Next Article in Journal
Effect of Water Stress on Physiological and Morphological Leaf Traits: A Comparison among the Three Widely-Spread Invasive Alien Species Ailanthus altissima, Phytolacca americana, and Robinia pseudoacacia
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Irrigation Dose on Powdery Mildew Incidence and Root Biomass of Sessile Oaks (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.)
Previous Article in Journal
Hoop House and Field Evaluation of Tigernut (Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus Boeck) Selections in New Jersey, USA
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Impact of Different Management Methods on Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Their Predators in Citrus Orchards
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/plants11070898
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles 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

Field Margin Plants Support Natural Enemies in Sub-Saharan Africa Smallholder Common Bean Farming Systems

by
Baltazar J. Ndakidemi
1,*,
Ernest R. Mbega
1,
Patrick A. Ndakidemi
1,
Steven R. Belmain
2,
Sarah E. J. Arnold
1,2,
Victoria C. Woolley
2 and
Philip C. Stevenson
2,3
1
Department of Sustainable Agriculture, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, Arusha P.O. Box 447, Tanzania
2
Agriculture, Health and Environment Department, Faculty of Engineering & Science, Natural Resources Institute, Medway Campus, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
3
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(7), 898; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070898
Submission received: 3 March 2022 / Revised: 22 March 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published: 28 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Alternative Measures in Plant Protection)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Flower-rich field margins provide habitats and food resources for natural enemies of pests (NEs), but their potential, particularly in the tropics and on smallholder farms, is poorly understood. We surveyed field margins for plant-NE interactions in bean fields. NEs most often interacted with Bidens pilosa (15.4% of all interactions) and Euphorbia heterophylla (11.3% of all interactions). In cage trials with an aphid-infested bean plant and a single flowering margin plant, the survival of Aphidius colemani, the most abundant parasitoid NE in bean fields, was greater in the presence of Euphorbia heterophylla than Bidens pilosa, Tagetes minuta, and Hyptis suaveolens. UV-fluorescent dye was applied to flowers of specific field margin plant species and NE sampled from within the bean crop and field margins using sweep-netting and pan-traps respectively. Captured insects were examined for the presence of the dye, indicative of a prior visit to the margin. Lady beetles and assassin bugs were most abundant in plots with B. pilosa margins; hoverflies with T. minuta and Parthenium hysterophorus margins; and lacewings with T. minuta and B. pilosa margins. Overall, NE benefitted from field margin plants, and those possessing extra floral nectaries had an added advantage. Field margin plants need careful selection to ensure benefits to different NE groups.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is important for food security for millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It is a major source of dietary protein, carbohydrates, and minerals [1], and contributes to soil fertility by fixing nitrogen with yield benefits for subsequent crops [2,3,4,5]. However, common bean production is constrained by several factors, including insect pests [6,7,8,9]. Synthetic pesticides are the primary technology used to manage bean pests, but this has adverse effects on human health, contributes to biodiversity loss, and leads to the resurgence of secondary pests [8,10]. More natural pest regulating approaches are required, such as conservation biological control, but this has not been adequately addressed in sub-Saharan Africa [11,12].
For example, natural enemies (NEs) that predate or parasitize insect pests can be a key component of sustainable pest management [13,14,15]. NEs benefit from non-crop plants in agricultural systems through the provision of shelter, nectar, and pollen for effective biological control [11,16,17]. It is possible to optimize the pest management contribution of NEs by managing field margin plants. However, to maximize this benefit, it is necessary to understand the specific advantages of each flowering plant to NE to improve natural pest regulation (NPR) and increase crop productivity. For instance, some flowers are tubular and lack nectaries, and these are not suitable for NEs [18,19,20,21,22].
Most studies focus on NE and the floral resource requirements in a specific context; either the benefit of the plants on NE in a controlled environment (e.g., cage), or whether the NE interact in the field with the margin plants and enhance NPR [11,12,16,17]. However, combining this information could help to better understand which plants will be most valuable in specific approaches supporting conservation biological control.
Field margin plants differ in their attractiveness to NEs [23], and few studies have been conducted on the contribution of these plants to supporting NEs of bean pests. Thus, we intended to test the following hypotheses: (1) field margin plants influence assemblage natural enemies on beans; (2) specific field margin plants influence differently the fecundity and survival of NEs on beans; and (3) NEs of bean pests use specific margin plants before migrating into the crop to provide NPR services.

2. Results

2.1. Interactions between Natural Enemies and Field Margin Plants

This field trial surveyed the interactions of the field margin plant species with NE in bean fields. When observing NE-plant interactions on transect walks on bean fields, most insect groups investigated had interactions with most species of plant investigated. Overall, 5597 NE-plant interactions were observed, and the greatest number of interactions were recorded with the margin plant Bidens pilosa (861 interactions), followed by Euphorbia heterophylla (631). Parasitoid wasps were the NE group with the greatest number of observed interactions with field margin plants (724 interactions) (Figure 1).

2.2. Effects of Flowering Plant Resources on Parasitism and Survival of Aphidius colemani

In the controlled environment (cages), we investigated the potential of the key field margin plants to support the survival of the Aphis fabae parasitoid Aphidius colemani and optimize parasitism. When aphid-infested bean plants were caged with A. colemani parasitoids and a flowering margin companion plant, the survival of A. colemani was enhanced on all plant species compared to the negative control, demonstrating that nectar from all species tested supported NE survival. However, the effect differed significantly among the different flower treatments (p < 0.001; Figure 2). The plant that supported significantly improved survival of A. colemani compared to other plants, as well as the positive control, was E. heterophylla. There was no significant difference (F4,16 = 1.126, p = 0.381) between the number of mummies produced by A. colemani given access to any floral resource plants or the positive control (Figure 3).

2.3. Effect of Different Field Margin Plants in Supporting Natural Enemies in Bean Fields Fluorescent Dye

On a station trial, we cultivated bean plots surrounded by one of three field margin plant species, and treated the flowers with a fluorescent dye. We then captured insects in the crop (via sweep netting), and examined them for the presence of the dye, which identified the insects that had interacted with the field margin before moving into the crop, as well as pan-trapping within the margins. Lady beetles, hoverflies, assassin bugs, and lacewings differed in the number of fluorescent-labelled individuals captured the crop, according to the surrounding plant species (Table 1). Lady beetles, lacewings, and assassin bugs with fluorescent dye were particularly numerous in the B. pilosa-edged plots (and for lacewings, Tagetes minuta), indicating that these species regularly used B. pilosa before moving into the crop. Conversely, hoverflies were more numerous in plots surrounded by dye-marked Parthenium hysterophorus and T. minuta. Plots with P. hysterophrous margins were much less frequently used by lady beetles, lacewings, and assassin bugs (Table 1).
The number of natural enemies caught in pan traps in field margins also varied significantly depending on which field margin plant was present (Table 2), following similar patterns to the crop. Again, B. pilosa plots favored lady beetles, assassin bugs, lacewings, and parasitoid wasps within the margins, while T. minuta and P. hysterophorus favored hoverflies in the margins (Table 2).
The data for the field and laboratory trials are found in Supplementary Materials (Table S1).

3. Discussion

The composition of plants for a field margin that effectively supports natural enemies (NEs) may require different plant communities than for pollinators, though some plants may provide nectar and pollen to both natural enemies and pollinators [24]. The species that support NEs most effectively in East Africa are still poorly understood. Some common field margin species, such as E. heterophylla (Euphorbiaceae), P. hyterophorus, B. pilosa, T. minuta (Asteraceae), and H. suaveolens (Laminaceae), are invasive to SSA. However, their potential has been explored for pest control, pollination, and medicinal activities [11,16,25,26,27]. Our study aimed to determine which field margin plant species in SSA were beneficial to Nes in smallholder bean farms. The transect walk showed that Nes interact with multiple field margin plant species, although certain species had a higher number of interactions (B. pilosa and E. heterophylla). NEs depend on pollen and nectar from the plants, and plants provide alternative hosts in the absence of crops [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Similar results were found in a recent study by Arnold et al. [16] which showed that B. pilosa and Euphorbia sp. were preferred by natural enemies and pollinators in SSA. The use of B. pilosa and E. heterophylla by NEs could indicate that they provide valuable food resources or habitat. The observed interactions of NEs with E. heterophylla concur with the study by Patt [36] showing that this species provided nectar for lady beetles (Coelophora inequalis, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, and Harmonia axyridis). Similarly, B. pilosa is effective in attracting populations of lady beetles (Cycloneda sanguinea) and hoverflies (Pseudodoros sp.) [37,38]. In addition, chemical cues from B. pilosa play a role in attracting natural enemies [39].
In station trials, we found that plots surrounded by B. pilosa margins were used frequently by lady beetles, parasitoids, and assassin bugs; T. minuta field margins were associated with catches of hoverflies, assassin bugs, lacewings, and parasitoids; and P. hysterophorus only with higher numbers of hoverflies and parasitoids. Furthermore, NEs caught inside the field crops with fluorescent dye indicated that the insects visited the flowers (possibly consuming nectar and/or pollen) before moving into the crop where they can provide pest control benefits. Relatively few long-legged flies and parasitoids were captured with the fluorescent dye, but this could be due to their small size rather than a lack of interaction with field margin species. Previous studies have shown the importance of B. pilosa, T. minuta, and P. hysterophorus in supporting NEs [27,37,38,39,40]. Floral resources from non-crop habitats are expected to support NPR by NEs [40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Thus, selecting suitable plants for NEs is an important component of agricultural landscaping, as some plants will be better at supporting NEs. For instance, providing adult hoverflies with floral resources can enhance biological control by their larvae [47,48]. Moreover, pollen from some plants is superior to others in enhancing the performance of NEs [49], and this might explain why, in our data, one plant species, E. heterophylla, supported A. colemani better than the positive control.
Significantly more parasitoids were recorded in plots with field margin plants compared to the control (without field margin plants). In the transect walks, parasitoids were also the NE group with the most plant interactions. This could suggest that parasitoids are a NE group for which field margin plants are particularly important, providing carbohydrates, amino acids, and vitamins in nectar that enhance their pest controlling activities and optimize their metabolism [29,30,35]. This was demonstrated by using a cage trial experiment, which showed that all plants, i.e., B. pilosa, H. suaveolens, T. minuta, and E. heterophylla, resulted in improved A. colemani survival, and showed similar results to the positive control, which provided an in-cage carbohydrate food supply. Survival of parasitoids on E. heterophylla was greater than even the positive control and all other plants, suggesting that this species provided a greater nutritional benefit to A. colemani. Our results concur with similar studies, showing that access to flowers prolongs the lifespan and increases parasitism by A. colemani. For instance, studies on A. colemani and Diadegma insulare have shown improved performance compared with controls both in the field and when caged with flowering plant species such as Fagopyrum esculentum, Conium maculatum, Photinia × fraseri, Brassica kaber, Barbarea vulgaris, Salvia apiana, Ligustrum japonicum, Lantana camara, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Daucus carota, and Thlaspi arvense [50,51,52,53].
One of the reasons that B. pilosa, H. suaveolens and E. heterophylla supported A. colemani survival during the cage trial and that B. pilosa and E. heterophylla had high numbers of interactions with NEs in field trials could be the presence of extrafloral nectaries on these species [36,54,55,56]. Extrafloral nectaries are easily accessible, and the nectar composition differs from floral nectar and may be secreted differently [57]. Extrafloral nectar sugars are typically more concentrated than floral nectar, and normally it is present in larger volumes and secreted for a longer period [49,57]. Plants with extrafloral nectaries can be particularly important for NEs, as well as attractive to parasitoids [58], because these insects have mouthparts that are not suited to feeding on floral corollas; hence, they depend on plants with extrafloral or otherwise exposed flower nectaries [19,59,60]. Indeed, E. heterophylla produces extrafloral nectar right up to fruit maturation, possibly to provide food resources to attract natural enemies of seed and fruit pests [36].
Although T. minuta does not have extrafloral nectaries, it supported A. colemani survival in cage trials and plots, while T. minuta field margins had greater numbers of hoverflies, assassin bugs, lacewings, and parasitoids compared to control plots. This concurs with previous reports that T. minuta supports NEs. T. minuta increased the longevity of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma minutum, which enhanced the parasitism of the Grapholita molesta eggs [40]. Other species of Tagetes, including T. erecta, increased the longevity of Cyrtorhinus lividipennis, a NE of rice brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) [61]. The extrafloral resources from the field margin plants could have additional benefits to NEs, and support biological control. Incorporating those field margins with extrafloral resources could bring positive effects for pest control in bean fields.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Interactions between Natural Enemies and Field Margin Plants

