@phdthesis{Raatz2021, author = {Raatz, Larissa}, title = {Boon and bane}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51965}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-519653}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {130}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) in agricultural landscapes represent important refugia for biodiversity including organisms providing ecosystem services. Their spill-over into agricultural fields may lead to the provision of regulating ecosystem services such as biological pest control ultimately affecting agricultural yield. Still, it remains largely unexplored, how different habitat types and their distributions in the surrounding landscape shape this provision of ecosystem services within arable fields. Hence, in this thesis I investigated the effect of SNHs on biodiversity-driven ecosystem services and disservices affecting wheat production with an emphasis on the role and interplay of habitat type, distance to the habitat and landscape complexity. I established transects from the field border into the wheat field, starting either from a field-to-field border, a hedgerow, or a kettle hole, and assessed beneficial and detrimental organisms and their ecosystem functions as well as wheat yield at several in-field distances. Using this study design, I conducted three studies where I aimed to relate the impacts of SNHs at the field and at the landscape scale on ecosystem service providers to crop production. In the first study, I observed yield losses close to SNHs for all transect types. Woody habitats, such as hedgerows, reduced yields stronger than kettle holes, most likely due to shading from the tall vegetation structure. In order to find the biotic drivers of these yield losses close to SNHs, I measured pest infestation by selected wheat pests as potential ecosystem disservices to crop production in the second study. Besides relating their damage rates to wheat yield of experimental plots, I studied the effect of SNHs on these pest rates at the field and at the landscape scale. Only weed cover could be associated to yield losses, having their strongest impact on wheat yield close to the SNH. While fungal seed infection rates did not respond to SNHs, fungal leaf infection and herbivory rates of cereal leaf beetle larvae were positively influenced by kettle holes. The latter even increased at kettle holes with increasing landscape complexity suggesting a release of natural enemies at isolated habitats within the field interior. In the third study, I found that also ecosystem service providers benefit from the presence of kettle holes. The distance to a SNH decreased species richness of ecosystem service providers, whereby the spatial range depended on species mobility, i.e. arable weeds diminished rapidly while carabids were less affected by the distance to a SNH. Contrarily, weed seed predation increased with distance suggesting that a higher food availability at field borders might have diluted the predation on experimental seeds. Intriguingly, responses to landscape complexity were rather mixed: While weed species richness was generally elevated with increasing landscape complexity, carabids followed a hump-shaped curve with highest species numbers and activity-density in simple landscapes. The latter might give a hint that carabids profit from a minimum endowment of SNHs, while a further increase impedes their mobility. Weed seed predation was affected differently by landscape complexity depending on weed species displayed. However, in habitat-rich landscapes seed predation of the different weed species converged to similar rates, emphasising that landscape complexity can stabilize the provision of ecosystem services. Lastly, I could relate a higher weed seed predation to an increase in wheat yield even though seed predation did not diminish weed cover. The exact mechanisms of the provision of weed control to crop production remain to be investigated in future studies. In conclusion, I found habitat-specific responses of ecosystem (dis)service providers and their functions emphasizing the need to evaluate the effect of different habitat types on the provision of ecosystem services not only at the field scale, but also at the landscape scale. My findings confirm that besides identifying species richness of ecosystem (dis)service providers the assessment of their functions is indispensable to relate the actual delivery of ecosystem (dis)services to crop production.}, language = {en} }