Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Responses of selected beetle families (Carabidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae) to non-crop habitats in an agricultural landscape

Responses of selected beetle families (Carabidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae) to non-crop... Agricultural intensification has caused a simplification of agricultural landscapes, accompanied by increasing field sizes and a reduction of non-crop habitats. To mitigate negative impacts of intensification, it is necessary to understand to what extent different non-crop habitats contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Here, we compared the taxonomic diversity of three beetle families among four habitat types—wheat fields, grassy field margins, wildflower-sown areas under power poles, and permanent grassland fallows, in an agricultural landscape in western Germany. Carabidae were caught by pitfall trapping, Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae by suction sampling. We found surprisingly little vari- ation among habitat types, though the rarefied species number tended to be higher in grassland fallows and field margins than under power poles and in wheat fields. Nevertheless, species assemblages differed substantially among habitat types. In Carabidae, grassland fallows were dominated by hygrophilous species with poor dispersal ability as opposed to all other habitat types being dominated by open landscape species with high dispersal ability. In Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, power pole islands differed from the other habitat types with predominantly open landscape species, whereas wheat fields and grassland fallows were clearly dominated by eurytopic species. Our results thus highlight the need for a combination of different conservation measures for enhancing the functional diversity of beetle assemblages. Keywords Agriculture · Biodiversity conservation · Dispersal ability · Non-crop habitat · Pitfall trapping · Suction sampling Introduction heterogeneity, in contrast, more specifically the diversity of habitats and their configuration, was found to promote biodi- The intensification of agricultural land use in recent decades versity in agricultural landscapes (Fahrig et al. 2011). Thus, has resulted in a simplification of agricultural landscapes non-crop habitats such as grassland fallows, e fi ld margins or worldwide, a concomitantly reduced crop diversity, and a wildflower-sown fields are increasingly important reservoirs substantial loss of non-crop habitats important for wildlife of arthropod diversity in agroecosystems (Gayer et al. 2019; (Robinson and Sutherland 2002; Tscharntke et al. 2005). The Plath et al. 2021). For instance, non-crop habitats can serve resulting lack of breeding and foraging habitats in agroeco- as source habitats for species contributing to pest control systems has led to a decline in species diversity observed for by spilling over into croplands (Tschumi et al. 2016). Such several taxa (Wilson et al. 1999; Weibull et al. 2000; Ben- habitats are especially important for predatory species with ton et al. 2003; Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). Other limited dispersal ability, such as many though not all ground reasons for the decline of biodiversity on farmlands include beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), e.g. by providing sites for detrimental effects of agrochemicals (Batáry et al. 2008) reproduction and overwintering (Boetzl et al. 2019). Even and conventional tillage (Hatten et al. 2007). High landscape species thriving in agricultural landscapes may benefit from non-crop habitats, e.g. during temporal disturbances (till- age, harvest; Schneider et al. 2016) or for overwintering * Tamara Rischen (Schmidt-Entling and Döbeli 2009). Thus, non-crop habitats tamararischen@uni-koblenz.de are of essential importance for biodiversity conservation in Department Biology, Institute of Integrated Natural agricultural landscapes. Sciences, Koblenz-Landau University, Universitätsstraße 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 2150 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Generalist predators such as Carabidae are of particular margins, permanent grassland fallows, and wheat fields importance in agricultural landscapes, because they contrib- for insect conservation. We investigated ground- (Carabi- ute to pest control (Lövei and Sunderland 1996; Kosewska dae) as well as vegetation-dwelling species (Chrysomeli- et al. 2014). For example, they may reduce aphid densities dae, Curculionidae) to test the following predictions: (1) in wheat fields (Collins et al. 2002; Symondson et al. 2002). Beetle diversity and activity density are higher in grassy Larger Carabidae are more sensitive to temporal variability field margins and power pole islands compared to wheat in the availability of resources compared to smaller species fields, due to a lower management intensity and more com- (Blake et al. 1994; Ribera et al. 2001). In addition, larger plex vegetation structure, but lower than in much larger carabids are more negatively affected by tillage or pesticide permanent grassland fallows. (2) Wheat fields harbour a use (Rusch et al. 2013). Thus, they tend to prefer more undis- higher proportion of open landscape and eurytopic beetle turbed habitats, which is also due to their limited dispersal species compared to non-crop habitats, especially grass- ability (Cole et al. 2002). Consequently, differences in mor - land fallows. (3) Grassland fallows, comprising relatively phological characteristics, i.e. body size in turn reflecting stable habitats, harbour more poor dispersers (i.e. larger, mobility, may affect habitat use in Carabidae (Rainio and wingless carabids) than other habitat types and especially Niemela 2003; Kotze and O’Hara 2003; Hanson et al. 2016). wheat fields. While, therefore, Carabidae have been often used as indica- tor group in agricultural landscapes, smaller phytophagous families, such as Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, residing in the herb and shrub layer, have been less frequently stud- Material and methods ied in agroecosystems (Woodcock et al. 2005). The species within these families are often intimately associated with Study area specific host plants, and thus respond rapidly to changes in land use (Marvaldi et al. 2002; Linzmeier and Ribeiro-Costa This study was performed in an intensively used agri- 2012). Accordingly, a high diversity of Chrysomelidae and cultural landscape dominated by crop fields within the Curculionidae can be found in non-crop habitats (Rischen Eifel mountain range in western Germany (50°14’  N, et al. 2021), which also applies to other beetle families (e.g. 7°21’ E). The climate of the study area, which belongs Haaland et al. 2011; Frank et al. 2012). to the ‘Maifeld’ region, is oceanic with a precipita- Maintaining and creating non-crop habitats is undoubt- tion of ~ 598  mm/year and a mean annual temperature edly one of the most effective conservation measure in inten- of ~ 10  °C (Ag rar meteorologie Rheinland-Pfalz 2020). sively managed agricultural landscapes (Tscharntke et al. In 2018, crop fields comprised 72.2%, forests 11.8%, set- 2002; Knapp and Řezáč 2015). Thus, agri-environmental tlement and traffic areas 13.9%, and other biotopes 2.1% schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in of the Maifeld (Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz European agricultural landscapes promote such habitats 2018). The study area is thus characterised by a mosaic (Haaland et al. 2011; Gallé et al. 2020). Permanent grassland of intensively used crop fields and small patches of non- fallows are particularly important non-crop habitats for the crop habitats such as grassland fallows, field margins, and conservation of arthropods in agricultural landscapes, due set-aside areas sown with wildflower mixtures. We com- to their complex vegetation structure and often higher levels pared four habitat types, each represented by nine replicate of soil moisture (Hendrickx et al. 2007; Plath et al. 2021). plots, to investigate the influence of land use on beetle However, the effectiveness of other non-crop habitats such as assemblages (Online resource: Table S1): (1) wheat fields grassy field margins or set-aside fields sown with wildflow - sown with Triticum aestivum (conventional management ers is more controversial. Still, set-aside wildflower fields with fertilizing, fungicide and herbicide spraying; but all (Plath et al. 2021) or wildflower strips along field margins next to grassland fallows), (2) grassy field margins bor - (Haaland et al. 2011) are increasingly established to increase dering wheat fields (mown once during sampling, several habitat heterogeneity. Furthermore, grassy field margins may decades old), (3) set-aside habitat islands under power contribute to the conservation of farmland species by provid- poles (two years old fallows located within wheat fields, ing less disturbed habitats that are compatible with agricul- sown with a commercially available mixture of wildflower tural practices (Marshall and Moonen 2002). seeds (including Calendula sp., Centaurea sp., Echium sp., In an intensively used agricultural landscape in Western Phacelia sp. etc.) as ‘greening’ measure; 12 × 12 m), and Germany, the Maifeld, quadratic areas (12 × 12 m) under (4) grassland fallows (long-term grassland fallows with a poles of a power line were set aside and sown with wild- diverse natural vegetation cover, formerly used as mead- flower seed mixtures in 2018 to promote farmland biodi- ows but abandoned decades ago). versity. We here set out to compare the effectiveness of these ‘power pole islands’ as compared with grassy field 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2151 2021). For the suction sampling data, this analysis was not Beetle sampling possible due to a high number of 0 values. Data on body size of each species were taken from Freude et al. (1964–1983) Beetles were sampled using two methods, pitfall trapping (to capture Carabidae) and suction sampling (to capture and Homburg et  al. (2014). Community weighted mean (CWM) values for body size were calculated by weighting Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae). Pitfall trapping was per- th th formed between 28 of April and the 7 of July 2020. Two the respective body size by each species' abundance (Ricotta and Moretti 2011). Freude et al. (1964–1983) was also used PET cups (∅ = 5.6 cm, volume 125 ml, filled with 70% water and 30% monopropylene glycol) were used per replicate to assign habitat preferences (open landscape, eurytopic or hygrophilous species) to each beetle species. In addition, plot. Both traps were buried into the ground at a distance of five meters and covered by a plastic roof for protection. In Carabidae were classified according to their flight ability as good (winged) or poor (wingless and dimorphic species), wheat fields and grassland fallows, pitfall traps were placed at a distance of 30 m from the respective edge, while in using data available in Homburg et al. (2014). For subse- quent analyses, we standardized the above data by giving field margins and power pole islands they were set up in the centre of each plot. While on power pole islands the distance the respective proportion per plot. Finally, we obtained the length, width and thereby size of each plot using the dis- to the edges was about five meters, this varied in the field margins due to different widths of this habitat type, being tance tool in GoogleMaps. To assess the shape of plots, the perimeter-to-area ratio was calculated. typically less than 3 m. Traps were emptied every two weeks (i.e. a total of six times), with the number of trapping days Statistical analyses ranging between 82–83 days per plot. Samples were stored in 70% ethanol and ground beetles identified to species level Kruskal–Wallis ANOVAs were used to test for significant using taxonomic keys (Freude et al. 1964–1983). Suction sampling was carried out on the same plots as differences among habitat types in the numbers of species and individuals, the number of individuals for the most com- above using a modified leaf blower (Stihl SH 56, Dieburg, Germany) with a polyamide stocking inserted into the noz- mon Carabidae, effective number of species, rarefied species richness, CWM body size, plot size and shape (dependent zle. Each plot was sampled four times on dry and warm days in May and June 2020, with sampling conducted two variables). Because normal distribution and homogeneity of variance were not met, we used a non-parametric test. Multi- weeks apart. Per sampling, the vegetation was sucked along a five meter transect (i.e. between both pitfall traps), with ple comparisons were used to locate significant differences. Using Pearson correlations, we tested for significant effects the nozzle being inserted into the vegetation 10 times for 7 s each (Brook et al. 2008). Please note the substantial dif- of plot size and shape on dependent variables. Only for the suction sampling data, we found significant correlations ference in sampling effort between both methods employed. Thus, while our focus was clearly on pitfall trapping, we between plot shape and the number of species (r = -0.347, p = 0.038) and the effective number of species (r = -0.362, still believe that suction sampling, even though with reduced effort, provides interesting additional insights into the p = 0.030) as well as between plot size and CWM body size (r = -0.347, p = 0.038). For the above cases, we additionally responses of vegetation-dwelling beetles. Samples were afterwards transferred to plastic bags, frozen at -18 °C, and performed ANCOVAs by including plot shape or size as covariates in addition to habitat type. Effects of covariates then stored in 70% ethanol. Chrysomelidae and Curculio- nidae were identified to species level using taxonomic keys were non-signic fi ant throughout (Online resource: Table S2) such that within the article only analyses excluding covari- (Freude et al. 1964–1983). ates are presented. We also tested for spatial autocorrelation using Moran’s I tests (ape-package; Dormann et al. 2007; Data analyses Paradis and Schliep 2019), but found no evidence of spatial autocorrelation in any of the dependent variables (Online Data from pitfall trapping (Carabidae) and suction sampling (Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) were analysed sepa- resource: Table S3). We used non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) rately, pooling all respective data per plot. We calculated the numbers of species and individuals, and the ee ff ctive number analyses, based on the Bray–Curtis index of dissimilar- ity, to visualise differences in the species assemblages of of species for each plot. To estimate the latter, the Shan- non–Wiener entropy index was converted to true diversity Carabidae among the four habitat types. Suction sampling data were insufficient for NMDS ordination, because of 0 using the formula ‘exp^H’ (Jost 2006). To account for differ - ences in detection probability between habitat types, rarefied values. For calculating Bray–Curtis dissimilarities, propor- tional data were used to standardise for differences in the species richness was calculated for the pitfall trapping data for a sample coverage of 90% using the iNEXT package total abundance of beetles. We tested for differences in car - abid assemblages using permutational multivariate analyses (Hsieh et al. 2020) in R 4.0.5 (R Development Core Team 1 3 2152 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 of variance (PERMANOVA, with 999 permutations). PER- Table 1 Results of Kruskal–Wallis ANOVAs for the effects of habitat type on various variables for beetles captured by pitfall trapping (Car- MANOVAs (999 permutations) were also used to test for abidae) or suction sampling (Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) significant differences between habitat types in the propor - tion of species with specific habitat preferences (all families) Pitfall trapping DF H p or flight ability (Carabidae only). For standardization, we   Species number 3, 32 7.46 0.059 used the relative abundance of species throughout. Pairwise   Number of individuals 3, 32 6.17 0.104 PERMANOVAs were performed to test for significant dif -   ENS 3, 32 8.01 0.045 ferences between habitat types. Statistical analyses were per-   Rarefied species 3, 32 11.06 0.012 formed with Statistica 12.0 (Tulsa, StatSoft) or using the   CWM body size 3, 32 4.37 0.224 vegan package in R 4.0.5 (R Development Core Team 2021; Suction sampling DF H p Oksanen et al. 2020).   Species number 3, 32 4.82 0.185   Number of individuals 3, 32 6.29 0.098   ENS 3, 32 4.18 0.242 Results   CWM body size 3, 32 1.93 0.586 Significant p-values are given in bold. ENS Effective number of spe- A total of 5491 Carabidae of 70 species were captured with cies; CWM Community weighted mean pitfall trapping. Suction sampling yielded 94 Chrysomelidae belonging to 23 species and 125 Curculionidae belonging to 26 species (Online resource: Table S1). Considering the For all five former species, the number of individuals were lowest in grassland fallows (Fig. 2). This is also reflected pitfall data, five carabids accounted for 63% of all individu- als: Nebria salina (Fairmaire and Laboulbène, 1854; 1034 by the respective percentages of individuals across habitat types. Wheat fields, field margins and power pole islands individuals in total), Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798; 776), Anchomenus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763; 620), Bra- were clearly dominated by the five dominant carabids (55–85% of all individuals), while they were poorly rep- chinus explodens (Duftschmid, 1812; 616), and Poecilus cupreus (Linnaeus, 1758; 425). Six Carabidae found are resented in grassland fallows (< 10% of all individuals; Fig. 3). included in the red list of Germany (Geiser 1998) as near threatened (3 species; Chlaenius nigricornis Fabricius, The NMDS ordination of Carabidae showed significant variation in species composition between habitat types 1787; Harpalus dimidiatus Rossi, 1790; Harpalus serripes Quensel, 1806) or vulnerable (3 species; Carabus convexus (PERMANOVA: F = 3.35, p = 0.001, R = 0.24; Fig. 4). 3,32 There were significant differences between all habitat types Fabricius, 1775; Harpalus hirtipes Panzer, 1796; Harpalus melancholicus Dejean, 1829). No threatened species were (PERMANOVA, pairwise comparisons: p < 0.05), except for field margins and power pole islands (F = 1.92, p = 0.103, recorded for Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae (cf. Freude 1,15 et al. 1964–1983; Geiser 1998). R = 0.11), with strongest differences between the assem- blages of wheat fields and grassland fallows as well as Habitat type only significantly affected the rarefied spe- cies number and the effective number of species of Carabi- power pole islands and grassland fallows. Variation among grassland fallows was much higher compared with all other dae, and no parameter of the Chrysomelidae and Curculio- nidae (Table 1; Fig. 1; Online resource: Fig. S1, Fig. S2). habitat types. For both sampling methods, PERMANOVAs showed For Carabidae, the rarefied species number was significantly higher in field margins and grassland fallows than in power significant differences among habitat types in habitat preferences (Carabidae: F = 4.88, p = 0.003, R = 0.31; pole islands, and the effective number of species tended to 3,32 be higher in field margins than in power pole islands. Fur - Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae: F = 3.19, p = 0.014, 3,32 R = 0.26). For Carabidae, all habitat types differed signifi- thermore, there were significant differences in plot size and shape between habitat types (size: H = 26.99, p < 0.0001; cantly from each other except for field margins and power 3,32 pole islands. Open landscape species dominated except for shape: H = 30.05, p < 0.0001; Online resource: Fig. S3). 3,32 Wheat fields and grassland fallows were larger than power grassland fallows, in which hygrophilous species were most abundant (Fig.  5). In Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, pole islands and field margins, the latter being much more elongated than the other habitat types. power pole islands differed significantly from all other habi- tat types. Here, eurytopic species dominated in wheat fields Kruskal–Wallis tests also showed that habitat type significantly influenced the number of individuals in N. and grassland fallows, while open landscape species clearly dominated in power pole islands. Finally, carabid assem- salina (H = 22.32, p < 0.001), A. dorsalis (H = 18.79, 3 3 p < 0.001), B. explodens (H = 17.38, p < 0.001), and P. blages differed significantly in flight ability (F = 6.61, 3,32 p = 0.001, R = 0.38), with significant differences between cupreus (H = 11.42, p < 0.01), while there were no signifi- cant differences for P. melanarius (H = 3.94, p = 0.268). grassland fallows and all other habitat types. In contrast to 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2153 Fig. 1 Numbers of species, individuals, and rarefied species and effective number of species (ENS) of Carabidae captured by pitfall trapping across four habitat types. Boxplots display the interquartile range (25–75%; box) and the median (line in the box). Whiskers represent 1.5 times the lower or upper inter- quartile range. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences among habitat types (multiple comparisons after Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA; n = 9 plots each) Fig. 2 Number of individu- als for the five most common Carabidae captured by pitfall trapping across four habitat types. Boxplots display the interquartile range (25–75%; the box) and the median (line in the box). Whiskers represent 1.5 times the lower or upper inter- quartile range. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences among habitat types (multiple comparisons after Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA; n = 9 plots each) 1 3 2154 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Fig. 4 Non-metric multidimensional scaling analyses (NMDS) for Carabidae assemblages captured by pitfall trapping (based on 70 spe- cies and 5491 individuals) across four habitat types (n = 36 plots, 2 dimensions, Bray–Curtis distance, tries = 20) assemblages may be generally impoverished close to crop fields (see Rand et al. 2006). Note that non-significant results in Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae may also stem from the reduced sampling effort and concomitantly low sample sizes. For Carabidae, rarefied species number was higher in field margins and fallows than in wheat fields and power pole islands. Also, the effective species number of Carabi- dae was higher in field margins than in power pole islands. The low values for the latter may well be explained by the Fig. 3 Percentages of individuals for the five most common Carabi- dae and for all remaining carabid species (rest) captured by pitfall young age of these habitats. The relatively high values found trapping across four habitat types. Given are percentages for each for wheat fields, in contrast, may at least partly result from habitat type. W: wheat field, M: field margin, I: power pole island, F: methodological artefacts. In particular, the higher and denser grassland fallow vegetation of non-crop habitats compared to wheat fields may hamper beetle activity (i.e. speed) and also reduce all other habitat types, grassland fallows were dominated by the efficiency of suction sampling (Honek 1988; Thomas species with poor flight ability (Fig.  5c). et al. 2006; Vician et al. 2015). Moreover, all wheat fields studied here were located close to grassland fallows, such that spillover effects may also contribute to their relatively Discussion high species richness. Carabids are known to often colonize crop fields from nearby non-crop habitats, which can lead Non-crop habitats, such as grassy field margins, wildflower- to higher densities in adjacent fields (Weibull and Östman sown areas, and grassland fallows, were expected to harbour 2003; Purtauf et al. 2005; Fusser et al. 2018). more beetle species than wheat fields because beetles are However, beetle assemblages differed clearly between in general highly sensitive to changes in habitat structures the four habitat types. In Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, and agricultural practices (e.g. use of agrochemicals for small-scale power pole islands differed from the other habi- Carabidae; Lövei and Sunderland 1996). Contrary to our tat types with the dominance of open landscape species. In expectations, though, we found no significant differences Carabidae, all habitat types differed from each other except in species richness, activity-density, and effective number for field margins and power pole islands, which were domi- of species of three beetle families between wheat fields and nated by open landscape species, such as wheat fields, but non-crop habitats. Similarly, carabid species richness did grassland fallows by hygrophilous species. The dominance not differ between newly established grasslands and adjoin- of hygrophilous Carabidae in grassland fallows is proba- ing cereal fields in a recent study (Hussain et al. 2021), and bly due to the high soil moisture of fallows (Marasas et al. 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2155 2010). The much lower proportion of hygrophilous species in the Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae even in fallows as compared to Carabidae is likely due to their vegetation- dwelling life style. Thus, we assume that ground-dwelling Carabidae are more dependent on and sensitive to soil mois- ture compared to both other taxa. This would also explain the high abundance of Agonum viduum (Panzer, 1796) in grassland fallows, which is a hygrophilous species with poor dispersal ability (Online resource: Table S4a). Our results on habitat preferences are overall consistent with our second hypothesis that wheat fields mainly harbour open landscape and eurytopic beetle species. Furthermore, the Carabidae found in grassland fallows were mainly poor dispersers, as opposed to wheat fields, field margins, and power pole islands, largely consistent with hypothesis 3. Arable fields are often dominated by highly dispersive pioneer species that are adapted to frequently changing conditions and differ - ent kinds of open habitats (Anjum-Zubair et al. 2015; Ribera et al. 2001). Accordingly, permanent grassland fallows in particular may support beetle species with specific habitat requirements that are most affected by the homogenisation of agricultural landscapes (Ulrich et al. 2004). Differences among habitat types in species composition are also reflected by the distribution patterns of specific species. For example, the occurrence of many Curculioni- dae species is related to the presence of their food plant. Accordingly, Malvapion malvae (Fabricius, 1775) reached high densities in power pole islands being rich in mallows (Malva sp.), and Tychius breviusculus (Desbrochers, 1873) in grassy field margins with a high abundance of melilot (Melilotus sp.; Online resource: Table S4c). The establish- ment of additional plant species by sowing seed mixtures is especially relevant for such phytophagous beetle species (Anjum-Zubair et al. 2010). While phytophagous beetles (e.g. Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) are thus often attracted to areas with high plant diversity (Frank et  al. 2012), other factors (e.g. agronomic activities, edge habitats) appear to be more important for predatory carabids (Duflot et al. 2017; Gailis et al. 2017). The relatively high activity-densities of carabids in wheat fields were at least partly caused by the presence of very common predatory species that thrived in wheat fields, grassy field margins and power pole islands, but which were largely lacking in grassland fallows (Figs.  2 and 3). For instance, A. dorsalis, B. explodens, P. cupreus, and P. melanarius are characteristic species of cereal fields over a wide area (Kromp 1999; Hussain et al. 2021). In contrast, the abundant occurrence of N. salina in our study area is Fig. 5 Distribution of habitat preferences (open landscape; eurytopic; more unusual, as this species is typically recorded in lower hygrophilous) of Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae (a suction sam- numbers in agroecosystems. However, the abundant occur- pling) and Carabidae (b pitfall trapping) and flight ability (c good; rence of the five most common carabids found in crop fields poor) of ground beetles (pitfall trapping) across four habitat types. W: has also been shown in other studies (e.g. Pfiffner and Luka wheat field, M: field margin, I: power pole island, F: grassland fallow. Data for habitat preferences and flight ability according to Freude 2003; Purtauf et al. 2005). et al. (1964–1983) and Homburg et al. (2014) 1 3 2156 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Morpho-ecological traits of beetle communities such Conclusions as diet preference, wing morphology, or body size may be more suitable indicators of anthropogenic impacts on Our results did not support our initial expectation of a habitats than species richness or abundance (Gobbi and higher species richness in non-crop habitats in an agricul- Fontaneto 2008). In our case, wheat fields, field margins tural landscape. However, different habitat types harboured and power pole islands were dominated by carabids with different species assemblages, with grassland fallows good dispersal ability, which can readily colonise highly showing the largest within-group variation. Permanent disturbed sites. In general, ground beetles living in unsta- grassland fallows are thus of particular importance for ble environments have good dispersal abilities that allow nature conservation, also as they provided refuge areas for them to move to more stable habitats when less favourable hygrophilous and flightless beetle species, whereas wheat conditions appear (Ribera et al. 2001). With the exception fields were mainly colonised by open landscape species of P. melanarius, which is often recorded in high densities with high dispersal ability. In addition, species assem- in field interiors (e.g. Gayer et al. 2019; Bennewicz and blages of non-crop habitats differed from wheat fields, Barczak 2020), the remaining most common carabids in showing their potential to increase overall insect diver- our study have good f light ability and almost exclusively sity in agricultural landscapes. Therefore, functional traits colonised wheat fields, grassy field margins, and power (e.g. flight ability, body size) rather than species richness pole islands. In contrast, grassland fallows provided suit- may represent more robust indicators for assessing habitat able habitats for flightless carabids, which are particularly quality in relation to anthropogenic disturbance. Overall, at risk of local extinction in intensively used agricultural our results show that different types of non-crop habitats landscapes (Griffiths et al. 2007), possibly due to the high harbour different beetle assemblages and thus contribute age of this habitat type. to promoting diversity in agroecosystems. Thus, both In summary, the habitat types investigated harboured small- and large-scale non-crop habitats should be taken different carabid assemblages, except from field margins into account to improve the functional diversity of beetle and power pole islands, thus enhancing overall beetle assemblages in agricultural landscapes. diversity. Thus, assemblages of grassland fallows, non- Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- crop habitats (power pole islands and fields margins), tary material available at https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s11756- 022- 01100-z . and wheat fields were different. This highlights the importance of landscape composition and configuration Acknowledgements We are grateful to Roland Busch, Katharina Geis- for maintaining biodiversity in agroecosystems (Martin büsch, and Daniel Ruppert for their help with the field work. We thank et al. 2019). This is in line with other studies on beetle Thomas Wagner for help with species identifications. Thanks also to the local farmers and landowners for providing access to their land and communities in agricultural landscapes, having docu- for their support. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for mented positive effects of heterogeneous habitat struc- their constructive criticism.   tures (Benton et al. 2003; Diekötter et al. 2010; Fahrig et  al. 2011; Knapp and Řezáč 2015). Increased habitat Authors' contributions KF and TR designed the experiment, TR and diversity may provide access to additional food including KE collected field data and TR, KE and MH identified the beetles, KF and TR analysed the data with help from KE and MH, TR and KF ephemeral resources and overwintering sites (Coombes wrote the manuscript. and Sothertons 1986; Pfiffner and Luka 2000; Macfadyen and Muller 2013). In particular, many carabid species Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt (e.g. P. cupreus) are known to use wheat fields and adja- DEAL. This study was financially supported by the Ministry for Envi- cent non-crop habitats as complementary habitats (Duflot ronment, Energy, Nutrition and Forest Rheinland-Pfalz through the ‘Aktion Grün’. et al. 2015). Such structures may also represent important corridors for the dispersal of Carabidae (Šustek 1994). Data availability All data are provided as online resource. Notably, the within-group variation of the carabid assem- blages in grassland fallows was much higher compared to Declarations other habitat types, which is likely related to differences in ecological factors and stresses the high importance of Ethics approval Not applicable permanent non-crop habitats for conservation in agri- cultural landscapes. Feng et al. (2021) also showed that Conflicts of interest/Competing interests On behalf of all authors, the older fallows, such as the grassland follows studied here, corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. support more diverse communities and are particularly important for the conservation of habitat specialists. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2157 as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628. https:// doi. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes org/ 10. 1111/j. 2007. 0906- 7590. 05171.x were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Duflot R, Aviron S, Ernoult A et al (2015) Reconsidering the role included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated of ‘semi-natural habitat’ in agricultural landscape biodiver- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in sity: a case study. Ecol Res 30:75–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not s11284- 014- 1211-9 permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Duo fl t R, Ernoult A, Aviron S et al (2017) Relative ee ff cts of landscape need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a composition and configuration on multi-habitat gamma diversity copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 241:62–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2017. 02. 035 Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L et al (2011) Functional landscape het- erogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. References Ecol Lett 14:101–112. h tt ps : // d oi . o r g / 1 0. 1 11 1/ j. 1 46 1- 0 24 8. 2010. 01559.x Agrarmeteorologie Rheinland-Pfalz (2020) Langjährige Mittelw- Feng L, Arvidsson F, Smith HG, Birkhofer K (2021) Fallows and erte der Wetterstation Münstermaifeld. https:// www. am. rlp. de. permanent grasslands conserve the species composition and Accessed 10 Sep 2020 functional diversity of carabid beetles and linyphiid spiders Anjum-Zubair M, Entling MH, Bruckner A et al (2015) Dier ff entiation in agricultural landscapes. Insect Conserv Divers 14:825- of spring carabid beetle assemblages between semi-natural habi- 836. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ icad. 12520 tats and adjoining winter wheat. Agric For Entomol 17:355–365. Frank T, Aeschbacher S, Zaller JG (2012) Habitat age affects beetle https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ afe. 12115 diversity in wildflower areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 152:21–26. Anjum-Zubair M, Schmidt-Entling MH, Querner P, Frank T (2010) https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2012. 01. 027 Influence of within-field position and adjoining habitat on carabid Freude H, Harde KW, Lohse GA (1964-1983) Die Käfer Mit- beetle assemblages in winter wheat. Agric For Entomol 12:301– teleuropas. Bände 1–11. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld 306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1461- 9563. 2010. 00479.x Fusser MS, Holland JM, Jeanneret P et al (2018) Interactive effects Batáry P, Kovács A, Báldi A (2008) Management effects on carabid of local and landscape factors on farmland carabids. Agric For beetles and spiders in Central Hungarian grasslands and cereal Entomol 20:549–557. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ afe. 12288 fields. Community Ecol 9:247–254. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1556/ Gailis J, Turka I, Ausmane M (2017) The most frequent ground ComEc.9. 2008.2. 14 beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) are differently affected by main Bennewicz J, Barczak T (2020) Ground beetles (Carabidae) of field soil treatment and crop rotation in winter wheat fields. Acta Biol margin habitats. Biologia 75:1631–1641. https://doi. or g/10. 2478/ Univ Daugavp 17:29–52 s11756- 020- 00424-y Gallé R, Geppert C, Földesi R et al (2020) Arthropod functional Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: traits shaped by landscape-scale field size, local agri-envi- is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188. ronment schemes and edge effects. Basic Appl Ecol 48:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0169- 5347(03) 00011-9https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. baae. 2020. 09. 006 Blake S, Foster GN, Eyre MD, Luff ML (1994) Effects of habitat type Gayer C, Lövei GL, Magura T et al (2019) Carabid functional diver- and grassland management practices on the body size distribution sity is enhanced by conventional flowering fields, organic winter of carabid beetles. Pedobiologia  38:502–512 cereals and edge habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 284:106579. Boetzl FA, Krimmer E, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019) Agri-https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2019. 106579 environmental schemes promote ground-dwelling predators in Geiser R (1998) Rote Liste der Käfer (Coleoptera). In: Binot adjacent oilseed rape fields: diversity, species traits and distance- M, Bless R, Boye P et  al (eds) Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere decay functions. J Appl Ecol 56:10–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ Deutschlands. - Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Natur - 1365- 2664. 13162 schutz. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, pp 178–179 Brook AJ, Woodcock BA, Sinka M, Vanbergen AJ (2008) Experimen- Gobbi M, Fontaneto D (2008) Biodiversity of ground beetles tal verification of suction sampler capture efficiency in grasslands (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in different habitats of the Italian Po of differing vegetation height and structure. J Appl Ecol 45:1357– lowland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:273–276. https:// doi. org/ 1363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2664. 2008. 01530.x10. 1016/j. agee. 2008. 04. 011 Cole LJ, Mccracken DI, Dennis P et al (2002) Relationships between Griffiths GJK, Winder L, Holland JM, Thomas CFG (2007) The rep- agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles resentation and functional composition of carabid and staphyli- (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish farmland. Agric For Entomol nid beetles in different field boundary types at a farm-scale. 93:323–336. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) 00333-4 Biol Conserv 135:145–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. Collins KL, Boatman ND, Wilcox A et al (2002) Influence of beetle 2006. 09. 016 banks on cereal aphid predation in winter wheat. Agric Ecosyst Haaland C, Naisbit RE, Bersier LF (2011) Sown wildflower strips for Environ 93:337–350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) insect conservation: a review. Insect Conserv Divers 4:60–80. 00340-1https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1752- 4598. 2010. 00098.x Coombes DS, Sothertons NW (1986) The dispersal and distribution Hanson HI, Palmu E, Birkhofer K et al (2016) Agricultural land use of polyphagous predatory Coleoptera in cereals. Ann Appl Biol determines the trait composition of ground beetle communities. 108:461–474. h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 7 4 4 - 7 3 4 8 . 1 9 8 6 . t b 0 1 9 PLoS One 11:1–13. https://doi. or g/10. 1371/ jour nal. pone. 01463 29 85.x Hatten TD, Bosque-Pérez NA, Labonte JR et al (2007) Effects of tillage Diekötter T, Wamser S, Wolters V, Birkhofer K (2010) Landscape and on the activity density and biological diversity of carabid beetles management effects on structure and function of soil arthropod in spring and winter crops. Environ Entomol 36:356–368. https:// communities in winter wheat. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:108–doi. org/ 10. 1603/ 0046- 225X(2007) 36[356: EOTOTA] 2.0. CO;2 112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2010. 01. 008 Hendrickx F, Maelfait J, Van Wingerden W et al (2007) How landscape Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB et al (2007) Methods to structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect compo- account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species nents of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. J 1 3 2158 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Appl Ecol 44:340–351. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2664. Pfiffner L, Luka H (2003) Effects of low-input farming systems on 2006. 01270.x carabids and epigeal spiders - a paired farm approach. Basic Appl Homburg K, Homburg N, Schäfer F et al (2014) Carabids. org - a Ecol 4:117–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1078/ 1439- 1791- 00121 dynamic online database of ground beetle species traits (Coleop- Pfiffner L, Luka H (2000) Overwintering of arthropods in soils of ara- tera, Carabidae). Insect Conserv Divers 7:195–205. https:// doi. ble fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats. Agric Ecosyst Envi- org/ 10. 1111/ icad. 12045 ron 78:215–222. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(99) 00130-9 Honek A (1988) The effect of crop density and microclimate on pit- Plath E, Rischen T, Mohr T, Fischer K (2021) Biodiversity in agricul- fall trap catches of Carabidae, Staphylinidae (Coleoptera), and tural landscapes: Grassy field margins and semi-natural fragments Lycosidae (Araneae) in cereal fields. Pedobiologia 32:233–242 both foster spider diversity and body size. Agric Ecosyst Environ Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A (2020) iNEXT: iNterpolation and EXTrap- 316:107457. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2021. 107457 olation for species diversity. R package version 2.0.20 Purtauf T, Roschewitz I, Dauber J et al (2005) Landscape context of Hussain RI, Brandl M, Maas B et al (2021) Re-established grasslands organic and conventional farms: influences on carabid beetle on farmland promote pollinators more than predators. Agric diversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:165–174. https:// doi. org/ Ecosyst Environ 319:107543. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 10. 1016/j. agee. 2005. 01. 005 2021. 107543 R Core Development Core Team (2021): R: A language and envi- Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375. https://doi. ronment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical org/ 10. 1111/j. 2006. 0030- 1299. 14714.x Computing, Vienna, Austria. https:// www.R- proje ct. org/ Knapp M, Řezáč M (2015) Even the smallest son-crop habitat islands Rainio J, Niemela J (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) could be beneficial: distribution of carabid beetles and spiders as bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 12:487–506. https://doi. or g/ in agricultural landscape. PLoS One 10(4):e0123052. https:// 10. 1023/A: 10224 12617 568 doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01230 52 Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: Kosewska A, Skalski T, Nietupski M (2014) Effect of conventional the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies and non-inversion tillage systems on the abundance and some into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614. https://doi. life history traits of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in org/ 10. 1111/j. 1461- 0248. 2006. 00911.x winter triticale fields. Eur J Entomol 111:669–676. https:// doi. Ribera I, Dolédec S, Downie IS, Foster GN (2001) Effect of land org/ 10. 14411/ eje. 2014. 078 disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assem- Kotze DJ, O’Hara RB (2003) Species decline - but why? Expla- blages. Ecology 82:1112–1129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1890/ 0012- nations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines 9658(2001) 082[1112: EOLDAS] 2.0. CO;2 in Europe. Oecologia 135:138–148. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1007/ Ricotta C, Moretti M (2011) CWM and Rao’s quadratic diversity: a s00442- 002- 1174-3 unified framework for functional ecology. Oecologia 167:181– Kromp B (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review 188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00442- 011- 1965-5 on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Rischen T, Frenzel T, Fischer K (2021) Biodiversity in agricultural Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:187–228. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/ landscapes: different non-crop habitats increase diversity of b978-0- 444- 50019-9. 50014-5 ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera) but support different com - Linzmeier AM, Ribeiro-Costa CS (2012) Spatial-temporal compo- munities. Biodivers Conserv 30:3965–3981. https://doi. or g/10. sition of Chrysomelidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) communities in 1007/ s10531- 021- 02284-7 southern Brazil. J Nat Hist 46:1921–1938. https:// doi. org/ 10. Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable 1080/ 00222 933. 2012. 707237 farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol 39:157– Lövei GL, Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground 176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1046/j. 1365- 2664. 2002. 00695.x beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu Rev Entomol 41:231– Rusch A, Bommarco R, Chiverton P et al (2013) Response of ground 256. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. ento. 41.1. 231 beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities to changes in agri- Macfadyen S, Muller W (2013) Edges in agricultural landscapes: cultural policies in Sweden over two decades. Agric Ecosyst species interactions and movement of natural enemies. PLoS Environ 176:63–69. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. ag ee.2013. 05. 014 One 8(3):e59659. https://doi. or g/10. 1371/ jour nal. pone. 00596 59 Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the Marasas ME, Sarandón SJ, Cicchino A (2010) Semi-natural habi- entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol Conserv 232:8–27. tats and field margins in a typical agroecosystem of the Argen-https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. 2019. 01. 020 tinean Pampas as a reservoir of carabid beetles. J Sustain Agric Schmidt-Entling MH, Döbeli J (2009) Sown wildflower areas to 34:153–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10440 04090 34825 63 enhance spiders in arable fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133:19– Marshall EJ, Moonen AC (2002) Field margins in northern Europe: 22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2009. 04. 015 their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric Eco- Schneider G, Krauss J, Boetzl FA et al (2016) Spillover from adja- syst Environ 89:5–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) cent crop and forest habitats shapes carabid beetle assemblages 00315-2 in fragmented semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 182:1141– Martin EA, Dainese M, Clough Y et al (2019) The interplay of land- 1150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00442- 016- 3710-6 scape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz (2018) Verbandsgemeinde functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe. Maifeld - Flächennutzung. http:// inf o t hek . s t ati s tik . r lp. de. Ecol Lett 22:1083–1094. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ele. 13265 Accessed 4 Jun 2020 Marvaldi AE, Sequeira AS, O’Brien CW, Farrel BD (2002) Molecular Šustek Z (1994) Windbreaks as migration corridors for carabids in and morphological phylogenetics of weevils (Coleoptera, Curcu- an agricultural landscape. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau lionoidea): do niche shifts accompany diversification? Syst Biol M et al (eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer 51:761–785. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10635 15029 01024 65 Academic Publishers, pp 377–382 Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2020) vegan: Community Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–7 generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu Rev Paradis E, Schliep K (2019) ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylo- Entomol 47:561–594. https://doi. or g/10. 1146/ annur e v.ent o.47. genetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35:526–091201. 145240 528. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ bioin forma tics/ bty633 Thomas CFG, Brown NJ, Kendall DA (2006) Carabid movement and vegetation density: implications for interpreting pitfall trap data 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2159 from split-field trials. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:51–61. https:// management. Basic Appl Ecol 4:349–361. https:// doi. or g/ 10. doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2005. 08. 0331078/ 1439- 1791- 00173 Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A et al (2005) Landscape perspec- Weibull AC, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies tives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and land- service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. https:// doi. org/ 10. scape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743–750. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1461- 0248. 2005. 00782.x1111/j. 1600- 0587. 2000. tb003 17.x Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contri- Wilson JD, Morris AJ, Arroyo BE et al (1999) A review of the abun- bution of small habitats to conservation of insect communities dance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivo- of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12:354. https:// rous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change. doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30609 47 Agric Ecosyst Environ 75:13–30. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/ S0167- Tschumi M, Albrecht M, Collatz J et al (2016) Tailored flower strips 8809(99) 00064-X promote natural enemy biodiversity and pest control in potato Woodcock BA, Westbury DB, Potts SG et al (2005) Establishing field crops. J Appl Ecol 53:1169–1176. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/ 1365- margins to promote beetle conservation in arable farms. Agric 2664. 12653 Ecosyst Environ 107:255–266. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. ag ee. Ulrich W, Buszko J, Czarnecki A (2004) The contribution of pop-2004. 10. 029 lar plantations to regional diversity of ground beetles (Coleop- tea: Carabidae) in agricultural landscapes. Ann Zool Fennici Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to 41:501–512 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Vician V, Svitok M, Kočík K, Stašiov S (2015) The influence of agri- cultural management on the structure of ground beetle (Coleop- tera : Carabidae) assemblages. Biologia 70:240–251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ biolog- 2015- 0028 Weibull A-C, Östman Ö (2003) Species composition in agro- ecosystems: The effect of landscape, habitat, and farm 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biologia Springer Journals

Responses of selected beetle families (Carabidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae) to non-crop habitats in an agricultural landscape

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/responses-of-selected-beetle-families-carabidae-chrysomelidae-V1ROR589pE

References (82)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2022
ISSN
0006-3088
eISSN
1336-9563
DOI
10.1007/s11756-022-01100-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Agricultural intensification has caused a simplification of agricultural landscapes, accompanied by increasing field sizes and a reduction of non-crop habitats. To mitigate negative impacts of intensification, it is necessary to understand to what extent different non-crop habitats contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Here, we compared the taxonomic diversity of three beetle families among four habitat types—wheat fields, grassy field margins, wildflower-sown areas under power poles, and permanent grassland fallows, in an agricultural landscape in western Germany. Carabidae were caught by pitfall trapping, Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae by suction sampling. We found surprisingly little vari- ation among habitat types, though the rarefied species number tended to be higher in grassland fallows and field margins than under power poles and in wheat fields. Nevertheless, species assemblages differed substantially among habitat types. In Carabidae, grassland fallows were dominated by hygrophilous species with poor dispersal ability as opposed to all other habitat types being dominated by open landscape species with high dispersal ability. In Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, power pole islands differed from the other habitat types with predominantly open landscape species, whereas wheat fields and grassland fallows were clearly dominated by eurytopic species. Our results thus highlight the need for a combination of different conservation measures for enhancing the functional diversity of beetle assemblages. Keywords Agriculture · Biodiversity conservation · Dispersal ability · Non-crop habitat · Pitfall trapping · Suction sampling Introduction heterogeneity, in contrast, more specifically the diversity of habitats and their configuration, was found to promote biodi- The intensification of agricultural land use in recent decades versity in agricultural landscapes (Fahrig et al. 2011). Thus, has resulted in a simplification of agricultural landscapes non-crop habitats such as grassland fallows, e fi ld margins or worldwide, a concomitantly reduced crop diversity, and a wildflower-sown fields are increasingly important reservoirs substantial loss of non-crop habitats important for wildlife of arthropod diversity in agroecosystems (Gayer et al. 2019; (Robinson and Sutherland 2002; Tscharntke et al. 2005). The Plath et al. 2021). For instance, non-crop habitats can serve resulting lack of breeding and foraging habitats in agroeco- as source habitats for species contributing to pest control systems has led to a decline in species diversity observed for by spilling over into croplands (Tschumi et al. 2016). Such several taxa (Wilson et al. 1999; Weibull et al. 2000; Ben- habitats are especially important for predatory species with ton et al. 2003; Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). Other limited dispersal ability, such as many though not all ground reasons for the decline of biodiversity on farmlands include beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), e.g. by providing sites for detrimental effects of agrochemicals (Batáry et al. 2008) reproduction and overwintering (Boetzl et al. 2019). Even and conventional tillage (Hatten et al. 2007). High landscape species thriving in agricultural landscapes may benefit from non-crop habitats, e.g. during temporal disturbances (till- age, harvest; Schneider et al. 2016) or for overwintering * Tamara Rischen (Schmidt-Entling and Döbeli 2009). Thus, non-crop habitats tamararischen@uni-koblenz.de are of essential importance for biodiversity conservation in Department Biology, Institute of Integrated Natural agricultural landscapes. Sciences, Koblenz-Landau University, Universitätsstraße 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 2150 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Generalist predators such as Carabidae are of particular margins, permanent grassland fallows, and wheat fields importance in agricultural landscapes, because they contrib- for insect conservation. We investigated ground- (Carabi- ute to pest control (Lövei and Sunderland 1996; Kosewska dae) as well as vegetation-dwelling species (Chrysomeli- et al. 2014). For example, they may reduce aphid densities dae, Curculionidae) to test the following predictions: (1) in wheat fields (Collins et al. 2002; Symondson et al. 2002). Beetle diversity and activity density are higher in grassy Larger Carabidae are more sensitive to temporal variability field margins and power pole islands compared to wheat in the availability of resources compared to smaller species fields, due to a lower management intensity and more com- (Blake et al. 1994; Ribera et al. 2001). In addition, larger plex vegetation structure, but lower than in much larger carabids are more negatively affected by tillage or pesticide permanent grassland fallows. (2) Wheat fields harbour a use (Rusch et al. 2013). Thus, they tend to prefer more undis- higher proportion of open landscape and eurytopic beetle turbed habitats, which is also due to their limited dispersal species compared to non-crop habitats, especially grass- ability (Cole et al. 2002). Consequently, differences in mor - land fallows. (3) Grassland fallows, comprising relatively phological characteristics, i.e. body size in turn reflecting stable habitats, harbour more poor dispersers (i.e. larger, mobility, may affect habitat use in Carabidae (Rainio and wingless carabids) than other habitat types and especially Niemela 2003; Kotze and O’Hara 2003; Hanson et al. 2016). wheat fields. While, therefore, Carabidae have been often used as indica- tor group in agricultural landscapes, smaller phytophagous families, such as Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, residing in the herb and shrub layer, have been less frequently stud- Material and methods ied in agroecosystems (Woodcock et al. 2005). The species within these families are often intimately associated with Study area specific host plants, and thus respond rapidly to changes in land use (Marvaldi et al. 2002; Linzmeier and Ribeiro-Costa This study was performed in an intensively used agri- 2012). Accordingly, a high diversity of Chrysomelidae and cultural landscape dominated by crop fields within the Curculionidae can be found in non-crop habitats (Rischen Eifel mountain range in western Germany (50°14’  N, et al. 2021), which also applies to other beetle families (e.g. 7°21’ E). The climate of the study area, which belongs Haaland et al. 2011; Frank et al. 2012). to the ‘Maifeld’ region, is oceanic with a precipita- Maintaining and creating non-crop habitats is undoubt- tion of ~ 598  mm/year and a mean annual temperature edly one of the most effective conservation measure in inten- of ~ 10  °C (Ag rar meteorologie Rheinland-Pfalz 2020). sively managed agricultural landscapes (Tscharntke et al. In 2018, crop fields comprised 72.2%, forests 11.8%, set- 2002; Knapp and Řezáč 2015). Thus, agri-environmental tlement and traffic areas 13.9%, and other biotopes 2.1% schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in of the Maifeld (Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz European agricultural landscapes promote such habitats 2018). The study area is thus characterised by a mosaic (Haaland et al. 2011; Gallé et al. 2020). Permanent grassland of intensively used crop fields and small patches of non- fallows are particularly important non-crop habitats for the crop habitats such as grassland fallows, field margins, and conservation of arthropods in agricultural landscapes, due set-aside areas sown with wildflower mixtures. We com- to their complex vegetation structure and often higher levels pared four habitat types, each represented by nine replicate of soil moisture (Hendrickx et al. 2007; Plath et al. 2021). plots, to investigate the influence of land use on beetle However, the effectiveness of other non-crop habitats such as assemblages (Online resource: Table S1): (1) wheat fields grassy field margins or set-aside fields sown with wildflow - sown with Triticum aestivum (conventional management ers is more controversial. Still, set-aside wildflower fields with fertilizing, fungicide and herbicide spraying; but all (Plath et al. 2021) or wildflower strips along field margins next to grassland fallows), (2) grassy field margins bor - (Haaland et al. 2011) are increasingly established to increase dering wheat fields (mown once during sampling, several habitat heterogeneity. Furthermore, grassy field margins may decades old), (3) set-aside habitat islands under power contribute to the conservation of farmland species by provid- poles (two years old fallows located within wheat fields, ing less disturbed habitats that are compatible with agricul- sown with a commercially available mixture of wildflower tural practices (Marshall and Moonen 2002). seeds (including Calendula sp., Centaurea sp., Echium sp., In an intensively used agricultural landscape in Western Phacelia sp. etc.) as ‘greening’ measure; 12 × 12 m), and Germany, the Maifeld, quadratic areas (12 × 12 m) under (4) grassland fallows (long-term grassland fallows with a poles of a power line were set aside and sown with wild- diverse natural vegetation cover, formerly used as mead- flower seed mixtures in 2018 to promote farmland biodi- ows but abandoned decades ago). versity. We here set out to compare the effectiveness of these ‘power pole islands’ as compared with grassy field 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2151 2021). For the suction sampling data, this analysis was not Beetle sampling possible due to a high number of 0 values. Data on body size of each species were taken from Freude et al. (1964–1983) Beetles were sampled using two methods, pitfall trapping (to capture Carabidae) and suction sampling (to capture and Homburg et  al. (2014). Community weighted mean (CWM) values for body size were calculated by weighting Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae). Pitfall trapping was per- th th formed between 28 of April and the 7 of July 2020. Two the respective body size by each species' abundance (Ricotta and Moretti 2011). Freude et al. (1964–1983) was also used PET cups (∅ = 5.6 cm, volume 125 ml, filled with 70% water and 30% monopropylene glycol) were used per replicate to assign habitat preferences (open landscape, eurytopic or hygrophilous species) to each beetle species. In addition, plot. Both traps were buried into the ground at a distance of five meters and covered by a plastic roof for protection. In Carabidae were classified according to their flight ability as good (winged) or poor (wingless and dimorphic species), wheat fields and grassland fallows, pitfall traps were placed at a distance of 30 m from the respective edge, while in using data available in Homburg et al. (2014). For subse- quent analyses, we standardized the above data by giving field margins and power pole islands they were set up in the centre of each plot. While on power pole islands the distance the respective proportion per plot. Finally, we obtained the length, width and thereby size of each plot using the dis- to the edges was about five meters, this varied in the field margins due to different widths of this habitat type, being tance tool in GoogleMaps. To assess the shape of plots, the perimeter-to-area ratio was calculated. typically less than 3 m. Traps were emptied every two weeks (i.e. a total of six times), with the number of trapping days Statistical analyses ranging between 82–83 days per plot. Samples were stored in 70% ethanol and ground beetles identified to species level Kruskal–Wallis ANOVAs were used to test for significant using taxonomic keys (Freude et al. 1964–1983). Suction sampling was carried out on the same plots as differences among habitat types in the numbers of species and individuals, the number of individuals for the most com- above using a modified leaf blower (Stihl SH 56, Dieburg, Germany) with a polyamide stocking inserted into the noz- mon Carabidae, effective number of species, rarefied species richness, CWM body size, plot size and shape (dependent zle. Each plot was sampled four times on dry and warm days in May and June 2020, with sampling conducted two variables). Because normal distribution and homogeneity of variance were not met, we used a non-parametric test. Multi- weeks apart. Per sampling, the vegetation was sucked along a five meter transect (i.e. between both pitfall traps), with ple comparisons were used to locate significant differences. Using Pearson correlations, we tested for significant effects the nozzle being inserted into the vegetation 10 times for 7 s each (Brook et al. 2008). Please note the substantial dif- of plot size and shape on dependent variables. Only for the suction sampling data, we found significant correlations ference in sampling effort between both methods employed. Thus, while our focus was clearly on pitfall trapping, we between plot shape and the number of species (r = -0.347, p = 0.038) and the effective number of species (r = -0.362, still believe that suction sampling, even though with reduced effort, provides interesting additional insights into the p = 0.030) as well as between plot size and CWM body size (r = -0.347, p = 0.038). For the above cases, we additionally responses of vegetation-dwelling beetles. Samples were afterwards transferred to plastic bags, frozen at -18 °C, and performed ANCOVAs by including plot shape or size as covariates in addition to habitat type. Effects of covariates then stored in 70% ethanol. Chrysomelidae and Curculio- nidae were identified to species level using taxonomic keys were non-signic fi ant throughout (Online resource: Table S2) such that within the article only analyses excluding covari- (Freude et al. 1964–1983). ates are presented. We also tested for spatial autocorrelation using Moran’s I tests (ape-package; Dormann et al. 2007; Data analyses Paradis and Schliep 2019), but found no evidence of spatial autocorrelation in any of the dependent variables (Online Data from pitfall trapping (Carabidae) and suction sampling (Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) were analysed sepa- resource: Table S3). We used non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) rately, pooling all respective data per plot. We calculated the numbers of species and individuals, and the ee ff ctive number analyses, based on the Bray–Curtis index of dissimilar- ity, to visualise differences in the species assemblages of of species for each plot. To estimate the latter, the Shan- non–Wiener entropy index was converted to true diversity Carabidae among the four habitat types. Suction sampling data were insufficient for NMDS ordination, because of 0 using the formula ‘exp^H’ (Jost 2006). To account for differ - ences in detection probability between habitat types, rarefied values. For calculating Bray–Curtis dissimilarities, propor- tional data were used to standardise for differences in the species richness was calculated for the pitfall trapping data for a sample coverage of 90% using the iNEXT package total abundance of beetles. We tested for differences in car - abid assemblages using permutational multivariate analyses (Hsieh et al. 2020) in R 4.0.5 (R Development Core Team 1 3 2152 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 of variance (PERMANOVA, with 999 permutations). PER- Table 1 Results of Kruskal–Wallis ANOVAs for the effects of habitat type on various variables for beetles captured by pitfall trapping (Car- MANOVAs (999 permutations) were also used to test for abidae) or suction sampling (Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) significant differences between habitat types in the propor - tion of species with specific habitat preferences (all families) Pitfall trapping DF H p or flight ability (Carabidae only). For standardization, we   Species number 3, 32 7.46 0.059 used the relative abundance of species throughout. Pairwise   Number of individuals 3, 32 6.17 0.104 PERMANOVAs were performed to test for significant dif -   ENS 3, 32 8.01 0.045 ferences between habitat types. Statistical analyses were per-   Rarefied species 3, 32 11.06 0.012 formed with Statistica 12.0 (Tulsa, StatSoft) or using the   CWM body size 3, 32 4.37 0.224 vegan package in R 4.0.5 (R Development Core Team 2021; Suction sampling DF H p Oksanen et al. 2020).   Species number 3, 32 4.82 0.185   Number of individuals 3, 32 6.29 0.098   ENS 3, 32 4.18 0.242 Results   CWM body size 3, 32 1.93 0.586 Significant p-values are given in bold. ENS Effective number of spe- A total of 5491 Carabidae of 70 species were captured with cies; CWM Community weighted mean pitfall trapping. Suction sampling yielded 94 Chrysomelidae belonging to 23 species and 125 Curculionidae belonging to 26 species (Online resource: Table S1). Considering the For all five former species, the number of individuals were lowest in grassland fallows (Fig. 2). This is also reflected pitfall data, five carabids accounted for 63% of all individu- als: Nebria salina (Fairmaire and Laboulbène, 1854; 1034 by the respective percentages of individuals across habitat types. Wheat fields, field margins and power pole islands individuals in total), Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798; 776), Anchomenus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763; 620), Bra- were clearly dominated by the five dominant carabids (55–85% of all individuals), while they were poorly rep- chinus explodens (Duftschmid, 1812; 616), and Poecilus cupreus (Linnaeus, 1758; 425). Six Carabidae found are resented in grassland fallows (< 10% of all individuals; Fig. 3). included in the red list of Germany (Geiser 1998) as near threatened (3 species; Chlaenius nigricornis Fabricius, The NMDS ordination of Carabidae showed significant variation in species composition between habitat types 1787; Harpalus dimidiatus Rossi, 1790; Harpalus serripes Quensel, 1806) or vulnerable (3 species; Carabus convexus (PERMANOVA: F = 3.35, p = 0.001, R = 0.24; Fig. 4). 3,32 There were significant differences between all habitat types Fabricius, 1775; Harpalus hirtipes Panzer, 1796; Harpalus melancholicus Dejean, 1829). No threatened species were (PERMANOVA, pairwise comparisons: p < 0.05), except for field margins and power pole islands (F = 1.92, p = 0.103, recorded for Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae (cf. Freude 1,15 et al. 1964–1983; Geiser 1998). R = 0.11), with strongest differences between the assem- blages of wheat fields and grassland fallows as well as Habitat type only significantly affected the rarefied spe- cies number and the effective number of species of Carabi- power pole islands and grassland fallows. Variation among grassland fallows was much higher compared with all other dae, and no parameter of the Chrysomelidae and Curculio- nidae (Table 1; Fig. 1; Online resource: Fig. S1, Fig. S2). habitat types. For both sampling methods, PERMANOVAs showed For Carabidae, the rarefied species number was significantly higher in field margins and grassland fallows than in power significant differences among habitat types in habitat preferences (Carabidae: F = 4.88, p = 0.003, R = 0.31; pole islands, and the effective number of species tended to 3,32 be higher in field margins than in power pole islands. Fur - Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae: F = 3.19, p = 0.014, 3,32 R = 0.26). For Carabidae, all habitat types differed signifi- thermore, there were significant differences in plot size and shape between habitat types (size: H = 26.99, p < 0.0001; cantly from each other except for field margins and power 3,32 pole islands. Open landscape species dominated except for shape: H = 30.05, p < 0.0001; Online resource: Fig. S3). 3,32 Wheat fields and grassland fallows were larger than power grassland fallows, in which hygrophilous species were most abundant (Fig.  5). In Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, pole islands and field margins, the latter being much more elongated than the other habitat types. power pole islands differed significantly from all other habi- tat types. Here, eurytopic species dominated in wheat fields Kruskal–Wallis tests also showed that habitat type significantly influenced the number of individuals in N. and grassland fallows, while open landscape species clearly dominated in power pole islands. Finally, carabid assem- salina (H = 22.32, p < 0.001), A. dorsalis (H = 18.79, 3 3 p < 0.001), B. explodens (H = 17.38, p < 0.001), and P. blages differed significantly in flight ability (F = 6.61, 3,32 p = 0.001, R = 0.38), with significant differences between cupreus (H = 11.42, p < 0.01), while there were no signifi- cant differences for P. melanarius (H = 3.94, p = 0.268). grassland fallows and all other habitat types. In contrast to 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2153 Fig. 1 Numbers of species, individuals, and rarefied species and effective number of species (ENS) of Carabidae captured by pitfall trapping across four habitat types. Boxplots display the interquartile range (25–75%; box) and the median (line in the box). Whiskers represent 1.5 times the lower or upper inter- quartile range. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences among habitat types (multiple comparisons after Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA; n = 9 plots each) Fig. 2 Number of individu- als for the five most common Carabidae captured by pitfall trapping across four habitat types. Boxplots display the interquartile range (25–75%; the box) and the median (line in the box). Whiskers represent 1.5 times the lower or upper inter- quartile range. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences among habitat types (multiple comparisons after Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA; n = 9 plots each) 1 3 2154 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Fig. 4 Non-metric multidimensional scaling analyses (NMDS) for Carabidae assemblages captured by pitfall trapping (based on 70 spe- cies and 5491 individuals) across four habitat types (n = 36 plots, 2 dimensions, Bray–Curtis distance, tries = 20) assemblages may be generally impoverished close to crop fields (see Rand et al. 2006). Note that non-significant results in Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae may also stem from the reduced sampling effort and concomitantly low sample sizes. For Carabidae, rarefied species number was higher in field margins and fallows than in wheat fields and power pole islands. Also, the effective species number of Carabi- dae was higher in field margins than in power pole islands. The low values for the latter may well be explained by the Fig. 3 Percentages of individuals for the five most common Carabi- dae and for all remaining carabid species (rest) captured by pitfall young age of these habitats. The relatively high values found trapping across four habitat types. Given are percentages for each for wheat fields, in contrast, may at least partly result from habitat type. W: wheat field, M: field margin, I: power pole island, F: methodological artefacts. In particular, the higher and denser grassland fallow vegetation of non-crop habitats compared to wheat fields may hamper beetle activity (i.e. speed) and also reduce all other habitat types, grassland fallows were dominated by the efficiency of suction sampling (Honek 1988; Thomas species with poor flight ability (Fig.  5c). et al. 2006; Vician et al. 2015). Moreover, all wheat fields studied here were located close to grassland fallows, such that spillover effects may also contribute to their relatively Discussion high species richness. Carabids are known to often colonize crop fields from nearby non-crop habitats, which can lead Non-crop habitats, such as grassy field margins, wildflower- to higher densities in adjacent fields (Weibull and Östman sown areas, and grassland fallows, were expected to harbour 2003; Purtauf et al. 2005; Fusser et al. 2018). more beetle species than wheat fields because beetles are However, beetle assemblages differed clearly between in general highly sensitive to changes in habitat structures the four habitat types. In Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae, and agricultural practices (e.g. use of agrochemicals for small-scale power pole islands differed from the other habi- Carabidae; Lövei and Sunderland 1996). Contrary to our tat types with the dominance of open landscape species. In expectations, though, we found no significant differences Carabidae, all habitat types differed from each other except in species richness, activity-density, and effective number for field margins and power pole islands, which were domi- of species of three beetle families between wheat fields and nated by open landscape species, such as wheat fields, but non-crop habitats. Similarly, carabid species richness did grassland fallows by hygrophilous species. The dominance not differ between newly established grasslands and adjoin- of hygrophilous Carabidae in grassland fallows is proba- ing cereal fields in a recent study (Hussain et al. 2021), and bly due to the high soil moisture of fallows (Marasas et al. 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2155 2010). The much lower proportion of hygrophilous species in the Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae even in fallows as compared to Carabidae is likely due to their vegetation- dwelling life style. Thus, we assume that ground-dwelling Carabidae are more dependent on and sensitive to soil mois- ture compared to both other taxa. This would also explain the high abundance of Agonum viduum (Panzer, 1796) in grassland fallows, which is a hygrophilous species with poor dispersal ability (Online resource: Table S4a). Our results on habitat preferences are overall consistent with our second hypothesis that wheat fields mainly harbour open landscape and eurytopic beetle species. Furthermore, the Carabidae found in grassland fallows were mainly poor dispersers, as opposed to wheat fields, field margins, and power pole islands, largely consistent with hypothesis 3. Arable fields are often dominated by highly dispersive pioneer species that are adapted to frequently changing conditions and differ - ent kinds of open habitats (Anjum-Zubair et al. 2015; Ribera et al. 2001). Accordingly, permanent grassland fallows in particular may support beetle species with specific habitat requirements that are most affected by the homogenisation of agricultural landscapes (Ulrich et al. 2004). Differences among habitat types in species composition are also reflected by the distribution patterns of specific species. For example, the occurrence of many Curculioni- dae species is related to the presence of their food plant. Accordingly, Malvapion malvae (Fabricius, 1775) reached high densities in power pole islands being rich in mallows (Malva sp.), and Tychius breviusculus (Desbrochers, 1873) in grassy field margins with a high abundance of melilot (Melilotus sp.; Online resource: Table S4c). The establish- ment of additional plant species by sowing seed mixtures is especially relevant for such phytophagous beetle species (Anjum-Zubair et al. 2010). While phytophagous beetles (e.g. Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) are thus often attracted to areas with high plant diversity (Frank et  al. 2012), other factors (e.g. agronomic activities, edge habitats) appear to be more important for predatory carabids (Duflot et al. 2017; Gailis et al. 2017). The relatively high activity-densities of carabids in wheat fields were at least partly caused by the presence of very common predatory species that thrived in wheat fields, grassy field margins and power pole islands, but which were largely lacking in grassland fallows (Figs.  2 and 3). For instance, A. dorsalis, B. explodens, P. cupreus, and P. melanarius are characteristic species of cereal fields over a wide area (Kromp 1999; Hussain et al. 2021). In contrast, the abundant occurrence of N. salina in our study area is Fig. 5 Distribution of habitat preferences (open landscape; eurytopic; more unusual, as this species is typically recorded in lower hygrophilous) of Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae (a suction sam- numbers in agroecosystems. However, the abundant occur- pling) and Carabidae (b pitfall trapping) and flight ability (c good; rence of the five most common carabids found in crop fields poor) of ground beetles (pitfall trapping) across four habitat types. W: has also been shown in other studies (e.g. Pfiffner and Luka wheat field, M: field margin, I: power pole island, F: grassland fallow. Data for habitat preferences and flight ability according to Freude 2003; Purtauf et al. 2005). et al. (1964–1983) and Homburg et al. (2014) 1 3 2156 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Morpho-ecological traits of beetle communities such Conclusions as diet preference, wing morphology, or body size may be more suitable indicators of anthropogenic impacts on Our results did not support our initial expectation of a habitats than species richness or abundance (Gobbi and higher species richness in non-crop habitats in an agricul- Fontaneto 2008). In our case, wheat fields, field margins tural landscape. However, different habitat types harboured and power pole islands were dominated by carabids with different species assemblages, with grassland fallows good dispersal ability, which can readily colonise highly showing the largest within-group variation. Permanent disturbed sites. In general, ground beetles living in unsta- grassland fallows are thus of particular importance for ble environments have good dispersal abilities that allow nature conservation, also as they provided refuge areas for them to move to more stable habitats when less favourable hygrophilous and flightless beetle species, whereas wheat conditions appear (Ribera et al. 2001). With the exception fields were mainly colonised by open landscape species of P. melanarius, which is often recorded in high densities with high dispersal ability. In addition, species assem- in field interiors (e.g. Gayer et al. 2019; Bennewicz and blages of non-crop habitats differed from wheat fields, Barczak 2020), the remaining most common carabids in showing their potential to increase overall insect diver- our study have good f light ability and almost exclusively sity in agricultural landscapes. Therefore, functional traits colonised wheat fields, grassy field margins, and power (e.g. flight ability, body size) rather than species richness pole islands. In contrast, grassland fallows provided suit- may represent more robust indicators for assessing habitat able habitats for flightless carabids, which are particularly quality in relation to anthropogenic disturbance. Overall, at risk of local extinction in intensively used agricultural our results show that different types of non-crop habitats landscapes (Griffiths et al. 2007), possibly due to the high harbour different beetle assemblages and thus contribute age of this habitat type. to promoting diversity in agroecosystems. Thus, both In summary, the habitat types investigated harboured small- and large-scale non-crop habitats should be taken different carabid assemblages, except from field margins into account to improve the functional diversity of beetle and power pole islands, thus enhancing overall beetle assemblages in agricultural landscapes. diversity. Thus, assemblages of grassland fallows, non- Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- crop habitats (power pole islands and fields margins), tary material available at https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s11756- 022- 01100-z . and wheat fields were different. This highlights the importance of landscape composition and configuration Acknowledgements We are grateful to Roland Busch, Katharina Geis- for maintaining biodiversity in agroecosystems (Martin büsch, and Daniel Ruppert for their help with the field work. We thank et al. 2019). This is in line with other studies on beetle Thomas Wagner for help with species identifications. Thanks also to the local farmers and landowners for providing access to their land and communities in agricultural landscapes, having docu- for their support. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for mented positive effects of heterogeneous habitat struc- their constructive criticism.   tures (Benton et al. 2003; Diekötter et al. 2010; Fahrig et  al. 2011; Knapp and Řezáč 2015). Increased habitat Authors' contributions KF and TR designed the experiment, TR and diversity may provide access to additional food including KE collected field data and TR, KE and MH identified the beetles, KF and TR analysed the data with help from KE and MH, TR and KF ephemeral resources and overwintering sites (Coombes wrote the manuscript. and Sothertons 1986; Pfiffner and Luka 2000; Macfadyen and Muller 2013). In particular, many carabid species Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt (e.g. P. cupreus) are known to use wheat fields and adja- DEAL. This study was financially supported by the Ministry for Envi- cent non-crop habitats as complementary habitats (Duflot ronment, Energy, Nutrition and Forest Rheinland-Pfalz through the ‘Aktion Grün’. et al. 2015). Such structures may also represent important corridors for the dispersal of Carabidae (Šustek 1994). Data availability All data are provided as online resource. Notably, the within-group variation of the carabid assem- blages in grassland fallows was much higher compared to Declarations other habitat types, which is likely related to differences in ecological factors and stresses the high importance of Ethics approval Not applicable permanent non-crop habitats for conservation in agri- cultural landscapes. Feng et al. (2021) also showed that Conflicts of interest/Competing interests On behalf of all authors, the older fallows, such as the grassland follows studied here, corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. support more diverse communities and are particularly important for the conservation of habitat specialists. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2157 as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628. https:// doi. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes org/ 10. 1111/j. 2007. 0906- 7590. 05171.x were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Duflot R, Aviron S, Ernoult A et al (2015) Reconsidering the role included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated of ‘semi-natural habitat’ in agricultural landscape biodiver- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in sity: a case study. Ecol Res 30:75–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not s11284- 014- 1211-9 permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Duo fl t R, Ernoult A, Aviron S et al (2017) Relative ee ff cts of landscape need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a composition and configuration on multi-habitat gamma diversity copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 241:62–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2017. 02. 035 Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L et al (2011) Functional landscape het- erogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. References Ecol Lett 14:101–112. h tt ps : // d oi . o r g / 1 0. 1 11 1/ j. 1 46 1- 0 24 8. 2010. 01559.x Agrarmeteorologie Rheinland-Pfalz (2020) Langjährige Mittelw- Feng L, Arvidsson F, Smith HG, Birkhofer K (2021) Fallows and erte der Wetterstation Münstermaifeld. https:// www. am. rlp. de. permanent grasslands conserve the species composition and Accessed 10 Sep 2020 functional diversity of carabid beetles and linyphiid spiders Anjum-Zubair M, Entling MH, Bruckner A et al (2015) Dier ff entiation in agricultural landscapes. Insect Conserv Divers 14:825- of spring carabid beetle assemblages between semi-natural habi- 836. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ icad. 12520 tats and adjoining winter wheat. Agric For Entomol 17:355–365. Frank T, Aeschbacher S, Zaller JG (2012) Habitat age affects beetle https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ afe. 12115 diversity in wildflower areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 152:21–26. Anjum-Zubair M, Schmidt-Entling MH, Querner P, Frank T (2010) https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2012. 01. 027 Influence of within-field position and adjoining habitat on carabid Freude H, Harde KW, Lohse GA (1964-1983) Die Käfer Mit- beetle assemblages in winter wheat. Agric For Entomol 12:301– teleuropas. Bände 1–11. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld 306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1461- 9563. 2010. 00479.x Fusser MS, Holland JM, Jeanneret P et al (2018) Interactive effects Batáry P, Kovács A, Báldi A (2008) Management effects on carabid of local and landscape factors on farmland carabids. Agric For beetles and spiders in Central Hungarian grasslands and cereal Entomol 20:549–557. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ afe. 12288 fields. Community Ecol 9:247–254. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1556/ Gailis J, Turka I, Ausmane M (2017) The most frequent ground ComEc.9. 2008.2. 14 beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) are differently affected by main Bennewicz J, Barczak T (2020) Ground beetles (Carabidae) of field soil treatment and crop rotation in winter wheat fields. Acta Biol margin habitats. Biologia 75:1631–1641. https://doi. or g/10. 2478/ Univ Daugavp 17:29–52 s11756- 020- 00424-y Gallé R, Geppert C, Földesi R et al (2020) Arthropod functional Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: traits shaped by landscape-scale field size, local agri-envi- is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188. ronment schemes and edge effects. Basic Appl Ecol 48:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0169- 5347(03) 00011-9https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. baae. 2020. 09. 006 Blake S, Foster GN, Eyre MD, Luff ML (1994) Effects of habitat type Gayer C, Lövei GL, Magura T et al (2019) Carabid functional diver- and grassland management practices on the body size distribution sity is enhanced by conventional flowering fields, organic winter of carabid beetles. Pedobiologia  38:502–512 cereals and edge habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 284:106579. Boetzl FA, Krimmer E, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019) Agri-https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2019. 106579 environmental schemes promote ground-dwelling predators in Geiser R (1998) Rote Liste der Käfer (Coleoptera). In: Binot adjacent oilseed rape fields: diversity, species traits and distance- M, Bless R, Boye P et  al (eds) Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere decay functions. J Appl Ecol 56:10–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ Deutschlands. - Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Natur - 1365- 2664. 13162 schutz. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, pp 178–179 Brook AJ, Woodcock BA, Sinka M, Vanbergen AJ (2008) Experimen- Gobbi M, Fontaneto D (2008) Biodiversity of ground beetles tal verification of suction sampler capture efficiency in grasslands (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in different habitats of the Italian Po of differing vegetation height and structure. J Appl Ecol 45:1357– lowland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:273–276. https:// doi. org/ 1363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2664. 2008. 01530.x10. 1016/j. agee. 2008. 04. 011 Cole LJ, Mccracken DI, Dennis P et al (2002) Relationships between Griffiths GJK, Winder L, Holland JM, Thomas CFG (2007) The rep- agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles resentation and functional composition of carabid and staphyli- (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish farmland. Agric For Entomol nid beetles in different field boundary types at a farm-scale. 93:323–336. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) 00333-4 Biol Conserv 135:145–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. Collins KL, Boatman ND, Wilcox A et al (2002) Influence of beetle 2006. 09. 016 banks on cereal aphid predation in winter wheat. Agric Ecosyst Haaland C, Naisbit RE, Bersier LF (2011) Sown wildflower strips for Environ 93:337–350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) insect conservation: a review. Insect Conserv Divers 4:60–80. 00340-1https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1752- 4598. 2010. 00098.x Coombes DS, Sothertons NW (1986) The dispersal and distribution Hanson HI, Palmu E, Birkhofer K et al (2016) Agricultural land use of polyphagous predatory Coleoptera in cereals. Ann Appl Biol determines the trait composition of ground beetle communities. 108:461–474. h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 7 4 4 - 7 3 4 8 . 1 9 8 6 . t b 0 1 9 PLoS One 11:1–13. https://doi. or g/10. 1371/ jour nal. pone. 01463 29 85.x Hatten TD, Bosque-Pérez NA, Labonte JR et al (2007) Effects of tillage Diekötter T, Wamser S, Wolters V, Birkhofer K (2010) Landscape and on the activity density and biological diversity of carabid beetles management effects on structure and function of soil arthropod in spring and winter crops. Environ Entomol 36:356–368. https:// communities in winter wheat. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:108–doi. org/ 10. 1603/ 0046- 225X(2007) 36[356: EOTOTA] 2.0. CO;2 112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2010. 01. 008 Hendrickx F, Maelfait J, Van Wingerden W et al (2007) How landscape Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB et al (2007) Methods to structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect compo- account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species nents of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. J 1 3 2158 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 Appl Ecol 44:340–351. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2664. Pfiffner L, Luka H (2003) Effects of low-input farming systems on 2006. 01270.x carabids and epigeal spiders - a paired farm approach. Basic Appl Homburg K, Homburg N, Schäfer F et al (2014) Carabids. org - a Ecol 4:117–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1078/ 1439- 1791- 00121 dynamic online database of ground beetle species traits (Coleop- Pfiffner L, Luka H (2000) Overwintering of arthropods in soils of ara- tera, Carabidae). Insect Conserv Divers 7:195–205. https:// doi. ble fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats. Agric Ecosyst Envi- org/ 10. 1111/ icad. 12045 ron 78:215–222. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(99) 00130-9 Honek A (1988) The effect of crop density and microclimate on pit- Plath E, Rischen T, Mohr T, Fischer K (2021) Biodiversity in agricul- fall trap catches of Carabidae, Staphylinidae (Coleoptera), and tural landscapes: Grassy field margins and semi-natural fragments Lycosidae (Araneae) in cereal fields. Pedobiologia 32:233–242 both foster spider diversity and body size. Agric Ecosyst Environ Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A (2020) iNEXT: iNterpolation and EXTrap- 316:107457. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2021. 107457 olation for species diversity. R package version 2.0.20 Purtauf T, Roschewitz I, Dauber J et al (2005) Landscape context of Hussain RI, Brandl M, Maas B et al (2021) Re-established grasslands organic and conventional farms: influences on carabid beetle on farmland promote pollinators more than predators. Agric diversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:165–174. https:// doi. org/ Ecosyst Environ 319:107543. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 10. 1016/j. agee. 2005. 01. 005 2021. 107543 R Core Development Core Team (2021): R: A language and envi- Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375. https://doi. ronment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical org/ 10. 1111/j. 2006. 0030- 1299. 14714.x Computing, Vienna, Austria. https:// www.R- proje ct. org/ Knapp M, Řezáč M (2015) Even the smallest son-crop habitat islands Rainio J, Niemela J (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) could be beneficial: distribution of carabid beetles and spiders as bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 12:487–506. https://doi. or g/ in agricultural landscape. PLoS One 10(4):e0123052. https:// 10. 1023/A: 10224 12617 568 doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01230 52 Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: Kosewska A, Skalski T, Nietupski M (2014) Effect of conventional the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies and non-inversion tillage systems on the abundance and some into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614. https://doi. life history traits of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in org/ 10. 1111/j. 1461- 0248. 2006. 00911.x winter triticale fields. Eur J Entomol 111:669–676. https:// doi. Ribera I, Dolédec S, Downie IS, Foster GN (2001) Effect of land org/ 10. 14411/ eje. 2014. 078 disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assem- Kotze DJ, O’Hara RB (2003) Species decline - but why? Expla- blages. Ecology 82:1112–1129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1890/ 0012- nations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines 9658(2001) 082[1112: EOLDAS] 2.0. CO;2 in Europe. Oecologia 135:138–148. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1007/ Ricotta C, Moretti M (2011) CWM and Rao’s quadratic diversity: a s00442- 002- 1174-3 unified framework for functional ecology. Oecologia 167:181– Kromp B (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review 188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00442- 011- 1965-5 on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Rischen T, Frenzel T, Fischer K (2021) Biodiversity in agricultural Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:187–228. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/ landscapes: different non-crop habitats increase diversity of b978-0- 444- 50019-9. 50014-5 ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera) but support different com - Linzmeier AM, Ribeiro-Costa CS (2012) Spatial-temporal compo- munities. Biodivers Conserv 30:3965–3981. https://doi. or g/10. sition of Chrysomelidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) communities in 1007/ s10531- 021- 02284-7 southern Brazil. J Nat Hist 46:1921–1938. https:// doi. org/ 10. Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable 1080/ 00222 933. 2012. 707237 farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol 39:157– Lövei GL, Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground 176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1046/j. 1365- 2664. 2002. 00695.x beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu Rev Entomol 41:231– Rusch A, Bommarco R, Chiverton P et al (2013) Response of ground 256. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. ento. 41.1. 231 beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities to changes in agri- Macfadyen S, Muller W (2013) Edges in agricultural landscapes: cultural policies in Sweden over two decades. Agric Ecosyst species interactions and movement of natural enemies. PLoS Environ 176:63–69. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. ag ee.2013. 05. 014 One 8(3):e59659. https://doi. or g/10. 1371/ jour nal. pone. 00596 59 Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the Marasas ME, Sarandón SJ, Cicchino A (2010) Semi-natural habi- entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol Conserv 232:8–27. tats and field margins in a typical agroecosystem of the Argen-https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. 2019. 01. 020 tinean Pampas as a reservoir of carabid beetles. J Sustain Agric Schmidt-Entling MH, Döbeli J (2009) Sown wildflower areas to 34:153–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10440 04090 34825 63 enhance spiders in arable fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133:19– Marshall EJ, Moonen AC (2002) Field margins in northern Europe: 22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2009. 04. 015 their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric Eco- Schneider G, Krauss J, Boetzl FA et al (2016) Spillover from adja- syst Environ 89:5–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) cent crop and forest habitats shapes carabid beetle assemblages 00315-2 in fragmented semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 182:1141– Martin EA, Dainese M, Clough Y et al (2019) The interplay of land- 1150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00442- 016- 3710-6 scape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz (2018) Verbandsgemeinde functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe. Maifeld - Flächennutzung. http:// inf o t hek . s t ati s tik . r lp. de. Ecol Lett 22:1083–1094. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ele. 13265 Accessed 4 Jun 2020 Marvaldi AE, Sequeira AS, O’Brien CW, Farrel BD (2002) Molecular Šustek Z (1994) Windbreaks as migration corridors for carabids in and morphological phylogenetics of weevils (Coleoptera, Curcu- an agricultural landscape. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau lionoidea): do niche shifts accompany diversification? Syst Biol M et al (eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer 51:761–785. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10635 15029 01024 65 Academic Publishers, pp 377–382 Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2020) vegan: Community Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–7 generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu Rev Paradis E, Schliep K (2019) ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylo- Entomol 47:561–594. https://doi. or g/10. 1146/ annur e v.ent o.47. genetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35:526–091201. 145240 528. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ bioin forma tics/ bty633 Thomas CFG, Brown NJ, Kendall DA (2006) Carabid movement and vegetation density: implications for interpreting pitfall trap data 1 3 Biologia (2022) 77:2149–2159 2159 from split-field trials. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:51–61. https:// management. Basic Appl Ecol 4:349–361. https:// doi. or g/ 10. doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2005. 08. 0331078/ 1439- 1791- 00173 Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A et al (2005) Landscape perspec- Weibull AC, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies tives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and land- service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. https:// doi. org/ 10. scape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743–750. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1461- 0248. 2005. 00782.x1111/j. 1600- 0587. 2000. tb003 17.x Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contri- Wilson JD, Morris AJ, Arroyo BE et al (1999) A review of the abun- bution of small habitats to conservation of insect communities dance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivo- of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12:354. https:// rous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change. doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 30609 47 Agric Ecosyst Environ 75:13–30. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/ S0167- Tschumi M, Albrecht M, Collatz J et al (2016) Tailored flower strips 8809(99) 00064-X promote natural enemy biodiversity and pest control in potato Woodcock BA, Westbury DB, Potts SG et al (2005) Establishing field crops. J Appl Ecol 53:1169–1176. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/ 1365- margins to promote beetle conservation in arable farms. Agric 2664. 12653 Ecosyst Environ 107:255–266. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. ag ee. Ulrich W, Buszko J, Czarnecki A (2004) The contribution of pop-2004. 10. 029 lar plantations to regional diversity of ground beetles (Coleop- tea: Carabidae) in agricultural landscapes. Ann Zool Fennici Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to 41:501–512 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Vician V, Svitok M, Kočík K, Stašiov S (2015) The influence of agri- cultural management on the structure of ground beetle (Coleop- tera : Carabidae) assemblages. Biologia 70:240–251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ biolog- 2015- 0028 Weibull A-C, Östman Ö (2003) Species composition in agro- ecosystems: The effect of landscape, habitat, and farm 1 3

Journal

BiologiaSpringer Journals

Published: Aug 1, 2022

Keywords: Agriculture; Biodiversity conservation; Dispersal ability; Non-crop habitat; Pitfall trapping; Suction sampling

There are no references for this article.