Trophic level modulates carabid beetle responses to habitat and landscape structure: a pan‐European study

Vanbergen, Adam J.; Woodcock, Ben A.; Koivula, Matti; Niemelä, Jari; Kotze, D. Johan; Bolger, Thomas; Golden, Valerie; Dubs, Florence; Boulanger, Guillaume; Serrano, José; Lencina, José Luís; Serrano, Artur R. M.; Aguiar, Carlos A. S.; Grandchamp, Anne-Catherine; Stofer, Silvia; Szél, Győző; Ivits, Éva; Adler, Petra; Jochum, Markus; Watt, Allan D.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01175.x

Cited by 49 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We distinguished three trophic groups based on Turin (2000) and Saska (2004Saska ( , 2005: (1) species that are strictly phytophagous throughout their life cycle (referred to as phytophagous), (2) species that are at least partly zoophagous throughout their life cycle (referred to as zoophagous), and (3) species that are phytophagous as adults, but zoophagous as larvae (referred to as trophic-rank shift). Omnivorous species were grouped together with strictly zoophagous species because we had insufficient information for several species to classify them as either strictly zoophagous or omnivorous (see also Vanbergen et al 2010). Moreover, most of the species generally classified as being zoophagous also incidentally feed on fruits and other plant material (Thiele 1977).…”

Section: Species Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Species that shift from carnivory to herbivory during their life cycle were defined as a separate group. To date, these species have generally been classified as phytophagous species, because most studies only incorporate adult feeding habits (see e.g., Ribera et al 1999, Vanbergen et al 2010. We separated these species from the continuously phytophagous species because we suspect that the larva is the most critical stage in the life cycle (Thiele 1977), which would cause these species to behave more like zoophagous species in our analysis.…”

Section: Species Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Species–area relationships are modulated by trophic rank, habitat affinity, and dispersal ability

Noordwijk

Verberk

Turin³

et al. 2015

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

34In the face of ongoing habitat fragmentation, species-area relationships (SARs) have 35 gained renewed interest and are increasingly used to set conservation priorities. An 36 important question is how large habitat areas need to be to optimize biodiversity 37 conservation. The relationship between area and species richness is explained by 38 colonization-extinction dynamics, whereby smaller sites harbour smaller populations, 39 which are more prone to extinction than the larger populations sustained by larger sites. 40These colonization-extinction dynamics are predicted to vary with trophic rank, habitat 41 affinity and dispersal ability of the species. However, empirical evidence for the effect of 42 these species characteristics on SARs remains inconclusive. 43In this study we used carabid beetle data from 58 calcareous grassland sites to 44 investigate how calcareous grassland area affects species richness and activity density for 45 3 species differing in trophic rank, habitat affinity and dispersal ability. In addition, we 46 investigated how SARs are affected by the availability of additional calcareous grassland 47 in the surrounding landscape. 48Our results demonstrate that beetle species richness and activity density increase 49 with calcareous grassland area for zoophagous species that are specialists for dry 50 grasslands and to a lesser extent for zoophagous habitat generalists. Phytophagous 51 species and zoophagous forest and wet grassland specialists were not affected by 52 calcareous grassland area. The dependence of species on large single sites increased with 53 decreasing dispersal ability for species already vulnerable to calcareous grassland area. 54Additional calcareous grassland in the landscape had a positive effect on local species 55 richness of both dry grassland specialists and generalists, but this effect was restricted to 56 a few hundred meters. 57Our results demonstrate that SARs are affected by trophic rank, habitat affinity 58 and dispersal ability. These species characteristics do not operate independently but 59 should be viewed in concert. In addition, species' responses depend on the landscape 60 context. Our study suggests that the impact of habitat area on trophic interactions may be 61 larger than previously anticipated. In small habitat fragments surrounded by a hostile 62 matrix, food chains may be strongly disrupted. This highlights the need to conserve 63 continuous calcareous grassland patches of at least several hectares in size. 64 65

show abstract

Section: Species Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Species Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species–area relationships are modulated by trophic rank, habitat affinity, and dispersal ability

Noordwijk

Verberk

Turin³

et al. 2015

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Characteristic species and food specialists are generally more vulnerable to habitat degradation (Römermann et al 2008;Ö ckinger et al 2010), but are also expected to respond more positively to renewed management than noncharacteristic and food generalist species, because habitat conditions improve most for them. Finally, a species' trophic position modulates its sensitivity to processes operating at larger spatial scales (Holt et al 1999;Vanbergen et al 2010;van Noordwijk et al 2015), making higher trophic levels more vulnerable to habitat fragmentation (Purtauf et al 2005;Krauss et al 2010;van Noordwijk et al 2015). These species characteristics vary between species and, even more so, between taxonomic groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

17 years of grassland management leads to parallel local and regional biodiversity shifts among a wide range of taxonomic groups

Noordwijk

Baeten

Turin³

et al. 2016

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation management is expected to increase local biodiversity, but uniform management may lead to biotic homogenization and diversity losses at the regional scale. We evaluated the effects of renewed grazing and cutting management carried out across a whole region, on the diversity of plants and seven arthropod groups. Changes in occurrence over 17 years of intensive calcareous grassland management were analysed at the species level, which gave insight into the exact species contributing to regional homogenization or differentiation. Reponses were compared between species differing in habitat affinity, dispersal ability, food specialisation and trophic level. Local species richness increased over the sampling period for true bugs and millipedes, while carabid beetles and weevils declined in local species richness. Species richness remained unchanged for plants, woodlice, ants and spiders. Regional diversity and compositional variation generally followed local patterns. Diversity shifts were only to a limited extent explained by species' habitat affinity, dispersal ability, trophic level and food specialisation. We conclude that implementation of relatively uniform conservation management across a region did not lead to uniform changes in local species composition. This is an encouraging result for conservation managers, as it shows that there is not necessarily a conflict of interest between local and regional conservation goals. Our study also demonstrates that shifts in diversity patterns differ markedly between taxonomic groups. Single traits provide only limited understanding of these differences. This highlights the need for a wide taxonomic scope when evaluating conservation management and demonstrates the need to understand the mechanisms underlying occurrence shifts.

show abstract

“…Using this framework, the present study focuses on comparing the numeric and trophic response of four common carabid species, Anchomenus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763), Poecilus cupreus (L., 1758), Pseudoophonus rufipes (De Geer, 1774) and Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798), to two fundamentally different AES types: organically managed cereal fields versus flowering fields. In previous studies, A. dorsalis and P. melanarius were often classified as carnivorous, whereas P. cupreus and P. rufipes were categorised primarily as omnivorous and/or herbivorous (Purtauf et al, 2005a;Vanbergen et al, 2010;Diehl et al, 2012;Homburg et al, 2014;Birkhofer et al, 2015). In previous studies, A. dorsalis and P. melanarius were often classified as carnivorous, whereas P. cupreus and P. rufipes were categorised primarily as omnivorous and/or herbivorous (Purtauf et al, 2005a;Vanbergen et al, 2010;Diehl et al, 2012;Homburg et al, 2014;Birkhofer et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

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

Trophic level modulates carabid beetle responses to habitat and landscape structure: a pan‐European study

Abstract: The NERC and CEH trade marks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.

Cited by 49 publications

References 58 publications

Species–area relationships are modulated by trophic rank, habitat affinity, and dispersal ability

Species–area relationships are modulated by trophic rank, habitat affinity, and dispersal ability

17 years of grassland management leads to parallel local and regional biodiversity shifts among a wide range of taxonomic groups

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About