DOI: 10.5061/dryad.dr7sqvb52
title: Data from: Plastic mulches reduce abundance of some arthropods but are not detrimental to pollinators in primocane raspberries

description: Cultural practices modify agroecosystems to prevent or reduce pest
 outbreaks, but they may be detrimental to beneficial arthropods and
 non-target effects are not commonly evaluated. Plastic mulches are an
 effective management practice for spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila
 suzukii Matsumura) since they increase UV radiance in the plant canopy to
 reduce larval infestation of fruit. In this two-year study, we evaluated
 how black, white, and metallic plastic mulches impact populations of
 arthropods, including predators of D. suzukii and raspberry pollinators in
 Wisconsin. The three plastic mulches did not affect arthropod richness and
 did not affect the abundance of about 65% of arthropod groups identified.
 In the raspberry canopy, the black mulch decreased the abundance of
 Orthoptera and Thysanoptera and increased Orius spp.;
 the white mulch increased Diptera, Thysanoptera, and Orius spp.; and the
 metallic mulch decreased Coleoptera, micro-Hymenoptera, Orthoptera, and
 Thysanoptera. On the ground, all mulches decreased the abundance of
 Gryllidae, the black and metallic increased Formicidae, and the white
 increased Staphylinidae. We reported ten insect groups visiting raspberry
 flowers. Bombus impatiens Cresson was the most common, accounting for 82%
 of flower visits. The plastic mulches did not reduce flower visitation,
 though the white plastic mulch increased the abundance of B. impatiens
 compared to the other mulch treatments. Plastic mulches can reduce
 populations of pests such as D. suzukii and overall have no severe
 non-target effects on other arthropods in Wisconsin raspberry.
description: We assessed populations of arthropods
 using two types of traps set up when <em>D. suzukii
 </em>adults were present in early July until early October 2021 and
 2022. In the canopy, we trapped arthropods using 15.25
 cm<sup>2</sup> clear sticky cards (Alpha Scents, West Linn,
 OR) placed where fruit was present in the center of each plot in all five
 blocks and replaced weekly.  To account for changes in canopy height as
 the plants grew, the sticky cards were adjusted vertically as needed.  On
 the ground, we used pitfall traps made from 532 mL 9.9 cm diameter plastic
 cups placed into holes in the ground so the top of the cups were flush
 with the soil or mulch surface. For the plastic mulch treatments, a 20
 cm<sup>2</sup><sup> </sup> piece of mulch was hot
 glued (© Stanley Black and Decker, Inc., worldwide) on the top of each
 cup, and the section covering the trap opening was cut out so that the
 mulch formed an apron around the trap. The traps were placed into the
 holes so that the mulch aprons covered the in-field mulch to prevent
 insects from falling between the in-field mulch edge and the cup. Four
 wires were attached to the lip of each cup to suspend a 10 cm diameter
 clear plastic cup lid 3 cm above the top of the trap to block rainwater
 and non-arthropod bycatch. Pitfall traps were filled with 150 mL of
 drowning solution (30% propylene glycol diluted with water and one squirt
 of unscented dish soap) for three days each week in all five
 blocks.  Arthropods trapped
 on the sticky cards or in the pitfall traps were identified to different
 taxonomic levels, with non-Insecta classified as Araneae, mites,
 Opiliones, Collembola, or Diplopoda, insects identified to order, and
 predators and known natural enemies of <em>D. suzukii</em>
 (Lee et al., 2019) identified further.
description: # Trapping data of arthropods from manuscript: Plastic mulches reduce
 abundance of some arthropods but are not detrimental to pollinators in
 primocane raspberries We
 assessed populations of arthropods using two types of traps set up when
 *D. suzukii* adults were present in early July until early October 2021
 and 2022. In the canopy, we trapped arthropods using 15.25 cm2 clear
 sticky cards (Alpha Scents, West Linn, OR) placed where fruit was present
 in the center of each plot in all five blocks and replaced weekly.  To
 account for changes in canopy height as the plants grew, the sticky cards
 were adjusted vertically as needed.  On the ground, we used pitfall traps
 made from 532 mL 9.9 cm diameter plastic cups placed into holes in the
 ground so the top of the cups were flush with the soil or mulch surface.
 For the plastic mulch treatments, a 20 cm2 piece of mulch was hot glued (©
 Stanley Black and Decker, Inc., worldwide) on the top of each cup, and the
 section covering the trap opening was cut out so that the mulch formed an
 apron around the trap. The traps were placed into the holes so that the
 mulch aprons covered the in-field mulch to prevent insects from falling
 between the in-field mulch edge and the cup. Four wires were attached to
 the lip of each cup to suspend a 10 cm diameter clear plastic cup lid 3 cm
 above the top of the trap to block rainwater and non-arthropod bycatch.
 Pitfall traps were filled with 150 mL of drowning solution (30% propylene
 glycol diluted with water and one squirt of unscented dish soap) for three
 days each week in all five blocks.  Arthropods trapped on the sticky cards
 or in the pitfall traps were identified to different taxonomic levels,
 with non-Insecta classified as Araneae, mites, Opiliones, Collembola, or
 Diplopoda, insects identified to order, and predators and known natural
 enemies of *D. suzukii* (Lee et al., 2019) identified further. ##
 Description of the data and file structure The data is organized in two
 files for either pitfall traps or sticky cards. In there, the data is
 organized by date, year, block (5 blocks), treatment (4 treatments) and
 then numbers of each broad classifications of arthropods. **Data file:
 Sticky_card_data_JAE.csv** SWD_female: *Drosophila suzukii* females
 SWD_male: *Drosophila suzukii* males Total_arthropods: all arthropods
 counted in previous columns Total_SWD: SWD_female + SWD_male
 Total_general_predators: sum of all predators (Spiders + Opiliones + Ants
 + Earwigs + Orius + Nabidae + Lady_beetle + Long_leg_fly + Chrysopidae +
 Gryllidae + Staphylinid + Carabid + Vespid) Total_pollinators: sum of all
 pollinators (Other_bumblebee + Honeybee + Other_bee + B_impatiens +
 Small_dark_bee + Large_dark_bee + Green_bee + Vespid) If value is NA, data
 was missing on data sheet. **Data file: Pitfall_data_JAE.csv** SWD_female:
 *Drosophila suzukii* females SWD_male: *Drosophila suzukii* males
 Total_arthropods: all arthropods counted in previous columns Total_SWD:
 SWD_female + SWD_male Total_general_predators: sum of all predators
 (Spiders + Opiliones + Ants + Earwigs + Orius + Nabidae + Carabid +
 Staphylinid + Coccinellid + Chrysopidae + Gryllidae)  If value is NA, data
 was missing on data sheet. ## Code/Software All analyses were conducted in
 R Studio version 2022.07.2 (RStudio Team, 2020).  For all models with
 significant fixed effects, Tukey post-hoc tests were performed to evaluate
 pairwise comparisons among the mulch treatments and interacting effects.
 Canopy arthropod and predator abundance were square-root transformed and
 ground arthropod abundance was natural log transformed, and all were
 analyzed using ordinary least squares linear models. Canopy arthropod and
 predator richness, ground arthropod and predator richness and ground
 predator abundance, and flower visitor abundance and richness from both
 flower visitation observation types were analyzed using generalized linear
 models with Quasi-Poisson distributions. Each of the groups with &gt;30
 observations recorded in the sticky cards (n=17) or pitfall traps (n=15)
 were modeled separately using generalized linear models with Quasi-Poisson
 distributions, negative binomial models, or ordinary least squares linear
 models with square-root transformed response variables (Table 2). The only
 flower visitor with &gt;30 observations was *Bombus impatiens*, which was
 modeled using generalized linear models with Poisson distributions for
 both flower visitation observation types. The fixed effects for all models
 included mulch treatment, date, and block. Likelihood ratio tests were
 used to determine whether models should also include a mulch treatment by
 date interaction. For models of individual groups, *p*-values were
 multiple test corrected using the Benjamini and Hochberg procedure
 (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).