Intercropping With Peppermint Increases Ground Dwelling Insect and Pollinator Abundance and Decreases Drosophila suzukii in Fruit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercropping can be used to reduce pest insects within agricultural systems, e.g., through deterring pests directly or by increasing habitat for their natural enemies. For example, plant produced volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can deter or confuse host-finding by insects through olfactory disruption. Drosophila suzukii is an invasive fruit fly of agricultural concern as it can lay its eggs in both ripening and fresh fruits and, uses olfactory cues to identify its wide range of host plants. Peppermint plants (Mentha × piperita) produce high levels of VOCs while growing and may, therefore, be suitable as an intercrop to reduce D. suzukii infestations in the field, as peppermint essential oil VOCs have previously been shown to deter D. suzukii in olfactory trials. We conducted a field intercropping experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of peppermint plants compared to traditional ryegrass/clover mixes in reducing D. suzukii oviposition in the field, and the effect of peppermint intercrops on other invertebrates. In the field, we monitored sentinel fruit baits weekly for D. suzukii infestation. Additionally, we monitored intercropping effects on the invertebrate community through weekly pitfall trap collection and through a pollinator point survey. We monitored for local, farm level presence of D. suzukii through apple cider vinegar traps within crop fields and along hedgerows and found high abundance of D. suzukii (>3,000 individuals trapped). Peppermint intercrops had fewer D. suzukii emerge from fruit baits and supported greater beneficial insect abundance (predators and pollinators) compared to ryegrass/clover. However, levels of D. suzukii were low across both intercrop types. Overall, we found that peppermint intercrops could be a potential aromatic intercrop used to reduce D. suzukii adult emergence from fruit compared to conventional ryegrass/clover mixes, however this trial should be replicated over multiple growing seasons, geographic locations, and host fruits. Furthermore, further study should determine the effects of the intercrop on the focal crop of interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".