Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes

Jeanneret, Philippe; Schüpbach, Béatrice; Luka, Henryk

doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(03)00091-4

Cited by 155 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2001;Jeanneret, Schupbach & Luka 2003). In the present study, however, we were able to show that the spatial and stress-related components of agricultural land use independently affect local arthropod communities to a similar degree.…”

Section:   contrasting

confidence: 67%

“…To quantify the species-environment relationships in detail we hierarchically partitioned the variability in the community data that was explained by specific sets of environmental data Jeanneret, Schupbach & Luka 2003) for the arthropod community as a whole based on either taxonomic (species) or ecological units (size classes, trophic guilds), and replicated this analysis for each of the five arthropod taxa by means of a partial CCA (Borcard, Legendre & Drapeau 1992;Legendre 1998). We used the same set of explanatory variables for all multivariate analyses to allow reliable comparisons between taxonomic and ecological groups (Okland 1999).…”

Section:     mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales

Schweiger

Maelfait

Wingerden³

et al. 2005

Journal of Applied Ecology

302

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.In landscapes influenced by anthropogenic activities, such as intensive agriculture, knowledge of the relative importance and interaction of environmental factors on the composition and function of local communities across a range of spatial scales is important for maintaining biodiversity. 2. We analysed five arthropod taxa covering a broad range of functional aspects (wild bees, true bugs, carabid beetles, hoverflies and spiders) in 24 landscapes (4 × 4 km) across seven European countries along gradients of both land-use intensity and landscape structure. Species-environment relationships were examined in a hierarchical design of four main sets of environmental factors (country, land-use intensity, landscape structure, local habitat properties) that covered three spatial scales (region, landscape, local) by means of hierarchical variability partitioning using partial canonical correspondence analyses. 3. Local community composition and the distribution of body size classes and trophic guilds were most affected by regional processes, which highly confounded landscape and local factors. After correcting for regional effects, factors at the landscape scale dominated over local habitat factors. Land-use intensity explained most of the variability in species data, whereas landscape characteristics (especially connectivity) accounted for most of the variability in body size and trophic guilds. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that management effort should be focused on land-use intensity and habitat connectivity in order to enhance diversity in agricultural landscapes. Since these factors are largely independent, specific conservation programmes may be developed with regards to socio-economic and agri-environmental requirements. Changes in either of these factors will enhance diversity but will also result in specific effects on local communities related to dispersal ability and the resource use of species.

show abstract

Section:   contrasting

confidence: 67%

Section:     mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales

Schweiger

Maelfait

Wingerden³

et al. 2005

Journal of Applied Ecology

302

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, species richness is increasingly recognised as too rough a measure of biodiversity and species composition is gaining in importance (Jeanneret et al, 2003;Su et al, 2004). Indeed, species composition was different in the two years.…”

Section: Comparison Between Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and seasonal patterns in the diversity of a species-rich bee assemblage (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes)

Oertli¹,

Müller²,

Dorn³

2005

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Meaningful ecological studies on insect communities require sampling protocols that take into consideration temporal fluctuations in abundance and species composition. Bees with their specific requirements for nutrition and nesting are good indicators of landscape structure and overall biodiversity, provided the ecological and seasonal patterns they show are taken into consideration. The present two year study traced the ecological and seasonal patterns on 2 km 2 of a southern slope in the Swiss Alps, ranging from 1150 to 1550 m above sea level. The study area consisted mainly of grassland under different regimes, mostly hay meadows and pastures. By direct netting at five monthly intervals in each year a total of 247 bee species were recorded. This comprehensive sampling scheme identified one of the most diverse bee faunas in Central and Northern Europe, consisting of a statistically estimated 280 species. Most species were rare with 14.6% represented by a single individual. Ecological analysis of the bee community showed that the primitively eusocial species were over represented among the abundant species and the parasitic species among the rarest.Both abundance and species richness were subject to marked seasonal variations. A substantial turnover in species composition as well as changes in ecological patterns were observed. More than 25% of all species were recorded in only one of the two years, in particular many of the parasitic species. Singletons accounted for a higher proportion when individual years rather than the pooled data were analysed. All these findings underline the importance of season-long sampling and sampling over more than one year if bees are to be used as indicators in ecological and studies on bee communities.

show abstract

“…An increasingly important field of remote sensing applications is wildlife habitat assessment and modelling (Clawges et al 2008;McDermid et al 2009;Tattoni et al 2012;Melin et al 2013). Birds have often been used as an indicator group in studies searching for structural and functional features that best describe the biodiversity values of landscapes (Dauber et al 2003;Jeanneret et al 2003;Jones et al 2013;Zellweger et al 2013Zellweger et al , 2014Morelli et al 2014). The selection of a comprehensive set of biodiversity indicators to analyse trade-offs with ecosystem services is a necessity for the sustainable management of ecosystems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to integrate remotely sensed data and biodiversity for ecosystem assessments at landscape scale

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning underpins the delivery of all ecosystem services and should be accounted for in all decision-making related to the use of natural resources and areas. However, biodiversity and ecosystem services are often inadequately accounted for in land use management decisions. Objective We studied a boreal forest ecosystem by linking citizen-science bird data with detailed information on forest characteristics from airborne laser scanning (ALS). In this paper, we describe this method, and evaluate how similar kinds of biological data sets combined with remote sensing can be used for ecosystem assessments at landscape scale. Methods We analysed data for 41 boreal forest bird species and for 14 structural ALS-based forest parameters.Results The results support the use of the selected method as a basis for quantifying spatially-explicit biodiversity indicators for ecosystem assessments, while suggestions for improvements are also reported. Finally, we evaluate the capacity of those indicators to describe biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships, for example with carbon trade-offs. The results showed clear distinctions between the different species as measured, for example, by above-ground forest biomass at the observation sites. We also assess how Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes

Cited by 155 publications

References 24 publications

Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales

Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales

Ecological and seasonal patterns in the diversity of a species-rich bee assemblage (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes)

How to integrate remotely sensed data and biodiversity for ecosystem assessments at landscape scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About