Study

Higher numbers of emerging Hymenoptera and Diptera found on an arable field fertilized with compost than on field with mineral fertilizer near Wien, Austria

  • Published source details Idinger J. (1995) Ground photoeclector evaluation of Diptera and parasitoid Hymenoptera in unfertilized, mineral nitrogen and compost fertilized grain fields. Mitteilungen Der Deutschen Gesellschaft Fur Allgemeine Und Angewandte Entomologie Band 10, Heft 1-6, Dezember 1995, 10, 553-556

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers

    A controlled study in 1991-1992 on two arable fields northeast of Wien, Austria (Idinger 1995) (same study as (Idinger et al. 1996, Idinger & Kromp 1997)) found that the number of emerging parasitic wasps (Hymenoptera) and flies (Diptera) was generally higher in a plot fertilized with compost than in the mineral fertilized control field. However, the effect of fertilizer on the number of emerging arthropods varied strongly between arthropod families. The parasitic wasp families (Ichneumonidae, Braconidae and Proctotrupoidea) all emerged in significantly higher numbers on the compost fertilized plot. The same was true for two of the more common fly families, gall midges (Cecidomyiidae) and non-biting midges (Chironomidae), and partly dark-winged fungus gnats (Sciaridae), whereas two families, balloon flies (Empididae) and humpbacked flies (Phoridae), were found more often in the control field. None of the presented families or species emerged in highest numbers in an unfertilized plot. Two plots (185 x 10 m each) were established in a 4 ha organic winter rye field. One was left unfertilized, the other was fertilized with compost. A nearby conventional winter cereal field served as a control. The control was fertilized with mineral fertilizer and treated with herbicides in 1991 only. Emerging arthropods were sampled from May-November 1991 and May-August 1992 in five photo-eclectors placed along a line (20 m apart) in each habitat. The eclectors were emptied every second week and moved every month. Data from six sampling dates are used in this paper.

     

Output references

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, 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