Skip to main content

Using Field Experiments to Inform Biodiversity Monitoring in Agricultural Landscapes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exploring and Optimizing Agricultural Landscapes

Abstract

Fueled by debates on the causes and consequences of biodiversity decline worldwide, many countries are now employing biodiversity monitoring programs of various scope, intensity and scale. While these programs will be important to set a baseline for managing a country´s biological diversity, the availability of detailed data may take too long for the urgently needed implementation of biodiversity-friendly action. Intensification of local agricultural land use and the high dynamics of landscape change are major reasons for current biodiversity losses. Hence, better use of published and unpublished data to inform predictive biodiversity monitoring under global change is needed. Here, we exemplarily show how existing experiments manipulating land-use drivers can be used to predict species responses to land-use change. In an experimental manipulation of temperate grassland plots, fertilizer addition and low mowing frequency increased the species richness of aboveground arthropods, while herbicide addition and frequent mowing reduced it. In a crop rotation experiment, temporal crop diversity slightly increased arthropod abundances, but crop identity had the strongest effect on arthropod abundance, showing that the type of crop grown may superimpose crop diversity effects on arthropod communities. Finally, in a wheat-bean intercropping experiment, we found that the legume-based farming systems under low-input management had higher diversity of flower-visiting insect taxa. In an upscaling exercise, we show how current crop distribution data from the pan-European LUCAS survey can be combined with insect biodiversity data to suggest an approach for predictive mapping of insect biodiversity. These can form the basis for scenario modeling that is based on experimental evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services, Date of publication: 2010-12-08; https://land.copernicus.eu/imagery-insitu/lucas/lucas-2012?tab=metadata.

  2. 2.

    In a similar way, data from experiments and published data could be combined, if sampling effort is accounted for (e.g. by calculating rarefaction curves) and if reliability of methods is sufficiently documented.

References

  • Altieri M (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batáry P, Gallé R, Riesch F, Fischer C, Dormann CF, Mußhoff O, Császár P, Fusaro S, Gayer C, Happe A-K, Kurucz K, Molnár D, Rösch V, Wietzke A, Tscharntke T (2017) The former iron curtain still drives biodiversity–profit trade-offs in German agriculture. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1279–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker BM, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SP, Reemer M, Ohlemuller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffers AP, Potts SG, Kleukers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kunin WE (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brandmeier J, Reininghaus H, Pappagallo S, Karley AJ, Kiær LP, Scherber C (2021) Intercropping in high input agriculture supports arthropod diversity without risking significant yield losses. Basic Appl Ecol 53:26–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ, Johnston AE, Silvertown J, Dodd M, de Mazancourt C, Heard MS, Henman DF, Edwards GR (2005) Determinants of species richness in the Park Grass Experiment. Am Nat 165:179–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AS, Hill JD, Chase CA, Johanns AM, Liebman M (2012) Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7:e47149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J (1986) Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In: Diamond JM, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper & Row, New York, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks LV, Ashpole JE, Dänhardt J, James K, Jönsson AM, Randall N, Showler DA, Smith RK, Turpie S, Williams D, Sutherland WJ (2014) Farmland conservation: evidence for the effects of interventions in northern and western Europe. Pelagic Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis EC (2011) Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philos Trans Ser A Math Phys Eng Sci 369:1010–1035

    Google Scholar 

  • Everwand G, Scherber C, Tscharntke T (2013) Slug responses to grassland cutting and fertilizer application under plant functional group removal. Acta Oecol-Int J Ecol 48:62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everwand G, Rösch V, Tscharntke T, Scherber C (2014) Disentangling direct and indirect effects of experimental grassland management and plant functional-group manipulation on plant and leafhopper diversity. BMC Ecol 14:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S, Hansel F, Hemp A, Hessenmoller D, Korte G, Nieschulze J, Pfeiffer S, Prati D, Renner S, Schoning I, Schumacher U, Wells K, Buscot F, Kalko EKV, Linsenmair KE, Schulze ED, Weisser WW (2010) Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the biodiversity exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol 11:473–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz S et al (2015) Mapping global cropland and field size. Glob Chang Biol 21:1980–1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie MAK, Baude M, Biesmeijer J, Boatman N, Budge GE, Crowe A, Memmott J, Morton RD, Pietravalle S, Potts SG, Senapathi D, Smart SM, Kunin WE, Travis J (2017) A method for the objective selection of landscape-scale study regions and sites at the national level. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1468–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, Stenmans W, Muller A, Sumser H, Horren T, Goulson D, de Kroon H (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12:e0185809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hass AL, Brachmann L, Batary P, Clough Y, Behling H, Tscharntke T (2019) Maize-dominated landscapes reduce bumblebee colony growth through pollen diversity loss. J Appl Ecol 56:294–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2008) Agricultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity. Oikos 117:354–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert SH (2009) The ancient black art and transdisciplinary extent of pseudoreplication. J Comp Psychol 123:434–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karley AJ, Newton AC, Brooker RW, Pakeman RJ, Guy D, Mitchell C, Iannetta PPM, Weih M, Scherber C, Kiær LP (2018) DIVERSify-ing for sustainability using cereal-legume ‘plant teams’. Asp Appl Biol 138:57–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy CM, Oakleaf JR, Theobald DM, Baruch-Mordo S, Kiesecker J (2019) Managing the middle: A shift in conservation priorities based on the global human modification gradient. Glob Chang Biol 25:811–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein Goldewijk K, Beusen A, Doelman J, Stehfest E (2017) Anthropogenic land use estimates for the Holocene – HYDE 3.2. Earth Syst Sci Data 9:927–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D (2009) Large-scale landscape experiments: lessons from Tumut. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2010) The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biol Conserv 143:1317–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martino L, Fritz M (2008) New insight into land cover and land use in Europe: land use/cover area frame statistical survey: methodology and tools. Eurostat - Stat Focus 33:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M, Ott D, Götze P, Koch H-J, Scherber C (2019) Crop identity and memory effects on aboveground arthropods in a long-term crop rotation experiment. Ecol Evol 9(12):7307–7323

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin P (1998) Realism, precision, and generality in experimental ecology. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 50–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen U, Wrage N, Köhler L, Leuschner C, Isselstein J (2012) Manipulating the species composition of permanent grasslands—a new approach to biodiversity experiments. Basic Appl Ecol 13:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, The R Core Team (2019) NLME: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–140. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme

  • Platt JR (1964) Strong Inference: certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science 146:347–353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2019) R - A language and environment for statistical computing. In: R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org

  • Romeis J, Meissle M, Alvarez-Alfageme F, Bigler F, Bohan DA, Devos Y, Malone LA, Pons X, Rauschen S (2014) Potential use of an arthropod database to support the non-target risk assessment and monitoring of transgenic plants. Transgenic Res 23:995–1013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • RStudio Team (2019) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/

  • Scherber C (2015) Insect responses to interacting global change drivers in managed ecosystems. Curr Opin Insect Sci 11:56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherber C et al (2010) Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468:553–556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scherber C, Beduschi T, Tscharntke T (2018) Novel approaches to sampling pollinators in whole landscapes: a lesson for landscape-wide biodiversity monitoring. Landsc Ecol

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J, Poulton P, Johnston E, Edwards G, Heard M, Biss PM (2006) The park grass experiment 1856-2006: its contribution to ecology. J Ecol 94:801–814

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simons NK, Weisser WW (2017) Agricultural intensification without biodiversity loss is possible in grassland landscapes. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1136–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Batary P, Dormann CF (2011) Set-aside management: How do succession, sowing patterns and landscape context affect biodiversity? Agric Ecosyst Environ 143:37–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T et al (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes - eight hypotheses. Biol Rev (published online) 661–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban MC et al (2016) Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science 353

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Warren R, Price J, Graham E, Forstenhaeusler N, VanDerWal J (2018) The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C. Science 791–795

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The GrassMan project was funded by the State of Lower Saxony, the Volkswagen foundation (program “Niedersächsisches Vorab”)/Haeckel1b Cluster Functional Biodiversity Research. The Harste project was supported by the Institute of Sugar Beet Research (Göttingen, Germany). The DIVERSify project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under agreement No. 727284.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Scherber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scherber, C. et al. (2021). Using Field Experiments to Inform Biodiversity Monitoring in Agricultural Landscapes. In: Mueller, L., Sychev, V.G., Dronin, N.M., Eulenstein, F. (eds) Exploring and Optimizing Agricultural Landscapes. Innovations in Landscape Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67448-9_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics