| Literature DB >> 23382979 |
Péter Batáry1, Laura Sutcliffe, Carsten F Dormann, Teja Tscharntke.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the relative effects of landscape-scale management intensity, local management intensity and edge effect on diversity patterns of insect-pollinated vs. non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows and wheat fields. Nine landscapes were selected differing in percent intensively used agricultural area (IAA), each with a pair of organic and conventional winter wheat fields and a pair of organic and conventional meadows. Within fields, forbs were surveyed at the edge and in the interior. Both diversity and cover of forbs were positively affected by organic management in meadows and wheat fields. This effect, however, differed significantly between pollination types for species richness in both agroecosystem types (i.e. wheat fields and meadows) and for cover in meadows. Thus, we show for the first time in a comprehensive analysis that insect-pollinated plants benefit more from organic management than non-insect pollinated plants regardless of agroecosystem type and landscape complexity. These benefits were more pronounced in meadows than wheat fields. Finally, the community composition of insect-pollinated and non-insect-pollinated forbs differed considerably between management types. In summary, our findings in both agroecosystem types indicate that organic management generally supports a higher species richness and cover of insect-pollinated plants, which is likely to be favourable for the density and diversity of bees and other pollinators.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23382979 PMCID: PMC3557276 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054818
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results of general linear mixed models testing the effects of landscape composition (intensive agricultural area %), agroecosystem type (meadow vs. wheat field), management (organic vs. conventional), position in field (edge vs. interior) and pollination (insect-pollinated vs. non-insect pollinated) on species richness and percentage cover of forbs in meadows and in wheat fields.
| Variable | df | F | p | effect | |
| Meadow | |||||
| Species richness | Landscape | 24 | 1.10 | 0.306 | |
| Management | 24 | 13.95 | 0.001 | C<O | |
| Position in field | 24 | 0.23 | 0.143 | ||
| Pollination | 33 | 75.65 | <0.001 | IP> NP | |
| Landscape×Pollination | 33 | 2.68 | 0.111 | ||
| Management×Pollination | 33 | 20.68 | <0.001 | ||
| Cover | Landscape | 23 | 0.41 | 0.526 | |
| Management | 23 | 2.41 | 0.134 | ||
| Position in field | 23 | 0.32 | 0.577 | ||
| Pollination | 33 | 59.99 | <0.001 | IP> NP | |
| Management×Landscape | 23 | 0.79 | 0.384 | ||
| Landscape×Pollination | 33 | 0.65 | 0.426 | ||
| Management×Pollination | 33 | 16.58 | <0.001 | ||
| Wheat field | |||||
| Species richness | Landscape | 24 | 3.98 | 0.057 | |
| Management | 24 | 118.18 | <0.001 | C<O | |
| Position in field | 24 | 7.92 | 0.010 | E>I | |
| Pollination | 33 | 0.04 | 0.845 | ||
| Landscape×Pollination | 33 | 1.23 | 0.275 | ||
| Management×Pollination | 33 | 4.20 | 0.048 | ||
| Cover | Management | 25 | 102.78 | <0.001 | C<O |
| Position in field | 25 | 4.18 | 0.052 | ||
| Pollination | 34 | 5.46 | 0.465 | ||
| Management×Pollination | 34 | 1.99 | 0.168 |
df: denominator degrees of freedom. Effect: direction of the significant effect (C: conventional, O: organic; E: edge, I: interior; IP: insect-pollinated, NP: non-insect pollinated).
Figure 1Mean (± SEM) forb richness in organic vs. conventional meadows (A) and in organic vs. conventional wheat fields (B).
Data were gathered in edge and interior (Int.) transects of 20 m2.
Figure 2Mean (± SEM) forb cover (%) in organic vs. conventional meadows (A) and in organic vs. conventional wheat fields (B).
Data were gathered in edge and interior (Int.) transects of 20 m2.
Results of partial RDA to analyse effects of landscape (intensive agricultural area %), management (organic vs. conventional) and position in field (edge vs. interior) on species composition of insect and non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows and in wheat fields.
| Variable | Variation (%) | pseudo-F | p | |
| Meadow | ||||
| Insect-pollinated forbs | Landscape | 3.11 | 1.26 | 0.239 |
| Management | 9.82 | 3.96 | 0.001 | |
| Position in field | 2.47 | 1.00 | 0.440 | |
| Non-insect pollinated forbs | Landscape | 2.74 | 1.07 | 0.410 |
| Management | 5.33 | 2.08 | 0.024 | |
| Position in field | 6.34 | 2.48 | 0.004 | |
| Wheat field | ||||
| Insect-pollinated forbs | Landscape | 2.91 | 1.28 | 0.215 |
| Management | 1.93 | 5.24 | 0.001 | |
| Position in field | 2.50 | 1.10 | 0.362 | |
| Non-insect pollinated forbs | Landscape | 3.03 | 1.37 | 0.164 |
| Management | 8.71 | 3.94 | 0.001 | |
| Position in field | 1.70 | 0.77 | 0.679 |
Percentage of explained variation, pseudo-F values and p values are given. Denominator degrees of freedom was 24 in all analyses.
Figure 3RDA plots for insect-pollinated and non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows (A, B) and wheat fields (C, D).
White circles: plant survey transects in organic fields; black circles: plant survey transects in conventional fields; smaller grey circles: forb species with the highest fraction of variance (Ca: Convolvulus arvensis; Cb: Crepis biennis; Ce: Cirsium arvense; Cp: Capsella bursa-pastoris; Gm: Galium mollugo; Hr: Hypochaeris radicata; Ma: Myosotis arvensis; Mr: Matricaria recutita; Ms: Medicago sativa; Pl: Plantago lanceolata; Pr: Papaver rhoeas; Ra: Rumex acetosa; Rc: Rumex crispus; Ta: Thlaspi arvense; Tp: Trifolium pratense; Tr: Trifolium repens; Va: Veronica arvensis). Minimum convex polygons of the two management types are shown.