Next Article in Journal
Response of Soil Fungal Community in Coastal Saline Soil to Short-Term Water Management Combined with Bio-Organic Fertilizer
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Control System for the Use of Biogas Slurry as Fertilizer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy14071440
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Species Composition of Phytophagous and Entomophagous Insects and Mites on Soybeans in Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Russia

by
Irina Sergeevna Agasyeva
,
Vladimir Yakovlevich Ismailov
,
Maria Vladimirovna Petrishcheva
,
Anton Sergeevich Nastasiy
* and
Viktor Sergeevich Petrishchev
Federal Research Center of Biological Plant Protection, 350039 Krasnodar, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(7), 1440; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071440 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 8 May 2024 / Revised: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 28 June 2024 / Published: 1 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soybeans are a valuable crop in many countries of the world. To obtain stable yields, it is necessary to consider the activities of arthropods, both beneficial and destructive. The results of this study indicate high biodiversity. Most of the insects that feed on soy are polyphagous. In the years favorable for their development, omnivorous pests pose a serious threat to soybeans. The species composition of arthropods on soybeans of the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories of the Russian Federation during the years of the study was represented by 212 species (210 species of insects and 2 species of mites), including 101 species of phytophagous insects, which accounted for 48.5% of the total fauna and 109 species of entomophagous insects (51.7%). Most of the entomophages were parasitic Hymenoptera belonging to such families as Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, Aphidiidae, Eurytomidae, Ormyridae, Pteromalidae, Encyrtidae, Eupelmidae, Eulophidae, Elasmidae, Scelionidae, Platygastridae, and Chrysididae. The most numerous phytophagous insects damaging soybeans belonged to the Hemiptera order (34 out of 101 species of phytophages). The Lepidoptera order in the soybean agrocenosis was represented by 28 species (13.4% of the total fauna and 28.0% of the destructive fauna).

1. Introduction

Soybeans are a unique agricultural crop, the area of which has doubled worldwide over the past 20 years [1,2]. The extensive spread of their culture is due to the high demand for them as a source of high-quality amino acid composition of protein used for feed and for food purposes, and for valuable vegetable oil with pharmaceutical, food, and technical applications. Soy is an economically profitable crop that is produced without nitrogen fertilizers, does not require costs to compensate for environmental damage, contributes to its conservation, and is in steady demand on the world market. Moreover, when cereals are cultivated after soybeans, their productivity is increased and the amount of nitrogen fertilizers they need is reduced. Therefore, soybeans are an ideal preceding crop for crops grown in organic crop rotations, where the use of mineral fertilizers is prohibited [3,4].
One of the central problems of obtaining high yields in soybean crops is damage to plants by destructive entomological fauna. In the south of Russia, phytophagous insects can reduce the total yield by an amount ranging from 30 to 50%. The final quality of the harvested plants deteriorates, and beans can also be damaged by storage pests [3]. Phytophagous insects that feed on soybeans, according to the nature of the damage they cause, are usually divided into the following groups: pests of nodules, roots, leaves, and the stem generative organs. All of these groups are found in Russia. There are more than 190 different species of insects that can damage soybean plantations. The most dangerous species are Tetranychus urticae Koch two-spotted spider mite [4]; Helicoverpa armigera Hb. cotton bollworm; Etiella zinckenella Tr. pulse pod borer moth; and the Aphis glycines Matsumura soybean aphid is also often mentioned as a destructive species [5,6]. T. urticae imago and larvae have greater resistance to commonly used acaricides than other species of spider mites. This adaptation leads to its very significant spread over vast territories [7,8,9].
Pest control for soybeans grown on millions of hectares around the world usually requires a large amount of chemicals. However, a key component to meet the growing demand for food due to the rapid growth of the world’s population is the protection of crops from pests while maintaining environmental quality through environmentally and economically sound methods [10]. At the moment, there is information about the non-target toxicity of several insecticides used to control destructive arthropods. For example, leaf insecticides, currently widely used in the midwestern United States to control soybean aphids, such as chlorpyrifos, lambda-cyhalothrin, and bifenthrin, are toxic to wild animals in laboratory conditions [11]. Some pest species have developed resistance to currently available chemical compounds. The adaptation processes associated with the use of insecticides have been noted for all major pests of soybean crops. The studies of Pentatomidae sensitivity to insecticides have shown low or medium susceptibility to acetamipride + α-cypermethrin, ζ-cypermethrin + bifentrin, dinotefuran + λ-cyhalothrin, and bifentrin + carbosulfan [12,13]. For T. urticae, the ability to rapidly develop resistance to acaricides has been noted, which is associated with mutations in the acetylcholinesterase gene, the target site for carbamate acaricides. Furthermore, the resistance of T. urticae populations to the following acaricides has been noted: abamectin, bifentrin, phenpiroximate, hexithiazox, and spirodiclofen [14,15]. There is evidence of soybean aphid resistance (Hemiptera/Aphididae) to pyrethroid insecticides. In response to sublethal concentrations of λ-cyhalothrin, adult aphids required increased concentrations of insecticide to reduce nymph production. The most resistant populations demonstrated a thirty-nine-fold decrease in mortality [16]. There are varieties resistant to aphid soybeans, which are commercially available, but have a limited genetic background and are not resistant to the herbicides used to control weeds. They can also reduce the diversity of the soil microbiome, which can lead to deterioration in conditions for natural pest control [17,18]. Moreover, it is noted that some varieties of genetically modified soybeans showing resistance to insects and herbicides may be more susceptible to whiteflies than non-GMO varieties [19]. The pest H. armigera is known to be resistant to almost all groups of insecticides used to control it [20,21,22].
Most agricultural producers in many countries continue to use traditional methods of soybean protection with the predominant use of chemical insecticides [23,24,25]. In addition, the biological protection of soybeans is mainly focused on the use of various microbiological preparations, mainly bacterial, both individually and in combination with chemical preparations [26,27,28,29,30]. Only a small part of the research considers the use of natural landscape–biotopic and –trophic connections of soybean arthropod cenosis, aimed at creating conditions for the activation and reproduction of natural populations of entomophages.
In natural cenoses, there are many natural enemies of the soybean phytophage, Coccinellidae, Stethorus punctillum Ws., Tachinidae, and Carabidae, that feed on caterpillars. Predatory Aeolothrips intermedius Bagnal and Chrysoperla carnea Stephens found in soybean crops are active exterminators of spider mites and aphids. Trichogramma (Trichogramma evanescens West., Trichogramma embryophagum Htg) is widely used to protect crops from lepidopteran pests [31,32,33]. Habrobracon hebetor Say shows high efficiency against bean pod borer and stem moths [34].
Soybeans are damaged by many species of arthropods, and in areas favorable for this crop, such as Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, one can note a transition to soybeans of some native species. The narrow range of the soybean phytophagous complex in these conditions implies the threat of new destructive species switching to it. In this regard, it is advisable to research the species composition of phytophages and entomophages of soybean agrocenosis and study the influence of entomophages on the regulation of pest numbers and the role of soybeans as a reserve of beneficial insect species of the entire agricultural ecosystem.
This study aimed to evaluate the species composition of phytophagous and entomophagous insects affecting soybeans in the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories of Russia.

