Abstract
Landscape supplementation, which enhances densities of organisms by combination of different landscape elements, is likely common in heterogeneous landscapes, but its prevalence and effects on species richness have been little explored. Using grassland-dwelling spiders in an agricultural landscape, we postulated that richness and abundances of major constituent species are both highest in intermediate mixtures of forests and paddy fields, and that this effect derives from multi-scale landscape heterogeneity. We collected spiders in 35 grasslands in an agricultural landscape in Japan and determined how species richness and abundances of major species related to local and landscape factors across different spatial scales. We used a generalized linear model to fit data, created all possible combinations of variables at 15 spatial scales, and then explored the best models using Akaike’s information criterion. Species richness showed a hump-shaped pattern in relation to surrounding forest cover, and the spatial scale determining this relationship was a 300–500-m radius around the study sites. Local variables were of minor importance for species richness. Abundances of major species also exhibited a hump-shaped pattern when plotted against forest cover. Thus, a combination of paddy fields and forests is important for enhancement of grassland spider species richness and abundance, suggesting habitat supplementation. The effective spatial scales determining abundances varied, ranging from 200 to >1000 m, probably representing different dispersal abilities. Landscape compositional heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales may be thus crucial for the maintenance of species diversity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Batáry P, Báldi A, Samu F, Szűtts T, Erdős S (2008) Are spiders reacting to local or landscape scale effects in Hungarian pastures? Biol Conserv 141:2062–2070
Bennett AF, Radford JM, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv 133:250–264
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188
Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1715–1727
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York
Chikuni Y (1989) Pictorial encyclopedia of spiders in Japan. Kaisei-sha, Tokyo (in Japanese)
Drapela T, Moser D, Zaller JG, Frank T (2008) Spider assemblages in winter oilseed rape affected by landscape and site factors. Ecography 31:254–262
Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515
Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112
Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233
Holling CS (1992) Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 62:447–502
Holt RD (2009) Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19659–19665
Kajimura T, Widiarta IN, Nagai K, Fujisaki K, Nakasuji F (1995) Effect of organic rice farming on planthoppers 4. Reproduction of the white backed planthopper, Sogatella furcifera Horváth (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Res Popul Ecol 37:219–224
Kato N, Yoshio M, Kobayashi R, Miyashita T (2010) Differential responses of two anuran species breeding in rice fields to landscape composition and spatial scale. Wetlands 30:1171–1179
Kobori H, Primack RB (2003) Participatory conservation approaches for Satoyama, the traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. Ambio 32:307–311
Kunin WE (1998) Biodiversity at the edge: a test of the importance of spatial “mass effects” in the Rothamsted Park Grass experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:207–212
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2005) The 79th statistical yearbook of ministry of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, Japan (in Japanese)
Miyashita T, Takada M (2007) Habitat provisioning for aboveground predators decreases detritivores: the coupling of engineering effect to top-down effect. Ecology 88:2803–2809
Murata K (1999) Winter ecology of Pardosa pseudoannulata (Bösenberg et Strand) in the paddy field under the sustainable agriculture on Iriomote Island, Okinawa Prefecture. Acta Arachnol 48:57–69 (in Japanese with English abstract)
Öberg S, Ekbom B, Bommarco R (2007) Influence of habitat type and surrounding landscape on spider diversity in Swedish agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:211–219
Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS (1998) Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18
Pluess T, Opatovsky I, Gavish-Regev E, Lubin Y, Schmidt-Entling MH (2010) Non-crop habitats in the landscape enhance spider diversity in wheat fields of a desert agroecosystem. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:68–74
R Development Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
Schmidt MH, Tscharntke T (2005) Landscape context of sheetweb spider (Araneae: Linyphiidae) abundance in cereal fields. J Biogeogr 32:467–473
Schmidt MH, Roschewitz I, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. J Appl Ecol 42:281–287
Schmidt MH, Thies C, Nentwig W, Tscharntke T (2008) Contrasting responses of arable spiders to the landscape matrix at different spatial scales. J Biogeogr 35:157–166
Settle WH, Ariawan H, Astuti ET, Cahyana W, Hakim AL, Hindayana D, Lestari AL (1996) Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77:1975–1988
Shimazaki A, Miyashita T (2005) Variable dependence on detrital and grazing food webs by generalist predators: aerial insects and web spiders. Ecography 28:485–494
Szabo P, Meszena G (2006) Spatial ecological hierarchies: coexistence on heterogeneous landscapes via scale niche diversification. Ecosystems 9:1009–1016
Takahashi Y (2002) Activities of biodiversity conservation on semi-natural grassland in Japan. Grassl Sci 48:264–267 (in Japanese)
Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874
Washitani I (2001) Traditional sustainable ecosystem ‘SATOYAMA’ and biodiversity crisis in Japan: conservation ecological perspective. Glob Environ Res 5:119–133
Werling B, Gratton C (2010) Local and broadscale landscape structure differentially impact predation of two potato pests. Ecol Appl 20:1114–1125
Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, Freckleton RP (2006) Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J Anim Ecol 75:1182–1189
Acknowledgments
We thank Tatsuya Amano and anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript, Akio Tanikawa and Raita Kobayashi for the field work assistance. The study was in part financially supported by the GCOE programme (Asian Conservation Ecology) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miyashita, T., Chishiki, Y. & Takagi, S.R. Landscape heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales enhances spider species richness in an agricultural landscape. Popul Ecol 54, 573–581 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-012-0329-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-012-0329-2