Scientific Papers Series B Horticulture

Table 4. Structure and number and relative abundance ofentomophagous population under different type of pestcontrolToxonomy Chemical Biological Integratedclassification control control control No. % No. % No. %1. Ord. ARANEA 18 28.1 34 15.9 33 32.32. Ord.DERMAPTERA15 23.4 41 19.2 12 11.83. Ord.HETEROPTERA0 0.0 6 2.8 2 2.04. Ord.NEUROPTERA1 1.6 7 3.3 5 4.95. Ord.COLEOPTERA7 10.9 37 17.3 16 15.76. Ord. DIPTERA 1 1.6 9 4.2 3 2.97. Ord.HYMENOPTERA22 34.4 80 37.4 31 30.4TOTAL 64 100 214 100 102 100The beneficial insects were lower as number,but the number of species was higher. As astructure, the highest percentages wereoccupied by ants Hymenoptera group, 37.4%(biological control), 34.4% (chemical control)and 30.4% (integrated control). Ants, althoughthey are not recognized as major predators inthe agroecosystems, are big consumers of freshdejections secreted by some insects, mainlyaphids, and insect remains underdecomposition.A group of predators of a great importance inlimiting the multiplication of pests are beetlesof the family Coccinellidae, Coccinella andStetorus genres. They have occupied thehighest percentage in the alternative ofbiological control structure (17.3%), followedby integrated control option (15.7%) andthen chemical variant (10.9%).Noteworthy are the groups of Aranea (spiderspredators) and Dermaptera (earwig), whichachieved levels between 15.9-32.4% and 11.8-23.4%. Both groups of predators feed on smallinsects (aphids, mites) present on variousvegetable substrates vines, respectivelyspontaneous vegetation. Earwig might producedamages in grapes at harvest time, but withoutthe grapes ripened, they are regarded aspredators of insects.The structure and abundance of entomophagousin the experimental plots of the stationary werethree types of pest management were applied,are shown in Table 5.Table 5. Structure and abundance of the entomophagousinto the stationary , subject to different pest controlmethods in vineyardToxonomy Chemical Biological Integratedclassification control control controlOrd. ARANEA 7 6 18Ord.DERMAPTERA6 8 2Ord.COLEOPTERA1 19 3Ord. DIPTERA 0 1 0Ord.HYMENOPTERA4 31 18TOTAL 18 65 41Table 6. The ratio between the useful and harmfulentomofauna (U / D) for the three methods of pestcontrol in vineyardChemical Biological IntegratedCollection Date ofcontrol control control(no) collection(U/D)1 25.05. 0.96 1.08 1.102 5.06. 0.84 1.48 1.033 19.06 0.46 1.55 0.954 29.06. 0.31 1.03 0.78Based on the harmful and useful entomofaunacollected from the wine ecosystems, a rotationbetween useful and harmful fauna wasachieved for each collection date. The resultsare presented in the Table 6.From Table 6 we can see that the ratio betweenthe two components harmful pests andbeneficial, followed an upward trend under thebiological control and a decreasing if thevariants of integrated and chemical particularly.As a general pole during spring and earlysummer this ratio has a value of 1.1, changes toone or other of the components occurring afterthe intervention with the control treatments:biological, chemical or integrated.CONCLUSIONSEntomofauna abundance of the useful andharmful insects presented higher values for thebiological and integrated control methods,compared to the chemical control method.Compared to the biological control, the mostprotective for the useful entomofauna,integrated control and especially chemical,caused a reduction of 4% and 17% in thenumber of useful insects.The ratio between useful and harmfulentomofauna recorded an average of 1.1, with52