| Literature DB >> 23145332 |
Yvonne Fabian1, Nadine Sandau, Odile T Bruggisser, Patrik Kehrli, Alexandre Aebi, Rudolf P Rohr, Russell E Naisbit, Louis-Félix Bersier.
Abstract
Wildflower strips are used to increase natural enemies of crop pests and to conserve insect diversity on farmland. Mollusks, especially slugs, can affect the vegetation development in these strips considerably. Although recent theoretical work suggests that more diverse plant communities will exhibit greater resistance against herbivore pressure, empirical studies are scarce. We conducted a semi-natural experiment in wildflower strips, manipulating trophic structure (reduction in herbivorous mollusks and reduction in major predators) and plant diversity (2, 6, 12, 20 and 24 sown species). This design allowed us to assess the effect of plant diversity, biomass and composition on mollusks, and vice versa, the effect of mollusc abundance on vegetation. Seven species of mollusks were found in the strips, with the slugs Arion lusitanicus, Deroceras reticulatum and Deroceras panormitanum being most frequent. We found a negative relationship between plant diversity and mollusk abundance, which was due predominantly to a decrease in the agricultural pest species A. lusitanicus. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that plant diversity can reduce the impact of herbivores. However, plant identity also had an effect on mollusks, and accounted for a much larger fraction of the variation in mollusk communities than biodiversity effects. While overall plant diversity decreased during the 3 years of the study, in the final year the highest plant diversity was found in the plots where mollusk populations were experimentally reduced. We conclude that selective feeding by generalist herbivores leads to changes in plant community composition and hence reduced plant diversity. Our results highlight the importance of plant biodiversity as protection against generalist herbivores, which if abundant can in the long term negatively impact plant diversity, driving the system along a "low plant diversity - high mollusk abundance" trajectory.Entities:
Keywords: Agroecosystem; biodiversity; ecosystem functioning; gastropoda; herbivory; plant composition; resource concentration hypothesis
Year: 2012 PMID: 23145332 PMCID: PMC3492773 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Photographs of the 24 plant species used in wildflower strips and of Arion lusitanicus, the most abundant mollusk species. Photo by H. Fabian.
Figure 2Layout of experimental wildflower strips with mollusk tile traps along the center (black squares). Numbers in the subplots indicate sown plant species number; dashed line represents a fence with 25 mm mesh size, dotted line with 8 mm mesh size.
Absolute abundance and mean volume±SD (cm3) of mollusks and their eggs. Data come from 168 tiles for five trapping sessions
| 2007 | 2008 | 2008 | 2009 | 2009 | Total abundance | Mean volume±SD (cm3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Autumn | Spring | Autumn | Spring | Autumn | ||
| 10 | 164 | 100 | 457 | 337 | 1068 | 3.61±2.80 | |
| 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 32.72±0.00 | |
| 364 | 57 | 473 | 9 | 241 | 1144 | 0.36±0.27 | |
| 110 | 4 | 292 | 5 | 115 | 526 | 0.21±0.20 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.35±0.15 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.19±0.00 | |
| 0 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 5 | 27 | 0.13±0.06 | |
| Mollusk eggs | 100 | 0 | 6222 | 0 | 5493 | 11,815 | – |
Results from the mixed effect models for the total mollusk abundance, abundance of the three most common slug species, and mollusk eggs
| Vegetation characteristics | Functional group richness | Functional group cover | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season | Year | Ant abundance | Veg. height | Plant biomass | Plant species richness | Tall herb species | Small herb species | Legume species | Grass species | Tall herb cover | Small herb cover | Legume cover | Grass cover | |
| All mollusks | A>S | −0.75 | 0.1 | – | −0.13 | – | −0.17 | – | – | – | −0.21 | – | – | |
| S>A | 09>08 | −1.00 | – | – | −0.47 | −0.30 | – | −0.36 | – | – | – | −2.30 | – | |
| A>S | 07>08>09 | −0.30 | 0.2 | – | 0.19 | 0.23 | – | – | – | – | – | – | −0.28 | |
| A>S | −0.52 | – | 0.48 | – | – | −0.23 | – | – | −0.22 | −0.49 | – | – | ||
| Mollusk eggs | A>S | 09 | – | – | 0.24 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Results from mixed effects models, as explained in the methods, with the slopes and significance for each response variable. Results for the variables that were excluded in a stepwise procedure from the full model are not shown (–). Plant diversity was log- and ant biomass arcsin sqrt transformed. Multiple comparisons for parametric models were performed - levels of factors shown in bold are significantly different from other levels (P < 0.05); Seasons: A, autumn; S, spring; Years: 2007, 2008, and 2009.
P < 0.1,
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01, and
***P < 0.001.
Figure 3The relationship between plant species richness and mollusk abundance (log transformed) for Arion lusitanicus (black circles and line, to avoid over-plotting, a value of 0.1 was added), Deroceras reticulatum (light gray triangles and light gray line, a value of 0.05 was added) and Deroceras panormitanum (white squares and dashed line), over the two seasons of the years 2008 and 2009, within the (+) mollusk plots. Regression lines give the fitted linear model for each species. Significances calculated using linear mixed effect models.
Figure 4Canonical correspondence analysis biplot of mollusk community variation (boldface type in gray) dependent on plant species composition. Among the 30 most abundant plant species, only those significantly related to mollusk community composition are shown. Canonical correspondence analysis axis 1 eigenvalue = 0.195 and CCA axis 2 eigenvalue = 0.049.
Figure 5Variation partitioning of plant measures to explain mollusk community structure; percentages represent the explained variation. Two variables describe each vegetation characteristic: average vegetation height and plant biomass for vegetation structure, number of plant species and effective number of plant species for plant diversity, the first two ordination axes of the 30 most abundant plant species for plant composition. Note that vegetation structure and plant composition share no common variation, and that only the three independent fractions can be statistically tested.
Figure 6Average number of plant species for the three fence treatments for each year. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between fence treatments within a year are represented by different letters (A−B) calculated by multiple comparisons for parametric linear mixed effect models. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean from a total of 48 plots in the 12 wildflower strips.
Figure 7The relationship between plant species richness and biomass in (+) and (−) mollusk plots in the years (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.
Figure 8The relationship between the number of sown and invading plant species in (+) and (−) mollusk plots in the years (a) 2008 and (b) 2009.
Figure 9The effect of mollusks in the year 2009 on (a) plant cover (in %, square root transformed) and (b) plant species richness of five functional plant groups. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between treatments are represented by different letters. Symbols represent the means; error bars show the standard error.
The effect of mollusks on the abundance or presence/absence of individual plant species
| Plant species | (+) mollusk | (−) mollusk | Mollusk effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.64±0.49 | 0.88±0.33 | – | 0.014 | |
| 0.55±0.50 | 0.77±0.42 | – | 0.033 | |
| 0.67±3.01 | 2.81±8.21 | – | 0.043 | |
| 0.28±0.45 | 0.48±0.50 | – | 0.014 | |
| 0.23±0.42 | 0.52±0.50 | – | 0.014 | |
| 0.43±0.50 | 0.65±0.48 | – | 0.014 | |
| 22.83±24.14 | 15.96±20.45 | + | 0.087 | |
| 0.51±0.50 | 0.73±0.45 | – | 0.014 | |
| 4.30±9.21 | 12.23±21.12 | – | 0.003 | |
| 0.61±0.48 | 0.83±0.38 | – | 0.037 | |
| 4.89±10.63 | 9.75±15.23 | – | 0.043 | |
| 1.66±5.89 | 0.83±2.23 | + | 0.043 | |
| 0.71±2.73 | 0.03±0.10 | + | 0.077 | |
| 3.30±9.72 | 0.90±2.80 | + | 0.046 | |
| 0.48±1.61 | 0.08±0.52 | + | 0.098 |
Arithmetic means ±SD based on data of the cover (indicated with “(c)” after the name) or the proportion of subplots in which plant species were present, with direction and significance of mollusk treatment in 2009. Mollusk effect: +, cover/abundance of the specific plant species increases with the presence of mollusks; −, cover/abundance of the specific plant species decreases with the presence of mollusks. Q-values are P-values from mixed effects models corrected for multiple tests (see methods section). We tested the 39 most abundant plant species; non-significant results were obtained for: Centaurea jacea, Origanum vulgare, Elymus repens, Malva moschata, Epilobium sp., Hypericum perforatum, Arrhenaterum elatius, Apera spica-venti, Verbascum lychnitis, Silene latifolia, Holcus lanatus, Pastinaca sativa, Rumex obtusifolius, Taraxacum officinale, Rubus sp., Cichorium intybus, Malva sylvestris, Melilotus albus, Linaria vulgaris, Verbascum thapsus, Lactuca serriola, Setaria pumila, Phleum pratense, Plantago major, Plantago lanceolata and Sonchus asper.
Q < 0.10,
Q < 0.05,
Q < 0.01 and ***Q < 0.001.