Study

Effects of agricultural management on nematode-mite assemblages: soil food web indices as predictors of mite community composition

  • Published source details Sanchez-Moreno S., Nicola N.L., Ferris H. & Zalom F.G. (2009) Effects of agricultural management on nematode-mite assemblages: soil food web indices as predictors of mite community composition. Applied Soil Ecology, 41, 107-117

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Convert to organic farming

Action Link
Natural Pest Control

Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, controlled study in 1993–2006 in an irrigated tomato-maize field in Davis, California, USA, found similar numbers of natural enemies in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Natural enemy numbers: Similar numbers of predatory mites were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (14 vs 12 individuals/100 g fresh soil). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on three plots each (reduced: 0.4 ha plots; no tillage: 3 m2 microplots). Plots with reduced tillage were tilled about two times/year (depth not reported). Plots with no tillage were hand weeded. All plots were irrigated. Half of the plots were fertilized, and compost was added to the other half. Soil samples were collected eight times in March 2005–November 2006 (three samples/plot). Mites were sampled with soil cores (5 cm diameter, 10 cm depth).

     

  2. Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1993–2006 in an irrigated tomato-corn field in Davis, California, USA, found similar numbers of natural enemies in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers: Similar numbers of predatory mites were found in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage (14 vs 7 individuals/100 g fresh soil). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each (conventional: 0.4 ha plots; no tillage: 3 m2 microplots). Plots with conventional tillage were tilled about five times/year (depth not reported). Plots with no tillage were hand weeded. All plots were irrigated. Half of the plots were fertilized, and compost was added to the other half. Soil samples were collected eight times in March 2005–November 2006 (three samples/plot). Mites were sampled with soil cores (5 cm diameter, 10 cm depth).

     

  3. Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1993–2006 in an irrigated tomato-corn field in Davis, California, USA, found similar numbers of natural enemies in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers: Similar numbers of predatory mites were found in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (8–12 vs 5–7 individuals/100 g fresh soil). Methods: Conventional tillage or reduced tillage was used on six plots each (0.4 ha plots). Plots were tilled about five times/year (conventional) or two times/year (reduced; depth not reported). All plots were irrigated. Half of the plots were fertilized, and compost was added to the other half. Soil samples were collected eight times in March 2005–November 2006 (three samples/plot). Mites were sampled with soil cores (5 cm diameter, 10 cm depth).

     

  4. Soil: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillage

    A replicated, controlled study in 1993–2006 in an irrigated tomato-corn field in Davis, California, USA, found similar numbers of soil organisms, but different communities of soil organisms, in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Soil organisms: Similar numbers of mites and nematodes were found in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (822 vs 888 individuals/100 g fresh soil). However, the composition of nematode and mite communities differed between soils with no tillage or reduced tillage (reported as distance in multivariate space). Methods: No tillage or reduced tillage was used on three plots each (reduced: 0.4 ha plots; no tillage: 3 m2 microplots). Plots with reduced tillage were tilled about two times/year (depth not reported). Plots with no tillage were hand weeded. All plots were irrigated. Half of the plots were fertilized, and compost was added to the other half. Soil samples were collected eight times in March 2005–November 2006 (three samples/plot). Mites were sampled with soil cores (5 cm diameter, 10 cm depth). Nematodes were sampled in soil cubes (20 x 20 x 20 cm).

     

  5. Soil: Use no tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1993–2006 in an irrigated tomato-corn field in Davis, California, USA, found similar numbers of soil organisms, but different communities of soil organisms, in soils with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Soil organisms: Similar numbers of mites and nematodes were found in soils with no tillage or conventional tillage (822 vs 797 individuals/100 g fresh soil). However, the composition of nematode and mite communities differed between soils with no tillage or conventional tillage (reported as distance in multivariate space). Methods: No tillage or conventional tillage was used on three plots each (conventional tillage: 0.4 ha plots; no tillage: 3 m2 microplots). Plots with conventional tillage were tilled about five times/year (depth not reported). Plots with no tillage were hand weeded. All plots were irrigated. Half of the plots were fertilized, and compost was added to the other half. Soil samples were collected eight times in March 2005–November 2006 (three samples/plot). Mites were sampled with soil cores (5 cm diameter, 10 cm depth). Nematodes were sampled in soil cubes (20 x 20 x 20 cm).

     

  6. Convert to organic farming

    A replicated, controlled study in 2005-2006 in Davis, California, USA (Sanchez-Moreno et al. 2009) found similar numbers of predatory mites (Prostigmata and Mesostigmata) in organically farmed (7 mites/100 g soil) and conventionally farmed (5 mites) plots receiving standard tillage. Numbers of predatory mites were also similar between organic (12 mites/100 g soil) and conventional (8 mites) plots receiving reduced tillage. Organic plots with reduced or no tillage had more predatory mites (12-14 mites/100 g soil) than conventional plots with standard tillage (5 mites). Tomato Solanum lycopersicum and maize Zea mays were grown (in 2005 and 2006, respectively) in 0.4 ha plots. Organic management included compost fertilizer application and legume cover crops during winter. Conventional management included mineral fertilizer and bare fallow in winter. Subplots of standard and reduced tillage were tested under both management systems, and no-tillage was also tested in organic plots. Each treatment was replicated three times. Three soil samples were taken per plot at eight sampling dates in 2005-2006.

  7. Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 1993–2006 in an irrigated tomato-corn field in Davis, California, USA, found similar numbers of soil organisms, but different communities of soil organisms, in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Soil organisms: Similar numbers of mites and nematodes were found in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (596–888 vs 527–797 individuals/100 g fresh soil). However, the composition of nematode and mite communities differed between soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage (reported as distance in multivariate space). Methods: Conventional tillage or reduced tillage was used on six plots each (0.4 ha plots). Plots were tilled about five times/year (conventional) or two times/year (reduced; depth not reported). All plots were irrigated. Half of the plots were fertilized, and compost was added to the other half. Soil samples were collected eight times in March 2005–November 2006 (three samples/plot). Mites were sampled with soil cores (5 cm diameter, 10 cm depth). Nematodes were sampled in soil cubes (20 x 20 x 20 cm).

     

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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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