Next Article in Journal
Remote Sensing Data for Estimating Groundwater Recharge: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Organizational Challenges and Solutions in Circular Economy Implementation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 4
10.3390/su18041828
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Weed Diversity and Associated Entomofauna in High-Andean Organic Pastures

by
Ima-Sumac Sánchez de Céspedes
1,2,*,
Jhadyra Anahí Chagna Aguirre
1,
María Angélica Morales Males
1,
Mónica Eulalia León-Espinoza
1,
Doris Chalampuente-Flores
1,
Julia K. Prado
1,
Joaquín Giménez de Azcárate
3 and
Carmen Castillo Carrillo
4
1
Agrobiodiversity and Food Security Research Group-GIASSA, Agricultural and Environmental Science Faculty, Universidad Técnica del Norte, Av. 17 de Julio 5-21 y Gral. José María Córdova, Ibarra 100105, Ecuador
2
Doctoral Programme in Agriculture and Environment for Development, Campus Terra, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain
3
Department of Botany, Campus Terra, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain
4
Santa Catalina Experimental Station, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP), Quito 170201, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(4), 1828; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041828
Submission received: 24 November 2025 / Revised: 26 December 2025 / Accepted: 26 December 2025 / Published: 11 February 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Agroecosystems comprise various components, including weeds, insects, and microorganisms, which interact with one another and play distinct roles in achieving sustainable agriculture. This balance is essential for both agricultural productivity and environmental preservation. This study explores the relationship between diversity and ecological functions of weed species and the entomofauna present in a pasture under rotational grazing and organic management in Otavalo, Ecuador. Sampling was conducted over an area of 2.5 hectares. We identified and counted weeds using 65 quadrats, each measuring 4 m2. To capture insects, we employed chromatic traps, pitfall traps, and entomological nets. The results indicated a medium level of biodiversity, as shown by the Margalef index (4.85) and the Shannon–Wiener index (2.23), which also suggested a medium to dispersed evenness (Pielou_J = 0.23). Additionally, the ecosystem exhibited low species dominance, indicated by the Simpson index (D = 0.20). In total, we recorded 55 species belonging to 24 different botanical families. The most abundant families were Fabaceae (39%), Poaceae (21%), and Plantaginaceae (14.6%). For the entomofauna, a rich community was identified, comprising twelve orders and fifty families, with the order Diptera being predominant. Crucially, these findings demonstrate that agroecological practices foster a significant presence and diversity of both weed plants and associated insects, contributing to the agroecosystem’s resilience. We emphasize the role of diverse weed flora as refuges and resource providers for beneficial insects, such as those from the highly abundant Tachinidae family (Diptera), which are key natural regulators. This research highlights the importance of integrating weed conservation into pasture management for enhancing biodiversity, natural pest regulation, and promoting sustainable local transformation in highland agricultural landscapes.

1. Introduction

Ecuador has a total agricultural area of 5,381,383 hectares. Of this, 44.9% is dedicated to cultivated pastures, while 15.4% consists of natural pastures, together accounting for 60.3% of the country’s agricultural land [1,2]. In agroecosystems, we also encounter weeds—defined as wild plants that grow in agricultural fields [3]. These species play a vital role within these systems as they are interconnected with crops, insects, microorganisms, soil, and climate [4]. Despite being labeled as pests in agriculture [5], they are considered pioneer plants from an ecological perspective. Such vegetation thrives in areas where soil cover has been removed and responds dynamically to disturbances caused by crop management [5,6].
Grassland ecosystems typically exhibit a high diversity of weeds compared to other agroecosystems [7]. The species found in these ecosystems are usually native plants that have adapted to cultivation through complex evolutionary processes. Foundational studies on the Ecuadorian High-Andes describe a flora dominated by families such as Asteraceae and Poaceae, which have evolved specific life forms to colonize these isolated high-altitude environments [8]. It is essential to recognize that this spontaneous vegetation is an integral are part of agrobiodiversity and plays a crucial role in sustainable agriculture. These plants provide vital ecosystem services and contribute to the ecological processes within the agroecosystem [5].
However, in the Andean region, these dynamics are strongly influenced by environmental gradients and land use history, where climate change and human activities are actively reshaping vegetation patterns [9]. Indeed, grazing significantly alters plant communities and ecosystem services; recent reviews in the high tropical Andes indicate that moderate grazing can paradoxically maintain higher plant diversity compared to abandonment or overgrazing [10]. Furthermore, recent studies highlight that altitude acts as a critical filter for plant communities, determining the distribution of functional groups and species composition in mountain pastures [11]. Understanding these factors is key to managing the delicate balance of these ecosystems.
In natural ecosystems, studies have shown that non-crop species provide food and shelter for wildlife [12,13]. Additionally, they adapt quickly to the soil, protect it, and aid in its recovery from damage caused by human activities [14]. The composition of plant species is one of the most critical factors influencing the diversity of insect life in agroecosystems [15]. Research on insects that inhabit grasslands is essential, as these organisms play a crucial role in the dynamics of these ecosystems [16]. Their continuous interaction with the surrounding flora and fauna creates complex ecological dynamics. Within grasslands, insects play a significant role in key processes such as pest control, organic matter recycling, and pollination, making them indispensable elements of the agroecosystem [17].
Additionally, weeds serve several ecological roles within ecosystems. They can be vital for beekeeping, possess medicinal properties, act as host plants for natural predators, contribute to nitrogen fixation, serve as forage, and play a role in soil conservation and improvement; however, they can also exhibit toxic properties. Furthermore, they can be a source of raw materials for producing biofertilizers, contributing to new crops, and food for humans and animals [7,18,19].
More than half of Ecuador’s agricultural land comprises grasslands; however, specific information regarding the ecological complexity of these systems in the High-Andean region remains limited, especially concerning the multitrophic interactions between spontaneous vegetation and associated insects.
While previous studies in the southern part of the country [5] have documented the importance of these ecosystems, focusing mainly on competition and the invasive characteristics of certain species, the ecological role that these plant communities can play as bioindicators of soil health and reservoirs of biodiversity is still poorly understood in this context. Therefore, this research aims to evaluate the floristic diversity of weeds in high-Andean grasslands and their relationship with insects, discussing the implications for the design of agroecological management strategies that promote sustainability and biological conservation in the region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Area of Study

The study area is located in the parish of San Juan de Ilumán, canton of Otavalo, province of Imbabura, Ecuador. The research plot covers 2.5 hectares and is managed under a system of rotational grazing and organic practices. The predominant pasture species include kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum Hochst. ex Chiov.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), all established in 2022.
The study was conducted under a livestock farming systems, where alternating periods of grazing and rest were implemented (with a grazing cycle of every 45 days). The agroecosystem is characterized by a mean relative humidity of 76%, a mean annual temperature of 14 °C, and annual precipitation ranging from 900 mm to 1200 mm. Geographically, the research area is situated at 0° 17′07.7136″ N and 78° 13′34.0334″ W, at an altitude of 2663 m above sea level.
Environmental conditions during the sampling period (October 2022 to March 2023) in Agualongo showed consistent thermal stability. The daily average temperature ranged from 13 °C to 15 °C. Maximum temperatures predominantly fluctuated between 17 °C and 21 °C, while minimum temperatures ranged from 7 °C to 11 °C, with a notable drop to approximately 5 °C in late January (Figure 1). Such stable, cool temperatures and the recorded thermal amplitude are key factors influencing insect activity, capture rates, and weed growth dynamics in the study area.

2.2. Sampling Methodology

2.2.1. Weed Sampling

The study area was divided into 13 grazing plots (Figure 2), ranging from 200 to 400 m2 each. These plots were established in homogeneous areas to minimize micro-environmental variation. Weed sampling was conducted using, five 4 m2 (2 m × 2 m) quadrats within each plot (n = 65 quadrats) following a systematic design to ensure uniform coverage. Specifically, one quadrat was placed at the plot center, while the other four were arranged in a cross pattern oriented towards the sides, avoiding the plot edges (Figure 3). Within each quadrat, all weeds—defined as spontaneous plant species not sown were identified, and their number of individuals per species was recorded (absolute abundance).
Initial identification of weeds was carried out in the field. Specimens that could not be identified in situ were collected and taken to the Botany Laboratory at the Universidad Técnica del Norte for taxonomic determination. Identification was performed using taxonomic keys, expert consultation, the Red Book of Plants of Ecuador, and digital databases such as World Flora Online and PlantNet.

2.2.2. Insect Sampling

Three complementary techniques were employed to sample the entomofauna. Epigeal insects were captured passively using unbaited pitfall traps, with four units installed per plot (1 trap per 50 m2) for 48 h. Although trap construction followed standard protocols [20], the experimental design was adapted to the plot scale (200 m2). Specifically, bait was omitted to measure the natural activity-density of resident fauna without introducing attraction bias from adjacent areas (edge effect), and trap abundance was limited to four units to ensure statistical independence and avoid interference due to competition between traps.
For flying insects, yellow chromatic (sticky) traps were used (one per plot) and remained deployed for one week [21]. Additionally, 100 sweeps were performed along a transect within each plot between 09:00 and 11:00 h using a sweep net [20]. Insects collected via sweeping were euthanized in a killing jar.
Subsequently, samples were transported to the Entomology Laboratory at the Universidad Técnica del Norte for curation and analysis. Specimens from the pitfall traps were preserved in 70% ethanol, while individuals captured with the sweep net were dry-mounted. Taxonomic determination was carried out to order and family levels through comparative morphology using the university’s reference collection and specialized taxonomic keys [22]; identifications were validated by experts in the field.

2.3. Data Analysis

Species accumulation curves were constructed using EstimateS v. 9.1.0 software to evaluate the sampling effort. Following Moreno [23], the non-parametric estimators Chao1, Chao2, Jackknife 1, Jackknife 2, and Bootstrap were employed. Alpha diversity or species richness was assessed using the Margalef index (DMg), to account for species richness.
Shannon-Wiener and the Simpson indices were used to measure diversity, while species evenness was evaluated with the Pielou evenness index. The relationship between soil properties and the wees flora was determined through a weighted dominance analysis, which assigned values based on abundance using the following ranges [3,4]: 2 for 1000–5000, and 1 for 100–1000.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze insect population dynamics, and graphical representations were generated using InfoStat (v. 2020).

3. Results

3.1. Weed Composition and Diversity

The Agualongo grassland is primarily dominated by kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum), a creeping, stoloniferous perennial with a rhizomatous root system. This growth habit enables kikuyu to effectively compete for space and coverage. Across a total of 65 quadrats surveyed, a species richness of 55 species was recorded (Table 1). The sampling efficiency exceeded 75%, approaching the 85% threshold recommended by literature [20]. The species accumulation curve did not reach a plateau, suggesting that increasing the number of quadrats and the sampling area could further capture rare species (Figure 4).
Over the six-month sampling period, 67,606 weed individuals were documented, representing 24 botanical families. Figure 5 illustrates the families with the highest abundance.
Thirty-nine percent of all individuals belong to the Fabaceae family, represented by Trifolium repens, Dalea coerulea, Medicago lupulina, and Medicago polymorpha. The second most abundant family was Poaceae (21%), comprising eight species: Digitaria ciliaris, Briza minor, Holcus lanatus, Poa annua, Paspalum candidum, Lolium multiflorum, Avena sativa, and Anthoxanthum odoratum. The Plantaginaceae family accounted for 14.6% of the total mainly Veronica persica and Plantago lanceolata. Polygonaceae represented 7.71% of the abundance, including Rumex obtusifolius, Polygonum aviculare, Persicaria nepalensis, and Muehlenbeckia hastulata. Brassicaceae made up 5.37% of the total, including Capsella bursa-pastoris, Cotula australis, Raphanus sp., and Sisymbrium officinale. Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the species with the highest absolute abundance.
The alpha diversity of weeds, calculated using the Margalef Index, was 4.85, indicating a medium to high level of richness. The Shannon-Wiener Index (H′ = 2.23), indicated a medium level of diversity. The Pielou evenness index (J′ = 0.23), suggested a low to moderate equitability, while the Simpson Dominance Index (D = 0.20), and the inverse index (1-D = 0.80) confirmed high diversity with low dominance by any single species.
These results suggest high weed diversity within the study area. In grasslands without conventional management, ecological complexity increases, which is advantageous for the overall biodiversity of the agroecosystem.

3.2. Entomofauna Dynamics

The high abundance of specimens collected (n = 10,723) across 12 orders and 50 families reflects a robust and diverse insect community. The dominance of Coleoptera and Diptera (Figure 8) is consistent with their ecological roles as decomposers, herbivores, and pollinators.
Regarding sampling efficiency, chromatic (yellow sticky) traps were the most effective method, accounting for over 60% of total captures. This suggests that the local entomofauna is highly responsive to visual cues, likely linked to the flowering periods of arvense species. The temporal dynamics a exhibited variation throughout the six-month period, with notable peaks in November and January (Figure 9).
These population trends correlate with the environmental conditions. The stable, cool temperatures and thermal amplitude of the region likely facilitated continuous biological activity, preventing mortality events. Even the slight temperature drop in late January did not result in a significant population decline, demonstrating the resilience of the local insect community to the Andean microclimate. The integration of multiple sampling methods was crucial, to capture different functional groups within the agroecosystem.
The specimens belonged to the Diptera families: Tachinidae, Dolichopodidae, and Muscidae (Figure 10 and Figure 11).

4. Discussion

Weed communities vary considerably, even in similar environments, suggesting that intrinsic factors such as crop management, soil properties, and climate significantly influence diversity and dominance patterns [24,25]. In the Agualongo grassland, the predominance of kikuyo grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) defines the physical structure of the ecosystem. Although this stoloniferous and rhizomatous species is highly competitive for space and light, our results demonstrate coexistence with a considerable richness of 55 species. This suggests that, under low-intensity management, kikuyo permits the establishment of significant taxonomic diversity [26]. Additionally, grazing pressure in these grasslands may favor species adapted to compacted soils, which often lack aeration in no-till systems [14].
Analysis of the botanical composition reveals key ecological patterns, particularly the predominance of the Fabaceae family (39%). Represented primarily by Trifolium repens (white clover), this family serves as a crucial indicator of nutrient dynamics. Trifolium species are valued as high-quality forage and indicators of fertile soils in temperate climates [14]. The coexistence of grasses (Poaceae) and legumes (Fabaceae) is essential for sustainable grazing; while grasses provide biomass, legumes contribute via biological nitrogen fixation, reducing dependence on synthetic fertilizers and improving forage quality [27,28]. This functional complementarity aligns with ecological intensification, where in situ biodiversity substitutes for external inputs to bolster regulatory and supporting ecosystem services [29,30]. This balance concurs with Luscher et al. [31], who highlighted that grass-legume mixtures are more resilient and productive than monocultures. The diversity of the Poaceae family in Agualongo coincides with observations by CONACYT and the Mexican government [32], which indicate that genera within this family are particularly abundant in minimally disturbed soils.
Furthermore, these findings support Suárez et al. [33], who identified Poaceae, Asteraceae, and Brassicaceae as the predominant families in temperate climates. The high prevalence of Asteraceae species (e.g., Galinsoga sp. and Taraxacum officinale) is consistent with the ecological traits of this family, which possesses efficient seed dispersal mechanisms (anemochory) and significant phenotypic plasticity, enabling rapid colonization of available niches [34]. Similar patterns have been observed in livestock micro-watersheds in the Andean region [35,36].
From an agroecological perspective, Asteraceae flowers serve as vital sources of nectar and pollen for beneficial insects, such as the families Syrphidae and Tachinidae [37]. The observed relationship between the dominant families (Fabaceae and Asteraceae) and the high abundance of dipterans represents a spatial and functional association, rather than a verified trophic interaction. While this study did not employ bipartite network analysis, this convergence is supported by shared habitat requirements. Specifically, the dense architecture of Trifolium repens (Fabaceae) provides a moist microhabitat [38], while Asteraceae offer essential floral resources that enhance the longevity and fecundity of parasitoids such as Tachinidae.
The prominence of the Poaceae family as a dominant group aligns with findings in tamarillo (Solanum betaceum) and naranjilla (Solanum quitoense) crops within highland ecosystems Río Negro [39]. Within this family species such as Digitaria ciliaris, is recognized for its high competitive capacity and successful adaptation to disturbed agricultural environments [40,41].
From an ecological perspective, weeds perform various regulatory and competitive functions that affect community assembly during different fallow and cropping periods [42]. For instance, certain taxa such as mustard (Brassica spp.), forage radish (Raphanus sativus), and Sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor x sudanense) can inhibit the growth of competitors through allelopathy. Furthermore, the role of weeds as bioindicators of soil health is evident in this study. Weed diversity is closely linked to agroecosystem functioning, serving as ecological indicators of the physical, chemical, and biological quality of soils, while also promoting mineral uptake and improving soil properties [4].
Within the Plantaginaceae family, Plantago lanceolata suggests the presence of clay soils. However, it also serves as an indicator of soil compaction [43,44,45] and possesses strong resilience and regrowth capacity under grazing systems [46]. Conversely, the presence of Veronica persica indicates carbonated soils, rich in nutrients, organic matter, but often associated with anaerobic conditions [47].
Holcus lanatus prefers slightly acidic, highly fertile soils rich in organic matter [48]. Rumex obtusifolius thrives in clayey soils with high fertility, prone to phosphorus retention [44,45], and generally grows in areas heavily trampled by livestock, developing a taproot that helps loosen the soil [47,48,49]. This diversity of root architectures enhances soil structure and ecosystem resilience to extreme climatic events [50].
The diversity indices (Shannon H′ = 2.23; Simpson 1-D = 0.80) reflect a stable ecosystem with low dominance. According to Altieri and Nicholls [51], high plant diversity in agroecosystems enhances natural biological control by providing shelter and alternative food sources for natural enemies. This is corroborated by the insect community, where the Tachinidae family (Diptera) was the most abundant. Tachinids are essential parasitoids that regulate herbivorous insects [52]. Previous studies emphasize that Tachinidae diversity is high in grasslands, to the dynamics of these systems, and providing essential pollination services [53]. Furthermore, the literature suggests that parasitoid abundance is directly correlated with the availability of floral resources, such as those from the Asteraceae, Apiaceae, and Araliaceae families (e.g., Hydrocotyle bonplandii, found at the site), which provide sugars necessary for the flight, longevity, and fecundity of these dipterans, thus enhancing their effectiveness in pest control [54]. As noted by Winkler et al. [55], a longer lifespan allows female parasitoids more time to search for and parasitize their hosts, thereby maximizing their potential fecundity and their impact on the pest populations. Likewise, the presence of the Dolichopodidae family, which are generalist predators, reinforces the hypothesis that plant diversity is supporting a complex trophic network [56].
The importance of these habitats is further highlighted by Llumiluisa [57] who noted that the loss of weedy refuges for important insect orders Diptera and Hemiptera can lead to rapid population declines due to deforestation and human activities that impact the entomofauna [53].
Finally, the lack of conventional management (intensive tillage or herbicides) has favored beneficial ecological complexity. Maintaining this plant biodiversity acts as a reservoir of functional biodiversity (particularly beneficial Diptera) that can positively influence the overall health of the agroecosystem. These results suggest a paradigm shift: moving from total eradication of weeds to selective management, transforming them from “pests” to essential functional components [58].
The stability of this agroecosystem appears to be driven by functional redundancy and niche availability. The diversity of weeds ensures that the overall community continues to provide refuge and resources for beneficial insects. This ‘safety net’ effect, promotes community stability and resilience. Our findings suggest that the coexistence of a rich arvense flora and diverse insect orders creates a self-regulating environment, where natural pest control (via Tachinidae and Dolichopodidae) is a byproduct of the high-quality habitat maintained through rotational grazing.

5. Conclusions

The moderate weed diversity and low species dominance observed indicate a balanced and resilient agroecosystem, where no single weed species dominates. This stability allows for a wide range of ecological functions. Unlike systems dominated by aggressive species that reduce overall biodiversity, the studied area maintains niche availability through low-intensity management.
The order Diptera was the most abundant insect order, largely driven by livestock management practices, particularly manure decomposition. The prevalence of Tachinidae, Dolichopodidae, and Muscidae underscores a healthy and functionally active agroecosystem, performing roles as decomposers, predators, and pollinators.
This study identified a rich and complex entomofauna (n = 10,723 specimens belonging to 12 orders and 50 families), highlighting the efficiency of chromatic traps for monitoring. The abundance of Tachinidae underscores the role of weeds as essential refuges and floral resources. These insects act as natural regulators of pest populations and contribute to pollination. Preserving weed diversity is vital to maintain the composition and abundance of beneficial Diptera and Hemiptera.
Integrated management that incorporates weed flora conservation is essential for agroecosystem resilience and natural pest regulation. These findings advocate for a shift toward agroecological practices, such as rotational grazing and the tolerance of functional weeds, to enhance biodiversity in high-altitude pasture systems. This approach provides a viable model for sustainable agricultural transformation in Andean landscapes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.-S.S.d.C. and M.E.L.-E.; methodology, I.-S.S.d.C., J.A.C.A. and M.A.M.M.; validation, M.E.L.-E.; formal analysis, I.-S.S.d.C., D.C.-F. and J.K.P.; investigation, I.-S.S.d.C., J.A.C.A., M.A.M.M., M.E.L.-E., D.C.-F. and J.K.P.; data curation, I.-S.S.d.C. and J.K.P.; writing—original draft preparation, I.-S.S.d.C., M.E.L.-E. and J.K.P.; writing—review and editing, I.-S.S.d.C., M.E.L.-E., D.C.-F., J.G.d.A. and C.C.C.; supervision, J.G.d.A. and C.C.C. project administration, I.-S.S.d.C.; funding acquisition, I.-S.S.d.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Universidad Técnica del Norte, through RESOLUTION No. UTN-CI-2022-047-R, and RESOLUTION No. UTN-CI-2023-260-R, which approves the research project titled “ESTUDIO COMPARATIVO DE BIODIVERSIDAD EN AGROECOSISTEMAS ALTOANDINOS. FASE 1: ARVENSES and FASE 2: ENTOMOFAUNA” belonging to FICAYA.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

To AgroPrado Livestock farming for allowing this research to be conducted on their grassland property in the community of Agualongo, in the canton of Otavalo. J. Giménez de Azcárate is grateful for the financial support from the Xunta de Galicia (Grant ED431B 2025/53).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. León, R.; Bonifaz, N.; Gutiérrez, F. Pastos y Forrajes del Ecuador Siembra y Producción de Pasturas/Pastures and Forages of Ecuador: Sowing and Production of Pastures; AbyaYala: Quito, Ecuador, 2018; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365964335_PASTOS_Y_FORRAJES_DEL_ECUADOR (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  2. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censo (INEC). Encuesta de Superficie y Producción Agropecuaria Continua-ESPAC/Continuous Agricultural Area and Production Survey-ESPAC. 2023. Available online: https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/encuesta-de-superficie-y-produccion-agropecuaria-continua-2020/ (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  3. Alemán, F.; Quezada, J.B.; Garmendia, M. Flora Arvense Y Ruderal del Pacífico Y Centro de Nicaragua/Weed and Ruderal Flora of the Pacific and Central Nicaragua, 1st ed.; Universidad Nacional Agraria: Managua, Nicaragua, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Díaz-Díaz, Y.; Blanco-Valdés, Y. Las arvenses como indicador microbiológico del suelo/Weeds as a microbiological soil indicator. Cultiv. Trop. 2022, 43, e12. Available online: https://ediciones.inca.edu.cu/index.php/ediciones/article/view/1648 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  5. Aguirre-Mendoza, Z.; Jaramillo-Díaz, N.; Quizhpe-Coronel, W. Arvenses Asociadas a Cultivos Y Pastizales del Ecuador; Universidad Nacional de Loja: Loja, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carvalho, L.B. Plantas daninhas, 1st ed.; Lages, S.C., Ed.; UNESP: São Paulo, Brasil, 2013; Available online: https://www.fcav.unesp.br/Home/departamentos/fitossanidade/leonardobiancodecarvalho/livro_plantasdaninhas.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  7. Cifuentes, L.M.; Sepúlveda-Nieto, M.D.P.; Gómez, G.D. Arvenses asociadas a sistemas de pasturas en la zona Baja del Departamento del Quindío/Weeds associated with pasture systems in the low zone of the Department of Quindío. Rev. Investig. Univ. Quindío 2012, 23, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sklenář, P.; Balslev, H. Superpáramo plant species diversity and phytogeography in Ecuador. Flora-Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2005, 200, 416–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cavieres, L.A.; Llambí, L.D.; Anthelme, F.; Hofstede, R.; Arroyo, M.T. High-Andean vegetation under environmental change: A continental synthesis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2025, 50, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Duchicela, S.A.; Llambí, L.D.; Bonnesoeur, V.; Román-Dañobeytia, F. Pastoralism in the high tropical Andes: A review of the effect of grazing intensity on plant diversity and ecosystem services. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2024, 27, e12791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Quinteros-Gómez, Y.; Macedo-Bedoya, J.; Santos-Linares, V.; Angeles-Alvarez, F.; Gómez-Ticerán, D.; Campos-De la Cruz, J.; Solis Sarmiento, J.; Salinas-Inga, A.; Valencia-Saavedra, Z. Floristic diversity and distribution pattern along an altitudinal gradient in the Central Andes: A case study of Cajatambo, Peru. Plants 2024, 13, 3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Blanco, Y.; Leyva, Á. Abundancia y diversidad de especies de arvenses en el cultivo de maíz (Zea mays, L.) precedido de un barbecho transitorio después de la papa (Solanum tuberosum L.)/Abundance and diversity of weed species in maize (Zea mays L.) preceded by a transitory fallow after potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Cultiv. Trop. 2010, 31, 12–16. Available online: https://ediciones.inca.edu.cu/index.php/ediciones/article/view/91/pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  13. Agüero-Alvarado, R.; Rodríguez-Ruiz, A.M.; González-Lutz, M.I.; Portuguez-García, P.; Brenes-Prendas, S. Abundancia y cobertura de arvenses bajo manejo convencional y orgánico de café y banano/Weed abundance and ground cover under conventional or organic management of coffee and banana. Agron. Mesoam. 2018, 29, 85–93. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/437/43754020008/html/ (accessed on 4 September 2025). [CrossRef]
  14. Schonbeck, M. An Ecological Understandisg of Weeds; eOrganic: Online Publication, 2009; pp. 1–15. Available online: https://eorganic.org/node/2314 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  15. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Debinski, D.M. Insects in Grassland Ecosystems. In Rangeland Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, 1st ed.; McNew, L.B., Dahlgren, D.K., Beck, J.L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 897–929. [Google Scholar]
  17. Angelo, M.J. La seguridad alimentaria, la agricultura industrializada y un cambio climático mundial: Perspectivas en Estados Unidos y Cuba/Food Security, Industrialized Agriculture, and Global Climate Change: Perspectives in the United States and Cuba. Fla. J. Int. Law 2017, 29, 133S–158S. Available online: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=fjil (accessed on 1 September 2025).
  18. Blanco, Y.; Leyva, Á. Las arvenses en el agroecosistema y sus beneficios agroecológicos como hospederas de enemigos naturales/Weeds in the agroecosystem and their agroecological benefits as hosts for natural enemies. Cultiv. Trop. 2007, 28, 21–28. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1932/193217731003.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  19. Blanco, Y. El rol de las arvenses como componente en la biodiversidad de los agroecosistemas/The role of weed species as a biodiversity component in agroecosystems. Cultiv. Trop. 2016, 37, 34–56. Available online: https://ediciones.inca.edu.cu/index.php/ediciones/article/view/1292 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  20. Álvarez, M.; Córdoba, S.; Escobar, F.; Fagua, G.; Gast, F.; Mendoza, H.; Ospina, M.; Umaña, A.M.; Villarreal, H. Manual de Métodos Para el Desarrollo de Inventarios de Biodiversidad/Manual of Methods for the Development of Biodiversity Inventories, 2nd ed.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2006; 236p, Available online: https://sib.gob.ar/archivos/IAVH-00288.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  21. Taraborelli, P.A.; Carrasco, N.; Malaspina, M.; Domínguez, M.C.; Belaus, A.; López, A.; Scavone, A.S.; Barbera, A.; Zamora, M.Y. Evaluation of agrobiodiversity and its trophic interactions as an indicator of sustainability in productive systems. Open J. Environ. Biol. 2022, 7, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Triplehorn, C.A.; Jhonson, N.F. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects, 7th ed.; Thomson-Brooks/Cole: Belmont, CA, USA, 2005; 864p, Available online: https://artropodosuniquindio.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/borror-the-study-of-insect1.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2025).
  23. Moreno, C. Métodos para Medir la Biodiversidad/Methods for Measuring Biodiversity, 1st ed.; Gorfi, S.A., Ed.; Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa: Saragoza, Spain, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  24. Guzmán-Mendoza, R.; Hernández-Hernández, V.; Salas-Araiza, M.D.; Núñez- Palenius, H.G. Plantas arvenses en tres monocultivos de bajío, México/Diversity of weeds species in three monocultures from Bajio, Mexico. Polibotánica 2022, 53, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fried, G.; Kazakou, E.; Gaba, S. Trajectories of weed communities explained by traits associated with species’ response to management practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 158, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Murgueitio, E.; Calle, Z.; Uribe, F.; Calle, A.; Solorio, B. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1654–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Herridge, D.F.; Peoples, M.B.; Boddey, R.M. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant Soil 2008, 311, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Suter, M.; Connolly, J.; Finn, J.A.; Loges, R.; Kirwan, L.; Sebastià, M.T.; Lüscher, A. Nitrogen yield advantage from grass–legume mixtures is robust over a wide range of legume proportions and environmental conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 21, 2424–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Blaix, C.; Moonen, A.C.; Dostatny, D.F.; Izquierdo, J.; Le Corff, J.; Morrison, J.; Von Redwitz, C.; Schumacher, M.; Weaterman, P.R. Quantification of regulating ecosystem services provided by weeds in annual cropping sustems using a systematic map approach. Weed Res. 2018, 58, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tiddens, T. The Language of Weeds; Chicago Botanic Garden: Glencoe, IL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lüscher, A.; Mueller-Harvey, I.; Soussana, J.F.; Rees, R.M.; Peyraud, J.L. Potential of legume-based grassland–livestock systems in Europe: A review. Grass Forage Sci. 2014, 69, 206–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología-CONACYT; Gobierno de México. Manejo Ecológico Integral de Arvenses en México/Integrated Ecological Weed Management in Mexico. Boletín Cent. Investig. Biológicas 2023, 24, 17. [Google Scholar]
  33. Suárez, C.E.; Estelrich, H.D.; Siri, J.I. Flora arvense y su relación con los sistemas de producción agrícola en la provincia de La Pampa/Tillage systems and their relationship with thw weed flora in La Pampa province, Argentina. Semiárida 2022, 32, 9–25. Available online: https://cerac.unlpam.edu.ar/index.php/semiarida/article/view/5697 (accessed on 29 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  34. Hao, J.H.; Qiang, S.; Chrobock, T.; van Kleunen, M.; Liu, Q.Q. A test of Baker’s Law: Breeding systems of invasive species of Asteraceae in China. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oliva, M.; Collazos, R.; Vásquez, H.; Rubio, K.; Maicelo, J.L. Composición florística de especies herbáceas forrajeras en praderas naturales de las principales microcuencas ganaderas de la región Amazonas/Floristic composition of herbaceous forage species in natural prairies of the main livestock watersheds of the Amazon region. Sci. Agropecu. 2019, 10, 109–117. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.pe/pdf/agro/v10n1/a12v10n1.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  36. Ochoa, J.A.; Salazar, C.A. Diversidad y Abundancia de Malezas Presentes en Pasturas de las Zonas Ganaderas de la Parroquia Chorocopte-Cañar. Bachelor Thesis, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador, 2023. Available online: https://rest-dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/server/api/core/bitstreams/401b9d17-4559-4126-8d38-2d0dcef81f67/content (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  37. Tooker, J.F.; Hauser, M.; Hanks, L.M. Floral host plants of Syrphidae and Tachinidae (Diptera) of central Illinois. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2006, 99, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Singh, D.; Chaudhary, P.; Taunk, J.; Singh, C.K.; Singh, D.; Singh, R.S.; Aski, M.; Singh, N.; Raje, R.S.; Singh, S. Advances in Fabaceae for abiotic stress resilience: From ‘omics’ to Artificial Intelligence. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Viera, W.; Mejía, P.; Noboa, M.; Obando, J.; Sotomayor, A.; Vásquez, W.; Viteri, P. Arvenses asociadas a los cultivos de naranjilla y tomate de árbol. Ecuad. Calid. 2015, 2, 41–47. Available online: https://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/server/api/core/bitstreams/d244ebfc-87ed-49b2-8511-3a2c75007bd2/content (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  40. Jones, E.A.; Contreras, D.J.; Everman, W.J. Digitaria ciliaris, Digitaria ischaemum, and Digitaria sanguinalis. In Biology and Management of Problematic Crop Weed Species, 1st ed.; Chauhan, B.S., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2021; pp. 173–195. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128229170000148 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  41. Ueda, M.U.; Endo, A.; Ochiai, R.; Hongo, M.; Kaito, A.; Okada, H.; Asai, M. Above- and belowground adaptations of three Digitaria species inhabiting different land use types in rural areas. Plant Ecol. 2025, 226, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pancorbo-Olivera, M.; Torres-Guevara, J.; Casas, A.; Parra, F. Plantas comestibles silvestres y arvenses en dos comunidades campesinas de los andes centrales de Perú/Wild edible plants and weeds in two peasant communities of the central Andes of Peru. Rev. Etnobiología 2020, 18, 8–36. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sides, S. Weeds as Soil Indicators. Mother Earth News. 2012. Available online: https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/soil-indicators-zmaz87jazgoe/#ixzz3PMv6lTbH.aspx#ixzz3PMv6lTbH (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  44. Carlesi, S.; Barberi, P. Weeds as Soil Bioindicators: How to Sample and Use Data. FertilCrop and European Network. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paolo-Barberi/publication/320711035_Weeds_as_soil_bioindicators_How_to_sample_and_use_data/links/59f70191458515547c233435/Weeds-as-soil-bioindicators-How-to-sample-and-use-data.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  45. Maughan, C.; Amos, D. Weeds as Bioindicators a Farmer’s Field Guide, 1st ed.; Pearl Moss Press: Edinburgh, UK, 2022; 19p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Merino, V.M.; Aguilar, R.; Piña, L.F.; Garriga, M.; Ostria-Gallardo, E.; López, M.D.; Noriega, F.; Campos, J.; Navarrete, S.; Rivero, M.J. Regrowth dynamics and morpho-physiological characteristics of Plantago lanceolata under different defoliation frequencies and intensities. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0310009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ministerio da Agricultura; Pecuária e Abastecimiento. Fichas Agroecológicas: Tecnologias Apropriadas Para Produção Orgânica, 1st ed.; Ministerio da Agricultura; Pecuária e Abastecimiento: Brasilia, Brasil, 2016; 217p.
  48. Ranieri, G. As Plantas Bioindicadoras. Não é Tudomato!/Bioindicator Plants. It’s Not All About Vegetation! Blog Matos de Comer. Available online: http://www.matosdecomer.com.br/2015/08/as-plantas-bioindicadoras-nao-e-tudo.html (accessed on 30 August 2025).
  49. Zaller, J.G. Ecology and non-chemical control of Rumex crispus and R. obtusifolius (Polygonaceae): A review. Weed Res. 2004, 44, 414–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Forest, I.; Craven, D.; Connolly, J.; Loreau, M.; Schmid, B.; Bezemer, T.M.; Bonin, C.; Brelheide, H.; de Luca, A.; Griffin, J.N.; et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 2015, 526, 574–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stireman, J.O.; O’Hara, J.E.; Wood, D.M. Tachinidae: Evolution, behavior, and ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 525–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barahona-Segovia, R.M.; Domingo-Melo, A.; More, M.; Mulieri, P.A. Moscas (Diptera) Y su Rol en la Polinización/Flies (Diptera) and Their Role in Pollination. In Ciencia Ciudadana Y Polinizadores de América del Sur, 1st ed.; Pirani, N., Zattara, E.E., Eds.; Editora Cubo: Sao Carlos, Brasil, 2022; pp. 81–86. Available online: https://doi.editoracubo.com.br/10.4322/978-65-86819-21-2.100001.es.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2025).
  54. Wratten, S.D.; Gillespie, M.; Decourtye, A.; Mader, E.; Desneux, N. Pollinator habitat enhancement: Benefits to other ecosystem services. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 159, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Winkler, K.; Wäckers, F.; Bukovinszkine-Kiss, G.; van Lenteren, J. Sugar resources are vital for Diadegma semiclausum fecundity under field conditions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2005, 7, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Llumiluisa, V. Identificación de la entomofauna en el Transecto n°7 Parte B (Pastos) Cantón Pujilí, Provincia Cotopaxi. Bachelor Thesis, Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi, Latacunga, Ecuador, 2017. Available online: https://repositorio.utc.edu.ec/server/api/core/bitstreams/41bdf5c9-6410-48d5-b95f-e04fb62d3682/content (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  58. MacLaren, C.; Storkey, J.; Menegat, A.; Metcalfe, H.; Dehen-Schumutz, K. An ecological future for weed science to sustain crop production and the environment. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 01828 g001
Figure 1. Maximum, average, and minimum temperature records (°C) in Agualongo (October 2022–March 2023).
Figure 1. Maximum, average, and minimum temperature records (°C) in Agualongo (October 2022–March 2023).
Sustainability 18 01828 g001
Sustainability 18 01828 g002
Figure 2. Study area and its division into grazing plots. The numbers in the image represent the grazing plots into which the study area is divided.
Figure 2. Study area and its division into grazing plots. The numbers in the image represent the grazing plots into which the study area is divided.
Sustainability 18 01828 g002
Sustainability 18 01828 g003
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the placement of 4 m2 quadrats within a plot for weed sampling. This spatial arrangement was replicated across all 13 plots.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the placement of 4 m2 quadrats within a plot for weed sampling. This spatial arrangement was replicated across all 13 plots.
Sustainability 18 01828 g003
Sustainability 18 01828 g004
Figure 4. Species accumulation curves evaluating weed sampling efficiency. Note: S Mean: Observed species. Cole Rarefaction: Expected species richness based on rarefaction. Chao 1 Mean: Estimated species richness considering singletons and doubletons. The analysis is based on 65 quadrats (4 m2 each), totaling 260 m2 sampled across 2.5 hectares.
Figure 4. Species accumulation curves evaluating weed sampling efficiency. Note: S Mean: Observed species. Cole Rarefaction: Expected species richness based on rarefaction. Chao 1 Mean: Estimated species richness considering singletons and doubletons. The analysis is based on 65 quadrats (4 m2 each), totaling 260 m2 sampled across 2.5 hectares.
Sustainability 18 01828 g004
Sustainability 18 01828 g005
Figure 5. Most abundant botanical families in the Agualongo grassland.
Figure 5. Most abundant botanical families in the Agualongo grassland.
Sustainability 18 01828 g005
Sustainability 18 01828 g006
Figure 6. Most abundant species in the Agualongo grassland.
Figure 6. Most abundant species in the Agualongo grassland.
Sustainability 18 01828 g006
Sustainability 18 01828 g007
Figure 7. Species with the highest abundance in the Agualongo grassland: (A) Trifolium repens; (B) Digitaria ciliaris; (C) Plantago lanceolata; (D) Veronica persica; (E) Holcus lanatus; (F) Rumex obtusifolius; (G) Galinsoga sp.; (H) Silene gallica.
Figure 7. Species with the highest abundance in the Agualongo grassland: (A) Trifolium repens; (B) Digitaria ciliaris; (C) Plantago lanceolata; (D) Veronica persica; (E) Holcus lanatus; (F) Rumex obtusifolius; (G) Galinsoga sp.; (H) Silene gallica.
Sustainability 18 01828 g007
Sustainability 18 01828 g008
Figure 8. Number of families per insect order captured.
Figure 8. Number of families per insect order captured.
Sustainability 18 01828 g008
Sustainability 18 01828 g009
Figure 9. Number of insect specimens captured over a six-month period (sweep net, chromatic traps, and pitfall traps).
Figure 9. Number of insect specimens captured over a six-month period (sweep net, chromatic traps, and pitfall traps).
Sustainability 18 01828 g009
Sustainability 18 01828 g010
Figure 10. Number of specimens captured per family.
Figure 10. Number of specimens captured per family.
Sustainability 18 01828 g010
Sustainability 18 01828 g011
Figure 11. Specimens of the most representative insect families found in the Agualongo grassland: (A) Tachinidae (Diptera); (B) Dolichopodidae (Diptera); (C) Muscidae (Diptera); (D) Cicadellidae (Hemiptera); (E) Vespidae (Hymenoptera); (F) Tipulidae (Diptera).
Figure 11. Specimens of the most representative insect families found in the Agualongo grassland: (A) Tachinidae (Diptera); (B) Dolichopodidae (Diptera); (C) Muscidae (Diptera); (D) Cicadellidae (Hemiptera); (E) Vespidae (Hymenoptera); (F) Tipulidae (Diptera).
Sustainability 18 01828 g011
Table 1. Absolute abundance of weed species in the Agualongo-Otavalo grassland.
Table 1. Absolute abundance of weed species in the Agualongo-Otavalo grassland.
Botanical FamilySpeciesAbsolute AbundanceIndividuals/m2
FabaceaeTrifolium repens L.26,742102.854
PoaceaeDigitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler881933.919
PlantaginaceaePlantago lanceolata L.502119.312
PlantaginaceaeVeronica persica Poir.484418.631
PoaceaeHolcus lanatus L.348913.419
PolygonaceaeRumex obtusifolius L.308711.873
AsteraceaeGalinsoga sp.20227.777
CaryophyllaceaeSilene gallica L.18176.988
BrassicaceaeSisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop17656.788
OxalidaceaeOxalis corniculata L.13685.262
PoaceaeBriza minor L.12164.677
PolygonaceaePolygonum aviculare L.10654.096
PolygonaceaePersicaria nepalensis (Meisn.) Miyabe10634.088
BrassicaceaeRaphanus sp.9693.727
AsteraceaeGalinsoga quadriradiata Ruiz & Pav.9013.465
BrassicaceaeCotula australis (Sieber ex Spreng.) Hook.f.8073.104
PoaceaePoa annua L.7222.777
PoaceaePaspalum candidum (Flüggé) Kunth2781.069
RubiaceaeSherardia arvensis L.2200.846
AraliaceaeHydrocotyle bonplandii A. Rich1600.615
AsteraceaeTaraxacum officinale (L.) Weber ex F.H.Wigg.1570.604
FabaceaeMedicago lupulina L.1110.427
CaryophyllaceaeCerastium arvense L.1080.415
BrassicaceaeCapsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.960.369
CommelinaceaeCommelina erecta L.830.319
MalvaceaeFuertesimalva limensis (L.) Fryxel800.308
PoaceaeLolium multiflorum Lam.580.223
OnagraceaeOenothera pubescens Willd. ex Spreng.570.219
JuncaceaeJuncus imbricatus Laharpe470.181
FabaceaeMedicago polymorpha L.460.177
CaryophyllaceaeStellaria media (L.) Vill.400.154
PrimulaceaeAnagallis arvensis L.370.142
PoaceaeAnthoxanthum odoratum L.340.131
CaryophyllaceaeSpergula arvensis L.330.127
PoaceaeAvena sativa L.320.123
AsteraceaeSonchus oleraceus (L.) L.310.119
CyperaceaeCyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassk.270.104
CyperaceaeCyperus strigosus L.230.088
MontiaceaeCalandrinia menziesii (Hook.) Torr. & A. Gray200.077
AsteraceaeAcmella oppositifolia (Lam.) R.K.Jansen180.069
AsteraceaeGnaphalium sp.170.065
LamiaceaeLamium purpureum L.160.062
VerbenaceaeVerbena litoralis Kunth150.058
AsteraceaeBidens sp.90.035
RosaceaeRubus sp.80.031
AmaranthaceaeAmaranthus sp.60.023
CyperaceaeCarex sp.60.023
AsteraceaeErigeron canadensis L.40.015
PolygonaceaeMuehlenbeckia hastulata (Sm.) I.M.Johnst.40.015
FabaceaeDalea coerulea (L.f.) Schinz & Thell.20.008
IridaceaeSisyrinchium micranthum Cav.20.008
AsteraceaeBaccharis latifolia (Ruiz & Pav.) Pers10.004
ChenopodiaceaeChenopodium murale L.10.004
SolanaceaeBrowallia americana L10.004
SolanaceaeSolanum tettense Klotzsch10.004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez de Céspedes, I.-S.; Chagna Aguirre, J.A.; Morales Males, M.A.; León-Espinoza, M.E.; Chalampuente-Flores, D.; Prado, J.K.; Giménez de Azcárate, J.; Castillo Carrillo, C. Weed Diversity and Associated Entomofauna in High-Andean Organic Pastures. Sustainability 2026, 18, 1828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041828

AMA Style

Sánchez de Céspedes I-S, Chagna Aguirre JA, Morales Males MA, León-Espinoza ME, Chalampuente-Flores D, Prado JK, Giménez de Azcárate J, Castillo Carrillo C. Weed Diversity and Associated Entomofauna in High-Andean Organic Pastures. Sustainability. 2026; 18(4):1828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041828

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez de Céspedes, Ima-Sumac, Jhadyra Anahí Chagna Aguirre, María Angélica Morales Males, Mónica Eulalia León-Espinoza, Doris Chalampuente-Flores, Julia K. Prado, Joaquín Giménez de Azcárate, and Carmen Castillo Carrillo. 2026. "Weed Diversity and Associated Entomofauna in High-Andean Organic Pastures" Sustainability 18, no. 4: 1828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041828

APA Style

Sánchez de Céspedes, I.-S., Chagna Aguirre, J. A., Morales Males, M. A., León-Espinoza, M. E., Chalampuente-Flores, D., Prado, J. K., Giménez de Azcárate, J., & Castillo Carrillo, C. (2026). Weed Diversity and Associated Entomofauna in High-Andean Organic Pastures. Sustainability, 18(4), 1828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041828

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop