Oecologia

, Volume 142, Issue 3, pp 458–464

The response of carabids to landscape simplification differs between trophic groups

Community Ecology

Abstract

We studied the response of carabid species richness and density to landscape simplification (measured as percentage cover of non-crop habitat surrounding each study site) in 36 wheat fields using pitfall traps. Carabids were divided to trophic groups following the literature. The number of species from different trophic groups declined with increasing landscape simplification in the order: carnivores > phytophages > omnivores. Density compensation of both carnivores and phytophages suggests that species decline is caused by the loss of specific resources rather than by an overall reduction in food availability. Increasing evenness indicates that a greater share of phytophagous species contributes to density compensation at poorer sites. A comparison with data from complementing studies shows that marked differences in species numbers (carnivores > omnivores > phytophages) are due to a different sensitivity of trophic groups to agricultural management. Since our findings seem to be partly due to increasing sensitivity to landscape changes with trophic rank, and partly to decreasing sensitivity of depauperate communities to local environmental stress, species loss can best be explained by the co-action of factors at local and regional scales. Species richness decline might significantly alter the role of carabids as biocontrol agents.

Keywords

Carabidae Trophic rank Species richness Density compensation Landscape composition 

References

  1. Bengtsson J, Engelhart K, Giller P, Hobbie S, Lawrence D, Levine J, Vilà M, Wolters V (2002) Slippin’ and slidin’ between the scales: the scaling components of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relations. In: Loreau M, Inchausti P, Naeem S (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 209–220Google Scholar
  2. Bestelmeyer BT, Miller JR, Wiens JA (2003) Applying species diversity theory to land management. Ecol Appl 13:1750–1761Google Scholar
  3. Bohan DA, Bohan AC, Glen DM, Symondson WOC, Wiltshire CW, Hughes L (2000) Spatial dynamics of predation by carabid beetles on slugs. J Anim Ecol 69:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bommarco R (1999) Feeding, reproduction and community impact of a predatory carabid in two agricultural habitats. Oikos 87:89–96Google Scholar
  5. Borrvall C, Ebenman B, Jonsson T (2000) Biodiversity lessens the risk of cascading extinction in model food webs. Ecol Lett 3:131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruun HH (2000) Patterns of species richness in dry grassland patches in an agricultural landscape. Ecography 23:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole LJ, McCracken DI, Dennis P, Downie IS, Griffin AL, Foster GN, Murphy KJ, Waterhouse T (2002) Relationships between agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish farmland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dauber J, Hirsch M, Simmering D, Waldhardt R, Otte A, Wolters V (2003) Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desender K (1982) Ecological and faunal studies on Coleoptera in agricultural land II. Hibernation of Carabidae in agro-ecosystems. Pedobiologia 23:295–303Google Scholar
  10. Dombos M (2001) Collembola of loess grassland: effects of grazing and landscape on community composition. Soil Biol Biochem 33:2037–2045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175Google Scholar
  12. Findley JS, Findley MT (2001) Global, regional, and local patterns in species richness and abundance of butterflyfishes. Ecol Monogr 71:69–91Google Scholar
  13. Fournier E, Loreau M (2002) Foraging activity of the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius Ill. in field margin habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabriel D, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape structure on plant diversity in cereal fields. Verh Ges Ökol 32:352Google Scholar
  15. Gaston KJ, Lawton JH (1990) Effects of scale and habitat on the relationship between regional distribution and local abundance. Oikos 58:329–335Google Scholar
  16. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt RD, Lawton JH, Polis GA, Martinez ND (1999) Trophic rank and the species-area relationship. Ecology 80:1495–1504Google Scholar
  18. Honek A, Martinkova Z, Jarosik V (2003) Ground beetles (Carabidae) as seed predators. Eur J Entomol 100:531–544Google Scholar
  19. Jeanneret PH, Schüpbach B, Luka H (2003) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jongman RHG (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landsc Urban Plan 58:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jorgensen HB, Toft S (1997) Role of granivory and insectivory in the life cycle of the carabid beetle Amara similata. Ecol Entomol 22:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kareiva P (1994) Space: the final frontier for ecological theory. Ecology 75:1Google Scholar
  23. Kromp B (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:187–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruess A (2003) Effects of landscape structure and habitat type on a plant-herbivore-parasitoid community. Ecography 26:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lagerlöf J, Goffre B, Vincent C (2002) The importance of field boundaries for earthworms (Lumbricidae) in the Swedish agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawton JH, Brown VK (1993) Redundancy in ecosystems. In: Schulze ED, Mooeney HA (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 255–270Google Scholar
  27. Lindroth CH (1992) Ground beetles (Carabidae) of Fennoscandia: a zoogeographic study. Part I. Specific knowledge regarding the species. Intercept, Andover, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR, Ward LK (2003) The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res 43:77–89Google Scholar
  29. McGrady-Steed J, Morin PJ (2000) Biodiversity, density compensation, and the dynamics of populations and functional groups. Ecology 82:361–373Google Scholar
  30. Östman Ö (2002) Landscape and farm management influence generalist predators: effects on condition, abundance and biological control. Acta Univ Agric Suec Agr, p 363Google Scholar
  31. Östman Ö, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J (2001) Natural enemy impacts on a pest aphid varies with landscape structure and farming practice. Basic Appl Ecol 2:365–371Google Scholar
  32. Purtauf T, Dauber J, Wolters V (2004) Carabid communities in the spatio-temporal mosaic of a rural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 67:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ribera I, Dolédec S, Downie IS, Foster GN (2001) Effect of land disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assemblages. Ecology 82:1112–1129Google Scholar
  34. Ritchie M, Olff H (1999) Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400:557–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruesink JL, Srivastava DS (2001) Numerical and per capita responses to species loss: mechanisms maintaining ecosystem function in a community of stream insect detritivores. Oikos 93:221–234Google Scholar
  36. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt MH, Lauer A, Purtauf T, Thies C, Schäfer M, Tscharntke T (2003) Relative importance of predators and parasitoids for cereal aphid control. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1905–1909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Skuhravý V (1959) Die Nahrung der Feldcarabiden. Acta Soc Entomol Cech 56:1–18Google Scholar
  39. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanners D, Bordeau P (1995) Europe’s environment: the Dobris assessment. European Environmental Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  41. Symondson WOC, Glen DM, Ives AR, Langdon CJ, Wiltshire CW (2002) Dynamics of the relationship between a generalist predator and slugs over five years. Ecology 83:137–147Google Scholar
  42. Thiele HU (1977) Carabid beetles in their environments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 101:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landsc Ecol 16:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallin H, Ekbom BS (1988) Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a field tracing study. Oecologia 77:39–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Weibull AC, Östman Ö, Granqvist A (2003) Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers Conserv 12:1335–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolters V (2001) Biodiversity of soil fauna and its function. Eur J Soil Biol 37:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Woodward G, Hildrew AG (2002) Food web structure in riverine landscapes. Freshw Biol 47:777–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IFZ, Department of Animal EcologyJustus-Liebig-University of GiessenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations