DOCSLIB.ORG

Designing Species-Rich, Pest-Suppressive Agroecosystems Through Habitat 2 Management [Ch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Designing Species-Rich, Pest-Suppressive Agroecosystems Through Habitat 2 Management [Ch 1 Designing Species-rich, Pest-suppressive Agroecosystems Through Habitat 2 Management [Ch. 4 in Agroecosystems Analysis, D. Rickerl & C. Francis, eds. 3 American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. 2004. pp. 49-62] 4 Clara I. Nicholls 5 Miguel A. Altieri 6 Division of Insect Biology 7 University of California, Berkeley 8 9 Ninety-one percent of the 1.5 billion hectares of cropland worldwide are under 10 annual crops, mostly monocultures of wheat, rice, maize, cotton, and soybeans (Smil, 11 2000). This process represents an extreme form of simplification of nature’s biodiversity. 12 Monocultures in addition to being genetically uniform and species-poor systems, advance 13 at the expense of natural vegetation, a key landscape component that provides important 14 ecological services to agriculture such as natural mechanisms of crop protection (Altieri, 15 1999). Since the onset of agricultural modernization, farmers and researchers have been 16 faced with a major ecological dilemma arising from the homogenization of agricultural 17 systems: an increased vulnerability of crops to insect pests and diseases, which can be 18 devastating when infesting uniform-crop, large-scale monocultures (Adams et al., l971; 19 Altieri and Letourneau, l982/l984). Monocultures may have temporary economic 20 advantages for farmers, but in the long term they do not represent an ecological optimum. 21 Rather, the drastic narrowing of cultivated plant diversity has put the world’s food 22 production in greater peril (NAS, l972; Robinson, 1996). 23 In this chapter, we explore practical steps to break the non-diverse nature of 24 monocultures and thus reduce their ecological vulnerability, by restoring agricultural 25 biodiversity at the field and landscape level. The most obvious advantage of 26 diversification is a reduced risk of total crop failure due to invasions by unwanted species 27 and subsequent pest infestations (Altieri, l994). The chapter focuses on ways in which 28 biodiversity can contribute to the design of pest-stable agroecosystems by creating an 29 appropriate ecological infrastructure within and around cropping systems. Selected 30 studies reporting the effects of intercropping, cover cropping, weed management, 31 agroforestry and manipulation of crop-field border vegetation are discussed, special 32 attention to understanding the mechanisms underlying pest reduction in diversified 33 agroecosystems. This reflection is fundamental if habitat management through vegetation 34 diversification is to be used effectively as the basis of Ecologically Based Pest 35 Management (EBPM) tactics in sustainable agriculture. 36 37 Biodiversity in Agroecosystems: Types and Roles 38 Biodiversity refers to all species of plants, animals, and microorganisms existing 39 and interacting within an ecosystem, and which play important ecological functions such 40 as pollination, organic matter decomposition, predation or parasitism of undesirable 41 organisms and detoxification of noxious chemicals (Gliessman, l998). These renewal 42 processes and ecosystem services are largely biological; therefore their persistence 43 depends upon maintenance of ecological diversity and integrity. When these natural 44 services are lost due to biological simplification, the economic and environmental costs 45 can be quite significant. Economically, in agriculture the burdens include the need to 46 supply crops with costly external inputs, since agroecosystems deprived of basic 1 1 regulating functional components lack the capacity to sponsor their own soil fertility and 2 pest regulation. Often the costs also involve a reduction in the quality of life of rural 3 communities due to decreased soil, water, and food quality when pesticide, nitrate or 4 other type of contamination linked to industrial agriculture occurs (Conway and Pretty, 5 l991). 6 Biodiversity in agroecosystems can be as varied as many crops, weeds, 7 arthropods, or microorganisms involved, according to geographical location, climatic, 8 edaphic, human, and socioeconomic factors. In general the degree of biodiversity in 9 agroecosystems depends on several features of the agroecosystem. Higher levels of 10 biodiversity are expected in systems that (Altieri, 1994): 11 12 Maintain diversity of vegetation within and around the agroecosystem. 13 Exhibit temporal/spatial permanence of the various crops within the agroecosystem. 14 Are subject to low management intensity. 15 Are no isolated from natural vegetation. 16 17 The biodiversity components of agroecosystems can be classified in relation to the role 18 they play in the functioning of cropping systems. According to this, agricultural 19 biodiversity can be grouped as follows (Altieri, l994; Gliessman, l998): 20 21 Productive biota: crops, trees, and animals chosen by farmers that play a determining 22 role in the diversity and complexity of the agroecosystem. 23 Resource biota: organisms that contribute to productivity through pollination, 24 biological control, decomposition, 25 Destructive biota: weeds, insects pests, microbial pathogens, which farmers aim at 26 reducing through cultural management. 27 28 The above categories of biodiversity can further be recognized as two distinct 29 components (Vandermeer and Perfecto, 1995). The first component, planned 30 biodiversity, includes the crops and livestock purposely included in the agroecosystem by 31 the farmer, which will vary depending on the management inputs and crop 32 spatial/temporal arrangements. The second component, associated biodiversity, includes 33 all soil flora and fauna, herbivores, carnivores and decomposers that colonize the 34 agroecosystem from surrounding environments and that will thrive in the agroecosystem 35 depending on its management and structure. The relationship of both types of 36 biodiversity components is illustrated in Fig. 1. Planned biodiversity has a direct 37 function, as illustrated by its connection with the ecosystem function box. Associated 38 biodiversity also has a function, but it is mediated through planned biodiversity. Thus, 39 planned biodiversity also has an indirect function, illustrated by the dotted arrow in the 40 figure, which is realized through its influence on the associated biodiversity. For 41 example, the trees in an agroforestry system create shade, which makes it possible to 42 grow only sun intolerant crops. So, the direct function of this second species (the trees) is 43 to create shade. Yet along with the trees might come wasps that seek out the nectar in the 44 tree’s flowers. These wasps may in turn be the natural parasitoids of pests that normally 45 attack understory crops.The wasps are part of the associated biodiversity. The trees then 2 1 create shade (direct function) and attract wasps (indirect function) (Vandermeer and 2 Perfecto, 1995). 3 The optimal behavior of agroecosystems depends on the level of interactions 4 among the various biotic and abiotic components. By assembling a functional 5 biodiversity it is possible to initiate synergisms which subsidize agroecosystem processes 6 by providing ecological services such as the activation of soil biology, the recycling of 7 nutrients, the enhancement of beneficial arthropods and antagonists, and so on, and all 8 important components that determine the sustainability of agroecosystems (Altieri and 9 Nicholls, 2000). 10 The key is to identify the type of biodiversity that is desirable to maintain and/or 11 enhance in order to carry out ecological services, and then to determine the best practices 12 that will encourage the desired biodiversity components. There are many agricultural 13 practices and designs that have the potential to enhance functional biodiversity, and 14 others that affect it negatively (Fig. 2). The idea is to apply the best management 15 practices in order to enhance or regenerate the kind of biodiversity that can best subsidize 16 the sustainability of agroecosystems by providing ecological services such as biological 17 pest control, nutrient cycling, water and soil conservation. The role of agroecologists 18 should be to encourage those agricultural practices that increase the abundance and 19 diversity of above- and below-ground organisms, which in turn provide key ecological 20 services to agroecosystems. 21 Thus, a key strategy of EBPM should be to exploit the complementarity and 22 synergy that result from the various combinations of crops, trees, and animals in 23 agroecosystems that feature spatial and temporal arrangements such as polycultures, 24 agroforestry systems and crop-livestock mixtures. In real situations, the exploitation of 25 these interactions involves agroecosystem design and requires an understanding of the 26 numerous relationships among soils, microorganisms, plants, insect herbivores, and 27 natural enemies to guide proper management. 28 29 Linking Biodiversity and Agroecosystem Stability 30 In general, natural ecosystems appear to be more stable and less subject to 31 fluctuations in populations of the organisms making up the community compared to 32 cultivated systems. Ecosystems with higher diversity are more stable because they 33 exhibit: 34 35 1. Higher resistance, or the ability to avoid or withstand disturbance, and 36 2. Higher resilience, or the ability to recover following disturbance. 37 38 The community of organisms becomes more complex when a larger number of 39 different kinds of organisms are included, when there are more interactions among 40 organisms, and when the strength of these interactions increases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Moving on from the Insect Apocalypse Narrative
    Moving on from the insect apocalypse narrative: engaging with evidence-based insect conservation Manu E. Saunders1,2, Jasmine Janes1,3, James O’Hanlon1 1School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England Armidale NSW Australia 2UNE Business School, University of New England Armidale NSW Australia 3Biology Department, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC, Canada This is the author’s version of a manuscript published in BioScience. Please cite as: Saunders ME, Janes J, O’Hanlon J (2019) Moving on from the insect apocalypse narrative: engaging with evidence-based insect conservation. BioScience https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz143 1 Abstract Recent studies showing temporal changes in local and regional insect populations received exaggerated global media coverage. Confusing and inaccurate science communication on this important issue could have counter-productive effects on public support for insect conservation. The ‘insect apocalypse’ narrative is fuelled by a limited number of studies that are restricted geographically (predominantly UK, Europe, USA) and taxonomically (predominantly bees, macrolepidoptera, and ground beetles). Biases in sampling and analytical methods (e.g. categorical vs. continuous time series, different diversity metrics) limit the relevance of these studies as evidence of generalised global insect decline. Rather, the value of this research lies in highlighting important areas for priority investment. We summarise research, communication and policy priorities for evidence-based insect conservation, including key areas of knowledge to increase understanding of insect population dynamics. Importantly, we advocate for a balanced perspective in science communication to better serve both public and scientific interests. 2 Introduction Insects are the most diverse and abundant group of animals on Earth and are critical drivers of ecosystem function in terrestrial and aquatic systems; yet the majority of insect taxa are understudied, publicly misunderstood and face numerous environmental threats (Samways 2007; Cardoso et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Insect Biodiversity in a Changing World
    University of South Bohemia Faculty of Science Trends in insect biodiversity in a changing world Ph.D. Thesis Olga M. C. C. Ameixa, MSc. Supervisor: Prof. RNDr. Pavel Kindlmann, DrSc. Global Change Research Centre, Czech Academy of Sciences and Charles University, Prague České Budějovice | 2011 Annotation: Ameixa, O.M.C.C.: Trends in insect biodiversity in a changing world. Ph.D. Thesis, in English - 20 p. + appendices 113 p., Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic. In this thesis I investigated various factors that might affect species diversity and the relations between predator/parasitoid and host, using mainly insects as a model group. These factors were agricultural practices, landscape composition, climate change and invasive species. Financial support The research was supported by the grants No. LC06073 and CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0073 (Czechglobe) of the MSMT and the grant No. GD206/08/H044 of the GA CR. Declaration – Prohlášení I hereby declare that I worked out this Ph.D. thesis on my own, or in collaboration with the co-authors of the presented papers and manuscript, and only using the cited literature. I declare that in accordance with the Czech legal code § 47b law No. 111/1998 in its valid version, I consent to the publication of my Ph.D. thesis (in an edition made by removing marked parts archived by the Faculty of Science) in an electronic way in the public access to the STAG database run by the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice on its web pages. Further, I agree to the electronic publication of the comments of my supervisor and thesis opponents and the record of the proceedings and results of the thesis defence in accordance with aforementioned Act No.
    [Show full text]
  • Endemic Biodiversity, Natural Enemies, and the Future of Biological Control
    Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 875 4-14 July 1999, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA Neal R. Spencer [ed.]. pp. 875-880 (2000) Endemic Biodiversity, Natural Enemies, and the Future of Biological Control ROWAN M. EMBERSON Ecology and Entomology Group, Soil, Plant and Ecological Sciences Division, P.O. Box 84, Lincoln University, New Zealand Abstract In recent public comment on proposed introductions for biological control of weeds in New Zealand, the issues of dilution of endemic biodiversity and homogenization of the fauna, have been raised as a reason for not introducing biological control agents. Although the impact of biological contol agents can be shown to be minimal in this process, the issue of homogenization appears to be gaining currency with government agencies and regulators. The main current causes of homogenization of the fauna and flora in New Zealand, and probably in most other countries, come from the purposeful introduction of plants for horticultural and other purposes, often with minimal assessment of their weed- iness, followed by their subsequent naturalization, and the accidental introductions of insects and other invertebrates. In New Zealand, naturalized alien plant species already outnumber native species and adventive insects are estimated to comprise 13% of the insect fauna. Only about 2.5% of all exotic insects have been introduced for biological control purposes. Up to the present, 20 carefully screened, host specific, species of insects have been established for biological control of weeds. These represent less than 1% of the exotic insect fauna. Recent developments in the regulatory environment outside New Zealand, suggest that the issue of global homogenization of the fauna and flora is also being considered in other jurisdictions, and has the potential to place severe limitations on the practice of classical biological control, even though the contribution of biological con- trol agents to the process is almost negligible in most places.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Biodiversity at Mangrove Ecosystem
    108 Insect Biodiversity At Mangrove Ecosystem Bhagyashree Grampurohit1 and Hemant Karkhanis2 1Department of Environmental Science, K. J. Somaiya College of Science and Commerce, Mumbai Vidyavihar, Mumbai -400077, Ph. +91-022-28575590, Fax +91-022 28575670 2 IInd Floor, Udayachal Primary School, Vikhroli (E). Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract : A lot of attention being paid to the study of biodiversity has led to increasing interest in assessing the diversity of insects because this group dominates terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and are valuable indicators of the healthof these ecosystems. Presence of insects in the mangrove ecosystem is of importance because they feed, reproduce on plants and help in pollination. Certain level of natural damage caused by pest insects is of ecological significance in mangrove ecosystem. Study of insect biodiversity is useful in managing the forest resources. The study area selected for this research project is a private land owned by Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd located along the Eastern Express Highway at Vikhroli, Mumbai. This land is covered with mangrove forest. Total eleven sites were selected randomly so as to cover maximum area of mangrove forest. At each site, during low tide, different insects were observed and photographed. Photo-essay of these insects was prepared. Diversity index, evenness index and dominance index was calculated. As per the results, Shannon index is 0.4, Simphon’s diversity index is 0.93 and evenness index is 0.1. Species richness index is 1.94. The result shows that the study location being in the industrial area of Mumbai, the insect diversity is less but there is a natural balance of damage and reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Genomic Basis of Beetle Diversity
    The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity Duane D. McKennaa,b,1,2, Seunggwan Shina,b,2, Dirk Ahrensc, Michael Balked, Cristian Beza-Bezaa,b, Dave J. Clarkea,b, Alexander Donathe, Hermes E. Escalonae,f,g, Frank Friedrichh, Harald Letschi, Shanlin Liuj, David Maddisonk, Christoph Mayere, Bernhard Misofe, Peyton J. Murina, Oliver Niehuisg, Ralph S. Petersc, Lars Podsiadlowskie, l m l,n o f l Hans Pohl , Erin D. Scully , Evgeny V. Yan , Xin Zhou , Adam Slipinski , and Rolf G. Beutel aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; bCenter for Biodiversity Research, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; cCenter for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Arthropoda Department, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; dBavarian State Collection of Zoology, Bavarian Natural History Collections, 81247 Munich, Germany; eCenter for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; fAustralian National Insect Collection, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; gDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute for Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; hInstitute of Zoology, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; iDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Wien, Wien 1030, Austria; jChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, 518083 Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; kDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Insects: a Hidden Biodiversity Crisis? 1
    Chapter 7—Terrestrial Insects: A Hidden Biodiversity Crisis? 1 Chapter 7 Terrestrial Insects: A Hidden Biodiversity Crisis? C.H. Dietrich Illinois Natural History Survey OBJECTIVES Like most other elements of the biota, the terrestrial insect fauna of Illinois has undergone drastic change since European colonization of the state. Although data are sparse or entirely lacking for most species, it is clear that many formerly abundant native species are now exceedingly rare while a few previously uncommon or undocumented species, both native and exotic, are now abundant. Much of this change may be attributable to fragmentation and loss of native habitats (e.g., deforestation, draining of wetlands, agricultural conversion and intensification, urbanization), although other factors such as invasion by exotic species (including plants, insects and pathogens), misuse of pesticides, and improper management of native ecosystems have probably also been involved. Data from Illinois and elsewhere in the north temperate zone provide evidence that at least some groups of terrestrial insects have undergone dramatic declines over the past several decades, suggesting that insects are no less vulnerable to anthropogenic environmental change than other groups of organisms Yet, insects continue to be under-represented on official lists of threatened or endangered species and conservation programs focus primarily on vertebrates and plants. This chapter summarizes available information on long-term changes in the terrestrial insect fauna of Illinois, reviews possible causes for these changes, highlights some urgent research needs, and provides recommendations for conservation and management of terrestrial insect communities. INTRODUCTION Insects are among the most important “little things that run the world” (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera) Diversity in a Patch of Costa Rican Cloud Forest: Why Inventory Is a Vital Science
    Zootaxa 4402 (1): 053–090 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2018 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4402.1.3 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C2FAF702-664B-4E21-B4AE-404F85210A12 Remarkable fly (Diptera) diversity in a patch of Costa Rican cloud forest: Why inventory is a vital science ART BORKENT1, BRIAN V. BROWN2, PETER H. ADLER3, DALTON DE SOUZA AMORIM4, KEVIN BARBER5, DANIEL BICKEL6, STEPHANIE BOUCHER7, SCOTT E. BROOKS8, JOHN BURGER9, Z.L. BURINGTON10, RENATO S. CAPELLARI11, DANIEL N.R. COSTA12, JEFFREY M. CUMMING8, GREG CURLER13, CARL W. DICK14, J.H. EPLER15, ERIC FISHER16, STEPHEN D. GAIMARI17, JON GELHAUS18, DAVID A. GRIMALDI19, JOHN HASH20, MARTIN HAUSER17, HEIKKI HIPPA21, SERGIO IBÁÑEZ- BERNAL22, MATHIAS JASCHHOF23, ELENA P. KAMENEVA24, PETER H. KERR17, VALERY KORNEYEV24, CHESLAVO A. KORYTKOWSKI†, GIAR-ANN KUNG2, GUNNAR MIKALSEN KVIFTE25, OWEN LONSDALE26, STEPHEN A. MARSHALL27, WAYNE N. MATHIS28, VERNER MICHELSEN29, STEFAN NAGLIS30, ALLEN L. NORRBOM31, STEVEN PAIERO27, THOMAS PAPE32, ALESSANDRE PEREIRA- COLAVITE33, MARC POLLET34, SABRINA ROCHEFORT7, ALESSANDRA RUNG17, JUSTIN B. RUNYON35, JADE SAVAGE36, VERA C. SILVA37, BRADLEY J. SINCLAIR38, JEFFREY H. SKEVINGTON8, JOHN O. STIREMAN III10, JOHN SWANN39, PEKKA VILKAMAA40, TERRY WHEELER††, TERRY WHITWORTH41, MARIA WONG2, D. MONTY WOOD8, NORMAN WOODLEY42, TIFFANY YAU27, THOMAS J. ZAVORTINK43 & MANUEL A. ZUMBADO44 †—deceased. Formerly with the Universidad de Panama ††—deceased. Formerly at McGill University, Canada 1. Research Associate, Royal British Columbia Museum and the American Museum of Natural History, 691-8th Ave. SE, Salmon Arm, BC, V1E 2C2, Canada. Email: [email protected] 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Declines in the Anthropocene
    EN65CH23_Wagner ARjats.cls December 19, 2019 12:24 Annual Review of Entomology Insect Declines in the Anthropocene David L. Wagner Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269, USA; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020. 65:457–80 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on insect decline, agricultural intensi!cation, climate change, drought, October 14, 2019 precipitation extremes, bees, pollinator decline, vertebrate insectivores The Annual Review of Entomology is online at ento.annualreviews.org Abstract https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019- Insect declines are being reported worldwide for "ying, ground, and aquatic 025151 lineages. Most reports come from western and northern Europe, where the Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. insect fauna is well-studied and there are considerable demographic data for All rights reserved many taxonomically disparate lineages. Additional cases of faunal losses have been noted from Asia, North America, the Arctic, the Neotropics, and else- where. While this review addresses both species loss and population declines, its emphasis is on the latter. Declines of abundant species can be especially worrisome, given that they anchor trophic interactions and shoulder many Access provided by 73.198.242.105 on 01/29/20. For personal use only. of the essential ecosystem services of their respective communities. A review of the factors believed to be responsible for observed collapses and those Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020.65:457-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org perceived to be especially threatening to insects form the core of this treat- ment. In addition to widely recognized threats to insect biodiversity, e.g., habitat destruction, agricultural intensi!cation (including pesticide use), cli- mate change, and invasive species, this assessment highlights a few less com- monly considered factors such as atmospheric nitri!cation from the burning of fossil fuels and the effects of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Conservation (831 KB PDF)
    Biological Conservation 240 (2019) 108219 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Decline in beetle abundance and diversity in an intact temperate forest linked to climate warming T Jennifer E. Harrisa, Nicholas L. Rodenhousea,*, Richard T. Holmesb a Biological Sciences, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481, United States of America b Biological Sciences, 340 Life Sciences Center, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, United States of America ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Dataset link: hubbardbrook.org Insect abundances are declining in many areas around the world, but the causes of those declines are seldom Keywords: clear. Here we report a dramatic decline in the abundance and diversity of Coleoptera (beetle) taxa in a large Climate change tract of intact northern hardwood forest during the last 45 years, and provide evidence supporting winter Coleoptera warming as the primary cause. Beetles were sampled using the same method (window traps) and in the same Forest-floor locations within the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, in 1973–1977 and again in Hubbard Brook 2015–2017. The mean ( ± SE) number of beetles captured per 48-h fell from 23.2 ( ± 3.89) to 3.9 ( ± 1.19), a Insect decline decline of 83% over this 45-year period. The number of beetle taxa captured decreased by 39%, with 19 beetle Temperate deciduous forest families disappearing entirely. Beetle capture rate was least when and where climate was warmest. Capture rate was significantly lower in the 2010s when mean daily temperature was about 1.8 °C warmer, and sampling during 2016–2017 at low, mid and high elevations (320, 540, and 810 m asl, respectively) revealed lowest beetle captures at low elevation where climate was warmest.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands
    Land 2014, 3, 693-718; doi:10.3390/land3030693 OPEN ACCESS land ISSN 2073-445X www.mdpi.com/journal/land/ Article Landscape and Local Controls of Insect Biodiversity in Conservation Grasslands: Implications for the Conservation of Ecosystem Service Providers in Agricultural Environments Thomas O. Crist 1,2,* and Valerie E. Peters 1 1 Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-513-529-6187; Fax: +1-513-529-5814. Received: 3 May 2014; in revised form: 23 June 2014 / Accepted: 30 June 2014 / Published: 14 July 2014 Abstract: The conservation of biodiversity in intensively managed agricultural landscapes depends on the amount and spatial arrangement of cultivated and natural lands. Conservation incentives that create semi-natural grasslands may increase the biodiversity of beneficial insects and their associated ecosystem services, such as pollination and the regulation of insect pests, but the effectiveness of these incentives for insect conservation are poorly known, especially in North America. We studied the variation in species richness, composition, and functional-group abundances of bees and predatory beetles in conservation grasslands surrounded by intensively managed agriculture in Southwest Ohio, USA. Characteristics of grassland patches and surrounding land-cover types were used to predict insect species richness, composition, and functional-group abundance using linear models and multivariate ordinations. Bee species richness was positively influenced by forb cover and beetle richness was positively related to grass cover; both taxa had greater richness in grasslands surrounded by larger amounts of semi-natural land cover.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Palaeoecological Record of Swedish Red-Listed Beetles
    Biological Conservation 260 (2021) 109203 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Policy analysis The European palaeoecological record of Swedish red-listed beetles Francesca Pilotto a,*, Mats Dynesius b, Geoffrey Lemdahl c, Paul C. Buckland d, Philip I. Buckland a a Environmental Archaeology Lab, Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious studies, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden b Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden c Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden d Independent Researcher, 20 Den Bank Close, Sheffield S10 5PA, UK ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Recent global changes have triggered a biodiversity crisis. However, climate fluctuationshave always influenced Coleoptera biodiversity and humans have affected species distributions since prehistoric times. Conservation palaeobiology Conservation palaeobiology is a developing field that aims to understand the long-term dynamics of such interactions by studying the geo­ Environmental archaeology historical records in a conservation perspective. Case studies exist for vertebrates and plants, but insects have Palaeoentomology largely been overlooked so far. Here, we analysed the current red-listed beetle species (Coleoptera) in Sweden Threatened species and investigated their occurrence and representation in the European Quaternary fossil record. Fossil data currently exist for one third of the Swedish red-listed beetle species. All the red-list conservation classes are represented in the fossil record, which may allow for comparative studies. We found significantly different representations in the fossil records among taxonomic groups and ecological traits, which may depend on the fossil depositional and sampling environments and variation in how difficultspecies are to identify.
    [Show full text]
  • Strepsiptera: Stylopidae)
    Zootaxa 4674 (4): 496–500 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Correspondence ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4674.4.9 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4043E258-29DC-4F3B-963E-C45D421BB7B4 Description of the Adult Male of Stylops advarians Pierce (Strepsiptera: Stylopidae) ZACHARY S. BALZER1 & ARTHUR R. DAVIS1,2 1Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 2Corresponding author. Department of Biology, CSRB Rm 320.6, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 5E2. E-mail: [email protected] The morphology of the adult male of Stylops advarians Pierce is described for the first time. This species was previously known only from the endoparasitic adult female and the host-seeking, first-instar larva. Members of Stylops are cosmo- politan, and Stylops advarians can be found parasitizing Andrena milwaukeensis Graenicher in western Canada. Key words: Andrena milwaukeensis, morphology, Stylopinae, Canada Fifteen of Canada’s 27 species of Strepsiptera belong to the Stylopidae (Straka 2019), the largest family of twisted-wing parasites comprising 163 known species in nine genera: Crawfordia Pierce, 1908; Eurystylops Bohart, 1943; Hal- ictoxenos Pierce, 1909; Hylecthrus Saunders, 1850; Jantarostylops Kulicka, 2001; Kinzelbachus Özdikmen, 2009; Melittostylops Kinzelbach, 1971; Rozeia Straka, Jůzova & Batelka, 2014; and Stylops Kirby, 1802 (Kathirithamby 2018). Members of Stylopidae parasitize bees (Hymenoptera) of four families: Andrenidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, and Melittidae (Kathirithamby 2018). Stylops is the largest genus with as many as 117 described species, and most parasitize mining bees of Andrena (Kathirithamby 2018).
    [Show full text]