@article{VogelChungaSunetal.2021,
  author    = {Vogel, Cassandra and Chunga, Timothy L. and Sun, Xiaoxuan and Poveda, Katja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Higher bee abundance, but not pest abundance, in landscapes with more agriculture on a late-flowering legume crop in tropical smallholder farms},
  series = {PeerJ},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {PeerJ},
  doi       = {10.7717/peerj.10732},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-231491},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Landscape composition is known to affect both beneficial insect and pest communities on crop fields. Landscape composition therefore can impact ecosystem (dis)services provided by insects to crops. Though landscape effects on ecosystem service providers have been studied in large-scale agriculture in temperate regions, there is a lack of representation of tropical smallholder agriculture within this field of study, especially in sub-Sahara Africa. Legume crops can provide important food security and soil improvement benefits to vulnerable agriculturalists. However, legumes are dependent on pollinating insects, particularly bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for production and are vulnerable to pests. We selected 10 pigeon pea (Fabaceae: Cajunus cajan (L.)) fields in Malawi with varying proportions of semi-natural habitat and agricultural area within a 1 km radius to study: (1) how the proportion of semi-natural habitat and agricultural area affects the abundance and richness of bees and abundance of florivorous blister beetles (Coleoptera: Melloidae), (2) if the proportion of flowers damaged and fruit set difference between open and bagged flowers are correlated with the proportion of semi-natural habitat or agricultural area and (3) if pigeon pea fruit set difference between open and bagged flowers in these landscapes was constrained by pest damage or improved by bee visitation. Methods We performed three, ten-minute, 15 m, transects per field to assess blister beetle abundance and bee abundance and richness. Bees were captured and identified to (morpho)species. We assessed the proportion of flowers damaged by beetles during the flowering period. We performed a pollinator and pest exclusion experiment on 15 plants per field to assess whether fruit set was pollinator limited or constrained by pests. Results In our study, bee abundance was higher in areas with proportionally more agricultural area surrounding the fields. This effect was mostly driven by an increase in honeybees. Bee richness and beetle abundances were not affected by landscape characteristics, nor was flower damage or fruit set difference between bagged and open flowers. We did not observe a positive effect of bee density or richness, nor a negative effect of florivory, on fruit set difference. Discussion In our study area, pigeon pea flowers relatively late—well into the dry season. This could explain why we observe higher densities of bees in areas dominated by agriculture rather than in areas with more semi-natural habitat where resources for bees during this time of the year are scarce. Therefore, late flowering legumes may be an important food resource for bees during a period of scarcity in the seasonal tropics. The differences in patterns between our study and those conducted in temperate regions highlight the need for landscape-scale studies in areas outside the temperate region.},
  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}
}