## 4 Discussion  
Organic potato plantations are prone to the massive incidences of pests, causing economic losses and yield deterioration [33, 34]. [PERSON] et al. [35], analyzing the metadata, indicated a decrease in the yields in organic crops of up to 20-25%. To prevent crop loss, various agricultural practices, including crop rotation and vegetation management to enhance natural pest enemies, are used, with chemical control as a last resort [36]. The use of chemical plant protection products still remains a controversial topic [37] due to their impact on beneficial entomofaus also present in fields, e.g., [38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Nonetheless, the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) and advancements in plant protection products, characterized by increased selectivity and faster degradation rates, seem to be mitigating the extent of this harmful progress. Our studies carried out on the effects of pesticides on ground beetles provide important information on the abundance, species richness, and structure of the assemblages of these insects. Analysis of the species composition of ground beetles in both field types showed considerable similarity. Despite this, the RDA diagram indicated that the majority of ground beetle species avoided fields in which chemical plant protection was used. The results revealed that ground beetles were more abundant in potato fields without chemical plant protection (NCP). However, in terms of the species richness, the method of plant protection was not significant. These results were in line with studies indicating that agricultural practices, such as pesticide use, can affect the abundance and structure of ground beetle assemblages [43]. However, the results obtained were inconclusive. Although the experimental treatments did not have a statistically significant effect on species richness, other parameters of the ground beetle assemblages, such as abundance or ecological traits, showed clear differences between chemically protected and unprotected fields. Our results partially supported the hypothesis that chemical protection affects ground beetle assemblages. However, they also suggested that commonly used parameters, such as species richness and abundance, may not fully reflect the scale of ecological change. Most similar to these obtained results were from the studies of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [44],  
Figure 4: Percentages of statistically significant ecological groups of carabids: (**a**) feeding strategy (hemizoophages, large carnivores, medium carnivores, small carnivores), (**b**) breeding type (autumn and spring breeders), and (**c**) dispersion capability (macroporous and dimorphic species), depending on plant protection type (CP—chemically protected, NCP—non-chemically protected) in years of study (mean \(\pm\) SE). who recorded a much higher abundance of Carabidae in organic fields with a comparable level of diversity. [PERSON] et al. [45] also reported higher Carabidae abundance in organic fields. In addition to higher abundance, higher species richness was observed in organic fields [46]. On the other hand, [PERSON] et al. [47] did not confirm the above results entirely, pointing to a higher abundance of ground beetles in conventional potato crops. A small effect of insecticide on Carabidae was also reported by [PERSON] et al. [48]. In view of such different data on the abundance and species richness of ground beetles in fields where pesticides were applied and in organic fields, we also followed the data in the various years of potato cultivation in a four-year rotation. The data obtained, which varied greatly over the years of the study, also did not provide a clear answer on how the use of pesticides in potato cultivation affected the ground beetle assemblages. The ANOSIM analysis showed no significant differences in the ground beetle assemblages in potato fields with chemical plant protection (CP) and without chemical plant protection (NCP) in 2012 and 2016. However, NMDS and RDA analysis revealed significant differences in the ground beetle assemblages.