Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

Beneficial impacts of the combined use of rain shelters and reflective

groundcovers in an organic raspberry cropping system
Charles Comeau a , Jean-Pierre Privé b , Gaétan Moreau a,∗
a
Département de biologie, Université de Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E1A 3E9
b
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1045 St. Joseph Road, P.O. Box 2069, Bouctouche, New Brunswick, Canada E4S 2J2

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During the summers of 2008 and 2009, rain shelters and white, synthetic reflective groundcovers were
Received 30 September 2011 placed in a red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) organic cropping system in southeastern New Brunswick to assess
Received in revised form 2 April 2012 their independent and combined effects on microclimate, raspberry crop productivity, fungal disease
Accepted 3 April 2012
pressure, and ground arthropods involved in natural pest control. Reflective groundcovers enhanced the
light environment quality. Rain shelters decreased the severity of Didymella applanata infections by ca.
Keywords:
50% and reduced the rate of post-harvest raspberry degradation caused by Botrytis cinerea in comparison
Botrytis cinerea
with the control treatment. Of all the combinations of treatments, rain shelters paired with reflective
Didymella applanata
Extenday®
groundcovers provided the best results by increasing the marketable yield of raspberries by ca. 200%
Ground beetles in comparison with the control treatment. No detrimental effects of the structures were detected on
Rubus idaeus ground beetle communities. Based on this, it is suggested that the combination of these two structures
constitutes a promising approach to counter certain adverse effects caused by untimely precipitation
while maintaining a productive cropping system and without being detrimental to ground beetle species
that may confer pest control services.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Among the systems that are increasingly altered to reduce pes-
ticide reliance and counter certain adverse effects associated with
local weather conditions are arable habitats. For example, because
precipitations have been linked to reductions in small fruit yield
and shelf-life due to rain-driven epidemics of phytopathogens (Xiao
et al., 2001), cover cropping techniques such as polyethylene rain
shelters have been introduced in areas where untimely precipita-
tions can be frequent. However, rain shelters have the potential to
cause a decline in photosynthesis through a possible loss of light
energy that can be reflected or absorbed by some types of covering
material. For instance, Rohloff et al. (2004) reported decreases in
photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) of as much as 47% in sunny
conditions under their polyethylene rain shelters. An approach that
could counterbalance this potential reduction in light energy would
be to supplement the rain shelters with synthetic reflective ground-
covers.
Most studies conducted on new agricultural management meth-
ods often focus solely on plants and overlook other trophic levels
(Mathews et al., 2002). However, the effects of new manage-
ment methods on higher trophic levels can have implications for
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 506 8584975; fax: +1 506 8584541.
E-mail address: Gaetan.Moreau@umoncton.ca (G. Moreau).
plant health and productivity. A few studies have suggested that
rain shelters, through reduced disease pressure, can increase crop
yield and productivity (Masaki, 1987), while reflective ground-
covers have been shown to favor crop growth and yield (Green
et al., 1995; Privé et al., 2011). The effects of synthetic reflec-
tive groundcovers on sap-feeding invertebrates were studied by
McLaren and Fraser (2001) and Logan and Maher (2009). How-
ever, the effects of reflective groundcovers and rain shelters on
higher-order heterotrophs have not been documented. These struc-
tures have the potential to create new refuges for higher-order
heterotroph species because they add to the complexity of the
habitat. Moreover, synthetic reflective groundcovers can alter soil
microclimatic properties (Privé et al., 2008), which could also affect
the diversity and distribution of ground-dwelling higher-order het-
erotrophs in arable habitats.
This study examines whether the abiotic changes brought
upon a raspberry cropping system by rain shelters and reflective
groundcovers will improve crop productivity and health (rep-
resented here in terms of disease incidence and severity), and
potential pest control services by ground arthropods. For this, the
effects of rain shelters and reflective groundcovers were exam-
ined on taxa from three trophic levels independently, as well as
on the multi-trophic assemblages. It was hypothesized that habi-
tat alterations can affect organisms from multiple trophic levels,
which could have further repercussions on crop productivity and
health.

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.007
118 C. Comeau et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123

