Carsten Thies

SCALE-DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ON THREE POLLINATOR GUILDS

Most ecological processes and interactions depend on scales much larger than a single habitat, and therefore it is important to link spatial patterns and ecological processes at a landscape scale. Here, we analyzed the effects of landscape context on the distribution of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) at multiple spatial scales with respect to the following hypotheses: (1) Local abundance and diversity of bees increase with increasing proportion of the surrounding seminatural habitats. (2) Solitary wild bees, bumble bees, and honey bees respond to landscape context at different spatial scales. We selected 15 landscape sectors and determined the percentage of seminatural habitats and the diversity of habitat types at eight spatial scales (radius 250-3000 m) by field inspections and analyses of vegetation maps using two Geographic Information Systems. The percentage of semi- natural habitats varied between 1.4% and 28%. In the center of each landscape sector a patch of potted flowering plants (four perennial and two annual species) was placed in the same habitat type, a grassy field margin adjacent to cereal fields. In all, 865 wild bee individuals and 467 honey bees were observed and an additional 475 individuals were caught for species identification. Species richness and abundance of solitary wild bees showed a close positive correlation with the percentage of seminatural habitats at small scales up to 750 m, whereas bumble bees and honey bees did not respond to landscape context at these scales. In contrast, honey bees were correlated with landscape context at large scales. The densities of flower-visiting honey bees even increased with decreasing proportion of seminatural habitats at a radius of 3000 m. We are not aware of any empirical studies showing contrasting foraging patterns related to landscape context at different spatial scales. We conclude (1) that local landscape destruction affects solitary wild bees more than social bees, possibly changing mutualistic plant-pollinator and competitive wild bees- honey bees interactions and (2) that only analyses of multiple spatial scales may detect the importance of the landscape context for local pollinator communities.

Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: A mini review

Modern human-dominated landscapes are typically characterized by intensive land-use and high levels of habitat destruction, often resulting in sharply contrasted habitat mosaics. Fragmentation of remaining habitat is a major threat to biodiversity. In the present paper, we focus on the different features of habitat fragmentation. First we discuss the importance of pure habitat loss, fragment size, fragment isolation and quality, edge effects, and the importance of landscape structure. Second, we characterize life-history features of fragmentation-sensitive species, showing that rare, specialized, little dispersing species are most affected, as well as species characterized by high population variability and a high trophic position, while the effect of body size is unclear. Third, we discuss the conservation value of habitat fragments. The question arises how to relate studies on population survival to those of community structure and studies on biodiversity to those on ecologicalal functions. Despite the general superiority of large to small reserves, only small or medium-sized reserves are available in many human-dominated landscapes. A great number of small habitats covering a wide range of geographic area should maximize beta diversity and spreading of risk and may be very important for the regional conservation of biodiversity, in contrast to the prevailing arguments in favor of large habitats. Finally, landscape context influences community structure of fragments, and communities are composed of species that experience the landscape on a broad range of spatial scales. Spatial arrangement of habitat fragments in a landscape appears to be important only in simple, not complex landscapes.

Relative importance of predators and parasitoids for cereal aphid control

Field experiments with manipulations of natural enemies of plant–feeding insects may show how a diverse enemy group ensures an important ecosystem function such as naturally occurring biological pest control. We studied cereal aphid populations in winter wheat under experimentally reduced densities of: (i) ground–dwelling generalist predators (mostly spiders, carabid and staphylinid beetles); (ii) flying predators (coccinellid beetles, syrphid flies, gall midges, etc.) and parasitoids (aphidiid wasps), and a combination of (i) and (ii), compared with open controls. Aphid populations were 18% higher at reduced densities of ground–dwelling predators, 70% higher when flying predators and parasitoids were removed, and 172% higher on the removal of both enemy groups. Parasitoid wasps probably had the strongest effect, as flying predators occurred only in negligible densities. The great importance of parasitism is a new finding for aphid control in cereal fields. In conclusion, a more detailed knowledge of the mechanisms of natural pest control would help to develop environmentally sound crop management with reduced pesticide applications.

The landscape context of cereal aphid–parasitoid interactions

Analyses at multiple spatial scales may show how important ecosystem services such as biological control are determined by processes acting on the landscape scale. We examined cereal aphid–parasitoid interactions in wheat fields in agricultural landscapes differing in structural complexity (32–100% arable land). Complex landscapes were associated with increased aphid mortality resulting from parasitism, but also with higher aphid colonization, thereby counterbalancing possible biological control by parasitoids and lastly resulting in similar aphid densities across landscapes. Thus, undisturbed perennial habitats appeared to enhance both pests and natural enemies. Analyses at multiple spatial scales (landscape sectors of 0.5–6 km diameter) showed that correlations between parasitism and percentage of arable land were significant at scales of 0.5–2 km, whereas aphid densities responded to percentage of arable land at scales of 1–6 km diameter. Hence, the higher trophic level populations appeared to be determined by smaller landscape sectors owing to dispersal limitation, showing the ‘functional spatial scale’ for species–specific landscape management.

BETA DIVERSITY AT DIFFERENT SPATIAL SCALES: PLANT COMMUNITIES IN ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURE

Biodiversity studies that guide agricultural subsidy policy have generally compared farming systems at a single spatial scale: the field. However, diversity patterns vary across spatial scales. Here, we examined the effects of farming system (organic vs. conventional) and position in the field (edge vs. center) on plant species richness in wheat fields at three spatial scales. We quantified alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversity at the microscale in 800 plots, at the mesoscale in 40 fields, and at the macroscale in three regions using the additive partitioning approach, and evaluated the relative contribution of beta-diversity at each spatial scale to total observed species richness. We found that alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversity were higher in organic than conventional fields and higher at the field edge than in the field center at all spatial scales. In both farming systems, beta-diversity at the meso- and macroscale explained most of the overall species richness (up to 37% and 25%, respectively), indicating considerable differences in community composition among fields and regions due to environmental heterogeneity. The spatial scale at which beta-diversity contributed the most to overall species richness differed between rare and common species. Total richness of rare species (present in < or = 5% of total samples) was mainly explained by differences in community composition at the meso- and macroscale (up to 27% and 48%, respectively), but only in organic fields. Total richness of common species (present in > or = 25% of total samples) was explained by differences in community composition at the micro- and mesoscale (up to 29% and 47%, respectively), i.e., among plots and fields, independent of farming system. Our results show that organic farming made the greatest contribution to total species richness at the meso (among fields) and macro (among regions) scale due to environmental heterogeneity. Hence, agri-environment schemes should exploit this large-scale contribution of beta-diversity by tailoring schemes at regional scales to maximize dissimilarity between conservation areas using geographic information systems rather than focusing entirely at the classical local-field scale, which is the current practice.

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

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.

The relationship between agricultural intensification and biological control: experimental tests across Europe

Agricultural intensification can affect biodiversity and related ecosystem services such as biological control, but large-scale experimental evidence is missing. We examined aphid pest populations in cereal fields under experimentally reduced densities of (1) ground-dwelling predators (-G), (2) vegetation-dwelling predators and parasitoids (-V), (3) a combination of (1) and (2) (-G-V), compared with open-fields (control), in contrasting landscapes with low vs. high levels of agricultural intensification (AI), and in five European regions. Aphid populations were 28%, 97%, and 199% higher in -G, -V, and -G-V treatments, respectively, compared to the open fields, indicating synergistic effects of both natural-enemy groups. Enhanced parasitoid: host and predator: prey ratios were related to reduced aphid population density and population growth. The relative importance of parasitoids and vegetation-dwelling predators greatly differed among European regions, and agricultural intensification affected biological control and aphid density only in some regions. This shows a changing role of species group identity in diverse enemy communities and a need to consider region-specific landscape management.

Food web structure and biocontrol in a four-trophic level system across a landscape complexity gradient

Decline in landscape complexity owing to agricultural intensification may affect biodiversity, food web complexity and associated ecological processes such as biological control, but such relationships are poorly understood. Here, we analysed food webs of cereal aphids, their primary parasitoids and hyperparasitoids in 18 agricultural landscapes differing in structural complexity (42–93% arable land). Despite little variation in the richness of each trophic group, we found considerable changes in trophic link properties across the landscape complexity gradient. Unexpectedly, aphid–parasitoid food webs exhibited a lower complexity (lower linkage density, interaction diversity and generality) in structurally complex landscapes, which was related to the dominance of one aphid species in complex landscapes. Nevertheless, primary parasitism, as well as hyperparasitism, was higher in complex landscapes, with primary parasitism reaching levels for potentially successful biological control. In conclusion, landscape complexity appeared to foster higher parasitism rates, but simpler food webs, thereby casting doubt on the general importance of food web complexity for ecosystem functioning.

Aphid suppression by natural enemies in mulched cereals

Large populations of natural enemies are the basis for natural pest control. Effects of mulch on predator–prey interactions in arable fields are poorly known, despite its potential to enhance ground‐dwelling predators and thereby reduce pest infestations. We studied the densities of predators and parasitoids, and their impact on cereal aphids in the presence and absence of mulch. Released populations of the bird cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) (Homoptera: Aphididae), and two naturally occurring aphid species, were monitored under experimentally reduced densities of: (i) ground‐dwelling predators, (ii) flying predators and parasitoids, and (iii) with straw mulch. The three treatments were applied in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design in a field of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The exclusion of ground‐dwelling predators increased aphid populations by 55% in June and 40% in July, respectively. Mulched plots had 25% lower aphid densities in June. This was presumably due to enhanced densities of spiders (Araneida) in mulched plots. The exclusion of flying predators and parasitoids led to 94% higher aphid populations in late July (109 vs. 56 individuals per 100 shoots), irrespective of mulch or ground predator manipulation. This was attributed to the larvae of gall midges Aphidoletes cf. aphidimyza (Rondani) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). The results indicate that a scarcity of predators and a bare soil surface renders crops more susceptible to arthropod pests. Farming schemes should aim at enhancing both ground‐dwelling and flying predators for elevated levels of natural pest control.

Agricultural intensification and cereal aphid–parasitoid–hyperparasitoid food webs: network complexity, temporal variability and parasitism rates

Agricultural intensification (AI) is currently a major driver of biodiversity loss and related ecosystem functioning decline. However, spatio-temporal changes in community structure induced by AI, and their relation to ecosystem functioning, remain largely unexplored. Here, we analysed 16 quantitative cereal aphid–parasitoid and parasitoid–hyperparasitoid food webs, replicated four times during the season, under contrasting AI regimes (organic farming in complex landscapes vs. conventional farming in simple landscapes). High AI increased food web complexity but also temporal variability in aphid–parasitoid food webs and in the dominant parasitoid species identity. Enhanced complexity and variability appeared to be controlled bottom-up by changes in aphid dominance structure and evenness. Contrary to the common expectations of positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, community complexity (food-web complexity, species richness and evenness) was negatively related to primary parasitism rates. However, this relationship was positive for secondary parasitoids. Despite differences in community structures among different trophic levels, ecosystem services (parasitism rates) and disservices (aphid abundances and hyperparasitism rates) were always higher in fields with low AI. Hence, community structure and ecosystem functioning appear to be differently influenced by AI, and change differently over time and among trophic levels. In conclusion, intensified agriculture can support diverse albeit highly variable parasitoid–host communities, but ecosystem functioning might not be easy to predict from observed changes in community structure and composition.