Monocultural sowing in mesocosms decreases the species richness of weeds and invertebrates and critically reduces the fitness of the endangered European hamster
Intensive cereal monoculture is currently the main cause of biodiversity decline in Europe. However, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of intensive monoculture (e.g. pesticide use, mechanical ploughing and reduced protective cover), let alone evaluate how far the reduction of crop diversity affects biodiversity. It remains unclear to which extent the consequent decrease in food resources affects farmland biodiversity, and particularly vertebrate species. We therefore designed this study in mesocosms to investigate the effects of monoculture crops (organic wheat or corn seeds) and mixed crops (a combination of organic wheat, corn, sunflower and alfalfa seeds) on (1) the species richness of weeds and invertebrates and (2) the reproductive success of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus), a critically endangered umbrella species of European farmlands. We found a negative impact of organic monoculture crops on plant and invertebrate species richness, with values respectively 38% and 28% lower than those obtained for mixed organic crops. The reproductive success of hamsters was reduced by 82% in monoculture mesocosms. These results highlight that monoculture per se can be detrimental for farmland biodiversity (i.e. from plants to vertebrates), even before taking into account the use of pesticide and mechanization. We believe that future research should further consider how food reduction in agroecosystems affects farmland wildlife, including vertebrates. Moreover, we argue that conservation actions must focus on restoring plant diversity on farmland to reverse the observed trend in farmland wildlife decline.
KeywordsBiodiversity Nutritional deficiencies Reproduction Agriculture Conservation
We are grateful to Pierre Ulrich for his help and work at the Fort Joffre and to Cédric DeVigne for his advice on invertebrate trapping. Many thanks to Michel Hoff for helping with plant species identification. The experimental protocol followed EU Directive 2010/63/EU guidelines for animal experiments and the care and use of laboratory animals, and was approved by the Ethical Committee (CREMEAS) under agreement number 00624-01. This work was supported by the LIFE + Biodiversity Grant N° LIFE12 BIO/FR/000979 and the Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Developpement Durable et de l’Energie. The funders did not participate in the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers and the editor who helped improving this manuscript and to Joanna Lignot for copyediting.
Author contribution statement
MLT and CH designed the study. MLT and FK collected the data and FK performed invertebrate and plant species identification. MLT carried out statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript. YH, FK and CH contributed significantly to manuscript revisions and gave final approval for publication.
- Evans A (1997) The importance of mixed farming for seed-eating birds in the UK. In: Pain DJ, Pienkowski MW (eds) Farming and birds in Europe: the common agricultural policy and its implications for bird conservation, chap 12, pp 331–357Google Scholar
- Kourkgy C, Eidenschenck J (2015) Délivrable Action D1. Rapport annuel de présentation des données collectées et premières analyses, année 2014. StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- La Haye M, Müskens G, Van Kats R et al (2010) Agri-environmental schemes for the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus). Why is the Dutch project successful? Asp Appl Biol 100:117–124Google Scholar
- La Haye MJJ, Swinnen KRR, Kuiters AT et al (2014) Modelling population dynamics of the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus): timing of harvest as a critical aspect in the conservation of a highly endangered rodent. Biol Conserv 180:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Out ME, Van Kats RJM, Kuiters L, et al (2011) Hard to stay under cover: seven years of crop management aiming to preserve the common Hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in the Netherlands. In: Angermann R, Görner M, Stubbe M (eds) Proceedings of the 16th and 17th meeting of the international hamster workgroup, 2009, Ranis, Germany, 2010, Gödollo, Hungary. Säugetierkundliche Informationen, pp 37–50Google Scholar
- Reznik-Schuller H, Reznik G, Mohr U (1974) The European hamster (Cricetus cricetus L.) as an experimental animal: breeding methods and observations of their behaviour in the laboratory. Zeitschrift Versuchtierkd 16:48–58Google Scholar
- Tissier ML (2017) Conservation Biology of the European hamster (Cricetus cricetus): nutritional effects of crops on hamsters fitness and evaluation of their antipredatory behavior to upgrade wildlife underpasses. CNRS-Université de Strasbourg, pp 140–147. PhD thesis available at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01545873/
- Vander Wall SB (1990) Food hoarding in animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Villemey A, Besnard A, Grandadam J, Eidenschenck J (2013) Testing restocking methods for an endangered species: effects of predator exclusion and vegetation cover on common hamster (Cricetus cricetus) survival and reproduction. Biol Conserv 158:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weinhold U (2008) Draft European action plan for the conservation of the common hamster (Cricetus cricetus L., 1758). In: Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. In: Standing Commitee. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France, pp 1–36Google Scholar