IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i8p1390-d107212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Wheat-Maize Intercropping on Population Dynamics of Wheat Aphids and Their Natural Enemies

Author

Listed:
  • Junhe Liu

    (College of Biological Engineering, Huanghuai University, Zhumadian 463000, China)

  • Yan Yan

    (Landscape Research Institutes of Zhumadian, Zhumadian 463000, China)

  • Abid Ali

    (Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan)

  • Ningtao Wang

    (Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA)

  • Zihua Zhao

    (Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Mingfu Yu

    (College of Biological Engineering, Huanghuai University, Zhumadian 463000, China)

Abstract

To study the effects of wheat-maize intercropping on the population dynamics of wheat aphids and their natural enemies, wheat-maize intercropping patterns were divided into four levels: 8:2, 6:2, and 4:2 intercropping, and monoculture wheat. The results showed that as the wheat coverage rate decreased, the quantities of immigrating winged aphids and their natural enemies significantly differed; the population densities of the natural enemies of wheat aphids continuously rose and reached the highest levels in the 4:2 intercropping. During the stable periods, the maximum population density of wheat aphids was the highest in monoculture wheat. With a reduction in the wheat coverage ratio, the maximum population density of wheat aphids showed a decreasing trend. The control imposed by predatory natural enemies in intercropped wheat was higher than that in monoculture wheat; it was strongest in the 8:2 intercropping and the lowest in wheat monoculture. With an increase in the proportion of wheat, the parasitism rate of parasitic wasps increased gradually and reached the highest level in 4:2 intercropping. The effect of host density on hyperparasitism was significant in the intercropped wheat. The intercropping pattern had a great effect on the wheat aphids’ natural enemies. In different agricultural landscapes, the diversity of wheat aphids’ natural enemies differed significantly between intercropped wheat and monoculture wheat; in the heterogeneous landscape, the natural enemy diversity was highest in intercropped wheat, and it was far higher than that in the other wheat cultivation patterns. The natural enemy diversity was also slightly different between monoculture wheat in the heterogeneous landscape and intercropped wheat in the homogeneous agricultural landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Junhe Liu & Yan Yan & Abid Ali & Ningtao Wang & Zihua Zhao & Mingfu Yu, 2017. "Effects of Wheat-Maize Intercropping on Population Dynamics of Wheat Aphids and Their Natural Enemies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1390-:d:107212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1390/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1390/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Pertz & Louis Hodgson & Richard L. Klemke & Klaus M. Hahn, 2006. "Spatiotemporal dynamics of RhoA activity in migrating cells," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7087), pages 1069-1072, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suchet Nanda & Abram Calderon & Arya Sachan & Thanh-Thuy Duong & Johannes Koch & Xiaoyi Xin & Djamschid Solouk-Stahlberg & Yao-Wen Wu & Perihan Nalbant & Leif Dehmelt, 2023. "Rho GTPase activity crosstalk mediated by Arhgef11 and Arhgef12 coordinates cell protrusion-retraction cycles," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1390-:d:107212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.