Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Predator density manipulation and its effects on populations of Rhopalosiphumpadi (Horn.: Aphididae) in spring barley

CHIVERTON, PHILIP A.·1986·Annals of Applied Biology

Abstract

SUMMARY: Experiments were carried out in 1981‐83 to assess the impact of polyphagous predators (e.g. Carabidae, Staphylinidae and Araneae) on populations of cereal aphids in spring barley in Sweden. Barriers were erected around mid‐field and field‐edge plots at different times during the aphids' establishment phase in order to manipulate the predation pressure during the aphid pre‐peak period; predators were emigrating from field boundaries. Rhopalosiphum padi was the dominant species of cereal aphid in 1981 and 1982, and was abundant in both years. Reduction of the predation pressure resulted in R. padi populations that were two to six times larger compared with those in unenclosed control plots. Aphid populations were much larger when the predation pressure was reduced earlier in June than when this was done later, in both years, since late erection of barriers excludes fewer predators because most had already entered the enclosed areas. In 1983, R. padi and Sitobion avenae were equally common but occurred in low numbers, and the effects of reducing the predation pressure were less obvious. Bembidion spp. (B. lampros and B. quadrimaculatum) and linyphiid spiders were the most abundant predators during the early establishment phase of aphid populations in each year, and significant inverse correlations were found between peak numbers of R. padi per shoot and numbers of predators from these taxa in 1981 and 1982. Similar relationships were found between total aphids and numbers of Staphylinidae, B. quadrimaculatum and Coccinella septempunctata in 1983. It was concluded that differences between the manipulated numbers of polyphagous predators caused the observed differences in peak population levels of R.padiin 1981,1982 and to a lesser extent, 1983. Apparent levels of parasitism and fungal disease were low during the pre‐peak period. Aphid specific predators, abundant after the peak, were considered partly responsible for the decline of aphid populations each year. The results are compared with those from similar experiments elsewhere with S. avenae and Metopolophium dirhodum in winter wheat. Reasons why the effects of polyphagous predators are greater, and occur over a much shorter period of time in Sweden are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1986.tb03183.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
CHIVERTON, P. A.
Venue
Annals of Applied Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1986-08
Volume
109
Issue
1
Pages
49-60
ISSN
  • 0003-4746 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-7348
OpenAlex
W2021429017
Cited by
212
References
0
FWCI
10.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predator density manipulation and its effects on populations of Rhopalosiphumpadi (Horn.: Aphididae) in spring barley. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1986.tb03183.x
The paper
CHIVERTON, P. A. (1986). Predator density manipulation and its effects on populations of Rhopalosiphumpadi (Horn.: Aphididae) in spring barley. Annals of Applied Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1986.tb03183.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.