Crop succession and habitat preferences drive the distribution and abundance of carabid beetles in an agricultural landscape

Marrec, Ronan; Badenhausser, Isabelle; Bretagnolle, Vincent; Börger, Luca; Roncoroni, Marilyn; Guillon, Nadine; Gauffre, Bertrand

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.005

Cited by 65 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, in the agricultural context, habitats play a fundamental role (Baudry, 2014;Marec et al, 2014) within Integrated Pest Management (Birch et al, 2011) andConservation Biological Control (Ehler, 1998) within usually non-cultivated arable elements, such as hedgerows and wild flower strips; these are consistent with the EU legislation Directive 2009/128/EC. 25…”

Section: Legal and Pragmatic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Ockleford¹

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining a healthy environment and conserving biodiversity are major goals of environmental protection. A challenge is that protection goals outlined in legislation are often too general and broad to be directly applicable for environmental risk assessment (ERA) performed by EFSA. Therefore, they need to be translated into specific protection goals (SPGs). This Guidance presents a framework, which accounts for biodiversity and ecosystem services, to make general protection goals operational for use in all areas of EFSA's ERAs. The approach to follow has three sequential steps: (1) the identification of relevant ecosystem services; (2) the identification of service providing units (SPUs) for these ecosystem services; and (3) the specification of options for the level/parameters of protection of the SPUs using five interrelated dimensions. This last step involves the specification of options for the ecological entity and attribute to protect and the magnitude, temporal scale and spatial scale of the biologically relevant and, in the case of regulated products, tolerable effects, the latter defined in dialogue with risk managers. In order to promote transparency and consistency when developing options for the level/parameters of protection, this guidance provides considerations to justify the selected options.

show abstract

Section: Legal and Pragmatic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Ockleford¹

2016

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Flowering fields were sown in 2011 and represented a less frequently disturbed habitat compared to cereal fields. Poecilus cupreus is known to utilise within-field areas for reproduction in spring and overwintering (Marrec et al, 2015), and thus this species can reach high activity densities in arable habitats. Previous studies reported that carabids can reach high densities in agricultural areas (e.g.…”

Section: Numeric Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clark et al (1997) further found that P. melanarius was more abundant in crop fields compared to unmanaged habitat. Poecilus cupreus is known to utilise within-field areas for reproduction in spring and overwintering (Marrec et al, 2015), and thus this species can reach high activity densities in arable habitats. Anjum-Zubair et al (2015) observed higher activity densities of P. cupreus in cereal fields compared to adjacent sown wildflower areas.…”

Section: Numeric Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Agri‐environmental schemes affect the trophic niche size and diet of common carabid species in agricultural landscapes

Mader

Diehl

Wolters

et al. 2018

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Carabids are abundant in agroecosystems and provide biocontrol services by feeding on weed seeds and pests. We compare the effects of two fundamentally different agri-environmental schemes (AES) on the numeric and trophic responses of four common carabid species: Anchomenus dorsalis, Poecilus cupreus, Pseudoophonus rufipes and Pterostichus melanarius.2. In six cereal fields under organic farming and six sown flowering fields, 10 290 individuals of the four species were sampled to quantify their numeric response. The activity density of all species was higher in organically managed cereal fields compared to flowering fields.3. We analysed naturally occurring stable isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen in 138 carabid individuals to quantify isotopic niches and the diet contribution of soilversus plant-based resources. Resources from the soil ('brown') energy channel were more important than resources from the plant ('green') energy channel in the diet of all species, particularly in P. melanarius.4. Isotopic niches were larger for P. rufipes and P. melanarius in flowering fields than in organically managed cereal fields. Moreover, differences between AES types were observed in the diet contribution derived from both energy channels: A. dorsalis and P. cupreus incorporated higher proportions of plant-based resources in organically managed cereal fields compared to flowering fields. 5. Similar numeric, but different trophic responses suggest that AES type may alter arthropod food webs beyond simple changes in carabid densities. Such 'hidden' modifications in the resource utilisation of generalist predators deserve more attention to adequately evaluate the ecological consequences of AES.

show abstract

“…, Marrec et al. ). Beetles (Coleoptera) are an ideal group for studying impacts of landscape modification because they are speciose and represent a wide range of trophic and functional groups (Lawrence et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Arthropods comprise a major component of terrestrial biodiversity and provide important ecological functions in agricultural landscapes such as biological pest control (Lovei andSunderland 1996, Kromp 1999), pollination, decomposition, and weed control (Grimbacher et al 2006). However, limited knowledge of the distribution and ecology of many species-including habitat requirements in modified landscapes-impedes their conservation and the maintenance of the ecosystem services they provide (Holland et al 2005, Cardoso et al 2011, Marrec et al 2015. Beetles (Coleoptera) are an ideal group for studying impacts of landscape modification because they are speciose and represent a wide range of trophic and functional groups (Lawrence et al 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting beetle assemblage responses to cultivated farmlands and native woodlands in a dynamic agricultural landscape

Driscoll

Barton

et al. 2017

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There is an urgent need to identify ways of managing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity conservation without reducing food production. Farming practices that consider spatio-temporal heterogeneity of farm fields may be a feasible alternative to large-scale revegetation of farmlands for maintaining arthropod biodiversity and their important ecological function. We examined seasonal differences in beetle assemblages in woodland remnants and four adjoining farmland uses in a highly modified agricultural landscape in southeastern Australia. The farmland uses were crops, fallows, and two restoration treatments (fine woody debris applied over harvested crop fields, and restoration plantings). Unexpectedly, overall species richness was significantly lower in remnants than in adjacent farmlands. Remnants and farmlands supported significantly different assemblages, with a third of species found in both habitats. Abundance responses were taxon-specific and influenced by interactions between land use and season. In particular, predator abundance was significantly higher in plantings and fallows during spring compared to summer. Detritivore abundance was significantly higher in the woody debris compared to the adjacent remnants. Herbivore abundance did not differ between remnants and farmlands over time. Complex responses provide strong support for a mosaic of land uses to effectively conserve different beetle groups. Species richness results suggest that further agricultural intensification, in farm fields and through the removal of remnant vegetation, risks reducing beetle diversity in this region. Maintaining farmland heterogeneity with a mix of low-intensity land uses, such as conservation tillage, crop-fallow rotation, restoration plantings, and the novel application of fine woody debris over cultivated fields, may provide seasonal refuge and resources for beetles.

show abstract

Crop succession and habitat preferences drive the distribution and abundance of carabid beetles in an agricultural landscape

Cited by 65 publications

References 49 publications

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services

Agri‐environmental schemes affect the trophic niche size and diet of common carabid species in agricultural landscapes

Contrasting beetle assemblage responses to cultivated farmlands and native woodlands in a dynamic agricultural landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About