J. HPT Tropika.

ISSN 1411-7525
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja
Vol. 12, No. 1: 23 – 35, Maret 2012
The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 23

THE IMPACT OF SOYBEAN AND CORN INTERCROPPING SYSTEM

AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT ON SOYBEAN APHID
POPULATIONS APHIS GLYCINES (HEMIPTERA: APHIDIDAE)
AND SOYBEAN GROWTH PERFORMANCE

1
Rosma Hasibuan & Jamalam Lumbanraja2

1
Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, University of Lampung
E-mail: [email protected]
2
Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, University of Lampung
Jl. Prof. Sumantri Brojonegoro No 1 Bandar Lampung, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

The impact of soybean and corn intercropping system and soil fertility management on soybean aphid populations Aphis
glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and soybean growth performance. Agricultural management cropping systems play an
important role in affecting a crop plant’s ability to tolerate or resist insect pests. Field studies were conducted to examine the
effect of two strategies management systems: fertilizer treatment and intercropping soybean with corn on soybean aphid
(Aphis glycines Matsumura) population and soybean growth and yield parameters. The intercropping treatments were:
soybean alone; 2:1 soybean/corn intercrop; and 3:1 soybean/corn intercrop. While the soil fertility treatments were the
combination of NPK (urea 100 kg ha-1 + SP-36 200 kg ha-1 + KCl 200 kg ha-1) levels, dolomite (4 ton ha-1), compost (10 ton ha-
1
), and chicken manure (10 ton ha-1). The results of the first study showed that the intercropping soybean with corn significantly
reduced the population density of soybean aphids. However, there were no significant effects of intercropping systems on
soybean growth (plant height) and yield (number seed per pod and thousand seed weight) performances except on the
number of soybean pods per plant. Meanwhile, the result of the second study indicated that soil fertilizer treatments had a
significant effect on the soybean plant characteristics: leaf numbers; pod numbers; and plant height. Combining intercropping
methods and soil fertilizer management offer an opportunity to protect the soybean plants by natural and sustainable pest
management.
Key words: Aphis glycines, soybean aphid, fertilizer management, intercropping system

ABSTRAK

Dampak sistem tumpang sari kedelai-jagung dan pengelolaan kesuburan tanah terhadap kepadatan populasi kutu daun,
Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae)dan pertumbuhan tanaman kedelai. Sistem pengelolaan tanam pertananian
mempunyai peranan penting dalam hal mempengaruhi kemampuan tanaman untuk mentolerir maupun bertahan dari serangan
hama. Dua percobaan lapang tentang strategi pengelolaan tanam telah dilakukan: pengelolaan pupuk dan tumpangsari
kedelai dengan jagung terhadap pertumbuhan populasi kutu daun (Aphis glycines Matsumura) dan parameter pertumbuhan
vegetatif dan generatif tanaman kedelai. Perlakuan tumpangsari adalah: kedelai monokutur; tumpangsari 2:1 kedelai/jagung,
dan tumpangsari 3:1 kedelai/jagung. Sementara perlakuan pengelolaan kesuburan tanah adalah kombinasi pupuk NPK (urea
100 kg ha-1 + SP-36 200 kg ha-1 + KCl 200 kg ha-1), kapu rdolomit (4 ton ha-1), kompos (10 ton ha-1), dan kotoran ayam (10 ton
ha-1). Hasil penelitian pertama menunjukkan bahwa tumpangsari kedelai dengan jagung secara nyata dapat menurunkan
kepadatan populasi hama kutu daun kedelai. Namun, tidak ada pengaruh nyata dari sistem tumpangsari terhadap pertumbuhan
vegetatif tanaman kedelai (tinggi tanaman) dan pertumbuhan generatif (jumlah biji per polong dan berat seribu biji) kecuali
pada jumlah polong per tanaman kedelai. Sementara itu, hasil percobaan kedua menunjukkan bahwa perlakuan pupuk
berpengaruh nyata terhadap pertumbuhan tanaman kedelai: jumlah daun, jumlah polong, dan tinggi tanaman. Memadukan
dua strategi sistem pengelolaan tanaman yaitu tumpang sari dan pengelolaan kesuburan tanah memberikan peluangn untuk
melindungi tanaman kedelai melalui pengelolaan hama alami dan berkelanjutan.
Kata kunci: Aphis glycines, kutu aphis kedelai, pengelolaan kesuburan, sistem tumpangsari
24 J. HPT Tropika Vol. 12, No. 1, 2012: 23 – 35

INTRODUCTION to chemical control. Soil fertilizer management as a part

of cultural control can impact the physiological
Soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill is one of the susceptibility of crop plants to insect pests by either
most important cultivated crops worldwide. In Indonesia, affecting the resistance of individual plant to attack or
soybean has been planted as a source of protein and by altering plant acceptability to certain insect pests
essential amino acids and has been utilized broadly in (Letourneau et al., 1996; Letourneau & Goldstein, 2001).
the nutritional balance of the rural and urban Indonesian According to Ofori & Stern (1987), intercropping is as
diet. Several pests are known to attack soybean plant a system where two or more crop species are grown in
start from early vegetative growth until harvesting (Hill the same field at the same time during a growing season.
et al., 2001; Irwin et al., 2000). One of important pest Ecologically, intercropping is one of the ways to diversify
of soybean known in Indonesia is the soybean aphid, the species populations in the field. Many studies have
Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) shown that vegetative diversity in the form of
(van den Berg et al., 1997). This pest is commonly found intercropping can result in reduced pest densities and
throughout soybean-growing regions. Previous studies increases the resistance of the environment (Jankowska,
reported that soybean plants that severely infested by 2007; Risch, 1983; Russell, 1989; Theunissen & Den
soybean aphids may be stunted or turned brown and Ouden, 1980). Intercropping system is a low-input and
die (Alleman et al., 2002; Clark & Perry, 2002; Wang traditional agricultural practice and is important in many
& Ghabrial, 2002; Myers et al., 2005; Ragsdale et al., developing countries including Indonesia. Intercropping
2007; van den Berg et al., 1997). Besides directly is an important cultural practice in pest management
feeding on soybean and causing yield reduction, A. and is based on the principle of reducing insect pests by
glycines also threatens the productivity of soybean, increasing the diversity of an ecosystem (Risch, 2005).
because it is an important virus vector (Clark & Perry, Several studies indicate that diversification practices
2002; Halbert et al., 1986). A study by McCornack et such as intercropping are beneficial because these
al. (2008) reported that soybean yield reductions up to practices reduce pest damage. Therefore, there is a
40% was occurred when aphid infestations were heavy. need to develop soybean aphid management tools and
Moreover Wang & Ghabrial (2002) found that soybean- strategies that do not solely rely on agrochemicals. In
seed yields were reduced by 27.8% and plant height response to A. glycines problem, the field experiments
decreased by 20.2 cm in aphid-infested plants as were conducted to study the effects of two potential
compared to that in non-infested plants. pest management components, intercropping systems
Insecticides have been the primary pest and soil fertilizer management for the management of
management strategy used for soybean aphid control soybean aphids, A. glycines.
(Hodgson et al., 2010; Wang et al., 1993). Although
use of insecticides can be a quick and easy way to control MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. glycines, frequent applications of broad-spectrum
pesticides can lead to the buildup of aphid resistance to The Intercropping Experiment. Field study was
chemicals and resulting in more chemicals being used conducted to evaluate the effect of intercropping system
with potentially severe environmental side effects on soybean characteristics and the abundance of
(Altieri & Nicholls, 2003). Excessive use of these soybean aphid A. glycines at the agriculture college are,
chemicals in pest control generate ecological and the University of Lampung, from March to July 2010.
toxicological problems including acute and chronic The land was manually cleared and ridged with hoes.
human pesticide poisoning, animal poisoning, the Prior to soybean planting, natural rhizobium-root nodules
contamination of agricultural products, the destruction (from previous cultivated soybean fields) were
of beneficial natural enemies, and developing insecticide introduced to the soil to ensure the optimal plant growth.
resistance in pests (Altieri & Nicholls, 2003; Qu et al., An experiment was laid out under randomized complete
1987; Wang et al., 1993). block design on an area of 300 m2 (20 x 15 m) consisting
The various drawbacks of the use of insecticides 9 plots, representing 3 treatments (soybean monocrop,
for insect pests’ control lead to the adoption of pest 2:1 soybean/corn intercrop, and 3:1 soybean/corn
management strategies that are sustainable and intercrop), and each treatment was replicated three
environmentally sound (Altieri & Nicholls, 2003; Hsu et times. Each plot size was 3 m x 4 m with 1-m spacing
al., 2009; Myers et al., 2005). Cultural control including between plots.
soil fertilizer management and intercropping system is In the monoculture treatment, soybean seeds
an important alternative pest management as compared (local variety Anjasmoro) were sown 3 seeds per hole
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 25

in the whole plot at 15 x 45 cm spacing rows. While in Complete Block Design (RCBD) and each treatment
the 2:1 soybean/corn treatment, two rows of soybean was replicated three times. The plots were maintained
was sown at 45 cm x 15 cm within one row of corn that with no insecticide application and were hand weeded
was spaced at 90 cm by 30 cm. The 3:1 soybean/corn periodically. As in the first trial, the field was irrigated
intercrop treatment was three rows of soybean (spaced daily as required, depending on weather conditions and
at 40 cm x 10 cm) between one row of corn at 120 cm plant demands.
by 30 cm spacing. For each treatment, soybean and As soybean plants reached the V2 stage (three
corn was planted at the same time. A recommended weeks after planting), plants were artificially infested
dose of fertilizer (NPK urea 100 kg ha-1 + SP-36 200 with soybean aphid, A. glycines (Hemiptera:
kg ha-1 + KCl 200 kg ha-1) was applied at the time of Aphididae). Soybean aphids used in this study were from
sowing for both monocropping and intercropping plots. a laboratory colony which previously collected from
No insecticides were applied and weeds were removed soybean fields. After aphid infestation, ten plants were
manually. The field was irrigated daily as required, selected randomly from each as a sample site. Every
depending on weather conditions and plant demands. week, each sample plant was visually examined, and
Five individual plants were randomly chosen from the number of soybean aphid and natural enemies were
middle rows of each experimental unit and labeled for counted and plant phenology was recorded using the
recording the various observations. Sampling and method by Fehr et al. (1971). Seven weeks after planting
recording soybean aphid population were done from each (full bloom stage = R1), the height of each sample plant
respective plot at weekly intervals. Whereas, soybean was measured and numbers of leaves per plant were
plant height was assessed only at seven weeks after also recorded. At the end of sampling period, the number
planting (full bloom stage = R1); and soybean yield data of pods per plant, and the number seeds per pod were
(number of pods per plant; number of seeds per pod; recorded.
weight of 1000 seeds) were recorded at harvest.
Data Analysis. For intercropping system experiment,
Soil Fertilizer Experiment. Another field trial was means and standard errors (SEs) for soybean aphid
also conducted at the Agriculture College field, the densities; plant height, pod numbers per plant, seed
University of Lampung, from June to November 2010 numbers per pod; and 100 seed weight were calculated
to determine the effect of soil fertilizer treatment on and also were analyzed by analysis of variance
soybean aphid population and soybean growth (ANOVA) (PROC GLM procedure) followed by
parameters. The plot area used was 300 m2 (20 x 15 comparisons of means by the Fisher protected least
m). The field was ploughed and then the soil was leveled significant difference (LSD) test (significance level, P
and ridged mechanically in order to prepare suitable plots. = 0.05) (SAS, 2004). Moreover, the effect of
The treatments were arranged in plots, each measuring intercropping systems on the common mean (averaged
of 2 x 1.5 m with 0.5 m furrows spacing. The soybean across sampling periods) of soybean aphid densities was
variety used in this experiment was Anjasmoro (local presented graphically. For soil nutrition experiment,
variety). Prior to planting, natural rhizobium-root nodules means and SEs were assessed for soybean aphid
(from previous cultivated soybean fields) were densities, the plant performance (plant height, leaf
introduced to the soil to ensure the optimal plant growth. numbers, pod numbers, and dry weight/plant. The effects
Soybean was planted in 15 x 45 cm spacing rows by of soil fertilizer treatments were analyzed by analysis
placing three seeds per hole. Two weeks later (Vc stage of variance (ANOVA) (PROC GLM procedure)
as described by Fehr and Caviness (1977), each hill was followed by comparisons of means by the Fisher
thinned to two seedlings per stand. The treatments protected least significant difference (LSD) test
consist of the following soil fertilizer amendments: (significance level, P = 0.05) (SAS, 2004). As in the
T1=100 % Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF = first study, the common mean (averaged across sampling
NPK urea 100 kg ha-1 + SP-36 200 kg ha-1 + KCl 200 periods) of soybean aphid densities among soil fertilizer
kg ha -1 ); T2 = 75% RDF + Recommended Dose of treatments was also presented graphically. In addition,
Compost (RDC = compost rate = 20 ton ha-1); T3 = a linear correlation analysis (PROG CORR procedure)
50% RDF + 50% RDC + Dolomite (Dol = dolomite using the SAS program was performed to relate soybean
rate = 4 ton ha-1; T4 = 50% RDF + 50% RDC + Chicken aphid densities to soybean growth parameters (plant
Manure (CM = chicken manure rate = 10 ton ha-1). height, leaf numbers, pod numbers) (SAS, 2004).
The treatments were arranged in the Randomized
26 J. HPT Tropika Vol. 12, No. 1, 2012: 23 – 35

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION intercropping of collard plants; Theunissen & Den Ouden
(1980) recorded the effects of intercropping with
Intercropping Experiment. The results of studies Spergula arvensis on pests of Brussels sprouts, and
on the effect of intercropping soybean with corn on the Jankowska et al. (2009) concluded that the number of
aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) population are cabbage aphid Brevicoryne brassicae L. and flea
presented in Table 1 and Fig,1. This study revealed beetles Phyllotreta was significantly lower on
that the population of soybean aphids (assessed by direct intercropping plots in comparison with homogenous
count) was fluctuated and varied across different crops. Moreover Oso & Falade (2010) recorded that
intercropping systems for all sampling periods (Table intercropping cowpea and maize appears to be a
1). The aphid densities on soybean monoculture, 2:1 determinant factor for leaf infestation by insect pests.
soybean/corn intercrop, and 2:1 soybean/corn intercrop More recent works by Xie et al. (2012) indicated that
changed over sampling periods and ranged from a mean intercropping wheat, Triticum aestivum L., with mung
of 7.33 – 192.00; 6.33 – 99.00; 6.00 – 90.00 aphids per bean, Vigna radiate L suppresses English grain aphid,
plant, respectively. There were no significant differences Sitobion avenae population growth and preserves the
between the intercropping treatments in soybean aphid population of natural enemies of aphids and by Ramalho
population on the four early sampling periods. However, et al. (2012) showed that the fennel aphid, Hyadaphis
the significant effect of these intercropping systems on foeniculi populations were significantly larger in sole
the population of A. glicynes was observed on the fifth; fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) plots than in intercropped
sixth; seventh; and eighth sampling periods with F value plots. In a more broad perspective Langer et al. (2007)
and significance level of F2.6 = 15.56, p < 0.0037; F2.6 = and Mensah (1997) concluded that intercropping has a
31.79, p < 0.0001; F2.6 = 29.43, p < 0.001 F2,6 = 10.32, significant role in integrated pest management.
p < 0.0210, respectively. The results further revealed Lower pest density on intercropping systems may
that soybean aphid densities grown in 2:1 soybean/corn be due to the action of natural enemies in intercropping
intercrop and 3:1 soybean/corn intercrop was system on the natural enemy community. Diverse
significantly lower compare to those sole soybean. agroecosystem created by multiple cropping tend to
Similar results were also shown on data over the increase numbers of natural enemies (Andow, 1991;
course of the experiment in which soybean aphid density Elton, 1958; Jankowska, 2007). Other previous study
in 3:1 soybean/corn intercrop and 3:1 soybean/corn by Jankowska (2007) indicated that cabbage aphid
intercrop had a mean (means are averaged over parasitisation by Diaeretiella rapae was greater and
sampling periods) of 52.44 and 48.00 aphids per plant, the percentages of predatory Syrphidae to prey were
respectively, and this density was significantly lower more favorable on intercropping plots compared with
compared to the soybean monoculture (77.91 aphids/ the homogenous crops. Moreover Russell (1989)
plant) (Fig. 1). reported the enemies hypothesis and explained that
This finding was supported by other workers who predatory insects and parasitoids are more effective at
have shown that insect pest populations are often controlling populations of herbivores in diverse systems
reduced in intercropping system (Jankowska, 2007; of vegetation than in simple ones. Similar results by Bach
Mensah, 1997; Risch, 1983; Russell, 1989; Theunissen (1980) noted that intercrops or more diverse systems
et al., 1980). Moreover, Andow (1991) who analyzed tend to have high density of predators and parasitoids
209 studies involving 287 pest species indicated that the than mono crops, and hence lower insect infestation.
population of pest insects on intercropping system was One of the mechanisms that might lead to reduced
lower in 52% of the studies (149 species) compared insect attack in intercropping systems is the Enemies
with monocultures. Other previous study indicated that Hypothesis (Vandermeer, 1989; Root, 1973; Elton, 1958).
oviposition and emigration behavior of the leek moth Diverse agroecosystem created by multiple cropping
(Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae) and the diamondback moth tend to increase numbers of natural enemies (Andow,
(Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) was affected by intercropping 1991; Jankowska, 2007). Natural enemies are attracted
system (Asman et al., 2001). Approximately similar to diverse systems of shelter and alternative prey. The
results were reported in various published works as conservation of natural enemy populations is important
following: Booij et al. (1997) observed that as they regulate pest populations and reduce the number
intercropping cabbage with clover was effective in of pesticide applications (Landis et al., 2000). Moreover,
controlling ground beetles; Latheef et al. (1984) found Vandermeer (1989) proposed the disruptive crop
that Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: hypothesis to explain how vegetation diversity can
Chrysomelidae) populations significantly reduced on directly affect herbivore populations. His hypothesis is
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 27

Table 1. Mean ± SE number of soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) per plant among intercropping system

Sampling Mean aphids per plant

F-value Pr > FF
periods* A** B C
1 7.33 ± 0.753*** a 6.33 ± 0.58 a 6.00 ± 1.19 a 0.57 0.2780
2 19.00 ± 2.89 a 17.33 ± 3.67 a 18.33 ±3.23 a 3.56 0.1770
3 38.00 ± 3.92 a 34.66 ± 3.16 a 35.33 ± 4.01 a 5.62 0.0804
4 89.33 ± 7.55 a 76.33 ± 6.49 a 71.33 ± 6.93 a 6.21 0.0704
5 95.96 ± 25.21 a 88.33 ± 28.45 b 82.66 ± 30.07 b 15.56 0.0037
6 192.00 ± 28.33 a 99.00 ± 26.25 b 90.00 ± 22.21 b 31.79 <0.0001
7 123.96 ± 27.33 a 77.00 ± 21.45 b 63.66 ± 19.37 b 29.43 <0.0001
8 87.96 ± 5.92 a 49.33 ± 6.19 b 46.33 ± 5.92 b 10.32 0.0210
9 47.66 ± 4.33 a 33.66 ± 4.96 a 28.33 ± 4.02 a 5.21 0.0915

*Sampling occurred weekly and continued until harvest;

** Intercroping treatments: A = sole soybean, B = 2:1 soybean/corn intercropping, C = 3:1
soybean/corn intercropping
*** Values within the same row followed by the same letters are not significantly different
at the 5% significance level according to Fisher protected least significant difference
(LSD) test.

Figure 1. Common mean number (averaged over sampling periods) of soybean aphids Aphis glycines, per plant
on soybean monoculture and soybean-corn intercropping. Means bearing the same letter are not signifi-
cantly different at the 5% significance level according to Fisher protected least significant difference
(LSD) test.

equivalent to Root’s (1973) resource concentration other than pest control. Besides an alteration in the host
hypothesis and stipulates that a second plant species plant environment of intercropping systems that directly
disrupts the ability of an insect to efficiently attack its affect herbivore population dynamics, crop plants
proper host. intercropping systems also have consequences for plant
In addition, numerous previous studies have growth and yield performances. Herbert et al. (1984)
indicated that the intercropping may have other benefits and Wiley & Osiru (1972) observed that corn yield was
28 J. HPT Tropika Vol. 12, No. 1, 2012: 23 – 35

increased when corn intercropped with soybean. components for growth resources (light, water, nutrients,
Moreover, Biabani et al. (2008) reported that two air). One explanation for the variation in results might
intercropped soybean cultivars improve the final seed be that different cultivars respond differently to various
yield. In general, Carruthers et al. (1998) reported that intercropping system such as planting pattern and
intercropping systems influence yield variables of the planting dates
component crops, such as harvest index, hundred seed
weight, number of reproductive organs and number of Soil Fertilizer Experiment. The results of second
seeds, within each reproductive unit. trial indicated that soil nutrient treatment had a significant
These previous works were in contrast with our impact on soybean aphid population. Soybean aphid
findings that presented in Table 2. The result indicated densities varied significantly among the soil fertilizer
that there was a non-significant effect of soybean/corn treatments across sampling periods, except at the first
intercropping on soybean growth characteristic: plant sampling. The seasonal population densities of soybean
height (F =1.326; df = 2.6; P < 0.2119) (Table 2). aphid were significantly lower on soybean plants grown
Moreover, analysis of variance on soybean yield with organic fertilizer (treatment B = NPK + Compost;
components showed that there was no significant effect treatment C = NPK + compost + dolomite; treatment D
on the number soybean seeds per pod (F =1.8920; df = = compost + chicken manure), compared with those on
2.6; P < 0.1293) and thousand seed weight of soybean plants grown with only inorganic fertilizer (treatment A
(F = 5.5740; df = 2.6; P < 0.0845) when intercropped = 100% NPK). Mean number of soybean aphids in the
with corn at any soybean/corn ratio. However, the treatment of only inorganic fertilizer; NPK + Compost;
number of soybean pods per plant (F = 7.7850; df = NPK + compost + dolomite; compost + chicken manure
2.6; P < 0.0345) was significantly higher when ranged from 5.33 - 267.96; 3.66 - 73.32; 3.70 - 64.00;
intercropped with corn. These results are somewhat in 2.50 - 19.43 per plant across all sampling periods,
agreement with Herbert et al. (1984) who reported that respectively (Table 3). Soybean aphid densities on plants
pod number per plant was the most responsive fertilized with 100% recommended dose of inorganic
component of soybean yield to changes in plant quality fertilizer (RDF = NPK) significantly changed over time
traits. Similarly, Biabani et al. (2008) and Whigham & and peaked on the sixth sampling period with a mean of
Bharati (1983) observed that the higher yield of soybean 267.96 aphids/plant. However, aphid densities declined
was obtained from plant grown in intercropping system. slightly by the final sampling period with 192 aphids/
These findings are also in close conformity with those plant. The lowest numbers of soybean aphid throughout
reported by Adeniyan & Ayoola (2006) who found that the 9-weeks experiment was that in the treatment of
yield performance of soybean planted at the same time manure and compost with a peak of 17.33 aphids/plant
with corn was better than sole soybean. However, these on the sixth sampling period (Table 3).
findings are contrasted with reports by other workers Morever, significant soil fertilizer effects were
(Raji, 2007; Addo-Quaye et al., 2011; Hayder et al., also detected on common mean (means were averaged
2003) who recorded that maize-soybean intercropping over sampling period) and is presented in Fig. 2. The
system significantly reduced soybean yield. In addition, results indicated that soil nutrient treatment had a
Egbe (2010) explained that the yield reduction of the significant impact on soybean aphid population (F3,8 =
intercropped soybean might be associated with 5.99; P < 0.0456). Soybean plants treated with 100%
interspecific competition between the intercrop chemical fertilizer NPK (RDF = treatment 1) were

Table 2. The effects of intercropping on soybean growth morphological an d yield characteristics