2. Materials and methods USA). The effects of treatments on incident and reflected PAR
were assessed by using four PAR LITE quantum sensors (Kipp &
In this study, autotrophs correspond to cultivated red raspber- Zonen Inc., Delft, Netherlands) placed within each experimental
ries (Rubus idaeus L.), a temperate species often limited by air unit at canopy height on seven occasions between September 7
and soil temperatures, as well as by available water and solar and November 26 2008. In each experimental unit, two sensors
energy (Sønsteby and Heide, 2008). Because densities of herbivo- were oriented upward and two sensors were oriented downward
rous arthropods were low during the study (Comeau, pers. obs.), to monitor both incident and reflected PAR, respectively.
spur blight (Didymella applanata Niessl) and gray mold (Botry-
tis cinerea Pers.), two rain-propagated phytopathogens (Jarvis,
2.3. Raspberry yield, fruit quality, and vigor
1962), were used to represent first-order heterotrophs. Higher-
order heterotrophs correspond to omnivorous and carnivorous
Ripe raspberries were harvested every two to four days from
ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) that can contribute to crop
July 18 to August 11 in 2008, and from July 23 to August 27 in 2009.
productivity by offering pest suppression services (Kromp, 1999;
Prior to harvests, 10 ripe and healthy raspberries were carefully
Melnychuk et al., 2003). Ground beetles have often been used
collected from the sampling area of each experimental unit. Each
to assess the effects of anthropogenic disturbances on habitat
raspberry was held upside-down and one side was pressed against
integrity (e.g., Dritschilo and Erwin, 1982; Miñarro and Dapena,
an IMADA FTQ DPS-44R digital force gauge (GEO-MET instruments
2003; Rainio and Niemelä, 2003).
Inc., Nova Scotia, Canada) until the two sides of the raspberry made
contact. The force in Newtons (N) required for contact was used to
2.1. Study area and experimental design
calculate average fruit firmness per experimental unit. All ten rasp-
berries from each experimental unit were then weighed and ground
Field work was carried out during the summers of 2008 and 2009
into a Petri dish. The resulting juice was filtered with cheese cloth
in an eight-year-old red raspberry plantation of the variety ‘Nova’
and placed on an analog refractometer (0–32%, Fisher Scientific,
located in Saint-Joseph-de-Kent (46◦ 25.93 N, 64◦ 46.17 W), New
New Hampshire, United States) from which soluble sugar content
Brunswick, Canada. The plantation was trickle irrigated and man-
(Brix scale) was determined. Then, all ripe raspberries from each
aged organically. To avoid phytopathogen epidemics, the cropping
experimental unit were harvested and divided into marketable
system was treated three times in 2008 with baking soda (3 kg/ha)
or non-marketable (i.e., desiccated or exhibiting visible signs of
in a water solution. The plantation comprised nine 36 m rows
phytopathogen infection) fruit. The weight per m of row of each cat-
oriented NE-SW and had 3 m-wide grass-sown inter-rows. Exper-
egory, including the raspberries used to calculate the average fruit
imental units consisted of 9 m long sections of rows. A 6 m buffer
firmness, was then recorded. Average fruit weight was determined
section was left between experimental units located within the
by randomly selecting and weighing 25 marketable raspberries
same row and at least one guard (untreated) row was left between
per experimental unit. Raspberry dry weight was determined by
treated rows. Within each experimental unit, sampling areas (3 m
randomly selecting, in each experimental unit, 25 marketable rasp-
long in 2008, 2 m long in 2009) were defined with flagging tape
berries that were oven-dried at 60 ◦ C for one week and weighed.
to standardize sampling between experimental units. Four treat-
Average fruit dry weight values were then used to calculate average
ments, replicated twice in a completely randomized design, were
fruit biomass in g/m2 for all experimental units. This information
applied to the experimental units: (1) control, (2) reflective ground-
was then used for the trophic assessment of treatment effects (see
covers alone, (3) rain shelters alone, and (4) the combination of
2.6). Guard rows and buffer sections were also harvested but were
reflective groundcovers and rain shelters.
not documented.
Reflective groundcover treatments consisted of 9 m long by
On October 6 2008, measures of height (soil surface to apical
2 m wide strips of white, woven, reflective polymer groundcover
bud) and diameter (ca. 1 cm from ground surface) were recorded
cloth (Extenday® New-Zealand Ltd., Auckland, New-Zealand) laid-
on 20 randomly pre-selected primocanes per experimental unit to
down between raspberry rows and secured as described by Privé
quantify the effects of treatments on primocane vigor. At the end
et al. (2008). Rain shelter treatments consisted of artificial cov-
of the study (September 2009), ten primocanes and ten floricanes
ers of polyethylene built to prevent rainwater from reaching the
from each experimental unit were randomly selected, cut at the
raspberry plant canopy. Wood posts (0.1 m × 0.1 m × 3 m) located
base, oven-dried at 60 ◦ C for one week, and weighed to determine
every 6 m within all rows to support the trellis system were
their respective average dry weight. These average dry weight val-
used as pillars for the frame of the rain shelters. Cross-beams
ues were then multiplied by the cane densities (number of canes/m
(0.05 m × 0.07 m × 2.50 m) were attached at a height of ca. 1.5 m
row) of their corresponding experimental units to further calculate
on each pillar. Stainless steel tubes were bent to form arches (1.8 m
the total biomass in g/m2 of primocanes and floricanes for each
span, 0.8 m amplitude) that were attached with eye-bolts at both
treatment. This information was then used for the trophic assess-
ends of the cross-beams. A 3 m wide, 12 m long strip of greenhouse-
ment of treatment effects (see 2.6).
grade UV-protected clear polyethylene (product code 5BGCO640;
6 mil gauge or 0.15 mm thick; Les Industries Harnois Inc., Québec,
Canada) was stretched over the arches and tied down at each 2.4. Fungal diseases
extremity to soil anchors. To fasten the polyethylene strips, bungee
cords were snaked through the eye bolts and criss-crossed over the The effects of treatments on spur blight severity were assessed
rain shelters. Treatments were set up on June 5 2008 and at the during September in 2008 and 2009. Ten primocanes per experi-
same locations within the plantation on June 3 2009. Treatments mental unit were randomly chosen and the number of lesions and
were removed in late fall both years. the total length of lesions caused by spur blight were recorded for
each primocane. The average dry weight of spur blight-infected
2.2. Microclimate plant tissues was obtained by cutting the infected stem portions
of the primocanes and oven-drying them at 60 ◦ C for one week.
Air temperature, relative humidity, soil temperature (5 cm The biomass of spur blight-infected plant tissues in g/m2 was then
deep), and moisture (30 cm deep) were monitored in 2008 accord- calculated by multiplying the average spur blight dry weights by
ing to Privé et al. (2008) in two experimental units per treatment the primocane densities (number of primocanes/m row) of their
with CR10X and CR23X dataloggers (Campbell Scientific Inc., Utah, respective experimental units.
 C. Comeau et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123
To examine treatment effects on B. cinerea incidence follow-
ing harvest, 10–20 ripe and healthy raspberries were randomly
collected from each experimental unit. These raspberries were
harvested by cutting the pedicel to avoid damage and contam-
ination, and were rapidly brought back to the laboratory where
the fruit receptacles were carefully removed from the raspberries.
The raspberries were then placed in hermetic containers lined with
damp paper towels, a method for assessing shelf-life adapted from
Woodford et al. (2002). The samples were kept at room temperature
(∼22 ◦ C) and examined daily for signs of fungal decay by B. cinerea.
The spoiled raspberries were counted and discarded immediately.
2.5. Arthropods
Ground beetles were live-trapped in 2008 using dry pitfall traps
(e.g., Thomas et al., 2006) installed directly within the raspberry
plant rows. Each experimental unit had two pitfall traps, one on
each side of the raspberry plant row and located within 30 cm of
each other. Each pitfall trap was located at ca. 25 cm from the strips
of groundcover in experimental units including them. The pitfall
traps were emptied every 3–4 days from June to September 2008.
Captured adult beetles were rapidly brought back to the laboratory,
frozen, and identified to species level using the Bousquet (2010)
identification key. Strictly herbivorous species were not included
in analyses of higher-order heterotrophs because they belonged to
an inferior trophic level. Once identified, beetles were divided by
species, oven-dried at 65 ◦ C for 72 h, and subsequently weighed to
determine the average dry weight of individuals for each species.
Total ground beetle biomass in g/m2 per experimental unit was
then calculated and used for the trophic assessment of treatment
effects (see 2.6).
2.6. Statistical analyses
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.2
(SAS Institute, 2009), except the multivariate regression tree (MRT)
that was conducted with R version 2.10.1 (R Development Core
Team, 2010). To examine the global effect of treatments on a
series of interdependent variables while controlling for family-wise
error rate, MANOVAs were conducted for each of the following
categories: canopy light environment, canopy microclimate, soil
microclimate, fruit yield, fruit quality, primocane vigor, spur blight
severity, and arthropods.
Linear mixed-models for a completely randomized design were
carried out to determine the effects of treatments on microclimate,
represented here by canopy light environment variables (incident
and reflected PAR), canopy microclimate variables (air tempera-
ture and relative humidity), and soil microclimate variables (soil
temperature and moisture). The random effects included in the
model corresponded to the experimental units while fixed effects
corresponded to the main effects and interaction between the rain
shelter and groundcover treatments.
Linear mixed-models for a completely randomized design with
subsampling were carried out to determine the effects of treat-
ments on primocane vigor (final primocane height and diameter).
The random effects included in the model corresponded to exper-
imental units while the fixed effects corresponded to the main
effects and interaction between the rain shelter and groundcover
treatments. Subsamples corresponded to individual primocanes.
The same analysis, without subsampling but including the random
effect of years, was used for fruit yield variables (marketable fruit
yield, non-marketable fruit yield, and percent marketable fruit) and
fruit quality variables (average fruit weight, firmness, and soluble
sugar content).
The effect of treatments on the length of spur blight lesions
was determined using the same analysis as for marketable yield.
119
To account for the Poisson distribution of spur blight lesions per
cane, the analysis of treatment effects on this dependent variable
was carried out using a generalized linear mixed-model (GLMM).
The random and fixed effects included in the model were identical
to those used for the analysis of marketable yield. The association
between the length of spur blight lesions observed in 2008 and the
yield recorded in 2009 was examined using a Pearson correlation.
To account for the binomial distribution of the dependent
variable, a generalized linear model accounting for repeated
measurements over time was used to determine the effects of treat-
ments on the shelf-life (proportion over time of unspoiled, still
marketable raspberries). The fixed effects included in the model
were time (days), rain shelter treatments, groundcover treatments,
and the interactions between these three variables. To improve
model fit, an angular transformation was applied to the variable
time.
Ground beetle collections over the season were pooled for each
individual trap. To account for the Poisson distribution of the
dependent variables, the effects of treatments on ground beetle
abundance and species richness were examined using GLMMs with
subsampling. The random and fixed effects included in the models
were identical to those used for the analysis of primocane diameter,
and subsamples corresponded to individual traps within experi-
mental units.
A MRT (De’ath, 2002) was conducted on total biomass data from
each independent component of each trophic level (raspberry plant
parts, spur blight, and ground beetle species) to examine how treat-
ments affected the trophic assemblages. The variance explained
by each component at each node was obtained using the “tokas”
function (Jacobs, 2010).
3. Results
Averaging across the dependant variables, the MANOVA indi-
cated that the groundcovers had an effect on canopy light
environment variables. The univariate models suggested that this
was due to an increase in reflected PAR in treatments that included
the groundcovers. No significant effect of treatments was detected
for canopy microclimate whereas the MANOVA indicated that soil
microclimate was affected by the groundcovers. The univariate
models suggested that this was due to an increase in soil moisture
under groundcovers (Table 1).
3.1. Raspberry yield, fruit quality, and vigor
Averaging across the dependant variables, the MANOVA indi-
cated that the treatments affected fruit yield variables. The
univariate models suggested that both the rain shelter and the
reflective groundcover taken individually increased marketable
fruit yield compared to the control treatment, and that their combi-
nation generated an additive effect that resulted in approximately
three times more marketable fruit yield than in the control treat-
ment (Table 2). By contrast, the groundcovers alone caused an
increase in non-marketable fruit yield, whereas the rain shelters
alone caused a reduction in non-marketable fruit yield. The per-
centage of marketable fruit yield was increased solely by the effect
of the rain shelter (Table 2). The divergent effects of treatments on
fruit yield variables generated the interaction observed in the mul-
tivariate model (Table 2). Averaging across dependant variables,
the MANOVA suggested that the treatments had little effect on
fruit quality variables. Univariate models conducted on fruit quality
variables indicated that the groundcovers, alone or in combination
with rain shelters, promoted the development of heavier raspber-
ries that contained less soluble sugars. Primocane vigor was not
affected by the treatments (Table 2).
120 C. Comeau et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123

Table 1
Mean effects (±SEM) of treatments and associated F-values of MANOVAs and mixed-model ANOVAs conducted on microclimatic measures.

Mean ± SEM df F-value

Control Groundcover (Gc) Rain shelter (Rs) Gc + Rs Gc Rs Gc × Rs

Canopy light environment 2, 3† 10.86* 0.17 0.17

Incident PAR (␮mol m−2 s−1 ) 1280.36 ± 35.28 1342.32 ± 42.92 1328.89 ± 45.74 1334.77 ± 37.36 1, 4 0.19 0.09 0.10
Reflected PAR (␮mol m−2 s−1 ) 48.48 ± 3.85 88.57 ± 6.44 40.14 ± 2.01 107.16 ± 10.77 1, 4 27.39** 0.02 0.42
Canopy microclimate 2, 2† 0.48 0.30 0.07
Air temperature (◦ C) 17.21 ± 0.30 17.38 ± 0.30 17.35 ± 0.30 17.46 ± 0.30 1, 3 0.22 0.14 0.01
Relative humidity (%) 80.74 ± 0.66 79.55 ± 0.66 81.74 ± 0.71 79.99 ± 0.69 1, 3 1.05 0.20 0.03
Soil microclimate 2, 2† 25.51* 0.68 3.28
Soil temperature (◦ C) 16.71 ± 0.20 16.48 ± 0.18 17.47 ± 0.20 16.42 ± 0.19 1, 3 3.22 0.68 0.83
Soil moisture (%) 12.28 ± 0.88 18.66 ± 1.26 15.58 ± 1.08 16.33 ± 1.10 1, 3 35.13** 0.22 8.84
*
0.05 ≥ P ≥ 0.01.
**
P < 0.01.
†
MANOVA

Table 2
Mean effects (± SEM) of treatments and associated F-values of MANOVAs and mixed-model ANOVAs conducted on measures recovered from the different trophic levels.

Mean ± SEM df F-value

Control Groundcover (Gc) Rain shelter (Rs) Gc + Rs Gc Rs Gc × Rs

† * **
Fruit yield 3, 9 5.57 32.07 6.34*
Marketable fruit yield (kg/ha) 2500.76 ± 394.15 4777.23 ± 358.62 3749.13 ± 878.14 7540.47 ± 1052.03 1, 7 17.03** 7.44* 1.06
Non-marketable fruit yield 592.12 ± 78.10 1074.78 ± 71.68 374.33 ± 73.34 554.36 ± 111.87 1, 7 9.63* 11.95* 2.01
(kg/ha)
Percent marketable (%) 80.64 ± 1.53 81.56 ± 0.82 90.76 ± 0.48 93.01 ± 1.16 1, 7 1.79 82.84** 0.32
Fruit quality 3, 9† 5.22 1.97 0.32
Average fruit weight (g) 2.53 ± 0.13 2.82 ± 0.17 2.71 ± 0.13 2.97 ± 0.10 1, 7 6.80* 2.55 0.02
Fruit firmness (N) 0.71 ± 0.10 0.72 ± 0.12 0.75 ± 0.08 0.77 ± 0.12 1, 7 0.15 1.83 0.03
Soluble sugar content (Brix) 9.52 ± 0.50 8.73 ± 0.78 9.64 ± 0.45 9.30 ± 0.66 1, 7 6.21* 2.27 0.95
Primocane vigor 2, 3† 3.62 4.64 1.06
Primocane height (cm) 142.95 ± 6.49 157.00 ± 4.24 138.70 ± 5.92 137.50 ± 6.06 1, 4 1.13 2.42 1.32
Primocane diameter (mm) 11.02 ± 0.52 11.88 ± 0.42 10.05 ± 0.38 10.79 ± 0.42 1, 4 3.34 5.56 0.02
Spur blight severity 2, 3† 4.45 19.48* 8.84
Spur blight length per cane (cm) 6.24 ± 1.39 5.08 ± 0.89 2.74 ± 0.77 1.02 ± 0.56 1, 4 1.21 8.06* 0.02
Spur blight lesions per cane 1.54 ± 0.25 1.75 ± 0.27 0.69 ± 0.15 0.23 ± 0.08 1, 4 0.93 20.99* 3.85
Arthropods 2, 3† 1.25 6.25 0.85
Ground beetle abundance 204.50 ± 28.19 232.00 ± 40.30 153.50 ± 17.27 223.75 ± 28.70 1, 4 3.16 1.02 0.68
Ground beetle species richness 10.75 ± 1.03 11.25 ± 0.75 11.50 ± 0.64 14.25 ± 1.37 1, 4 0.55 0.80 0.55
*
0.05 ≥ P ≥ 0.01.
**
P < 0.01.
†
MANOVA.

3.2. Fungal diseases and arthropods

Averaging across dependant variables, the MANOVA indicated

that the rain shelters, alone or in combination, had an effect on first-
order heterotrophs. The univariate models showed that the rain
shelters, alone or in combination with the groundcovers, reduced
the length and the number of spur blight lesions per cane by more
than half compared to the control treatment (Table 2). To deter-
mine whether the infection of primocanes by spur blight affected
fruit production by the floricanes the following year, a correlation
was carried out. It indicated that the raspberry yield recorded in the
second year of the project was inversely correlated to the length of
spur blight lesions observed in the first year of the project (n = 8;
r = −0.96; P < 0.05). Following harvest, the incidence of B. cinerea
on raspberries was delayed during the first 3 days of storage at
room temperature with the use of rain shelters, alone or in combi-
nation with groundcovers (2 1,386 = 20.58; P < 0.01) (Fig. 1). Under
conditions promoting the rapid decay of raspberries (i.e., hermetic
containers lined with damp paper towels at room temperature), Fig. 1. Treatment effects on the shelf-life of raspberries during storage in hermetic
50% of the raspberries were spoiled after ca. 2 days in the treat- plastic containers maintained at room temperature. Raw data are represented by
ments that did not include a rain shelter, and ca. 3 days when the symbols and model predictions are represented by lines.
raspberries were grown under rain shelters.
3255 omnivorous and carnivorous ground beetles from 32
different species were collected (Annex 1). Adventive species rep-
resented 98% of total ground beetle captures. Total ground beetle
abundance and species richness were not affected by treatments
(Table 2).
 C. Comeau et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123
Fig. 2. Multivariate regression tree of treatment effects on assemblage structures in raspberry plantations. From top to bottom, each horizontal bar represents the relative
biomass of the three trophic levels, namely: raspberry plant parts (1), spur blight (2), and ground beetle species (3). The vertical dotted lines are in reference to the biomasses
documented in the control treatment.
3.3. Trophic assessment
The MRT used to examine taxa-related biomass components for
each trophic level as affected by treatments consistently produced
a three-leaved tree that explained 50.0% of the total variability. The
first split (Fig. 2, node 1) explained 40.6% of the variability while
the second split (Fig. 2, node 2) explained the remaining 9.4%. The
first split separated the units treated with the groundcover paired
with the rain shelter from the other units. Variance partitioning
indicated that this split was caused primarily by a difference in
total spur blight-infected plant biomass. The second split separated
the control units from the ones that included a groundcover or a
rain shelter. Variance partitioning indicated that the second split
was caused primarily by an increase in floricane biomass and by a
reduction in spur blight-infected plant biomass in units including
a groundcover or a rain shelter.
4. Discussion
All three combinations of reflective groundcover and rain shel-
ter treatments affected the three trophic levels differently, but the
groundcover paired with the rain shelter resulted in the healthiest
and most productive cropping system.
4.1. Raspberry yield, fruit quality, and vigor
Raspberry crop productivity was considerably enhanced by
the reflective groundcovers and the rain shelters independently,
although the effects of these two treatments differed. The ground-
cover promoted an overall increase in vegetative and reproductive
biomass that can be attributed to an enhanced light environ-
ment that promoted the growth of larger raspberries, although
field observations (Comeau, unpub. data) suggested that fruit-
ing laterals were also enhanced. However, experimental units
treated with reflective groundcovers alone also produced a greater
yield of non-marketable raspberries. Overall, this suggest that the
121
combination of both treatments benefited raspberry productivity
by having additive effects since reflective groundcovers promoted
the production of vegetative and reproductive biomass, while the
rain shelter protected raspberries from precipitations and reduced
phytopathogen infection.
The increased vegetative and reproductive biomass productions
with reflective groundcovers might be a possible outcome of the
increase in reflected PAR generated by these structures, which
could have enhanced photosynthetic capacity. Synthetic reflective
groundcovers have been shown to enhance the light environment
in row crops (Privé et al., 2008), and benefit growth and yield in
other crops (e.g., Grout et al., 2002; Privé et al., 2011). Concur-
rently, rain shelters had no effect on incident PAR, as opposed
to what was documented by Rohloff et al. (2004). Although pre-
vious studies on individual raspberry leaf photosynthesis were
not able to detect changes in net carbon exchange rates with
Extenday® reflective groundcovers (Privé, unpub. data), this study
suggests that the overall carbon economy of the plant benefited
from these groundcover treatments. Concomitantly, both the veg-
etative and reproductive components were apparently enhanced
without altering the source-sink ratios of the plant.
4.2. Fungal diseases
Rain shelters were efficient in reducing phytopathogen inci-
dence and severity on raspberry vegetative and reproductive plant
parts. The microclimate data suggested that this reduction in phy-
topathogen incidence and severity was caused by a decrease in
direct rainwater reaching the plants since air relative humidity
was similar in all the treatments. We suspect that rain shelters
(1) decreased the number and duration of leaf wetness events,
which are critical factors promoting infection by B. cinerea and D.
applanata (Burchill and Beever, 1975; Bulger et al., 1987), and (2)
limited the amount of rainwater reaching crop canopies, which
has been shown to facilitate spore dispersion in fungi affecting
raspberries (Williamson and Hargreaves, 1981; Fitt et al., 1989).
122 C. Comeau et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123

Results from this study also suggested that the severity of spur pest suppression services. Because indicators from multiple trophic
blight infections on primocanes caused a decline in raspberry yield levels were either unaffected or beneficially affected by reflective
in the following year and therefore that the effect of rain shelters on groundcovers paired with rain shelters, it is suggested that their
spur blight potentially contributed to the positive effect observed combined use consists of a promising tool to overcome the nega-
on raspberry yield. tive effects of increased precipitation during critical periods of crop
Although the shelf-life was not extended past four days by any susceptibility such as the bloom period and fruit ripening. By reduc-
of the treatments, the rate of degradation under the action of B. ing disease pressure, this management method lessens the need for
cinerea in the first three days of storage was significantly reduced fungicide applications. This could benefit producers by cutting costs
for the raspberries grown under rain shelters. Since shelf-life was related to pesticides, but also benefit consumers and retailers that
assessed at room temperature and fresh raspberries are usually are increasingly demanding organically grown products.
placed in cold storage quickly after harvest, the rate of degrada-
tion of refrigerated raspberries could potentially be greatly reduced
and shelf-life could be extended for raspberries harvested under Acknowledgments
rain shelters. In a similar study (Comeau, unpub. data), ‘Nova’ rasp-
berries grown under rain shelters and kept at 5 ◦ C for 10 days We thank K. Lynch, J. Goguen, and two anonymous reviewers
after harvest were only 20% degraded while raspberries that were for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript;
not grown under rain shelters were 60% degraded. Along with F. Cyr, J. Chiasson, A. Leblanc, A. MacKay, C. Majka, L. Russell, and
the increased marketable yield with treatments that included the the staff at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Senator Hervé J.
rain shelter, the observed decreased rate of degradation also sup- Michaud research farm for their technical assistance. This work was
ports the hypothesis that infection and development of fungal supported by NSERC, FESR, and NBIF grants.
diseases was lower in the field. In a relatively similar system, Xiao
et al. (2001) reported 88–94% reductions of B. cinerea incidence
on strawberries grown under rain-exclusion tunnels compared to Annex 1.
strawberries grown without these structures.
Reflective groundcovers were also observed to reduce the Ground beetle species collected from pitfall traps, their total abun-
biomass of spur blight infected plant tissues. This could be dance, total biomass, and feeding guild.
attributed to an increase in reflected solar energy and therefore
Scientific name (authority) Number Total biomass Feeding
UV radiations, which are known to be detrimental for some phy- collected (mg dry weight) guilda
topathogens (e.g., Raviv and Antignus, 2004). Moreover, UV light
Agonum cupripenne (Say) 1 8.6 C
has been observed to favor phenol and flavonoid formation in rasp- Agonum gratiosum (Mannerheim) 2 10.0 C
berries (Raviv and Antignus, 2004), which is known to protect Agonum melanarium (Dejean) 2 28.0 C
against D. applanata infection in plant tissue wounds (Kozlowska Agonum muelleri (Herbst)b 29 274.8 C
and Krzywański, 1994). Another explanation could be that reflec- Agonum placidum (Say) 15 116.2 O
Amara aenea (DeGeer)b 44 367.8 O
tive groundcovers increased the available light energy for the lower
Amara aulica (Panzer)b 11 502.8 H
and inner section of the raspberry canopy. These canopy sections Amara communis (Panzer)b 14 90.3 H
are often in a shaded zone that induces early leaf senescence (Dale, Amara familiaris (Duftschmid)b 1 6.0 H
1989), which is known to favor spur blight attack (Burchill and Amara littoralis (Mannerheim) 89 895.7 O
Beever, 1975). Amara neoscotica (Casey) 3 45.0 U
Amara patruelis (Dejean) 3 36.0 C
Anisodactylus harisii (LeConte) 8 265.6 O
4.3. Arthropods Anisodactylus nigrita (Dejean) 9 306.0 C
Bembidion properans (Stephens)b 10 13.1 C
High abundance and species richness of higher-order het- Bembidion quadrimaculatum 2 1.3 C
oppositum (Say)
erotrophs like ground beetles is essential in organic management
Calathus gregarius (Say) 1 8.0 O
where no pesticides are used to suppress herbivore populations Carabus granulatus (Lindroth)b 269 26977.6 O
because these insects provide crucial ecosystem services such as Carabus nemoralis (Müller)b 89 16277.1 C
pest control, which can have beneficial ramifications on crop pro- Carabus serratus (Say) 1 145.0 O
ductivity (Loughridge and Luff, 1983). The rain shelters and the Chlaenius sericeus sericeus 2 94.7 C
(Forster)
reflective groundcovers did not favor nor negatively impact ground
Harpalus affinis (Schrank)b 26 544.5 C
beetles as their abundance and species richness were similar Harpalus herbivagus (Say) 4 51.2 O
between treatments. Most ground beetles species exhibit cryptic Harpalus laevipes (Zetterstedt) 1 25.0 U
behavior by hiding under different types of substrates while for- Harpalus pensylvanicus (DeGeer) 1 40.0 O
Harpalus rubripes (Duftschmid)b 2 53.0 U
aging (Lövei and Sunderland, 1996). Therefore, it is possible that
Harpalus rufipes (DeGeer)b 917 43686.8 O
ground beetles benefited from the presence of groundcovers for Harpalus somnulentus (Dejean) 20 259.0 C
refuge, but that damper microclimatic conditions were not opti- Loricera pilicornis pilicornis 7 43.8 C
mal for them. These results are in accordance with a preliminary (Fabricius)
study (Comeau et al., 2012) indicating that groundcovers had little Poecilus lucublandus lucublandus 44 1104.2 O
(Say)
effects on ground beetle abundance, species richness, and overall
Pterostichus adstrictus 2 46.0 C
assemblage structures. (Eschscholtz)
Pterostichus commutabilis 1 11.0 C
4.4. Trophic assemblages (Motschulsky)
Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger)b 1648 103443.7 C
Pterostichus mutus (Say) 1 23.0 C
Overall, reflective groundcovers and rain shelters were shown Sphaeroderus nitidicollis brevoorti 2 86.0 C
to affect the trophic assemblages of the four cropping systems dif- (Guérin-Méneville)
ferently. The combination of both structures resulted in the most a
C = carnivorous, H = herbivorous, O = omnivorous, and U = unknown diet
productive cropping system, decreased phytopathogen pressure, (Larochelle and Larivière, 2003).
b
and did not negatively affect ground beetle species that may confer Adventive species in North America (Bousquet, 2010).
 C. Comeau et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 155 (2012) 117–123
References
Bousquet, Y., 2010. Illustrated Identification Guide to Adults and Larvae of Northeast-
ern North American Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pensoft Publishers,
Bulgaria.
Bulger, M.A., Ellis, M.A., Madden, L.V., 1987. Influence of temperature and wetness
duration on infection of strawberry flowers by Botrytis cinerea and disease inci-
dence of fruit originating from infected flowers. Phytopathology 77, 1125–1230.
Burchill, R.T., Beever, D.J., 1975. Seasonal fluctuations in ascospore concentrations
of Didymella applanata in relation to raspberry spur blight incidence. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 81, 299–304.
Comeau, C., Privé, J.-P., Moreau, G., 2012. Effects of reflective groundcovers on ground
beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) cropping sys-
tems. J. Appl. Entomol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2012.01731.x, in
press.
Dale, A., 1989. Productivity in red raspberries. Hort. Rev. 11, 185–228.
De’ath, G., 2002. Multivariate regression trees: a new technique for modeling
species-environment relationships. Ecology 83, 1105–1117.
Dritschilo, W., Erwin, T.L., 1982. Responses in abundance and diversity of cornfield
carabid communities to differences in farm practices. Ecology 63, 900–904.
Fitt, B.D.L., McCartney, H.A., Walklate, P.J., 1989. The role of rain in dispersal of
pathogen inoculum. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 27, 241–270.
Green, S.R., McNaughton, K.G., Greer, D.H., McLeod, D.J., 1995. Measurement of the
increased PAR and net all-wave radiation absorption by an apple tree caused by
applying a reflective ground covering. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 76, 163–183.
Grout, B.W.W., Beale, C.V., Johnson, T.P.C., 2002. The positive influence of year-round
reflective mulch on apple yield and quality commercial orchards. Acta Hortic.
636, 513–519.
Jacobs, J., 2010. The tokas function in R. http://www.joshuajacobs.org/R/tokas.txt.
Last consulted on March 21, 2011.
Jarvis, W.R., 1962. The infection of strawberry and raspberry fruits by Botrytis cinerea
Fr. Ann. Appl. Biol. 50, 569–575.
Kozlowska, M., Krzywański, Z., 1994. The possible role of phenolic compounds in
red raspberry resistance to Didymella applanata (Niessl/Sacc). Acta Hortic. 381,
671–674.
Kromp, B., 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest con-
trol efficacy cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74,
187–228.
Larochelle, A., Larivière, M.-C., 2003. A Natural History of the Ground-beetles
(Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America North of Mexico. Pensoft Publishers, Bul-
garia.
Logan, D.P., Maher, B.J., 2009. Options for reducing the number of Chorus cicada
Amphipsalta zelandica (Boisduval) in kiwifruit orchards. N. Z. Plant Protect.-SE.
62, 268–273.
Loughridge, A.H., Luff, M.L., 1983. Aphid predation by Harpalus rufipes (DeGeer)
(Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the laboratory and field. J. Appl. Ecol. 20, 451–462.
123
Lövei, G.L., Sunderland, K.D., 1996. Ecology and behaviour of ground beetles
(Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41, 231–256.
Masaki, T., 1987. Vegetable cultivation under the plastic rain shelter. JARQ – Jpn.
Agr. Res. Q 20, 180–184.
Mathews, C.R., Bottrell, D.G., Brown, M.W., 2002. A comparison of conventional
and alternative understory management practices for apple production: multi-
trophic effects. Appl. Soil Ecol. 21, 221–231.
McLaren, G.F., Fraser, J.A., 2001. Alternative strategies to control New Zealand flower
thrips on nectarines. N. Z. Plant Protect.-SE 54, 10–14.
Melnychuk, N.A., Olfert, O., Youngs, B., Gillott, C., 2003. Abundance and diversity of
Carabidae (Coleoptera) in different farming systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95,
69–72.
Miñarro, M., Dapena, E., 2003. Effects of groundcover management on ground beetles
(Coleoptera: Carabidae) in an apple orchard. Appl. Soil Ecol. 23, 111–117.
Privé, J.-P., Russell, L., Leblanc, A., 2008. Use of Extenday reflective groundcover
in production of ‘Gala’ apples (Malus domestica) in New Brunswick Canada: 1.
Impact on canopy microclimate and leaf gas exchange. N. Z. J. Crop Hort. 36,
221–231.
Privé, J.-P., Russell, L., Leblanc, A., 2011. Impact of reflective groundcovers on growth
flowering, yield and fruit quality in Gala apples in New Brunswick. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 91, 765–772.
Rainio, J., Niemelä, J., 2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera Carabidae) as bioindicators.
Biodivers. Conserv. 12, 487–506.
Raviv, M., Antignus, Y., 2004. UV radiation effects on pathogens and insect pests of
greenhouse-grown crops. Photochem. Photobiol. 79, 219–226.
R Development Core Team, 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Rohloff, J., Nestby, R., Folkestad, J.A., Iversen, T.-H., 2004. Influence of rain cover
cultivation on taste and aroma quality of strawberries (Fragaria ananassa Duch.).
J. Food Agric. Environ. 2, 74–82.
SAS Institute, 2009. Base SAS® 9.2 Procedures Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North
Carolina.
Sønsteby, A., Heide, O.M., 2008. Environmental control of growth and flowering of
Rubus idaeus L. cv Glen Ample. Sci. Hortic.-Amsterdam 117, 249–256.
Thomas, C.F.G., Brown, N.J., Kendall, K.A., 2006. Carabid movement and vegetation
density: Implications for interpreting pitfall trap data from split-field trials.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 113, 51–61.
Williamson, B., Hargreaves, A.J., 1981. Effects of Didymella applanata and Botrytis
cinerea on axillary buds lateral shoots and yield of red raspberry. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 97, 55–64.
Woodford, J.A.T., Williamson, B., Gordon, S.C., 2002. Raspberry beetle damage
decreases shelf-life of raspberries also infected with Botrytis cinerea. Acta Hortic.
585, 423–426.
Xiao, C.L., Chandler, C.K., Price, J.F., Duval, J.R., Mertely, J.C., Legard, D.E., 2001. Com-
parison of epidemics of Botrytis fruit rot and powdery mildew of strawberry in
large plastic tunnel and field production systems. Plant Dis. 85, 901–909.