agriculture, habitat plots, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators

Creating habitat for beneficial insects: We planted it. Did they come?

Woman wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap is emptying blue and yellow bowls filled with soapy water and dead insects into a deli cup.
Here I am collecting insects from our yellow and blue pan traps last September.

Hopefully you’ve been following along with a project I’m working on with Betsy Lamb and Brian Eshenaur to establish (and document the impacts of) habitat for natural enemies of pests and pollinators (collectively, beneficial insects). In December, I wrote about how the plants were growing, and in February I wrote about the time and money we’d invested in the project so far and the success of our weed management strategies. I promised an update on insect sampling, and here it is!

First of all, let me clarify that we were collecting more than just insects. Insects only have six legs. We also collected arachnids like spiders (and harvestmen), which usually have eight legs, and pillbugs, millipedes, and centipedes, which have many more than eight legs. All of these “bugs” could be correctly called arthropods. But there’s more! We also counted earthworms (which are annelids) and slugs and snails (which are mollusks). Hopefully the entomologists in my audience will pardon my use of the term “insect” to include creatures that crawl or fly but may have more (or less) than six legs throughout the rest of this post.

I described the ways that we collected insects in an earlier post. As a quick refresher:

  • Pan traps catch flying insects, especially those attracted to the colors yellow and blue.
  • Pitfall traps catch insects that crawl along the soil surface.
  • Sweep nets catch insects that are flying or hanging out on plants.
The left picture (pan traps) shows a yellow and a blue plastic bowl sitting amongst grass and weeds. Each contains a rock and is filled with soapy water. The middle picture (pitfall trap) shows a deli cup buried in the ground to its rim and filled with liquid. A clear plastic dinner plate is held above the deli cup by wire legs. The picture on the right (sweep net) shows a woman wearing a t-shirt, jeans and a baseball cap sweeping a large white canvas net just above the ground as she walks through a field.
Different methods used for sampling insect from our habitat plots included pan traps, pitfall traps, and a sweep net.

Below is a quick reminder of our treatments. You can read all the details here. Except for Treatment H. These are “new” plots that we added in 2019. I just measured out four, 23-foot long sections of grass planted between rows of Christmas trees in the middle of the field. These row middles are mowed by the excellent Field Research Unit staff at Cornell AgriTech, where our research field is located. The grass mixture was seeded right after the Christmas trees were planted in Spring 2018, but it does include some blooming weeds from time to time (dandelions and clover, especially).

Treatment Description
A Spring transplant, no mulch
B Spring transplant with mulch
C Spring direct seed
D Buckwheat cover crop, then fall transplant
E – control Whatever was growing there, just keep it mowed
F Soil solarization, then fall direct seed
G Herbicide and tillage, then fall direct seed
H – control Mow seeded orchard grass mix
Mowed grass between rows of small Christmas trees
Mowed grass between rows of Christmas trees in the middle of the field is a second control treatment for insect sampling.

And one last note before we get into the actual results. These are still preliminary results. Many, many thanks to Jason Dombroskie and Paige Muñiz for helping us with insect identification. Identification and number crunching of the data are still ongoing.

 

Ok, ready to see some cool insects (etc.)? Here we go!

 

Spiders and harvestmen

On the left, a harvestman with a plump body lacking distinct segments. In the middle, a spider with two distinct body segments. These two pictures were taken by David Cappaert, and are available on Bugwood.org. On the right, a black and yellow garden spider.
Spiders and harvestmen both have eight legs and are useful predators to have in a field or garden. The garden spider on the right was probably the largest arachnid I spotted in our habitat plots. The left and middle pictures were taken by David Cappaert.

We caught a lot of spiders and harvestmen, mostly in pan and pitfall traps. What’s a harvestman? You might know it by the name daddy long legs. It looks a lot like a spider, but instead of having a distinct narrowed “waist” (actually where the two body segments of the arachnid meet), their bodies just look like single “blobs”. Both spiders and harvestmen are predators and will eat many other insects (including some pests). They may also eat nectar and pollen. Very few spiders you are likely to encounter in New York are venomous, so welcome these eight-legged biocontrol agents to your fields and gardens without fear!

A bar graph showing numbers of spiders and harvestmen caught in each treatment (mostly in pan and pitfall traps). The most spiders and harvestmen were caught in treatments C (spring seeded) and H (grass control). Treatment B (transplanted and mulched) had the fewest spiders and harvestmen.
I added up all of the spiders and harvestmen we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

We caught a lot of spiders and harvestmen, but it looks like there were fewer in the plots that were mulched at transplanting or solarized prior to seeding.

Carabid beetles

Top: several tiger beetles with brown backs but iridescent green bellies; Bottom: picture of a black ground beetle taken by Mary C. Legg and available at Bugwood.org
We caught a lot of tiger beetles (top picture) in our plots last summer, but carabid beetles come in many shapes, sizes, and colors.

You may not notice carabid beetles (also called ground beetles) because they crawl along the surface of the soil and are usually more active at night. Also, many of them move very quickly. They are great predators of insects (and other arthropods), as well as mollusks like slugs. Some also eat seeds.

 

 

 

A bar graph showing numbers of carabid beetles caught in each treatment (mostly in pitfall traps). The most carabid beetles were caught in treatments D (fall transplant after buckwheat), F (fall seed after solarizing soil), and G (fall seeding after using tillage and herbicide to control weeds). The fewest carabid beetles were caught in the control plots (E and H).
I added up all of the carabid beetles we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

From these preliminary results, it looks like we tended to catch more carabid beetles in the fall-planted treatments (whether they were transplanted or direct-seeded). We’ll have to see if this turns out to be a consistent pattern. There were generally fewer carabids in the two control treatments.

Rove beetles

Two pictures of insects. The one on the left has an arrow pointing to the short wing covers visible on its back (labeled ‘elytra’). The one on the right is courtesy of Joseph Berger, and can be found at Bugwood.org.
Rove beetles come in different sizes, but they all have short wing covers called elytra.

We did not catch very many rove beetles (only 55 in all of the plots for the entire summer), but like carabid beetles these predators live at the soil surface or in the soil. Some also scavenge things that are already dead or eat seeds. You can recognize them by the short wing covers (called elytra) on their backs. I think they look like mini capes.

Hover flies

Left: black and yellow hover fly on a bright yellow coreopsis flower; Middle: a different kind of adult hover fly perched on a person’s skin; Right: a larval hover fly that looks like a small translucent caterpillar on a leaf near a green aphid. This picture was taken by Ken Wise.
Adult hover flies (left and middle pictures) have only two wings and big eyes, even though they are often black and yellow striped like bees. The visually unimpressive larva in the picture on the right is about to eat an aphid.

Hover flies (also called syrphids) come in many shapes and sizes and get their name from the way the adults hover in the air when traveling between flowers. Many look like bees, but if they hold still long enough and you look closely, you will see that they only have two wings (bees have four), and they have very large eyes. The adults feed on pollen and nectar and are also pollinators. The larvae are predators, eating aphids, whiteflies, and scales.

A bar graph showing numbers of hover flies (syrphids) caught in each treatment (mostly in pan traps and sweep nets). More hover flies were caught in direct-seeded treatments (C, F, and G), treatment D (buckwheat during the summer, transplanted in the fall), or the weedy control (treatment E). Fewer hover flies were caught in the spring transplanted treatments (A and B) or the grass control.
I added up all of the hover flies we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

We were surprised to see similarly low numbers of hover flies in the two spring transplanted plots (in which deliberately-planted wildflowers were largest and produced the most flowers) and in the mowed grass control. More hover flies were collected from the weedy control, all the direct seeded plots, and the fall transplanted plots (which had smaller wildflowers with fewer blooms). We don’t know why.

Lady beetles

Spiny black and orange larval lady beetle on a green leaf.
Although lady beetles are familiar as natural enemies of pests, their larvae (like this one) are not always so easily recognized. Larvae are often (but not always) elongated, look a bit spiny, and are orange and black.

Lady beetles may be the most well-recognized biocontrol agent, but they were not the most abundant one collected in our sampling. We only collected 65 larvae or adults from all plots over the entire summer. Both life stages are predators, but adults of at least some species will also eat pollen and nectar. We identified the species of each adult (but not the larvae), and a picture of each is below.

From left to right: Pink lady beetle with black spots on a dandelion flower is the pink spotted lady beetle (Coleomegilla maculata); red lady beetle with black spots crawling on a plant stem is a seven-spotted lady beetle (Coccinella septempunctata); another red lady beetle with black spots - including two elongated spots near its rear end that look like parentheses – is the parenthesis lady beetle (Hippodamia parenthesis) whose picture was taken by Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University and is available on Bugwood.org; another red lady with black spots is the variegated lady beetle (Hippodamia variegata) and its picture was taken by Frank Peairs from Colorado State University and is available at Bugwood.org; the final lady beetle has a black and orange-yellow checkerspot pattern and is the checkerspot lady beetle (Propylea quatuordecimpuctata) whose picture was taken by Ken Wise with the NYSIPM Program.
We collected adults of these five lady beetle species in our plots during Summer 2019.

Lacewings

Top picture is a magnified picture of an elongated larval lacewing with prominent pincher-like jaws; bottom picture is a green lacewing feeding on pollen from a white buckwheat flower.
Lacewing larva (top) and adult (bottom). Adults may also be brown, but will have a similar shape.

All lacewing larvae are predators, and the more easily recognized adults of some species are also predators. Others eat pollen as adults. We did not catch very many in our plots; only 40 all summer from all plots.

Minute pirate bugs

Small black and white insect, magnified.
Minute pirate bugs may be small, but they are mighty predators!

This may be one of my new favorite natural enemies. They are definitely minute (no more than a quarter of an inch long) but feed on small insect pests like aphids, mites, scales, and thrips, as well as pollen and nectar. We only collected 19 from all plots over the whole summer. At home, I sometimes find them running across my table after I’ve brought freshly cut flowers inside. In this video, you can see one exploring the map of a corn maze. Actually, it was looking for thrips to eat.

minute pirate bug on corn maze map

Bees

Six pictures of different bees. Some are large like bumble bees or carpenter bees, some are smaller, and one is green.
When we think of bees, sometimes we think of just honey bees and bumble bees. But many different bees utilized the pollen and nectar from the wildflowers we planted. Just a few are pictured here.

Interestingly, while we collected a lot of bees of many different kinds over the summer (at least 18 different genera), very few were the iconic honey bees or bumble bees. I have been told by a bee expert that the pan traps tend to catch bees other than honey or bumble bees, and we did set these traps about twice as often as we used sweep nets. So this may have impacted the types and numbers of bees we collected. Nevertheless, these data are a reminder that there are lots of bees out there besides the ones we’re most familiar with. I encourage you to learn more about wild bees of New York.

A bar graph showing the average number of bees caught in each treatment (mostly in pan traps) summed over the entire summer. The most bees were caught in spring-planted treatments (A, B, and C) and the least bees were caught in the grass control treatment (H). The bars contain very small orange (for honey bee) and yellow (for bumble bee sections) sections. The vast majority of bees caught were other wild bees (green).
We caught quite a few bees last summer! However, the vast majority of them were not honey or bumble bees. Importantly, we don’t have bee counts for all sampling dates, yet.

Butterflies

At the beginning of this post, I listed three methods we used to collect insects. Well, actually there was a fourth method, but it was used to count insects rather than to collect them. We did a Pollard Walk through each plot once a month by simply walking along the side of the plot and counting the number and type of butterflies we saw. We counted very few butterflies during these walks, but here are pictures of the species that did visit our plots (either in the adult or caterpillar life stage).

Collage of six different butterflies (Milbert’s tortoiseshell, viceroy, clouded sulphur, red admiral (photo by Daniel Herms, The Ohio State University and available on Bugwood.org), cabbage white (photo by Mary C Legg, available on Bugwood.org), and painted lady) and two caterpillars (monarch and swallowtail).
These are the butterflies we observed in our beneficial insect habitat plots during Summer 2019. Some, like the monarch and swallowtail we only saw as caterpillars; never as adults.

So that’s it for the beneficial insects I’m going to write about today. We also caught some not-so-beneficial insects (and mollusks).

Tarnished plant bugs

Three pictures of tarnished plant bugs, feeding on the stem of a yellow flower, up close, and sitting on a white aster flower.
Tarnished plant bugs have a distinct pattern on their backs, and also benefit from the same floral resources that support beneficial insects.

These are generalist herbivores, feeding on leaves, fruits and flowers of many plants. They can be damaging pests on some fruits (like strawberries) and vegetables. In our plots, I think they caused some damage to the coreopsis flowers. We’re not too worried because they aren’t pests of Christmas trees, but we were disappointed to find the largest numbers of tarnished plant bugs in the more mature habitat plots (those started by transplanting, as opposed to direct-seeding). Other researchers also reported that planting wildflower strips adjacent to strawberries could increase tarnished plant bug populations.

A bar graph showing numbers of tarnished plant bugs caught in each treatment (mostly in sweep nets, but some in pan traps). More tarnished plant bugs were caught in treatments with transplanted wildflowers (A, B, and D), and also quite a few in the weedy control. The fewest tarnished plant bugs were caught in the grass control plots.
I added up all of the tarnished plant bugs we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

Leafhoppers

Two different leafhoppers (one yellow and one green) magnified to clearly show their pointy heads and bristled back legs.
There are many different species of leafhoppers out there, but they all have pointy heads that are flattened and bristles on their back legs. The bristles are much easier to see with magnification, as in these pictures.

Leafhoppers are another insect that we aren’t too concerned about with Christmas trees, but can be a pest of other crops. I learned that you can distinguish this group of insects by their pointy flattened (top to bottom) heads and the bristles on their back legs. The spring transplanted plots in which wildflower plants were most mature and produced the most blooms also had fewer leafhoppers than other treatments.

A bar graph showing numbers of leafhoppers caught in each treatment (mostly in pan traps, but many in pitfall and sweep nets, too). Although we caught a lot of leafhoppers, we caught fewer in the treatments where wildflowers were transplanted in the spring (A and B).
I added up all of the leafhoppers we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

 

Slugs

Slimy slug being held next to a ball point pen for size comparison. The slug is about one third the length of the pen.
Biggest slug of 2019 insect sampling!

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, slugs are mollusks, not insects (or even arthropods) and they can be pests of many different crops. The picture above is definitely the largest slug that we collected during 2019. Interestingly, there seemed to be fewer slugs in the plots where we solarized the soil during the 2018 growing season. I was interested to learn that soil solarization is known to kill slug eggs, and I wonder if we’re seeing that effect here. I don’t know how far slugs move from where the eggs hatch, and it will be interesting to see if this effect persists in future years.

A bar graph showing numbers of slugs caught in each treatment (mostly in pitfall traps, but some in pan traps). We caught fewer slugs in the plots that were solarized and had wildflowers direct seeded in the fall (treatment F) than in other treatments.
I added up all of the slugs we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

Believe it or not, this is not the full list of insect (or arthropod, mollusk, or annelid) groups we collected and counted. Also, I will remind you again that these data (especially the bee data) are preliminary. Although I’m sad to be unable to collect insects this summer due to COVID-19, I’m looking forward to finishing the analysis of the 2019 data and getting ready to hopefully collect insects again in 2021. In the meantime, you can see pictures of what’s happening in these plots throughout the summer on my Twitter and Instagram accounts. And I will write at least one more post about this project later this year.

 

This post was written by Amara Dunn. All pictures or videos were taken by her, unless otherwise credited.

This work is supported by:

  • Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
  • New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
  • Towards Sustainability Foundation