Explore the vast range of titles available.

Prior familiarity of carabid beetle populations with seeds of a plant species might result in a preference for locally available species, either due to evolutionary adaptation or learning. Rejection of exotic species might favor the survival of the exotic species due to enemy release. In adults of two Carabidae species, Pseudoophonus rufipes (DeGeer) and Harpalus affinis (Schrank), we investigated the consumption of seeds of the local (growing inside the distribution range of experimental carabid individuals) Asteraceae species Taraxacum officinale and Crepis biennis, and the exotic (growing outside this area) Asteraceae species Adenostyles alliariae and Homogyne alpina. We assumed that the seeds of the exotic species would be consumed less than the seeds of the local species because the seeds of exotic species are not typically found within the range of the tested carabid populations and therefore may be preferred less than the seeds of local species. The seeds of both exotic species were consumed less than the seeds of the preferred local species, T. officinale, but were consumed more than the seeds of the rejected local species, C. biennis. Both carabid species preferred A. alliariae seeds over H. alpina seeds. No difference was observed between the preferences of the mobile and well-flying species P. rufipes and the sedentary and rarely flying H. affinis. The study did not demonstrate the hypothesized preference of the two tested beetle species for the seeds of locally available plant species.

Increasing urbanisation and intensified agriculture lead to rapid transitions of ecosystems. Species that persist throughout rapid transitions may respond to environmental changes across space and/or time, for instance by altering morphological and/or biochemical traits. We used natural history museum specimens, covering the Anthropocene epoch, to obtain long‐term data combined with recent samples. We tested whether rural and urban populations of two ground beetle species, Harpalus affinis and H. rufipes, exhibit spatio‐temporal intraspecific differences in body size. On a spatial scale, we tested signatures of nitrogen and carbon stable isotopes enrichments in different tissues and body components in recent populations of both species from urban and agricultural habitats. For body size examinations, we used beetles, collected from the early 20th century until 2017 in the Berlin‐Brandenburg region, Germany, where urbanisation and agriculture have intensified throughout the last century. For stable isotope examinations, we used recent beetles from urban and agricultural habitats. Our results revealed no spatio‐temporal changes in body size in both species' females. Body size of H. rufipes males decreased in the city but remained constant in rural areas over time. We discuss our findings with respect to habitat quality, urban heat and interspecific differences in activity pattern. Although nitrogen isotope ratios were mostly higher in specimens from agricultural habitats, some urban beetles reached equal enrichments. Carbon signatures of both species did not differ between habitats, detecting no differences in energy sources. Our results indicate that increasing urbanisation and intensified agriculture are influencing species' morphology and/or biochemistry. However, changes may be species‐ and sex‐specific. In our study, we examined spatio‐temporal morphological and biochemical (stable isotopes) trait changes in two ground beetle species from urban and rural populations. Our results show that increasing urbanisation across the past 125 years, and intensified agriculture affect therein living species. However, trait changes might be species‐ and sex‐specific.

Of the approximately one million described insect species, ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) have long captivated the attention of evolutionary biologists due to the diversity of defensive compounds they synthesize. Produced using defensive glands in the abdomen, ground beetle chemicals represent over 250 compounds including predator-deterring formic acid, which has evolved as a defensive strategy at least three times across Insecta. Despite being a widespread method of defense, formic acid biosynthesis is poorly understood in insects. Previous studies have suggested that the folate cycle of one-carbon (C1) metabolism, a pathway involved in nucleotide biosynthesis, may play a key role in defensive-grade formic acid production in ants. Here, we report on the defensive gland transcriptome of the formic acid-producing ground beetle Harpalus pensylvanicus. The full suite of genes involved in the folate cycle of C1 metabolism are significantly differentially expressed in the defensive glands of H. pensylvanicus when compared to gene expression profiles in the rest of the body. We also find support for two additional pathways potentially involved in the biosynthesis of defensive-grade formic acid, the kynurenine pathway and the methionine salvage cycle. Additionally, we have found an array of differentially expressed genes in the secretory lobes involved in the biosynthesis and transport of cofactors necessary for formic acid biosynthesis, as well as genes presumably involved in the detoxification of secondary metabolites including formic acid. We also provide insight into the evolution of the predominant gene family involved in the folate cycle (MTHFD) and suggest that high expression of folate cycle genes rather than gene duplication and/or neofunctionalization may be more important for defensive-grade formic acid biosynthesis in H. pensylvanicus. This provides the first evidence in Coleoptera and one of a few examples in Insecta of a primary metabolic process being co-opted for defensive chemical biosynthesis. Our results shed light on potential mechanisms of formic acid biosynthesis in the defensive glands of a ground beetle and provide a foundation for further studies into the evolution of formic acid-based chemical defense strategies in insects.

More than 4700 nominal family-group names (including names for fossils and ichnotaxa) are nomenclaturally available in the order Coleoptera. Since each family-group name is based on the concept of its type genus, we argue that the stability of names used for the classification of beetles depends on accurate nomenclatural data for each type genus. Following a review of taxonomic literature, with a focus on works that potentially contain type species designations, we provide a synthesis of nomenclatural data associated with the type genus of each nomenclaturally available family-group name in Coleoptera. For each type genus the author(s), year of publication, and page number are given as well as its current status (i.e., whether treated as valid or not) and current classification. Information about the type species of each type genus and the type species fixation (i.e., fixed originally or subsequently, and if subsequently, by whom) is also given. The original spelling of the family-group name that is based on each type genus is included, with its author(s), year, and stem. We append a list of nomenclaturally available family-group names presented in a classification scheme. Because of the importance of the Principle of Priority in zoological nomenclature, we provide information on the date of publication of the references cited in this work, when known. Several nomenclatural issues emerged during the course of this work. We therefore appeal to the community of coleopterists to submit applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (henceforth “Commission”) in order to permanently resolve some of the problems outlined here. The following changes of authorship for type genera are implemented here (these changes do not affect the concept of each type genus): CHRYSOMELIDAE: Fulcidax Crotch, 1870 (previously credited to “Clavareau, 1913”); CICINDELIDAE: Euprosopus W.S. MacLeay, 1825 (previously credited to “Dejean, 1825”); COCCINELLIDAE: Alesia Reiche, 1848 (previously credited to “Mulsant, 1850”); CURCULIONIDAE: Arachnopus Boisduval, 1835 (previously credited to “Guérin-Méneville, 1838”); ELATERIDAE: Thylacosternus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”); EUCNEMIDAE: Arrhipis Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”), Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously credited to “Bonvouloir, 1871”); LUCANIDAE: Sinodendron Hellwig, 1791 (previously credited to “Hellwig, 1792”); PASSALIDAE: Neleides Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Neleus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Pertinax Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Petrejus Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Undulifer Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”), Vatinius Harold, 1868 (previously credited to “Kaup, 1869”); PTINIDAE: Mezium Leach, 1819 (previously credited to “Curtis, 1828”); PYROCHROIDAE: Agnathus Germar, 1818 (previously credited to “Germar, 1825”); SCARABAEIDAE: Eucranium Dejean, 1833 (previously “Brullé, 1838”). The following changes of type species were implemented following the discovery of older type species fixations (these changes do not pose a threat to nomenclatural stability): BOLBOCERATIDAE: Bolbocerus bocchus Erichson, 1841 for Bolbelasmus Boucomont, 1911 (previously Bolboceras gallicum Mulsant, 1842); BUPRESTIDAE: Stigmodera guerinii Hope, 1843 for Neocuris Saunders, 1868 (previously Anthaxia fortnumi Hope, 1846), Stigmodera peroni Laporte & Gory, 1837 for Curis Laporte & Gory, 1837 (previously Buprestis caloptera Boisduval, 1835); CARABIDAE: Carabus elatus Fabricius, 1801 for Molops Bonelli, 1810 (previously Carabus terricola Herbst, 1784 sensu Fabricius, 1792); CERAMBYCIDAE: Prionus palmatus Fabricius, 1792 for Macrotoma Audinet-Serville, 1832 (previously Prionus serripes Fabricius, 1781); CHRYSOMELIDAE: Donacia equiseti Fabricius, 1798 for Haemonia Dejean, 1821 (previously Donacia zosterae Fabricius, 1801), Eumolpus ruber Latreille, 1807 for Euryope Dalman, 1824 (previously Cryptocephalus rubrifrons Fabricius, 1787), Galeruca affinis Paykull, 1799 for Psylliodes Latreille, 1829 (previously Chrysomela chrysocephala Linnaeus, 1758); COCCINELLIDAE: Dermestes rufus Herbst, 1783 for Coccidula Kugelann, 1798 (previously Chrysomela scutellata Herbst, 1783); CRYPTOPHAGIDAE: Ips caricis G.-A. Olivier, 1790 for Telmatophilus Heer, 1841 (previously Cryptophagus typhae Fallén, 1802), Silpha evanescens Marsham, 1802 for Atomaria Stephens, 1829 (previously Dermestes nigripennis Paykull, 1798); CURCULIONIDAE: Bostrichus cinereus Herbst, 1794 for Crypturgus Erichson, 1836 (previously Bostrichus pusillus Gyllenhal, 1813); DERMESTIDAE: Dermestes trifasciatus Fabricius, 1787 for Attagenus Latreille, 1802 (previously Dermestes pellio Linnaeus, 1758); ELATERIDAE: Elater sulcatus Fabricius, 1777 for Chalcolepidius Eschscholtz, 1829 (previously Chalcolepidius zonatus Eschscholtz, 1829); ENDOMYCHIDAE: Endomychus rufitarsis Chevrolat, 1835 for Epipocus Chevrolat, 1836 (previously Endomychus tibialis Guérin-Méneville, 1834); EROTYLIDAE: Ips humeralis Fabricius, 1787 for Dacne Latreille, 1797 (previously Dermestes bipustulatus Thunberg, 1781); EUCNEMIDAE: Fornax austrocaledonicus Perroud & Montrouzier, 1865 for Mesogenus Gemminger, 1869 (previously Mesogenus mellyi Bonvouloir, 1871); GLAPHYRIDAE: Melolontha serratulae Fabricius, 1792 for Glaphyrus Latreille, 1802 (previously Scarabaeus maurus Linnaeus, 1758); HISTERIDAE: Hister striatus Forster, 1771 for Onthophilus Leach, 1817 (previously Hister sulcatus Moll, 1784); LAMPYRIDAE: Ototreta fornicata E. Olivier, 1900 for Ototreta E. Olivier, 1900 (previously Ototreta weyersi E. Olivier, 1900); LUCANIDAE: Lucanus cancroides Fabricius, 1787 for Lissotes Westwood, 1855 (previously Lissotes menalcas Westwood, 1855); MELANDRYIDAE: Nothus clavipes G.-A. Olivier, 1812 for Nothus G.-A. Olivier, 1812 (previously Nothus praeustus G.-A. Olivier, 1812); MELYRIDAE: Lagria ater Fabricius, 1787 for Enicopus Stephens, 1830 (previously Dermestes hirtus Linnaeus, 1767); NITIDULIDAE: Sphaeridium luteum Fabricius, 1787 for Cychramus Kugelann, 1794 (previously Strongylus quadripunctatus Herbst, 1792); OEDEMERIDAE: Helops laevis Fabricius, 1787 for Ditylus Fischer, 1817 (previously Ditylus helopioides Fischer, 1817 [sic]); PHALACRIDAE: Sphaeridium aeneum Fabricius, 1792 for Olibrus Erichson, 1845 (previously Sphaeridium bicolor Fabricius, 1792); RHIPICERIDAE: Sandalus niger Knoch, 1801 for Sandalus Knoch, 1801 (previously Sandalus petrophya Knoch, 1801); SCARABAEIDAE: Cetonia clathrata G.-A. Olivier, 1792 for Inca Lepeletier & Audinet-Serville, 1828 (previously Cetonia ynca Weber, 1801); Gnathocera vitticollis W. Kirby, 1825 for Gnathocera W. Kirby, 1825 (previously Gnathocera immaculata W. Kirby, 1825); Melolontha villosula Illiger, 1803 for Chasmatopterus Dejean, 1821 (previously Melolontha hirtula Illiger, 1803); STAPHYLINIDAE: Staphylinus politus Linnaeus, 1758 for Philonthus Stephens, 1829 (previously Staphylinus splendens Fabricius, 1792); ZOPHERIDAE: Hispa mutica Linnaeus, 1767 for Orthocerus Latreille, 1797 (previously Tenebrio hirticornis DeGeer, 1775). The discovery of type species fixations that are older than those currently accepted pose a threat to nomenclatural stability (an application to the Commission is necessary to address each problem): CANTHARIDAE: Malthinus Latreille, 1805, Malthodes Kiesenwetter, 1852; CARABIDAE: Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810, Harpalus Latreille, 1802, Lebia Latreille, 1802, Pheropsophus Solier, 1834, Trechus Clairville, 1806; CERAMBYCIDAE: Callichroma Latreille, 1816, Callidium Fabricius, 1775, Cerasphorus Audinet-Serville, 1834, Dorcadion Dalman, 1817, Leptura Linnaeus, 1758, Mesosa Latreille, 1829, Plectromerus Haldeman, 1847; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Amblycerus Thunberg, 1815, Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831, Chlamys Knoch, 1801, Monomacra Chevrolat, 1836, Phratora Chevrolat, 1836, Stylosomus Suffrian, 1847; COLONIDAE: Colon Herbst, 1797; CURCULIONIDAE: Cryphalus Erichson, 1836, Lepyrus Germar, 1817; ELATERIDAE: Adelocera Latreille, 1829, Beliophorus Eschscholtz, 1829; ENDOMYCHIDAE: Amphisternus Germar, 1843, Dapsa Latreille, 1829; GLAPHYRIDAE: Anthypna Eschscholtz, 1818; HISTERIDAE: Hololepta Paykull, 1811, Trypanaeus Eschscholtz, 1829; LEIODIDAE: Anisotoma Panzer, 1796, Camiarus Sharp, 1878, Choleva Latreille, 1797; LYCIDAE: Calopteron Laporte, 1838, Dictyoptera Latreille, 1829; MELOIDAE: Epicauta Dejean, 1834; NITIDULIDAE: Strongylus Herbst, 1792; SCARABAEIDAE: Anisoplia Schönherr, 1817, Anticheira Eschscholtz, 1818, Cyclocephala Dejean, 1821, Glycyphana Burmeister, 1842, Omaloplia Schönherr, 1817, Oniticellus Dejean, 1821, Parachilia Burmeister, 1842, Xylotrupes Hope, 1837; STAPHYLINIDAE: Batrisus Aubé, 1833, Phloeonomus Heer, 1840, Silpha Linnaeus, 1758; TENEBRIONIDAE: Bolitophagus Illiger, 1798, Mycetochara Guérin-Méneville, 1827. Type species are fixed for the following nominal genera: ANTHRIBIDAE: Decataphanes gracilis Labram & Imhoff, 1840 for Decataphanes Labram & Imhoff, 1840; CARABIDAE: Feronia erratica Dejean, 1828 for Loxandrus J.L. LeConte, 1853; CERAMBYCIDAE: Tmesisternus oblongus Boisduval, 1835 for Icthyosoma Boisduval, 1835; CHRYSOMELIDAE: Brachydactyla annulipes Pic, 1913 for Pseudocrioceris Pic, 1916, Cassida viridis Linnaeus, 1758 for Evaspistes Gistel, 1856, Ocnoscelis cyanoptera Erichson, 1847 for Ocnoscelis Erichson, 1847, Promecotheca petelii Guérin-Méneville, 1840 for Promecotheca Guérin- Méneville, 1840; CLERIDAE: Attelabus mollis Linnaeus, 1758 for Dendroplanetes Gistel, 1856; CORYLOPHIDAE: Corylophus marginicollis J.L. LeConte, 1852 for Corylophodes A. Matthews, 1885; CURCULIONIDAE: Hoplorhinus melanocephalus Chevrolat, 1878 for Hoplorhinus Chevrolat, 1878; Sonnetius binarius Casey, 1922 for Sonnetius Casey, 1922; ELATERIDAE: Pyrophorus melanoxanthus Candèze, 1865 for Alampes Champion, 1896; PHYCOSECIDAE: Phycosecis litoralis P

In this study, we report the complete mitochondrial genome of Harpalus sinicus (occasionally named as the Chinese ground beetle) which is the first mitochondrial genome for Harpalus. The mitogenome is 16,521 bp in length, comprising 37 genes, and a control region. The A + T content of the mitogenome is as high as 80.6%. A mitochondrial origins of light-strand replication (OL)-like region is found firstly in the insect mitogenome, which can form a stem-loop hairpin structure. Thirteen protein-coding genes (PCGs) share high homology, and all of them are under purifying selection. All tRNA genes (tRNAs) can be folded into the classic cloverleaf secondary structures except tRNA-Ser (GCU), which lacks a dihydrouridine (DHU) stem. The secondary structure of two ribosomal RNA genes (rRNAs) is predicted based on previous insect models. Twelve types of tandem repeats and two stem-loop structures are detected in the control region, and two stem-loop structures may be involved in the initiation of replication and transcription. Additionally, phylogenetic analyses based on mitogenomes suggest that Harpalus is an independent lineage in Carabidae, and is closely related to four genera (Abax, Amara, Stomis, and Pterostichus). In general, this study provides meaningful genetic information for Harpalus sinicus and new insights into the phylogenetic relationships within the Carabidae.