This field trial was carried out at Kwa Sadala Village in Hai District, Kilimanjaro region (3° 10′ 0″ S, 37° 10′ 0″ E). A total of eight sites with a high diversity margin and eight sites with a poor margin were visited. The high and poor diversity fields were determined by measuring the plant diversity in each farm before the selection of the sites. A transect walk along one margin, for the length of the field, was performed, and the visual observation of the NEs visits to the specific plant flowers was recorded. The sampling was conducted monthly during a year, and this coincided with specific bean crop development stages (1,5,9,14, etc., weeks after bean emergence).

4.2. Effect of Flowering Plant Resources on Parasitism and Survival of A. colemani

Aphidius colemani adults were obtained from Aphis fabae mummies collected from bean fields at Kwa Sadala in Hai District, Kilimanjaro region. A. colemani was selected for the cage trial because it has been reported as a primary parasitoid of A. fabae in SSA [12]. Moreover, this species is commercially produced for the biological control of many aphid species [62,63].
They were reared on potted bean plants infested with A. fabae in a wooden netted cage 30 × 30 × 60 cm. The plants were watered every three days. The A. fabae colonies were established from insects collected from farmers’ fields at Kwa Sadala village, the location of the field trials.
Bean seeds were grown in pots, then after five weeks, they were infested with 60 A. fabae (nymphs and apterous adults) [64]. The seeds from four field margin weeds (Tagetes minuta, Hyptis suaveolens, Euphorbia heterophylla, and Bidens pilosa) were germinated in pots before being planted out in fields. The experiment consisted of six treatments (T. minuta, H. suaveolens, E. heterophylla, B. pilosa, positive control, and negative control), and each treatment was replicated four times. Each cage contained one of these treatments with a potted bean plant infested with A. fabae. The positive control contained 10% sugar solution (glucose) as often as it was needed [65] and a potted bean plant infested with A. fabae, while the negative control had only a potted bean plant infested with A. fabae. Plants were watered every three days.
After leaving the aphids in the cage for 24 h to acclimatize, four female parasitoids and two male parasitoids were introduced to each cage. For the first seven days, the number of live parasitoids and mummies was counted daily to determine the survival of the first generation. Following this, the counting was performed three times a week. The number of parasitoids that emerged from mummies was recorded. The experiment was carried out for one entire lifecycle of parasitoids (approximately one month). The parasitoids and aphids were maintained under controlled conditions, with an average temperature of 25–27 °C, 66–68% R.H., and under natural lighting.

4.3. Effect of Different Field Margin Plants in Supporting Natural Enemies in Bean Fields

A field experiment was carried out at Kwa Sadala Village in Hai District, Kilimanjaro region, to monitor NE movement between field margins and crops. In total, three plant species introduced as above; T. minuta, B. pilosa, and P. hysterophorus were cultivated as the field margin. We initially selected B. pilosa and E. heterophylla due to the high number of interactions in the transect walk experiment. However, E. heterophylla failed to develop in the field, and thus other plants (T. minuta, B. pilosa and P. hysterophorus) were selected for subsequent field studies, as they occur frequently in SSA, have previously reported associations with beneficial insects [11,16,25,27], and are therefore straightforward for smallholders to acquire [26,66].
The experimental layout was composed of four treatment plots containing common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) with four replications, 0.5 m field margin plants surrounded by three plots in each replication, each plot with the specific field margin plant, and the remaining plot was the control without a field margin. The plots measured 15 × 15 m, and the distance between plots was 15 m (Figure 4). During the flowering period of beans in the fifth week, powdered UV fluorescent dye (Baker Ross Ltd., Harlow, UK) was applied in the field margin plant flowers using a soft paintbrush. After 24 h, natural enemies were collected inside the field using sweep nets, then examined using a UV torch (365 nm; UVGear, Surrey, UK) to detect any fluorescent dye. This allowed the identification of insects that had visited the different field margin plants before being caught in the crop fields as an indication of the potential value of different species to different NEs. Pan traps were also used to collect NEs in the field margins [11]: two pan traps were placed in the field margin of each plot and natural enemies were sampled for three months (April, May, and June), coinciding with bean development stages. The collections were preserved in 70% ethanol for further identification.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

The interactions between NEs and different field margin plants were plotted using the ‘bipartite’ package [67] in R (RStudio Version 1.2.1335). Insects caught in field margins using pan traps were grouped into functional categories of NEs; catch distributions were checked for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test. To assess the effect of field margin plants on the number of natural enemies caught, a histogram was plotted to assess the distribution of the data. Following this, GLM with Poisson distribution (RStudio Version 1.2.1335) was selected, as the data were not normally distributed. The fit of models was assessed with Chi-squared goodness of fit test, and all were found to follow this distribution. The month of sampling and field margin plant species were included in the GLM as covariates without interactions. Following this, pairwise comparisons were performed with the Holm multiple comparisons test in the ‘emmeans’ package [68].
The number of A. colemani surviving in cage trials was analyzed over six days using the Kaplan–Meier estimator of survival in R (RStudio Version 1.2.1335; [69]. For this analysis, surviving individuals were censored at the end of the experiment, and individuals were censored if it was not possible to monitor their survival for the duration of the experiment (e.g., for escaped individuals). Pairwise comparisons between treatments were then performed using a log-rank test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction. To assess the parasitism of A. colemani, the number of mummies in each cage was analyzed using ANOVA. Prior to the analysis, the negative control was removed due to lack of variance, and the normality of the remaining data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test [50].
To analyze the number of insects labelled with the fluorescent dye and those captured in the field margin, GLM assuming Poisson distribution with a log link was used, followed by pairwise comparisons and a Holm multiple comparisons test. the normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test.

5. Conclusions

Flowering plants provide food and shelter for NEs and can promote natural pest regulation in crops. Our study highlights the potential of field margin plants in supporting populations of NEs in smallholder farms, and shows that conservation biological control could be used to promote NEs in these agro-ecosystems. Certain plant species appear to be preferred by different NE groups and provide different benefits. In transect walks, the highest number of Nes were observed interacting with B. pilosa and E. heterophylla. In addition, B. pilosa, T. minuta, and P. hysterophorus supported different groups of natural enemies when planted as a field margin. NE groups were shown to interact with flowers of these field margin plants, suggesting that they are supported by the provision of nectar and pollen. This is corroborated by cage trials where B. pilosa, E. heterophylla, H. suaveolens, and T. minuta enhanced the survival of A. colemani, most likely through the provision of nectar [27,37,39,40,70]. However, it is important to consider the wider implications of using these plants in conservation biological control, for example, P. hysterophorus is toxic [71,72], and other plants may be invasive to the area and present a challenge as weeds. Some field margin plant species might also provide food and shelter for specific pests, and therefore it is crucial to study the biology of the host plants and how they interact with pests.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants11070898/s1, Table S1: Experimental data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.J.N., E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A., V.C.W. and P.C.S.; methodology, B.J.N., E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A., V.C.W. and P.C.S.; formal analysis, B.J.N., S.R.B., V.C.W.; investigation, B.J.N.; resources, B.J.N., E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A., V.C.W. and P.C.S.; data curation, B.J.N., S.R.B., V.C.W.; writing—original draft preparation, B.J.N.; writing—review and editing, B.J.N., E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A., V.C.W. and P.C.S.; visualization, B.J.N., E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A., V.C.W. and P.C.S.; supervision, E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A., V.C.W. and P.CS.; project administration, E.R.M., P.A.N., S.R.B., S.E.J.A. and P.C.S.; funding acquisition, S.R.B., S.E.J.A. and P.C.S.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The funding for this work was received from the UKRI GCRF project: Natural Pest Regulation in Orphan Crop Legumes in Africa (NaPROCLA) to PCS, grant number BB/R020361/1 and the World Bank through The Africa Centre for Research, Agricultural Advancement, Teaching Excellence and Sustainability (CREATES) at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained in Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the smallholder farmers of Kwa Sadala village in Kilimanjaro for permitting sampling on their farms and supporting this project, the area’s agricultural officers, field assistants, village leaders, field laborers, and NM-AIST technicians for contributing to various activities in different stages of the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Temba, M.C.; Njobeh, P.B.; Adebo, O.A.; Olugbile, A.O.; Kayitesi, E. The role of compositing cereals with legumes to alleviate protein-energy malnutrition in Africa. Int. J. Food Sci. 2016, 51, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Franke, A.C.; Laberge, G.; Oyewole, B.D.; Schulz, S. A comparison between legume technologies and fallow, and their effects on maize and soil traits, in two distinct environments of the West African savannah. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 82, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Franke, A.C.; Van den Brand, G.J.; Vanlauwe, B.; Giller, K.E. Sustainable intensification through rotations with grain legumes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 261, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kamanga, B.C.G.; Waddington, S.R.; Robertson, M.J.; Giller, K.E. Risk analysis of maize-legume crop combinations with smallholder farmers varying in resource endowment in central Malawi. Exp. Agric. 2010, 46, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Ojiem, J.O.; Franke, A.C.; Vanlauwe, B.; De Ridder, N.; Giller, K.E. Benefits of legume–maize rotations: Assessing the impact of diversity on the productivity of smallholders in Western Kenya. Field Crops Res. 2014, 168, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abate, T.; van Huis, A.; Ampofo, J.K.O. Pest management strategies in traditional agriculture: An African perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 631–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Allen, D.J. Pests, Diseases, and Nutritional Disorders of the Common Bean in Africa: A Field Guide (No. 260); CIAT: Palmira, Colombia, 1996; p. 131. [Google Scholar]
  8. Otieno, M.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Potts, S.G.; Kinuthia, W.; Kasina, M.J.; Garratt, P.D. Enhancing legume crop pollination and natural pest regulation for improved food security in changing African landscapes. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 26, 100394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wortmann, C.S. Atlas of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production in Africa (No. 297); CIAT: Palmira, Colombia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. Belmain, S.R.; Neal, G.; Ray, D.E.; Golob, P. Insecticidal and vertebrate toxicity associated with ethnobotanicals used as post-harvest protectants in Ghana. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2001, 39, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mkenda, P.A.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Stevenson, P.C.; Sarah, S.E.; Belmain, S.R.; Chidege, M.; Gurr, G.M. Field margin vegetation in tropical African bean systems harbours diverse natural enemies for biological pest control in adjacent crops. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mkenda, P.A.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Stevenson, P.C.; Arnold, S.E.J.; Chidege, M.; Gurr, G.M.; Belmain, S.R. Characterization of hymenopteran parasitoids of Aphis fabae in an African smallholder bean farming system through sequencing of coi ‘mini-barcodes’. Insects 2019, 10, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Bale, J.S.; Van Lenteren, J.C.; Bigler, F. Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 761–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Gurr, G.M.; Reynolds, O.L.; Johnson, A.C.; Desneux, N.; Zalucki, M.P.; Furlong, M.J.; Li, Z.Y.; Akutse, K.S.; Chen, J.H.; Gao, X.W.; et al. Landscape ecology and expanding range of biocontrol agent taxa enhance prospects for diamondback moth management. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Sampaio, M.V.; Bueno, V.H.P.; Silveira, L.C.P.; Auad, A.M. Biological control of insect pests in the tropics: In Tropical Biology and Conservation Management; Del Claro, K., Oliveira, P.S., Rico-Gray, V., Eds.; Eolss Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 28–70. [Google Scholar]
  16. Arnold, S.E.J.; Elisante, F.; Mkenda, P.A.; Tembo, Y.L.B.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Gurr, G.M.; Darbyshire, I.A.; Belmain, S.R.; Stevenson, P.C. Beneficial insects are associated with botanically rich margins with trees on small farms. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kishinevsky, M.; Keasar, T.; Bar-Massada, A. Parasitoid abundance on plants: Effects of host abundance, plant species, and plant flowering state. Arthropod-Plant Int. 2017, 11, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Géneau, C.E.; Wäckers, F.L.; Luka, H.; Daniel, C.; Balmer, O. Selective flowers to enhance biological control of cabbage pests by parasitoids. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2012, 13, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Patt, J.M.; Hamilton, G.; Lashomb, J.H. Impact of strip-insectary intercropping with flowers on conservation biological control of the Colorado potato beetle. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 1997, 11, 175–181. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sivinski, J.; Wahl, D.; Holler, T.; Al Dobai, S.; Sivinski, R. Conserving natural enemies with flowering plants: Estimating floral attractiveness to parasitic Hymenoptera and attraction’s relationship to flower and plant morphology. Biol. Control 2011, 58, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tschumi, M.; Albrecht, M.; Entling, M.H.; Jacot, K. Targeted flower strips effectively promote natural enemies of aphids. IOBCwprs Bull. 2014, 100, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wäckers, F.L.; van Reijn, P.C.J. Pick and mix: Selecting flowering plants to meet the requirements of target biological control insects. In Biodiversity and Insect Pests: Key Issues for Sustainable Management; Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Snyder, W.E., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 139–165. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fitzgerald, J.D.; Solomon, M.G. Can flowering plants enhance numbers of beneficial arthropods in U.K. apple and -pear orchards? Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2004, 14, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Carrié, R.J.; George, D.R.; Wäckers, F.L. Selection of floral resources to optimise conservation of agriculturally-functional insect groups. J. Insect Conserv. 2012, 16, 635–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Adda, C.; Atachi, P.; Hell, K.; Tamò, M. Potential use of the bushmint, Hyptis suaveolens, for the control of infestation by the pink stalk borer, Sesamia calamistis on maize in southern Benin, West Africa. J. Insect Sci. 2011, 11, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hillocks, R.J. The potential benefits of weeds with reference to smallholder agriculture in Africa. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 1998, 3, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ojija, F.; Arnold, S.E.J.; Treydte, A.C. Impacts of alien invasive Parthenium hysterophorus on flower visitation by insects to co—Flowering plants. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2019, 13, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; van der Werf, W. Model evaluation of the function of prey in non-crop habitats for biological control by ladybeetles in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Model. 2004, 171, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Landis, D.A.; You, M. Habitat management to suppress pest populations: Progress and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017, 62, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jonsson, M.; Wratten, S.D.; Landis, D.A.; Gurr, G.M. Recent advances in conservation biological control of arthropods by arthropods. Biol. Control 2008, 45, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lundgren, J.G. Nutritional aspects of non-prey foods in the life histories of predaceous Coccinellidae. Biol. Control. 2009, 51, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mitsunaga, T.; Shimoda, T.; Yano, E. Influence of food supply on longevity and parasitization ability of a larval endoparasitoid, Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2004, 39, 691–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Tylianakis, J.M.; Didham, R.K.; Wratten, S.D. Improved fitness of aphid parasitoids receiving resource subsidies. Ecology 2004, 85, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wäckers, F.L.; van Rijn, P.C.J.; Bruin, J. (Eds.) Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects: A Protective Mutualism and Its Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  36. Patt, J.M. Occurrence of coccinellids that prey on Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae) on Euphorbia heterophylla (Euphorbiaceae) and Chamaecrista fasciculata (Fabaceae) in a South Florida Residential Area. Fla. Entomol. 2018, 101, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Fonseca, M.M.; Lima, E.; Lemos, F.; Venzon, M.; Janssen, A. Non-crop plant to attract and conserve an aphid predator (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in tomato. Biol. Control. 2017, 115, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grombone-Guaratini, M.T.; Solferini, V.N.; Semir, J. Reproductive biology in species of Bidens, L. (Asteraceae). Sci. Agric. 2004, 61, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Quispe, R.; Mazón, M.; Rodríguez-Berrío, A. Do refuge plants favour natural pest control in maize crops? Insects 2017, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Shearer, P.W.; Atanassov, A. Impact of peach extrafloral nectar on key biological characteristics of Trichogramma minutum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 789–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dufour, R. Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Control; Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas: Fayetteville, AR, USA, 2000; p. 40. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Altieri, M.A. Ecological engineering: A new direction for agricultural pest management. AFBM J. 2004, 1, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Heimoana, V.; Pilkington, L.J.; Raman, A.; Mitchell, A.; Nicol, H.I.; Johnson, A.C.; Gurr, G.M. Integrating spatially explicit molecular and ecological methods to explore the significance of non-crop vegetation to predators of brassica pests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 239, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jervis, M.A.; Lee, J.C.; Heimpel, G.E. Use of behavioural and life history studies to understand the effects of habitat manipulation. In Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods; Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Altieri, M.A., Eds.; Ecological Engineering for Pest, Management; CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia, 2004; pp. 65–100. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mitsunaga, T.; Mukawa, S.; Shimoda, T.; Suzuki, Y. The influence of food supply on the parasitoid against Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) on the longevity and fecundity of the pea leafminer, Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau) (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2006, 41, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Rahat, S.; Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Mo, J.; Neeson, R. Effect of plant nectars on adult longevity of the stinkbug parasitoid, Trissolcus basalis. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2005, 51, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hogg, B.N.; Bugg, R.L.; Daane, K.M. The attractiveness of common insectary and harvestable floral resources to beneficial insects. Biol. Control 2011, 56, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sutherland, J.P.; Sullivan, M.S.; Poppy, G.M. Distribution and abundance of aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in wildflower patches and field margin habitats. Agric. For. Entomol. 2001, 3, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lu, Z.X.; Zhu, P.Y.; Gurr, G.M.; Zheng, X.S.; Read, D.M.; Heong, K.L.; Yang, Y.J.; Xu, H.X. Mechanisms for flowering plants to benefit arthropod natural enemies of insect pests: Prospects for enhanced use in agriculture. Insect Sci. 2014, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Charles, J.J.; Paine, T.D. Fitness effects of food resources on the polyphagous aphid parasitoid, Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Idris, A.B.; Grafius, E. Wildflowers as nectar sources for Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a parasitoid of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Environ. Entomol. 1995, 24, 1726–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, J.C.; Heimpel, G.E. Floral resources impact the longevity and oviposition rate of a parasitoid in the field. J. Anim. Ecol. 2008, 77, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Munir, S.; Dosdall, L.M.; Keddie, A. Selective effects of floral food sources and honey on life-history traits of a pest–parasitoid system. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2018, 166, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Díaz-Castelazo, C.; Rico-Gray, V.; Oliveira, P.S.; Cuautle, M. Extrafloral nectary-mediated ant-plant interactions in the coastal vegetation of Veracruz, Mexico: Richness, occurrence, seasonality, and ant foraging patterns. Ecoscience 2004, 11, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hernandez, L.M.; Otero, J.T.; Manzano, M.R. Biological control of the greenhouse whitefly by Amitus fuscipennis: Understanding the role of extrafloral nectaries from crop and noncrop vegetation. Biol. Control 2013, 67, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koptur, S.; William, P.; Olive, Z. Ants and plants with extrafloral nectaries in fire successional habitats on Andros (Bahamas). Fla. Entomol. 2010, 93, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mizell, R.F. Many Plants Have Extrafloral Nectaries Helpful to Beneficials; University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences: EDIS, Florida, FL, USA, 2001; Available online: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in175 (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  58. Patt, J.M.; Rohrig, E. Laboratory evaluations of the foraging success of Tamarixia radiata (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) on flowers and extrafloral nectaries: Potential use of nectar plants for conservation biological control of Asian citrus psyllid (Hemiptera: Liviidae). Fla. Entomol. 2017, 100, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. González-Teuber, M.; Heil, M. Nectar chemistry is tailored for both attractions of mutualists and protection from exploiters. Plant Signal. Behav. 2009, 4, 809–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Wäckers, F.L.; Van Rijn, P.C.; Heimpel, G.E. Honeydew as a food source for natural enemies: Making the best of a bad meal? Biol. Control. 2008, 45, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Zhu, P.; Lu, Z.; Heong, K.; Chen, G.; Zheng, X.; Xu, H.; Yang, Y.; Nicol, H.I.; Gurr, G.M. Selection of nectar plants for use in ecological engineering to promote biological control of rice pests by the predatory bug, Cyrtorhinus lividipennis, (Heteroptera: Miridae). PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e0108669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fernandez, C.; Nentwig, W. Quality control of the parasitoid Aphidius colemani (Hym., Aphidiidae) used for biological control in greenhouses. J. Appl. Entomol. 1997, 121, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Starý, P. Field establishment of Aphidius colemani Vier.(Hym., Braconidae, Aphidiinae) in the Czech Republic. J. Appl. Entomol. 2002, 126, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Adisu, B.; Starý, P.; Freier, B.; Büttner, C. Aphidius colemani Vier.(Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Aphidiinae) detected in cereal fields in Germany. Anz. Schädlingskunde J. Pest Sci. 2002, 75, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dannon, E.A.; Tamò, M.; Van Huis, A.; Dicke, M. Effects of volatiles from Maruca vitrata larvae and caterpillar-infested flowers of their host plant Vigna unguiculata on the foraging behavior of the parasitoid Apanteles taragamae. J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 1083–10991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yogesh, W.H.; Deepali, G.M.; Sagar, B.P. Larvicidal effects of Parthenium hysterophorus against polyphagous pests Spodoptera litura and Spodoptera littoralis. Indian J. Appl. Res. 2019, 2, 18–19. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dormann, C.F.; Fruend, J.; Bluethgen, N.; Gruber, B. Indices, graphs and null models: Analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open J. Ecol. 2009, 2, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Length, R. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means. R Package Version 1.4.1. 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  69. Kassambara, A.; Kosinski, M.; Biecek, P.; Fabian, S. Package ‘survminer’. Drawing Survival Curves Using ‘ggplot2′ (R package Version 0.4.9). 2017. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survminer (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  70. Koptur, S. Nectar as fuel for plant protectors. In Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects: A Protective Mutualism and Its Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 75–108. [Google Scholar]
  71. Patel, S. Harmful and beneficial aspects of Parthenium hysterophorus: An update. 3 Biotech 2011, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Ramos, A.; Rivero, R.; Visozo, A.; Piloto, J.; García, A. Parthenin, a sesquiterpene lactone of Parthenium hysterophorus L. is a high toxicity clastogen. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2002, 514, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 00898 g001 550
Figure 1. Interactions of natural enemies with field margin plants observed during transect walks in margins of bean fields over 12 months through visual observation, with Bidens pilosa having a high number of interactions with natural enemies compared to other field margin plants. The lower row shows plant species present, and the upper row shows the natural enemy guilds; the width of the linking bars indicates the frequency of the interactions observed.
Figure 1. Interactions of natural enemies with field margin plants observed during transect walks in margins of bean fields over 12 months through visual observation, with Bidens pilosa having a high number of interactions with natural enemies compared to other field margin plants. The lower row shows plant species present, and the upper row shows the natural enemy guilds; the width of the linking bars indicates the frequency of the interactions observed.
Plants 11 00898 g001
Plants 11 00898 g002 550
Figure 2. Survival of Aphidiuscolemani when provided different field margin plant species, sugar water (positive control), or only water (negative control). A ‘+’ represents a censored individual.
Figure 2. Survival of Aphidiuscolemani when provided different field margin plant species, sugar water (positive control), or only water (negative control). A ‘+’ represents a censored individual.
Plants 11 00898 g002
Plants 11 00898 g003 550
Figure 3. The mean number of Aphis fabae mummies produced per cage containing four females and two males of Aphidius colemani. Treatments: B. pilosa-Bidens pilosa; E. heterophylla-Euphorbia heterophylla; H. suaveolens-Hyptis suaveolens; T. minuta-Tagetes minuta; Positive-Positive control; Negative-Negative control.
Figure 3. The mean number of Aphis fabae mummies produced per cage containing four females and two males of Aphidius colemani. Treatments: B. pilosa-Bidens pilosa; E. heterophylla-Euphorbia heterophylla; H. suaveolens-Hyptis suaveolens; T. minuta-Tagetes minuta; Positive-Positive control; Negative-Negative control.
Plants 11 00898 g003
Plants 11 00898 g004 550
Figure 4. Field margin plants surrounding bean experimental plots for the fluorescent dye trial: T.M-Tagetes minuta; Cont-Control; P.H-Parthenium hysterophorus; B.P-Biden pilosa).
Figure 4. Field margin plants surrounding bean experimental plots for the fluorescent dye trial: T.M-Tagetes minuta; Cont-Control; P.H-Parthenium hysterophorus; B.P-Biden pilosa).
Plants 11 00898 g004
Table
Table 1. Mean ± (SEM) numbers of natural enemies labelled with UV fluorescent powder within bean crops surrounded by different field margin plants. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments within natural enemy groups. Significant differences were calculated using a GLM with Poisson distribution, followed by pairwise comparisons and a Holm multiple comparisons test.
Table 1. Mean ± (SEM) numbers of natural enemies labelled with UV fluorescent powder within bean crops surrounded by different field margin plants. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments within natural enemy groups. Significant differences were calculated using a GLM with Poisson distribution, followed by pairwise comparisons and a Holm multiple comparisons test.
TreatmentMean Number of Natural Enemies (±SEM)
Lady BeetleHoverflyAssassin BugLacewingParasitoid WaspLong-Legged Fly
Biden pilosa9.50 ± 2.02 a2.50 ± 0.65 b5.25 ± 0.95 a6.50 ± 1.04 a2.00 ± 0.82 a1.50 ± 0.87 a
Control (no plant)2.50 ± 1.04 b5.50 ± 2.26 ab0.75 ± 0.48 b2.00 ± 0.41 b1.75 ± 0.63 a1.75 ± 0.48 a
Parthenium hysterophorus4.25 ± 0.85 b7.25 ± 0.48 a2.25 ± 0.48 b2.00 ± 0.82 b2.25 ± 0.75 a1.75 ± 0.48 a
Tagetes minuta6.25 ± 1.03 ab8.25 ± 0.85 a0.75 ± 0.48 b7.00 ± 1.47 a3.25 ± 1.32 a2.75 ± 0.48 a
Values followed by the same letters (a and b) within the column are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 2. The mean ± (SEM) number of natural enemies caught in pan traps in field plots with different field margin plants. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments within natural enemy groups. Significant differences were calculated using a GLM with Poisson distribution, followed by pairwise comparisons and a Holm multiple comparisons test.
Table 2. The mean ± (SEM) number of natural enemies caught in pan traps in field plots with different field margin plants. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments within natural enemy groups. Significant differences were calculated using a GLM with Poisson distribution, followed by pairwise comparisons and a Holm multiple comparisons test.
TreatmentMean Number of Natural Enemies (±SEM)
Lady BeetleHoverflyAssassin BugLacewingParasitoid WaspLong-Legged Fly
Control (no plant)1.83 (± 0.63) a1.92 (± 0.54) a1.25 (± 0.70) a1.50 (± 0.86) a1.75 (± 0.49) a1.75 (± 0.63) a
Bidens pilosa5.92 (± 1.05) b2.67 (± 0.77) ab3.75 (± 0.35) b3.50 (± 0.42) b5.31 (± 1.53) b1.67 (± 0.45) a
Parthenium hysterophorus2.17 (± 1.95) a4.50 (± 0.82) b2.42 (± 0.78) ab2.42 (± 0.86) ab3.23 (± 0.93) b1.08 (± 0.34) a
Tagetes minuta3.33 (± 0.88) a4.58 (± 0.83) b3.42 (± 1.23) b3.58 (± 0.93) b4.58 (± 1.32) b0.75 (± 0.22) a
Values followed by the same letters (a and b) within the column are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ndakidemi, B.J.; Mbega, E.R.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Belmain, S.R.; Arnold, S.E.J.; Woolley, V.C.; Stevenson, P.C. Field Margin Plants Support Natural Enemies in Sub-Saharan Africa Smallholder Common Bean Farming Systems. Plants 2022, 11, 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070898

AMA Style

Ndakidemi BJ, Mbega ER, Ndakidemi PA, Belmain SR, Arnold SEJ, Woolley VC, Stevenson PC. Field Margin Plants Support Natural Enemies in Sub-Saharan Africa Smallholder Common Bean Farming Systems. Plants. 2022; 11(7):898. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070898

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ndakidemi, Baltazar J., Ernest R. Mbega, Patrick A. Ndakidemi, Steven R. Belmain, Sarah E. J. Arnold, Victoria C. Woolley, and Philip C. Stevenson. 2022. "Field Margin Plants Support Natural Enemies in Sub-Saharan Africa Smallholder Common Bean Farming Systems" Plants 11, no. 7: 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070898

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