2. Materials and Methods

The studies were conducted in Krasnodar (Krasnodar, 45°02′ N 38°59′ E) (30 ha) and Stavropol territories (Stavropol 45°02′ N 41°58′ E) (30 ha) in organic farms in 2024 (Figure 1).
The biomaterial was collected using Malaise and Moericke traps. The use of Malaise traps in the central part of the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories allowed for the continuous round-the-clock collection of biomaterial in the spring season. The collected biomaterial was stored in 70% ethyl alcohol at a temperature from −2 to −4 °C in refrigerators.
The biomaterial was collected starting from 25 April 2024 at the emergence of seedlings, as well as during the growing season of 2023 (from 30 April 2023 to 10 October 2023) using Malaise and Merike traps. The use of Malaise traps in the conditions of the central part of the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories allowed for continuous round-the-clock collection of biomaterial from April to October. Malaise traps were installed at the junction of two sections of the soybean field. The insect detector with fixing liquid and collected material was replaced every 7 days, and no attractants were used. The collected biomaterial was stored in 70% ethyl alcohol at a temperature of minus 2–4 °C in refrigerators.
The Moericke traps allowed for the collection of phytophages and their parasites that live in the ground layer, soil, and very dense grass. Monitoring of entomological fauna in the central part of the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories was carried out during the growing season of soybeans. Merike traps were laid out on the soil surface in an amount of 5 pieces at a distance of 5 m from each other; 15% sugar solution was used as an attractant and fixing liquid. We used yellow plastic disposable plates with a diameter of 20 cm. In order to avoid drying out, the replacement of the fixing liquid and the collection of material from the Merike traps was carried out every day at 9 AM.
The method of cutting with an entomological net and visual records were used in the diagnosis of the species composition of soybeans. Route surveys began in the spring with the beginning of the soybean growing season and were conducted once every seven days until the end of the field season. Before the formation of six true leaves, 10 plants were examined in a three-fold randomized manner. After the formation of six true leaves, the records were carried out by cutting with an entomological net. At that time, four samples were taken diagonally across the field in each section (25 swings of the net in each), that is, a total of 100 swings of the net. The length of the collector’s route was 20–25 m for each account. The surveys were carried out in warm weather around 10–11 AM, when insects actively moved on plants and were most easily detected.
To account for the number of common spider mites, samples of 30 leaf blades were taken three times during the route surveys. Under laboratory conditions, all stages of pest development were calculated using the MBS-1 microscope.
To detect parasites on soybean pests, insect larvae, pupas, and egg sets were collected during route surveys during visual inspection of plants. The larvae were fed in the laboratory. Before the imago emerged from the larvae, they were kept in Petri dishes, which were regularly scanned, the food was changed, and the parasites were caught and accounted for.
Pheromone traps for cotton budworm, turnip moth, heart and dart moth, gamma moth, black cutworm, and diamondback moth (Pheromone LLC, Moscow, Russia) were used to count Lepidoptera pests. The Attraction A trap (at the rate of 1–2 traps/ha) was a sheet of thin laminated polyethylene cardboard measuring 455 × 370 mm, assembled in the form of a house. A capsule with pheromones was fixed at a height of 1–1.5 cm above the ground. To fix the insects attracted to the traps, Pestifix glue was used, which was applied in a layer of 1–1.5 mm on replaceable inserts. The latter were replaced as they became clogged with captured insects (Figure 2).
Pheromone traps for the marmorated stink bug (Pheromone LLC, Moscow, Russia) were also used, which are aggregative and attract related species of Pentatomidae, for example, the southern green stink bug (Figure 3).
The identification of insects was carried out using the Insect Identifier of the South of Russia [35], as well as comparative entomological collections stored at the Federal State Budgetary Institution of the National Research University of the Russian Federation (Krasnodar, Russia).

