Plate 1.1 Results of a meta - analysis of studies of the response of herbivores to diversity of natural enemies (from Letourneau et al ., Effects of natural enemy biodiversity on the suppression of arthropod herbivores in terrestrial ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics , 40, 573 – 592, (2009) (with permission)). Tests of increased enemy species richness on arthropod herbivore suppression
He
dg
e’s
d
8
6
4
2
0
–2
–4
–6
–8
Negative effect sizePositive effect size
Plate 1.2 Examples of agricultural features that offer scope to enhance natural enemy biodiversity of farmland: grassy, raised earth ‘ beetle bank ’ , UK (top left); game bird habitat in Environmental Stewardship Scheme area, UK (top centre); diverse plants in a pollinator enhancement strip, UK (top right), native cover crop established to promote decomposition of oil palm prunings, Papua New Guinea (bottom left), young tree strip to shelter crops and livestock, Australia (bottom centre), wild fl ower mix in ecological compensation area bottom right, Switzerland (photos by G.M. Gurr).
Plate 2.1 A diamondback moth caterpillar hangs in midair from a silken thread. Dropping on a thread allows caterpillars to escape from predators, but comes at the cost of lost feeding opportunities for the caterpillar. Thus, predators that scare caterpillars off of the plant can reduce herbivory even when the herbivore is not killed (photo by Shawn Steffan).
Plate 8.1 Snapshot of a virtual landscape of the scenario with low amount of habitat (habitat amount 2,500 cells, number of patches 25, patch distance 10 cells) during a simulation run. White: cells with only host population, dark pink: cells with host and parasitoid population, brown: matrix cells, green: empty habitat cells. Adapted from Visser et al ., 2009, Conservation biocontrol in fragmented landscapes: persistence and paratisation in a host – parasitoid model. Open Ecology Journal , 2, 52 – 61.
Plate 11.1 ‘ Attract and reward ’ is a concept based on attracting natural enemies into a crop using an HIPV or blend of HIPVs and rewarding them (hopefully enticing them to stay in the crop) by providing nectar - rich plants like buckwheat as a ground cover.
HIPVHIPV
HIPV
HIPV
HIPV
HIPV
HIPV
Attractbeneficial insects
into the crop
AND Rewardand retain beneficial
insects within the crop
CropFlowers
Plate 12.1 Flowers on bunds beside rice fi elds in Cai Lay district, Tien Giang, Vietnam, as a nectar resource for parasitoids of rice pests.
Plate 12.2 Posters used in Ecological Engineering for rice pest management media campaign in Tien Giang, Vietnam.
Plate 13.1 A typical rice landscape showing bunds (levee banks) linking fi elds with riparian vegetation and semi - natural vegetation sources of natural enemies, Ifugao Province, Philippines (from Hettel, 2009, Bird ’ s - eye views of an enduring riceculture. Rice Today , 7, 4 – 19, reproduced with permission of IRRI).
Plate 14.1 Examples of ‘ Green Plant Protection ’ . a) yellow sticky traps in a rice paddy fi eld; b) frequency trembler grid lamp beside a rice paddy fi eld; c) sex pheromone trap for rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee; d) sex pheromone trap for striped rice borer, Chilo suppressalis (photos: a, b) Zhongxian Lu; c, d) Jiangxing Wu).
Plate 14.2 Sticky traps employed in tea plantations: a) different coloured sticky traps in tea plantations, b) green sticky cards widely used in tea plantations, c) the pests attracted by green sticky traps, and d) the pests attracted by yellow stickytraps (photos: Baoyu Han).
Plate 14.3 Examples of pest management in vegetable fi elds: a) combination of sex pheromone and yellow sticky cards applied in the vegetable fi elds in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province of China, b) frequency trembler grid lamp which attracted vegetable pests in Xiaoshan, Zhejiang Province of China, c) sex pheromone traps for insect pests in the vegetable fi elds in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province of China (photos: a, c) Jiangxing Wu; b) Guorong Wang).
Plate 15.1 A: Results of a brown planthopper ( Nilaparvata lugens ) choice test on rice varieties. Four varieties showed resistance to the planthopper. All other varieties were highly susceptible, including several with the Bph1 and Bph2 genes against which planthoppers have already adapted. B: Susceptible hybrid rice (left) damaged by brown planthoppers at Santa Cruz, Philippines. The adjacent variety, IR74, (right) is relatively resistant and received considerably less damage. Farmers hadheavily applied insecticides to both varieties. (Photos – Carmen Bernal IRRI)
A B
Plate 17.1 Resource plants in New Zealand vineyards (clockwise from top left). The endemic New Zealand plants Anaphalioides bellidioides (G.Forst.) Glenny: Acaena inermis Hook f.; Stephen Wratten with author Tompkins in the vineyard; the non - native Fagopyrun esculentum Moench, grown between grapevines for CBC enhancement.
Plate 17.2 Native tallgrass prairie in Ingham County, Michigan established with the assistance of the US Department of Agriculture ’ s Conservation Reserve Program. Overall planting contains over 80 native species of grasses, sedges and forbs. Theyellow fl owering plant is the native gray conefl ower, Ratibida pinnata (Vent.) Barnhart, while the white plant in the foreground is the widespread invader wild carrot, Daucus carota L.
Plate 20.1 Shades of green in concepts of biodiversity ’ s role in agriculture (see text for full explanation).
Biodiversity as aresource foragriculture
Biodiversity as aservice provider
to agriculture
Biodiversity as anintrinsic component
of agriculture
Genes (for resistance breeding)
Compounds (for managing insects)
Flowering plant species (nectar etc. to supportparasitoids)
Natural enemies - (for managing insects)
Crops diversified to minimise susceptibility topest outbreaks
Native plants conserved on farms (andproviding multiple ecosystem services)
Farm landscapes diversified to suppress pestsand maximise natural enemy activity