Treatment Plant Heigh t (cm) Pod s/plant Seed s/pod 100 0 seed weight (gr)
Sole soybean 47.80 ± 3.49 24.30 ± 3 .21 b* 2.0 ± 1 .39 96.23 ± 3.51
2:1 intercrop 48.90 ± 5.23 25.83 ± 3.85 ab 1.95 ± 0.99 102.34 ± 3.59
3:1 intercrop 50.4 ± 6.13 27.67 ± 3.17 a 1.70 ± 0.56 108.27 ± 3.67
F Value 1.3 260 7.7850 1.8920 5.5740
Pr > F 0.1 419 0.0345 0.1293 0.0845
* Values within the same column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the 5%
significance level according to Fisher protected least significant difference (LSD) test.
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 29

colonized by the highest aphid numbers (129.30 aphids/ has an impact on nutritional elements in plant that
plant), and this density was significantly higher compared subsequently can affect susceptibility of plants to insect
with other treatments. In contrast, treatment 50% RDF pests.
+ 50% RDC + CM (treatment 4) supported the lowest Numerous studies have shown that the ability of
number (8.8 aphids/plant) of soybean aphids (Table 4). a crop plant to resist or tolerate insect pests and diseases
Based on this result, it can be concluded that soil nutrient is tied to optimal physical, chemical and mainly biological

Tab le 3. Mean nu mb er of soybean aphids A . glycines per plant on fou r soil fer tilizer tr eatme nts .

Time of* M ean ap hids p er p lant

F-value Pr > FF
Samp ling A** B C D
1 5.33 ** * 3 .66 3.7 0 2.50 0.5 7 0.2780
2 22.50 a 18.5 ab 14.82 b 5. 33 c 5.5 6 0.0037
3 118.98 a 3 7.32 b 22 .66 c 7.2 5 d 16.6 2 0.0004
4 147.96 a 4 5.32 b 39.00 bc 8. 50 c 8.8 2 0.0029
5 195.96 a 7 3.32 b 29 .32 c 1 2.50 d 31.7 9 <0.00 01
6 267.96 a 7 0.00 b 64.00 b 1 7.33 c 16.4 8 0.0003
7 192.00 a 6 0.00 b 48 .00 c 1 1.33 d 19.4 3 <0.00 01
8 123.96 a 2 9.32 b 32.66 b 9. 60 c 10.3 2 0.0021
9 87.96 a 1 9.32 b 22.00 b 4. 50 c 11.2 1 0.0015
*Sampling were done weekly and continued until harvest.
** Soil fertilizer treatments : A = 100% 100 % Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) NPK (100 kg urea/ha +
200 kg SP-36/ha + 200 kg KCl/ha); B = 75% RDF + Recommended Dose of Compost (RDC= 20 ton/ha); C
= 50% RDF + RDC (10 ton/ha )+ dolomite (4 ton/ha); D = 50% RDF + RDC (10 ton/ha) + chicken manure
(10 ton/ha).
*** Values within the same row followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability
level based on Fisher protected least significant difference (LSD) test.

Figure 2. Common mean number soybean aphids per plant treated with different soil fertilizer: 1= 100% 100 %
Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) NPK (100 kg urea/ha + 200 kg SP-36/ha + 200 kg KCl/ha); 2
= 75% RDF + Recommended Dose of Compost (RDC= 20 ton/ha); 3= 50% RDF + RDC (10 ton/ha )
+ dolomite (4 ton/ha); 4 = 50% RDF + RDC (10 ton/ha) + chicken manure (10 ton/ha). Means bearing
the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% significance level according to Fisher protected
least significant difference (LSD) test.
30 J. HPT Tropika Vol. 12, No. 1, 2012: 23 – 35

T ab le 4. E ffect of various com binations o f organic and inorganic fertilizers on the so ybean growth
parameters

Leaf Pod Plant height (cm )

T reatments
nu mb ers/p lant numb ers/plant
T1=100 % Reco mm end ed D os e of 10.4b 1 16.6c 6 4.6b
Fertilizer (RDF)2
T2= 75 % RDF + R eco mm end ed D ose 1 7.3a 3 2.9b 79.4 a
of C omp ost (RDC) 3
T3= 50 % RDF+ 5 0% RDC + Dolom ite 1 4.0a 47 .8ab 71.0 ab
(Dol) 4
T4=50 % RDF+ 50% RDC + Chicken 1 4.3a 52.8a 77.4 a
Manure (CM)5
P>F 0.01 19 0.0023 0.0293
1)
Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05) according to
Fisher protected least significant difference (LSD) test using PROG GLM Procedure of SAS (SAS Institute Inc.,
1988); 2) RDF= Recommended Dose of Fertilizer = NPK (urea 100 kg ha-1 + SP-36 200 kg ha-1 + KCl 200 kg ha-
1) 3)
; compost rate =20 ton ha-1; 4) dolomite rate =4 ton ha-1; 5) chicken manure rate =10 ton ha-1.

properties of soils. Soils with high organic matter and soybean plant performances: leaf numbers (F3,8 = 7.13;
high biological activity generally exhibit good soil P < 0.0119); pod numbers (F3,8 = 12.24; P < 0.0023)
properties (Altieri & Nicholls, 2003; Eigenbrode & and plant height (F3,8 = 5.09; P < 0.0293). Soybean plants
Pimentel, 1988; Magdoff & van Es., 2000; Meyer and fertilized with 100% recommended dose of fertilizer
Root. 1996). Plants grown on organically managed soils, (RDF = NPK) had 10.33 leaves/plant in average and
fertilized with manure, and compost have shown to be this number was significantly lower than that of other
less favorable hosts for insect pests than plants grown treatments: 17.33 leaves at 75% RDF + RDC; 14.67
on conventionally managed soils fertilized with synthetic leaves at 50% RDF + 50% recommended dose of
fertilizers (Eigenbrode & Pimentel, 1988; Phelan et al., compost (RDC) + dol., and 14.00 leaves at 50% RDF
1995). Moreover, Phelan et al. (1995) and (1996) level + 50% RDC + CM (LSD = 3.5225; P < 0.05)
suggested that reduced susceptibility of plants to pests (Table 4). Moreover, pod numbers of soybean plant
may mediated by soil fertility management. Other earlier fertilized with 50% RDF + 50% RDC + CM treatment
field studies (Alyokhin & Atlihan, 2005) showed (52.67 pods/plant) were significantly higher than that
consistent reduction in the densities of Colorado potato of 75% RDF + RDC treatment (33.00 pods/plant) and
beetle larvae and summer-generation adults on potatoes 100% RDF treatment (16.67 pods/plant), however no
grown in manure-amended soils. According to Myers significantly difference (48.00 pods) with 50% RDF +
& Gratton (2006), densities of soybean aphids 50% RDC + dol. treatment (LSD = 15.17; P = < 0.05).
populations were significantly affected by potassium (K) Meanwhile, plant height of soybean fertilized with 50%
treatment. Low K levels tended to have the highest rates RDF + 50% RDC + CM treatment was 79.33 cm and
of soybean aphid population growth. Based on their this height was significantly taller than that of 100%
studies, they provided a strong evidence that variation RDF (64.33 cm) (LSD = 9.17; P < 0.05), but lack of
in K plays an important role in influencing soybean aphid significant differences when compared to 50% NPK
population dynamics. Meanwhile, Hu et al. (1992) level + 50% RDC + dol. (73.33 cm) and 50% RDF
found that there was a relationship between the nitrogen level + 50% RDC + CM treatments (79.33 cm) (Table
content in soybean leaves and occurrence degree of A. 4).
glycines. Soybean aphid populations increased as The results of this study confirm that the form of
nitrogen content in leaves increased and vise versa. fertilization input can significantly influence the plant
In addition to soybean aphid population, the effects growth. Moreover, this finding suggest that decreasing
of soil fertilizer on plant growth parameters were also synthetic fertilizer NPK by 50% can be compensated
recorded. The results of this study demonstrated that by natural organic materials such as composts and
soil nutrition treatments had significant effects on the chicken manure. Umoetok et al. (2002) found similar
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 31

results which indicated that both NPK and poultry plant height, number of leaves, and number of pods;
manure significantly affected the plant height, number however the significance levels among plant attributes
of pods per plant of soybean plants. In more detail, varied. Leaf numbers was weak (P > R = 0.0603)
their results explained that the plant height and pod negatively associated with soybean aphid infestation;
numbers was significantly higher when inorganic whereas the strong (P > R = 0.0008) negative correlation
fertilizer NPK was combined with poultry manure. The was gained on pod numbers and aphid densities
combination of inorganic fertilizer, compost, and chicken relationship (Fig. 3). This finding in which soybean aphids
manure has a reasonable nutrient balance in the soils in infestation can reduce soybean plant performance in
which would be available for the soybean uptake (Myers agreement with numerous works by Myers et al. (2005);
et al., 2005; Pedersen, 2004; Magdoff & van Es, 2000). Sinclair & de Wit (1976) who found that soybean aphid
Past study by Karungi et al. (2006) showed that plant’s populations respond to nutrient availability in soybean.
biomass production gaining from composted soils was Moreover, Umoetok et al. (2002) reported that higher
comparable and sometimes even higher than those NPK synthetic fertilizer inputs may lead to higher levels of
treatments. Other previous studies suggested that insect pests of soybean (Glycine max. L.). Other
indicated that plants that received organic fertilizer had previous studies indicated that soybean aphid infestations
higher above ground biomass accumulation compared may also cause leaf yellowing and curling, plant stunting
with those with synthetic fertilizers (Hsu et al. (2009). reduced branch number, lower pod and seed counts,
Moreover, the study by Altieri and Nicholls (2003) reduced seed weight, and, under severe infestations,
showed that soil fertility management can have several plant death (Blackman and Eastop, 2000; Dixon, 1977;
effects on plant quality, which in turn, can affect insect Macedo et al., 2003; Li et al., 2000; Ragsdale et al.,
abundance and subsequent levels of herbivore damage. 2007; Wu et al., 1999). Our finding was more closely
A linear correlation analysis was performed to related with the works of Wang et al. (1994) who found
understand the relationship between soybean aphid that the number of soybean aphids per plant was
population and plant nutrients and the results were negatively correlated with plant height, number of pods,
presented in Fig. 3. Number of soybean aphids, A. and number of seeds per plant of soybean.
glycines, was negatively correlated with plant variables:

Figure 3. The relationship between soybean aphid population and the soybean growth parameters (plant height,
number of leaves, and number of pods).
32 J. HPT Tropika Vol. 12, No. 1, 2012: 23 – 35

CONCLUSIONS Altieri MA & Nicholls CI. 2003. Soil fertility

management and insect pests: harmonizing soil
The results of intercropping study indicated that the and plant health in agroecosystems. Soil and
number of soybean aphid, population density was Tillage Research 72:203-211.
significantly lower on plots where soybean was
Alyokhin A & Atlihan R. 2005. Reduced fitness of the
intercropped with corn in comparison with those on sole
Colorado potato beetle on potato plants grown in
soybean. There was no significant effect of intercropping
manure-amended soil. Environ. Entomol. 34:
on soybean plant height, number seed per pod, and
963-968.
weight of 1000 seeds. However the number of soybean
pods per plant was significantly higher when soybean Asman K, Ekbom B & Rämert B. 2001. Effect of
intercropped with corn. Concerning to the various results intercropping on oviposition and emigration
by other workers, the development of intercropping as behavior of the leek moth (Lepidoptera:
a pest management strategy must be based on Acrolepiidae) and the diamondback moth
knowledge of the behavior and biology of the target pest. (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environ. Entomol. 30:
Meanwhile, the soil nutrition treatments had significant 288-294.
effects on the soybean growth: leaf numbers, pod Bach CE. 1980. Effects of plant diversity and time of
numbers, and plant height. This finding suggest that colonisation on an herbivore plant interaction.
reducing the amount of synthetic chemical fertilizer Oecologia 44: 319-326.
NPK can be supplemented with natural organic materials
such as composts and chicken manure. Biabani A, Hashemib M & Herbert SJ. 2008. Agronomic
performance of two intercropped soybean
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS cultivars. Int. J. of Plant Production 2 (3): 215-
222.
We thank Widyaningrum and Giwantoro for assistance Blackman RL & Eastop VF. 2000. Aphids on the
with insect colony establishment and fieldwork Worlds Crops: an identification and
maintenance. This research was funded by the Strategic information guide. Wiley, New York.
Grant in the year 2010 - Directorate General of Higher
Education. Booij CJH, Noorlander J & Theunissen, J. 1997.
Intercropping cabbage with clover: Effects on
REFERENCES ground beetles. Biol. Agricul. and Hort. 15: 261-
268.
Adeniyan ON & Ayoola O T. 2006. Growth and yield Carruthers K, Fe Q, Cloutier D & Smith DL. 1998.
performance of some improved soybean varieties Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and
as influenced by intercropping with maize and forages: yield component responses. European
cassava in two contrasting locations in Southwest J. of Agronomy. 8 (3-4): 225-238.
Nigeria. African J. Biotechnol. 5: 1886-1889.
Clark AJ & Perry KL. 2002. Transmissibility of field
Addo-Quaye AA, Darkwa AA & Ocloo GK. 2011. isolates of soybean viruses by Aphis glycines.
Growth analysis of component crops in a maize- Plant Dis. 86: 1219-1222.
soybean intercropping system as affected by time
of planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN J. Dixon AFG. 1977. Aphid ecology: life cycle,
Agric.l Biol. Sci. 6(6): 34-44. polymorphism, and population regulation. Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. 8: 329-353.
Andow DA. 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropod
population response. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36: 561- Egbe OM. 2010. Effects of plant density of intercropped
568. soybean with tall sorghum on competitive ability
of soybean and economic yield at Otobi, Benue
Alleman RJ, Grau CR & Hogg DB. 2002. Soybean State, Nigeria. J. Cereals & Oilseeds 1:1–10.
aphid host range and virus transmission efficiency,
In Proceedings, Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime, and Eigenbrode SD & Pimentel D. 1988. Effects of manure
Pest Management, 15-17 January, Madison, WI. and chemical fertilizers on insect pest populations
on collards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 20: 199-
125.
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 33

Elton CS. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Plants Diaeretiella rapae M’Intosh and predatory
and Animals. Methuen and Co., London, Syrphidae. Aphids and Other Hemipterous
England. 209 pp. Insects 13: 199-209.
Fehr WR & Caviness CE. 1977. Stages of Soybean Jankowska B, Poniedzia³ek M & Jêdrszcz E. 2009.
Development, pp. 1-11, Special Report 80. Iowa Effect of intercropping white cabbage with
State University Co-op Extension Service, Ames, French Marigold (Tagetes patula nana L.) and
IA. Pot Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) on the
colonization of plants by pest insects. Ann. Folia
Herbert SJ, Putnam DH, Poos-Floyd M, Vargas A &
Horticulturae 21 (1): 95-103.
Creighton JF, 1984. Forage yield of intercropped
corn and soybean in various planting patterns. Karungi J, Ekbom B & Kyamanywa S. 2006. Effects
Agron. J. 76: 507-510. of organic versus conventional fertilizer on insect
pests, natural enemies and yield of Phaseolus
Halbert SE, Zhang GX & Pu ZQ. 1986. Comparison
vulgaris. Ag. Eco. & Environ. 115:51-55.
of sampling methods for alate aphids and
observation on epidemilogy of soybean mosaic Landis DA, Wratten SD & Gurr GM. 2000. Habitat
virus in Nanjing, China. Ann. Appl. Biol. 109:473- management to conserve natural enemies of
483. arthropod pests in agriculture. Ann. Rev. Entomol.
Hayder G, Mumtaz SS, Khan A & Khan S. 2003. Corn 45:175-201
and soybean intercropping under various levels Langer V, Kinane J & Lyngkjær M. 2007. Intercropping
of soybean seed rates. Asian J. of Plant Sci. for pest management: The ecological concept.
2:339-341. In: Ecologically Based Integrated Pest
Hill JH, Alleman HR, Hogg B & Grau CR. 2001. First Management. Koul, O & Cupreus, GW (eds.),
report of transmission of Soybean mosaic virus Cabi Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
and Alfalfa mosaic virus by Aphis glycines in Latheef MA, Ortiz J & Sheikh AQ. 1984. Influence of
the New World. Plant Dis. 85:561. inter cropping on Phyllotreta cruciferae
Hodgson EW, VanNostrand G & O’Neal ME. 2010. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) populations on
2010 yellow book: report of insecticide evaluation collard plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 77: 1180-1184.
for soybean aphid. Department of Entomology, Letourneau DK, Drinkwater LE & Shennan C. 1996.
Iowa State University, Publication 287–10. Effects of soil management on crop nitrogen and
Hsu YT, Shen TC & Hwang SY. 2009. Soil Fertility insect damage in organic vs. conventional tomato
Management and Pest Responses: A Comparison fields. Agric.Ecosyst. Environ. 57: 179-187.
of Organic and Synthetic Fertilization. J. Econ. Letourneau DK & Goldstein B. 2001. Pest damage and
Entomol. 102: 160-169. arthropod community structure in organic vs.
Hu Q, Zhang W, Yao Y & Yan S. 1992. The conventional tomato production in California. J.
relationship between the nitrogen content in Appl. Ecol. 38: 557-570.
soybean leaves and occurrence degree of Aphis Li C, Luo R ,Yang C, Shang Y, Zhao J & Xin X. 2000.
glycines Matsumura. J. Jilin Agric. Univ. 14: Studies on the biology and control of Aphis
103-104. glycines. Soyb. Sci. 19: 337-340.
Irwin ME. Ruesink, WG, Isard SA & Kampmeier GE. Macedo TB, Bastos CS, Higley LG, Ostlie KR
2000. Mitigating epidemics caused by non- &Madhavan S. 2003. Photosynthetic responses
persistently transmitted aphid-borne viruses: the of soybean to soybean aphid (Homoptera:
role of pliant environment. Virus Research Aphididae) injury. J. Econ. Entomol. 96: 188-
71:185-211. 193.
Jankowska B. 2007. Impact of intercropping white Magdoff F & van Es H. 2000. Building Soils for Better
cabbage with Pot Marigold (Calendula Crops. Sustainable Agriculture Research and
officinalis L.) and French Marigold (Tagetes Education,Washington, DC.
patula nana) on the occurrence of cabbage aphid
(Brevicoryne brassicae L.), its parasitoid
34 J. HPT Tropika Vol. 12, No. 1, 2012: 23 – 35

McCornack BP, Costamagna AC & Ragsdale DW. Qu YX, Ma ZQ, Shan DA, Gao XH, & Wang QS. 1987.
2008. Within-Plant Distribution of Soybean Aphid Effects of insecticides on population of destructive
(Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Development of insects and their natural enemies in the soybean
Node-Based Sample Units for Estimating Whole- field. Plant Prot. 13: 4 - 6.
Plant Densities in Soybean. J. Econ. Entomol.
Ragsdale DW, McCormack BP, Venette RC, Potter
101(4): 1488-1500.
BD, MacCrae IV, Hodgson EW, O’NeaL ME,
Mensah GWK. 1997. Integrated Pest Management in Johnson KD, O’Neil RJ, Difonzo CD, Hunt TE,
cowpea through intercropping and minimal Glogaza PA, & E. . Cullen M. 2007. Economic
insecticide application. Annals. of Plant Protec. threshold for soybean aphid (Hemiptera:
Sci. 5:1-14. Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 100: 1258-1267.
Meyer GA & Root RB. 1996. Influence of feeding guild Raji JA. 2007. Intercropping soybean and maize in a
on insect response to host plant fertilization. derived savanna ecology. African J. Biotech. 6:
Ecol.Entomol. 21: 270-278. 1885-1887.
Myers SW & Gratton C. 2006. Influence of Potassium Ramalho FS, Fernandes FS, Nascimento
Fertility on Soybean Aphid, Aphis glycines ARB, Nascimento JL, Malaquias JB & Silva.
Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Population 2012. Assessment of Fennel Aphids (Hemiptera:
Dynamics at a Field and Regional Scale. Environ. Aphididae) and Their Predators in Fennel
Entomol. 35: 219-227. Intercropped With Cotton With Colored Fibers .
J. Econ. Entomol. 105: 113-119.
Myer s SW, Hogg DB & Wedberg JL. 2005.
Determining the optimal timing of foliar insecticide Risch SJ. 1983. Intercropping as cultural pest control:
applications for control of soybean aphid prospects and limitations. Environ. Manag. 7:
(Hemiptera: Aphididae) on soybean. J. Econ. 9-14.
Entomol. 98: 2006-2012.
Root R. 1973. Organisation of a plant-arthropod
Ofori F & Stern WR.1987. Cereal-legume intercropping association in simple and diverse habitats.The
systems. Adv. Agron. 41: 41-90. fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea).
Ecological Monographs 43: 95-124.
Oso AA & Falade MJ. 2010. Effects of Variety and
Spatial Arrangement on Pest Incidence,Damage Russell EP. 1989. Enemies hypothesis: a review of the
and Subsequent Yield of Cowpea in a Cowpea/ effect of vegetational diversity on predatory
Maize Intercrop. World J. of Agricultural Sci. insects and parasitoids. Environ. Entomol. 18:
6 (3): 274-276. 590-599.
Pedersen, P. 2004. Soybean growth and development. SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT User of Guide, version
Iowa State University, University Extension, 6.12. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Ames, IA
Sinclair TR & de Wit CT. 1976. Analysis of the carbon
Phelan PL, Mason JF & B Stinner R. 1995. Soil fertility and nitrogen limitations to soybean yield. Agron.
management and host preference by European J. 68: 319-324.
corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner), on Zea
Theunissen J & Den Ouden H. 1980. Effects of
mays L.: a comparison of organicandconventional
intercropping with Spergula arvensis on pests
chemical farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 56:
of Brussels sprouts. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 27: 260-
1-8.
268.
Phelan PL, Norris KH, & Mason JF. 1996. Soil
Umoetok SBA, Uko AE, Archibong BE, Ukeh DA &
management history and host preference by
Udo IA. 2002. Effect of application of inorganic
Ostrinia nubilalis: evidence for plant mineral
fertilizer and poultry manure on insect pests and
balance mediating insect- plant interactions.
yield of soybean (Glycine max L.) in the rain
Environ. Entomol. 25: 1329-1336.
forest zone of Nigeria. Entomol. Experim.
Appl.104:109-116.
Hasibuan & Lumbanraja The Impact of Soybean and Intercropping System 35

van den Berg H, Ankasah D, Mahammad A, Rusli R, Whigham DK & Bharati MP. 1983. Soybean sole
Widayanto HA, Wirasto HB & Yully I. 1997. cropping and intercropping in Temperate and
Evaluating the role of predation in population Subtropical Environments. In soybean in Tropical
fuctuations of the soybean aphid Aphis glycines and Subtropical Cropping Systems. Proceedings
in farmer fields in Indonesia. J. Appl. Ecol. 34: of a symposium Tsukuba, Japan. pp. 137-147.
971- 984.
Wiley RW & Osiru DSO. 1972. Studies on mixtures of
Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. maize and beans with particular reference to plant
populations. J. Agri. Sci. 79:517-529.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Wu, XB, Ni WJ, & Liu P . 1999. Occurrence and control
Wang RY & Ghabrial SA. 2002. Effect of aphid behavior
of the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura.
on efficiency of transmission of Soybean mosaic
virus by the soybean-colonizing aphid, Chin. J. Biol. Control 6: 20
Aphisglycines. Plant Dis. 86: 1260-1264. Wu Z, Schenk-Hamlin D, Zhanb W, Ragsdale DW, &
Wang, XB, Fang YH, Lin SZ, Zhang LR, & Wang HD. Heimpel GE. 2004. The soybean aphid in China:
1994. A study on the damage and economic ahistorical review. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 97:
threshold of the soybean aphid at the seedling 209-218.
stage. Plant Prot. 20: 12-13 Xie H, Ju-Lian C, Deng-Fa C, Zhou H, Jing-Rui
S, Yong L & Frédéric F. 2012. Impact of Wheat-
Wang S, Shen DA & Ma ZQ. 1993. Insecticide influence
Mung Bean Intercropping on English Grain Aphid
on populations of major insect pests and natural
(Hemiptera: Aphididae) Populations and Its
enemies at the soybean seedling stage. Entomol.
Natural Enemy. J. Econ. Entomol. 105: 854-
Knowl. 30: 333-335.
859.