3. Results

In the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, 210 species of insects and 2 species of mites (Table S1) were identified on soybean crops, including 101 species of phytophages (48.1% of the total fauna) that damage soybeans, and 109 species of entomophages (51.7%) (Figure 4). These insects were distributed in nine orders and 52 families.
The most numerous representatives of the order Hemiptera are 40 species (Table 1). They occupy 19.0% of the total fauna, of which six species are entomophages (Anthocoris nemorum Linnaeus, Orius niger Wolf., Orius majusculus Pent. (Anthocoridae), Nabis ferus Linnaeus, Nabis pseudoferus Rem. (Nabidae), and Zicrona caerulea Linnaeus (Pentatomidae)), while the other 34 (16.2%) belong to destructive fauna. The representatives of the Lepidoptera order are presented with slightly fewer than 28 species (13.3% of the total fauna and 28.0% of destructive fauna). The number of species belonging to the Coleoptera, Orthoptera, and Homoptera orders is 27, 12, and 2 species or 12.9, 5.7, and 1.0% of the total fauna and 9.5, 5.7, and 1.0% of the destructive fauna, respectively. The representatives of the Thysanoptera order account for only 1.9% of the total and 1.4% of the destructive fauna (three out of four species are phytophages) (Table 1).
Eight species of the Coleoptera order represent the useful species, six of which are Coccinellidae (Exochomus quadripustulatus L., Coccinela septempunctata L., C. bipunctata L., C. quatuordesimpustulata L., and Stetorus punctillum Ws.), and two species are Carabidae (Calosoma auropunctatum Hbst. and Carabus exaratus Quensel). The prey species of these entomophages in conditions of soy cenosis were aphids, thrips, spider mites, eggs, larvae of Lepidoptera, etc.
The fauna of the soybean moths was represented by five species: H. armigera Hb., Heliothis peltigera Denis & Schiffermuller, H. viriplaca Htn., Autographa gamma L., and Agrotis segetum Schiff. The cotton budworm was the most dangerous species: in the second half of August and September, one–two cotton budworm specimens were observed daily in each pheromone trap. The remaining species were represented by single individuals.
The soybean moth parasite complex was represented by 43 species of the following families: Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, Pteromalidae, Encyrtidae, Eupelmidae, Eulophidae, Elasmidae, and Trichogrammatidae (Table 2).
Of the pyralid moths (Pyralidae), only E. zinckenella Tr. was dangerous for soybean crops. Other potential pests of this Lepidoptera family were noted in isolated specimens throughout the growing season. The main reserve of this pest in the soybean agricultural ecosystem should be considered protective forest plantations, including Robinia pseudoacacia Linnaeus (mainly) and Caragana arborescens Lam. Thus, in the forest belts directly adjacent to soybean crops in the soybean agricultural ecosystem, the damage caused to black locust beans by this pest was about 90%.
The complex of parasites of the bean pod borer in the reporting season was represented by the following species: E. larvarum Linnaeus, C. florus Walker, S. viridula Thomson, S. xanthostoma Nees, E. bicolor Schwederus, E. flavipes Fonscolombe, Elachertus innunctus Nees (Eulophidae), T. pintoi Voegelé, T. evanescens Westwood (Trichogrammatidae), and Copidosomopsis pliothorica Kaltarigone (Encyrtidae).
The study results indicate high biodiversity and that most of the insects that feed on soy belonged to polyphages. Omnivorous pests in the years favorable for their development pose a serious threat to soybeans. Among this group, the most important are Melano desertus Pall., Thrips tabaci Lind., Polymerus cognatus Fieber, Lygus pratensis Linnaeus, Adelphocoris lineolatus Goeze, Dolycoris baccarum Linnaeus, H. halys Stål, and N. viridula Linnaeus, Elateridae, Opatrum sabulosum Linnaeus, Sitona, E. zinckenella Tr., and T. urticae Koch.
M. desertus damaged soybean seedlings by gnawing on the stems; in the years of study, the maximum number was 4.0 specimens/m2. T. tabaci was found in single specimens, without causing significant harm to soybean plants. However, with its massive presence, the pests, sucking juice from soybean leaves, lead to inhibition of the plant growth and development. Bugs of the mirid family (Miridae) (beet bug, alfalfa plant bug, and tarnished plant bug) and the stinkbug family (Pentatomidae) (sloe bug, brown marmorated stink bug, southern green stink bug) were observed annually in the soybean fields. With severe damage to plants caused by stink bugs and their larvae, the shoots were bent, the leaves deformed when first whitish, then yellow spots formed on them, and their buds and flowers crumbled. The Elateridae larvae damaged the roots of the plants. Leaf turgor decreased in the plants. O. sabulosum damaged the plants constantly, gnawing through the stems and eating on the primordial leaves. The imago of Sitona bugs damaged seedlings and young stems. Caterpillars of the sod webworm (Loxostege sticticalis Linnaeus) damaged soybean leaves during the budding phase. The bean pod borer damaged the soybeans inside the pod, leaving a mass of excrement.
The most dangerous soybean pests accounted for 9.3% of the total species composition. The following species constantly damaged the crops: tobacco thrips, bugs of the mirid family and stinkbugs, Sitona bugs, cotton budworm, alfalfa moth, and bean pod borer. In addition to insects, the common spider mite T. urticae Koch was a constant pest of soybeans. The presence of Tetranychus atlanticus McGregor was also noted.
Taxonomic processing of the collected material made it possible to assess the fauna of the soybean agrocenosis as extremely rich. The percentage distribution of Hymenoptera species by family is shown in Figure 5.
The parasitic Hymenoptera includes 84 species belonging to the families Ichneumonidae (13 species), Braconidae (23 species), Aphidiidae (5 species), Eurytomidae (1 species), Ormyridae (1 species), Pteromalidae (1 species), Encyrtidae (1 species), Eupelmidae (2 species), Eulophidae (24 species), Elasmidae (5 species), Scelionidae (4 species), Trichogrammatidae (2 species), Platygastridae (1 species), and Chrysididae (1 species).

4. Discussion

The study of the natural potential of density regulators of entomophagous and predator pests is of interest, both from an ecological and economic point of view. The fauna of most species and the degree of their effectiveness in the regional aspect have been poorly studied. The development of integrated plant protection involves the gradual replacement of highly toxic pesticides with biological plant protection products based on parasitoids and predators [35].
In recent years, the use of biological control methods to protect crops from pests has become particularly relevant. The concept of the biocenotic approach underlying the biological method is becoming more and more popular. A large number of studies are devoted to the conservation of biodiversity [36,37,38,39]. The role of insect species diversity is that if zoophagous species make up most of it, then it performs the function of a biological barrier, preventing the reproduction of pests. With data on the diversity of insect species, it is possible to find ways of using the powerful forces of natural regulation, and above all the activity of natural populations of entomophages [40,41]. The groups of predatory insects are considered one of the main regulators of the number of phytophagous pests on crops. Therefore, a detailed study of the species composition of soybean cenosis insects in the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories is of great practical importance for establishing the role of predators as components of agricultural biocenoses in regulating the number of phytophages.
The information obtained during the growing season on the species composition of parasitic Hymenoptera of the soybean field, their abundance, and the identified trophic relationships led to the idea of a possible prediction on this basis of the degree of danger to the culture of various pest groups. For example, according to our data, ladybugs (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), golden-eyed flies (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), minute pirate bugs (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), and syrphid flies (Diptera: Syrphidae), which is consistent with the results of the studies described in [42,43,44,45]. As shown in our study and the works of other authors, the destructive activity of almost all representatives of the Hemiptera order is restrained by a complex of egg-eating parasites from the Scelionidae family [45]. The number of Lepidoptera pests is influenced by parasitic insects from the families Bethylidae, Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, Pteromalidae, Encyrtidae, Eupelmidae, Torymidae, Eulophidae, Elasmidae, and Trichogrammatidae. Some species from the Trichogrammatidae and Braconidae families are used in plant protection systems as biological agents during their artificial reproduction and subsequent release [46,47].
The detection of a large number of leaf-miner parasites of the Sympiesis and Diglyphus genera and some species of the Pediobius genus allows us to confidently predict the unlikely occurrence of leaf-miner pests on soybeans. No destructive activity from this group of phytophages has been registered in the fields throughout the season. There are few references to this group of parasitic insects in the literature. Therefore, the study of the Sympiesis, Diglyphus, and Pediobius genera as entomophages has great theoretical and practical potential.
The diversity and high number of species of the Scelionidae family, whose representatives develop as egg-eating insects, more often with incomplete transformation, including stinkbugs and leafhoppers, suggested the impossibility of harm to soybean plants caused by this group of dangerous pests and vectors of viral diseases, which has been confirmed. We also recorded population containment at a safe level for the culture in leafhoppers like Macrosteles laevis Rib., Psammotettix striatus L., and Cicadella viridis L., as well as stinkbugs like A. lineolatus, L. pratensis, P. cognatus, Alydus calcaratus L., and Eusarcoris inconspicnus H.-S. The latter species was noted after harvesting wheat in neighboring fields. However, such representatives of stink bugs as the brown marmorated stink bug and the southern green stink bug are not regulated by local parasites at a sufficient level and a very high number of these insects is observed annually. Several authors have described positive examples of representatives of the genus Scelionidae as parasites on eggs of H. halys and N. viridula on soybeans [48,49].
The constant presence of species of the Aprostocetus, Sygmophora, and Ormyrus genera in collections indicates the elimination of the threat of harm from gall flies, which was confirmed.
The taxonomic analysis of soybean agrocenosis showed another side of the biocenotic approach. It allowed us to assess the local natural fund of useful arthropods and the role of each of the groups of entomophages and their entire complex.
The formation of the entomological mite fauna of the soybean field and the number of pests is closely related to weather conditions, phases of plant development, variety, and placement of fields in crop rotation (spatial isolation), as well as the presence of soybean crops mixed with other crops [45,50,51,52,53].
Despite the popularity of soybeans worldwide as one of the main legumes and a significant number of studies devoted to the study of the arthropod fauna of this cenosis, regional features of the climate, cultivated varieties, and protection methods significantly affect the biodiversity and species composition of native and invasive species. We believe that with continued research in this area, the list of arthropods living in the soybean cenosis will increase. Furthermore, arachnids (Arachnida) were not considered in our work, which is a disadvantage, since representatives of this group most likely play a very significant role in curbing the number of destructive insects. In addition, we consider it advisable to use additional methods of accounting for arthropods (for example, adhesive tapes, etc.), which could help to compile a more accurate list of the species composition of arthropods of soybeans.

5. Conclusions

In soybean culture, the species composition of arthropods of the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories was represented by 212 species (210 species of insects and 2 species of mites), including 101 species of phytophagous insects (48.5% of the total fauna) and 109 species of entomophagous insects (51.7%).
The most numerous phytophagous insects damaging soybeans belonged to the Hemiptera order (25 species out of 100 species of phytophages). Two species had the greatest abundance and destructiveness during the years of the study: the brown marmorated stink bug (H. halys) and the southern green stink bug (N. viridula). The Lepidoptera order in the soybean agrocenosis was represented by 28 species (13.4% of the total fauna and 28.0% of the destructive fauna).
A complex of pests was identified on soybean crops, where the most widespread ones were representatives of the Lepidoptera and Hemiptera orders, and E. zinckenella and H. armigera played a special role in the soybean agrocenosis.
The study of the species composition of arthropods of soybeans in the absence of chemical treatments has shown a complex of beneficial insects that control the number of phytophages. The most important of them, in our opinion, are representatives of the Hymenoptera (parasitic insects), Coleoptera (ladybug complex), and Hemiptera (predatory bugs) orders.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy14071440/s1, Table S1: In the Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, 210 species of insects and 2 species of mites were identified on soybean crops.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.S.A. and V.Y.I.; methodology, I.S.A. and V.Y.I.; validation, I.S.A. and V.Y.I.; formal analysis, I.S.A., V.Y.I., M.V.P., A.S.N. and V.S.P.; investigation, I.S.A., V.Y.I., M.V.P., A.S.N. and V.S.P.; data curation, I.S.A., M.V.P. and A.S.N.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S.A. and V.Y.I.; writing—review and editing, I.S.A. and A.S.N.; visualization, M.V.P.; supervision, I.S.A. and V.Y.I.; project administration, I.S.A.; funding acquisition, I.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was carried out at the expense of a grant of Russian Science Foundation No. 24-26-00263, https://rscf.ru/en/project/24-26-00263/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).

Data Availability Statement

The data are available in a publicly accessible repository.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Candidate of Biological Sciences V.V. Kostyukov for defining the species of Hymenoptera parasitic insects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. AgroXXI.ru. Soya v Rossii—Dejstvitel’nost’ i Vozmozhnost’ [Soybeans in Russia—Reality and Opportunity]. Available online: https://www.agroxxi.ru/monitoring-selskohozjaistvennyh-tovarov/soja-v-rossii-deistvitelnost-i-vozmozhnost.html (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  2. Ismailov, V.Y.; Pushnya, M.V.; Komantsev, A.A.; Zamotailov, A.S. Development of methods for controlling the number of click beetles on soybeans using synthetic sex pheromones. Proc. Kuban State Agrar. Univ. 2022, 95, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fedorova, S.N. Vrednaya entomofauna soevogo agrotsenoza v Orlovskoi oblasti [Destructive entomological fauna of soybean agrocenosis in the Oryol region]. Zernobobovye Krupyanye Kult. 2013, 4, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lee, S.T.; Li, C.; Davis, J.A. Predator-Pest Dynamics of Arthropods Residing in Louisiana Soybean Agroecosystems. Insects 2022, 13, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kanobe, C.; McCarville, M.T.; O’Neal, M.E.; Tylka, G.L.; MacIntosh, G.C. Soybean Aphid Infestation Induces Changes in Fatty Acid Metabolism in Soybean. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0145660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bhusal, S.J.; Koch, R.L.; Lorenz, A.J. Variation in Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Biotypes within Fields. J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 1336–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lu, W.; Wang, M.; Xu, Z.; Shen, G.; Wei, P.; Li, M.; Reid, W.; He, L. Adaptation of acaricide stress facilitates Tetranychus urticae expanding against Tetranychus cinnabarinus in China. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 1233–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Herron, G.A.; Langfield, K.L.; Chen, Y.; Wilson, L.J. Development of abamectin resistance in Tetranychus urticae in Australian cotton and the establishment of discriminating doses for T. lambi. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2021, 83, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maksimovich, Y.V. Obosnovanie meropriyatii po zashchite soi ot obyknovennogo pautinnogo kleshcha (Tetranychus urticae Koch.). Zaŝita Rastenij 2017, 41, 255–262. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bueno, A.F.; Panizzi, A.R.; Hunt, T.E.; Dourado, P.M.; Pitta, R.M.; Gonçalves, J. Challenges for Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): The Soybean Example. Neotrop. Entomol. 2021, 50, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Goebel, K.M.; Davros, N.M.; Andersen, D.E.; Rice, P.J. Tallgrass prairie wildlife exposure to spray drift from commonly used soybean insecticides in Midwestern USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 818, 151745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Malaquias, J.B.; Ferreira, C.P.; Ramalho, F.S.; Godoy, W.A.C.; Pachú, J.K.S.; Omoto, C.; Neto, D.O.A.; Padovez, F.E.O.; Silva, L.B. Modeling the Resistance Evolution to Insecticides Driven by Lepidopteran Species Competition in Cotton, Soybean, and Corn Crops. Biology 2022, 11, 1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Steinhaus, E.A.; Warpechowski, L.F.; Braga, L.E.; Morin, M.; Tenório, C.; Boff, J.S.; Bernardi, O.; Farias, J.R. Intra- and Interspecific Variation in the Susceptibility to Insecticides of Stink Bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) That Attack Soybean and Maize in Southern Brazil. J. Econ. Entomol. 2022, 115, 631–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Adesanya, A.W.; Franco, E.; Walsh, D.B.; Lavine, M.; Lavine, L.; Zhu, F. Phenotypic and Genotypic Plasticity of Acaricide Resistance in Populations of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) on Peppermint and Silage Corn in the Pacific Northwest. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2831–2843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. İnak, E. Geographical distribution and origin of acetylcholinesterase mutations conferring acaricide resistance in Tetranychus urticae populations from Turkey. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2022, 86, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hanson, A.A.; Menger-Anderson, J.; Silverstein, C.; Potter, B.D.; MacRae, I.V.; Hodgson, E.W.; Koch, R.L. Evidence for Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides in the Upper Midwestern United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2235–2246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Dean, A.N.; Pritchard, S.; Tyndall, J.C.; Hodgson, E.W.; O’Neal, M.E. Evaluating Soybean Aphid-Resistant Varieties in Different Environments to Estimate Financial Outcomes. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 940–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Valmorbida, I.; Muraro, D.S.; Hodgson, E.W.; O’Neal, M.E. Soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) response to lambda-cyhalothrin varies with its virulence status to aphid-resistant soybean. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 1464–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Almeida, M.F.; Tavares, C.S.; Araújo, E.O.; Picanço, M.C.; Oliveira, E.E.; Pereira, E.J.G. Plant Resistance in Some Modern Soybean Varieties May Favor Population Growth and Modify the Stylet Penetration of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 970–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Klai, K.; Chénais, B.; Zidi, M.; Djebbi, S.; Caruso, A.; Denis, F.; Confais, J.; Badawi, M.; Casse, N.; Mezghani Khemakhem, M. Screening of Helicoverpa armigera Mobilome Revealed Transposable Element Insertions in Insecticide Resistance Genes. Insects 2020, 11, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. da Silva, F.R.; Trujillo, D.; Bernardi, O.; Verle Rodrigues, J.C.; Bailey, W.D.; Gilligan, T.M.; Carrillo, D. Comparative Toxicity of Helicoverpa armigera and Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Selected Insecticides. Insects 2020, 11, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, C.; Ding, C.; Chen, S.; Wu, X.; Zhang, L.; Song, Y.; Li, W.; Zeng, R. Exposure of Helicoverpa armigera Larvae to Plant Volatile Organic Compounds Induces Cytochrome P450 Monooxygenases and Enhances Larval Tolerance to the Insecticide Methomyl. Insects 2021, 12, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zaostrovnyh, V.I.; Dubovickaya, L.K. Vrednye Organizmy soi i Sistema Fitosanitarnoj Optimizacii eyo Posevov [Harmful Organisms of Soybeans and the System of Phytosanitary Optimization of Its Crops]; Izdatel’stvo Maksachuk N. L.: Novosibirsk, Russia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hunt, L.; Bonetto, C.; Marrochi, N.; Scalise, A.; Fanelli, S.; Liess, M.; Lydy, M.J.; Chiu, M.C.; Resh, V.H. Species at Risk (SPEAR) index indicates effects of insecticides on stream invertebrate communities in soy production regions of the Argentine Pampas. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 699–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Di Bartolomeis, M.; Kegley, S.; Mineau, P.; Radford, R.; Klein, K. An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0220029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moscardi, F. Assessment of the application of baculoviruses for control of Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999, 44, 257–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pastucha, A. Wplyw zaprawiania nasion chitozanem na adrowinoce I plutomania soi (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) [The effect of chitosan seed treatment on soybean health and yield (Glycine max (L.) Merrill)]. Biul. Inst. Hod. Aklim. Rosl. 2001, 217, 287–295. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schünemann, R.; Knaak, N.; Fiuza, L.M. Mode of Action and Specificity of Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins in the Control of Caterpillars and Stink Bugs in Soybean Culture. ISRN Microbiol. 2014, 2014, 135675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borges, F.S.P.; Loureiro, E.S.; Jaurretche, J.E.; Pessoa, L.G.A.; Arruda, L.A.; Dias, P.M.; Navarrete, A.A. Performance of phytosanitary products for control of soybean caterpillar. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2021, 93, e20200205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Faria, M.; Mascarin, G.M.; Butt, T.; Lopes, R.B. On-farm Production of Microbial Entomopathogens for use in Agriculture: Brazil as a Case Study. Neotrop. Entomol. 2023, 52, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lartigue, S.; Yalaoui, M.; Belliard, J.; Caravel, C.; Jeandroz, L.; Groussier, G.; Calcagno, V.; Louâpre, P.; Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.X.; Malausa, T.; et al. Consistent variations in personality traits and their potential for genetic improvement in biocontrol agents: Trichogramma evanescens as a case study. Evol. Appl. 2022, 15, 1565–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bzowska-Bakalarz, M.; Bulak, P.; Bereś, P.K.; Czarnigowska, A.; Czarnigowski, J.; Karamon, B.; Pniak, M.; Bieganowski, A. Using gyroplane for application of Trichogramma spp. against the European corn borer in maize. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2243–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Atashi, N.; Shishehbor, P.; Seraj, A.A.; Rasekh, A.; Hemmati, S.A.; Riddick, E.W. Effects of Helicoverpa armigera Egg Age on Development, Reproduction, and Life Table Parameters of Trichogramma euproctidis. Insects 2021, 12, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Borzoui, E.; Naseri, B.; Mohammadzadeh-Bidarani, M. Adaptation of Habrobracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to Rearing on Ephestia kuehniella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Insect Sci. 2016, 16, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Artohin, K.S. Opredelitel’ Nasekomyh Yuga Rossii [The Determinant of Insects in the South of Russia]; Foundation: Rostov-na-Donu, Russia, 2016; p. 1036. [Google Scholar]
  36. Misrieva, B.U.; Shamsudinova, M.M. Study of the role of perspective types of entomophages in agrobiocenosis of Dagestan. Veg. Crops Russia 2017, 1, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Reiff, J.M.; Kolb, S.; Entling, M.H.; Herndl, T.; Möth, S.; Walzer, A.; Kropf, M.; Hoffmann, C.; Winter, S. Organic Farming and Cover-Crop Management Reduce Pest Predation in Austrian Vineyards. Insects 2021, 12, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Helms, J.A.; Smith, J.; Clark, S.; Knupp, K.; Haddad, N.M. Ant Communities and Ecosystem Services in Organic Versus Conventional Agriculture in the U.S. Corn Belt. Environ. Entomol. 2021, 50, 1276–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mupepele, A.C.; Bruelheide, H.; Brühl, C.; Dauber, J.; Fenske, M.; Freibauer, A.; Gerowitt, B.; Krüß, A.; Lakner, S.; Plieninger, T.; et al. Biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes: Transformative societal changes needed. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 1067–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tscharntke, T.; Grass, I.; Wanger, T.C.; Westphal, C.; Batáry, P. Beyond organic farming—Harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 919–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sugonyaev, E.S. Puteshestviya za Nasekomymi. Ex Autopsia [Traveling for Insects. Ex Autopsia]; Russkoe Entomologicheskoe Obshchestvo: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  42. Agasyeva, I.; Nefedova, M.; Ismailov, V.; Nastasy, A. Entomophages of the Colorado Potato Beetle, Population Dynamics of Perillus bioculatus Fabr. and Its Compatibility with Biological and Chemical Insecticides. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hesler, L.S. Inventory and assessment of foliar natural enemies of the soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in South Dakota. Environ. Entomol. 2014, 43, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vition, P.G. Predatory natural entomophages of soybean pests. In Proceedings of the Biological Plant Protection Is the Basis for Stabilizing Agroecosystems: Materials of the International Research and Practice Conference, Krasnodar, Russia, 11–13 September 2018; Volume 10, pp. 86–90. [Google Scholar]
