Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-m5bhc Total loading time: 0.509 Render date: 2022-10-07T17:17:31.227Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Crop cover the principal influence on non-crop ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) activity and assemblages at the farm scale in a long-term assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2016

M.D. Eyre
Affiliation:
Nafferton Ecological Farming Group, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Nafferton Farm, Stocksfield, Northumberland NE43 7XD, UK
R.A. Sanderson
Affiliation:
School of Biology, Ridley Building, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
S.D. McMillan
Affiliation:
ADAS UK Ltd., Alcester Road, Stratford-Upon-Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ, UK
C.N.R. Critchley*
Affiliation:
ADAS UK Ltd., c/o Newcastle University, NEFG Offices, Nafferton Farm, Stocksfield, Northumberland NE43 7XD, UK
*
*Author for correspondence Tel.: +44 1661 830643 Fax: +44 1661 830643 E-mail: nigel.critchley@adas.co.uk

Abstract

Ground beetle data were generated using pitfall traps in the 17-year period from 1993 to 2009 and used to investigate the effects of changes in surrounding crop cover on beetle activity and assemblages, together with the effects of weather variability. Beetles were recorded from non-crop field margins (overgrown hedges). Crop cover changes explained far more variation in the beetle assemblages recorded than did temperature and rainfall variation. A reduction in management intensity and disturbance in the crops surrounding the traps, especially the introduction and development of willow coppice, was concomitant with changes in individual species activity and assemblage composition of beetles trapped in non-crop habitat. There were no consistent patterns in either overall beetle activity or in the number of species recorded over the 17-year period, but there was a clear change from assemblages dominated by smaller species with higher dispersal capability to ones with larger beetles with less dispersal potential and a preference for less disturbed agroecosystems. The influence of surrounding crops on ground beetle activity in non-crop habitat has implications for ecosystem service provision by ground beetles as pest predators. These results are contrary to conventional assumptions and interpretations, which suggest activity of pest predators in crops is influenced primarily by adjacent non-crop habitat. The long-term nature of the assessment was important in elucidation of patterns and trends, and indicated that policies such as agri-environment schemes should take cropping patterns into account when promoting management options that are intended to enhance natural pest control.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Batáry, P., Holzschuh, A., Orci, K.M., Samu, F. & Tscharntke, T. (2012) Responses of plant, insect and spider biodiversity to local and landscape scale management intensity in cereal crops and grasslands. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 146, 130136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezdek, J.C. (1981) Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Algorithms. New York, Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borcard, D., Legendre, P. & Drapeau, P. (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73, 10451055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, D.R., Bater, J.E., Clark, S.J., Monteith, D.T., Andrews, C., Corbett, S.J., Beaumont, D.A. & Chapman, J.W. (2012) Large carabid beetle declines in a United Kingdom monitoring network increases evidence for a widespread loss in insect biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 10021019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, D.A., Banks, S.C., Barton, P.S., Lindenmayer, D.B. & Smith, A.L. (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28, 605613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyre, M.D. (2006) A strategic interpretation of beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages, biotopes, habitats and distribution, and the conservation implications. Journal of Insect Conservation 10, 151160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D. & Leifert, C. (2011) Crop and field boundary influences on the activity of a wide-range of beneficial invertebrate groups on a split conventional: organic farm in northern England. Bulletin of Entomological Research 101, 135144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. & Leifert, C. (2013) Crop, field boundary, productivity and disturbance influences on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the agroecosystem. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 165, 6067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D., Labanowska-Bury, D., Avayanos, J.G., White, R. & Leifert, C. (2009a) Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in an intensively managed vegetable crop landscape in eastern England. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 131, 340346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L., Atlihan, R. & Leifert, C. (2012) Ground beetle species (Carabidae, Coleoptera) activity and richness in relation to crop type, fertility management and crop protection in a farm management comparison trial. Annals of Applied Biology 161, 169179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L., Staley, J.R. & Telfer, M.G. (2003) The relationship between British ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and land cover. Journal of Biogeography 30, 719730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D., Sanderson, R.A., Shotton, P.N. & Leifert, C. (2009 b) Investigating the effects of crop type, fertility management and crop protection on the activity of beneficial invertebrates in an extensive farm management comparison trial. Annals of Applied Biology 155, 267276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J.M., Thomas, C.F.G., Birkett, T., Southway, S. & Oaten, H. (2005) Farm-scale spatiotemporal dynamics of predatory beetles in arable crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 11401152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J.M., Oaten, H., Moreby, S., Birkett, T., Simper, S., Southway, S. & Smith, B.M. (2012) Agri-environment scheme enhancing ecosystem services: a demonstration of improved biological control in cereal crops. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 155, 147172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J.M., Storkey, J., Lutman, P.J.W., Birkett, T.C., Simper, J. & Aebischer, N.J. (2014) Utilisation of agri-environment scheme habitats to enhance invertebrate ecosystem service providers. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 183, 103109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, D.A., Menalled, F.D., Costamagna, A.C. & Wilkinson, T.K. (2005) Manipulating plant resources to enhance beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Weed Science 53, 902908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. (1998) Numerical Ecology. 2nd edn. Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Luff, M.L. (2007) The carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. Handbook for the Identification of British Insects, 2nd edn. 4(2), 1247.Google Scholar
MacLeod, A., Wratten, S.D., Sotherton, N.W. & Thomas, M.B. (2004) ‘Beetle banks’ as refuges for beneficial arthropods in farmland: long-term changes in predator communities and habitat. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 6, 147154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. & Niggli, U. (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296, 16941697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morecroft, M.D., Bealey, C.E., Beaumont, D.A., Benham, S., Brooks, D.R., Burt, T.P., Critchley, C.N.R., Dick, J., Littlewood, N.A., Monteith, D.T., Scott, W.A., Smith, R.I., Walmsley, C. & Watson, H. (2009) The UK environmental change network: emerging trends in the composition of plant and animal communities and the physical environment. Biological Conservation 142, 28142832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navntoft, S., Esbjerg, P. & Riedel, W. (2006) Effects of reduced pesticide dosages on carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in winter wheat. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8, 5762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O'Hara, B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H. & Wagner, H. (2008) The vegan package – Community Ecology Package for R. Available online at http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org/ Google Scholar
Puech, C., Baudry, J., Joannon, A., Poggi, S. & Aviron, S. (2014) Organic vs. conventional farming dichotomy: does it make sense for natural enemies? Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 194, 4857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R.P. & Snyder, W.E. (2006) Polyphagy complicates conservation biological control that targets generalist predators. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 343352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purtauf, T., Roschewitz, I., Dauber, J., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T. & Wolters, V. (2005) Landscape context of organic and conventional farms: influences on carabid beetle diversity. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 108, 165174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at http://www.R-project.org/ Google ScholarPubMed
Rand, T.A., Tylianakis, J.M. & Tscharntke, T. (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecology Letters 9, 603614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribera, I., Doledec, S., Downie, I.S. & Foster, G.N. (2001) Effect of land disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assemblages. Ecology 82, 11121129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweiger, O., Maelfait, J.P., Van Wingerden, W., Hendrickx, F., Billeter, R., Speelmans, M., Augenstein, I., Aukema, B., Aviron, S., Bailey, D., Bukacek, R., Burel, F., Diekotter, T., Dirksen, J., Frenzel, M., Herzog, F., Liira, J., Roubalova, M. & Bugter, R. (2005) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 11291139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J.R. & Niemalä, J.K. (1994) Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Canadian Entomologist 126, 881894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, J.M. & Lane, A.M.J. (1996) The UK Environmental Change Network: Protocols for Standard Measurements at Terrestrial Sites. London, The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C., Sunderland, K.D. & Geenstone, M.H. (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents?. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 561594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, M.E. & Morecroft, M.D. (2009) Effects of agri-environment schemes in a long-term ecological time series. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 130, 915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. (2002) CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Wageningen, Centre for Biometry.Google Scholar
Tscharntke, T., Bommarco, R., Clough, Y., Crist, T.O., Kleijn, D., Rand, T.A., Tylianakis, J.M., van Nouhuys, S. & Vidal, S. (2007) Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biological Control 43, 294309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J.M., Rand, T.A., Didham, R.K., Fahrig, L., Batary, P., Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist, T.O., Dormann, C.F., Ewers, R.M., Frund, J., Holt, R.D., Holzschuh, A., Klein, A.M., Kleijn, D., Kremen, C., Landis, D.A., Laurance, W., Lindenmayer, D., Scherber, C., Sodhi, N., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Thies, C., van der Putten, W.H. & Westphal, C. (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes – eight hypotheses. Biological Reviews 87, 661685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Brink, P.J. & Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1998) Multivariate analysis of stress in experimental ecosystems by principal response curves and similarity analysis. Aquatic Ecology 32, 163178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Brink, P.J. & Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1999) Principal response curves: analysis of time-dependent multivariate responses of a biological community to stress. Environmental & Toxicological Chemistry 18, 138145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibull, A.C. & Östman, O. (2003) Species composition in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat, and farm management. Basic & Applied Ecology 4, 349361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittingham, M.J. (2011) The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? Journal of Applied Ecology 48, 509513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, B.A., Harrower, C., Redhead, J., Edwards, M., Vanbergen, A.J., Heard, M.S., Roy, D.B. & Pywell, R.F. (2014) National patterns of functional diversity and redundancy in predatory ground beetles and bees associated with key UK arable crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 142151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Eyre supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Eyre supplementary material(File)
File 203 KB
Supplementary material: File

Eyre supplementary material

Table S1

Download Eyre supplementary material(File)
File 15 KB
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Crop cover the principal influence on non-crop ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) activity and assemblages at the farm scale in a long-term assessment
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Crop cover the principal influence on non-crop ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) activity and assemblages at the farm scale in a long-term assessment
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Crop cover the principal influence on non-crop ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) activity and assemblages at the farm scale in a long-term assessment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *