We integrated a natural enemy survey of the broader landscape into a more traditional survey for Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae), parasitoids and predatory flies on soybean using A. glycines-infested soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., placed in cropped and noncropped plant systems to complement visual field observations. Across three sites and 5 yr, 18 parasitoids and predatory flies in total (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae [two species] and Bracondae [seven species], Diptera: Cecidomyiidae [one species], Syrphidae [seven species], Chamaemyiidae [one species]) were detected, with significant variability in recoveries detected across plant system treatments and strong contrasts in habitat affinity detected among species. Lysiphlebus testaceipes Cresson was the most frequently detected parasitoid, and no differences in abundance were detected in cropped (soybean, wheat [Triticum aestivum L.], corn [Zea mays L.], and alfalfa [Medicago sativa L.]) and noncropped (poplar [Populus euramericana (Dode) Guinier] and early successional vegetation) areas. In contrast, Binodoxys kellggensis Pike, Starý & Brewer had strong habitat affinity for poplar and early successional vegetation. The low recoveries seasonally and across habitats of Aphelinus asychis Walker, Aphelinus sp., and Aphidius colemoni Viereck make their suitability to A. glycines on soybean highly suspect. The widespread occurrence of many of the flies reflects their broad habitat affinity and host aphid ranges. The consistent low field observations of parasitism and predation suggest that resident parasitoids and predatory flies are unlikely to contribute substantially to A. glycines suppression, at least during the conventional time period early in the pest invasion when classical biological control activities are considered. For selected species that were relatively well represented across plant systems (i.e., L. testaceipes and Aphidoletes aphidimyza Rondani), conservation biological control efforts may be fruitful. The additional information gained from expanding the natural enemy survey into the broader landscape was essential in making these distinctions relevant to conservation biological control, while adding agroecosystem-specific information valuable to classical biological control.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 103 • No. 3