Paper · 1979 · Journal of Applied Ecology

Studies on Polyphagous Predators of Cereal Aphids

C. A. Edwards; K. D. Sunderland; K. S. George

8
claims
20
verbatim quotes
240
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

1. Experiments were done in fields of winter wheat at North Farm, West Sussex, and at Rothamsted in 1978 to investigate the effect of predation by carabid beetles and other polyphagous preadtors on populations of cereal aphids. 2. Predator populations were manipulated by pitfall trapping within plot surrounded by polythene barriers and by applying an insecticide (fonofos) within such plots. Plots were set up in March, April, May and June and the development of aphid populations within them compared with aphid populations in unenclosed control areas. 3. The numbers of carabid beetles caught in the enclosed and fonofos-treated plots were much less than in 'control' plots. 4. Aphid populations were all much smaller in 'control' plots than in those with depleted predator populations both at North Farm, where beetle populations were large, and at Rothamsted where populations were small. Aphid populations were much larger in plots where numbers of polyphagous predators were decreased early in the season than where this was done later. 5. There was an inverse relationship between numbers of polyphagous predators and aphids for the North farm experiment. In contrast, there were positive relationships between aphids and aphid-specific predators and between aphids and aphid parasites. This together with the virtual absence of the pathogenic fungus Entomophtora spp, indicated that the differences in aphid density between plots were caused by polyphagous predators rather than by other natural enemies. 6. Comparison of results from the two sites suggested that amongst the carabid beetles Agonum dorsale (Pont.) was the most important aphid predator, but there was also evidence that polyphagous predators other than carabids decreased the cereal aphid populations.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enclosed fonofos plots had fewer carabid beetles than controls.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
enclosed and fonofos-treated plotse0
Interactor
carabid beetlese0other
Outcome
numbers of carabid beetlese0
Direction
much lesse0
Comparator
'control' plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“numbers of carabid beetles caught in the enclosed and fonofos-treated plots were much less than in 'control' plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 563–677 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cereal aphid populations were smaller in control plots than predator depleted plots at both sites.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
'control' plotse0
Interactor
cereal aphidse2pest
Outcome
Aphid populationse0
Direction
much smallere0
Comparator
those with depleted predator populationse0
Setting
North Farme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Aphid populations were all much smaller in 'control' plots than in those with depleted predator populations both at North Farm, where beetle populations were large, and at Rothamsted where populations were small”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 682–893 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
e2

“cereal aphids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–226 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aphids were more numerous after early rather than later predator reduction.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
decreased early in the seasone0
Interactor
cereal aphidse2pest
Second interactor
polyphagous predatorse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Aphid populationse0
Direction
much largere0
Comparator
latere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Aphid populations were much larger in plots where numbers of polyphagous predators were decreased early in the season than where this was done later”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–1043 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
e2

“cereal aphids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–226 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Polyphagous predator and aphid numbers were inversely related at North Farm.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae0pest
Second interactor
polyphagous predatorse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
numbers of polyphagous predators and aphidse0
Direction
inversee0
Setting
North farme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“inverse relationship between numbers of polyphagous predators and aphids for the North farm experiment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1061–1163 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aphids and aphid-specific predators were positively related.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae0pest
Second interactor
aphid-specific predatorse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
relationships between aphids and aphid-specific predatorse0
Direction
positivee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“positive relationships between aphids and aphid-specific predators”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1255 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Entomophtora spp was virtually absent.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Interactor
cereal aphidse2pest
Second interactor
Entomophtora sppe0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
virtual absence of the pathogenic fungus Entomophtora sppe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“virtual absence of the pathogenic fungus Entomophtora spp”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1319–1376 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
e2

“cereal aphids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–226 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Site comparison suggested Agonum dorsale was the most important carabid aphid predator.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Interactor
cereal aphidse2pest
Second interactor
Agonum dorsaleAnchomenus dorsalise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
most important aphid predatore0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Anchomenus dorsalis
Anchomenus dorsalis · Second interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryThis image is created by user B. Schoenmakers at Waarneming.nl , a source of nature observations in the Netherlands. · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Agonum dorsale (Pont.) was the most important aphid predator”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1602–1662 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑
e2

“cereal aphids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–226 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-carabid polyphagous predators also decreased cereal aphid populations.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Interactor
cereal aphide0pest
Second interactor
polyphagous predators other than carabidse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
cereal aphid populationse0
Direction
decreasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“polyphagous predators other than carabids decreased the cereal aphid populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1697–1777 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 28–50 · show in text ↑

climate site · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.