Using species-habitat networks to inform agricultural landscape management for spiders

Nardi, Davide; Lami, Francesco; Pantini, Paolo; Marini, Lorenzo

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108275

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Species richness and conservation value of spider assemblages were lower in wheat fields than in non-crop habitats. Similar patterns have been demonstrated in other studies, stressing the importance of non-crop habitats for the conservation and enhancement of spiders in agricultural landscapes (Schmidt and Tscharntke 2005;Mestre et al 2018;Nardi et al 2019;Pompozzi et al 2019). Interestingly though, the three non-crop habitat types were statically indistinguishable except for conservation value, being higher on grassland fallows.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Even for agrobionts non-crop habitats can be important, for example as overwintering sites (Schmidt-Entling and Döbeli 2009). More specialised spider species may be restricted to certain habitat types, such that spider assemblages may differ between non-crop habitats (Nardi et al 2019). Moreover, landscape and habitat features may influence the functional diversity of spider communities (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Farmland biodiversity: wildflower-sown islands within arable fields and grassy field margins both promote spider diversity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural intensification and the concomitant landscape homogenization is leading to a worldwide decline in farmland biodiversity. Non-crop habitats in agroecosystems may counteract the loss of arthropods such as spiders and thus contribute to sustainable agriculture. However, the effectiveness of field margins and set-aside wildflower-sown patches in maintaining spider diversity is not well understood. Here, we investigated the effects of three different non-crop habitats, namely field margins, set-aside wildflower-sown patches under power poles (‘power pole islands’), and grassland fallows on spider diversity as compared to wheat fields in an agricultural landscape in western Germany. Using pitfall trapping and suction sampling, we show that species richness and overall conservation value were higher in non-crop habitats than in wheat fields. Interestingly, field margins and power pole islands differed from long-term grassland fallows only in conservation value, which was significantly higher in grassland fallows. Species assemblages differed considerably between grassland fallows, field margins and power pole islands, and wheat fields, documenting the added value of using different conservation strategies. Implications for insect conservation Small-scale non-crop habitats adjacent to wheat fields were surprisingly effective in promoting spider diversity in an agricultural landscape, with field margins and power pole islands being equally effective. To maximize overall diversity in agricultural landscapes, we propose a combination of larger long-term fallows and smaller non-crop habitats such as field margins or set-aside wildflower-sown patches.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmland biodiversity: wildflower-sown islands within arable fields and grassy field margins both promote spider diversity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…patch density) did not seem to be an influential factor in terms of habitat specialisation, at least at the investigated spatial scale, the amount of semi‐natural cover showed a positive effect on network‐level specialisation, but with differences between taxa. These landscape effects were weaker or non‐existent in spiders that maintained a low connectance and high modularity irrespective of any variation in the proportion of semi‐natural habitats (Nardi et al ., 2019), while the more polyphagous ground beetle species were better able to respond to diminishing semi‐natural habitat cover by broadening their range of exploited habitats. Species‐level metrics reflected the general trends of network‐level metrics, corroborating the idea that intraspecific variability (Araújo et al ., 2011) played an important role in network rearrangement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species–habitat networks elucidate landscape effects on habitat specialisation of natural enemies and pollinators

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring habitat specialisation is pivotal for predicting species extinctions and for understanding consequences on ecosystem functioning. Here, we sampled pollinator and natural enemy communities in all major habitat types occurring across multiple agricultural landscapes and used species–habitat networks to determine how habitat specialisation changed along gradients in landscape composition and configuration. Although it is well known that landscape simplification often causes the replacement of specialists with generalists, our study provided evidence for intraspecific variation in habitat specialisation, highlighting how a large number of arthropod species adapted their way of selecting habitat resources depending on the landscape structure. Groups with higher diet specialisation and limited foraging flexibility appeared to have a reduced ability to respond to landscape changes, indicating that some arthropod taxa are better able than others to adapt to an increasingly broad set of resources and persist in highly impacted landscapes.

show abstract

“…In particular, crop diversity at the landscape scale could offer temporally complementary resource patches to mobile generalists that can make use of different habitats throughout the growing season, as well as "bridge" seminatural habitat and annual cropland by providing connectivity in time and space. For example, Nardi et al (2019) used network analysis to show that while forest habitats hosted spider communities distinct from those in annual crop fields, perennial crops and meadows played a key role in facilitating dispersal across agricultural landscapes. Studying ground beetles in maize, Aviron et al (2018) found that the presence of semi-natural areas did not enhance farmland species, but connectivity to winter cereal crops promoted short-winged species, whereas Duflot et al (2016) saw no evidence of complementation between cereal and maize fields.…”

Section: Landscape Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Resource (Dis)continuity for Conservation Biological Control: From Field to Landscape Scales

Iuliano

Gratton

2020

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation biological control (CBC) seeks to promote the occurrence of natural enemies of agricultural pests by managing habitat to provide key resources in and around farm fields. In particular, vegetation diversity may help ensure temporal resource continuity such that natural enemies are less likely to experience detrimental gaps or bottlenecks as they move through and use different habitats. While the conceptual value of resource continuity has long been recognized by CBC researchers and practitioners, empirical studies have tended to focus on snapshots in space and time. Here we review how continuity of trophic (food) and structural (shelter) resources affect natural enemy conservation and pest control outcomes within farm fields and across agricultural landscapes. Key trophic resources include alternative prey and non-prey food (such as floral nectar and pollen), which can bolster natural enemy nutrition when pests are scarce. Vegetative and non-vegetative structural resources can protect enemies when crop fields are disturbed and provide important overwintering habitat in temperate regions. Within fields, non-crop plantings such as wildflower strips or beetle banks are the most popular habitat management strategies, but temporal intercropping, asynchronous planting/harvesting, and the construction of artificial shelters have high potential to contribute to resource continuity. Analogously, semi-natural habitat at the landscape scale may contribute to resource continuity in some cases, but crop diversity, asynchrony, and urban habitat can also be important. Simultaneous consideration of resource diversity and continuity could generate better predictions and more targeted management interventions for particular pest and enemy assemblages. Future research should strive to expand our understanding of natural enemy resource requirements in space and time.

show abstract

Using species-habitat networks to inform agricultural landscape management for spiders

Cited by 27 publications

References 60 publications

Farmland biodiversity: wildflower-sown islands within arable fields and grassy field margins both promote spider diversity

Farmland biodiversity: wildflower-sown islands within arable fields and grassy field margins both promote spider diversity

Species–habitat networks elucidate landscape effects on habitat specialisation of natural enemies and pollinators

Temporal Resource (Dis)continuity for Conservation Biological Control: From Field to Landscape Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About