Arthropod species established to damage soybean in Croatia and neighburing countries
1. Introduction
The importance of soybean (
Today’s the area on which soybean is cultivated in Croatia varies, depending on the year, from 30.000 to 50.000 ha. Croatian government statistics [2] show gains in average yielding ability, from 2.160 to 3.000 kg/ha, between 1993 and 2010. Comparing to data from USA [3] on the average yield between 2.197 and 2.896 kg/ha, soybean yields obtained in “regular” years in Croatia are satisfactory. The exceptions in registered yield quantity were observed in extremely dry and warm years 2000, 2003 and 2007 in which yield was between 1.380 and 1.900 kg/ha. Therefore, the main problem of soybean yielding stability is related to vulnerability of soybean production in extreme climatic conditions in which pest outbreaks influence yields negatively. Global climate changes are often discussed by numerous scientists. Besides the increase of global mean temperature [4], the incidence of the years in which extreme conditions are present vs. “regular” years is increasing. This is proved by the fact that in the period from 2000 to 2009, three years with extremely dry and warm conditions were observed. Consequently, to mitigate the negative consequences of pest outbreaks and improve profits soybean growers, in these extreme years, attempt to control the pests which can reduce crop productivity.
Comparing to weeds and diseases, in “regular years” pests are of somewhat less importance for soybean production in Croatia. In different agro-ecosystems, the arthropod fauna of soybean contains a great number of damaging species [5-8]. Soybean pests have not been investigated completely in Croatia. It was reported [8] that in the region where Croatia belongs, soybean crops are attacked by over 180 pests (150 insects and 30 species from other animal classes) among which approximately 25 pest species are the most important.
Some investigations or observations on arthropod fauna of soybean were conducted in the past on the territory of Croatia [9 - 13], and in neighboring countries [14 - 24]. Additionally, some of the species were registered recently as the pests which could cause significant yield damage on soybean [25 - 29].
The most comprehensive overview of the potential arthropod pests’ fauna of soybean in Croatia is given by Maceljski [9]. This overview is a result of the literature review and author’s long time work experience in entomology. On the other hand, investigations carried out by other scientists in Croatia [10 - 13] and neighboring countries [6-8, 14-24] reported on the presence or harmfulness of some additional species. In the Table 1 arthropod species that are reported as soybean pests both, in Croatia and in neighboring countries are listed.
Besides arthropod species, nematodes are established as potential pests on soybeans in Croatia [11, 12] and in neighboring countries [19]. Jelić [12] established 43 species of phytoparasitic nematodes on 18 localities distributed in east Croatia (region of Slavonia). Identified species belonged to the genera
In regular farming practice in Croatia soybean seed is not treated with insecticides. Among the arthorpod pests, mites (
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collembola | Smynthuridae |
|
21 | + | ||
Thysanoptera | Thripidae |
|
21 | + | ||
Hemiptera | Heteroptera | Miridae |
|
9 | + | |
|
21 | + | ||||
|
24 | + | ||||
|
8 | + | ||||
|
9 | + | ||||
|
24 | + | ||||
Pentatomidae |
|
21, 24 | + | |||
|
24 | + | ||||
|
9, 26 | + | ||||
|
9 | + | ||||
Anthocoridae |
|
9 | + | |||
|
6 | + | ||||
Nabidae |
|
6, 9 | + | + | ||
|
6 | + | ||||
|
6 | + | ||||
Homoptera | Membracidae |
|
9, 22, 24 | + | + | |
|
9 | + | ||||
Aphididae |
|
21 | + | |||
Diaspididae |
|
21 | + | |||
Coleoptera | Elateridae |
|
15 | |||
|
15 | + | ||||
Scarabaeidae |
|
21 | + | |||
Anobiidae |
|
21 | + | |||
Cocinelidae |
|
9, 21 | + | + | ||
Chrysomelidae |
|
9 | + | |||
|
9 | + | ||||
|
9 | + | ||||
Lathiridae |
|
9 | + | |||
Curculionidae |
|
9 | + | |||
|
9 | + | ||||
Lepidoptera | Gracilariidae |
|
24 | + | ||
Pyralidae |
|
8, 9, 14, 21 | + | + | ||
Crambidae |
|
21 | + | |||
Tortricidae |
|
21 | + | |||
|
24 | + | ||||
Lymanthridae |
|
21 | + | |||
Geometridae |
|
21 | + | |||
Nymphalidae |
|
9, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 | + | + | ||
Noctuidae |
|
21 | + | |||
|
21 | + | ||||
|
21 | + | ||||
|
7, 8 | + | ||||
|
7, 8 | + | ||||
|
7, 8 | + | ||||
Diptera | Cecidomyidae |
|
21 | + | ||
|
21 | + | ||||
Anthomyiidae |
|
8 | + | |||
Agromyzidae |
|
21 | + | |||
Prostigmata | Tetranychidae |
|
7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 | + | + | |
|
7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 24 | + | + | |||
|
24 | + |
In only one investigation which was carried out in Serbia [21] beneficial fauna on soybean was recorded. Only three predatory species were established,
The subject of pest control is rarely discussed without the reference to the concept of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM is essentially a holistic approach to pest control that seeks to optimize the use of a combination of methods to manage whole spectrum of pests within particular cropping system. IPM relies heavily on biological controls with a perspective chemical input only as a last resort. For effective control, there needs to be an understanding of a pest’s interaction with its environment. This is so called concept of “life system” which was initially conceived by Clark et al. [31] to reinforce the idea that population cannot be considered apart from the ecosystem with which it interacts. The life system consists of the pest population plus its “effective environment”. Most ecological pest management concentrates on the agro-ecosystem, defined as “effective environment” at the crop level [32]. Monitoring in insect pest management can be used to determine the geographical distribution of pests, to assess the effectiveness of control measures, but in its widest sense monitoring is the process of measuring the variables required for the development and use of forecast to predict pest outbreaks [33]. Such forecasts are an important component of pest management strategies because a warning of the timing and extent of pest attack can improve the efficiency of control measures. For successful pest control according to the principles of IPM it is of great importance to have deep knowledge in harmful and beneficial arthoropods in particular agro-ecological conditions.
The study was conducted to determine the harmful and beneficial arthropod fauna during the soybean growing season, and based on their dynamic of occurrence and abundance to identify the harmful and beneficial species of greater importance for soybean production in Croatia.
2. Materials and methods
Research was conducted on experimental field located in Zagreb. The soybean variety Zlata (BC Institute Zagreb, Croatia) was planted on April 27th 2010 on an experimental area of 162 m2. The average plant density was 630.000 plants/ha. Soybean variety Zlata belongs to the maturity group “0” and according to the information given by producers [34] it has a “good” tolerance to pests and diseases. In order to control weeds gyphosate (pre-sowing), metribuzin, metholachlor and clomazone (in the phase of the first trifoliate - V1, according to [35]) and bentazon (in the phase of the third trifoliate - V3) were applied.
Sweep net sampling consisted of making a set of 50 sweeps across three rows of soybeans while walking down the row [36]. A 30 cm diameter sweep net was used. Sampling began when soybeans were in the beginning of flowering (R1) on June 24th 2010 and continued through September 9th 2010 when plants reached physiological maturity (R7). Weekly sampling was done on the same day each week in late morning. It was performed for 12 weeks. At each sampling date four samples were collected.
Whole plant counts were conducted on 10 plants per each of four replicates. As it was proposed by Kogan and Pitre [36] randomly selected plants were initially scanned for large, often fast moving species. After the initial scan, both sides of each leaf on the plant were searched, as were petioles, axils and stems. Additionally, one leaf per plant was collected at each whole plant count date to establish mite population by leaf inspection. Therefore, four samples each containing 10 leaves were transported to laboratory to be examined under the stereomicroscope and all life stages of mites were counted [37]. Whole plant counts and leaf collection began one week later than sweep net sampling i.e. on July 1st 2010 and continued through September 9th 2010. It was performed for 11 weeks.
All collected insects were identified to the family or genus and species (if possible). For identifying insects identification keys were used [38-42].
Based on the number of all individuals, cenological characteristics (dominance and frequency) of the insect orders and families (where appropriate) were determined [43].
The dominance was calculated by Balogh formula:
Where: a1 = number of identified specimens of one species;
Σa1 = total number of all collected specimens.
The frequency was calculated by Balogh formula:
Where: Ua1 = number of samples with identified species;
∑Ui = total number of samples.
3. Results and discussion
The total catch was 1357 specimens which belong to six orders: Thysanoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Prostigmata (Table 2).
Out of 1357 specimens, only 73 individuals (5.37%) belong to beneficial fauna (mostly predators), while all other collected specimens are herbivorous and therefore potential pests on soybean. All found beneficials belonged to predators and majority of them (70 individuals) belong to Hemiptera what confirms the statement of Ketzschmar [44] that predaceous Hemiptera are usually more abundant in soybean fields than all other insect predators combined. In earlier investigations [21] conducted in Serbia no predaceous Hemiptera have been found while more recent investigations in Serbia [6] and in Croatia [9] stated that they are present in soybean crops. All predaceous Hemiptera feed on a wide range of hosts and may extend this polyphagy to plant feeding to some extent [45]. Such plant feeding causes no damage to row crops but almost certainly has survival value for the predators by maintaining populations where prey are scarce or absent. Some of the species which belong to family Pentatomidae are also recognized as predators [45]. Since some of the individuals collected in our investigation were classified as family Pentatomidae but, were not identified to the species, it is possible that some of them are predaceous as well.
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||
Thysanoptera | * | 52 | 12 | |||
Hemiptera | Miridae |
|
|
44 | 3 | |
|
sp. | 4 | ||||
Nabidae |
|
|
55 | |||
Anthocoridae | * | 3 | 8 | |||
Pentatomidae | * | 12 | ||||
|
|
472 | 181 | |||
|
sp. Fieber 1861 | 28 | ||||
Membracidae |
|
|
2 | |||
Cicadellidae |
|
|
3 | |||
Coleoptera | Coccinelidae | * | 3 | |||
Chrysomelidae |
|
|
4 | |||
|
|
7 | ||||
|
sp. | 2 | 1 | |||
Latridiidae |
|
sp. | 21 | |||
Curculionidae | * | 1 | ||||
|
sp. | 5 | ||||
|
sp. | 1 | ||||
Lepidoptera | * | 2 | ||||
Nymphalidae |
|
|
7 | |||
Noctuidae | 15 | |||||
Diptera | Nematocera | * | 1 | |||
* | 16 | |||||
Prostigmata | Tetranychidae |
|
|
387 | ||
TOTAL | 759 | 211 | 387 |
Using the entomological net, 759 individuals were collected, whereas 211 individuals were gathered by whole plant counts and 387 individuals by leaf inspection.
3.1. Sweep net sampling
Number of arthropod individuals collected by sweep net sampling was the highest among the three methods applied. Using these methods, species belonging to 20 different systematic categories were collected. The collected individuals belonged to five insect orders, Thysanoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera. The abundance of insect orders established by sweep net sampling is shown in Figure 2.
Order Hemiptera was present in the sweep net sampling in the highest abundance (82.48%). The same order was the most frequent. It was present in 87.5% of all samples obtained by sweep net sampling. Order Coleoptera was present in 57.5% of all samples and was designated as constant. Other orders (Thysanoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera) were less frequent; they were present in 30-37.5% of all samples. Investigations conducted in different agro-ecosystems showed that the sweep net sampling is the most effective method to collect different leaf feeding pests as are leafhoppers [46], lepidopterous larvae [46, 47], leaf feeding Coleoptera [48] and phytophagous Pentatomidae [49] as well as predaceous Hemiptera [45].
3.2. Whole plant count
The lowest number of individuals was established by whole plant count method. The majority of established individuals belonged to order Hemiptera. Only few Thysanoptera and Lepidoptera were established by this method. Some authors stated that this method is suitable for larvae of Lepidoptera [46, 47] and for phytophagous thryps [50]. There are no data on any damage caused by any phytophagous thrips in Croatia while
3.3. Leaf sampling and inspection
The only species established by leaf inspection was
3.4. Collected species: abundance and importance
Sampling arthropod populations is a cornerstone of basic research on agricultural ecosystems and the principal tool for building and implementing pest management programs. The purpose of sampling is dual, it is a research method for defining the nature and dynamics of communities in agricultural ecosystems and it is also a mean for providing pest management decision. The purpose of sampling in our investigation was to get deep knowledge on pest and beneficial species present in soybean crop. Conducted investigation encompassed three most common sampling methods for investigations of soybean arthropod fauna. The need to encompass all three methods is confirmed later by the fact that species identified by each particular method differ. By employed methods we were able to get all relevant data on above ground arthropod fauna that could be found on soybean canopy. We did not aim to collect information on underground soybean arthropods and ground predators in soybean fields. To collect this information we should use common methods for sampling soil arthropods, soil samples and extraction [51] or pitfall trapping [48]. Some of earlier researches on soybean arthropod fauna in the region collected information on underground soybean arthropods but, no research did pay attention on ground predators in soybean field. No researches among all conducted [6-29] did pay attention to abundance and frequency of particular orders, genus or species as well, so it is not possible to compare if there are some discrepancies with the results of previous researches.
Individuals that belonged to the order Thysanoptera have been found by sweep net sampling in highest abundance than by whole plan counts, and they haven’t been found by leaf inspection at all. In Serbia one phytophagous thrips species (
Individuals belonging to six families of the
Eleven individuals belonging to
Among the established Hemiptera,
Two families each represented with one species from the
Out of four families of the order Coleoptera that were identified, one represents mainly predaceous species (family Coccinelidae). Some species of the family Coccinelidae are reported as the members of arthropod fauna on soybean in Croatia and Serbia [9, 21]. Species
Only 22 individuals from
We established one species from
The dominance indices of the insect orders established in total capture are shown in Figure 3.
In total catch the eudominant orders were Hemiptera (60.46%) and Acarina (28.6%), while subdominant were orders Thysanoptera (4.73%), Coleoptera (3.33%), Lepidoptera (1.63%) and Diptera (1.26%).
3.5. Most important phytophagous species
The significant feeding on soybean was established by two species,
The dynamic of the appearance of
The southern green stink bug,
The second species which was recorded in high population density was
The maximal infestation of
3.6. Most important zoophagus species
Total of 73 predaceous species are collected in the investigation. Family Nabidae was represented by one specius,
4. Conclusions
Literature reports that soybean crops in the region where Croatia belongs (Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina) are attacked by over 180 pests (150 insects and 30 species from other animal classes). However, by literature review from Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina we established that 52 species (or genus) of arthropods are reported to be associated with soybean crops. Out of these 52 species, seven species are zoophagous, 44 species are phytophagous and one species is myceliophagous. Additionally, we have found data on 43 species of phytoparasitic nematodes that can be find in soybean fields but without causing significant damages and literature also reports on three species of rodents that could cause significant damage on soybean fields.
In our investigations the number of established species was lower than the number obtained by literature review. Total of 1357 individuals were collected and classified into the five orders from the class of Insects and one order from the class of Arachnida (infraclass Acari). 1232 individuals were classified in 15 species or genus, 58 individuals were classified into the six families while 67 individuals were classified into the orders. Phytophagous arthropods were more abundant than zoophagous. The ratio between phytophagous and zoophagous specimens was 94.63% : 5.37%.
Based on the results of the literature review and of the research conducted, it could be concluded that significance of the arthropod pest fauna connected with soybean has changed over the time. Nowadays, soybean production in Croatia could be endangered by four phytophagous arthropod species:
Phytophagous mites,
The critical period for the infestation by all four species is from flowering through maturity in which period all four pests should be monitored and sampled on a regularly basis in order to ensure the proper information about the need for control measure.
Some other pests that were found in our investigation are capable of becoming key pests if environmental conditions and population of their natural control agents are disrupted by unnecessary application of insecticides. One of these species belongs to
The main zoophagous species found on soybeans was
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Hrvoje Šarčević for providing us adequate experimental field conditions.References
- 1.
Vratarić M, Sudarić A. Tehnologija proizvodnje soje. Osijek: Poljoprivredni institut Osijek; 2007. - 2.
Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia 2011. http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/ljetopis/2011/SLJH2011.pdf (accessed 15 June 2012) - 3.