Invertebrate seed predators (ISPs) are an important component of agroecosystems that help regulate weed populations. Previous research has shown that ISPs' seed preference depends on the plant and ISP species. Although numerous studies have quantified weed seed losses from ISPs, limited research has been conducted on the potential for ISPs to consume cover crop seeds. Cover crops are sometimes broadcast seeded, and because seeds are left on the soil surface, they are susceptible to ISPs. We hypothesized that (1) ISPs will consume cover crop seeds to the same extent as weed seeds, (2) seed preference will vary by plant and ISP species, and (3) seed consumption will be influenced by seed morphology and nutritional characteristics. We conducted seed preference trials with four common ISPs [Pennsylvania dingy ground beetle (Harpalus pensylvanicus), common black ground beetle (Pterostichus melanarius), Allard's ground cricket (Allonemobius allardi) and fall field cricket (Gryllus pennsylvanicus)] in laboratory no choice and choice feeding assays. We compared seed predation of ten commonly used cover crop species [barley (Hordeum vulgare), annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), forage radish (Raphanus sativus), cereal rye (Secale cereale), white mustard (Sinapis alba), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), triticale (×Triticosecale) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa)] and three weed species [velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi)]. All four ISPs readily consumed cover crop seeds (P < 0.05), but cover crops with hard seed coats and seed hulls such as hairy vetch and barley were less preferred. Our results suggest that farmers should select cover crop species that are avoided by ISPs if they plan on broadcasting the seed, such as with aerial interseeding.

Ground beetles are postdispersal weed seed predators, yet their role in consuming buried seeds is not well studied. We conducted greenhouse experiments to investigate how seed burial affects consumption of weed seeds (volunteer canola) by adult ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Seed burial depth influenced seed consumption rates as demonstrated by a significant interaction between seed burial depth, carabid species, and gender of the carabid tested. We observed higher seed consumption by females of all species, and greater consumption of seeds scattered on the soil surface compared with seeds buried at any depth. However, there was evidence of seed consumption at all depths. Adults of Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger) and Harpalus affinis (Schrank) consumed more buried seeds than did those of Amara littoralis Mannerheim. Agricultural practices, such as tillage, bury seeds at different depths and based on the results of this study, these practices may reduce seed consumption by carabids. Soil conservation practices that reduce tillage (conservation or zero tillage) will favor greater weed seed predation due, in part, to the high availability of seeds at the soil surface or at shallow soil depths. Nomenclature: Volunteer canola, Brassica napus L.

Research Highlights: Our study adds to the scant literature on the effects of forest bioenergy on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and contributes new insights into the responses of ground beetle species and functional groups to operational harvest residue retention. We discovered that count of Harpalus pensylvanicus (DeGeer)—a habitat generalist—increased owing to clear-cut harvests but decreased due to harvest residue reductions; these observations uniquely allowed us to separate effects of additive forest disturbances to demonstrate that, contrarily to predictions, a generalist species considered to be adapted to disturbance may be negatively affected by altered habitat elements associated with disturbances from renewable energy development. Background and Objectives: Despite the potential environmental benefits of forest bioenergy, woody biomass harvests raise forest sustainability concerns for some stakeholders. Ground beetles are well established ecological indicators of forest ecosystem health and their life history characteristics are connected to habitat elements that are altered by forest harvesting. Thus, we evaluated the effects of harvest residue retention following woody biomass harvest for forest bioenergy on ground beetles in an operational field experiment. Materials and Methods: We sampled ground beetles using pitfall traps in harvest residue removal treatments representing variable woody biomass retention prescriptions, ranging from no retention to complete retention of all merchantable woody biomass. We replicated treatments in eight clear-cut stands in intensively managed loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) forests in North Carolina and Georgia. Results: Harvest residue retention had no effect on ground beetle richness and diversity. However, counts of H. pensylvanicus, Anisodactylus spp., and “burrower” and “fast runner” functional groups, among others, were greater in treatments with no woody biomass harvest than those with no harvest residue retention; all of these ground beetles may confer ecosystem services in forests. We suggest that H. pensylvanicus is a useful indicator species for burrowing and granivorous ground beetle response to harvest residue reductions in recently harvested stands. Lastly, we propose that retaining 15% retention of total harvest residues or more, depending on regional and operational variables, may support beneficial ground beetle populations.

Many turf managers prefer to control foliage- and root-feeding pests with the same application, so-called multiple-targeting, using a single broad-spectrum insecticide or a premix product containing two or more active ingredients. We compared the impact of a neonicotinoid (clothianidin), a premix (clothianidin + bifenthrin), and an anthranilic diamide (chlorantraniliprole), the main insecticide classes used for multiple targeting, on four species of beneficial insects: Harpalus pennsylvanicus, an omnivorous ground beetle, Tiphia vernalis, an ectoparasitoid of scarab grubs, Copidosoma bakeri, a polyembryonic endoparasitoid of black cutworms, and Bombus impatiens, a native bumble bee. Ground beetles that ingested food treated with clothianidin or the premix suffered high mortality, as did C. bakeri wasps exposed to dry residues of those insecticides. Exposure to those insecticides on potted turf cores reduced parasitism by T. vernalis. Bumble bee colonies confined to forage on white clover (Trifolium repens L.) in weedy turf that had been treated with clothianidin or the premix had reduced numbers of workers, honey pots, and immature bees. Premix residues incapacitated H. pennsylvanicus and C. bakeri slightly faster than clothianidin alone, but otherwise we detected no synergistic or additive effects. Chlorantraniliprole had no apparent adverse effects on any of the beneficial species. Implications for controlling turf pests with least disruption of non-target invertebrates are discussed.

The activity-density of Amara aenea (DeGeer) and Harpalus pensylvanicus (DeGeer) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) was monitored in an experiment that compared five management treatments representing a range of disturbance frequencies, crops, and aboveground biomass production. In 2004 and 2005, three treatments comprised of multiple summer cover crops were compared to bare fallow and soybean, the latter of which used mechanical cultivation to manage weeds. In 2005 weed seed predation was assessed from June to September in two of the treatments (bare fallow and oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch). Beetle activity-density varied with treatment, time of sampling, and year. In 2004 peak activity-density of A. aenea was highest in the mustard/buckwheat/canola, but there was no difference in H. pensylvanicus activity-density. In 2005 activity-density of H. pensylvanicus was higher in oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch than in soybean treatment. Seed predation rates were relatively consistent across treatments, averaging between 38 and 63%. In fallow and oat–pea/rye–hairy vetch, H. pensylvanicus activity-density accounted for 29 and 33% of the variation in seed predation, respectively. Our findings suggest cover crops have a positive effect on the activity-density of A. aenea and H. pensylvanicus and that disturbance negatively influences their activity-density in the absence of cover crops. Nomenclature: Buckwheat, Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.; canola, Brassica napus L.; field pea, Pisum sativum L.; hairy vetch, Vicia villosa Roth; mustard, Sinapis alba L.; oat, Avena sativa L.; red clover, Trifolium pretense L.; rye, Secale cereale L.; soybean, Glycine max Merr.; Amara aenea DeGeer; Harpalus pensylvanicus DeGeer.