grouped according to the feeding guild. As such, treatment impact on specific-species would have gone undetected. Similar carabid activity density response to contrasting residue management protocols encountered during our investigation may suggest that plant residue, whether partially incorporated into the soil or left on the surface, can change the soil biota such that both practices encourage similar numbers of ground predators [47].
Spiders appeared to be undisturbed by tillage and uninfluenced by residue management during the current study. The activity density of spiders was greatest in the CP treatment at CM and greater than CC at the WM site and similar in CC and CS habitats. However, a review investigating the impact of agricultural diversification on spiders found that spider abundance was increased in 63% of studies reviewed and that they can be increased by mulching and reduced tillage [48]. Further, a study investigating arthropod overwintering strategies in corn fields found that 24 spider species used corn residue as an overwintering refuge [38]. Thus, it is more defensible that spider activity density would be similar in CC and CS habitats than being greater in CP habitats. Notwithstanding, in variance to our findings, a study investigating the impact of tillage on spiders in sugar beets, Beta vulgaris (L.) following corn cultivation showed that spider activity density was higher in the reduced-tillage (zone-tillage) than moldboard tilled plots [49]. It is important to note that prior to the zone-tillage and moldboard operations, corn stalks in all plots were chopped by lightly disking the study site, indicating that zone-tilled plots received some minimum disturbances. Another study investigating the impact of tillage operations and maize residue on spiders revealed that a conventional tillage system consisting of disk plowing followed by disc harrowing had an adverse effect on ground-dwelling spiders, while no-tillage and the retention of plant residue had a positive effect on ground and plant foraging spiders [50]. Other studies have also disclosed fewer spiders in conventional than no-tillage systems [51,52]. However, a study investigating two cover crop termination practices (roller crimper vs. green manuring with a disk harrow) on ground predators showed that green manuring increased spider abundance [53]. The authors proposed that spiders responded to the enhanced detrital food chain that occurred after cover crop residue was incorporated into the soil. Spiders may have responded similarly during the current study, as the incorporation of residue is comparable.

4.3. Parasitoid Abundance and Efficacy

During the current study, parasitoid abundances were similar in CP and other treatments. Further, there was no monotonous effect of post-harvest practices on stink bug egg mortality due to parasitism or predation, suggesting that the tillage and residue practices conducted during the current study will not influence overall stink bug egg mortality due to natural enemy activity. Stink bug egg mortality caused by natural enemies, and unknown mortality factors can be high [54,55,56,57], suggesting that habitats with greater structural complexity may not be required to enhance stink bug natural enemy efficiency. Still, it is tenable that tillage operations can influence parasitoid and predator numbers and their impact on host and prey, especially species that use the soil as a refuge. For example, inversion tillage conducted in oilseed rape, Brassica napus crop, adversely impacted the survival and emergence rates of parasitoids overwintering in the soil [58]. In addition, a field investigation found that crimson clover or rye cover crops reduced infestations of (Helicoverpa zea; Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and (Heliothis virescens; Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) via augmented predation by the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and minute pirate bug, (Orius insidiosus; Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) in cotton [59]. The authors proposed that intercropping cotton into live strips of crimson clover was responsible for relaying O. insidiosus onto cotton plants. During the current study, we found an increased percentage of kudzu bug eggs hatched in soybean plots with corn residue (CS) than in plots with corn and cover crop residue (CC). The significance of this is uncertain as kudzu bug populations were low or absent from the study sites. However, in another study increased kudzu bug infestations were observed in conventional tillage plots [60].

4.4. Crop Yield

A global meta-analysis conducted to determine the impacts of no-tillage relative to conventional tillage operations on yield found that crop type influenced crop yield the greatest in no-till systems [32]. Studies evaluating the impact of rotation and no-tillage operations on soybean yield indicated that there is a yield benefit when soybean is rotated with corn [61,62], and that grain yield does not decrease in no-till systems even if early season growth of soybean is reduced [63]. Still, an extensive literature review comparing corn and soybean yields in no-till and conventional fall tillage systems in the US and Canada showed that differences in soybean yield between the two systems were negligible [64]. We proposed in the current study that yield would be greater in no-tilled plots as natural enemies’ efficiency will be enhanced in plots with greater residue. However, only in WM during study year 1, soybean yield differed among treatments. During that time, the yield was lowest in the CC treatment. Although not explicitly measured in this study, the yield reduction in the CC treatment was likely due to poor stand establishment caused by poor seed placement at planting in the high-residue plots.

5. Conclusions

Conservation practices of leaving all corn residue on the soil surface or planting a rye/crimson clover cover crop mixture in corn residue did not have a constant influence on the abundance and activity density of beneficials in subsequent soybean plantings compared to using a chisel plow. The two conservation practices also did not enhance the biological control services of stink bugs, as evidenced by mostly similar or greater mortality due to predators and parasitoids in chisel plowed than the no-tilled soybean habitats. Notwithstanding, during this study, chisel plowing was deployed to prepare the soil as this is a more widely used post-harvest operation on northeastern US farms. However, compared to full tillage inversion, chisel plowing preserves more vegetation on the soil surface, which can serve as a refuge for epigeal arthropods and protect them from desiccation. As such, more intensive tillage operations such as moldboard plowing and using tillage equipment that provides near or full burial of residue post-harvest can be more damaging to the soil biota and as such, may yield greater differences.
Studies considering the effect of no-tillage and plant residue on arthropods should examine different crop residues, and cover crop species, as effects of plant residue on arthropods may differ according to species. Further, the influences of post-harvest tillage operations and cover cropping practices on arthropods should be evaluated over time as their effect on arthropod communities may not be immediate (within a single growing season) and, as such, may change over several field seasons. Although the no-till residue management practices used in this study did not result in greater soybean yield, it is important to note that land management practices that limit tillage and maintain crop residue on the surface promote long-term sustainable ecosystems that benefit society [65].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.L. and C.R.R.H.; Methodology, A.W.L., C.R.R.H. and S.R.M.; Software, A.W.L.; Validation, S.R.M.; Formal Analysis, A.W.L.; Investigation, A.W.L., C.R.R.H. and S.R.M.; Resources, C.R.R.H.; Data Curation, A.W.L.; Writing—Original Draft preparation, C.R.R.H.; Writing—Review & Editing, A.W.L., C.R.R.H. and S.R.M.; Visualization, A.W.L.; Supervision, A.W.L. and C.R.R.H.; Project Administration, A.W.L. and C.R.R.H.; Funding acquisition, C.R.R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support for field studies and publishing results was provided by the Maryland Soybean Board, USDA ARS area wide project number 8080-21000-032-032-S and USDA NIFA EIPM grant number 2021-70006-35384.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Alina Avanesyan for assisting us in composing the manuscript and for significant contributions to the statistical analysis. Several of Hooks’ lab interns for assistance in collecting and processing samples. We thank the field crews of the Western Maryland Research and Education Center in Keedysville, MD, and the Central Maryland Research and Education Center, in Beltsville, MD, for their contribution to various field operations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. USDA, 2018. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. WASDEE-577, 10 May 2018. Available online: https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/tariff-conflict-change-value-field-crops.html (accessed on 15 May 2018).
  2. van Ittersum, M.K.; Cassman, K.G.; Grassini, P.; Wolf, J.; Tittonell, P.; Hochman, Z. Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—A review. Field Crops Res. 2013, 143, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Miller, J.J.; Schepers, J.S.; Shapiro, C.A.; Arneson, N.J.; Eskridge, K.M.; Oliveira, M.C.; Giesle, L.J. Characterizing soybean vigor and productivity using multiple crop canopy sensor readings. Field Crops Res. 2018, 216, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ainsworth, E.A.; Yendrek, C.R.; Skoneczka, J.A.; Long, S.P. Accelerating yield potential in soybean: Potential targets for biotechnological improvement. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oerke, E. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Altieri, M.A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Lin, B.B. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: Adaptive management for environmental change. BioScience 2011, 61, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Root, R.B. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: The fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monogr. 1973, 43, 95–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hooks, C.R.R.; Hinds, J.; Zobel, E.; Patton, T. Impact of crimson clover dying mulch on two eggplant insect herbivores. J. Appl. Entomol. 2012, 137, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bryant, A.; Brainard, D.C.; Haramoto, E.R.; Szendrei, Z. Cover crop mulch and weed management influence arthropod communities in strip-tilled cabbage. Environ. Entomol. 2013, 42, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bowers, C.; Toews, M.D.; Schmidt, J.M. Winter cover crops shape early-season predator communities and trophic interactions. Ecosphere 2021, 12, e03635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mutchler, C.K.; McDowell, L.L. Soil loss from cotton with winter cover crops. Trans. ASAE 1990, 33, 432–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ding, G.; Liu, X.; Herbert, S.; Novak, J.; Amarasiriwardena, D.; Xing, B. Effect of cover crop management on soil organic matter. Geoderma 2006, 130, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Olson, K.R.; Ebelhar, S.A.; Lang, J.M. Cover crop effects on crop yields and soil organic carbon content. Soil Sci. 2010, 175, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Delgado, J.A. Sequential NLEAP simulations to examine effect of early and late planted winter cover crops on nitrogen dynamics. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1998, 53, 241–244. [Google Scholar]
  17. Haramoto, E.; Brainard, D. Spatial and temporal variability in Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) emergence under strip tillage with cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 2017, 65, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Chen, G.; Kolb, L.; Leslie, A.; Hooks, C.R.R. Using reduced tillage and cover crop residue to manage weeds in organic vegetable production. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 557–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wallace, J.M.; Williams, A.; Liebert, J.A.; Ackroyd, V.J.; Vann, R.A.; Curran, W.S.; Keene, C.L.; VanGessel, M.J.; Ryan, M.R.; Mirsky, S.B. Cover crop-based, organic rotational no-till corn and soybean production systems in the Mid-Atlantic United States. Agriculture 2017, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Hooks, C.R.R.; Wang, K.-H.; Meyer, S.L.F.; Lekveishvili, M.; Hinds, J.; Zobel, E.; Rosario-Lebron, A.; Lee-Bullock, M. Impact of no-till cover cropping Italian ryegrass on above and below ground faunal communities inhabiting a soybean field with special emphasis on soybean cyst nematodes. J. Nematol. 2011, 43, 166–175. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunbar, M.W.; Gassmann, A.J.; O’Neal, M.E. Limited impact of a fall-seeded, spring-terminated rye cover crop on beneficial arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 2012, 46, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cornelius, C.; Bradley, K. Influence of various cover crop species on winter and summer annual weed emergence in soybean. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Leslie, A.W.; Wang, K.H.; Meyer, S.L.; Marahatta, S.; Hooks, C.R. Influence of cover crops on arthropods, free-living nematodes, and yield in a succeeding no-till soybean crop. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 117, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moore, M.; Gillespie, T.; Swanton, C. Effect of cover crop mulches on weed emergence, weed biomass, and soybean (Glycine max) development. Weed Technol. 1994, 8, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Timper, P.; Davis, R.F.; Tillman, P.G. Reproduction of Meloidogyne incognita on winter cover crops used in cotton production. J. Nematol. 2006, 38, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Mischler, R.A.; Curran, W.S.; Duiker, S.W.; Hyde, J.A. Use of a rolled-rye cover crop for weed suppression in no-till soybeans. Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lundgren, J.G.; Fergen, J.K. Enhancing predation of a subterranean insect pest: A conservation benefit of winter vegetation in agroecosystems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 51, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Timper, P. Conserving and enhancing biological control of nematodes. J. Nematol. 2014, 46, 75–89. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fox, A.F.; Kim, T.N.; Bahlai, C.A.; Woltz, J.M.; Gratton, C.; Landis, D.A. Cover crops have neutral effects on predator communities and biological control services in annual cellulosic bioenergy cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 232, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Mollot, G.; Duyck, P.F.; Lefeuvre, P.; Lescourret, F.; Martin, J.F.; Piry, S.; Canard, E.; Tixier, P. Cover cropping alters the diet of arthropods in a banana plantation: A metabarcoding approach. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Al-Kaisi, M.; Licht, M.A. Effect of strip tillage on corn nitrogen uptake and residual soil nitrate accumulation compared with no-tillage and chisel plow. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1164–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Pittelkow, C.M.; Linquist, B.A.; Lundy, M.E.; Liang, X.; Van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; Van Kessel, C. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2015, 183, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. House, G.J.; Stinner, B.R. Arthropods in no-tillage soybean agroecosystems: Community composition and ecosystem interactions. Environ. Manag. 1983, 7, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Triplett, G.B., Jr.; Dick, W.A. No-tillage crop production: A revolution in agriculture! Agron. J. 2008, 100, S-153–S-165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Furlan, L.; Milosavljević, I.; Chiarini, F.; Benvegnù, I. Effects of conventional versus no-tillage systems on the population dynamics of elaterid pests and the associated damage at establishment of maize crops. Crop Prot. 2021, 149, 105751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. USDA ERS, 2022. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-oil-crops/ (accessed on 10 August 2022).
  37. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Plagens, M.J.; Whitcomb, W.H. Corn residue as an overwintering site for spiders and predaceous insects in Florida. Fla. Entomol. 1986, 69, 665–67155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Greenslade, P.J.M. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). J. Anim. Ecol. 1964, 33, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Blubaugh, C.K.; Kaplan, I. Tillage compromises weed seed predator activity across developmental stages. Biol. Control 2015, 81, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rosario-Lebron, A.; Leslie, A.W.; Chen, G.; Hooks, C.R.R. The effect of barley cover crop residue and herbicide management on the foliar arthropod community in no-till soybeans. Agronomy 2018, 8, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Shearin, A.F.; Reberg-Horton, S.C.; Gallandt, E.R. Direct effects of tillage on the activity density of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) weed seed predators. Environ. Entomol. 2007, 36, 1140–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ward, M.J.; Ryan, M.R.; Curran, W.S.; Barbercheck, M.E.; Mortensen, D.A. Cover crops and disturbance influence activity-density of weed seed predators Amara aenea and Harpalus pensylvanicus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Weed Sci. 2011, 59, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brust, G.E.; Stinner, B.R.; McCartney, D.A. Tillage and soil insecticide effects on predator-black cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) interactions in corn agroecosystems. J. Econ. Entomol. 1985, 78, 1389–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hatten, T.D.; Bosque-Pérez, N.A.; Labonte, J.R.; Guy, S.O.; Eigenbrode, S.D. Effects of tillage on the activity density and biological diversity of carabid beetles in spring and winter crops. Environ. Entomol. 2007, 36, 356–368. [Google Scholar]
  46. Quinn, N.F.; Brainard, D.C.; Szendrei, Z. The effect of conservation tillage and cover crop residue on beneficial arthropods and weed seed predation in acorn squash. Environ. Entomol. 2016, 45, 1543–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Jabbour, R.; Pisani-Gareau, T.; Smith, R.G.; Mullen, C.; Barbercheck, M. Cover crop and tillage intensities alter ground-dwelling arthropod communities during the transition to organic production. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2016, 31, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sunderland, K.; Samu, F. Effects of agricultural diversification on the abundance, distribution, and pest control potential of spiders: A review. Entomol. Expt. Appl. 2000, 95, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pretorius, R.J.; Hein, G.L.; Blankenship, E.E.; Purrington, F.F.; Wilson, R.G.; Bradshaw, J.D. Comparing the effects of two tillage operations on beneficial epigeal arthropod communities and their associated ecosystem services in sugar beets. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2617–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Mashavakure, N.; Mashingaidze, A.B.; Musundire, R.; Nhamo, N.; Gandiwa, E.; Thierfelder, C.; Muposhi, V.K. Spider community shift in response to farming practices in a sub-humid agroecosystem of southern Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 272, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Blumberg, A.Y.; Crossley, D.A., Jr. Comparison of soil surface arthropod populations in conventional tillage, no-tillage and old field systems. Agro-Ecosystems 1983, 8, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Rodríguez, E.; Fernández-Anero, F.J.; Ruiz, P.; Campos, M. Soil arthropod abundance under conventional and no tillage in a Mediterranean climate. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 85, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Depalo, L.; Burgio, G.; Magagnoli, S.; Sommaggio, D.; Montemurro, F.; Canali, S.; Masetti, A. Influence of cover crop termination on ground dwelling arthropods in organic vegetable systems. Insects 2020, 11, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Koppel, A.L.; Herbert, D.A., Jr.; Kuhar, T.P.; Kamminga, K. Survey of stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) egg parasitoids in wheat, soybean, and vegetable crops in southeast Virginia. Environ. Entomol. 2009, 38, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Olson, D.M.; Ruberson, J.R. Crop-specific mortality of southern green stink bug eggs in Bt- and non-Bt cotton, soybean and peanut. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012, 22, 1417–1428. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jones, A.L.; Jennings, D.E.; Hooks, C.R.R.; Shrewsbury, P.M. Sentinel eggs underestimate rates of parasitism of the exotic brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorphahalys. Biol. Control 2014, 78, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cornelius, M.L.; Dieckhoff, C.; Vinyard, B.T.; Hoelmer, K.A. Parasitism and predation on sentinel egg masses of the brown marmorated stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in three vegetable crops: Importance of dissections for evaluating the impact of native parasitoids on an exotic pest. Environ. Entomol. 2016, 45, 1536–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nilson, C. Impact of ploughing on emergence of pollen beetle parasitoids after hibernation. Z. Angew. Entomol. 1985, 100, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tillman, G.; Schomberg, H.; Phatak, S.; Mullinix, B.; Lachnicht, S.; Timper, P.; Olson, D. Influence of cover crops on insect pests and predators in conservation tillage cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 1217–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Del Pozo-Valdivia, A.I.; Reisig, D.D.; Bacheler, J.S. Impacts of tillage, maturity group, and insecticide use on Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) populations in double-cropped soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
  61. West, T.D.; Griffith, D.R.; Steinhardt, G.C.; Kladivko, E.J.; Parsons, S.D. Effect of tillage and rotation on agronomic performance of corn and soybean: Twenty-year study on dark silty clay loam soil. J. Prod. Agric. 1996, 9, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pedersen, P.; Lauer, J.G. Soybean growth and development response to rotation sequence and tillage system. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1005–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Yusuf, R.I.; Siemens, J.C.; Bullock, D.G. Growth analysis of soybean under no-tillage and conventional tillage systems. Agron. J. 1999, 91, 928–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. DeFelice, M.S.; Carter, P.R.; Mitchell, S.B. Influence of tillage on corn and soybean yield in the United States and Canada. Crop Manag. 2006, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.C.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Timing of field operations for the 2017 and 2018 field experiments.
Table 1. Timing of field operations for the 2017 and 2018 field experiments.
YearLocationTaskDate
2016BeltsvillePost-harvest treatments applied4 October
2016KeedysvilleCP plots chisel plowed23 September
Cover crop planted in CC plots26 September
2017BeltsvilleCP treatment ground prepared2 May
Cover crop/weed burndown10 May
Soybean planted22 May
Postemergence herbicide applied8 July
Soybean harvested21 October
2017KeedysvilleCP plots prepared for planting crop2 May
Cover crop/weed burndown10 May
Soybean planted22 May
Postemergence herbicide applied8 July
Soybean harvested25 October
2017BeltsvillePost-harvest treatments applied27 October
2017KeedysvillePost-harvest treatments applied27 October
2018BeltsvilleCP treatment ground prepared26 May
Cover crop/weeds terminated25 May
Soybean planted29 May
Postemergence herbicide applied19 July
Soybean harvested1 November
2018KeedysvilleCP treatment ground prepared29 May
Cover crop/weed burndown29 May
Soybean planted29 May
Postemergence herbicide applied19 July
Soybean harvested26 October
Treatments: CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble and CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plots.
Table
Table 2. Mean abundances of foliar pest and beneficial arthropods and their main feeding guilds sampled by sweep net in soybean during 2017 and 2018 at two field sites, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)] and Keedysville [Western Maryland (WM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plots; and CS (corn stubble) no action. Mean values and standard errors (Mean ± SE) and results of statistical comparisons via fitted GLMMs are reported.
Table 2. Mean abundances of foliar pest and beneficial arthropods and their main feeding guilds sampled by sweep net in soybean during 2017 and 2018 at two field sites, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)] and Keedysville [Western Maryland (WM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plots; and CS (corn stubble) no action. Mean values and standard errors (Mean ± SE) and results of statistical comparisons via fitted GLMMs are reported.
Location/
Year/
Feeding Guild		TreatmentCMWM
2017201820172018
Mean ± SEMean ± SEMean ± SEMean ± SE
all arthropodsCC22.66 ± 2.21 a28.71 ± 2.46 a26.92 ± 1.70 a16.63 ± 1.64 a
CP26.84 ± 2.08 b29.25 ± 3.05 a29.59 ± 2.22 a20.25 ± 1.48 b
CS22.59 ± 2.09 a26.46 ± 3.55 a27.66 ± 2.22 a19.42 ± 1.71 ab
all predatorsCC2.47 ± 0.41 a1.80 ± 0.16 a1.79 ± 0.18 a1.87 ± 0.19 a
CP2.92 ± 0.37 b1.68 ± 0.12 a1.70 ± 0.13 a2.32 ± 0.26 b
CS2.70 ± 0.45 ab1.73 ± 0.17 a1.91 ± 0.19 a2.58 ± 0.45 b
chewing predatorsCC1.71 ± 0.57 a1.71 ± 0.57 a1.11 ± 0.11 a1.00 ± 0.00 a
CP1.29 ± 0.29 a1.29 ± 0.29 a1.50 ± 0.20 a1.65 ± 0.28 a
CS1.00 ± 0.00 a1.00 ± 0.00 0a1.23 ± 0.17 a3.06 ± 1.33 b
sucking predatorsCC2.56 ± 0.45 a1.49 ± 0.11 a2.56 ± 0.45 a1.49 ± 0.11 a
CP3.09 ± 0.40 a1.71 ± 0.12 a3.09 ± 0.40 a1.71 ± 0.12 a
CS2.98 ± 0.52 a1.47 ± 0.11 a2.98 ± 0.52 a1.47 ± 0.11 a
all herbivoresCC2.14 ± 0.17 a3.68 ± 0.51 ab2.65 ± 0.31 a2.31 ± 0.33 a
CP2.77 ± 0.28 b3.98 ± 0.53 a2.87 ± 0.31 b2.38 ± 0.21 a
CS2.38 ± 0.22 a3.23 ± 0.42 b2.26 ± 0.20 a2.20 ± 0.22 a
chewing herbivoresCC1.52 ± 0.12 ab1.52 ± 0.12 ab1.71 ± 0.20 a1.68 ± 0.18 a
CP1.88 ± 0.20 a1.88 ± 0.20 a1.66 ± 0.15 a1.74 ± 0.17 a
CS1.49 ± 0.20 b1.49 ± 0.20 b1.41 ± 0.1 a2.07 ± 0.25 a
sucking herbivoresCC2.37 ± 0.22 a4.26 ± 0.62 ab3.22 ± 0.47 a2.67 ± 0.51 a
CP3.13 ± 0.38 b4.35 ± 0.60 a3.48 ± 0.45 b2.91 ± 0.35 a
CS2.68 ± 0.28 ab3.55 ± 0.48 b2.73 ± 0.31 a2.28 ± 0.31 a
parasitoidsCC1.32 ± 0.12 a1.11 ± 0.06 a1.23 ± 0.11 a1.09 ± 0.09 a
CP1.24 ± 0.07 a1.27 ± 0.14 a1.24 ± 0.08 a1.12 ± 0.07 a
CS1.20 ± 0.06 a1.09 ± 0.05 a1.19 ± 0.08 a1.06 ± 0.06 a
spidersCC1.10 ± 0.05 a1.17 ± 0.07 a1.40 ± 0.13 a1.19 ± 0.14 a
CP1.14 ± 0.07 a1.04 ± 0.04 a1.24 ± 0.07 a1.12 ± 0.08 a
CS1.12 ± 0.07 a1.53 ± 0.21 a1.25 ± 0.07 a1.00 ± 0.00 a
Mean abundance of arthropods (Mean ± SE), was calculated by averaging the number of the arthropod individuals found per each block, date, and treatment. Means ± SE that share the same letter(s) are not different among treatments at α = 0.05, based on multiple means comparisons (by computing estimated marginal means).
Table
Table 3. Mean abundances of all arthropods and their main feeding guilds captured in the pitfall trap samples in soybean in 2018 at two field sites, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)] and Keedysville [Western Maryland (WM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plots; and CS (corn stubble) no action. Mean values and standard errors (Mean ± SE) and results of statistical comparisons via fitted GLMMs are reported.
Table 3. Mean abundances of all arthropods and their main feeding guilds captured in the pitfall trap samples in soybean in 2018 at two field sites, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)] and Keedysville [Western Maryland (WM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plots; and CS (corn stubble) no action. Mean values and standard errors (Mean ± SE) and results of statistical comparisons via fitted GLMMs are reported.
