| Literature DB >> 26881784 |
Bing Liu1,2, Long Yang2, Yizhong Yang1, Yanhui Lu2.
Abstract
We deployed >50,000 Helicoverpa armigera eggs in maize fields to assess the rate of parasitism by Trichogramma chilonis across 33 sites during a three-year span (2012-2014) in northern China. Subsequently, we used a partial least squares (PLS) regression approach to assess the relationship of landscape diversity with composition and parasitism potential. The parasitism rate of H. armigera eggs by T. chilonis ranged from 0-25.8%, with a mean value of 5.6%. Landscape diversity greatly enhanced parasitism at all four different spatial scales (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 km radius). Both the proportion of arable area and the total planting area of two major crops (cotton and maize) had a negative correlation to the parasitism rate at each scale, whereas parasitism was positively correlated to the proportion of host crops of H. armigera other than cotton and maize at the 0.5 to 2.0 km radius scales as well as to that of non-crop habitat at the 0.5 and 1.0 km radius scales. The study indicated that maintaining landscape diversity provided an important biocontrol service by limiting H. armigera through the egg parasitoid T. chilonis, whereas rapid agricultural intensification would greatly reduce the presence and parasitism of T. chilonis in China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26881784 PMCID: PMC4755802 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The landscape variables at each spatial scale used in Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression analysis.
| Predictor name (abbreviation) | Description |
|---|---|
| Landscape diversity index (Simpson's) | Simpson's diversity index, which indicates landscape heterogeneity. |
| Cotton | The percentage land cover of the main crop of |
| Maize | The percentage land cover of another main crop of |
| Cotton and maize (CM) | The percentage land cover of the main crops of |
| Other host crops (OHC) | The percentage land cover of the other host crops of |
| Arable | The percentage land cover of all arable host crops, including the main crops and other host crops |
| Non crop habitat (NCH) | The percentage land cover of non-crop habitat such as forest, shrublands and grasslands |
| Non vegetation land (Urban) | The percentage land cover of buildings, roads, abandoned land, other impervious surface, and water |
Landscape diversity index (Simpson’s D) and the proportion of other landscape variables at four spatial scales across all 33 sites.
| Radius (km) | Landscape variables | Simpson's | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | Average | ||
| 0.5 | Simpson’s | 1.27 | 4.61 | 2.59 |
| Cotton | 1.97 | 88.44 | 24.90 | |
| Maize | 7.14 | 82.80 | 45.52 | |
| CM | 20.71 | 96.85 | 70.42 | |
| Arable | 27.89 | 96.85 | 74.58 | |
| OHC | 0.00 | 27.58 | 3.81 | |
| NCH | 0.41 | 56.38 | 11.95 | |
| Urban | 0.67 | 61.29 | 13.47 | |
| 1.0 | Simpson’s | 1.53 | 5.71 | 2.98 |
| Cotton | 0.92 | 68.84 | 17.74 | |
| Maize | 4.75 | 80.47 | 46.36 | |
| CM | 31.70 | 92.82 | 64.10 | |
| Arable | 42.94 | 93.31 | 68.44 | |
| OHC | 0.00 | 16.90 | 3.92 | |
| NCH | 2.25 | 54.68 | 12.93 | |
| Urban | 2.38 | 53.93 | 18.64 | |
| 1.5 | Simpson’s | 1.73 | 7.29 | 3.14 |
| Cotton | 0.41 | 68.91 | 16.67 | |
| Maize | 9.59 | 74.75 | 45.27 | |
| CM | 33.02 | 82.30 | 61.94 | |
| Arable | 36.81 | 83.48 | 65.97 | |
| OHC | 0.00 | 15.79 | 3.54 | |
| NCH | 1.95 | 56.28 | 12.49 | |
| Urban | 6.66 | 50.44 | 21.54 | |
| 2.0 | Simpson’s | 1.87 | 6.74 | 3.15 |
| Cotton | 0.23 | 62.16 | 13.92 | |
| Maize | 7.87 | 71.99 | 45.63 | |
| CM | 25.69 | 79.31 | 59.56 | |
| Arable | 30.94 | 79.31 | 63.39 | |
| OHC | 0.00 | 17.97 | 3.27 | |
| NCH | 2.79 | 56.98 | 12.34 | |
| Urban | 8.84 | 48.74 | 24.28 | |
Percent of variation accounted for by Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression analysis of the parasitism rate.
| Radius (km) | Model Variables | R12 | R22 | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | R2X | 40.7 | 24.5 | 65.2 |
| R2Y | 27.5 | 8.1 | 35.6 | |
| 1.0 | R2X | 42.6 | 17.3 | 59.9 |
| R2Y | 21.1 | 4.6 | 25.7 | |
| 1.5 | R2X | 44.4 | 10.5 | 54.9 |
| R2Y | 27.8 | 12.9 | 40.7 | |
| 2.0 | R2X | 44.7 | 10.8 | 55.5 |
| R2Y | 29.0 | 13.8 | 42.8 |
Note: The percentage of variation in each predictor variable explained by Factors 1, 2, and the cumulative variation explained are provided in the R12, R22 and cumulative columns, respectively. R2X and R2Y provide the cumulative amount of variation explained for all predictor and response variables.
Fig 1Needle plots describe the Variable Importance for Projection (VIP) value of different landscape variables at four spatial scales for the response variable (parasitism rate).
Radius (a): 0.5 km, (b): 1.0 km, (c): 1.5 km, (d): 2.0 km. The line parallel to the X axis indicates Wold’s Criterion (VIP = 0.8).
Fig 2Correlation loadings for the plot of the response variable (parasitism rate, Y) and predictor variables across four spatial scales based on PLS analysis.
Radius: (a) 0.5 km; (b) 1.0 km; (c) 1.5 km; (d) 2.0 km. The four dotted line circles (25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) indicate the percentage range of variation explained by the first two factors. The distance of marked points from the origin and from the horizontal and vertical axes jointly show the amount of variation in each variable accounted for by the first two factors.
Model output for predicted (landscape) and response (parasitism rate) variables used in the Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression analysis.
| Radius (km) | Variables | R12 | R22 | Cumulative | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | |||||
| Cotton | -0.0699 | 14.9 | 3.2 | 18.0 | |
| Maize | -0.0432 | 11.1 | 2.0 | 13.1 | |
| Urban | -0.1211 | 12.5 | 69.5 | 82.0 | |
| 1.0 | |||||
| Cotton | -0.0430 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 2.3 | |
| Maize | 0.0390 | 24.9 | 7.5 | 32.4 | |
| Urban | -0.0818 | 7.4 | 55.0 | 62.5 | |
| 1.5 | |||||
| Cotton | -0.0622 | 6.2 | 0.4 | 6.6 | |
| Maize | 0.0943 | 12.7 | 3.2 | 15.9 | |
| NCH | 0.0540 | 33.1 | 2.3 | 35.4 | |
| Urban | -0.0985 | 15.6 | 13.1 | 28.7 | |
| 2.0 | |||||
| Cotton | -0.0963 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 4.5 | |
| Maize | 0.1237 | 21.4 | 15.7 | 37.1 | |
| NCH | 0.0157 | 23.5 | 7.3 | 30.8 | |
| Urban | -0.0564 | 20.1 | 4.0 | 24.1 |
Note: The percentage of variation in each predictor variable explained by Factors 1, 2, and the cumulative variation explained are listed in the R12, R22 and cumulative columns, respectively. The B values indicate the coefficient of the model; bold text indicates a VIP ≥0.8.