  45. Almdal, C.D.; Costamagna, A.C. Annual Crops Contribute More Predators than Perennial Habitats during an Aphid Outbreak. Insects 2023, 14, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Moonga, M.N.; Kamminga, K.; Davis, J.A. Status of Stink Bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) Egg Parasitoids in Soybeans in Louisiana. Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 1459–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pereira, F.P.; Reigada, C.; Diniz, A.J.F.; Parra, J.R.P. Potential of Two Trichogrammatidae species for Helicoverpa armigera control. Neotrop. Entomol. 2019, 48, 966–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fidelis, E.G.; Querino, R.B.; Adaime, R. The Amazon and Its Biodiversity: A Source of Unexplored Potential Natural Enemies for Biological Control (Predators and Parasitoids). Neotrop. Entomol. 2023, 52, 152–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Herlihy, M.V.; Talamas, E.J.; Weber, D.C. Attack and Success of Native and Exotic Parasitoids on Eggs of Halyomorpha halys in Three Maryland Habitats. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pezzini, D.T.; Nystrom Santacruz, E.C.; Koch, R.L. Predation and Parasitism of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) Eggs in Minnesota. Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 812–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.J.; Nakazawa, T.; Ho, C.K. Warming impact on herbivore population composition affects top-down control by predators. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Greene, A.D.; Reay-Jones, F.P.F.; Kirk, K.R.; Peoples, B.K.; Greene, J.K. Associating Site Characteristics with Distributions of Pestiferous and Predaceous Arthropods in Soybean. Environ. Entomol. 2021, 50, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Samaranayake, K.G.L.I.; Costamagna, A.C. Adjacent habitat type affects the movement of predators suppressing soybean aphids. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 01440 g001
Figure 1. Location of Krasnodar (a) and Stavropol (b) territories on the map of Russia.
Figure 1. Location of Krasnodar (a) and Stavropol (b) territories on the map of Russia.
Agronomy 14 01440 g001
Agronomy 14 01440 g002
Figure 2. Attraction A pheromone Delta trap with an adhesive replaceable insert for accounting for Lepidoptera pests on soybeans.
Figure 2. Attraction A pheromone Delta trap with an adhesive replaceable insert for accounting for Lepidoptera pests on soybeans.
Agronomy 14 01440 g002
Agronomy 14 01440 g003
Figure 3. Pheromone trap (a) to account for the Halyomorpha halys Stål (b) and Nezara viridula Linnaeus (c) bugs on soybeans.
Figure 3. Pheromone trap (a) to account for the Halyomorpha halys Stål (b) and Nezara viridula Linnaeus (c) bugs on soybeans.
Agronomy 14 01440 g003
Agronomy 14 01440 g004
Figure 4. Ratio of phytophages and entomophages of soybean agrocenosis.
Figure 4. Ratio of phytophages and entomophages of soybean agrocenosis.
Agronomy 14 01440 g004
Agronomy 14 01440 g005
Figure 5. The ratio of species of different families of hymenopteran parasites of soybeans of Krasnodar and Stavropol territories.
Figure 5. The ratio of species of different families of hymenopteran parasites of soybeans of Krasnodar and Stavropol territories.
Agronomy 14 01440 g005
Table 1. The ratio of insect species of soybean agrocenosis by systematic groups, 2023, 2024.
Table 1. The ratio of insect species of soybean agrocenosis by systematic groups, 2023, 2024.
OrderNumber of FamiliesNumber of Species
Total%Total%Phytophages%Entomophages%of These
Parasites%Predators%
Orthoptera35.7125.7125.700.000.000.0
Homoptera23.921.021.000.000.000.0
Thysanoptera23.941.931.410.500.010.5
Hemiptera1121.24019.03416.262.900.062.9
Coleoptera713.52712.9209.573.300.073.3
Neuroptera11.962.900.062.900.062.9
Lepidoptera1019.22813.32813.300.000.000.0
Hymenoptera1325.08540.510.58440.08440.000.0
Diptera35.762.910.552.431.421.0
Total5210021010010148.110951.98741.42210.5
Table 2. Parasitic moths in the soybean agrocenosis.
Table 2. Parasitic moths in the soybean agrocenosis.
FamilySpecies
IchneumonidaeHyposoter didumator Wesmael
Exetastes fornicator Fabricius
Exetastes nigripes Gravenhorst
Banchus falcatorius Fabricius
Banchus volutatorius Linnaeus
Netelia testacea Gravenhorst
Itoplectis melanocephala Gravenhorst
Barylypa pallida Gravenhorst
Barylypa amabilis Tosquinet
BraconidaeApanteles plutellae Kurdjumov
Apanteles vanessae Reinhard
Apanteles kazak Tobias
Apanteles arcticus Tobias
Microgaster vidua Ruthe
Chelonus oculator Fabricius
Chelonus annulipes Wesmael
Macrocentrus collaris Spinola
Rogas rossicus Spinola
Rogas dimidiatus Spinola
Bracon hebetor Say
Bracon simonovi Kokujev
Bracon quadrimaculatus Telenga
Bracon minutator Fabricius
PteromalidaeDibrachys cavus Walker
EncyrtidaeCopidosoma agrotis Fonscolombe
EulophidaeEulophus larvarum Linnaeus
Eulophus pennicornis Nees
Eulophus tespius Walker
Euplectrus bicolor Swederus
Euplectrus flavipes Fonscolombe
Colpoclipeus florus Walker
Sympiesis viridula Thomson
Sympiesis sericeicornis Nees
Sympiesis xanthostoma Nees
Pediobius pyrgo Walker
Pediobius foliorum Geoffroy
Pediobius cassidae Erdös
Rhicnopelte crassicornis Nees
TrichogrammatidaeTrichogramma evanescens Westwood
Trichogramma pintoi Voegelé
EupelmidaeEupelmus microzonus Förster
Eupelmus urozonus Dalman
ElasmidaeElasmus unicolor Rondani
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agasyeva, I.S.; Ismailov, V.Y.; Petrishcheva, M.V.; Nastasiy, A.S.; Petrishchev, V.S. Species Composition of Phytophagous and Entomophagous Insects and Mites on Soybeans in Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Russia. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1440. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071440

AMA Style

Agasyeva IS, Ismailov VY, Petrishcheva MV, Nastasiy AS, Petrishchev VS. Species Composition of Phytophagous and Entomophagous Insects and Mites on Soybeans in Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Russia. Agronomy. 2024; 14(7):1440. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071440

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agasyeva, Irina Sergeevna, Vladimir Yakovlevich Ismailov, Maria Vladimirovna Petrishcheva, Anton Sergeevich Nastasiy, and Viktor Sergeevich Petrishchev. 2024. "Species Composition of Phytophagous and Entomophagous Insects and Mites on Soybeans in Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Russia" Agronomy 14, no. 7: 1440. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071440

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop