Study

Effects of pesticide use and cultivation techniques on ground beetles (Col., Carabidae) in cereal fields

  • Published source details Huusela-Veistola E. (1996) Effects of pesticide use and cultivation techniques on ground beetles (Col., Carabidae) in cereal fields. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 33, 197-205.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example

    A replicated, controlled, randomized study of ground beetles (Carabidae) in arable fields in Finland (Huusela-Veistola 1996) (same study as (Huusela-Veistola 1998)) found no significant difference in beetle abundance between conventional and integrated farming practices (including undersowing with grass/clover Trifolium spp.). Abundance was higher with reduced pesticide applications. There were six replicate blocks and treatments (in 0.7 ha plots) which were fully randomized within blocks (one treatment combination/plot). Treatments were conventional pesticide applications, reduced pesticides or no pesticides (control) and customary or integrated (including undersowing) cultivation. Beetles were sampled with pitfall traps at 12, 66 and 120 m into each crop 8-10 times (one week/sample) between sowing and harvest.

     

  2. Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

    A replicated, controlled, randomized study in arable fields in Finland (Huusela-Veistola 1996) (same study as (Huusela-Veistola 1998)) found that ground beetle (Carabidae) abundance was higher in reduced pesticide compared to conventional pesticide plots. This was true in 1993 and 1994, the opposite trend was seen in 1992. Spring species tended to be more affected by pesticides than autumn species. Overall there was no significant difference in beetle abundance between cultivation treatments: customary (deep ploughing, conventional fertilizer use, no undergrowth) vs integrated (soil treatment with cultivator only, reduced fertilizer use, undersown grass/clover Trifolium spp.). There were six replicate blocks and treatments (in 0.7 ha plots) which were fully randomized within blocks (one treatment combination/plot). Treatments were conventional pesticide applications, reduced pesticides or no pesticides (control) and customary or integrated cultivation. Beetles were sampled with pitfall traps at 12, 66 and 120 m into each crop 8-10 times (one week/sample) between sowing and harvest.

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust