TY - JOUR A1 - Allan, Eric A1 - Bossdorf, Oliver A1 - Dormann, Carsten F. A1 - Prati, Daniel A1 - Gossner, Martin M. A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Blüthgen, Nico A1 - Bellach, Michaela A1 - Birkhofer, Klaus A1 - Boch, Steffen A1 - Böhm, Stefan A1 - Börschig, Carmen A1 - Chatzinotas, Antonis A1 - Christ, Sabina A1 - Daniel, Rolf A1 - Diekötter, Tim A1 - Fischer, Christiane A1 - Friedl, Thomas A1 - Glaser, Karin A1 - Hallmann, Christine A1 - Hodac, Ladislav A1 - Hölzel, Norbert A1 - Jung, Kirsten A1 - Klein, Alexandra-Maria A1 - Klaus, Valentin H. A1 - Kleinebecker, Till A1 - Krauss, Jochen A1 - Lange, Markus A1 - Morris, E. Kathryn A1 - Müller, Jörg A1 - Nacke, Heiko A1 - Pasalic, Esther A1 - Rillig, Matthias C. A1 - Rothenwoehrer, Christoph A1 - Schally, Peter A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Schulze, Waltraud X. A1 - Socher, Stephanie A. A1 - Steckel, Juliane A1 - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf A1 - Türke, Manfred A1 - Weiner, Christiane N. A1 - Werner, Michael A1 - Westphal, Catrin A1 - Wolters, Volkmar A1 - Wubet, Tesfaye A1 - Gockel, Sonja A1 - Gorke, Martin A1 - Hemp, Andreas A1 - Renner, Swen C. A1 - Schöning, Ingo A1 - Pfeiffer, Simone A1 - König-Ries, Birgitta A1 - Buscot, Francois A1 - Linsenmair, Karl Eduard A1 - Schulze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. A1 - Fischer, Markus T1 - Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America N2 - Although temporal heterogeneity is a well-accepted driver of biodiversity, effects of interannual variation in land-use intensity (LUI) have not been addressed yet. Additionally, responses to land use can differ greatly among different organisms; therefore, overall effects of land-use on total local biodiversity are hardly known. To test for effects of LUI (quantified as the combined intensity of fertilization, grazing, and mowing) and interannual variation in LUI (SD in LUI across time), we introduce a unique measure of whole-ecosystem biodiversity, multidiversity. This synthesizes individual diversity measures across up to 49 taxonomic groups of plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria from 150 grasslands. Multidiversity declined with increasing LUI among grasslands, particularly for rarer species and aboveground organisms, whereas common species and belowground groups were less sensitive. However, a high level of interannual variation in LUI increased overall multidiversity at low LUI and was even more beneficial for rarer species because it slowed the rate at which the multidiversity of rare species declined with increasing LUI. In more intensively managed grasslands, the diversity of rarer species was, on average, 18% of the maximum diversity across all grasslands when LUI was static over time but increased to 31% of the maximum when LUI changed maximally over time. In addition to decreasing overall LUI, we suggest varying LUI across years as a complementary strategy to promote biodiversity conservation. KW - biodiversity loss KW - agricultural grasslands KW - Biodiversity Exploratories Y1 - 2014 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312213111 SN - 0027-8424 VL - 111 IS - 1 SP - 308 EP - 313 PB - National Acad. of Sciences CY - Washington ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Bacchi, Nina A1 - Pirhofer Walzl, Karin A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Müller, Marina E. H. A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Scherber, Christoph T1 - How much do we really lose? BT - Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes JF - Ecology and Evolution N2 - Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large‐scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field‐to‐field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid‐field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log‐scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Göttingen, and 2015–2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11%–38% in comparison with mid‐field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95% of mid‐field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in‐field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes. KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - land sharing vs. land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - edge effect KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5370 SN - 2045-7758 VL - 9 IS - 13 SP - 7838 EP - 7848 PB - John Wiley & Sons CY - S.I. ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Bacchi, Nina A1 - Walzl, Karin Pirhofer A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Müller, Marina E. H. A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Scherber, Christoph T1 - How much do we really lose? BT - yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes JF - Ecology and evolution N2 - Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Gottingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11%-38% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes. KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - edge effect KW - land sharing vs KW - land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5370 SN - 2045-7758 VL - 9 IS - 13 SP - 7838 EP - 7848 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin A1 - Müller, Marina E.H. A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha T1 - Who is the culprit: Is pest infestation responsible for crop yield losses close to semi-natural habitats? JF - Ecology and Evolution N2 - Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) are becoming increasingly scarce in modern agricultural landscapes. This may reduce natural ecosystem services such as pest control with its putatively positive effect on crop production. In agreement with other studies, we recently reported wheat yield reductions at field borders which were linked to the type of SNH and the distance to the border. In this experimental landscape-wide study, we asked whether these yield losses have a biotic origin while analyzing fungal seed and fungal leaf pathogens, herbivory of cereal leaf beetles, and weed cover as hypothesized mediators between SNHs and yield. We established experimental winter wheat plots of a single variety within conventionally managed wheat fields at fixed distances either to a hedgerow or to an in-field kettle hole. For each plot, we recorded the fungal infection rate on seeds, fungal infection and herbivory rates on leaves, and weed cover. Using several generalized linear mixed-effects models as well as a structural equation model, we tested the effects of SNHs at a field scale (SNH type and distance to SNH) and at a landscape scale (percentage and diversity of SNHs within a 1000-m radius). In the dry year of 2016, we detected one putative biotic culprit: Weed cover was negatively associated with yield values at a 1-m and 5-m distance from the field border with a SNH. None of the fungal and insect pests, however, significantly affected yield, neither solely nor depending on type of or distance to a SNH. However, the pest groups themselves responded differently to SNH at the field scale and at the landscape scale. Our findings highlight that crop losses at field borders may be caused by biotic culprits; however, their negative impact seems weak and is putatively reduced by conventional farming practices. KW - arable weeds KW - cereal leaf beetle KW - fungal pathogens KW - herbivory KW - structural equation model KW - wheat Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8046 SN - 1467-6435 VL - 11 SP - 13232 EP - 13246 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Oxford ET - 19 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin A1 - Müller, Marina E.H. A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha T1 - Who is the culprit: Is pest infestation responsible for crop yield losses close to semi-natural habitats? JF - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) are becoming increasingly scarce in modern agricultural landscapes. This may reduce natural ecosystem services such as pest control with its putatively positive effect on crop production. In agreement with other studies, we recently reported wheat yield reductions at field borders which were linked to the type of SNH and the distance to the border. In this experimental landscape-wide study, we asked whether these yield losses have a biotic origin while analyzing fungal seed and fungal leaf pathogens, herbivory of cereal leaf beetles, and weed cover as hypothesized mediators between SNHs and yield. We established experimental winter wheat plots of a single variety within conventionally managed wheat fields at fixed distances either to a hedgerow or to an in-field kettle hole. For each plot, we recorded the fungal infection rate on seeds, fungal infection and herbivory rates on leaves, and weed cover. Using several generalized linear mixed-effects models as well as a structural equation model, we tested the effects of SNHs at a field scale (SNH type and distance to SNH) and at a landscape scale (percentage and diversity of SNHs within a 1000-m radius). In the dry year of 2016, we detected one putative biotic culprit: Weed cover was negatively associated with yield values at a 1-m and 5-m distance from the field border with a SNH. None of the fungal and insect pests, however, significantly affected yield, neither solely nor depending on type of or distance to a SNH. However, the pest groups themselves responded differently to SNH at the field scale and at the landscape scale. Our findings highlight that crop losses at field borders may be caused by biotic culprits; however, their negative impact seems weak and is putatively reduced by conventional farming practices. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 1240 KW - arable weeds KW - cereal leaf beetle KW - fungal pathogens KW - herbivory KW - structural equation model KW - wheat Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-549622 SN - 1866-8372 SP - 13232 EP - 13246 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER -