Problems of estimating and maintaining biodiversity of soil biota in natural and agroecosystems: A case study of chernozem soil

Pokarzhevskii, A. D.; Krivolutskii, D. A.

doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(96)01139-5

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other soil arthropods, in contrast, tend to prefer habitats that are characterized by a heterogeneous vegetation structure, accumulated soil organic matter and low disturbance from agricultural production such as fallows. Decomposers like isopods, for example, may profit from a variety of factors including availability of organic matter from different sources, low input of pesticides, diverse habitat structure and accessibility of shelter sites (Pokarzhevskii & Krivolutskii, 1997; Paoletti & Hassall, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface‐dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility

Dauber

Purtauf

Allspach

et al. 2005

Global Ecology and Biogeography

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim A better understanding of the processes driving local species richness and of the scales at which they operate is crucial for conserving biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Local species richness may be controlled by ecological processes acting at larger spatial scales. Very little is known about the effect of landscape variables on soil biota. The aim of our study was to partly fill this gap by relating the local variation of surface-dwelling macroarthropod species richness to factors operating at the habitat scale (i.e. land use and habitat characteristics) and the landscape scale (i.e. composition of the surrounding matrix).Location An agricultural landscape with a low-input farming system in Central Hesse, Germany.Methods We focused on five taxa significantly differing in mobility and ecological requirements: ants, ground beetles, rove beetles, woodlice, and millipedes. Animals were caught with pitfall traps in fields of different land use (arable land, grassland, fallow land) and different habitat conditions (insolation, soil humidity). Composition of the surrounding landscape was analysed within a radius of 250 m around the fields. ResultsFactors from both scales together explained a large amount of the local variation in species richness, but the explanatory strength of the factors differed significantly among taxa. Land use particularly affected ground beetles and woodlice, whereas ants and rove beetles were more strongly affected by habitat characteristics, namely by insolation and soil characteristics. Local species richness of diplopods depended almost entirely on the surrounding landscape. In general, the composition of the neighbouring landscape had a lower impact on the species richness of most soil macroarthropod taxa than did land use and habitat characteristics. Main conclusionsWe conclude that agri-environment schemes for the conservation of biodiversity in cultivated landscapes have to secure management for both habitat quality and heterogeneous landscape mosaics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface‐dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility

Dauber

Purtauf

Allspach

et al. 2005

Global Ecology and Biogeography

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Significantly highest population of spiders population was recorded in forest ecosystem during second fortnight of August (23.00/15 pitfall traps) and least population recorded in agricultural ecosystem during December second fortnight (5.00/15 pitfall traps) ( Table 1). Pokarzhevskii and Krivolutskii (1997) they have reported biodiversity of soil macro fauna in a set of ecosystems. Their study indicated that decreasing trend in species number, population density and biomass in Agriecosystem compared to natural ecosystems.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of Soil Macro Arthropods in agriculture, Horticulture and Forest Ecosystems

Mohammad¹,

Rajasekar²,

Patil³

2017

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The number of species, population abundance and biomass of soil macrofauna are declining in a range of ecosystems from nature reserves to managed agro-ecosystems. The main reason for this decline is the reduction of available organic matter and essential elements in the soil of the agroecosystem (Pokarzhevskii and Krivolutskii, 1997). Knowledge of the mechanisms that shape the dynamics of soil macrofauna community diversity and the factors that influence communities contributes significantly to understanding the patterns of functioning and sustainability of floodplain ecosystems (Barrios, 2007;Pauli et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of soil and plant cover as drivers of soil macrofauna of the Dnipro River floodplain ecosystems

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floodplain ecosystems are hotspots of biological diversity and perform important ecosystem functions in the landscape. The key to understanding the sustainability of ecosystem function is knowledge of the relationships between ecosystem components. The article reveals the role of morphological and physical properties of soil, as well as phytoindication of environmental factors as drivers of biological diversity of soil macrofauna of protected ecosystems of the Dnipro River floodplain. The studies were conducted in the forest floodplain ecosystems of the “Dnipro-Orilskiy” Nature Reserve. The studies of morphological properties of soils allowed us to identify the representatives of two reference groups: Fluvisol and Gleysol. The soil physical property data were subjected to principal component analysis, which extracted four principal components whose eigenvalues exceeded unity and described 79.9% of the variation in traits. The principal components of variation in soil physical properties and phytoindication assessments of environmental factors were used as predictors of the community structure of soil macrofauna. These predictors were able to explain 29.6% of the community variation. Physical soil properties are most important as a driver of soil macrofauna. The morphological properties of the soil and phytoindicator assessments are able to explain a much smaller part of the community variation. The pure influence of the predictors is small, indicating that they interact significantly in influencing soil animals. The results obtained have implications for the development of optimal strategies for floodplain ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

Problems of estimating and maintaining biodiversity of soil biota in natural and agroecosystems: A case study of chernozem soil

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface‐dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility

Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface‐dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility

Estimation of Soil Macro Arthropods in agriculture, Horticulture and Forest Ecosystems

The role of soil and plant cover as drivers of soil macrofauna of the Dnipro River floodplain ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About