Biodiversity Changes in Vegetation and Insects Following the Creation of a Wildflower Strip

Hochschule Rhein-Waal

Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences

Faculty of Communication and Environment

Biodiversity changes in vegetation and insects following the creation of a wildflower strip

A Case Study

Bachelor Thesis

Johanna Marquardt

Hochschule Rhein-Waal

Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences

Faculty of Communication and Environment

Biodiversity changes in vegetation and insects following the creation of a wildflower strip

A Case Study

A Thesis Submitted in

Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements of the Degree of

Bachelor of Science

Environment and Energy

Johanna Marquardt

Matriculation Number: 23048

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Daniela Lud

Prof. Dr. Petra Blitgen-Heinecke

Submission Date:

22.02.2021

Abstract

With the Global Climate Change, the loss of biodiversity is one of the most current and biggest crises of today and the future. The loss i.e., the decrease of biodiversity, does not only have negative effects on vegetation and animals, but also on humans. If nature is doing well, people are doing well.

In order to counteract the loss, this bachelor thesis attempts to increase plant and insect biodiversity at a specific location with insect-friendly seed mixtures and by measuring the change using comparison areas. Accordingly, the two research questions were addressed: (1) "How does plant-biodiversity change in the backyard and front yard on the seed mixture plot compared to plant-biodiversity in the backyard and front yard next to the seed mixture plot?" and (2) "How does insect-biodiversity change in the backyard and front yard on the seed mixture plot compared to insect-biodiversity in the backyard and front yard next to the seed mixture plot?"

To answer these research questions and to obtain more suitable data, a wildflower strip was established in the backyard and one in the front yard, each with an adjacent reference field, to ensure equal environmental conditions and to detect changes in flora and fauna. Plants and insects were observed and documented during the flowering period in order to determine differences in biodiversity sizes afterwards.

The comparison of the different biodiversity sizes shows that an increase in insect and plant biodiversity can be achieved by planting insect-friendly wildflower strips. As the increase of plant biodiversity also leads to the increase of insect biodiversity.

Further research in the field of biodiversity enhancement could be done by collecting more measurement points of the coefficients at additional locations to extend the data set and to improve the applied method of this bachelor thesis. Also, the recordings could be repeated over a longer time period of several years.

Keywords: Biodiversity, insect-friendly, species diversity, species richness, wildflower strip

iii

Table of Content

Abstract III List of Abbreviations VII List of Formulas VII List of Symbols VII List of Figures VIII List of Tables IX-X 1. Introduction 1 1.1 What is biodiversity? 1 1.2 The loss of biodiversity 1-2 1.3 Measuring biodiversity 3 1.4 Motivation for this bachelor thesis 3-4 1.5 Hypothesis 4 1.6 Research questions 4 2. Material and Methods 5 2.1 Practical conditions 5-6 2.2 Metadata for the wildflower strips and their reference fields 6-7 2.3 Visual documentation of plants and insects 7 2.4 Identification of flora and fauna 7-8 2.5 The counting method 8-9 2.6 Determination of α-, β- and γ-diversity 9 2.7 α-diversity indices 9 2.7.1 Species richness 9 2.7.2 Shannon-Wiener index 10 2.7.3 Evenness 10 2.8 β-diversity indices 11 2.8.1 Simple-matching coefficient 11 2.8.2 Jaccard-coefficient 11 2.8.3 Soerensen-coefficient 12 2.8.4 Bray-Curtis coefficient 12 2.9 Presentation of the biodiversity 13 2.10 Correlation between recorded plants and insects 13

3. Results 14 3.1 Observation and calculations 14 3.2 α-diversity of vegetation – Species list and species richness 14 3.2.1 Wildflower strip – Area 1 14 3.2.2 Reference Field 1 15 3.2.3 Wildflower strip – Area 2 15-16 3.2.4 Reference Field 2 16 3.2.5 Shannon – Wiener index and evenness of vegetation 16-17 3.3 β-diversity of vegetation 17-18 3.4 Visualization of the plant species-diversity 18-19 3.5 Plants origin and lifetime 20 3.5.1 Origin of the plants 20-21 3.5.2 Lifetime of the plants 21-22 3.6 Flora vegetation addition 22-23 3.7 α-diversity of recorded insects 24 3.7.1 Species list and species richness 24 3.7.2 Insect species list – wildflower strip – Area 1 24-25 3.7.3 Area 1 – species richness 25 3.7.4 Insect species list – Reference Field 1 26 3.7.5 Reference Field 1 – species richness 26 3.7.6 Insect species list – wildflower strip – Area 2 27 3.7.7 Area 2 – species richness 28 3.7.8 Insect species list – Reference Field 2 28-29 3.7.9 Reference Field 2 – species richness 29 3.7.10 Shannon-Wiener index and evenness of recorded insects 30 3.8 β-diversity of recorded insects 30-31 3.9 Visualization of the insect species-diversity 31-32 3.10 Fauna observation addition 33-34 3.11 Timing of the variety of insects recorded on the test fields 34-35 3.12 Correlation between flora and fauna 35-36

4. Discussion 37 4.1 The change of vegetation 37 4.1.1 α-diversity change of flora vegetation 37 4.1.1.1 Backyard 37 4.1.1.2 Front yard 37-38 4.1.2 β-diversity change of flora vegetation 38 4.1.3 The overall biodiversity of the vegetation 38-39 4.1.4 Negative side effects by the use of insect-friendly seed mixtures 39-40 4.1.5 Extra vegetation observation after completion of the observation phase 40 4.2 The change of fauna 41 4.2.1 α-diversity change of fauna 41 4.2.1.1 Backyard 41 4.2.1.2 Front yard 41-42 4.2.2 β-diversity change of fauna 42 4.2.3 The overall biodiversity of the recorded insects 43 4.2.4 Highlight on the insect order Hymenoptera 43-44 4.3 Correlation between plant- and insect-species 44-45 4.4 Methodology developed for this bachelor thesis 45 5. Conclusion 45-46 References 47-50 A. Appendix 51 A.1 Plant and insect catalog 51-71 A.2 Information about the origin and lifespan of plants 71-73 A.3 Recorded insects during the observation process 74-76 A.4 Calculations for flora 76-84 A.5 Calculations for fauna 84-98 A.6 Insect observation – mean value and standard deviation 99-101 Declaration of Authenticity 102

List of Abbreviations CBD = Convention on Biological Diversity BfN = Bundesamt für Naturschutz NABU = Naturschutzbund Deutschland BNatSchG = Bundesnaturschutzgesetz

List of Formulas Page eq. 2.7.1 = Species richness 9 eq. 2.7.2 = Shannon-Wiener index 10 eq. 2.7.3 = Evenness 10 eq. 2.8.1 = Simple-matching coefficient 11 eq. 2.8.2 = Jaccard-coefficient 11 eq. 2.8.3 = Soerensen-coefficient 12 eq. 2.8.4 = Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient 12 eq. 2.8.5 = Bray-Curtis dissimilarity coefficient 12 eq. 2.10.1 = Measure correlation coefficient r according to Pearson 13

List of Symbols α = alpha β = beta γ = gamma S = Species richness H’ = Shannon-Wiener index E = Evenness Sm = Simple-matching coefficient Sj = Jaccard-coefficient Ss = Soerensen-coefficient Sbc = Bray-Curtis similarity Dbc = Bray-Curtis dissimilarity r = Measure correlation coefficient n = Number of individuals M = Mean value SD = Standard deviation

vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Environmental conditions around the test area 5 Figure 2.2: Urban and industrial conditions around the test area 5 Figure 2.3: Macro photograph of the insect-friendly seed mix 6 Figure 2.4: Wildflower strip – Area 1 6 Figure 2.5: Reference Field 1 6 Figure 2.6: Wildflower strip – Area 2 7 Figure 2.7: Reference Field 2 7 Figure 3.1: Shannon-Wiener index and evenness boxplot-diagram of vegetation 17 Figure 3.2: Venn-diagram of plant species-diversity 19 Figure 3.3: Origin – Pie chart; wildflower strip – Area 1 20 Figure 3.4: Origin – Pie chart; Reference Field 1 20 Figure 3.5: Origin – Pie chart; wildflower strip – Area 2 21 Figure 3.6: Origin – Pie chart; Reference Field 2 21 Figure 3.7: Lifetime – Pie chart; wildflower strip – Area 1 21 Figure 3.8: Lifetime – Pie chart; Reference Field 1 21 Figure 3.9: Lifetime – Pie chart; wildflower strip – Area 2 22 Figure 3.10: Lifetime – Pie chart; Reference Field 2 22 Figure 3.11: Origin – Pie chart of late bloomers 23 Figure 3.12: Lifetime – Pie chart of late bloomers 23 Figure 3.13: Insect species richness boxplot-diagram of wildflower strip – Area 1 25 Figure 3.14: Insect species richness boxplot-diagram of Reference Field 1 26 Figure 3.15: Insect species richness boxplot-diagram of wildflower strip – Area 2 28 Figure 3.16: Insect species richness boxplot-diagram of Reference Field 2 29 Figure 3.17: Shannon-Wiener index & evenness boxplot-diagram of recorded insects 30 Figure 3.18: Venn-diagram of insect species-diversity 32 Figure 3.19: Recorded types of the insect family Hymenoptera 33 Figure 3.20: Counted insects of the family Hymenoptera 34 Figure 3.21: Number of recorded insects, from the three observations 35 Figure 3.22: Correlation-diagram between plant- and insect-species 36

viii

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Plant species list & species richness – wildflower strip – Area 1 14 Table 3.2: Plant species list & species richness – Reference Field 1 15 Table 3.3: Plant species list & species richness – wildflower strip – Area 2 15-16 Table 3.4: Plant species list & species richness – Reference Field 2 16 Table 3.5: β-diversity coefficients for vegetation 18 Table 3.6: Plant species list & species richness – late bloomers 22-23 Table 3.7: Insect species list – wildflower strip – Area 1 24-25 Table 3.8: Insect species list – Reference Field 1 26 Table 3.9: Insect species list – wildflower strip – Area 2 27 Table 3.10: Insect species list – Reference Field 2 29 Table 3.11: β-diversity coefficients for recorded insects 31 Table A.1.1: Plant catalog – wildflower strip – Area 1 51-54 Table A.1.2: Plant catalog – Reference Field 1 54 Table A.1.3: Plant catalog – wildflower strip – Area 2 55-59 Table A.1.4: Plant catalog – Reference Field 2 60-61 Table A.1.5: Plant catalog – late bloomers 61-66 Table A.1.6: Insect catalog including all four test fields 66-71 Table A.2.1: Origin & lifetime of the plants on the wildflower strip – Area 1 71-72 Table A.2.2: Origin & lifetime of the plants on the Reference Field 1 72 Table A.2.3: Origin & lifetime of the plants on the wildflower strip – Area 2 72 Table A.2.4: Origin & lifetime of the plants on the Reference Field 2 73 Table A.2.5: Origin & lifetime of the plants from the late bloomers 73 Table A.3.1: Recorded insects from the observations – wildflower strip – Area1 74 Table A.3.2: Recorded insects from the observations – Reference Field 1 74-75 Table A.3.3: Recorded insects from the observations – wildflower strip – Area 2 75 Table A.3.4: Recorded insects from the observations – Reference Field 2 76 Table A.4.1: Calculation H’ & E for plants on the wildflower strip – Area 1 76 Table A.4.2: Calculation H’ & E for plants on the Reference Field 1 77 Table A.4.3: Calculation H’ & E for plants on the wildflower strip – Area 2 77-78 Table A.4.4: Calculation H’ & E for plants on the Reference Field 2 78 Table A.4.5: Comparison of plant species between Area 1 & Reference Field 1 79 Table A.4.6: Comparison of plant species between Area 2 & Reference Field 2 80

Table A.4.7: Bray-Curtis comparison from Area 1 & Reference Field 1 82 Table A.4.8: Bray-Curtis comparison from Area 2 & Reference Field 2 83 Table A.5.1: Observation N°1; wildflower strip – Area 1 H’ & E calculation 84 Table A.5.2: Observation N°2; wildflower strip – Area 1 H’ & E calculation 85 Table A.5.3: Observation N°3; wildflower strip – Area 1 H’ & E calculation 86 Table A.5.4: Observation N°1; Reference Field 1 H’ & E calculation 87 Table A.5.5: Observation N°2; Reference Field 1 H’ & E calculation 87 Table A.5.6: Observation N°3; Reference Field 1 H’ & E calculation 88 Table A.5.7: Observation N°1; wildflower strip – Area 2 H’ & E calculation 89 Table A.5.8: Observation N°2; wildflower strip – Area 2 H’ & E calculation 90 Table A.5.9: Observation N°3; wildflower strip – Area 2 H’ & E calculation 91 Table A.5.10: Observation N°1; Reference Field 2 H’ & E calculation 92 Table A.5.11: Observation N°2; Reference Field 2 H’ & E calculation 92 Table A.5.12: Observation N°3; Reference Field 2 H’ & E calculation 93 Table A.5.13: Mean values & standard deviation for H’ & E insects 94 Table A.5.14: Comparison of insect species between Area 1 & Reference Field 94-95 Table A.5.15: Comparison of insect species between Area 2 & Reference Field 95-96 Table A.5.16: Bray-Curtis comparison from Area 1 & Reference Field 1 97 Table A.5.17: Bray-Curtis comparison from Area 2 & Reference Field 2 98 Table A.6.1: Mean value & standard deviation of insect observations – Area 1 99 Table A.6.2: Mean value & standard deviation of insect observations – Ref.1 100 Table A.6.3: Mean value & standard deviation of insect observations – Area 2 100 Table A.6.4: Mean value & standard deviation of insect observations – Ref.2 101

1. Introduction

1.1 What is biodiversity?

The term biodiversity, describes the extraordinary diversity of life on earth and represents, much more than just the diversity of species (Schulze et al., 2019), it is subdivided on different levels, the diversity of genes (e.g., races, varieties and subspecies), the diversity of species (e.g., species of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals) and the diversity of ecosystems (e.g., waters, rainforests) (Brasseur et al., 2012). The Convention on Biological Diversity, short CBD, defines biological diversity as follows "the variability among living organisms of all origins, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes to which they belong." With all forms of life, the human being is even meant. The form of life is interlaced in the biodiversity and dependent on it, most important ecosystem services, for the human being are the supply of the air which is breathed, the water which is naturally filtered and also the food which is won from nature. In short, biodiversity is important for present and future generations of humans, animals and nature that this quality is maintained (European Commission, 2020). Although there is no direct link between biodiversity and ecosystem services, many studies have shown that ecosystems with high biodiversity are more resilient. When species are lost, ecosystem services are also lost (Tilman et al., 1996). Thus, biodiversity must be restored and protected to ensure a well-functioning ecosystem, as the keystone for the life of all life forms on Earth (European Commission, 2020).

Up to now about 1.2 million species of organisms were described, at present with today's conditions of at present 5,487 species the mammals are best reported. Following 270,000 species of the land plants, the worst investigated, with approximately 10,000 species are the microorganisms. The best researched group is that of insects, here are recorded to date about one million species, but the actual number of the total number of species is not known, projections assume that there are up to 10 million species on earth (Beck, 2013).

1.2 The loss of biodiversity

Global climate change is a major and growing driver of biodiversity loss, i.e., the increase in global average temperature leads to changes in ecosystem functions and services and migration (CDB, 2020). Thus, not only climate change is hereby a growing concern in future years, but so is the associated negative trend in global biodiversity. This then directly or indirectly affects almost all areas of life.

Also, the loss of biodiversity is associated with negative side effects, such as the extinction of animal and plant species and the loss of subsequent heritage and species- specific characteristics (Brasseur et al., 2012). The consequence of this whole process is that it leads to a decrease in ecosystem services and overall existential importance for human well-being, such as the pollination of crops by insects. Here, the increasing expansion and intensification of agriculture is one of the main drivers largely responsible for the vegetation loss of flowering plants and, according to this, the decline of insects such as the wild bees (Scheper et al. 2014).

But there are other reasons for the loss, which are largely anthropogenic processes or are central processes such as the global increase in human population. In human history, within the last 50 years, humans have managed to change ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than ever before, mainly to meet growing demands for fresh water, food, timber, and fuel (MEA, 2015). This leads to land use change, such as growing agricultural use as well as also the use of fertilizers on agricultural land, new factory construction, and shrinking green space in urban areas, as well as the increase in alien species (Klotz et al., 2012).

As already mentioned, climate change is linked to the loss of biodiversity, this can be seen especially in the fact that due to the change of climate, here as an environmental influence, the seasons are also shifted. This means that flowering plants and insects are not active at the same time, as Hegland et al. (2009) already showed in a study. All these processes lead to greater species extinctions than via natural pathways such as geological processes (Klotz et al., 2012).

In Germany, more than 33,000 insect species are known (BfN, 2019). But there is a sharp decline in biomass and abundance in the world of insects, in a recent study Hallmann et al. (2017) demonstrated that in Germany's nature reserves, in the last 27 years, there has been a drastic decline of 76% in the average flying insect biomass.

Moreover, the agricultural sector is most dependent on insect pollination. Approximately 70% of the world's most produced crop species rely to some degree on insect pollination. Expressing this as a financial aspect, or economic value, it would correspond to about 138 € billion as a share of the world economy and about 9% of agricultural production (IVA, 2014). In addition, 60%-80% of wild plants also depend on insect pollination (IEEP, 2011).

1.3 Measuring biodiversity

Because biodiversity is complex, there are several ways to describe and measure biodiversity. Mostly indicators or coefficients are used to express the state of biodiversity. As an example, in Germany, the Bundesamt für Naturschutz, short BfN, has developed indicators to better describe biodiversity and landscape quality, as well as the state of nature and landscape, such as the increase in the quality of a habitat in which is argued with the increase of birds in this area, this simple indicator shows a positive change (BfN, 2006). Building on this, BfN, is also currently working on a method for nationwide insect monitoring.

In addition, biodiversity is divided into three different measurable levels, depending on whether biodiversity is studies within an individual site or whether different sites are studied.

Alpha-diversity (α): local diversity or also called point diversity, which reflects the species diversity in a specific habitat.

Beta-diversity (β): Diversity of differentiation between different sites.

Gamma-diversity (γ): the overall diversity that results from different sites across environmental gradients.

(Stohlgren, 2007)

From this, the quality of biodiversity can be easily determined.

1.4 Motivation for this bachelor thesis

More and more often the population is called upon to do something against the extinction of species and the loss of biodiversity. One of the simplest solutions is to plant insect- friendly flowerbeds or wildflower strips, which can now be found in city parks and gardens, especially in Germany. Seed mixtures are offered, mostly for small money in hardware stores as well as in supermarkets, the manufacturers promise a colorful flower landscape which is to attract different kinds of insects, such as butterflies, bees and bumblebees. However, there are additional aspects to consider, such as the differences between low-cost products and higher quality seeds selected from the local region, as well as the sustainability of seed mixtures that include lawn seeds.

