Survey of vertebrate and invertebrate pests and beneficials harbouring in harvest weed seed control system.
Document Type
Collection
Publication Title
The collection looks at the survey of vertebrate and invertebrate pests and beneficials harbouring in harvest weed seed control system profitability in sown oats.
Abstract
Data collected includes: Paddock GPS location where sampling occurred, crop type, average yield, current years insecticide application, date of harvest and type of HWSC system implemented. Date and time of mouse surveys. Mouse holes assessed for disturbances. Pitfall traps and direct surveys to examine invertebrates. Species identification, noted as beneficials or pests of crops. Assessment of plants for seed damage. Visual estimate of plants with chewing/sucking damage
DOI
To be provided
Publication Date
Summer 2023
Keywords
invertebrates, pest surveys, mice, trapping
Disciplines
Agriculture
Recommended Citation
Micic, S.
(2023), Survey of vertebrate and invertebrate pests and beneficials harbouring in harvest weed seed control system.. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia, Perth. Collection.
https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/ba_grdc_ds/1
Funder
GRDC
Grant
DAW1904-009RTX
ROR of Contributing Organisation
01AWP2978
ORCID of each Author
Spatial Coverage
Albany, Esperance, Geraldton, Kwinana East, Kwinana West, Western Australia.
Comments
This WA field-based research project between 2019 and 2020 focused on survey of vertebrate and invertebrate pests and beneficials harbouring in harvest weed seed control system profitability in sown oats. Data and file overview: The data includes: Paddock GPS location where sampling occurred, crop type, average yield, current years insecticide application, date of harvest and type of HWSC system implemented. Date and time of mouse surveys. Mouse holes assessed for disturbances. Pitfall traps and direct surveys to examine invertebrates. Species identification, noted as beneficials or pests of crops. Assessment of plants for seed damage. Visual estimate of plants with chewing/sucking damage - Methodological information: Mouse surveillance Twenty paddocks were surveyed for mice during mid-March/early April 2020, prior to paddocks being sown. For each paddock a field record was completed. Mouse monitoring occurred in cereal stubble paddocks. Assessment for mouse holes was done in four transects, with each transect being 100 m long at least 20 m apart and 50 m from any vegetation. Two transects were each located near chaff (10 cm from chaff) and two transects were located ‘far’ from chaff. In paddocks with chaff dumps, transects near chaff began adjacent to a dump and in the direction that the dumps were placed in a paddock. Far transects were located 20 m from the chaff. In chaff lined paddocks, chaff lines were spaced at least 6 m apart. In these paddocks, transects near chaff were located adjacent to the chaff line and continued in the direction of the line; transects far from chaff were placed 20 m from the ‘near chaff’ transect and located between the chaff lines, i.e. being at least 3 m away from a chaff line. The start and end of each transect were pegged, and for one metre on either side of the transect, the number of mouse holes was counted. For transects located close to the chaff, the chaff and stubble were pulled back to check closely for mouse activity. If a mouse hole was located, corn flour was sprinkled at the entrance of each mouse hole. 24 hours later, mouse holes were assessed for disturbances. Any disturbed mouse holes were recorded, and all data entered into Mouse Alert at: https://www.feralscan.org.au/mousealert/ Invertebrate sampling Methodology associated with chaff tested in 20 paddocks in 2019, before wide scale surveys of HWSC systems commenced. Two methods for invertebrate assessments - pitfall traps and direct surveys utilised. 87 paddocks were surveyed during 2019-2020, of which 79 were sampled in 2020. Efforts were made to identify a similar number of HWSC systems per port zone for this study. However, some HWSC systems were under-represented in certain zones. Sampling occurred prior to and post-planting when crops were at seedling stage. All invertebrates were identified to species, and each species was divided into functional groups of beneficials or pests. Pitfall traps (250 mL containers, dug into the ground so the top lip was level with the surface placed) at least 50 metres from any fence line or vegetation. Placed in two rows (10 traps at least 10m apart) and kept open for 7 days. One row placed adjacent to chaff (near), 5 cm from chaff; second row (far) placed parallel to the first 20 metres away. In paddocks with chaff lines or tram-lines, chaff lines are spaced at least 6 m apart. The ‘far from chaff’ pitfall trap rows located between chaff lines and were at least 3 m from a chaff line. In paddocks with chaff dumps, the second row was located 20 m from any chaff. Due to paddock variation, most chaff dumps were less than 100 metres in length. In this case, pitfall traps were placed 10 metres apart, 5 cm from the chaff (close) and at least 20 m away from chaff (far) on the same side of multiple chaff dumps. For direct surveys associated with chaff, a 0.1m2 quadrat was placed on the eastern side of each pitfall trap. If crops were at the seedling stage, they were assessed for any invertebrate damage adjacent to each pitfall trap, and a count of plants along a 1 metre by 2 crop row was recorded. A visual estimate of the percentage of plants that have chewing or sucking damage was undertaken: Chewing damage is characterised with portions of the leaf missing. Sucking damage is characterised by silvering or bleaching of leaves. - Data specific information: Summaries of these results are on the GRDC and DPIRD websites.