Feeding GuildTreatmentCMWM
Mean ± SEMean ± SE
all arthropodsCC5.04 ± 1.00 a4.52 ± 0.39 a
CP5.33 ± 1.33 b3.92 ± 0.78 b
CS3.30 ± 0.50 c3.96 ± 0.36 c
all predatorsCC3.61 ± 0.78 a4.47 ± 1.14 a
CP5.80 ± 2.66 a2.35 ± 0.47 b
CS4.17 ± 1.00 b2.24 ± 0.29 b
chewing predatorsCC4.13 ± 1.01 a3.12 ± 0.48 a
CP6.00 ± 2.80 a2.11 ± 0.40 b
CS4.56 ± 1.09 b2.26 ± 0.33 b
sucking predatorsCC2.00 ± 0.52 a13.40 ± 7.49 a
CP2.00 ± NA *,b4.50 ± 3.50 a
CS1.00 ± 0.00 c2.17 ± 0.54 b
all herbivoresCC2.38 ± 0.35 a5.00 ± 1.45 a
CP1.96 ± 0.35 b12.73 ± 8.47 b
CS1.85 ± 0.29 b5.43 ± 1.69 a
chewing herbivoresCC2.73 ± 0.44 a5.79 ± 1.71 a
CP2.32 ± 0.50 b20.22 ± 13.84 b
CS1.67 ± 0.39 b8.44 ± 2.74 c
sucking herbivoresCC1.30 ± 0.21 a1.20 ± 0.20 a
CP1.22 ± 0.15 a1.50 ± 0.34 a
CS2.13 ± 0.43 b1.42 ± 0.23 a
parasitoidsCC1.17 ± 0.17 a1.00 ± 0.00 a
CP1.11 ± 0.11 a1.09 ± 0.09 a
CS1.11 ± 0.11 a1.13 ± 0.13 a
spidersCC2.51 ± 0.55 a1.65 ± 0.20 a
CP4.53 ± 1.42 b2.00 ± 0.36 a
CS2.69 ± 0.54 a2.13 ± 0.39 a
Mean abundance of arthropods (Mean ± SE), was calculated by averaging the number of the arthropod individuals found per each block, date, and treatment. Means ± SE that share the same letter(s) are not different among treatments at α = 0.05, based on multiple means comparisons (by computing estimated marginal means). * This SE output is tentatively due to the small sample size.
Table
Table 4. Percentage of stink bug egg mortality due to parasitism and predation, and proportion of hatched individuals in soybean during 2017 and 2018, at one field site, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plot; and CS (corn stubble) no action.
Table 4. Percentage of stink bug egg mortality due to parasitism and predation, and proportion of hatched individuals in soybean during 2017 and 2018, at one field site, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plot; and CS (corn stubble) no action.
20172018
Egg FateTreatmentMean ± SE *Mean ± SE
parasitismCC19.69 ± 7.00 a17.47 ± 6.06 a
CP19.83 ± 5.82 a33.83 ± 9.59 b
CS15.06 ± 5.54 b49.67 ± 25.52 c
predationCC15.19 ± 5.79 a25.00 ± 8.44 a
CP12.50 ± 5.10 a4.17 ± 1.58 b
CS16.06 ± 6.48 a2.80 ± 2.04 c
hatchCC75.25 ± 23.18 a92.80 ± 32.70 a
CP58.67 ± 17.87 b89.22 ± 27.58 b
CS61.53 ± 16.26 b94.87 ± 30.85 a
* Means ± SE that share the same letter(s) are not different among treatments at α = 0.05, based on multiple means comparisons (by computing estimated marginal means).
Table
Table 5. Percentage of stink bug egg mortality due to parasitism and predation, and proportion of hatched individuals in soybean plots during 2017 and 2018, at one field site, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)]. Data are compared between species. Mean values and standard errors (Mean ± SE) and results of statistical comparisons via fitted GLMMs and LMMs are reported.
Table 5. Percentage of stink bug egg mortality due to parasitism and predation, and proportion of hatched individuals in soybean plots during 2017 and 2018, at one field site, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)]. Data are compared between species. Mean values and standard errors (Mean ± SE) and results of statistical comparisons via fitted GLMMs and LMMs are reported.
2017 2018
Egg FateInsect Species **Mean ± SEInsect SpeciesMean ± SE
parasitismBMSB0.00 ± 0.00 aBMSB0.34 ± 0.14 abc
BSB0.86 ± 0.06 bBSB0.81 ± 0.05 bc
GSB0.16 ± 0.03 aGSB0.18 ± 0.03 a
HB1.00 ± 0.00KB0.00 ± 0.00
KB ***0.00 ± 0.00RSSB1.00 ± 0.00
SSB1.00 ± 0.00 bSSB0.67 ± 0.33 abc
predationBMSB0.72 ± 0.19 aBMSB0.20 ± 0.09 a
BSB0.05 ± 0.02 bBSB0.06 ± 0.03 ab
GSB0.16 ± 0.03 bGSB0.09 ± 0.02 b
HB0.00 ± 00.0KB0.00 ± 0.00
KB0.01 ± 0.01RSSB0.00 ± 0.00
SSB0.00 ± 0.00 bSSB0.00 ± 0.00 ab
hatchBMSB0.25 ± 0.19 abcBMSB0.32 ± 0.11 ab
BSB0.03 ± 0.03 bcBSB0.07 ± 0.03 ab
GSB0.59 ± 0.04 aGSB0.65 ± 0.04 b
HB0.00 ± 0.00KB0.87 ± 0.03
KB0.77 ± 0.04RSSB0.00 ± 0.00
SSB0.00 ± 0.00 bcSSB0.33 ± 0.33 ab
** Insect species: the kudzu bug (KB), Megacopta cribraria; the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB), Halyomorpha halys; the brown stink bug (BSB), Euschistus servus; the green stink bug (GSB), Chinavia hilaris; the spined soldier bug (SSB), Podisus maculiventris. *** KB was analyzed separately; the red-shouldered stink bug (RSSB), Thyanta custator, and Harlequin bug (HB), Murgantia histrionica were not included in this analysis due to their small sample size. Means ± SE that share the same letter(s) are not different among treatments at α = 0.05, based on multiple means comparisons (by computing estimated marginal means).
Table
Table 6. Percentage of Kudzu bug egg mortality due to predation and unknown factors, and proportion of hatched individuals in soybean during 2017 and 2018, at one field site, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plot; and CS (corn stubble) no action.
Table 6. Percentage of Kudzu bug egg mortality due to predation and unknown factors, and proportion of hatched individuals in soybean during 2017 and 2018, at one field site, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents chisel plowed (conventional tillage) plot; and CS (corn stubble) no action.
20172018
Egg FateTreatmentMean ± SE *Mean ± SE
MortalityCC9.45 ± 7.55 a5.79 ± 2.52 a
CP16.04 ± 4.67 a9.75 ± 2.13 a
CS19.18 ± 8.54 a6.83 ± 1.84 a
HatchCC78.68 ± 11.09 a76.08 ± 7.66 a
CP77.29 ± 4.18 a90.25 ± 2.13 a
CS75.06 ± 7.45 a93.17 ± 1.84 a
* Means ± SE that share the same letter(s) are not different among treatments at α = 0.05, based on multiple means comparisons (by computing estimated marginal means).
Table
Table 7. Soybean yield in 2017 and 2018 at two field sites, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)] and Keedysville [Western Maryland (WM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents plots that were chisel plowed (conventional tillage); and CS (corn stubble) no action.
Table 7. Soybean yield in 2017 and 2018 at two field sites, Beltsville [Central Maryland (CM)] and Keedysville [Western Maryland (WM)], across three post-harvest treatments following corn harvest. For the three treatments, CC denotes cover crop planted in corn residue/stubble; CP represents plots that were chisel plowed (conventional tillage); and CS (corn stubble) no action.
Treatment2017201720182018
CMWMCMWM
Mean ± SE
(kg/ha)		Mean ± SE
(kg/ha)		Mean ± SE
(kg/ha)		Mean ± SE
(kg/ha)
CC5345.0 ± 222.9 a3161.0 ± 667.7 a4626.7 ± 167.1 a4613.8 ± 174.1 a
CP5603.2 ± 194.9 a5299.2 ± 136.5 b4277.9 ± 265.8 a4343.2 ± 54.7 a
CS5440.4 ± 524.0 a5283.8 ± 262.7 b4254.7 ± 158.3 a4260.2 ± 65.9 a
Means ± SE that share the same letter(s) are not different among treatments at α = 0.05, based on multiple means comparisons (by computing estimated marginal means).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leslie, A.W.; McCluen, S.R.; Hooks, C.R.R. Impact of Post-Harvest Management Practices in Corn (Zea mays L.) Fields on Arthropods in Subsequent Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) Plantings. Insects 2023, 14, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010093

AMA Style

Leslie AW, McCluen SR, Hooks CRR. Impact of Post-Harvest Management Practices in Corn (Zea mays L.) Fields on Arthropods in Subsequent Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) Plantings. Insects. 2023; 14(1):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leslie, Alan W., Scott R. McCluen, and Cerruti R. R. Hooks. 2023. "Impact of Post-Harvest Management Practices in Corn (Zea mays L.) Fields on Arthropods in Subsequent Soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) Plantings" Insects 14, no. 1: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010093

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