@article{DuquePoelmanSteffanDewenter2019, author = {Duque, Laura and Poelman, Erik H. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf}, title = {Plant-mediated effects of ozone on herbivores depend on exposure duration and temperature}, series = {Scientific Reports}, volume = {9}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-019-56234-z}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-202805}, pages = {19891}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Abiotic stress by elevated tropospheric ozone and temperature can alter plants' metabolism, growth, and nutritional value and modify the life cycle of their herbivores. We investigated how the duration of exposure of Sinapis arvensis plants to high ozone and temperature levels affect the life cycle of the large cabbage white, Pieris brassicae. Plants were exposed to ozone-clean (control) or ozone-enriched conditions (120 ppb) for either 1 or 5 days and were afterwards kept in a greenhouse with variable temperature conditions. When given the choice, P. brassicae butterflies laid 49\% fewer eggs on ozone-exposed than on control plants when the exposure lasted for 5 days, but showed no preference when exposure lasted for 1 day. The caterpillars took longer to hatch on ozone-exposed plants and at lower ambient temperatures. The ozone treatment had a positive effect on the survival of the eggs. Ozone decreased the growth of caterpillars reared at higher temperatures on plants exposed for 5 days, but not on plants exposed for 1 day. Overall, longer exposure of the plants to ozone and higher temperatures affected the life cycle of the herbivore more strongly. With global warming, the indirect impacts of ozone on herbivores are likely to become more common.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Boetzl2022, author = {B{\"o}tzl, Fabian Alexander}, title = {The influence of crop management and adjacent agri-environmental scheme type on natural pest control in differently structured landscapes}, doi = {10.25972/OPUS-24140}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-241400}, school = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Summary Chapters I \& II: General Introduction \& General Methods Agriculture is confronted with a rampant loss of biodiversity potentially eroding ecosystem service potentials and adding up to other stressors like climate change or the consequences of land-use change and intensive management. To counter this 'biodiversity crisis', agri-environment schemes (AES) have been introduced as part of ecological intensification efforts. These AES combine special management regimes with the establishment of tailored habitats to create refuges for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes and thus ensure biodiversity mediated ecosystem services such as pest control. However, little is known about how well different AES habitats fulfil this purpose and whether they benefit ecosystem services in adjacent crop fields. Here I investigated how effective different AES habitats are for restoring biodiversity in different agricultural landscapes (Chapter V) and whether they benefit natural pest control in adjacent oilseed rape (Chapter VI) and winter cereal fields (Chapter VII). I recorded biodiversity and pest control potentials using a variety of different methods (Chapters II, V, VI \& VII). Moreover, I validated the methodology I used to assess predator assemblages and predation rates (Chapters III \& IV). Chapter III: How to record ground dwelling predators? Testing methodology is critical as it ensures scientific standards and trustworthy results. Pitfall traps are widely used to record ground dwelling predators, but little is known about how different trap types affect catches. I compared different types of pitfall traps that had been used in previous studies in respect to resulting carabid beetle assemblages. While barrier traps collected more species and deliver more complete species inventories, conventional simple pitfall traps provide reliable results with comparatively little handling effort. Placing several simple pitfall traps in the field can compensate the difference while still saving handling effort.   Chapter IV: How to record predation rates? A plethora of methods has been proposed and used for recording predation rates, but these have rarely been validated before use. I assessed whether a novel approach to record predation, the use of sentinel prey cards with glued on aphids, delivers realistic results. I compared different sampling efforts and showed that obtained predation rates were similar and could be linked to predator (carabid beetle) densities and body-sizes (a proxy often used for food intake rates). Thus, the method delivers reliable and meaningful predation rates. Chapter V: Do AES habitats benefit multi-taxa biodiversity? The main goal of AES is the conservation of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. I investigated how effectively AES habitats with different temporal continuity fulfil this goal in differently structured landscapes. The different AES habitats investigated had variable effects on local biodiversity. Temporal continuity of AES habitats was the most important predictor with older, more temporally continuous habitats harbouring higher overall biodiversity and different species assemblages in most taxonomic groups than younger AES habitats. Results however varied among taxonomic groups and natural enemies were equally supported by younger habitats. Semi-natural habitats in the surrounding landscape and AES habitat size were of minor importance for local biodiversity and had limited effects. This stresses that newly established AES habitats alone cannot restore farmland biodiversity. Both AES habitats as well as more continuous semi-natural habitats synergistically increase overall biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Chapter VI: The effects of AES habitats on predators in adjacent oilseed rape fields Apart from biodiversity conservation, ensuring ecosystem service delivery in agricultural landscapes is a crucial goal of AES. I therefore investigated the effects of adjacent AES habitats on ground dwelling predator assemblages in oilseed rape fields. I found clear distance decay effects from the field edges into the field centres on both richness and densities of ground dwelling predators. Direct effects of adjacent AES habitats on assemblages in oilseed rape fields however were limited and only visible in functional traits of carabid beetle assemblages. Adjacent AES habitats doubled the proportion of predatory carabid beetles indicating a beneficial role for pest control. My results show that pest control potentials are largest close to the field edges and beneficial effects are comparably short ranged. Chapter VII: The effects of AES habitats on pest control in adjacent cereal fields Whether distance functions and potential effects of AES habitats are universal across crops is unknown. Therefore, I assessed distance functions of predators, pests, predation rates and yields after crop rotation in winter cereals using the same study design as in the previous year. Resulting distance functions were not uniform and differed from those found in oilseed rape in the previous year, indicating that the interactions between certain adjacent habitats vary with habitat and crop types. Distance functions of cereal-leaf beetles (important cereal pests) and parasitoid wasps were moreover modulated by semi-natural habitat proportion in the surrounding landscapes. Field edges buffered assemblage changes in carabid beetle assemblages over crop rotation confirming their important function as refuges for natural enemies. My results emphasize the beneficial role of field edges for pest control potentials. These findings back the calls for smaller field sizes and more diverse, more heterogeneously structured agricultural landscapes. Chapter VIII: General Discussion Countering biodiversity loss and ensuring ecosystem service provision in agricultural landscapes is intricate and requires strategic planning and restructuring of these landscapes. I showed that agricultural landscapes could benefit maximally from (i) a mixture of AES habitats and semi-natural habitats to support high levels of overall biodiversity and from (ii) smaller continuously managed agricultural areas (i.e. smaller field sizes or the insertion of AES elements within large fields) to maximize natural pest control potentials in crop fields. I propose a mosaic of younger AES habitats and semi-natural habitats to support ecosystem service providers and increase edge density for ecosystem service spillover into adjacent crops. The optimal extent and density of this network as well as the location in which AES and semi-natural habitats interact most beneficially with adjacent crops need further investigation. My results provide a further step towards more sustainable agricultural landscapes that simultaneously allow biodiversity to persist and maintain agricultural production under the framework of ecological intensification.}, subject = {{\"O}kologie}, language = {en} }