This bachelor thesis is a case study to show the positive and negative impact, on biodiversity of planting insect-friendly wildflower strips with commercial seed mixes. The biodiversity refers to the test area. The practical part of this case study was realized in a private garden. In order to later determine whether even small changes can have an effect, as well as whether the plant and insect biodiversity changes. For this purpose, two insect-friendly wildflower strips are planted, in order to see the change, the areas next to the two wildflower strips, which are used as reference area for comparison, are not changed, they remain as they are. Flora and fauna on these four areas will be observed and documented. Subsequently, the alpha(α)-, beta(β)-, and gamma(γ)- diversity will be determined for the test fields.

Also, a correlation between plants and insects is sought, as Potts et al. (2003) had investigated in the connection between pollinators and the abundance of plants, in Israel between March-May 1999/2000. This study found that a rough relationship could be identified at a community level between plant abundance and pollinators.

Furthermore, this bachelor thesis serves as a method development for a simple recognition of the flora and fauna during the inventory, as well as to develop an efficient solution approach of the evaluation and the associated visualization.

1.5 Hypothesis

Creating wildflower strips in a private garden using a commercial insect-friendly seed mix, helps to increase insect and plant biodiversity at a specific area.

1.6 Research questions

1) Does the plant-biodiversity in the backyard and front yard on the created wildflower strip change, compared to the plant-biodiversity at the untreated area next to the wildflower strip?

2) Does the insect-biodiversity in the backyard and front yard on the created wildflower strip change in contrast to the insect-biodiversity at the untreated area next to the wildflower strip?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Practical conditions

The study test fields are located in Duisburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The site offers a garden as well as a front garden. The environmental conditions around the test area include, in close proximity, the Rhine river, an orchard with apple, pear, cherry, and walnut trees, and a naturally growing green strip with various species of wild trees (Figure 2.1). However, a more industrial and urban image is also given by the production site of the steel company Thyssen Krupp AG (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.1: Environmental conditions of the test Figure 2.2: Here the urban and industrial area towards the natural side, showing the Rhine or conditions can be seen, as well as the steel Rhine kilometer 783, a meadow orchard and a company Thyssen Krupp AG on the horizon. One natural green strip. Photo was taken in spring 2020 of the flowering strips and the corresponding (Own photograph: Marquardt, 2020) comparison area can also be seen at the bottom left of the image. Photo was taken in spring 2020 (Own photograph: Marquardt, 2020)

In March 2020, an insect-friendly flowering strip was planted in the garden and in the front garden. The seed mix used is commercially distributed as insect-friendly seed mix "Hummelschmaus" from Gartenland Ascherleben, Essen, Germany, which can be easily purchased in hardware stores (Figure 2.3). The plant stock on the two adjacent comparison areas remained untreated, in order to reach a representative result in the later process. Also, the areas were chosen so that the environmental and physical influences for insects and plants were the same; such as volume of rainwater, number of hours of sunshine, temperature, shade, humidity, etc. Since the full flowering period was not reached until summer, it was necessary to wait until June, July to start documenting the newly grown plant population of the wildflower strips. As well as the pollinators and insects, actively on the test fields, noticed and one could begin with the observation and counting of the plants and insects.

Figure 2.3: Macro photograph of the seeds of the insect-friendly seed mix "Hummelschmaus" from the company Gartenland Ascherleben from Germany, which were used for the Case Study, these were purchased at the hardware store. In the upper left of the photo a seed capsule of Linseed (Linum usitatissium L.) can be seen, next to it seeds of Common marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) and black seeds with a rough surface are Borage (Borago officinalis L.) (Own photograph: Marquardt, 2020)

2.2 Metadata for the wildflower strips and their reference fields

In total, four small test plots are observed in this case study and the population of insects and plants is documented. A wildflower strip (Figure 2.4) is planted in the garden with its comparison plot located right next to it (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.4: The insect-friendly flowering strip Figure 2.5: Backyard Reference Field, a simple located in the garden in the flowering season. This green area, here only grass grows. Here the area is 9.45m long and 0.88m wide. Photo was taken in is 5.65 m long and 0.88 m wide. Photo from late the flowering season, July 2020 (Own photograph: summer, 2020 (Own photograph: Marquardt, 2020) Marquardt, 2020)

The second insect-friendly flowering strip is planted in the front yard (Figure 2.6) and the corresponding comparison area is right next to it (Figure 2.7). In comparison to the backyard comparison area, shrubs and bushes are planted here. Thus, four different vegetations are available for later evaluation, from which the α -, β - and γ -diversity can be determined.

Figure 2.6: The insect-friendly flowering strip Figure 2.7: Reference Field of the wildflower strip located in the front garden, in the flowering season. in the front yard. Various shrubs and bushes grow Dimension is 9.00m long and 0.98m wide. Photo here. The dimensions of the area here are 5.65 m taken in July 2020 (Own photograph: Marquardt, long and 0.98 m wide. Photo taken in the flowering 2020) period, July 2020 (Own photograph: Marquardt, 2020)

2.3 Visual documentation of plants and insects

With the beginning of the flowering period, the vegetation, i.e., each individual plant, and furthermore the individual insects on the test fields are documented with photos. In order to keep an exact overview, each plant and each insect is photographed. For this step an SLR camera, Canon EOS 70D, equipped with a Canon-EF-S 60mm F 2.8 Macro USM lens is used. The collected data is divided into tables for each of the four areas using the software, Microsoft Excel. All tables and graphs in this case study are included in the appendix (A.1).

2.4 Identification of flora and fauna

To complete the step of visual recording, the collected photos of the various insect and plant species are read into applications, in short apps, on the smartphone, and the identified species are also counter-checked analogously with various books.

The different plant species are evaluated with the app "Flora Incognita". This is an app technology that can automatically identify more than 4,800 plant species with a focus on Central European flora (Flora Incognita, 2020), this was developed by the Technical

University of Ilmenau and the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry. Also, the app offers a very simple, fast and accurate capture process. As well as here the created backup of the photos is used, also the smartphone camera can be used for identification, in this case, a Samsung Galaxy S10 with a telephoto camera 12MP PDAF, F2.4, OIS, thus a plant can be recognized within one second. In addition, the name of the plant, images for comparison and information about the characteristics are displayed on the smartphone screen.

Another application with almost the same technology is even used to evaluate and detect the different insect species. With the "Picture Insect" app, which was developed in Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People`s Republic of China, by the company Next Vision Limited and offers the same functions as "Flora Incognita".

In order to check the plant and insect species that have been identified digitally via the applications, the respective identification is researched again in analog form. The following books formed the basis for this: “Was blüht denn da? The encyclopedia” of the book publishing house KOSMOS for plants and for the determination of the insects: “KOSMOS Nature Guide: Bees, Wasps – Ants” and the “Kosmos Insect Guide”, also from the KOSMOS publishing house.

2.5 The counting method

As already mentioned, all individual plants on the four different test fields are documented in the flowering period. In addition, every single plant is counted in order to be able to calculate different biodiversity coefficients and sizes later on.

To record the insects, the counting method of the Naturschutzbund Deutschland, NABU for short, is used. In Germany, the insect summer takes place every year in summer, here voluntary citizens, Germany-wide count the insect population in gardens and / or in nature (parks, forests, fields, etc.) for one hour. This recorded information is then sent to NABU. Afterwards they are digitally evaluated and they show online, how many insects of each species are to found in Germany (NABU, 2020). To obtain representative measurements of insects for this Case Study, each of the four test fields will be observed for one hour and on three different days. The photos will then be used to determine the insect species in each case. The number of insects of each species on each field will also be counted. During the later evaluation, the mean value and the standard deviation of the insect frequency can be determined from the three observations. From this data set as well as the collected photo data set a digital flora & fauna catalog can be created, which also contains additional information, such as whether a plant species is native to

Germany or not, this information is researched via the website of FloraWeb, an online platform of the BfN.

2.6 Determination of α-, β- and γ-diversity

In order to determine whether and how the biodiversity on the test fields changes, all three types of biodiversity are taken into account. The alpha biodiversity for each individual field, the beta biodiversity for the difference in biodiversity between the present test fields and the gamma biodiversity, which refers to the species present in relation to the case study, i.e., the total species pool recorded during the practical part. It should also be noted that the measure of variety of species is species richness, which refers to the number of species present in a given area or sample, and species diversity is expressed as the ratio between the number of species and individuals (Spellerberg & Fedor, 2003).

2.7 α-diversity indices

2.7.1 Species richness

According to Whittaker (1972), the central term species richness, in a narrow sense, refers to the variety of species, which is a distribution of abundance based on the number of species, such as the number of plants or insects in a specific area. S, is the abbreviation for species richness. Also, this is the simplest representational measure of biodiversity. Furthermore, it does not say anything about the diversity of the populations of the particular species present in the different test fields, for this the β-diversity will be added later.

푛푖 푆 = ∗ 100 푁

(eq. 2.7.1)

S = Relative proportion of species i in percentage

N = Sum of the importance values of all species ni = Importance value of species i

2.7.2 Shannon-Wiener index

The aim of this function is to measure the degree of disorder and order of a system, order characteristics that are most important are the number of species and the number of individuals of each species (Tremp, 2005). The Shannon-Wiener index is represented as H', abbreviated. Since random sampling is assumed, the real meaning of the diversity index H', is the uncertainty of finding a particular species. A high diversity is given with a Shannon-Wiener value of more than 2.0, a low one with a value below 1.5 (Dierschke, 1995).

푆 푛푖 퐻′ = − ∑ 푝푖 퐼푛 푝푖 푝푖 = 푁 푖=1

H’ = Diversity Index (eq. 2.7.2)

S = Total number of species

N = Sum of the importance values of all species ni = Importance value of species i pi = Relative proportion of species i between 0 and 1

2.7.3 Evenness

However, since the H' index alone is not meaningful enough to express the evenness of species distribution, the diversity value (H') is set to the individual diversity maximum to calculate the evenness, which is abbreviated as E. Here, maximum diversity exists when, from the total species pool, all species are in the same quantitative ratio, Hmax is the natural logarithm of S (Tremp, 2005). Evenness can range between the values 0, total unequal distribution of individuals among species and 1, total equal distribution. Thus, evenness describes the uniformity of documented plant and insect individuals.

퐻′ 퐸 = 퐻푚푎푥 = 퐼푛 푆 퐻푚푎푥

(eq. 2.7.3)

E = Evenness

H' = Shannon-Wiener diversity index

Hmax = Individual diversity maximum

S = Total number of species

In = Natural logarithm

2.8 β-diversity indices

2.8.1 Simple-matching coefficient

The simple-matching coefficient, abbreviated Sm, is a statistic used to make a comparison of the diversity and similarity of two or more habitats discernible (Leyer & Wesche, 2007). The Sm-coefficient varies between the values 0, not at all similar and 1, completely similar. (With the multiplication of 100, this can also be expressed as a percentage).

푎 + 푑 푎 + 푑 푆푚 = 표푟 푆푚 = 푎 + 푏 + 푐 + 푑 푝

(eq. 2.8.1) a = Species which were founded in both areas b = Species found in one area only c = Species found in the other area d = Species missing in both areas p = Total found species pool

2.8.2 Jaccard-coefficient

Since the result of the Sm-coefficient depends strongly on the number of species in the total data set, the Jaccard-coefficient, abbreviated Sj here, ignores the variable d, i.e., the species not recorded in both fields. Thus, the Sj-coefficient is asymmetric and therefore essential for ecology, because multivariate data sets usually contain many zeros and therefore species are often missing in two habitats, also known as the double- zero problem (Leyer & Wesche, 2007).

푎 푆푗 = 푎 + 푏 + 푐

(eq. 2.8.2)

2.8.3 Soerensen-coefficient

Even simpler and most used is the Soerensen-coefficient. Here it is sufficient to know the total number of species and the common species of the two areas under investigation. The Soerensen-coefficient is abbreviated as Ss and gives results between 0 and 1, therefore here the numerator is multiplied by 2. Compared to the Sm-coefficient, in the Ss, a is more valued than b and c. From the ecological point of view it means that if a species is present in the habitat it can survive there, if a species is not present it does not mean that it is not present or cannot exist under the conditions prevailing there, it simply means that this species has not yet managed to colonize this area (Leyer & Wesche, 2007). For later, mainly visual, analysis of the case study data, as a Venn- diagram, the Soerensen-coefficient provides a simple description between two sites.

2푎 2푎 푆푠 = = 푎 + 푏 + 푎 + 푐 2푎 + 푏 + 푐

(eq. 2.8.3)

2.8.4 Bray-Curtis coefficient

Since the Jaccard-coefficient as well as the Soerensen-coefficient are binary and qualitative measures, a quantitative version was described by Bray & Curtis (1957), the so-called Bray-Curtis similarity-coefficient, abbreviated as Sbc. The similarity of flora and fauna between two different sites can be determined, the range of values is between 0, dissimilar and 1, similar. In addition, the Bray-Curtis-dissimilarity, abbreviated as Dbc, can be determined from the similarity, Sbc (Leyer & Wesche, 2007).

2푤 푆푏푐 = 퐵 + 퐶

(eq. 2.8.4)

B = Sum of abundances of all Species in area 1

C = Sum of abundances of all Species in area 2 w = Sum of the lowest abundance values of a species in both areas

The dissimilarity is obtained by subtracting the determined similarity of the two different sites from the value 1 (Leyer & Wesche, 2007).

퐷푏푐1,2 = 1 − 푆푏푐1,2

(eq. 2.8.5)

2.9 Presentation of the biodiversity

In order to get a final result of this case study, whether the biodiversity of plants and insects on the four different vegetations of the test fields is changing, the collected data will be presented in tables and bar charts. In order to obtain statistics on the alpha-, beta- and gamma-diversity of plants and insects, a Venn-diagram representing the biodiversity of the four different vegetations is created. This type of representation was inspired by, Sistla et al. (2016) who calculated in the study "Agroforestry Practices Promote Biodiversity and Natural Resource Diversity in Atlantic Nicaragua" the number of morphospecies that overlap in different land use types, or as also done by Rezác et al. (2015) with the study "Red List of Czech Spiders" which compared the spiders that are on the Red List in different countries through a four-layer Venn-diagram to get an overview of which species are threatened with extinction in all countries studied.

2.10 Correlation between recorded plants and insects

To determine whether the number of plant species has an effect on the number of insect species, the two measurement points, plants and insects, are plotted against each other as measurement points in a diagram to see whether there is a correlation. To determine the strength of the correlation, Pearson's measure correlation coefficient r is applied (Leyer & Wesche, 2007).

푛 (푥 − 푥̅)(푦 − 푦̅) 푟 = ∑ 푖 푖 푖=1 푛 2 푛 √∑푖=1(푥푖 − 푥̅) ∑푖=1(푦푖 − 푦̅)²

(eq. 2.10.1) xi and yi = Values of the variables X and Y i and n = Denotes the number of objects

푥̅ and 푦̅ = Arithmetic mean, formed over all n objects

3. Results

3.1 Observations and calculations

This chapter is divided as follows, first the results of the vegetation are listed, then the results of the insect observations follow. To compare the two measurement parameters, at the end of the chapter, a correlation between the vegetation and insect alpha measurement points, pursue.

3.2 α-diversity of Vegetation – Species list and species richness 3.2.1 Wildflower strip – Area 1

On the insect-friendly wildflower strip - Area 1 in the backyard, a total of 143 plants of 19 different species have grown up. Wild carrot (Daucus carota L.) is the most abundant plant, a total of 78 individuals of this species were counted, which is 54.55% in percentage (Table 3.1). The plant species Elm-leaf spiraea (Spiraea chamaedryfolia L.), Hibiscus syriacus, Narrow-leaf spirea (Spiraea alba Du Roi) and Old-fashioned weigela (Weigela florida) were already present on the plot, but are even included.

Table 3.1: Plant species list of insect-friendly wildflower strip of backyard Area 1. Plant species richness is given in percentage of each plant species. 19 different plant species were found, for a total of 143 recorded. Those plants marked with * were already present before. Plants were counted on 6th July 2020

Number of Species Plant name Lat. name individuals richness [%] Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum L. 1 0.70 Common corncockle Agrostemma githago L. 1 0.70 Elm-leaf spiraea* Spiraea chamaedryfolia L. 1 0.70 Epilobium roseum Epilobium roseum L. 1 0.70 Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Mill. 2 1.40 Four-leaf sorrel Oxalis tetraphylla Cav. 3 2.10 Garden cosmos Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. 2 1.40 Garden cress Lepidium sativum L. 2 1.40 Green crepis Crepis capillaris L. 11 7.69 Headache Papaver rhoeas L. 2 1.40 Heal-all Prunella vulgaris L. 10 6.99 Hibiscus syriacus* Hibiscus syriacus L. 1 0.70 Long-headed poppy Papaver dubium L. 3 2.10 Love-in-a-mist Nigella damascena L. 9 6.29 Musk mallow Malva moschata L. 1 0.70 Narrow-leaf spirea* Spiraea alba Du Roi 1 0.70 Old-fashioned weigela* Weigela florida 2 1.40 White clover Trifolium repens L. 12 8.38 Wild carrot Daucus carota L. 78 54.55

3.2.2 Reference Field 1

In contrast to wildflower strip – Area 1, the comparison area is only covered with German ryegrass (Lolium perenne) (Table 3.2). Since there is only one plant or lawn species, it is counted as one and not each individual blade of grass as a separate species, since it is the species diversity that is important for this study.

Table 3.2: Plant species list for the unworked comparison plot, Reference Field 1. Species richness is given as a percentage. Total number of species is 1. Plants were counted on 6 July 2020

Number of Species Plant name Lat. name individuals richness [%] German ryegrass Lolium perenne 1 100

3.2.3 Wildflower strip – Area 2

On the second insect-friendly wildflower strip - Area 2, which had been established in the front yard, a total of 841 individual plants from 28 different species were counted. Common corncockle (Agrostemma githago L.) was the most abundant plant species with 68.4%, and a total of 575 individuals of this plant were recorded (Table 3.3). Butterfly- bush (Buddleja davidii Franch) was not in the seed mix but was planted previously also the Ivy (Hedera helix L.) that covers the back fence has been present for years. Again, as in the wildflower strip - Area 1, this plant stand is included in the calculations.

Table 3.3: Plant species list of insect-friendly wildflower strip of front yard - Area 2. Plant species richness is given in percentage of each plant species. 28 different plant species were found, with a total of 841 recorded. Those plants marked with * were already present before. Plants were counted on 6th July 2020

Number of Species Plant name Lat. name individuals richness [%] Beerseem clover Trifolium alexandrinum L. 4 0.48 Borage Borago officinalis L. 14 1.67 Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum L. 4 0.48 Bugle vine Calystegia sepium agg. 17 2.02 Butterfly-bush* Buddleja davidii Franch. 7 0.83 Canadian horseweed Erigeron canadensis L. 4 0.48 Common buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum Moench 19 2.26 Common corncockle Agrostemma githago L. 575 68.37 Common marigold Calendula officinalis L. 48 5.71 Common nettle Urtica dioica L. 8 0.95 Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus L. 2 0.24 Common sunflower Helianthus annuus L. 3 0.36 Cornflower Centaurea cyanus L. 41 4.88 Crimson clover Trifolium incarnatum L. 6 0.71 Dandelion Taraxacum sect. Runderalia 17 2.02 Dog-fennel Anthemis arvensis L. 9 1.07 Duscle Solanum nigrum L. 3 0.36 Dwarf Checkerbloom Sidalcea malviflora 3 0.36 Eared willow Salix aurita L. 14 1.67

Euphorbia Euphorbia peplus agg. 10 1.19 Garden cosmos Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. 2 0.24 Garden tickseed Coreopis tinctoria 7 0.83 Geranium Geranium robertianum L. 1 0.12 Headache Papaver rhoeas L. 3 0.36 Ivy* Hedera helix L. 9 1.07 Linseed Linum usitatissimum L. 4 0.48 Love-in-a-mist Nigella damascena L. 5 0.60 Parsnip Pastinaca sativa L. 2 0.24

3.2.4 Reference Field 2

The front yard Reference Field 2, consists of 8 different plant species, 16 plants were recorded in total. Ivy (Hedera helix L.) is the most represented with 31.3% (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Plant species list for the unworked comparison plot, Reference Field 2 in the front yard. Species richness is given as a percentage. The total number of species is 8; a total of 16 plants were recorded. Plants were counted on 6 July 2020

Number of Species Plant name Lat. name individuals richness [%] Bearberry cotoneaster Cotoneaster dammeri Schneid. 2 12.5 Bramble Rubus caesius x idaeus 1 6.25 Common hop Humulus lupulus L. 1 6.25 Common lilac Syringa vulgaris L. 2 12.5 Common nettle Urtica dioica L. 2 12.5 Hibiscus syriacus Hibiscus syriacus L. 1 6.25 Ivy Hedera helix L. 5 31.25 Lemon balm Melissa officinalis L. 2 12.5

3.2.5 Shannon-Wiener index and evenness of vegetation

The Shannon-Wiener index as well as the evenness for the backyard Reference Field 1, is equal to 0. The Reference Field 2 in the front yard has the highest values with H' = 1.92 and E = 0.92. Followed by the wildflower strip in Area 1, in the backyard. Here a H' value of 1.80 was determined, also the E with 0.61 is on a high level. For the wildflower strip in Area 2, the H' & E value is a bit lower (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Shannon-Wiener index [H'] and evenness [E] of the vegetation of all four test fields. On the left y-axis the Shannon-Wiener index is given, in the diagram it has the color blue. On the right y-axis is the evenness, as yellow visualized in the diagram

3.3 β-diversity of vegetation

For β-diversity, in this section, the adjacent fields, wildflower strip – Area 1 with Reference Field 1 and wildflower strip – Area 2 with Reference Field 2, are compared to each other to make a statement about how the vegetations on the test fields are similar.

The calculations for the individual β-diversity coefficients can be found in the Appendix (A.4).

For the backyard test fields the following values are available; Sm is 0.71, Sj is 0.5 and the Ss is 0.67. Wildflower strip – Area 1 and Reference Field 1 have an Sbc value of 0 and a Dbc value of 1. The calculated values for wildflower strip – Area 2 and Reference Field 2 are for Sm = 0.59, Sj = 0.49 and Ss = 0.65. Here the Sbc with 0.02 and Dbc with 0.98, provide almost the same values as those in the backyard (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5: All determined β-diversity coefficients are listed here. In the Backyard-column, the wildflower strip - Area 1 is compared with the Reference Field 1 from the backyard. The Front yard-column represents the wildflower strip - Area 2 and its Reference Field 2 from the front yard

Coefficient Backyard Front yard Simple-Matching Coefficient [Sm] 0.71 0.59 Jaccard-Coefficient [Sj] 0.5 0.49 Sorensen-Coefficient [Ss] 0.67 0.65 Bray-Curtis Similarity [Sbc] 0 0.02 Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity [Dbc] 1 0.98

3.4 Visualization of the plant species-diversity

The Venn-diagram (Figure 3.2), which was specially developed for the case study, shows the total plant species population of all four test fields investigated. In this case, the γ- diversity are 48 different plant species. Each of the four test fields is compared to one, two or three plots, so the simplicity of the Venn-diagram structure makes it easy to see in which plots the same plant species were found. This similarity reflects the β-diversity and is here 0 for the overlap of all four fields (Figure 3.2). Thus, no plant species is found on every field.

Individually occurring on the wildflower strip - Area 1 are, Elm-leaf spiraea (Spiraea chamaedryfolia L.), Epilobium roseum L., Fennel (Foeniculum vulagre Mill.), Four-leaf sorrel (Oxalis tetraphylla Cav.), Garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.), Green crepis (Crepis capillaris L.), Heal-all (Prunella vulgaris L.), Long-headed poppy (Papaver dubium L.), Musk mallow (Malva moschata L.), Narrow-leaf spirea (Spiraea alba Du Roi), Old-fashioned weigela (Weigela florida), White clover (Trifolium repens L.) and Wild carrot (Daucus carota L.).

Occurring singly on Reference Field 1 is the German ryegrass (Lolium perenne).

On the wildflower strip - Area 2 occur Beerseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.), Borage (Borago officinalis L.), Bugle vine (Calystegia sepium agg.), Butterfly-bush (Buddleja davidii Franch.), Canadian horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.), Common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench), Common marigold (Calendula officinalis L.), Common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus L.), Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), Cornflower (Centaurea cyanus L.), Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) , Dandelion (Taraxacum sect. Runderalia), Dog-fennel (Anthemis arvensis L.), Duscle (Solanum nigrum L.), Dwarf Checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora), Eared willow (Salix aurita L.), Euphorbia (Euphorbia peplus agg.), Garden tickseed (Coreopis tinctoria), Geranium (Geranium robertianum L.), Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) and Parsnip (Pastinaca sativa L.) individually.

Bearberry cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri Schneid.), Bramble (Rubus caesius x idaeus), Common hop (Humulus lupulus L.), Common liliac (Syringa vulgaris L.) and Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.) are the plants that were found only on Reference Field 2.

Below are listed the same plants stocks of the test fields.

The two wildflower strips together have five different species that are the same on both test fields: Broad-leaved willowherb (Epilobium montanum L.), Common corncockle (Agrostemma githago L.), Garden cosmos (Cosmos bipinnatus Cav.), Headache (Papaver rhoeas L.) and Love-in-a-mist (Nigella damascena L.).

Hibiscus syriacus L. can be found on the wildflower strip - Area 1 and Reference Field 2.

The wildflower strip - Area 2 and their Reference Field 2 both have Ivy (Hedera helix L.) and Common nettle (Urtica dioica L.) as a plant species in their inventory.

The other overlaps of the test fields, show no other similarities between the plant species.

Figure 3.2: Venn-diagram showing the distribution of the plant species diversity. All four test fields are shown and each overlap the other test fields. The α-diversity of each field is symbolized with α. The similarity of the flora vegetation, β-diversity as similarity, can be seen in the overlaps. The values marked with * are the plant species that were only found on the respective test field. The γ-diversity is here n=48

3.5 Plants origin and lifetime

In order to better classify the plant population into native and non-native species for Germany, information on the origin was collected in addition to the plant names. As well as that also a statement is to be made whether the plant existence is long-lived or short- lived this information is to be found in a detailed table in the appendix (A.2).

3.5.1 Origin of the plants

On the wildflower strip - Area 1, of the 19 different plant species, almost the half were native plants with 53% (10 plant species) and the other half (9 plant species), were non- native with 47% (Figure 3.3). Reference Field 1 is 100% native (Figure 3.4). The wildflower strip - Area 2, has the following distribution, out of 28 different plant species 54% (15 plant species), were native and 46% (13 plant species), were non-native (Figure 3.5). Out of 8 plant species only 37% (3 plant species), were native. The other 63% (5 plant species) were not native (Figure 3.6).

Non- Native Native 47% 53%

Native 100%

Figure 3.3: Pie chart for the origin of the plants on Figure 3.4: Pie chart for the origin of the plants on the wildflower strip - Area 1. Native is reflected with the Reference Field 1. Native is reflected with the the color green and red stands for non-native color green and red stands for non-native

Non- Native 37% Native Native Non- 46% 54% Native 63%

Figure 3.5: Pie chart for the origin of the plants on Figure 3.6: Pie chart for the origin of the plants on the wildflower strip - Area 2. Native is reflected with the Reference Field 2. Native is reflected with the the color green and red stands for non-native. color green and red stands for non-native.

3.5.2 Lifetime of the plants

On the wildflower strip - Area 1, 53% (10 plant species) of the plants were long-lived and 47% (9 plant species) were short-lived (Figure 3.7). 100% long-lived is the turf on the associated Reference Field 1 (Figure 3.8). The wildflower strip - Area 2, has a 75% (21 plant species) short-lived stand and only 25% (7 plant species) were long-lived (Figure 3.9). Again, the Reference Field were 100% long-lived (Figure 3.10).

Short- Long- Lived Lived 47% 53% Long- Lived 100%

Figure 3.7: Pie chart showing the percentage of Figure 3.8: Pie chart showing the percentage of lifetime of the plant population, wildflower strip - lifetime of the plant population, Reference Field 1. Area1. Short-lived is represented in the color Long-lived is represented in the color blue orange and long-lived as blue

Long- Lived 25%

Short- Lived Long- 75% Lived 100%

Figure 3.9: Pie chart showing the percentage of Figure 3.10: Pie chart showing the percentage of lifetime of the plant population, wildflower strip - lifetime of the plant population, Reference Field 2. Area2. Short-lived is represented in the color Long-lived is represented in the color blue orange and long-lived as blue

3.6 Flora vegetation addition

On the 1st November 2020, the actual work for the documentation of the case study was already finished, but since the autumn was mild in Germany, a few plants have grown on the backyard wildflower strip - Area 1. These were not included in the main calculations, but serve as a support for the discussion. Here a total of 107 plants of 27 plant species bloomed again in the fall. Again, the documentation with corresponding photos can be found in the appendix (A.1). Common marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) is the most common plant species, with in total 29 individuals (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6: Plant species with species richness that regrew in the backyard wildflower strip - Area 1, in the fall, after the case study documentation was completed. Plants were counted on November 1st, 2020

Number of Species Plant name Lat. name individuals richness [%] Autumn dandelion Scorzoneroides autumnalis L. 3 2.80 Bee-bums Impatiens glandulifera Royle 1 0.93 Borage Borago officinalis L. 4 3.74 broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum L. 1 0.93 Colewort Geum urbanum L. 1 0.93 Common corncockle Agrostemma githago L. 3 2.80 Common fleabane Erigeron annuus L. 2 1.87 Common marigold Calendula officinalis L. 29 27.10 Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus L. 5 4.67 Cornflower Centaurea cyanus L. 1 0.93 Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens L. 1 0.93 Culver`s Root Veronicastrum virginicum L. 1 0.93 Dandelion Taraxacum sect. Runderalia 8 7.48

Euphorbia Euphorbia peplus agg. 3 2.80 European ash Fraxinus excelsior cv. 1 0.93 Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Mill. 1 0.93 Garden cosmos Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. 1 0.93 Heal-all Prunella vulgaris L. 7 6.54 Musk mallow Malva moschata L. 1 0.93 Nasturtium Tropaeolum majus L. 2 1.87 Purple archangel Lamium purpureum L. 2 1.87 Radiant hollow seed Bifora radians M.Bieb. 6 5.61 Small-flowered mallow Malva parviflora L. 1 0.93 Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. 3 2.80 Sweet alison Lobularia maritima L. 1 0.93 Wall lettuce Lactuca muralis L. 6 5.61 Wild carrot Daucus carota L. 12 11.22

Even for this can be once again the origin and the lifetime visualized. From the 27 different plant species, 59% (16 plant species) of the plants were native to Germany and the other 41% (11 plant species) of the plants were accordingly not native (Figure 3.11). Also here prevails that the plants with 67% (9 plant species) were short-lived and only 33% (18 plant species) long-lived (Figure 3.12).

Long- Non- Lived Native 33% 41% Native Short- 59% Lived 67%

Figure 3.11: Pie chart for the origin of the plants on Figure 3.12: Pie chart showing the percentage of the wildflower strip - Area 1. Native is reflected with lifetime of the plant population, wildflower strip - the color green and red stands for non-native Area 1. Short-lived is represented in the color orange and long-lived as blue

3.7 α-diversity of recorded Insects

3.7.1 Species list and species richness

This part of the case study can be found in detail in the appendix (A.1), such as the individual insect observations or insect catalog with the photos of the individual species. In order to simplify the reading, flow a bit, the counted insects of the three observations have been included as a total number in the species list. In contrast to the species richness of the vegetation, it is presented in this part as graphs, using the mean value error bars reflects the standard deviation, here are even the detailed tables to be found in the appendix (A.6). Also, the species richness is not subdivided into the individual species, but into the identified insect families, since some species are not easy to distinguish.

3.7.2 Insect species list – wildflower strip – Area 1

On the prepared insect-friendly wildflower strip 31 different insect species were counted over the timespan from three observations. A total of 232 insects were counted from 20 different insect families (Table 3.7). The most frequently encountered species was the Crazy ant (Paratrechina longicornis), which was recorded 38 times.

Table 3.7: Backyard wildflower strip - Area 1; Insect species list. The recorded number, is the total number of insects recorded from the three observations. Observations have taken place on 11.07.-, 08.08.- and 05.09.2020 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., respectively

Recorded Insect name Lat. name Family number 14-spotted ladybug Propylea quatuordecimpunctata Coccinellidae 2 Cabbage white butterfly Pieris brassicae Pieridae 2 Common brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni Pieridae 2 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum Apidae 9 Common greenbottle Lucilia caesar Calliphoridae 20 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis Formicidae 38 Eastern honey bee Apis cerana Apidae 18 European earwig Forficula auricularia Forficulidae 1 European wasp Vespula vulgaris Vespidae 9 Flat bark bettle Cucujus clavipes Cucujidae 6 Garden bumblebbe Bombus hortorum Apidae 4 Garden grass-veneer Chrysoteuchia culmella Crambidae 1 German wasp Vespula germanica Vespidae 19 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata Calliphoridae 7 Green stink bug Nezara viridula Pentatomidae 4 Grove hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae 8 Mexican cactus fly Copestylum mexicanum Syrphidae 9 Plant bug Closterocoris amoenus Miridae 2 Red mason bee Osmia bicornis Megachilidae 1

Sandhills hornet Dolichovespula arenaria Vespidae 7 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata Coccinellidae 10 Small milkweed bug Lygaeus kalmii Lygaeidae 13 Spilostethus saxstilis Spilostethus saxatilis Lygaeidae 9 Spring mining bee Colletes cunicularius Colletidae 7 Stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans Muscidae 6 Sweat bee Halictus rubicundus Halictidae 5 Tanbark borer Phymatodes testaceus Cerambycidae 3 Thread-waisted wasp Ammophila procera Sphecidae 1 Western honey bee Apis mellifera Apidae 4 White-tailed bumblebee Bombus lucorum Apidae 4 Winter moth Operophtera brumata Geometridae 1

3.7.3 Area 1 – species richness

On the wildflower strip - Area 1, a total of 20 different insect families were found. The top three insect families found were Apidae (n= 39, M= 16.54%, SD= 2.24%), followed by Formicidae (n= 38, M= 16.69%, SD = 1.54%) and the Vespidae Family (n= 35, M= 16.36%, SD= 6.03%) (Figure 3.13).

Vespidae 16.36% Syrphidae 7.11% Sphecidae 0.33% Pieridae 1.74% Pentatomidae 1.41% Muscidae 2.29% Miridae 1.00% Megachilidae 0.33% Lygaediae 9.07% Halictidae 2.15% Geometridae 0.33%

Formicidae 16.69% Insect FamiliesInsect Forficulidae 0.33% Cucujidae 2.22% Crambidae 0.41% Colletidae 2.67% Coccinellidae 6.15% Cerambycidae 1.07% Calliphoridae 11.81% Apidae 16.54% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent share of the number of total species [%]

Figure 3.13: Backyard wildflower strip - Area 1; Species richness bar chart diagram, measured by the insect families found. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean of the three observations in percentage

3.7.4 Insect species list – Reference Field 1

10 different insect species were found, within the three observations, at backyard Reference Field 1. A total of 63 insects were recorded in three observations. Seven-spot ladybug (Coccinella septempunctata) was the most seen here (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8: Backyard Reference Field 1; insect species list. The recorded number, is the total number of insect population that emerged from the three observations. Observations have taken place on 11.07.-, 08.08.- and 05.09.2020 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., respectively

Recorded Insect name Lat. name Family number Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum Apidae 1 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis Formicidae 17 European wasp Vespula vulgaris Vespidae 2 Flat bark bettle Cucujus clavipes Cucujidae 3 Garden bumblebee Bombus hortorum Apidae 2 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata Calliphoridae 5 Lasius niger Lasius niger Formicidae 2 Little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata Formicidae 22 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata Coccinellidae 3 True bug Calocoris nemoralis Miridae 6

3.7.5 Reference Field 1 – species richness

Adjacent to Reference Field 1, the Formicidae family (n= 41, M= 65.23%, SD= 9.5%), Miridae family (n= 6, M= 9.33%, SD= 4.20%), and Calliphoridae family (n= 5, M= 8.06%, SD= 3.12%) were the most detectable insect families, from 7 different ones (Figure 3.14).

Vespidae 3.03%

Miridae 9.33%

Formicidae 65.23%

Cucujidae 4.78%

Insect FamiliesInsect Coccinellidae 5.03%

Calliphoridae 8.06%

Apidae 4.55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent share of the number of total species [%] Figure 3.14: Backyard Reference Field 1; Species richness bar chart diagram, measured by the insect families found. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean of the three observations in percentage

3.7.6 Insect species list – wildflower strip – Area 2

In the other, insect-friendly wildflower strip - Area 2 in the front garden, the insect species Ragweed leaf beetle (Ophraella communa) was the most abundant here with the total number of 60 counted specimens. A total of 29 different insect species were recorded, in total 325 insects were documented (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9: Front yard wildflower strip - Area 2; insect species list. The recorded number, is the total number of insects recorded from the three observations, which have taken place on 12.07.-., 09.08.- and 06.09.2020 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., respectively

Recorded Insect name Lat. name Family number American hoverfly Eupeodes corollae Syrphidae 2 Bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiphum padi Aphididae 60 Brachymyrmex patagonicus Brachymyrmex patagonicus Formicidae 3 Cherry ermine Yponomeuta padella Yponomeutidae 1 Cinnamon bug Corizus hyoscyami Rhopalidae 3 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum Apidae 10 Common greenbottle Lucilia caesar Calliphoridae 12 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis Formicidae 31 Diplazon laetatorius Diplazon laetatorius Ichneumonidae 3 Eastern honey bee Apis cerana Apidae 13 European wasp Vespula vulgaris Vespidae 6 Fatal metalmark Calephelis nemesis Riodinidae 2 Garden bumblebee Bombus hortorum Apidae 7 Geomyza tripunctata Geomyza tripunctata Opomyzidae 1 German wasp Vespula germanica Vespidae 15 Great black wasp Sphex pensylvanicus Sphecidae 3 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata Calliphoridae 15 Grove hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae 9 Platystomos albinus Platystomos albinus Anthribidae 3 Ragweed leaf beetle Ophraella communa Chrysomelidae 60 Red-shouldered stink bug Thyanta custator Pentatomidae 2 Robber flies Choerades fimbriata Asilidae 1 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata Coccinellidae 9 Smokybrown cockroach Periplaneta fuliginosa Blattidae 3 Spilostethus saxatilis Spilostethus saxatilis Lygaeidae 3 Sweat bee Halictus confusus Halictidae 3 True bugs Calocoris nemoralis Miridae 38 Western honey bee Apis mellifera Apidae 5 White-tailed bumblebee Bombus lucorum Apidae 2

3.7.7 Area 2 – species richness

The insect families, Aphididae (n= 60, M= 18.62%, SD= 2.15%), Chrosomelidae (n= 60, M=18.62%, SD= 2.15%), Miridae (n= 38, M= 11.36%, SD= 5.87%) and closely followed by Apidae (n= 37, M= 11.32%, SD= 1.21%), were recorded the most, in the observations of wildflower strip - Area 2 (Figure 3.15). A total of 21 different insect families were found.

Yponomeutidae 0.28% Vespidae 6.53% Syrphidae 3.31% Sphecidae 0.95% Riodinidae 0.63% Rhopalidae 0.99% Pentatomidae 0.58% Opomyzidae 0.28% Miridae 11.36% Lygaeidae 0.86% Ichneumonidae 0.92% Halictidae 0.86% Formicidae 10.70% Coccinellidae 2.78% Insect FamiliesInsect Chrysomelidae 18.62% Calliphoridae 8.35% Blattidae 0.86% Asilidae 0.30% Apidae 11.32% Aphididae 18.62% Anthribidae 0.92% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent share of the number of total species [%]

Figure 3.15: Front yard wildflower strip - Area 2; Species richness bar chart diagram, measured by the insect families found. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean of the three observations

3.7.8 Insect species list – Reference Field 2

The Ragweed leaf beetle (Ophraella communa) was found most frequently, over three observations at front yard Reference Field 2, followed by the Crazy ant (Paratrechina longicornis) (Table 3.10). 197 insects, of 16 insect species were recorded in the three observations.

Table 3.10: Front yard Reference Field 2; insect species list. The recorded number is the total number of insect species recorded from the three observations, which have taken place on 12.07.-, 09.08.- and 06.09.2020 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., respectively

Recorded Insect name Lat. name Family number Chafer beetle Cyrtothyrea marginalis Scarabaeidae 1 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum Apidae 2 Common greenbottle Lucilia caesar Calliphoridae 1 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis Formicidae 11 Cucumber green spider Araniella cucurbitina Araneidae 0 Eastern honey bee Apis cerana Apidae 2 European earwig Forficula auricularia Forficulidae 2 European wasp Vespula vulgaris Vespidae 2 German wasp Vespula germanica Vespidae 5 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata Calliphoridae 2 Holly blue Celastrina argiolus Lycaenidae 0 Marsh snipefly Rhagio tringarius Rhagionidae 1 Ragweed leaf bettle Ophraella communa Chrysomelidae 20 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata Coccinellidae 5 Spilostethus saxatilis Spilostethus saxatilis Lygaeidae 1 True bug Calocoris nemoralis Miridae 13

3.7.9 Reference Field 2 – species richness

13 insect families were found. The following insect families were counted most frequently (Figure 3.16), Chrysomelidae (n= 60, M= 30.49%, SD= 1.18%), Formicidae (n= 45, M= 22.95%, SD= 5.94%) and Miridae (n= 31, M= 15.66%, SD= 3.24%).

Vespidae 10.21% Scarabaeidae 2.01% Rhagionidae 1.00% Miridae 15.66% Lygaeidae 0.49% Lycaenidae 0.51% Formicidae 22.95% Forficulidae 1.49%

Insect FamiliesInsect Coccinellidae 5.04% Chrysomelidae 30.49% Calliphoridae 5.10% Araneidae 0.51% Apidae 4.56%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Percent share of the number of total species [%] Figure 3.16: Front yard Reference Field 2; Species richness bar chart diagram, measured by the insect families found. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean of the three observations in percentage

3.7.10 Shannon-Wiener index and evenness of recorded insects

For the insect population on the four different test fields, three observations result in mean values of the Shannon-Wiener index and the evenness (Figure 3.17). The values for H' are the same on both insect-friendly wildflower strips, and the evenness is also the same, at 0.86 and 0.83. The H' value for Reference Field 1 is 1.15 and has an evenness of 0.66. The H' value for Reference Field 2 is the same. For Reference Field 2, the H' value is 1.88 and has an evenness of 0.83.

Figure 3.17: Mean values of Shannon-Wiener index [H'] and evenness [E] of the recorded insects, of the three observations, of all four test fields. On the left y-axis the Shannon-Wiener index is shown in blue and on the right the evenness [E] is plotted with the yellow fill color. The error bars represent the standard deviation. Mean values [M] for: wildflower strip - Area 1; H' = 2.3; SD ± 0.22 and E = 0.86; SD ± 0.01, Reference Field 1; H'= 1.15; SD ± 0.27 and E= 0.66; SD ± 0.08, wildflower strip - Area 2: H'= 2.3; SD ± 0.15 and E= 0.83; SD ± 0, and Reference Field 2: H'= 1.88; SD ± 0.14 and E= 0.83; SD ± 0.06; n=3

3.8 β-diversity of recorded insects

As with the β-diversity for vegetation, the insect population of two test fields is compared. The insect-friendly wildflower strip - Area 1 and Reference Field 1 from the backyard and the insect-friendly wildflower strip - Area 2 and Reference Field 2 from the front yard, as well as the detailed calculations of the individual beta-biodiversity coefficients can be found in the appendix (A.5).

The two test fields in the backyard gave the following results (Table 3.11); Sm is 0.56, Sj is 0.21 and Ss is 0.34. The similarity of the insect population here is Sbc = 0.22 (22%) and the dissimilarity is therefore Dbc = 0.78 (78%). For the two test fields in the front yard the values are as follows; Sm is 0.65, Sj is 0.32 and Ss is 0.49. The insects are 0.65 (65%) similar with Sbc and 0.35 (35%) dissimilar.

Table 3.11: All determined insect β-diversity coefficients are listed here. In the Backyard-column, the wildflower strip - Area 1 is compared with the Reference Field 1 from the backyard. The Front yard-column represents the wildflower strip - Area 2 and its Reference Field 2 from the front yard

Backyard Front yard Simple-Matching Coefficient [Sm] 0.56 0.65 Jaccard-Coefficient [Sj] 0.21 0.32 Soerensen-Coefficient [Ss] 0.34 0.49 Bray-Curtis Similarity [Sbc] 0.22 0.65 Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity [Dbc] 0.78 0.35

3.9 Visualization of the insect species-diversity

A Venn-diagram was also created for the insect population (Figure 3.18), showing that five insect species were found on all four test fields, Common carder bee (Bombus pascuorum), Crazy ant (Paratrechina longicornis), European wasp (Vespula vulgaris), Green bottle fly (Lucilia sericata), and Seven-spot ladybug (Coccinella septempunctata). The α-diversity is given for all test fields, this is the number of different species found there. The γ-diversity reflects all insect species found. Overlapping levels show how many insects were the same, also it can be seen that there is no similarity in an overlap, because zero is nowhere to be found, this even reflects the β-diversity.

Insect species that were only found on the wildflower strip - Area 1 are: 14-spotted ladybug (Propylea quatuordecimpunctata), Cabbage white butterfly (Pieris brassicae), Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni), Garden grass-veneer (Chrysoteuchiha culmella), Green stink bug (Nezara viridula), Mexican cactus fly (Copestylum mexicanum), Plant bug (Closterocoris amoneus), Red mason bee (Osmia bicornis), Sandhills hornet (Dolichovespula arenaria), Small milkweed bug (Lygaeus kalmia), Spring mining bee (Colletes cunicularius), Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans), Sweat bee (Halictus rubicundus), Tanbark borer (Phymatodes testaceus), Thread-waisted wasp (Ammophila procera) and Winter moth (Operophtera brumata).

Lasius niger and Little fire ant (Wasmannia auropunctata) were the species found only at Reference Field 2.

The following insect species were found only on the wildflower strip - Area 2: American hoverfly (Eupeodes corollae), Bird cherry-oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi), Brachymyrmex patagonicus, Cherry ermine (Yponomeuta padella), Cinnamon bug (Corizus hyoscyami), Diplazon laetatorius, Fatal metalmark (Calephelis nemesis), Geomyza tripunctata, Great black wasp (Sphex pensylvanicus), Platystomos albinus, Red-shouldered stink bug (Thyanta custator), Robber fly (Choerades fimbriata), Smokybrown cockroach (Periplaneta fuliginosa) and Sweat bee (Halictus confuses).

Chafer beetles (Cyrtothyrea marginalis), Cucumber green spider (Araniella cucurbitina), Holly blue (Celastrina argiolus) and Marsh snipefly (Rhagio tringarius) are the insect species that were only found on Reference Field 2.

Figure 3.18: Venn-diagram showing the distribution of insect biodiversity. All four test fields studied are shown and each overlap the other test fields, representing the similarity between the test fields. The α- diversity is given for each individual field and thus represents the insect species found there. The similarity of the found insect population, β-diversity, can be seen in the overlaps of the fields. The values marked with * are the insect species that were only found on the respective test field. The γ-diversity is here n = 54

3.10 Fauna observation addition

In order to go into more detail about the insect order, Hymenoptera, which includes different species of bees, bumblebees and wasps, the different types of sub-orders have been summarized for the individual test fields (Figure 3.19). As insects share common characteristics, they can be grouped into types. On the wildflower strip - Area 1; five species of bees, three species of bumblebees and four species of wasps were found. Reference Field 1 had a population of only two species of bumblebees and one species of wasps. On the wildflower strip - Area 2, three species each of bees, bumblebees, and wasps were detected. Reference Field 2 had one species of bee and bumblebee and two species of wasp.

5 5

4 4

3 3 3 3 3

2 2

2 Number of types Numberof

1 1 1 1

0 0 Types of Bees Types of Bumblebees Types of Wasps

Figure 3.19: Representation of the insects Order Hymenoptera divided into bees, bumblebees and wasps. Represents the number of different species detected on the test fields. Wildflower strip - Area 1 is dark orange, Reference Field 1 is bright blue, wildflower strip - Area 2 is bright orange and Reference Field 2 is dark blue

In 12 hours of observation time, a total of 186 insects from the insect order Hymenoptera were counted. The wasp was recorded the most of the three types with 80 counted specimens, followed by 61 bees also 43 bumblebees were recorded. Most of these species were found on the wildflower strip - Area 1, followed by the other wildflower strip - Area 2. On the other hand, in the two comparison plots, these species were not so strongly represented. For example, no bees were recorded on Reference Field 1 (Figure 3.20).

40 36 35 35

25 24 21 20 20 19 17

Counted InsectsCounted 15

5 4 5 3 2 0 0 Area 1 Reference 1 Area 2 Reference 2

Figure 3.20: Counted insect, of all observations, of the insect order Hymenoptera, from the four Test Fields. Bees are shown as dark yellow bars, bumblebees are light yellow and wasps are shown as light gray bars

3.11 Timing of the variety of insects recorded on the test-fields

The first observation took place on 11.07.2020 (15.9°C) from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on the wildflower strip - Area 1 and then from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Reference Field 1. The following day, 12.07.2020 (15.2°C), observations took place from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. of wildflower strip - Area 2 and from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. of Reference Field 2. During these two days, a total of 306 insects were counted during the four hours. The second observation phase took place in the beginning of August, the times remained the same. On 08.08.2020 (23.4°C) & 09.08.2020 (22.9°C), 284 insects were observed on all four test fields. The last time observed, on 05.09.2020 (13.9°C) & 06.09.2020 (12.8°C), a total of 227 insects were recorded (Figure 3.21).

140

120 118 112

100 100 95

80 82

66 68 60 63 50

40 Number of recorded insectsrecordedNumberof

22 22 20 19

0 0 1 2 3 Observations

Figure 3.21: Dot plot showing the insect population counted on the four test fields within the observation phase. The light and dark orange-colored squares reflect the wildflower strip - Area 1 (dark) and Area 2 (light). Light (Reference Field 1) and dark (Reference Field 2) blue triangles reflect the insects counted in the comparison plots. Observation N°1 took place on 11.- & 12.07.2020, Observation N°2 on 08.- & 09.08.2020, and Observation N°3 on 05.- & 06.09.2020

3.12 Correlation between flora and fauna

Both measurement points of species richness of plants and insects can be plotted against each other in a correlation diagram (Figure 3.22), one obtains a linear progression in which one sees that the increasing plant species richness also has a positive effect on the species richness of the insect population. The least plant species richness was found on the Reference Field, the population of the 10 different insect species, also shows the weakest distribution in the correlation-diagram. The wildflower strip - Area 2, with 28 different plant species, was the most abundant, here 29 different insect species were observed.

Figure 3.22: Correlation diagram, between documented α-diversity of plants and insect species

4. Discussion

Even at a cursory evaluation, it can be said that the biodiversity changes with the creation of insect-friendly wildflower strips. More plant species and insect species are found on the desired area. The discussion starts with the change of the vegetation, then the change of the insect biodiversity and at last point both chapters flora and fauna are discussed as small correlation, which is linked together.

4.1 The change of vegetation

4.1.1 α-diversity change of flora vegetation

4.1.1.1 Backyard

The establishment of wildflower strips, shows an increase in the biodiversity of the plant population. The use of commercial insect-friendly seed mixes shows its effect in the backyard as well as the front yard. With 19 different plant species and a total number of 143 plants, the wildflower strip in the backyard already has a significantly higher species richness than the adjacent untreated area, which consists only of grass. Also, the Shannon-Wiener index for the backyard wildflower strip, indicates a good diversity on this test field with a value of 1.80. Also, the evenness has increased with 0. 61 increased considerably, in contrast to the grass reference plot with H' = 0, and consequently an E of 0. This shows that the α-diversity for the flora-vegetation has increased here and has also changed positively to the grass plot. The increased species richness observed in the wildflower strip also indicates an improvement in α-diversity for vegetation at this site.

4.1.1.2 Front yard

The areas in the front yard, with 28 different plant species and a total number of 841 plants, insect-friendly wildflower strip has a significantly higher species richness in comparison to the unmodified Reference Field 2 with the 8 different plant species with a total number of 16 plants. For the Reference Field consisting of only long-lived plants in the front yard, the Shannon-Wiener and associated flatness values are better than for the wildflower strip. The Reference Field 2 has values of H' is 1.92 and E is 0.92, otherwise the values for the wildflower strip in the front garden are lower, here H' = 1.52 and E = 0.46. Now this is not to be understood that the created wildflower strip performs poorly. To bring an enlargement of the previously unused area to an H' value of 1.52 and an E-value of 0.46 is in itself a good result. The values for the Reference Field result from the almost even distribution of the plant population, since here plants appear once, twice and five times, but not excessively one plant species dominates with its population,

37 resulting in these very good H' and E-values. In addition, it is evident that not only the establishment of wildflower strips is good for biodiversity, but also the planting of insect- friendly shrubs or perennials, which in most cases, are also long-lived and require only a little care and water.

4.1.2 β-diversity change of flora vegetation

The Sm-coefficient for the plant population, between the two plots, wildflower strip – Area 1 and Reference Field 1 has a value of 71% and the Sj-coefficient is equal to 50%. For the two areas in the front yard, wildflower strip – Area 2 and Reference Field 2, the Sm- coefficient is 59% and the Sj-coefficient is 49%. It is noticeable that the coefficients for backyard and front yard are quite similar. Since these two values are strongly dependent on the number of species in the total data set (n=48), and it makes more sense to have a measure that is more ecologically meaningful (Leyer & Wesche, 2007), which is not dependent on the number of species in the data set. For this the Soerensen-coefficient is applied, which gives a value of 67% for the two test fields in the backyard and a value of 65% for the two test fields in the front yard. This indicates that there is a certain species similarity between the vegetation of the test fields in backyard and front yard.

Also, the similarity and dissimilarity of two habitats is expressed by the Bray-Curtis coefficient. For the like backyard areas, a Bray-Curtis similarity measure of 0 and a Bray- Curtis dissimilarity measure of 1 comes out. This is due to the fact that the species on the wildflower strip – Area 1 and Reference Field 1 are not similar, respectively that on the wildflower strip the grown plant species dominate the grass, which was actually also present on this area before, and did not grow, because the nutrient was needed by the soil for the growth of the different plants. There is also quite a dissimilarity for the front yard. The Bray-Curtis coefficient for similarity is 1.63% and for dissimilarity 98.37%. The only species that is similar here is the ivy (Hedra helix L.) that covers the entire back fence. From the Bray-Curtis values, it can be concluded that, although the areas in the backyard and front yard are not similar, it can be seen that a change in the β-diversity of the vegetation has occurred due to the use of insect-friendly seed mixtures.

4.1.3 The overall biodiversity of the vegetation

As can be seen in the Venn-diagram for the documented plant species (Figure 3.2), no two plants are alike on all four test fields. Each individual test field also represents a distinct vegetation in its own right. The wildflower strip - Area 1, with its dominant Wild carrot (Daucus carota L.) stand, as well as the detectable stand of various shrubs that

38 have a long-life span, such as Hibiscus syriacus L., represents a vegetation that is dynamic, here, of the total species recorded in the case study (n=48), 13 species were found only on this plot. Reference Field 1, where only German ryegrass (Lolium perenne) grows, reflects common garden lawn vegetation. The conspicuous dominant plant species, Common corncockle (Agrostemma githago L.), also like the other plants on the wildflower strip - Area 2, shows a flower meadow vegetation that is very blooming and with plenty of nectar, 21 different species were found here, which were not found on the other three test fields. Last, the Reference Field 2, of the front yard, speaks for a vegetation that consists of long-lived shrubs and so is present again every year. Accordingly, the statement can be made here that through these four different vegetations, the plant stock of the areas is not so much alike to almost not at all. Thus, the Bray-Curtis coefficient of the adjacent areas can also be consolidated. Again, the little common species of the four test fields may also indicate that site conditions have an influence on which species actually germinate.

Overall, of the whole Vegetation part, therefore, in relation to the alpha- and beta- biodiversity of the plant population, one of the research questions for this case study can be seen as answered. Yes, the plant biodiversity in the back- and front yard on the created wildflower strips changed compared to the plant biodiversity in the back- and front yard untreated fields, next to the insect-friendly seed mix plots. On the created wildflower strips - Area 1 & 2 a total of 47 different species were found with a total value of 984 individual plants. On the two comparison areas only 9 different species were found, with a total number of individuals of 19.

4.1.4 Negative side effect by the use of insect-friendly seed mixtures

Although it may seem like the use of commercial seed mixtures seems to be a solution to the loss of biodiversity, this is far from being the case. These seed mixtures, which can be purchased in hardware stores or supermarkets, are mostly conventionally bred (Thews & Werk, 2014), the seeds usually contain alien species that are not native to Germany. Since the use, contributes to the spread of invasive species, it contributes to flora adulteration and thus also has a negative impact on biodiversity (Thews & Werk, 2014). Accordingly, for private use in the home garden the use of any seed mix is allowed, but not outside the private home garden. Since 1st March 2020, according to § 40 (4) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG), the spreading of seeds with alien species in the wild is prohibited.

The problem here lies in the alien plants, also called neophytes, which become invasive over time and lead to the impairment of biodiversity, thus also the resulting ecosystem services and also economic and social aspects are damaged (European Union, 2014). The threats that invasive neophytes pose to biodiversity and associated ecosystem services include habitat alteration, competition for natural resources, or displacement of native species in their considerable range and genetic impacts due to hybridization. In addition, these species can have significant consequences on human health and the economy (European Union, 2014). As this is the case with Butterfly-bush (Buddleja davidii Franch), which was found seven times on the wildflower field - Area 2, for example increasingly running wild and changing the typical vegetation on shallow soils (Landesregierung Baden-Württemberg, 2019).

Looking back at the dataset of plants that grew the period of this case study, out of a total of 48 different plant species, only exactly half, 50% (24) were native and the other half, 50% (24) were not native to Germany. This also illustrates the problem of using conventional seeds. Neophytes that seem to grow only in the native garden, can get through various animals such as birds by carrying the seeds into the wild, even if this is not wanted by humans. In addition, there is also a difference between the lifespan of plants, in this case study, with 25 (52.08%) plant species are long-lived and 23 (47.92%) are short-lived. Advantage of long-lived species here is the aspect that, these species start to grow earlier in spring, because these are already present, or the seeds in the soil and therefore there is an earlier flower supply than as with the short-lived plants, because these are sown only in the spring (Landesregierung Baden-Württemberg, 2019).

Therefore, it is advisable to pay attention to seeds that are native to the area, certified that it contains only wild forms of native plant species, and also contains rather long-lived species. Also, the sowing should be done where the seed occurs regionally and is native.

4.1.5 Extra vegetation observation after completion of the observation phase

As mentioned at the beginning of the case study, climate change and loss of biodiversity are linked and therefore the flowering time is shifted and therefore flowering plants and pollinators are not active at the same time, which Hegland et al. (2009) already proved in an earlier study. After completion of the actual practical phase of the case study, on the wildflower strip - Area 1 on the 1st November 2020, the observation and documentation were made that 27 different plant species and a total number of 107 plants were found (Table 3.6). This serves only as a side note and additional observation, to this case study. These findings could also be investigated in other case studies, since this research only deals with the change in biodiversity.

4.2 The change of fauna

4.2.1 α-diversity change of fauna

4.2.1.1 Backyard

On the insect-friendly wildflower strip – Area 1 in the backyard, in three observations, a total of 31 insect species from 20 insect families were recorded, the total number of insects is here, 232. The three most frequently found insect families are Apidae (n= 39, M= 16.54%, SD= 2.24%), followed by Formicidae (n= 38, M= 16.69%, SD= 1.54%) and the Vespidae Family (n= 35, M= 16.36%, SD= 6.03%). For the insect population, the Shannon-Wiener index here is at a very good value with a mean of 2.30 and a standard deviation of 0.22, which indicates a high α-diversity. The evenness with 86% (M= 0.86, SD= 0.01) confirms and qualifies the Shannon-Wiener index into perspective, showing a high evenness of insect species distribution. On the Reference Field 1, 10 different insect species with a total number of 63 insects from 7 different insect families could be detected. Here, the Formicidae family (n= 41, M= 65.23%, SD= 9.5%), Miridae family (n= 6, M= 9.33%, SD= 4.20%) and Calliphoridae family (n= 5, M= 8.06%, SD= 3.12%) were the most commonly found insect families. Again, the Shannon-Wiener index with 1.15 as mean and 0.27 as standard deviation, indicates a low α-diversity. Again, the associated E of 66% (M= 0.66, SD= 0.08) indicates that the insect population is not as well distributed as on the associated wildflower strip in the backyard. Only by comparing the species richness it can be seen that the wildflower strip – Area 1, has an increase +230% in the insect population.

4.2.1.2 Front yard

The two test fields in the front yard resulted in the following values in terms of α-diversity. In the wildflower strip – Area 2, 29 different species were recorded, belonging to 21 insect families, the total amount of insects was 325. The insect families, Aphididae (n= 60, M= 18. 62%, SD= 2.15%), Chrosomelidae (n= 60, M=18.62%, SD= 2.15%), Miridae (n= 38, M= 11.36%, SD= 5.87%) and closely followed by Apidae (n= 37, M= 11.32%, SD= 1.21%), were the most abundant. As with the wildflower strip – Area 1, here the Shannon- Wiener index as a mean value is 2.3, with a standard deviation of 0.15. Thus, a high α- diversity can be concluded here as well. To confirm this value, the E of 83% (M= 0.83, SD= 0) is used, which also indicates a very good uniform distribution of the insect population.

On the front yard Reference Field, 16 different insect species from 13 families could be observed. A total of 197 insects were counted. The following insect families were counted most frequently, Chrysomelidae (n= 60, M= 30.49%, SD= 1.18%), Formicidae (n= 45, M= 22.95%, SD= 5.94%), and Miridae (n= 31, M= 15.66%, SD= 3.24%). The mean value of the Shannon-Wiener index is 1.88 with a standard deviation of 0.14, indicating that there is a good α-diversity. The E with 83% (M= 0.83, SD= 0.06) also confirms this statement and has the same value as the wildflower strip – Area 2.

In total, 54 different species of insects were detected on the four different test fields, also for this case study the γ-diversity, with a total number of 817 insects and this in a total observation period of 12 hours. On the two wildflower strips, 557 of the 817 insects were recorded, which is 68.18% of the whole insect database. The wildflower strip in the front yard has the highest percentage with 39.78% found insects, followed by 28.4% of the wildflower strip in the backyard. However, in the front yard, the reference area also did well with 24.11% of total insect distribution. With 7.71% the grass reference area in the backyard is the last one. Furthermore, it can be assumed, based on the percentage distribution, that a higher species richness or a high biodiversity of the plants could also mean a higher biodiversity of the insects. To strengthen this statement, the correlation between plant and insect populations will be used later.

4.2.2 β-diversity change of fauna

As in the section on β-diversity for fauna, the β-diversity of insects is also discussed. For this purpose, the insect population on the created wildflower strips is compared with the corresponding untreated reference fields.

For the two plots in the backyard, a Sm-coefficient of 56% came out, the Sj-coefficient is 21%. Higher are the coefficient values for the front yard – Area 2 and Reference Field 2, Sm-coefficient is 65% and Sj-coefficient is 32%. Backyard Area 1 and Reference Field 1 have a Ss-coefficient of 34% and front yard fields, Area 2 and Reference Field 2 have one of 49%. This indicates that there is more diversity in front yard site, than in the backyard site. It may also be due to the fact that the reference area in the backyard, except for the lawn area, had nothing to offer for the insects, such as pollen, nectar, etc.

To express the similarity and dissimilarity of the insect population, the values of the Bray- Curtis coefficient are compared. The similarity of the backyard test fields has a Sbc value of 22% and a dissimilarity of Dbc 78%. For the test fields in the front yard, the similarity of the insects is much higher with Sbc 65% and the dissimilarity consequently smaller with Dbc 35%, as compared to the test fields in the backyard. Also, the values for the front yard reflect that a little more than one fifth of the insects were found on both plots.

4.2.3 The overall biodiversity of the recorded insects

The Venn-diagram (Figure 3.18), which was created from the values of insect occurrences on the test fields, also shows the γ-diversity with a total data pool of n= 54 different insect species. The individual α-diversity`s for the test fields, represent a high species richness, especially the insect individuality on the two wildflower strips stands out, wildflower strip - Area 1 α is 31 and wildflower strip - Area 2, α is 29. Also, the species found only on the test fields, on wildflower strip - Area 1 there are 16 species found only there and the other wildflower strip - Area 2 with 14 individual insect species, are higher than the two Reference Fields, this could be assumed that the insects are attracted by the existing plant population and the thus available flowers, pollen and nectar supply. In contrast to the similarity of the plant biodiversity, the insects overlap more on the four test fields, as can be seen from the fact that each test field has a match of some insects with one or more test fields. As a result, on all four Test Fields, a total of 5 different species were the same (Bombus pascuorum, Coccinella septempunctata, Lucilia sericata, Paratrechina longicornis and Vespula vulgaris). This also represents the β- diversity of the similarity of the investigated test fields. From this it can be concluded that certain species prefer the vegetation of the wildflower strips, as they are only present there, but also that other species, such as the two species from Reference Field 1 (Lasius niger and Wasmannia auropunctata) are more likely to be found on flat lawns.

Overall, the present results of the insect population in relation to the alpha, and beta biodiversity, also answer the second research question. Yes, the insect biodiversity in the back- and front yard on the created wildflower strips changed compared to the insect biodiversity in the back- and front yard untreated fields, next to the insect-friendly seed mix plots. Furthermore, this statement also results from the fact that over the time course of the observations in July, August and September show that on the wildflower strips were counted significantly more insects than on the Reference Fields (Figure 3.21). Reference Field - Area 1 has an average of 21 insects recorded and Reference Field - Area 2 of 66. The wildflower strips, on the other hand, have a significant increase in individuals counted. Here on wildflower strip - Area 1, an average of 77 insects were counted and on Area 2, the most with 108 insects as average.

4.2.4 Highlight on the insect order Hymenoptera

Bees, bumblebees and wasps are classified in the insect order Hymenoptera. Bees and bumblebees are among the most important pollinators, and wasps are among the most important natural pest controllers (STS, 2013). They are a vital ecosystem service provider for humans, including plant pollination in agriculture, where the estimated

43 economic value of pollination, is around €138 billion (IVA, 2014). For European biodiversity, these insects are a fundamental element. In the case of flower visitors, especially bees and bumblebees, the loss of biodiversity is seen in the dying of bees, with significant consequences for ecology and economy (Flügel, 2016). Causes are, for example, no sufficient nesting sites and no food sources for adults as a result of the lack of food supply of the larvae (Bellmann, 2017). To counteract this scenario, flowering fields for an insect-friendly landscape are established on agricultural land or flowering strips for insects in cities. For agriculture, this has the benefit of pollination and for cities, the urban climate and environmental awareness should be enhanced. Since the case study provided a small dataset of insect order for bees, bumblebees and wasps (Figure 3.19), it will be used to evaluate whether the use of insect-friendly seed mixes can help maintain the biodiversity of these insects. The wildflower field - Area 1, has the highest number of bee species, with five different bee species (Colletes cunicularius, Apis cerana, Halictus rubicundus, Osmia bicornis and Apis melliferea), three bumblebee species and four wasp species. In contrast, Reference Field 1, did not have a single bee occurrence to offer, two bumblebee species and one species of wasps. At the wildflower strip - Area 2, three species of each of the three insect species were recorded. One species of bee and one species of bumblebee were present at Reference Field 2, as well as two different species of wasps. Apart from the species diversity, the significant increase of the two insect-friendly wildflower strips in terms of insect mass compared to the Reference Fields can be seen, (Figure 3.20). The two wildflower strips attracted significantly more insects of the order Hymenoptera than the comparison plots. This suggests that the planting of flower strips has a benefit for these species, as the proportion of insects (bees, bumblebees and wasps) counted on the wildflower strips increased significantly to 152 compared to only 34 insects counted on the Reference Fields. From this, it can be inferred that the establishment of insect-friendly flower strips or flowering fields, helps insects of the order Hymenoptera to provide pollinators with a supply of flowers, pollen and nectar. As this case study provides only small insights into this topic, further studies with other methods in this field are recommended.

4.3 Correlation between plant- and insect species

Potts et al. (2003), reflected in the study, "Linking bees and flowers: How do floral communities structure pollinator communities", about the relationship between bees and the abundance of flowers in a given habitat and was able to establish a rough correlation between the two variables. Given that, with the existing case study dataset, a correlation between the plant population and the insect population was determined. The α-diversity of the different plant and insect species (Figure 3.22) of each test field, has a Pearson

44 correlation coefficient of r = 0.9234, meaning there is an almost perfect positive correlation, between the number of species of both variables. There is a linear relationship between the species richness of plants and insects, which in turn suggests that if there is a wide plant supply, with different pollen, nectar and flowers, the more different insect species will be attracted to it.

This correlation would have to be continued in further studies, since there are not enough measurement points, it leads to a limitation of the bachelor thesis. However, it is worthwhile to include this aspect in other research and build on this case study.

4.4 Methodology developed for this bachelor thesis

The developed methodology of capturing the insects by photo and further recognition via application worked very well in the context of this bachelor thesis. A plant and insect catalog were created, which can be found in the appendix (A.1), which was helpful during the whole case study. The NABU counting method was also manageable with one hour per test field, but provided an extensive data set over the three observation phases. In addition, the use of a variety of variables to measure biodiversity was an easy way to obtain representable data that could be well visualized. Also, the development of the Venn-diagrams for each insect- and plant-diversity is a very good alternative to reflect the total collected data pool and to divide it into the different test fields.

5. Conclusion

Overall, it can be said that the bachelor thesis hypothesis "Creating wildflower strips, in a garden, using a commercial insect-friendly seed mix, helps to increase insect and plant biodiversity at a specific area" as well as the research questions, are answered with this case study. Yes, it is possible to change and increase the insect and plant biodiversity at a specific area by the use of insect-friendly seed mixes. The increase in α-diversity alone from the unmanaged Reference Fields to the established wildflower strips, shows the positive increase in biodiversity for flora and fauna. The β-diversity shows that especially the vegetation is very different, but there is a wide nectar and pollen supply for pollinators and other insects. Consequently, this also leads to a higher occurrence of birds, insectivorous vertebrates and even bats, which were additionally observed during the case study. Also, the γ-diversity of plants and insects, clearly shows that on small areas, many different species can be found.

The results of this case study also confirm the applicability of the biodiversity indicator developed by the BfN. On the test fields a clear increase of insects and plants is recognized, this results in an increase of the habitat quality and thus also shows that small changes, can have a large influence. The comparison of the change in biodiversity, which is only dealt with here on a private household scale, could of course have a much greater benefit in agriculture and on a larger scale. Nevertheless, it is advisable to make sure that the wildflower seeds used are local, so that the plants are native. Equally effective can be a greenbelt consisting of longstanding shrubs such as the Hibiscus syriacus, which is very powerful in terms of biodiversity. As long as insects and plants are not deprived of their habitat with concreted areas, any type of plant is actually significant for nature, and thus increases the habitat quality of insects.

The results of the correlation between plants and insect species could reflect a statement about the habitat quality of insects and plants depending on each other. However, since this bachelor thesis did not create enough measurement points of the two variables, it also serves as a basis for further research in this area. Accordingly, at the conclusion of this bachelor thesis, it is not a representative statement about it. It is also possible to continue working with the developed methodology, because it has a high recognition of plant and insect species and is easy to use. As well as the use and creation of further Venn diagrams offers a comparison of the most different locations.

In conclusion, it follows that the habitat quality of vegetation and insects also has an influence on the habitat quality of humans.

References

Beck, E., ed. (2013). Die Vielfalt des Lebens, Wiley-VCH Verlag & Co., Weinheim, Germany, page 5.

Bellmann, H. (2017). Bienen, Wespen, Ameisen: Kosmos Naturführer, Kosmos-Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

Bellmann, H. (2018). Der Kosmos Insektenführer: Kosmos Naturführer, Kosmos- Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (2009). Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege: Bundesnaturschutzgesetz – BnatSchG, § 40 (4), Bundestag, Germany, page 38.

Brasseur, G. et al. (2012). Einführung. In: Stribrny, B., Hrsg. Klimawandel und Biodiversität: Folgen für Deutschland, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 12-22.

Bray, J.R. and Curtis, J.T. (1957). An Ordination of Upland Forest Communities of Southern Wisconsin, Ecological Monographs, 27, pp. 325-349. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1942268

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2006). Indikator “ Artenvielfalt und Landschaftsqualität”. Available from: https://www.bfn.de/themen/monitoring/indikatoren/indikator- artenvielfalt-und-landschaftsqualitaet.html#c200105 [Accessed 6 February 2021].

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2019). Einheitlicher Methodenleitfaden „Insektenmonitoring“, Bonn, Germany, page 2.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2021). FloraWeb. Available from: https://www.floraweb.de/pflanzenarten/biologie.xsql?suchnr=116& [Accessed 6 February 2021].

Dierschke, H. (1995). Pflanzensoziologie – Grundlagen und Methoden, Utb – Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.

European Commission (2020). The Convention on biological diversity. Available from:

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/international/cbd/index_en. htm [Accessed 20 October 2020].

European Union (2014). Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, Official Journal of the European Union, L 317/35, Brussels, Belgium.

Flora Incognita (2020). Information about the app. Available from: https://floraincognita.com/de/ [Accessed 6 February 2021].

Flügel, H.J. (2016). Das Bienensterben – ein Umweltrisiko? In: Jahrbuch 2015 mit einem Jahresbericht des Fachbereichs Geographie, Sonderdruck, Marburger Geographische Gesellschaft, Marburg, Germany.

Hallmann, C.A. et al. (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas, Plos one, 12. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

Hegland, S. et al. (2008). How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecology letters, 12, pp. 184-95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01269.x

Industrieverband Agrar (2014). Die Bedeutung der Bestäuber für die Landwirtschaft: Landwirtschaftliche Produktivität und Bestäuberschutz, IVA, Frankfurt, Germany.

Institute for European Environmental Policy (2011). Estimating the overall economic value of the benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network, London, United Kingdom.

Klotz, St. et al. (2012). Biodiversitätswandel in Deutschland. In: Stribrny, B., Hrsg. Klimawandel und Biodiversität: Folgen für Deutschland, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 38-56.

Leyer, I. and Wesche, K. (2007). Multivariate Statistik in der Ökologie: Eine Einführung, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, p.10 and pp.47-50.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC, United States of America, page 1.

Ministerium für Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz Baden-Württemberg (2019). Bienenweidekatalog: Verbesserung der Bienenweide und des Artenreichtums, Wahl-Druck GmbH, Aalen, Germany.

NABU (2020). Beim Insektensommer zählen wir, was zählt: Beobachten und notieren Sie eine Stunde lang Sechsbeiner. Available from: https://www.nabu.de/tiere- und-pflanzen/aktionen-und-projekte/insektensommer/index.html [Accessed 6 February 2021].

Picture Insect (2020). AI entomologist in your pocket: Online insect encyclopedia and insect identifier, Available from: http://pictureinsect.com/ [Accessed 6 February 2021].

Potts, S.G. et al. (2003). Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinatorcommunities? Ecology, 84, pp.2628– 2642. DOI: 10.1890/02-0136

Rezác, M. et al. (2015). Red List of Czech spiders: 3rd edition, adjusted according to evidence-based national conservation priorities, Biologia, 70, pp. 645-666. DOI: 10.1515/biolog-2015-0079

Scheper, J. et al. (2014). Museum specimens reveal loss of pollen host plants as key factor driving wild bee decline in The Netherlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(49), pp. 17552– 17557. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412973111

Schulze, E.-D. et al. (2019). Plant Ecology, 2nd International edition, Springer-Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany, page 744.

Sistla, S. et al. (2016). Agroforestry Practices Promote Biodiversity and Natural Resource Diversity in Atlantic Nicaragua, Plos One, 11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162529

Spellerberg, I. and Fedor, P. (2003). A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916-2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity and the ‘Shannon-Wiener’ Index, Global Ecology & Biogeography, 12, pp. 177-179. DOI 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00015.x

Spohn, M., und Golte-Bechtle, M. (2005). Was blüht denn da?, Kosmos-Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

Stohlgren, T.J. (2007). Measuring Plant Diversity: Lessons from the Field, Oxford University Press, New York, United States of America, page 43.

Schweizer Tierschutz STS (2013). Bienen, Hummeln, Wespen und Hornissen – Plagegeister oder Heinzelmännchen?, STS-Merkblatt, 4/2013, Fachstelle Wildtiere, Bâle, Switzerland.

Thews, K. and Werk, K. (2014). Verwendung gebietseigenen Saatgutes nach §40(4) BNatSchG: Konzepte und Maßnahmen zur Etablierung von Regiosaatgut und Vergleich bestehender Zertifizierungsmodelle, Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 46 (10), pp. 315-319.

Tilman, D., Wedin D., and Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and sustainability influences by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379, pp. 718-720. DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/379718a0

Tremp, H. (2005). Aufnahme und Analyse vegetationsökologischer Daten, Utb – Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany, page 74.

United Nations (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity, page 3, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Whittaker, R.H. (1972). Evolution and Measurement of Species Diversity, Taxon 21, pp. 213-380. DOI https://doi.org/10.2307/1218190

A. Appendix

This section contains the supplementary material of the following Bachelor Thesis:

Marquardt, J. Biodiversity changes in vegetation & insects following the creation of a wildflower strip – A Case Study

A.1 Plant and insect catalog

Table A.1.1: Plant population on the Wildflower Strip - Area 1. Each individual plant is illustrated with photo and given English and Latin names, as well as the number of individuals counted (Marquardt, 2020)

Plant name Lat. Name Photo Number of individuals

Wild carrot Daucus Carota 78

Heal-all Prunella Vulgaris 10

Garden Cosmos bipinnatus 2 cosmos

Fennel Foeniculum vulgare 2

Broad-leaved Epilobium montanum 1 willowherb

Old-fashioned Weigela florida 2 weigela

Epilobium Epilobium roseum 1 roseum

Garden cress Lepidium sativum 2

Four-leaf Oxalis tetraphylla 3 sorrel

Elm-leaf Spiraea 1 spiraea chamaedryfolia

Musk mallow Malva moschata 1

Love-in-a-mist Nigella damascena 9

Long-headed Papaver dubium 3 poppy

Hibiscus Hibiskus syriacus 1 syriacus

Common Agrostemma githago 1 corncockle

Narrow-leaf Spiraea alba 1 spirea

Green crepis Crepis capillaris 11

Headache Papaver rhoeas 2

White clover Trifolium repens 12

Table A.1.2: Plant population on the Reference Field 1. Each individual plant is illustrated with photo and given English and Latin names, as well as the number of individuals counted (Marquardt, 2020)

Plant name Lat. Name Photo Number of individuals

Germany Lolium perenne 1 ryegrass

Table A.1.3: Plant population on the Wildflower Field – Area 2. Each individual plant is illustrated with photo and given English and Latin names, as well as the number of individuals counted (Marquardt, 2020)

Plant name Lat. Name Photo Number of individuals

Butterfly-bush Buddleja davidii 7

Garden Coreopis tinctoria 7 tickseed

Common Calendula officinalis 48 marigold

Euphorbia peplus Euphorbia 10 agg.

Dog-fennel Anthemis cotula L. 9

Eared willow Salix aurita 14

Broad-leaved Epilobium 4 willowherb montanum

Cornflower Centaurea cyanus 41

Bugle vine Calystegia sepium 17

Ivy Hedera helix 9

Common Agrostemma 575 corncockle githago

Geranium Geranium 1 robertianum

Parsnip Pastinaca sativa 2

Common Fagopyrum 19 buckwheat esculentum

Duscle Solanum nigrum 3

Common Sonchus oleraceus 2 sowthistle

Headache Papaver rhoeas 3

Dwarf Sidalcea malviflora 3 Checkerbloom

Borage Borago officinalis 14

Love-in-a-mist Nigella damascena 5

Beerseem Trifolium 4 clover alexandrinum

Common Helianthus annuus 3 sunflower

Common Urtica dioica 8 nettle

Linum Linseed 4 usitatissimum

Trifolium Crimson clover 6 incarnatum

Taraxacum sect. Dandelion 17 Runderalia

Garden Cosmos bipinnatus 2 cosmos

Canadian Erigeron 4 horseweed canadensis

Table A.1.4: Plant population on the Reference Field 2. Each individual plant is illustrated with photo and given English and Latin names, as well as the number of individuals counted (Marquardt, 2020)

Plant name Lat. Name Photo Number of individuals

Common hop Humulus Iupulus 1

Lemon balm Melissa officinalis 2

Hibiscus Hibiscus syriacus 1 syriacus

Common Urtica dioica 2 nettle

Bearberry Cotoneaster 2 cotoneaster dammeri

Common lilac Syringa vulgaris 2

Bramble Rubus 1

Ivy Hedera helix 5

Table A.1.5: Plant population of 1st November 2020, on the Wildflower Strip - Area 1, here each individual plant is illustrated with photo and given with the English and Latin names, as well as the number of individuals counted (Marquardt, 2020)

Plant name Lat. Plantname Photo Number of individuals

Small-flowered Malva parviflora 1 mallow

Common Calendula officinalis 29 marigold

Wild carrot Daucus carota 12

Wall lettuce Lactuca muralis 6

Fennel Foeniculum vulgare 1

European ash Fraxinus excelsior 1

Sweet alison Lobularia maritima 1

Musk mallow Malva moschata 1

Veronicastrum Culver`s Root 1 virginicum

broad-leaved Epilobium 1 willowherb montanum

Impatiens Bee-bums 1 glandulifera

Euphorbia Euphorbia peplus 3

Borage Borago officinalis 4

Colewort Geum urbanum 1

Radiant hollow Bifora radians 6 seed

Heal-all Prunella vulgaris 7

Purple Lamium purpureum 2 archangel

Nasturtium Tropaeolum majus 2

Common Erigeron annuus 2 fleabane

Cornflower Centaurea cyanus 1

Common Sonchus oleraceus 5 sowthistle

Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare 3

Garden Cosmos bipinnatus 1 cosmos

Creeping Ranunculus repens 1 buttercup

Autumn Scorzoneroides 3 dandelion autumnalis

Dandelion Taraxacum 8

Common Agrostemma 3 corncockle githago

Table A.1.6: Insect catalogue of the recorded insects (Marquardt, 2020)

Insect name lat. Name Photo Family Order

Common Hymenoptera Bombus pascuorum Apidae carder bee / Bumblebee

Paratrechina Hymenoptera Crazy ant Formicidae longicornis / Ant

Hymenoptera German wasp Vespula germanica Vespidae / Wasp

Sandhills Dolichovespula Hymenoptera Vespidae hornet arenaria / Wasp

Spring mining Hymenoptera Colletes cunicularius Colletidae bee / Bee

Garden Hymenoptera Bombus hortorum Apidae bumblebee / Bumblebee

European Hymenoptera Vespula vulgaris Vespidae Wasp / Wasp

European Forficula auricularia Forficulidae Dermaptera earwig

Green bottle Lucilia sericata Calliphoridae Diptera fly

Cabbage Pieris brassicae Pieridae Lepidoptera white butterfly

Green stink Nezara viridula Pentatomidae Hemiptera bug

Grove Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae Diptera hoverfly

White-tailed Hymenoptera Bombus lucorum Apidae bumblebee / Bumblebee

Common Lucilia caesar Calliphoridae Diptera greenbottle

Small Lygaeus kalmii Lygaeidae Hemiptera Milkweed Bug

Spilostethus Spilostethus saxatilis Lygaeidae Hemiptera saxatilis

Eastern Hymernoptera Apis cerana Apidae honey bee / Bee

Flat bark Cucujus clavipes Cucujidae Coleoptera beetle

Garden Chrysoteuchia Crambidae Lepidoptera grass-veneer culmella

Hymenoptera Sweat bee Halictus rubicundus Halictidae / Bee

Red mason Hymenoptera Osmia bicornis Megachilidae bee / Bee

Mexican Copestylum Syrphidae Diptera cactus fly mexicanum

Seven-spot Coccinella Coccinellidae Coleoptera ladybug septempunctata

Threa- Hymenoptera Ammophila procera Sphecidae waisted wasp / Wasp

Phymatodes Tanbark borer Cerambycidae Coleoptera testaceus

14-spotted Propylea Coccinellidae Coleoptera ladybug quatuordecimpunctata

Stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans Muscidae Diptera

Closterocoris Plant bug Miridae Hemiptera amoenus

Western Hymenoptera Apis mellifera Apidae honey bee / Bee

Common Gonepteryx rhamni Pieridae Lepidoptera brimstone

A.2 Information about the origin and lifespan of plants

Table A.2.1: Plant population of the Wildflower Field - Area 1, with origin and lifetime

Short-/Long- Plant name Lat. Name Native/Non-Native Lived Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum L. Native Long-Lived Common corncockle Agrostemma githago L. Native Short-Lived Elm-leaf spiraea Spiraea chamaedryfolia L. Non-Native Long-Lived Epilobium roseum Epilobium roseum L. Native Long-Lived Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Non-Native Short-Lived Four-leaf sorrel Oxalis tetraphylla Cav. Non-Native Long-Lived Garden cosmos Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. Non-Native Short-Lived Garden cress Lepidium sativum L. Non-Native Short-Lived Green crepis Crepis capillaris L. Native Short-Lived Headache Papaver rhoeas L. Native Short-Lived Heal-all Prunella vulgaris L. Native Long-Lived Hibiscus syriacus Hibiscus syriacus L. Non-Native Long-Lived Long-headed poppy Papaver dubium L. Native Short-Lived Love-in-a-mist Nigella damascena L. Non-Native Short-Lived Musk mallow Malva moschata L. Native Long-Lived

Narrow-leaf spirea Spiraea alba Du Roi Non-Native Long-Lived Old-fashioned weigela Weigela florida Non-Native Long-Lived White clover Trifolium repens L. Native Long-Lived Wild carrot Daucus carota L. Native Short-Lived

Table A.2.2: Plant population of the Reference Field 1, with origin and lifetime

Short-/Long- Plant name Lat. Name Native/Non-Native Lived German ryegrass Lolium perenne Native Long-Lived

Table A.2.3: Plant population of the Wildflower Field - Area 2, with origin and lifetime

Short-/Long- Plant name Lat. Name Native-/Non-Native Lived Beerseem clover Trifolium alexandrinum L. Non-Native Short-Lived Borage Borago officinalis L. Non-Native Short-Lived Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum L. Native Long-Lived Bugle vine Calystegia sepium agg. Native Long-Lived Butterfly-bush Buddleja davidii Franch. Non-Native Long-Lived Canadian horseweed Erigeron canadensis L. Non-Native Short-Lived Fagopyrum esculentum Common buckwheat Non-Native Short-Lived Moench Common corncockle Agrostemma githago L. Native Short-Lived Common marigold Calendula officinalis L. Non-Native Short-Lived Common nettle Urtica dioica L. Native Long-Lived Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus L. Native Short-Lived Common sunflower Helianthus annuus L. Non-Native Short-Lived Cornflower Centaurea cyanus L. Native Short-Lived Crimson clover Trifolium incarnatum L. Non-Native Short-Lived Dandelion Taraxacum sect. Runderalia Native Short-Lived Dog-fennel Anthemis arvensis L. Native Short-Lived Duscle Solanum nigrum L. Native Short-Lived Dwarf Checkerbloom Sidalcea malviflora Non-Native Long-Lived Eared willow Salix aurita L. Native Long-Lived Euphorbia Euphorbia peplus agg. Native Short-Lived Garden cosmos Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. Non-Native Short-Lived Garden tickseed Coreopis tinctoria Non-Native Short-Lived Geranium Geranium robertianum L. Native Short-Lived Headache Papaver rhoeas L. Native Short-Lived Ivy Hedera helix L. Native Long-Lived Linseed Linum usitatissimum L. Non-Native Short-Lived Love-in-a-mist Nigella damascena L. Non-Native Short-Lived Parsnip Pastinaca sativa L. Native Short-Lived

Table A.2.4: Plant population of the Reference Field 2, with origin and lifetime

Short-/Long- Plant name Lat. Name Native/Non-Native Lived Cotoneaster dammeri Bearberry cotoneaster Non-Native Long-Lived Schneid. Bramble Rubus caesius x idaeus Non-Native Long-Lived Common hop Humulus lupulus L. Native Long-Lived Common lilac Syringa vulgaris L. Non-Native Long-Lived Common nettle Urtica dioica L. Native Long-Lived Hibiscus syriacus Hibiscus syriacus L. Non-Native Long-Lived Ivy Hedera helix L. Native Long-Lived Lemon balm Melissa officinalis L. Non-Native Long-Lived

Table A.2.5: Plant population of Wildflower Field - Area 1, on November 1, 2020, with origin and lifetime

Short-/Long- Plant name Lat. Plantname Native/Non-Native Lived Scorzoneroides autumnalis Autumn dandelion Native Long-Lived L. Bee-bums Impatiens glandulifera Royle Non-Native Short-Lived Borage Borago officinalis L. Non-Native Short-Lived broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum L. Native Long-Lived Colewort Geum urbanum L. Native Long-Lived Common corncockle Agrostemma githago L. Native Short-Lived Common fleabane Erigeron annuus L. Non-Native Short-Lived Common marigold Calendula officinalis L. Non-Native Short-Lived Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus L. Native Short-Lived Cornflower Centaurea cyanus L. Native Short-Lived Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens L. Native Long-Lived Culver`s Root Veronicastrum virginicum L. Non-Native Long-Lived Dandelion Taraxacum sect. Runderalia Native Short-Lived Euphorbia Euphorbia peplus agg. Native Short-Lived European ash Fraxinus excelsior cv. Native Long-Lived Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Non-Native Short-Lived Garden cosmos Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. Non-Native Short-Lived Heal-all Prunella vulgaris L. Native Long-Lived Musk mallow Malva moschata L. Native Long-Lived Nasturtium Tropaeolum majus L. Non-Native Short-Lived Purple archangel Lamium purpureum L. Native Short-Lived Radiant hollow seed Bifora radians M.Bieb. Non-Native Short-Lived Small-flowered mallow Malva parviflora L. Non-Native Short-Lived Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Native Short-Lived Sweet alison Lobularia maritima L. Non-Native Short-Lived Wall lettuce Lactuca muralis L. Native Long-Lived Wild carrot Daucus carota L. Native Short-Lived

A.3 Recorded insects during the observation process

Table A.3.1: Wildflower strip – Area 1; recorded insects from all three observations. Observation N°1 took place at 11.07.2020 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., observation N°2 at 08.08.2020 and observation N°3 at 05.09.2020, both on the same timespan

Observation Observation Observation Insect name lat. Name N°1 N°2 N°3 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum 4 2 3 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis 15 14 9 German wasp Vespula germanica 5 8 6 Sandhills hornet Dolichovespula arenaria 1 3 3 Spring mining bee Colletes cunicularius 6 0 1 Garden bumblebee Bombus hortorum 3 1 0 European Wasp Vespula vulgaris 4 3 2 European earwig Forficula auricularia 1 0 0 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata 2 2 3 Cabbage white butterfly Pieris brassicae 1 0 1 Green stink bug Nezara viridula 3 1 0 Grove hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus 4 2 2 White-tailed bumblebee Bombus lucorum 2 1 1 Common greenbottle Lucilia caesar 8 9 3 Small Milkweed Bug Lygaeus kalmii 7 4 2 Winter moth Operophtera brumata 1 0 0 Spilostethus saxatilis Spilostethus saxatilis 2 6 1 Eastern honey bee Apis cerana 9 6 3 Flat bark beetle Cucujus clavipes 3 3 0 Garden grass-veneer Chrysoteuchia culmella 0 1 0 Sweat bee Halictus rubicundus 2 2 1 Red mason bee Osmia bicornis 1 0 0 Mexican cactus fly Copestylum mexicanum 4 4 1 Coccinella Seven-spot ladybug 4 1 5 septempunctata Threa-waisted wasp Ammophila procera 1 0 0 Tanbark borer Phymatodes testaceus 2 1 0 Propylea 14-spotted ladybug 0 1 1 quatuordecimpunctata Stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans 2 4 0 Plant bug Closterocoris amoenus 1 0 1 Western honey bee Apis mellifera 1 2 1 Common brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni 1 1 0

Table A.3.2: Reference Field 1; recorded insects from all three observations. Observation N°1 took place at 11.07.2020 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., observation N°2 at 08.08.2020 and observation N°3 at 05.09.2020, both on the same timespan

Observation Observation Observation Insect name lat. Name N°1 N°2 N°3 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum 0 1 0 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis 6 4 7

True bugs Calocoris nemoralis 3 2 1 Garden bumblebee Bombus hortorum 2 0 0 European Wasp Vespula vulgaris 1 1 0 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata 1 2 2 Little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata 5 11 6 Flat bark beetle Cucujus clavipes 2 0 1 Lasius niger Lasius niger 1 1 0 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata 1 0 2

Table A.3.3: Wildflower strip – Area 2; recorded insects from all three observations. Observation N°1 took place at 12.07.2020 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., observation N°2 at 09.08.2020 and observation N°3 at 06.09.2020, both on the same timespan

Observation Observation Observation English lat. Name N°1 N°2 N°3 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum 5 3 2 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis 11 8 12 Ragweed leaf beetle Ophraella communa 20 20 20 True bugs Calocoris nemoralis 14 19 5 German wasp Vespula germanica 4 7 4 Garden bumblebee Bombus hortorum 2 2 3 European Wasp Vespula vulgaris 2 1 3 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata 5 8 2 Geomyza tripunctata Geomyza tripunctata 1 0 0 Platystomos albinus Platystomos albinus 2 0 1 Grove hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus 4 3 2 White-tailed bumblebee Bombus lucorum 0 1 1 Common greenbottle Lucilia caesar 3 3 6 Spilostethus saxatilis Spilostethus saxatilis 2 1 0 Eastern honey bee Apis cerana 6 4 3 Brachymyrmex Brachymyrmex 0 1 2 patagonicus patagonicus Cherry ermine Yponomeuta padella 1 0 0 Robber flies Choerades fimbriata 0 1 0 Smokybrown cockroach Periplaneta fuliginosa 2 1 0 Bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiphum padi 20 20 20 Red-shouldered Stink Thyanta custator 1 1 0 Bug Diplazon laetatorius Diplazon laetatorius 2 0 1 American hoverfly Eupeodes corollae 1 1 0 Sweat bee Halictus confusus 2 1 0 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata 4 2 3 Great black wasp Sphex pensylvanicus 0 2 1 Western honey bee Apis mellifera 2 2 1 Fatal metalmark Calephelis nemesis 1 0 1 Cinnamon bug Corizus hyoscyami 1 0 2

Table A.3.4: Reference Field 2; recorded insects from all three observations. Observation N°1 took place at 12.07.2020 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., observation N°2 at 09.08.2020 and observation N°3 at 06.09.2020, both on the same timespan

Observation Observation Observation Insect name lat. Name N°1 N°2 N°3 Common carder bee Bombus pascuorum 1 2 1 Crazy ant Paratrechina longicornis 18 11 16 Ragweed leaf beetle Ophraella communa 20 20 20 True bugs Calocoris nemoralis 10 13 8 German wasp Vespula germanica 2 5 6 Holly blue Celastrina argiolus 1 0 0 European Wasp Vespula vulgaris 2 2 3 European earwig Forficula auricularia 1 2 0 Green bottle fly Lucilia sericata 2 2 3 Common greenbottle Lucilia caesar 1 1 1 Spilostethus saxatilis Spilostethus saxatilis 0 1 0 Cucumber green spider Araniella cucurbitina 1 0 0 Eastern honey bee Apis cerana 1 2 2 Chafer beetles Cyrtothyrea marginalis 3 1 0 Marsh snipefly Rhagio tringarius 1 1 0 Seven-spot ladybug Coccinella septempunctata 2 5 3

A.4 Calculations for flora

Table A.4.1: Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 1

Number of Pi Plant name plants Pi (amount/total) (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Wild carrot 78 54.55 0.5455 -0.61 -0.33 Heal-all 10 6.99 0.0699 -2.66 -0.19 Garden cosmos 2 1.40 0.0140 -4.27 -0.06 Fennel 2 1.40 0.0140 -4.27 -0.06 Broad-leaved willowherb 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Old-fashioned weigela 2 1.40 0.0140 -4.27 -0.06 Epilobium roseum 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Garden cress 2 1.40 0.0140 -4.27 -0.06 Four-leaf sorrel 3 2.10 0.0210 -3.86 -0.08 Elm-leaf spiraea 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Musk mallow 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Love-in-a-mist 9 6.29 0.0629 -2.77 -0.17 Long-headed poppy 3 2.10 0.0210 -3.86 -0.08 Hibiscus syriacus 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Common corncockle 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Narrow-leaf spirea 1 0.70 0.0070 -4.96 -0.03 Green crepis 11 7.69 0.0769 -2.57 -0.20 Headache 2 1.40 0.0140 -4.27 -0.06 White clover 12 8.38 0.0838 -2.48 -0.21

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.80 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 1” is 1.80

Evenness: Number of species = 19 Hmax is the log of S so, In(19) = 2.944

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.80/2.944 E = 0.6114

Table A.4.2: Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 1

Pi Plant name (amount/total) Pi (%/total %) In Pi Pi * In Pi German ryegrass 100% 1 0 0

Shannon-Wiener index H’ for the Reference Field 1 is 0.

Evenness is also 0.

Table A.4.3: Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 2

Number of Pi Plant name plants Pi (amount/total) (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Butterfly-bush 7 0.832 0.00832 -4.79 -0.04 Garden tickseed 7 0.832 0.00832 -4.79 -0.04 Common marigold 48 5.708 0.05708 -2.86 -0.16 Euphorbia 10 1.189 0.01189 -4.43 -0.05 Dog-fennel 9 1.07 0.0107 -4.54 -0.05 Eared willow 14 1.665 0.01665 -4.10 -0.07 Broad-leaved 4 willowherb 0.476 0.00476 -5.35 -0.03 Cornflower 41 4.875 0.04875 -3.02 -0.15 Bugle vine 17 2.021 0.02021 -3.90 -0.08 Ivy 9 1.07 0.0107 -4.54 -0.05 Common corncockle 575 68.371 0.68371 -0.38 -0.26 Geranium 1 0.119 0.00119 -6.73 -0.01 Parsnip 2 0.238 0.00238 -6.04 -0.01 Common buckwheat 19 2.259 0.02259 -3.79 -0.09 Duscle 3 0.357 0.00357 -5.64 -0.02 Common sowthistle 2 0.238 0.00238 -6.04 -0.01 Headache 3 0.357 0.00357 -5.64 -0.02 Dwarf Checkerbloom 3 0.357 0.00357 -5.64 -0.02 Borage 14 1.665 0.01665 -4.10 -0.07 Love-in-a-mist 5 0.595 0.00595 -5.12 -0.03 Beerseem clover 4 0.476 0.00476 -5.35 -0.03

Common sunflower 3 0.357 0.00357 -5.64 -0.02 Common nettle 8 0.951 0.00951 -4.66 -0.04 Linseed 4 0.476 0.00476 -5.35 -0.03 Crimson clover 6 0.713 0.00713 -4.94 -0.04 Dandelion 17 2.021 0.02021 -3.90 -0.08 Garden cosmos 2 0.238 0.00238 -6.04 -0.01 Canadian horseweed 4 0.476 0.00476 -5.35 -0.03

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.52 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 2” is 1.52

Evenness: Number of species = 28 Hmax is the log of S so, In(28) = 3.3322

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.52/3.3322 E = 0.4562

Table A.4.4: Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 2

Number of Pi Plant name plants Pi (amount/total) (%/total %) In Pi Pi * In Pi Common hop 1 6.25 0.0625 -2.77 -0.17 Lemon balm 2 12.5 0.125 -2.08 -0.26 Hibiscus syriacus 1 6.25 0.0625 -2.77 -0.17 Common nettle 2 12.5 0.125 -2.08 -0.26 Bearberry 2 cotoneaster 12.5 0.125 -2.08 -0.26 Common lilac 2 12.5 0.125 -2.08 -0.26 Bramble 1 6.25 0.0625 -2.77 -0.17 Ivy 5 31.25 0.3125 -1.16 -0.36

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.92 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 2” is 1.92

Evenness: Number of species = 8 Hmax is the log of S so, In(8) = 2.0794

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.92/2.0794 E = 0.9233

Area 1 / Reference Field 1

Simple-Matching coefficient

Sm = (a+d)/(a+b+c+d)

Over the observation timeframe there were in total 48 different plant species counted.

Table A.4.5: Comparison between plant species which were found on Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Plant name – Area 1 Plant name – Ref 1 Wild carrot Germany ryegrass Heal-all Garden cosmos Fennel Broad-leaved willowherb Old-fashioned weigela Epilobium roseum Garden cress Four-leaf sorrel Elm-leaf spiraea Musk mallow Love-in-a-mist Long-headed poppy Hibiscus syriacus Common corncockle Narrow-leaf spirea Green crepis Headache White clover a= species found in both Areas = 20 b= species found only in Area 1 = 19 c= species found only in Area 2 = 1 d= species not found in both areas = (48-20) = 28 p= total species pool = 48

Sm = (20+28)/(20+19+1+28) Sm = 0,7059

Area 2 / Reference Field 2

Table A.4.6: Comparison between plant species which were found on Area 2 & Reference Field 2. Filled with yellow means that plants are at both test areas

Plant name – Area 2 Plant name – Ref 2 Butterfly-bush Common hop Garden tickseed Lemon balm Common marigold Hibiscus syriacus Euphorbia Common nettle Dog-fennel Bearberry cotoneaster Eared willow Common lilac Broad-leaved willowherb Bramble Cornflower Ivy

Bugle vine Ivy Common corncockle Geranium Parsnip Common buckwheat Duscle Common sowthistle Headache Dwarf Checkerbloom Borage Love-in-a-mist Beerseem clover Common sunflower Common nettle Linseed Crimson clover Dandelion Garden cosmos Canadian horseweed a= species found in both Areas = 32 b= species found only in Area 1 = 28 c= species found only in Area 2 = 6 d= species not found in both areas = (48-32) = 16 p= total species pool = 48

Sm = (32+16)/(32+28+6+16) Sm = 0,5854

Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Jaccard-coefficient

Sj = a/(a+b+c)

Sj = 20/(20+19+1) Sj = 0,5

Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Sj = 32/(32+28+6) Sj = 0,4849

Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Soerensen-Coefficient

Ss = 2a/a+b+a+c

Ss = 2*20/(2*20)+19+1 Ss = 0,6667

Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Ss = 2*32/(2*32)+28+6 Ss = 0,6531

Bray-Curtis similarity & dissimilarity

Sbc = 2w/B+C

Table A.4.7: Bray-Curtis plant comparison table for wildflower strip – Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Plant name Area 1 Ref 1 Minimum Wild carrot 78 0 0 Heal-all 10 0 0 Garden cosmos 2 0 0 Fennel 2 0 0 Broad-leaved willowherb 1 0 0 Old-fashioned weigela 2 0 0 Epilobium roseum 1 0 0 Garden cress 2 0 0 Four-leaf sorrel 3 0 0 Elm-leaf spiraea 1 0 0 Musk mallow 1 0 0 Love-in-a-mist 9 0 0 Long-headed poppy 3 0 0 Hibiscus syriacus 1 0 0 Common corncockle 1 0 0 Narrow-leaf spirea 1 0 0 Green crepis 11 0 0 Headache 2 0 0 White clover 12 0 0 Grass 0 1 0

B = Abundance Area1 143 C = Abundance Ref 1 1 w = Sum Minimum 0

Observation Sbc = 2w/B+C

Sbc = (2*0)/(143+1) Similarity Sbc = 0

Dbc = 1 - Sbc Dbc = 1 - 0 Dissimilarity Dbc = 1

Table A.4.8: Bray-Curtis plant comparison table for wildflower strip – Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Plant name Area 2 Ref 2 Minimum Butterfly-bush 7 0 0 Garden tickseed 7 0 0 Common marigold 48 0 0 Euphorbia 10 0 0 Dog-fennel 9 0 0 Eared willow 14 0 0 Broad-leaved willowherb 4 0 0 Cornflower 41 0 0 Bugle vine 17 0 0 Ivy 9 5 5 Common corncockle 575 0 0 Geranium 1 0 0 Parsnip 2 0 0 Common buckwheat 19 0 0 Duscle 3 0 0 Common sowthistle 2 0 0 Headache 3 0 0 Dwarf Checkerbloom 3 0 0 Borage 14 0 0 Love-in-a-mist 5 0 0 Beerseem clover 4 0 0 Common sunflower 3 0 0 Common nettle 8 2 2 Linseed 4 0 0 Crimson clover 6 0 0 Dandelion 17 0 0 Garden cosmos 2 0 0 Canadian horseweed 4 0 0 Common hop 0 1 0 Lemon balm 0 2 0 Hibiscus syriacus 0 1 0 Bearberry cotoneaster 0 2 0 Common lilac 0 2 0 Bramble 0 1 0

B = Abundance Area1 841 C = Abundance Ref 1 16 w = Sum Minimum 7

Observation Sbc = 2w/B+C

Sbc = (2*7)/(841+16) Similarity Sbc = 0,0163

Dbc = 1 - Sbc

Dbc = 1 - 0,0163 Dissimilarity Dbc = 0,9837

A.5 Calculations for fauna

Table A.5.1: Observation N°1; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 1

Observation Family N°1 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 19 19 0.19 -1.66 -0.32 Calliphoridae 10 10 0.1 -2.30 -0.23 Cerambycidae 2 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Coccinellidae 4 4 0.04 -3.22 -0.13 Colletidae 6 6 0.06 -2.81 -0.17 Crambidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Cucujidae 3 3 0.03 -3.51 -0.11 Forficulidae 1 1 0.01 -4.61 -0.05 Formicidae 15 15 0.15 -1.90 -0.28 Geometridae 1 1 0.01 -4.61 -0.05 Halictidae 2 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Lygaediae 9 9 0.09 -2.41 -0.22 Megachilidae 1 1 0.01 -4.61 -0.05 Miridae 1 1 0.01 -4.61 -0.05 Muscidae 2 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Pentatomidae 3 3 0.03 -3.51 -0.11 Pieridae 2 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Sphecidae 1 1 0.01 -4.61 -0.05 Syrphidae 8 8 0.08 -2.53 -0.20 Vespidae 10 10 0.1 -2.30 -0.23

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -2.53 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 1” is 2.53

Evenness:

Number of species = 19 Hmax is the log of S so, In(19) = 2.9444

E = H’/Hmax

E = 2.53/2.9444 E = 0.8593

Table A.5.2: Observation N°2; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 1

Observation Family N°2 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 12 14.6341 0.146341 -1.92 -0.28 Calliphoridae 11 13.4146 0.134146 -2.01 -0.27 Cerambycidae 1 1.2195 0.012195 -4.41 -0.05 Coccinellidae 2 2.439 0.02439 -3.71 -0.09 Colletidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Crambidae 1 1.2195 0.012195 -4.41 -0.05 Cucujidae 3 3.6585 0.036585 -3.31 -0.12 Forficulidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Formicidae 14 17.0732 0.170732 -1.77 -0.30 Geometridae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Halictidae 2 2.439 0.02439 -3.71 -0.09 Lygaediae 10 12.1951 0.121951 -2.10 -0.26 Megachilidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Miridae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Muscidae 4 4.8781 0.048781 -3.02 -0.15 Pentatomidae 1 1.2195 0.012195 -4.41 -0.05 Pieridae 1 1.2195 0.012195 -4.41 -0.05 Sphecidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Syrphidae 6 7.3171 0.073171 -2.61 -0.19 Vespidae 14 17.0732 0.170732 -1.77 -0.30

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -2.27 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 1” is 2.27

Evenness: Number of species = 14 Hmax is the log of S so, In(14) = 2.6391

E = H’/Hmax

E = 2.27/2.6391 E = 0.8601

Table A.5.3: Observation N°3; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 1

Family Observation N°3 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 8 16 0.16 -1.83 -0.29 Calliphoridae 6 12 0.12 -2.12 -0.25 Cerambycidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Coccinellidae 6 12 0.12 -2.12 -0.25 Colletidae 1 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Crambidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Cucujidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Forficulidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Formicidae 9 18 0.18 -1.71 -0.31 Geometridae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Halictidae 1 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Lygaediae 3 6 0.06 -2.81 -0.17 Megachilidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Miridae 1 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Muscidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Pentatomidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Pieridae 1 2 0.02 -3.91 -0.08 Sphecidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Syrphidae 3 6 0.06 -2.81 -0.17 Vespidae 11 22 0.22 -1.51 -0.33

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -2.09 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 1” is 2.09

Evenness: Number of species = 11 Hmax is the log of S so, In(11) = 2.3979

E = H’/Hmax

E = 2.09/2.3979 E = 0.8716

Mean value of three observations – wildflower strip – Area 1:

Mean value H' (2,53+2,27+2,09)/3= 2.30

Mean value Evenness (0,8593+0,8601+0,8716)/3= 0.86

Table A.5.4: Observation N°1 Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 1

Family Observation N°1 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 2 9.0909 0.090909 -2.40 -0.22 Calliphoridae 1 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14 Coccinellidae 1 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14 Cucujidae 2 9.0909 0.090909 -2.40 -0.22 Formicidae 12 54.5455 0.545455 -0.61 -0.33 Miridae 3 13.6364 0.136364 -1.99 -0.27 Vespidae 1 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.46 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 1” is 1.46

Evenness: Number of species = 7 Hmax is the log of S so, In(7) = 1.9459

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.46/1.9459 E = 0.7503

Table A.5.5: Observation N°2 Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 1

Family Observation N°2 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 1 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14 Calliphoridae 2 9.0909 0.090909 -2.40 -0.22 Coccinellidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Cucujidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Formicidae 16 72.7273 0.727273 -0.32 -0.23 Miridae 2 9.0909 0.090909 -2.40 -0.22 Vespidae 1 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -0.95 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 1” is 0.95

Evenness: Number of species = 5 Hmax is the log of S so, In(5) = 1.6094

E = H’/Hmax

E = 0.95/1.6094 E = 0.5903

Table A.5.6: Observation N°3 Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 1

Family Observation N°3 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Calliphoridae 2 10.5263 0.105263 -2.25 -0.24 Coccinellidae 2 10.5263 0.105263 -2.25 -0.24 Cucujidae 1 5.2632 0.052632 -2.94 -0.15 Formicidae 13 68.4211 0.684211 -0.38 -0.26 Miridae 1 5.2632 0.052632 -2.94 -0.15 Vespidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.04 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 1” is 1.04

Evenness: Number of species = 5 Hmax is the log of S so, In(5) = 1.6094

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.04/1.6094 E = 0.6462

Mean value of three observations – Reference Field 1:

Mean value H' (1,46+0,95+1,04)/3= 1.15

Mean value Evenness (0,7503+0,5903+0,6462)/3= 0.66

Table A.5.7: Observation N°1 Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 2

Family Observation N°1 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Anthribidae 2 1.6949 0.016949 -4.08 -0.07 Aphididae 20 16.9492 0.169492 -1.77 -0.30 Apidae 15 12.7119 0.127119 -2.06 -0.26 Asilidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Blattidae 2 1.6949 0.016949 -4.08 -0.07 Calliphoridae 8 6.78 0.0678 -2.69 -0.18 Chrysomelidae 20 16.9492 0.169492 -1.77 -0.30 Coccinellidae 4 3.3898 0.033898 -3.38 -0.11 Formicidae 11 9.322 0.09322 -2.37 -0.22 Halictidae 2 1.6949 0.016949 -4.08 -0.07 Ichneumonidae 2 1.6949 0.016949 -4.08 -0.07 Lygaeidae 2 1.6949 0.016949 -4.08 -0.07 Miridae 14 11.8644 0.118644 -2.13 -0.25 Opomyzidae 1 0.8475 0.008475 -4.77 -0.04 Pentatomidae 1 0.8475 0.008475 -4.77 -0.04 Rhopalidae 1 0.8475 0.008475 -4.77 -0.04 Riodinidae 1 0.8475 0.008475 -4.77 -0.04 Sphecidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Syrphidae 5 4.2373 0.042373 -3.16 -0.13 Vespidae 6 5.0848 0.050848 -2.98 -0.15 Yponomeutidae 1 0.8475 0.008475 -4.77 -0.04

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -2.47 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 2” is 2.47

Evenness: Number of species = 19 Hmax is the log of S so, In(19) = 2.9444

E = H’/Hmax

E = 2.47/2.944 E = 0.8389

Table A.5.8: Observation N°2; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 2

Family Observation N°2 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Anthribidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Aphididae 20 17.8571 0.178571 -1.72 -0.31 Apidae 12 10.7143 0.107143 -2.23 -0.24 Asilidae 1 0.8929 0.008929 -4.72 -0.04 Blattidae 1 0.8929 0.008929 -4.72 -0.04 Calliphoridae 11 9.8214 0.098214 -2.32 -0.23 Chrysomelidae 20 17.8571 0.178571 -1.72 -0.31 Coccinellidae 2 1.7857 0.017857 -4.03 -0.07 Formicidae 9 8.0357 0.080357 -2.52 -0.20 Halictidae 1 0.8929 0.008929 -4.72 -0.04 Ichneumonidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Lygaeidae 1 0.8929 0.008929 -4.72 -0.04 Miridae 19 16.9643 0.169643 -1.77 -0.30 Opomyzidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Pentatomidae 1 0.8929 0.008929 -4.72 -0.04 Rhopalidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Riodinidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Sphecidae 2 1.7857 0.017857 -4.03 -0.07 Syrphidae 4 3.5714 0.035714 -3.33 -0.12 Vespidae 8 7.1429 0.071429 -2.64 -0.19 Yponomeutidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -2.25 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 2” is 2.25

Evenness: Number of species = 15 Hmax is the log of S so, In(15) = 2.7081

E = H’/Hmax

E = 2.25/2.7081 E = 0.8308

Table A.5.9: Observation N°3; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, wildflower strip – Area 2

Family Observation N°3 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Anthribidae 1 1.0526 0.010526 -4.55 -0.05 Aphididae 20 21.0526 0.210526 -1.56 -0.33 Apidae 10 10.5263 0.105263 -2.25 -0.24 Asilidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Blattidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Calliphoridae 8 8.4211 0.084211 -2.47 -0.21 Chrysomelidae 20 21.0526 0.210526 -1.56 -0.33 Coccinellidae 3 3.1579 0.031579 -3.46 -0.11 Formicidae 14 14.7368 0.147368 -1.91 -0.28 Halictidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Ichneumonidae 1 1.0526 0.010526 -4.55 -0.05 Lygaeidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Miridae 5 5.2632 0.052632 -2.94 -0.15 Opomyzidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Pentatomidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Rhopalidae 2 2.1053 0.021053 -3.86 -0.08 Riodinidae 1 1.0526 0.010526 -4.55 -0.05 Sphecidae 1 1.0526 0.010526 -4.55 -0.05 Syrphidae 2 2.1053 0.021053 -3.86 -0.08 Vespidae 7 7.3684 0.073684 -2.61 -0.19 Yponomeutidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -2.19 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "wildflower strip – Area 2” is 2.19

Evenness: Number of species = 14 Hmax is the log of S so, In(14) = 2.6391

E = H’/Hmax

E = 2.19/2.6391 E = 0.8298

Mean value of three observations – wildflower strip – Area 2:

Mean value H' (2,47+2,25+2,19)/3= 2.30

Mean value Evenness (0,8389+0,8308+0,8298)/3= 0.83

Table A.5.10: Observation N°1; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 2

Family Observation N°1 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 2 3.0303 0.030303 -3.50 -0.11 Araneidae 1 1.5152 0.015152 -4.19 -0.06 Calliphoridae 3 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14 Chrysomelidae 20 30.303 0.30303 -1.19 -0.36 Coccinellidae 2 3 0.030303 -3.50 -0.11 Forficulidae 1 1.5152 0.015152 -4.19 -0.06 Formicidae 18 27.2727 0.272727 -1.30 -0.35 Lycaenidae 1 1.5152 0.015152 -4.19 -0.06 Lygaeidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Miridae 10 15.1515 0.151515 -1.89 -0.29 Rhagionidae 1 1.5152 0.015152 -4.19 -0.06 Scarabaeidae 3 4.5455 0.045455 -3.09 -0.14 Vespidae 4 6.0606 0.060606 -2.80 -0.17

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.92 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 2” is 1.92

Evenness: Number of species = 12 Hmax is the log of S so, In(12) = 2.4849

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.92/2.4849 E = 0.7727

Table A.5.11: Observation N°2; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 2

Observation Family N°2 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 4 5.8824 0.058824 -2.83 -0.17 Araneidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Calliphoridae 3 4.4118 0.044118 -3.12 -0.14 Chrysomelidae 20 29.4118 0.294118 -1.22 -0.36 Coccinellidae 5 7.3529 0.073529 -2.61 -0.19 Forficulidae 2 2.9412 0.029412 -3.53 -0.10 Formicidae 11 16.1765 0.161765 -1.82 -0.29 Lycaenidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Lygaeidae 1 1.4706 0.014706 -4.22 -0.06 Miridae 13 19.1177 0.191177 -1.65 -0.32 Rhagionidae 1 1.4706 0.014706 -4.22 -0.06 Scarabaeidae 1 1.4706 0.014706 -4.22 -0.06 Vespidae 7 10.2941 0.102941 -2.27 -0.23

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.99

Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 2” is 1.99

Evenness: Number of species = 11 Hmax is the log of S so, In(11) = 2.3979

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.99/2.3979 E = 0.8299

Table A.5.12: Observation N°3; Shannon-Wiener & evenness calculation, Reference Field 2

Observation Family N°3 Pi (amount/total) Pi (%/total%) In Pi Pi * In Pi Apidae 3 4.7619 0.047619 -3.04 -0.14 Araneidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Calliphoridae 4 6.3492 0.063492 -2.76 -0.18 Chrysomelidae 20 31.746 0.31746 -1.15 -0.36 Coccinellidae 3 4.7619 0.047619 -3.04 -0.14 Forficulidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Formicidae 16 25.3968 0.253968 -1.37 -0.35 Lycaenidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Lygaeidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Miridae 8 12.6984 0.126984 -2.06 -0.26 Rhagionidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Scarabaeidae 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Vespidae 9 14.2857 0.142857 -1.95 -0.28

Total sum of Pi*In Pi = -1.72 Shannon-Wiener index H' for the "Reference Field 2” is 1.72 Evenness: Number of species = 7 Hmax is the log of S so, In(7) = 1.9459

E = H’/Hmax

E = 1.72/1.9459 E = 0.8839

Mean Value of three observations – Reference Field 2:

Mean value H' (1,92+1,99+1,72)/3 = 1.88

Mean value Evenness (0,7727+0,8299+0,8839)/3 = 0.83

Table A.5.13: All means as well as standard deviations from the Shannon-Wiener index and the evenness of all three observations of insects on the four test fields

Standard Standard Test field Shannon [H'] Deviation [+/-] H’ Evenness [E] Deviation [+/-] E Area 1 2.3 0.22 0.86 0.01 Reference 1 1.15 0.27 0.66 0.08 Area 2 2.3 0.15 0.83 0 Reference 2 1.88 0.14 0.83 0.06

Area 1 / Reference Field 1

Simple-Matching Coefficient

Sm = (a+d)/(a+b+c+d)

Over the observation timeframe there were in total 54 different insect species counted.

Table A.5.14: Comparison between insect species which were found on Area 1 & Reference Field 1. Filled with yellow means that the insects are observed on both test areas

Insects Area 1 Insects Reference Field 1 14-spotted ladybird Common carder bee Cabbage white butterfly Crazy ant Common brimstone European Wasp Common carder bee Flat bark beetle Common greenbottle Garden bumblebee Crazy ant Green bottle fly Eastern honey bee Lasius niger European earwig Little fire ant European Wasp Seven-spot ladybug Flat bark beetle True bugs Garden bumblebee Garden grass-veneer German wasp Green bottle fly Green stink bug Grove hoverfly Mexican cactus fly Plant bug Red mason bee Sandhills hornet Seven-spot ladybug Small Milkweed Bug Spilostethus saxatilis Spring mining bee Stable fly Sweat bee

Tanbark borer Threa-waisted wasp Western honey bee White-tailed bumblebee Winter moth

a= species found in both Areas = 7 b= species found only in Area 1 = 24 c= species found only in Area 2 = 3 d= species not found in both areas = (54-27) = 27 p= total species pool = 54

Sm = (7+27)/(7+24+3+27) Sm = 0,557

Area 2 / Reference Field 2

Table A.5.15: Comparison between insect species which were found on Area 2 & Reference Field 2. Filled with yellow means that the insects are observed on both test areas

Insects Area 2 Insects Reference Field 2 American hoverfly Chafer beetles Bird cherry-oat aphid Common carder bee Brachymyrmex patagonicus Common greenbottle Cherry ermine Crazy ant Cinnamon bug Cucumber green spider Common carder bee Eastern honey bee Common greenbottle European earwig Crazy ant European Wasp Diplazon laetatorius German wasp Eastern honey bee Green bottle fly European Wasp Holly blue Fatal metalmark Marsh snipefly Garden bumblebee Ragweed leaf beetle Geomyza tripunctata Seven-spot ladybug German wasp Spilostethus saxatilis Great black wasp True bugs Green bottle fly Grove hoverfly Platystomos albinus Ragweed leaf beetle Red-shouldered Stink Bug Robber flies Seven-spot ladybug Smokybrown cockroach

Spilostethus saxatilis Sweat bee True bugs Western honey bee White-tailed bumblebee

a= species found in both Areas = 11 b= species found only in Area 1 = 18 c= species found only in Area 2 = 5 d= species not found in both areas = (54-23) = 31 p= total species pool = 54

Sm = (11+31)/(11+18+5+31) Sm = 0,646

Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Jaccard-coefficient

Sj = a/(a+b+c)

Sj = 7/(7+24+3) Sj = 0,2059

Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Sj = 11/(11+18+5) Sj = 0,3235

Soerensen-Coefficient

Ss = 2a/a+b+a+c

Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Ss = 2*7/(2*7)+24+3 Ss = 0,3415

Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Ss = 2*11/(2*11)+18+5 Ss = 0,4889

Bray-Curtis similarity & dissimilarity

Sbc = 2w/B+C

Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Table A.5.16: Bray-Curtis insect comparison table for wildflower strip – Area 1 & Reference Field 1

Insect name Area 1 Ref 1 Minimum Common carder bee 9 1 1 Crazy ant 38 17 17 German wasp 19 0 0 Sandhills hornet 7 0 0 Spring mining bee 7 0 0 Garden bumblebee 4 2 2 European Wasp 9 2 2 European earwig 1 0 0 Green bottle fly 7 5 5 Cabbage white butterfly 2 0 0 Green stink bug 4 0 0 Grove hoverfly 8 0 0 White-tailed bumblebee 4 0 0 Common greenbottle 20 0 0 Small Milkweed Bug 13 0 0 Winter moth 1 0 0 Spilostethus saxatilis 9 0 0 Eastern honey bee 18 0 0 Flat bark beetle 6 3 3 Garden grass-veneer 1 0 0 Sweat bee 5 0 0 Red mason bee 1 0 0 Mexican cactus fly 9 0 0 Seven-spot ladybug 10 3 3 Threa-waisted wasp 1 0 0 Tanbark borer 3 0 0 14-spotted ladybug 2 0 0 Stable fly 6 0 0 Plant bug 2 0 0 Western honey bee 4 0 0 Common brimstone 2 0 0 True bugs 0 6 0 Little fire ant 0 22 0 Lasius niger 0 2 0

B = Abundance Area1 232 C = Abundance Ref 1 63 w = Sum Minimum 33

All three Observation Sbc = 2w/B+C

Similarity Sbc = (2*33)/(232+63) Sbc = 0,2237

Dbc = 1 - Sbc Dbc = 1 - 0,2237 Dissimilarity Dbc = 0,7763

Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Table A.5.17: Bray-Curtis insect comparison table for wildflower strip – Area 2 & Reference Field 2

Insect name Area 2 Ref 2 Minimum Common carder bee 10 4 4 Crazy ant 31 45 31 Ragweed leaf beetle 60 60 60 True bugs 38 31 31 German wasp 15 13 13 Garden bumblebee 7 0 0 European Wasp 6 7 6 Green bottle fly 15 7 7 Geomyza tripunctata 1 0 0 Platystomos albinus 3 0 0 Grove hoverfly 9 0 0 White-tailed bumblebee 2 0 0 Common greenbottle 12 3 3 Spilostethus saxatilis 3 1 1 Eastern honey bee 13 5 5 Brachymyrmex patagonicus 3 0 0 Cherry ermine 1 0 0 Robber flies 1 0 0 Smokybrown cockroach 3 0 0 Bird cherry-oat aphid 60 0 0 Red-shouldered Stink Bug 2 0 0 Diplazon laetatorius 3 0 0 American hoverfly 2 0 0 Sweat bee 3 0 0 Seven-spot ladybug 9 10 9 Great black wasp 3 0 0 Western honey bee 5 0 0 Fatal metalmark 2 0 0 Cinnamon bug 3 0 0 Holly blue 0 1 0 European earwig 0 3 0 Cucumber green spider 0 1 0 Chafer beetles 0 4 0 Marsh snipefly 0 2 0

B = Abundance Area2 325 C = Abundance Ref 2 197 w = Sum Minimum 170

All three Observation`s Sbc = 2w/B+C

Sbc = (2*170)/(325+197) Similarity Sbc = 0,6513

Dbc = 1 - Sbc Dbc = 1 - 0,6513 Dissimilarity Dbc = 0,3487

A.6 Insect observation mean value and standard deviation

Wildflower strip – Area 1

Table A.6.1: Wildflower strip – Area 1. Insect families mean value and standard deviation from all three observations, for the graph in the result part of this bachelor thesis

Species Species Species richness N°1 richness richness Average value Standard Insect family [%] N°2 [%] N°3 [%] [%] Deviation [+/-] Apidae 19.00% 14.63% 16.00% 16.54% 2.24% Calliphoridae 10.00% 13.42% 12.00% 11.81% 1.72% Cerambycidae 2.00% 1.22% 0.00% 1.07% 1.01% Coccinellidae 4.00% 2.44% 12.00% 6.15% 5.13% Colletidae 6.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.67% 3.06% Crambidae 0.00% 1.22% 0.00% 0.41% 0.70% Cucujidae 3.00% 3.66% 0.00% 2.22% 1.95% Forficulidae 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.58% Formicidae 15.00% 17.07% 18.00% 16.69% 1.54% Geometridae 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.58% Halictidae 2.00% 2.44% 2.00% 2.15% 0.25% Lygaediae 9.00% 12.20% 6.00% 9.07% 3.10% Megachilidae 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.58% Miridae 1.00% 0.00% 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% Muscidae 2.00% 4.88% 0.00% 2.29% 2.45% Pentatomidae 3.00% 1.22% 0.00% 1.41% 1.51% Pieridae 2.00% 1.22% 2.00% 1.74% 0.45% Sphecidae 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.58% Syrphidae 8.00% 7.32% 6.00% 7.11% 1.02% Vespidae 10.00% 17.07% 22.00% 16.36% 6.03%

Table A.6.2: Reference Field 1. Insect families mean value and standard deviation from all three observations, for the graph in the result part of this bachelor thesis

Species Species Species richness N°1 richness richness Average value Standard Insect family [%] N°2 [%] N°3 [%] [%] Deviation [+/-] Apidae 9.09% 4.55% 0.00% 4.55% 4.55% Calliphoridae 4.55% 9.09% 10.53% 8.06% 3.12% Coccinellidae 4.55% 0.00% 10.53% 5.03% 5.28% Cucujidae 9.09% 0.00% 5.26% 4.78% 4.56% Formicidae 54.55% 72.73% 68.42% 65.23% 9.50% Miridae 13.64% 9.09% 5.26% 9.33% 4.20% Vespidae 4.55% 4.55% 0.00% 3.03% 2.63%

Table A.6.3: Wildflower strip – Area 2. Insect families mean value and standard deviation from all three observations, for the graph in the result part of this bachelor thesis

Species Species Species richness N°1 richness richness Average value Standard Insect Family [%] N°2 [%] N°3 [%] [%] Deviation [+/-] Anthribidae 1.70% 0.00% 1.05% 0.92% 0.86% Aphididae 16.95% 17.86% 21.05% 18.62% 2.15% Apidae 12.71% 10.71% 10.53% 11.32% 1.21% Asilidae 0.00% 0.89% 0.00% 0.30% 0.51% Blattidae 1.70% 0.89% 0.00% 0.86% 0.85% Calliphoridae 6.80% 9.82% 8.42% 8.35% 1.51% Chrysomelidae 16.95% 17.86% 21.05% 18.62% 2.15% Coccinellidae 3.39% 1.79% 3.16% 2.78% 0.87% Formicidae 9.32% 8.04% 14.74% 10.70% 3.56% Halictidae 1.70% 0.89% 0.00% 0.86% 0.85% Ichneumonidae 1.70% 0.00% 1.05% 0.92% 0.86% Lygaeidae 1.70% 0.89% 0.00% 0.86% 0.85% Miridae 11.86% 16.96% 5.26% 11.36% 5.87% Opomyzidae 0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.49% Pentatomidae 0.85% 0.89% 0.00% 0.58% 0.50% Rhopalidae 0.85% 0.00% 2.11% 0.99% 1.06% Riodinidae 0.85% 0.00% 1.05% 0.63% 0.56% Sphecidae 0.00% 1.79% 1.05% 0.95% 0.90% Syrphidae 4.24% 3.57% 2.11% 3.31% 1.09% Vespidae 5.09% 7.14% 7.37% 6.53% 1.26% Yponomeutidae 0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.49%

100

Table A.6.4: Reference Field 2. Insect families mean value and standard deviation from all three observations, for the graph in the result part of this bachelor thesis

Species Species Species richness N°1 richness richness Average value Standard Insect Family [%] N°2 [%] N°3 [%] [%] Deviation [+/-] Apidae 3.03% 5.88% 4.76% 4.56% 1.44% Araneidae 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 0.88% Calliphoridae 4.55% 4.41% 6.35% 5.10% 1.08% Chrysomelidae 30.30% 29.41% 31.75% 30.49% 1.18% Coccinellidae 3.00% 7.35% 4.76% 5.04% 2.19% Forficulidae 1.52% 2.94% 0.00% 1.49% 1.47% Formicidae 27.27% 16.18% 25.40% 22.95% 5.94% Lycaenidae 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 0.88% Lygaeidae 0.00% 1.47% 0.00% 0.49% 0.85% Miridae 15.15% 19.12% 12.70% 15.66% 3.24% Rhagionidae 1.52% 1.47% 0.00% 1.00% 0.86% Scarabaeidae 4.55% 1.47% 0.00% 2.01% 2.32% Vespidae 6.06% 10.29% 14.29% 10.21% 4.12%

101

Declaration of Authenticity

I, Johanna Marquardt, hereby declare that the work presented herein is my own work completed without the use of any aids other than those listed. Any material from other sources or works done by others has been given due acknowledgement and listed in the reference section. Sentences or parts of sentences quoted literally are marked as quotations; identification of other references with regard to the statement and scope of the work is quoted. The work presented herein has not been published or submitted elsewhere for assessment in the same or a similar form. I will retain a copy of this assignment until after the Board of Examiners has published the results, which I will make available on request.

All rights and copyright on all photographs which are included in this Bachelor Thesis belongs to me, Johanna Marquardt.

______

Place, Date Signature of Student (Johanna Marquardt)

102