Management effects on carabid beetles and spiders in Central Hungarian grasslands and cereal fields

Batáry, Péter; Kovács, A.; Báldi, András

doi:10.1556/comec.9.2008.2.14

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, pesticide use in crop edges usually does not seem to affect carabid species richness negatively (Frampton and Dorne 2007), although pesticides may change carabid abundance and community composition directly and indirectly (Shah et al 2003, Navntoft et al 2006, Geiger et al 2010). Our results agree with studies showing no effect of AI on the species richness of carabids in cereal fields at the regional and local scale (Clough et al 2007, Bata´ry et al 2008, but see Geiger et al 2010). Only at the region scale did a positive effect of lower AI on b-diversity exist, indicating more dissimilar and diverse carabid communities between regions under low AI management (also see Schweiger et al 2005, Hendrickx et al 2009).…”

Section: Effects Of Ai On Species Richness Across Different Taxasupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The more mobile taxa had, on average, less similar communities on the field and farm level than plants (Table 4), i.e., a field and b field represented a greater proportion of c diversity for carabids, and a farm , b farm , and b region represented a greater proportion of c diversity for birds in comparison to plants. One possible explanation are spillover effects from the adjacent non-crop habitats for more mobile taxa, which could lead to variance in the local species composition (Hendrickx et al 2009), as supported by several studies stressing the importance of the surrounding landscape and field margins for the within field carabid community (Denys and Tscharntke 2002, Purtauf et al 2005, Schweiger et al 2005, Hendrickx et al 2007, Bata´ry et al 2008, Smith et al 2008. Likewise, the importance of species-rich field margins and seminatural habitats for within-field species richness has already been shown for many other arthropod taxa depending on body size (ability for mobility; , Schweiger et al 2005, Holland et al 2009) and farmland birds (Vickery et al 2002.…”

Section: Differences In Spatial Diversity Patterns Between Plants Camentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Flohre

Fischer

Aavik

et al. 2011

Ecological Applications

236

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Effects of agricultural intensification (AI) on biodiversity are often assessed on the plot scale, although processes determining diversity also operate on larger spatial scales. Here, we analyzed the diversity of vascular plants, carabid beetles, and birds in agricultural landscapes in cereal crop fields at the field (n ¼ 1350), farm (n ¼ 270), and European-region (n ¼ 9) scale. We partitioned diversity into its additive components a, b, and c, and assessed the relative contribution of b diversity to total species richness at each spatial scale. AI was determined using pesticide and fertilizer inputs, as well as tillage operations and categorized into low, medium, and high levels. As AI was not significantly related to landscape complexity, we could disentangle potential AI effects on local vs. landscape community homogenization. AI negatively affected the species richness of plants and birds, but not carabid beetles, at all spatial scales. Hence, local AI was closely correlated to b diversity on larger scales up to the farm and region level, and thereby was an indicator of farm-and region-wide biodiversity losses. At the scale of farms (12.83-20.52%) and regions (68.34-80.18%), b diversity accounted for the major part of the total species richness for all three taxa, indicating great dissimilarity in environmental conditions on larger spatial scales. For plants, relative importance of a diversity decreased with AI, while relative importance of b diversity on the farm scale increased with AI for carabids and birds. Hence, and in contrast to our expectations, AI does not necessarily homogenize local communities, presumably due to the heterogeneity of farming practices. In conclusion, a more detailed understanding of AI effects on diversity patterns of various taxa and at multiple spatial scales would contribute to more efficient agrienvironmental schemes in agroecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Ai On Species Richness Across Different Taxasupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Differences In Spatial Diversity Patterns Between Plants Camentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Flohre

Fischer

Aavik

et al. 2011

Ecological Applications

236

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, high spider abundance and species richness under organic N input might be caused by a positive influence of organic fertilizer on epigeal arthropods, which contributed to the food supply of spiders, as mentioned in Purvis and Curry (1984). In agreement with Batáry et al (2008), the surrounding landscape had no effect on spider abundance, which could be due to the restricted spatial scale under investigation, because landscape factors measured over larger distances have been observed to significantly affect spiders (Drapela et al, 2008;Schmidt et al, 2008).…”

Section: Responses Of Taxonomic Groupsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Responses of plants, earthworms, spiders and bees to geographic location, agricultural management and surrounding landscape in European arable fields

Lüscher

Jeanneret

Schneider

et al. 2014

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmland species provide key ecological services that support agricultural production, but are under threat from agricultural intensification and mechanization. In order to design effective measures to mitigate agricultural impact, simultaneous investigations of different taxonomic groups across several regions are required. Therefore, four contrasting taxonomic groups were investigated: plants, earthworms, spiders and bees (wild bees and bumblebees), which represent different trophic levels and provide different ecological services. To better understand underlying patterns, three community measurements for each taxonomic group were considered: abundance, species richness and species composition. In four European regions, ten potential environmental drivers of the four taxonomic groups were tested and assigned to three groups of drivers: geographic location (farm, region), agricultural management (crop type, mineral nitrogen input, organic nitrogen input, mechanical field operations and pesticide applications) and surrounding landscape in a 250 m buffer zone (diversity of habitats in the surroundings, proportion of arable fields and proportion of non-productive, non-woody habitats). First, the variation in abundance, species richness and species composition from 167 arable sites was partitioned to compare the relative contribution of the three groups of drivers (geographic location, agricultural management and surrounding landscape). Second, generalized linear mixedeffects models were applied to estimate the effect of the individual explanatory variables on abundance and species richness. Our analysis showed a dominant effect of geographic location in all four taxonomic groups and a strong influence of agricultural management on plants, spiders and bees.The effect of the surrounding landscape was of minor importance and inconsistent in our data. We conclude that in European arable fields, the avoidance of mineral nitrogen and pesticides is beneficial for biodiversity, and that species protection measures should take into account regional characteristics and the community structure of the investigated taxonomic groups.

show abstract

“…Multidisciplinary methods (incorporating agronomy, plant breeding, ecology and geographical information) may provide an effective avenue to achieve agricultural sustainability and multiple ecosystem services (Ratnadass et al, 2012;Woltz et al, 2012;Smith et al, 2013). The use of habitat management has recently been extended to provide multiple ecosystem services addressing both regional and local environmental issues (Kleyer et al, 2007;Batary et al, 2008;Brewer and Goodell, 2012). However, past IPM has generated an incentive dilemma between IPM activities aimed at enhancing yields for individual farmers and IPM activities aiming to provide long-term benefits for the region as a whole (Kogan, 1998).…”

Section: Recent Progresses In Ebpm At Multiple Spatial Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches and mechanisms for ecologically based pest management across multiple scales

Zhao

Reddy

Hui

et al. 2016

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe past 50 years have seen substantial change of agroecosystems in the world, including an intensified use of agrochemicals and expansion of cropland, resulting in a rapid loss of biodiversity and a reduction of ecosystem services. The effects of these changes, at both the field and landscape scale, on ecologically based pest management (EBPM) in agroecosystems have become increasingly important. Here, we review the theories, important approaches and mechanisms of habitat management practices (at multiple spatial scales) that can be applied to facilitate EBPM in crop fields and even over larger landscapes. In particular, we discuss links between pest outbreaks and rapid changes of habitat composition at local and regional scales. We also summarize recent progress of habitat management and their application to pest management, which is an activity that we believe must be implemented at multiple spatial scales to successfully conserve ecosystem services and address environmental issues related to crop pest control.

show abstract

Management effects on carabid beetles and spiders in Central Hungarian grasslands and cereal fields

Cited by 22 publications

References 43 publications

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Responses of plants, earthworms, spiders and bees to geographic location, agricultural management and surrounding landscape in European arable fields

Approaches and mechanisms for ecologically based pest management across multiple scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About