@article{DaineseSchneiderKraussetal.2017,
  author    = {Dainese, Matteo and Schneider, Gudrun and Krauss, Jochen and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Complementarity among natural enemies enhances pest suppression},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-017-08316-z},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-158621},
  pages     = {8172},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Natural enemies have been shown to be effective agents for controlling insect pests in crops. However, it remains unclear how different natural enemy guilds contribute to the regulation of pests and how this might be modulated by landscape context. In a field exclusion experiment in oilseed rape (OSR), we found that parasitoids and ground-dwelling predators acted in a complementary way to suppress pollen beetles, suggesting that pest control by multiple enemies attacking a pest during different periods of its occurrence in the field improves biological control efficacy. The density of pollen beetle significantly decreased with an increased proportion of non-crop habitats in the landscape. Parasitism had a strong effect on pollen beetle numbers in landscapes with a low or intermediate proportion of non-crop habitats, but not in complex landscapes. Our results underline the importance of different natural enemy guilds to pest regulation in crops, and demonstrate how biological control can be strengthened by complementarity among natural enemies. The optimization of natural pest control by adoption of specific management practices at local and landscape scales, such as establishing non-crop areas, low-impact tillage, and temporal crop rotation, could significantly reduce dependence on pesticides and foster yield stability through ecological intensification in agriculture.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KleijnWinfreeBartomeusetal.2015,
  author    = {Kleijn, David and Winfree, Rachael and Bartomeus, Ignasi and Carvalheiro, Lu{\´i}sa G. and Henry, Mickael and Isaacs, Rufus and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kremen, Claire and M'Gonigle, Leithen K. and Rader, Romina and Ricketts, Taylor H. and Williams, Neal M. and Adamson, Nancy Lee and Ascher, John S. and B{\´a}ldi, Andr{\´a}s and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Benjamin, Faye and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Blitzer, Eleanor J. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Brand, Mariette R. and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Button, Lindsey and Cariveau, Daniel P. and Chifflet, R{\´e}my and Colville, Jonathan F. and Danforth, Bryan N. and Elle, Elizabeth and Garratt, Michael P. D. and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Howlett, Brad G. and Jauker, Frank and Jha, Shalene and Knop, Eva and Krewenka, Kristin M. and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Mandelik, Yael and May, Emily A. and Park, Mia G. and Pisanty, Gideon and Reemer, Menno and Riedinger, Verena and Rollin, Orianne and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Sardi{\~n}as, Hillary S. and Scheper, Jeroen and Sciligo, Amber R. and Smith, Henrik G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Thorp, Robbin and Tscharntke, Teja and Verhulst, Jort and Viana, Blandina F. and Vaissi{\`e}re, Bernard E. and Veldtman, Ruan and Ward, Kimiora L. and Westphal, Catrin and Potts, Simon G.},
  title     = {Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation},
  series = {Nature Communications},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Nature Communications},
  number    = {7414},
  doi       = {10.1038/ncomms8414},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151879},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost- effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost- effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RedlichMartinWendeetal.2018,
  author    = {Redlich, Sarah and Martin, Emily A. and Wende, Beate and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Landscape heterogeneity rather than crop diversity mediates bird diversity in agricultural landscapes},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0200438},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177110},
  pages     = {e0200438},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Crop diversification has been proposed as farm management tool that could mitigate the externalities of conventional farming while reducing productivity-biodiversity trade-offs. Yet evidence for the acclaimed biodiversity benefits of landscape-level crop diversity is ambiguous. Effects may strongly depend on spatial scale and the level of landscape heterogeneity (e.g. overall habitat diversity). At the same time, contrasting within-taxon responses obscure benefits to specific functional groups (i.e. species with shared characteristics or requirements) if studied at the community level. The objectives of this study were to 1) disentangle the relative effects of crop diversity and landscape heterogeneity on avian species richness across five spatial scales ranging from 250 to 3000 m radii around focal winter wheat fields; and 2) assess whether functional groups (feeding guild, conservation status, habitat preference, nesting behaviour) determine the strength and direction of responses to crop diversity and landscape heterogeneity. In central Germany, 14 landscapes were selected along independent gradients of crop diversity (annual arable crops) and landscape heterogeneity. Bird species richness in each landscape was estimated using four point counts throughout the breeding season. We found no effects of landscape-level crop diversity on bird richness and functional groups. Instead, landscape heterogeneity was strongly associated with increased total bird richness across all spatial scales. In particular, insect-feeding and non-farmland birds were favoured in heterogeneous landscapes, as were species not classified as endangered or vulnerable on the regional Red List. Crop-nesting farmland birds, however, were less species-rich in these landscapes. Accordingly, crop diversification may be less suitable for conserving avian diversity and associated ecosystem services (e.g. biological pest control), although confounding interactions with management intensity need yet to be confirmed. In contrast, enhancement of landscape heterogeneity by increasing perennial habitat diversity, reducing field sizes and the amount of cropland has the potential to benefit overall bird richness. Specialist farmland birds, however, may require more targeted management approaches.},
  language  = {en}
}