Study area
Structured interviews were conducted at 39 banana farms across the Atlantic zone in Costa Rica, in order to identify banana farms with different management intensities (Bellamy 2013). From these 39 interviews, 16 banana farms were sampled for this study, based on their level of management intensity.
Nine farms were large-scale high-input conventional monocultures of banana production located in the Atlantic zone: Matina and Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui (Fig. 1). The farm sizes ranged from 121 to 307 ha (Table 1) and were 8–17 years old. Two farms were large-scale low-input conventional monocultures of banana production owned by Earth University, where managers continuously implement new practices developed by researchers and students with the aim of producing bananas more sustainably. One such practice is the recycling of banana waste into manure that is then applied to the soil on the farm. Both farms received the same regular aerial fungicide application compared to the other conventional producers, but one farm made only one application of nematicide/year, whereas the other farm made two applications/year. The following nematicides were used on banana farms: carbofuran, terbufos, oxamil, ethoprophos, phenamiphos, and cadusafos. Fourteen different fungicides were used on high-input farms: difenoconazole, tridemorph, tebuconazole, bitertanol, pymetrozine, azoxystrobin, tiabendazole, pyraclostrobin, benomil, mancozeb, chlorothalonil, trifloxistrobina, propiconazole, and spiroxamina. The first farm only received organic manure, whereas a mix of organic and synthetic fertilizer was used on the second farm. No herbicides were used on either farms, and these farms instead relied on manually chopping weeds (Table 1); herbicides used on high-input farms were paraquat, diquat, and glyphosate.
Table 1 Average values for the three farm management types studied: organic and high-input and low-input farms. N is the number of farms in the category. Mean size (ha) is the average size of the farms in hectares. The following three columns refer to the number of herbicide applications, nematicide applications, and fungicide applications, respectively, per year. Insecticide-impregnated bags refer to whether or not farms used them (all high- and low-input farms used them, while none of the organic farms did) to cover the banana bunch during the maturation phase. The final two columns refers to the average number of times manually weeding per year and the average number of other crops cultivated on the farm Five farms were small-scale and had received organic certification for their banana production. They varied in size, ranging from 2 to 25 ha, and were between 10 and 20 years old (Table 1). They also varied with regard to the diversity of other crops grown on the farms. More details of the interview survey from the 39 farms are presented elsewhere (Bellamy, 2013).
Climatic conditions in Costa Rica are dictated largely by elevation and which side of the central mountain range sites is located. As all farms were located in the Atlantic coastal zone, they all experienced similar climatic conditions of precipitation, humidity, and temperature (Hall 2000). The elevation range for all 16 farms was from 0 to 126 m above sea level, average annual rainfall varies between 245 and 490 cm, and average temperature is approximately 27 °C. Soil temperature taken at each sampling site varied between 26 and 28 °C.
Sampling methods
Insect sampling was conducted using pitfall and yellow bowl traps. Two to four sites were sampled on each of the 16 farms, depending on the size and neighboring habitat of each farm. In all cases but two, farms consisted of one large field site; on the two farms that differed from this pattern, the larger of the two farm fields was chosen for sampling. The sites were placed along a transect running from (1) the middle of the farm, referred to as the inside site; (2) 30 m from the edge of the banana farm; (3) the edge of the banana farm; and (4) in the forest bordering the banana farm (Fig. 2). There were five replicate yellow bowl traps and five replicate pitfall traps at each site. Each trap was placed at least 5 m apart according to Sutherland (2006). Traps were left in place for 24 h. At two small farms, the site that was 30 m from the edge also constituted the inside site. On six farms, there was no adjacent forest, so this point was not sampled in these cases. The specific site for each sampling point was decided in advance after consulting a map of the farm and surrounding land uses. In cases where there was not forest adjacent to the farm, the forest site was not sampled, and the edge site was placed adjacent to rivers (n = 3) or open pasture (n = 3).
The choice of running a transect from the forest, to the edge, to inside of the farm was to use forest sites as a reference site for area undisturbed by farm management practices; the traps for the forest site were placed 30–50 m from the edge site. The 30 m from the edge site was chosen in order to cancel out the possibility of differing edge effects on farms of different sizes; on a large farm, the middle is further from the edge than on a small farm. Thus, the 30 m from the edge point is a standardized point of comparison between farms. The inside point was approximately 100 m from the edge of the farm. Sampling took place during the Costa Rican dry season, in March 2007.
Yellow bowl and pitfall traps
Yellow bowl traps are useful for catching flying insects, especially diptera, hymenoptera, hemiptera, and homoptera which are all attracted to the bright yellow color of the traps. The traps were 12-oz, yellow, Solo brand, plastic bowls. Water, pre-mixed with blue Dawn detergent soap (3–4 ml soap/l of water; LeBuhn et al. 2003) was poured into the bowl, approximately 3 cm deep. The soil surface was cleared of debris and the bowl placed on the flat ground.
Pitfall trap types are useful for catching living, surface-dwelling insects such as Coleoptera (beetles) and Formicidae (ants). Hard plastic bowls with straight sides, 15 cm deep, and a circumference of 44 cm were dug into the ground so that the lip of the bowl was even with ground level. The same water-soap mixture was used as for the yellow bowl traps, and was poured into the bowl, approximately 3 cm deep. A plastic lid cover, propped up approximately 3 cm above the lip of the bowl with the use of three popsicle sticks/lid, was used to keep rain water and debris from falling into the bowl (Sutherland, 2006).
In the lab, the mixture for both the pitfall traps and the yellow bowl traps were sieved through a 0.5-mm mesh net, rinsed, and then preserved in 70% alcohol solution until taxonomic identification. Each sample was labeled and kept separate for identification. Identification was conducted to family and then morphospecies, using a stereoscope. One specimen of each morphospecies from each sampling location was preserved in alcohol and deposited at the National Institute of Biodiversity (Instituto Nacional de biodiversidad, INBio) in Costa Rica for their own species database which records the locations where species are captured.
Data analysis
While traditional descriptors such as species richness, species abundance, and diversity indices are often used to measure anthropogenic impact on natural communities, they fail to relate any information about changes in community composition that may significantly influence ecosystem functioning and the provision of essential ecosystem services (Kremen 2005; Tscharntke et al. 2005; Tylianakis et al. 2007). Thus, we chose to study the effect of management type and sampling location on insect species diversity with multivariate statistics, using two ordination techniques: principle component analysis (PCA) and redundancy analysis (RDA). Multivariate analyses are used frequently in ecotoxicology to describe differences in community composition among sites and to relate these differences to a chemical/management treatment (see for instance Kedwards et al. 1999; Van den Brink et al. 2003). While PCA selects the linear combination of species that gives the smallest total residual sum of squares, RDA also considers the linear combination of explanatory variables in order to analyze how well the explanatory variables explains the species data (Ter Braak 1995); thus, we primarily used RDA.
PCA and RDA analyses generate ordination diagrams that allow one to compare how closely the different sites are related to each other in terms of species composition and how the species composition varies between treatments, i.e., management types. Sites that lie close together on the diagram share a more similar species composition than those sites that lie further apart (Ter Braak 1995). Species points lying far away from the center of the diagram are important for indicating sample differences; the further away, the larger the difference. Those species whose abundance shows variation from the mean are displayed in the diagram. In addition to the visual representation of data provided by these ordination techniques, the statistical significance of hypothesized differences was obtained using Monte Carlo permutation testing according to Ter Braak and Šmilauer (2002).
To test the first hypotheses, we performed a RDA analysis using species data from the inside and the 30-m sampling sites on each farm. Nominal variables denoting the management type of the samples were introduced as explanatory variables, while nominal variables denoting whether samples were taken at the inside and 30-m sites were introduced as covariables in the analysis.
In order to test the second hypothesis, we charted the functions performed by each insect family in the RDA analysis used to test the first and second hypotheses. Insects were assigned to different functions based on exploitation of the same resource in a similar way, while ants form a functional guild of their own, owing to the diverse number of functions they perform (Moran and Southwood 1982; Ugalde 2002; Zumbado 2006). If the family was represented in the RDA analysis for either pitfall or yellow bowl trap, it was included once, and assigned based on which management type it was most strongly associated.
To test the third hypothesis, we performed a RDA for the pitfall traps and yellow bowl traps data set. These analyses were performed for each farm management type separately, using sampling location (i.e., inside, 30 m, edge, and forest) as explanatory variables and farm as covariable. Monte Carlo permutation tests were run to evaluate the differences in species composition between sample locations for each management type separately.