How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes

被引:442
作者
Hendrickx, Frederik
Maelfait, Jean-Pierre
Van Wingerden, Walter
Schweiger, Oliver
Speelmans, Marjan
Aviron, Stephanie
Augenstein, Isabel
Billeter, Regula
Bailey, Debra
Bukacek, Roman
Burel, Francoise
Diekoetter, Tim
Dirksen, Jolanda
Herzog, Felix
Liira, Jaan
Roubalova, Martina
Vandomme, Viki
Bugter, Rob
机构
[1] Univ Ghent, Terr Ecol Unit, TEREC, Dept Biol, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
[2] Inst Nat & Forest Res, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium
[3] Landscape Ctr, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands
[4] UFZ Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Environm Res Ctr, Dept Community Ecol, D-06210 Halle, Germany
[5] Swiss Fed Res Stn Agroecol & Agr, Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, CH-8046 Zurich, Switzerland
[6] UFZ Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Ctr Environm Res, Dept Appl Landscape Ecol, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany
[7] ETH, Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Geobot Inst, CH-8044 Zurich, Switzerland
[8] Nat Conservat Author, Dept Informat, CZ-14000 Prague 4, Czech Republic
[9] Univ Rennes 1, UMR Ecobio, F-35042 Rennes, France
[10] Univ Tartu, Inst Bot & Ecol, EE-1005 Tartu, Estonia
[11] Inst Forest Ecosyst Res, Jilove 25401, Czech Republic
关键词
agro-ecosystems; biodiversity; conservation; diversity partitioning; fragmentation; insects; landscape ecology;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01270.x
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Agricultural intensification poses a serious threat to biodiversity as a consequence of increased land-use intensity, decreased landscape heterogeneity and reduced habitat diversity. Although there is interest in the preservation of total species richness of an agricultural landscape (gamma diversity), the effects of intensification have been assessed primarily by species richness at a local scale (alpha diversity). This ignores species richness between local communities (beta diversity), which is an important component of total species richness. In this study, measures of land-use intensity, landscape structure and habitat diversity were related to gamma, alpha and beta diversity of wild bees (Apoidea), carabid beetles (Carabidae), hoverflies (Syrphidae), true bugs (Heteroptera) and spiders (Araneae) within 16 local communities in 24 temperate European agricultural landscapes. The total landscape species richness of all groups was most strongly affected by increased proximity of semi-natural habitat patches. Bees also decreased in landscapes with a high intensity of farmland management, demonstrating additive effects of both factors. Separating total species diversity into components, the decrease in total species richness could be attributed primarily to a decrease in species diversity between local communities. Species richness of the local communities of all investigated groups decreased with increasing land-use intensity and, in the case of spiders, decreasing proximity of the semi-natural habitat patches. The effect of increased habitat diversity appeared to be of secondary importance to total species richness but caused a shift in the relative contribution of alpha and beta diversity towards the latter. Synthesis and applications. This study demonstrates that the effects of agricultural change operate at a landscape level and that examining species diversity at a local level fails to explain the total species richness of an agricultural landscape. The coincidence of patterns of beta diversity with those of gamma diversity emphasizes that such information is of crucial importance for the implementation and evaluation of restoration programmes aiming to restore sustainable countryside diversity. As local extinction processes in highly fragmented landscapes shape biodiversity, priority should be given to the conservation of diverse agricultural landscape remnants in Europe.
引用
收藏
页码:340 / 351
页数:12
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ESTIMATES STAT ESTIM
[2]   Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity [J].
Aviron, S ;
Burel, F ;
Baudry, J ;
Schermann, N .
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2005, 108 (03) :205-217
[3]   Ballooning dispersal using silk: world fauna, phylogenies, genetics and models [J].
Bell, JR ;
Bohan, DA ;
Shaw, EM ;
Weyman, GS .
BULLETIN OF ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2005, 95 (02) :69-114
[4]   The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance:: a meta-analysis [J].
Bengtsson, J ;
Ahnström, J ;
Weibull, AC .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2005, 42 (02) :261-269
[5]   Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? [J].
Benton, TG ;
Vickery, JA ;
Wilson, JD .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2003, 18 (04) :182-188
[6]   Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region [J].
Bergman, KO ;
Askling, J ;
Ekberg, O ;
Ignell, H ;
Wahlman, H ;
Milberg, P .
ECOGRAPHY, 2004, 27 (05) :619-628
[7]  
Bignal EM, 1998, J APPL ECOL, V35, P949, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2664.1998.tb00013.x
[8]   Low propensity for aerial dispersal in specialist spiders from fragmented landscapes [J].
Bonte, D ;
Vandenbroecke, N ;
Lens, L ;
Maelfait, JP .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2003, 270 (1524) :1601-1607
[9]   Estimating the richness of species with variable mobility [J].
Brose, U ;
Martinez, ND .
OIKOS, 2004, 105 (02) :292-300