Effects of reduced tillage systems in sugar beet on predatory and pest arthropods

  • Published source details Heimbach U. & Garbe V. (1996) Effects of reduced tillage systems in sugar beet on predatory and pest arthropods. Pages 195-208 in: K. Booij & L.d. Nijs (eds.) Arthropod Natural Enemies in Arable Land II - Survival, Reproduction and Enhancement: Acta Jutlandica 71:2, Natural Science Series, 10. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce tillage

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce tillage

    A replicated, controlled study of two fields on two farms in Saxony, Germany from 1991 to 1992 (Heimbach & Garbe 1996) found that conservation tillage plots (with catch crops of phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia or white mustard Sinapis alba) without seed-bed preparation in the spring resulted in an increase in spiders (Araneae), rove beetles (Staphylinidae) and ground beetles (Carabidae). Spider and ground beetle density was higher in conservation tillage plots without tillage in spring (spiders: 32-85/m², ground beetles: 6-21/m²) compared to those with tillage (15-38, 2-14/m² respectively). However rove beetle abundance differed between catch crops: rove beetles no tillage: 70-95/m² in phacelia, 54-100/m² in white mustard; tillage in spring: 50-83/m² in phacelia, 84-148/m² in white mustard. Plots with conservation tillage had higher numbers of all three taxa than conventional plots (spiders: 10-18/m², rove beetles: 43-62/m², ground beetles: 2-11/m²). Numbers tended to be higher when white mustard was used compared to phacelia, particularly for ground beetles (4-21 vs 2-17/m²). Fields were divided into plots (12-24 x 100 m) with two replicates of five soil cultivations: conventional (ploughed, tillage, drilling of sugar beet Beta vulgaris) or conservation tillage with phacelia or white mustard (ploughed, tillage and drilled) followed by soil tillage and drilling or direct drilling of sugar beet in spring. Insecticides were not applied where predatory arthropods were monitored. Two ground photo-eclectors with a pitfall trap were used in each plot and were emptied and moved 1-2 times/week from sugar beet drilling until the end of June. Pest data are not included here.

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust