Literature DB >> 21830717

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds.

Andreas Flohre1, Christina Fischer, Tsipe Aavik, Jan Bengtsson, Frank Berendse, Riccardo Bommarco, Piotr Ceryngier, Lars W Clement, Christopher Dennis, Sönke Eggers, Mark Emmerson, Flavia Geiger, Irene Guerrero, Violetta Hawro, Pablo Inchausti, Jaan Liira, Manuel B Morales, Juan J Oñate, Tomas Pärt, Wolfgang W Weisser, Camilla Winqvist, Carsten Thies, Teja Tscharntke.   

Abstract

Effects of agricultural intensification (AI) on biodiversity are often assessed on the plot scale, although processes determining diversity also operate on larger spatial scales. Here, we analyzed the diversity of vascular plants, carabid beetles, and birds in agricultural landscapes in cereal crop fields at the field (n = 1350), farm (n = 270), and European-region (n = 9) scale. We partitioned diversity into its additive components alpha, beta, and gamma, and assessed the relative contribution of beta diversity to total species richness at each spatial scale. AI was determined using pesticide and fertilizer inputs, as well as tillage operations and categorized into low, medium, and high levels. As AI was not significantly related to landscape complexity, we could disentangle potential AI effects on local vs. landscape community homogenization. AI negatively affected the species richness of plants and birds, but not carabid beetles, at all spatial scales. Hence, local AI was closely correlated to beta diversity on larger scales up to the farm and region level, and thereby was an indicator of farm- and region-wide biodiversity losses. At the scale of farms (12.83-20.52%) and regions (68.34-80.18%), beta diversity accounted for the major part of the total species richness for all three taxa, indicating great dissimilarity in environmental conditions on larger spatial scales. For plants, relative importance of alpha diversity decreased with AI, while relative importance of beta diversity on the farm scale increased with AI for carabids and birds. Hence, and in contrast to our expectations, AI does not necessarily homogenize local communities, presumably due to the heterogeneity of farming practices. In conclusion, a more detailed understanding of AI effects on diversity patterns of various taxa and at multiple spatial scales would contribute to more efficient agri-environmental schemes in agroecosystems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21830717     DOI: 10.1890/10-0645.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  13 in total

1.  Tracing α, β, and γ diversity responses to environmental change in boreal lakes.

Authors:  David G Angeler; Stina Drakare
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach.

Authors:  David J Gonthier; Katherine K Ennis; Serge Farinas; Hsun-Yi Hsieh; Aaron L Iverson; Péter Batáry; Jörgen Rudolphi; Teja Tscharntke; Bradley J Cardinale; Ivette Perfecto
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Multi-scale Homogenization of Caddisfly Metacomminities in Human-modified Landscapes.

Authors:  Juliana Simião-Ferreira; Denis Silva Nogueira; Anna Claudia Santos; Paulo De Marco; Ronaldo Angelini
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  The effects of forest conversion to oil palm on ground-foraging ant communities depend on beta diversity and sampling grain.

Authors:  Wendy Y Wang; William A Foster
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  The effect of nitrogen and glyphosate on survival and colonisation of perennial grass species in an agro-ecosystem: does the relative importance of survival decrease with competitive ability?

Authors:  Christian Damgaard; Beate Strandberg; Solvejg K Mathiassen; Per Kudsk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Organic farming favours insect-pollinated over non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows and wheat fields.

Authors:  Péter Batáry; Laura Sutcliffe; Carsten F Dormann; Teja Tscharntke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  From forest and agro-ecosystems to the microecosystems of the human body: what can landscape ecology tell us about tumor growth, metastasis, and treatment options?

Authors:  Simon P Daoust; Lenore Fahrig; Amanda E Martin; Frédéric Thomas
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 5.183

8.  Spatial and temporal variation of archaeal, bacterial and fungal communities in agricultural soils.

Authors:  Michele C Pereira e Silva; Armando Cavalcante Franco Dias; Jan Dirk van Elsas; Joana Falcão Salles
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Landscape Simplification Constrains Adult Size in a Native Ground-Nesting Bee.

Authors:  Miles Renauld; Alena Hutchinson; Gregory Loeb; Katja Poveda; Heather Connelly
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Low effect of young afforestations on bird communities inhabiting heterogeneous Mediterranean cropland.

Authors:  Juan S Sánchez-Oliver; José M Rey Benayas; Luis M Carrascal
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.