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

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 x 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.

[1]  P. Legendre,et al.  Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation , 1992 .

[2]  The spatial population dynamics of insects exploiting a patchy food resource : a model study of local persistence , 1996 .

[3]  J. Perry,et al.  The impact of dimethoate on the spatial distribution of beneficial arthropods in winter wheat. , 2000 .

[4]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  Hierarchical, Multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships , 2002, Landscape Ecology.

[5]  M. Zobel,et al.  The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Species Diversity--Scale Matters , 2002, Science.

[7]  Achim Gathmann,et al.  Foraging ranges of solitary bees , 2002 .

[8]  M. Zobel.  Plant species coexistence - the role of historical, evolutionary and ecological factors , 1992 .

[9]  R. H. Økland.  On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axes , 1999 .

[10]  M. Aizen,et al.  Edge effects on flower-visiting insects in grapefruit plantations bordering premontane subtropical forest. , 2005 .

[11]  T. Noda.  Spatial hierarchical approach in community ecology: a way beyond high context-dependency and low predictability in local phenomena , 2004, Population Ecology.

[12]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Post‐war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain , 2002 .

[13]  H. Olff,et al.  How Dispersal Limitation Shapes Species–Body Size Distributions in Local Communities , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[14]  H. Olff,et al.  Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity , 1999, Nature.

[15]  M. Pärtel,et al.  The species pool and its relation to species richness : evidence from Estonian plant communities , 1996 .

[16]  R. Ricklefs,et al.  Community Diversity: Relative Roles of Local and Regional Processes , 1987, Science.

[17]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Habitat Fragmentation, Species Loss, and Biological Control , 1994, Science.

[18]  Teja Tscharntke,et al.  SCALE‐DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ON THREE POLLINATOR GUILDS , 2002 .

[19]  P. Stephens,et al.  Explaining Species Richness from Continents to Communities: The Time‐for‐Speciation Effect in Emydid Turtles , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[20]  P. Duelli.  Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes : An approach at two different scales , 1997 .

[21]  Françoise Burel,et al.  Differential response of selected taxa to landscape context and agricultural intensification , 2004 .

[22]  P. Giller,et al.  The effects of the intensification of agriculture on northern temperate dung beetle communities , 2003 .

[23]  L. Fahrig.  Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity , 2003 .

[24]  J. Bengtsson,et al.  LANDSCAPE COMPLEXITY AND FARMING PRACTICE INFLUENCE THE CONDITION OF POLYPHAGOUS CARABID BEETLES , 2001 .

[25]  Geoffrey B. West,et al.  Scaling in Biology , 2000 .

[26]  J. Whitfield.  Ecology: Neutrality versus the niche , 2002, Nature.

[27]  Wopke van der Werf,et al.  Model evaluation of the function of prey in non-crop habitats for biological control by ladybeetles in agricultural landscapes , 2004 .

[28]  Rune Halvorsen Økland,et al.  Canonical Correspondence Analysis with variation partitioning: some comments and an application , 1994 .

[29]  R. Brooks,et al.  Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities , 1997, Landscape Ecology.

[30]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity , 2001 .

[31]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Food Webs in Space: An Island Biogeographic Perspective , 1996 .

[32]  Ter Braak,et al.  Canoco reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user''s guide: software for canonical community ord , 2002 .

[33]  R. Peters.  The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

[34]  D. Fairbanks,et al.  Hierarchical processes define spatial pattern of avian assemblages restricted and endemic to the arid Karoo, South Africa , 2002 .

[35]  Joanna Grand,et al.  A multi-scale analysis of species-environment relationships : breeding birds in a pitch pine-scrub oak (Pinus rigida-Quercus ilicifolia) community , 2003 .

[36]  P. Jeanneret,et al.  Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes , 2003 .

[37]  K. Sepp,et al.  Bumblebee communities as an indicator for landscape monitoring in the agri-environmental programme , 2004 .

[38]  M. Obrist,et al.  In search of the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas , 1998, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[39]  J. Lawton.  Are there general laws in ecology , 1999 .

[40]  F. Chapin,et al.  Consequences of changing biodiversity , 2000, Nature.

[41]  S. Hubbell,et al.  The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[42]  P. Edwards,et al.  Enhancing insect diversity in agricultural grasslands: the roles of management and landscape structure , 2001 .

[43]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Bioindication using trap‐nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: community structure and interactions , 1998 .

[44]  E. Marshall,et al.  Aggregation and temporal stability of carabid beetle distributions in field and hedgerow habitats , 2001 .

[45]  M. Obrist,et al.  Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects , 1999 .

[46]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Plant-insect interactions in fragmented landscapes. , 2004, Annual review of entomology.

[47]  Jacques Baudry,et al.  Comparative biodiversity along a gradient of agricultural landscapes , 1998 .

[48]  W. Parton,et al.  Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. , 1997, Science.

[49]  Jared L. Strasburg,et al.  Disrupting evolutionary processes: The effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[50]  S. Hartley,et al.  The role of resources and natural enemies in determining the distribution of an insect herbivore population , 2001 .