Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses

Tscharntke, Teja; Tylianakis, Jason M.; Rand, Tatyana A.; Didham, Raphaël K.; Fahrig, Lenore; Batáry, Péter; Bengtsson, Janne; Clough, Yann; Crist, Thomas O.; Dormann, Carsten F.; Ewers, Robert M.; Fründ, Jochen; Holt, Robert D.; Holzschuh, Andrea; Klein, Alexandra‐Maria; Kleijn, David; Kremen, Claire; Landis, Doug; Laurance, William F.; Lindenmayer, David B.; Scherber, Christoph; Sodhi, Navjot S.; Steffan‐Dewenter, Ingolf; Thies, Carsten; Putten, Wim H. van der; Westphal, Catrin

doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00216.x

Cited by 1,665 publications

(1,654 citation statements)

References 333 publications

(558 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

1,525

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, composition and diversity in terms of rarefaction asymptote estimates of OTU richness, indices of diversity, and number of identified taxa, particularly for bacteria, showed an increasing trend in diversity from urban to rural sites. This trend may be due to greater complexity in terms of heterogeneity of rural habitats relative to urban sites, supporting more microbe species, by various potential mechanisms for species distributions within and across landscapes (Tscharntke et al., 2012). In contrast, a study of field‐caught mosquitoes from Ghana found that midgut microbiota was more diverse in urban mosquitoes compared to rural ones (Akorli et al., 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mosquito vector‐associated microbiota: Metabarcoding bacteria and eukaryotic symbionts across habitat types in Thailand endemic for dengue and other arthropod‐borne diseases

Thongsripong

Chandler

Green

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

120

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vector‐borne diseases are a major health burden, yet factors affecting their spread are only partially understood. For example, microbial symbionts can impact mosquito reproduction, survival, and vectorial capacity, and hence affect disease transmission. Nonetheless, current knowledge of mosquito‐associated microbial communities is limited. To characterize the bacterial and eukaryotic microbial communities of multiple vector species collected from different habitat types in disease endemic areas, we employed next‐generation 454 pyrosequencing of 16S and 18S rRNA amplicon libraries, also known as metabarcoding. We investigated pooled whole adult mosquitoes of three medically important vectors, Aedes aegypti, Ae. albopictus, and Culex quinquefasciatus, collected from different habitats across central Thailand where we previously characterized mosquito diversity. Our results indicate that diversity within the mosquito microbiota is low, with the majority of microbes assigned to one or a few taxa. Two of the most common eukaryotic and bacterial genera recovered (Ascogregarina and Wolbachia, respectively) are known mosquito endosymbionts with potentially parasitic and long evolutionary relationships with their hosts. Patterns of microbial composition and diversity appeared to differ by both vector species and habitat for a given species, although high variability between samples suggests a strong stochastic element to microbiota assembly. In general, our findings suggest that multiple factors, such as habitat condition and mosquito species identity, may influence overall microbial community composition, and thus provide a basis for further investigations into the interactions between vectors, their microbial communities, and human‐impacted landscapes that may ultimately affect vector‐borne disease risk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mosquito vector‐associated microbiota: Metabarcoding bacteria and eukaryotic symbionts across habitat types in Thailand endemic for dengue and other arthropod‐borne diseases

Thongsripong

Chandler

Green

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

120

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5), allow the recovery of high associated biodiversity and a high level of biological control in crop fields (Veres et al 2013). This provides resilience and stability of ecological processes in changing environments and corresponds to the landscape-moderated insurance hypothesis of Tscharntke et al (2012). Thus, biodiversity appears to regulate ecosystem processes and determine delivery of ecosystem services, even though some authors claim that its role in producing ecosystem services remains to be fully understood (De Groot et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review

Duru

Thérond

Martin

et al. 2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

449

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive agriculture has led to several drawbacks such as biodiversity loss, climate change, erosion, and pollution of air and water. A potential solution is to implement management practices that increase the level of provision of ecosystem services such as soil fertility and biological regulation. There is a lot of literature on the principles of agroecology. However, there is a gap of knowledge between agroecological principles and practical applications. Therefore, we review here agroecological and management sciences to identify two facts that explain the lack of practical applications: (1) the occurrence of high uncertainties about relations between agricultural practices, ecological processes, and ecosystem services, and (2) the site-specific character of agroecological practices required to deliver expected ecosystem services. We also show that an adaptive-management approach, focusing on planning and monitoring, can serve as a framework for developing and implementing learning tools tailored for biodiversity-based agriculture. Among the current learning tools developed by researchers, we identify two main types of emergent support tools likely to help design diversified farming systems and landscapes: (1) knowledge bases containing scientific supports and experiential knowledge and (2) model-based games. These tools have to be coupled with well-tailored field or management indicators that allow monitoring effects of practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Finally, we propose a research agenda that requires bringing together contributions from agricultural, ecological, management, and knowledge management sciences, and asserts that researchers have to take the position of "integration and implementation sciences."

show abstract

“…Both abundance and diversity of wild pollinator communities visiting apple in Wisconsin [53] and crop systems around the world [18] have been shown to benefit from greater amounts of natural area in the landscape. Extensive natural areas provide increased nesting and foraging opportunities, allowing for greater population sizes and species richness [54]. As bees are highly mobile organisms [10] and apple is an attractive mass resource, community abundance and richness of wild bees in orchards were influenced by the regional landscape (a 2 km scale) and not necessarily the habitat immediately adjacent to the orchards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Before canopies have closed, these forests are important for early spring pollinators [53]. The more abundant and diverse the natural resources in a landscape, the larger, more diverse [54] and possibly more healthy [66] are the regional pool of bees available to forage within orchards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild bee communities provide underappreciated but critical agricultural pollination services. Given predicted global shortages in pollination services, managing agroecosystems to support thriving wild bee communities is, therefore, central to ensuring sustainable food production. Benefits of natural (including semi-natural) habitat for wild bee abundance and diversity on farms are well documented. By contrast, few studies have examined toxicity of pesticides on wild bees, let alone effects of farm-level pesticide exposure on entire bee communities. Whether beneficial natural areas could mediate effects of harmful pesticides on wild bees is also unknown. Here, we assess the effect of conventional pesticide use on the wild bee community visiting apple (Malus domestica) within a gradient of percentage natural area in the landscape. Wild bee community abundance and species richness decreased linearly with increasing pesticide use in orchards one year after application; however, pesticide effects on wild bees were buffered by increasing proportion of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape. A significant contribution of fungicides to observed pesticide effects suggests deleterious properties of a class of pesticides that was, until recently, considered benign to bees. Our results demonstrate extended benefits of natural areas for wild pollinators and highlight the importance of considering the landscape context when weighing up the costs of pest management on crop pollination services.

show abstract

Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses

Cited by 1,665 publications

References 333 publications

Mosquito vector‐associated microbiota: Metabarcoding bacteria and eukaryotic symbionts across habitat types in Thailand endemic for dengue and other arthropod‐borne diseases

Mosquito vector‐associated microbiota: Metabarcoding bacteria and eukaryotic symbionts across habitat types in Thailand endemic for dengue and other arthropod‐borne diseases

How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About