Wilson R. Soybean: Market driven research needs. In: G. Stacey (ed.) Genetics and Genomics of Soybean. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008. 3-15. - 4.
Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Contribution to working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, chap 3 and 11 - 5.
Higley LG, Boethel DJ. Handbook of Soybean Insect Pests. Lanham, MD: Entomological Society of America; 1994. - 6.
Kereši T, Sekulić R, Čamprag D. Important insect pests in soyabean fields. Biljni Lekar (Plant Doctor) 2008;36(3-4) 259-272. - 7.
Kereši T. Bug fauna (Heteroptera) on winter wheat and soybean dependent on cropping system. PhD thesis. University of Novi Sad; 1999. - 8.
Čamprag D. Harmful fauna in soybean fields and integral pest management. Biljni Lekar (Plant Doctor) 2008;36(3-4) 240-246. - 9.
Maceljski M. Poljoprivredna entomologija. Čakovec: Zrinski; 2002. - 10.
Dimitrijević M, Valenčić Lj, Jurković D, Ivezić M, Kondić Đ. Bolesti i štetnici važnijih ratarskih kultura na području stočne Slavonije i Baranje. Poljoprivredne aktualnosti 1985; 22(1-2) 203-223. - 11.
Jelić A. Proučavanje fitoparazitskih nematoda biljaka za proizvodnju ulja na području Slavonije i Baranje sa posebnim osvrtom na soju. PhD thesis, University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer Osijek; 1989. - 12.
Nikolić M. Proizvodnja i zaštita soje na društvenim površinama SOUR-a PIK „Vinkovci“ u 1983. Godini. Glasnik zaštite bilja 1984; 2 50-52. - 13.
Pagliarini N. Rezultati ispitivanja efikasnosti nekih akaricida protiv T. urticae Koch. na soji u vegetaciji, In: Zbornik radova: Prvo jugoslovensko savetovanje o primeni pesticida u zaštiti bilja, 19-23 November 1979, Kupari, 1: 241-250. - 14.
Atanasov P. Sojin moljac (Etiella zinckenella Tr.). Biljna zaštita 1964; 3 50-51. - 15.
Čamprag D, Đurkić J, Sekulić R, Kereši T, Almaši R, Thalji R. Brojnost larvi Elateridae (Coleoptera) na raznim poljoprivrednim kulturama na području Vojvodine. Zaštita bilja (Plant Protection) 1985; 36(4) 399-404. - 16.
Đurkić J. Pojava Tetranychus atlanticus Mc. Gregor štetočine poljoprivrednih kultura u Vojvodini u 1956. godini, Zaštita bilja, (1956): 7(1): 67-70. - 17.
Đurkić J, Srečković R, Sabadin T. Zapažanja o pojavi grinje na soji u 1976. godini. Suvremena poljoprivreda 1977; 5-6 45-57. - 18.
Klindić O. Proučavanje nematoda prouzrokovača pjegavosti korjena – Pratylenchus spp., Zaštita bilja 1967; 18(1) 133-142. - 19.
Ratajac R, Rajković D. Praćenje dinamike populacije grinja na soji u nekim lokalitetima SAP Vojvodine. Glasnik zaštite bilja 1976; 6 191-197. - 20.
Sekulić R, Thalji R, Kereši, T. Prilog proučavanju ishrane gusenica i suzbijanja stričkovog šarenjaka (Pyrameis cardui L.) na soji i boraniji. Agronomski Glasnik 1983; 1 57-63. - 21.
Simova-Tošić D, Vuković M, Plazinić V, Mihajlović Lj. Pojava i identifikacija najznačajnijih štetnih insekata soje u SR Srbiji. Zaštita bilja 1988; 39(1) 17-24. - 22.
Tešić T. Rogati cvrčak (C. bubalus) u Srbiji. Zaštita bilja 1964; 15(6) 593-665. - 23.
Vaclav V, Batinica J. Stričkov šarenjak kao štetočina soje. Poljoprivredni pregled 1962; 11(12): 408-410. - 24.
Vaclav V, Radman Lj, Batinica J, Ristanović M, Dimić N, Numić R, Beš A. Prilog poznavanju bolesti i štetočinja soje na proizvodnim površinama Bosne. Zaštita bilja 1970; 21(109) 229-236. - 25.
Bažok R, Ljikar K. Stričkov šarenjak - malo poznati štetnik soje. Glasilo biljne zaštite 2007; 8(1) 44-46. - 26.
Majić I, Ivezić M, Raspudić E, Vratarić M, Sudarić A, Sarajlić A, Matoša M. Pojava stjenica na soji u Osijeku. Glasilo biljne zaštite 2010; 11(1-2/dodatak) 51-51. - 27.
Raspudić E; Ivezić M, Ladocki Z, Pančić S, Brmež M. Stričkov šarenjak – opasnost za soju. Glasilo biljne zaštite 2007; 8(1-dodatak) 12-12 - 28.
Vratarić M, Sudarić A. Soja Glycine max (L.) Merr. Osijek: Poljoprivredni institut Osijek 2008. - 29.
Vratarić M, Sudarić A. Važnije bolesti i štetnici na soji u Republici Hrvatskoj. Glasnik zaštite bilja 2009;36(6) 6-23. - 30.
Sekulić R, Kereši T. Major pests of soybean- mites and rodents. Biljni Lekar (Plant Doctor) 2008; 36(3-4) 247-258. - 31.
Clark LR, Geier PW, Hughes RD, Morris RF. The Ecology of Insect Populations in Theory and Practice. New York: Chapman & Hall. 1967. - 32.
Altieri MA.. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press; 1994. - 33.
Conway GR, Strategic models. In: Conway GR. (ed) Pest and Pathogen Control: Strategic, Tactical and Policy Models. New York: John Willey & Sons; 1984. p15-28. - 34.
Bc Institut d.d. Zagreb http://www.bc-institut.hr/s_zlata.htm (accessed 20 June 2012) - 35.
Iowa State University- Soybean Extension and Research Program http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/production_growthstages.html (accesed 20 June 2012) - 36.
Kogan, M., Pitre H.N. Jr. General Sampling Methods for Above-Ground Populations of Soybean Arthropods. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p30-60. - 37.
Poe, S.L. Sampling Mites on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p312-323. - 38.
Schmidt, L: Tablice za determinaciju insekata. Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber; 1972. - 39.
Villiers, A. Atlas des Hémiptères de France, I Hétéroptères Gynocérates: 108. Paris: Editions N. Boubee; 1951. - 40.
Auber, L. Atlas des Coléoptères de France I, Belgique, Suisse. Paris: Editions N. Boubée; 1965. - 41.
Bechyně, J. Welcher Käfer ist das? Kosmos-Naturfuhrer, Stuttgart: Balogh Scientific Books; 1974. - 42.
Harde, K.W., Severa, F. Der Kosmos Käferführer . Kosmos-Naturfuhrer, Stuttgart: Balogh Scientific Books; 1984. - 43.
Balarin I. Fauna Heteroptera na krmnim leguminozama i prirodnim livadama u SR Hrvatskoj. Doktorska disertacija, Zagreb: Agronomski fakultet. 1974. - 44.
Kretzschmar GP. Soybean insects in Minnesota with special reference to sampling techniques. Journal of Economic Entomology 1948; 41 586-591. - 45.
Irwin ME, Shepard M. Sampling Predaceous Hemiptera on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p505-531. - 46.
Pedigo LP. Sampling Green Cloverworm on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p169-186. - 47.
Herzog DC. Sampling Soybean Looper on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p141-168. - 48.
Shelton MD, Edwards CR. Effects of Weeds on the Diversity and Abundance of Insects in Soybeans. Environmental Entomology 1983; 12(2) 266-298. - 49.
Todd JW, Herzog DC. Sampling Phytophagous Pentatomidae on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p438-478. - 50.
Irwin ME, Yaergan KV. Sampling Phytophagous Thrips on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p283-304. - 51.
Eastman CE. Sampling Phytophagous Underground Soybean Arthropods. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p327-354. - 52.
Lewis T. Thrips, their biology, ecology and economic importance. London: Academic Press; 1973. - 53.
Bournier A, Lacasa A, Pivot Y, Biologie d’un Thrips prédateur Aeolothrips intermedius (Thys.: Aeolothripidae). Entomophaga 1978; 23 (4) 403-410. - 54.
Riudavates J. Predators of Frankliniella occidentalis (Perg.) andThrips tabaci Lind.: a review. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers 1995;95(1) 43-87. - 55.
Bournier, A., Lacasa, A., Pivot, Y. Régime alimentaire d un Thrips prédateur Aeolothrips intermedius (Thys.: Aeolothripidae). Entomophaga 1979;24(4) 353-361. - 56.
Lacasa, A., Bournier, A., Pivot, Y. Influencia de la temperatura sobre la biologia de un trips depredador Aeolothrips intermedius Barnall (Thys: Aeolothripidae).- Anales del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, Agricola. 1982;20 87-98. - 57.
Conti B. Notes on the presence of Aeolothrips intermedius in northwestern Tuscany and on its development under laboratory conditions. Bulletin of Insectology 2009;62(1) 107-112. - 58.
Zandigiacomo P. Pest found in soybean crops in north-eastern Italy. Informatore Agrario 1992;48(7) 57-59. - 59.
Hoddle MS, Robinson L, Drescher K, Jones J. Developmental and Reproductive Biology of a Predatory Franklinothrips sp. (Thysanoptera: Aeolothripidae). Biological Control 2000;18 27-38. - 60.
Fauna Europea. http://www.faunaeur.org/ (accessed 24 June 2012) - 61.
Pakyari H, Fathipour Y, Rezapanah M, Kamali K. Temperature-dependent functional response of Scolothrips longicornis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) preying onTetranychus urticae. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology2009; 12(1) 23-26. - 62.
Gheibi M, Hesami S. Life Table and Reproductive Table Parameters of Scolothrips longicornis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as a Predator of Two-Spotted Spider Mite,Tetranychus Turkestani (Acari: Tetranychidae). World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2011;60 262-264. - 63.
Pitkin BR. A revision of the Indian species of Haplothrips and related genera (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae). Bulletin of the British Museum of National History, Entomology 1976;34 223-280. - 64.
Limonta L, Dioli P, Bonomelli N. Heteroptera on flowering spontaneous herbs in differently managed orchards. Bollettino di Zoologia agraria e di Bachicoltura 2004;Ser. II;36 (3) 355-366. - 65.
Puchkov AV. Particulars of the biology of predacious Nabis spp. Zashchita Rastenii 1980; 8 1-44. - 66.
Giorgi R. The defence of soybean: control of the principal diseases and insects. Terra e Sole 1992;47(596) 231-234. - 67.
Baur ME, Sosa-Gomez DR, Ottea j, Leonard BJ, Corso IC, Da Silva JJ, Temple J, Boethel DJ. Susceptibility to Insecticides Used for Control of Piezodorus guildinii (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in the United States and Brazil. Journal of Economic Entomology 2010;103(3) 869-876. - 68.
Sosa-Gomez, DR, Moscardi F. Different foliar retention in soyabean caused by stink bugs (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil 1995; 24(2) 401-404. - 69.
Helm CG, Kogan M, Hill BG. Sampling Lefhoppers on Soybean. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p260-282. - 70.
Ragsdale DW, Landis DA, Brodeur J, Heimpel GE, Desneux N. Ecology and Management of the Soybean Aphid in North America. Annual Review of Entomology 2011;56 375–399. - 71.
Irwin ME. Sampling Aphids in Soybean Fields. In: Kogan, M., Herzog, D.C.(eds) Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology. New York: Springer; 1980. p239-259. - 72.
Igrc Barčić J. Lisne uši. In: Maceljski M. (ed) Poljoprivredna entomologija. Čakovec: Zrinski; 2002. p74-126. - 73.
Gotlin Čuljak T, Igrc Barčić J, Bažok R, Grubišić D. Aphid fauna (Hemiptera: Aphidoidea) in Croatia. Entomologia Croatica 2006; 9(1-2) 57-69. - 74.
Andrews FG. Latridiidae Erichson 1842. In: Arnett RH Jr, Thomas MC. (eds) American Beetles Plyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea. Boca Ratton:CRC; 2002. p.395-398 - 75.
Hillhouse TL, Pitre HN. Comparison of Sampling Techniques to Obtain Measurements of Insect Populations on Soybeans. Journal of Economic Entomology 1974;67(3) 411-414. - 76.
Lammers JW, MacLeod A. Report of a Pest Risk Analysis Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner, 1808). Plant Protection Service (NL) and Central Science Laboratory (UK) 2007. http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/documents/helicoverpa.pdf (accessed 24 June 2012) - 77.
Sekulic R, Kereši T, Masirevic S, Vajgand D, Radojcic S. Incidence and damage of cotton bollworm ( Helicoverpa armigera Hbn.) in Vojvodina Province in 2003. Biljni Lekar (Plant Doctor) 2004;32(2) 113-124. - 78.
Torres Vila L M, Rodriguez Molina MC, Lacasa Plasencia A, Bielza Lino P, Rodriguez del Rincon A. Pyrethroid resistance of Helicoverpa armigera in Spain: current status and agroecological perspective. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 2002;93 55-66. - 79.
Cannon WN, Connel WA. Populations of Tetranychus atlanticus McG. (Acarina: Tetranychidae) on soybean supplied with various levels of nithrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 1965; 8 153-161. - 80.
Werdin Gonzalez JO, Gutierrez MM, Murray AP, Ferrero AA. Composition and biological activity of essential oils from Labiatae against Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) soybean pest. Pest Management Science 2011; 67 948–955 - 81.
Werdin Gonzalez JO, Ferrero AA. Table of life and fecundity by Nezara viridula var.smaragdula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) feed onPhaseolus vulgaris L. (Fabaceae) fruits. IDESIA 2008; 26(1) 9-13. - 82.
Bharathimeena T, Sudharma K. Biological studies on the southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula (L.) and the smaller stink bugPiezedorus rubrofasciatus (F.) (Pentatomidae: Hemiptera) infesting vegetable cowpea. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 2008; 14(1) 30-36. - 83.
DerChien C, ChingChung C. Life history of Nezara viridula Linnaeus and its population fluctuations on different crops. Bulletin of Taichung District Agricultural Improvement Station 1997; 55 51-59. - 84.
Mukopadhyay B, Roychoudhury N. Biology of green stink bug Nezara viridula . Environment and Ecology 1987; 5(2) 325-327. - 85.
Cividanes FJ, Parra JRP. Biology of soybean pests with different temperatures and thermal requirements. I. Nezara viridula (L.) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica de Brasil 1994; 23(2) 243-250. - 86.
Miller LA, Rose HA, McDonald FJD. The effect of damage by the green vegetable bug Nezara viridula (L.) on yield quality of soybeans. Journal of Australian Entomological Society 1977; 16(4) 421-246. - 87.
Dobrinčić R. Neki štetnici soje. Glasnik zaštite bilja 1999; 4 184-187. - 88.
Hildebrand D F, Rodriguez JG, Brown GC, Luu KT, Volden CS. Peroxidative Responses of Leaves in Two Soybean Genotypes Injured by Twospotted Spider Mites (Acari: Tetranychidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 1996; 79(6)1459-1465. - 89.
Lattin JD. Bionomics of the Nabidae. Annual Review of Entomology 1989; 34 383-400. - 90.
Perić P, Marčić D, Stamenkvić S. Natural enemies of whitefly ( Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood) in Serbia. Acta Horticulturae 2009; 830 539-544. - 91.
Popov C, Malschi D, Vilau F, Stoica V. Insect pest management of Lema melanopa in Romania. Romanian Agricultural Research 2005; 22 47-51. - 92.
Piotrowska E. Introductory studies on some food requirements of Nabis ferus L. andNabis pseudoferus Rem. (Heteroptera: Nabidae) on cereals. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych (Ochrona Rastlin) 1982; 12(1-2)47-56. - 93.
Hokyo N, Kiritani K. Two species of egg parasites as contemporaneous mortality factors int he egg population of the southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula . Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 1963; 7(3)214-227. - 94.
Kereši T. The Heteroptera fauna on soybeans in Bačka. Zaštita Bilja 1993; 44(3)189-195.