Refine
Language
- English (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (10)
Keywords
- biodiversity (3)
- crop production (3)
- dispersal (3)
- disturbance (3)
- ecosystem services (3)
- edge effect (3)
- landscape diversity (3)
- natural habitats (3)
- plant diversity (3)
- seed bank (3)
Institute
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.
Meta‐communities of habitat islands may be essential to maintain biodiversity in anthropogenic landscapes allowing rescue effects in local habitat patches. To understand the species‐assembly mechanisms and dynamics of such ecosystems, it is important to test how local plant‐community diversity and composition is affected by spatial isolation and hence by dispersal limitation and local environmental conditions acting as filters for local species sorting. We used a system of 46 small wetlands (kettle holes)—natural small‐scale freshwater habitats rarely considered in nature conservation policies—embedded in an intensively managed agricultural matrix in northern Germany. We compared two types of kettle holes with distinct topographies (flatsloped, ephemeral, frequently plowed kettle holes vs. steep‐sloped, more permanent ones) and determined 254 vascular plant species within these ecosystems, as well as plant functional traits and nearest neighbor distances to other kettle holes. Differences in alpha and beta diversity between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes were mainly explained by species sorting and niche processes and mass effect processes in ephemeral flat kettle holes. The plant‐community composition as well as the community trait distribution in terms of life span, breeding system, dispersal ability, and longevity of seed banks significantly differed between the two habitat types. Flat ephemeral kettle holes held a higher percentage of non‐perennial plants with a more persistent seed bank, less obligate outbreeders and more species with seed dispersal abilities via animal vectors compared with steep‐sloped, more permanent kettle holes that had a higher percentage of wind‐dispersed species. In the flat kettle holes, plant‐species richness was negatively correlated with the degree of isolation, whereas no such pattern was found for the permanent kettle holes. Synthesis: Environment acts as filter shaping plant diversity (alpha and beta) and plant‐community trait distribution between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes supporting species sorting and niche mechanisms as expected, but we identified a mass effect in ephemeral kettle holes only. Flat ephemeral kettle holes can be regarded as meta‐ecosystems that strongly depend on seed dispersal and recruitment from a seed bank, whereas neighboring permanent kettle holes have a more stable local species diversity.
Meta‐communities of habitat islands may be essential to maintain biodiversity in anthropogenic landscapes allowing rescue effects in local habitat patches. To understand the species‐assembly mechanisms and dynamics of such ecosystems, it is important to test how local plant‐community diversity and composition is affected by spatial isolation and hence by dispersal limitation and local environmental conditions acting as filters for local species sorting. We used a system of 46 small wetlands (kettle holes)—natural small‐scale freshwater habitats rarely considered in nature conservation policies—embedded in an intensively managed agricultural matrix in northern Germany. We compared two types of kettle holes with distinct topographies (flatsloped, ephemeral, frequently plowed kettle holes vs. steep‐sloped, more permanent ones) and determined 254 vascular plant species within these ecosystems, as well as plant functional traits and nearest neighbor distances to other kettle holes. Differences in alpha and beta diversity between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes were mainly explained by species sorting and niche processes and mass effect processes in ephemeral flat kettle holes. The plant‐community composition as well as the community trait distribution in terms of life span, breeding system, dispersal ability, and longevity of seed banks significantly differed between the two habitat types. Flat ephemeral kettle holes held a higher percentage of non‐perennial plants with a more persistent seed bank, less obligate outbreeders and more species with seed dispersal abilities via animal vectors compared with steep‐sloped, more permanent kettle holes that had a higher percentage of wind‐dispersed species. In the flat kettle holes, plant‐species richness was negatively correlated with the degree of isolation, whereas no such pattern was found for the permanent kettle holes. Synthesis: Environment acts as filter shaping plant diversity (alpha and beta) and plant‐community trait distribution between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes supporting species sorting and niche mechanisms as expected, but we identified a mass effect in ephemeral kettle holes only. Flat ephemeral kettle holes can be regarded as meta‐ecosystems that strongly depend on seed dispersal and recruitment from a seed bank, whereas neighboring permanent kettle holes have a more stable local species diversity.
Meta-communities of habitat islands may be essential to maintain biodiversity in anthropogenic landscapes allowing rescue effects in local habitat patches. To understand the species-assembly mechanisms and dynamics of such ecosystems, it is important to test how local plant-community diversity and composition is affected by spatial isolation and hence by dispersal limitation and local environmental conditions acting as filters for local species sorting.We used a system of 46 small wetlands (kettle holes)natural small-scale freshwater habitats rarely considered in nature conservation policiesembedded in an intensively managed agricultural matrix in northern Germany. We compared two types of kettle holes with distinct topographies (flat-sloped, ephemeral, frequently plowed kettle holes vs. steep-sloped, more permanent ones) and determined 254 vascular plant species within these ecosystems, as well as plant functional traits and nearest neighbor distances to other kettle holes.Differences in alpha and beta diversity between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes were mainly explained by species sorting and niche processes and mass effect processes in ephemeral flat kettle holes. The plant-community composition as well as the community trait distribution in terms of life span, breeding system, dispersal ability, and longevity of seed banks significantly differed between the two habitat types. Flat ephemeral kettle holes held a higher percentage of non-perennial plants with a more persistent seed bank, less obligate outbreeders and more species with seed dispersal abilities via animal vectors compared with steep-sloped, more permanent kettle holes that had a higher percentage of wind-dispersed species. In the flat kettle holes, plant-species richness was negatively correlated with the degree of isolation, whereas no such pattern was found for the permanent kettle holes.Synthesis: Environment acts as filter shaping plant diversity (alpha and beta) and plant-community trait distribution between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes supporting species sorting and niche mechanisms as expected, but we identified a mass effect in ephemeral kettle holes only. Flat ephemeral kettle holes can be regarded as meta-ecosystems that strongly depend on seed dispersal and recruitment from a seed bank, whereas neighboring permanent kettle holes have a more stable local species diversity.
How much do we really lose?
(2019)
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.
How much do we really lose?
(2019)
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.
How much do we really lose?
(2019)
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.
Biodiversity conservation and agricultural production have been largely framed as separate goals for landscapes in the discourse on land use. Although there is an increasing tendency to move away from this dichotomy in theory, the tendency is perpetuated by the spatially explicit approaches used in research and management practice. Transition zones (TZ) have previously been defined as areas where two adjacent fields or patches interact, and so they occur abundantly throughout agricultural landscapes. Biodiversity patterns in TZ have been extensively studied, but their relationship to yield patterns and social-ecological dimensions has been largely neglected. Focusing on European, temperate agricultural landscapes, we outline three areas of research and management that together demonstrate how TZ might be used to facilitate an integrated landscape approach: (i) plant and animal species' use and response to boundaries and the resulting effects on yield, for a deeper understanding of how landscape structure shapes quantity and quality of TZ; (ii) local knowledge on field or patch-level management and its interactions with biodiversity and yield in TZ, and (iii) conflict prevention and collaborative management across land-use boundaries.
We investigated whether a given landscape structure affects the level of home range size adaptation in response to resource variability. We tested whether increasing resource variability forces herbivorous mammals to increase their home ranges. In 2014 and 2015 we collared 40 European brown hares (Lepus europaeus) with GPS-tags to record hare movements in two regions in Germany with differing landscape structures. We examined hare home range sizes in relation to resource availability and variability by using the normalized difference vegetation index as a proxy. Hares in simple landscapes showed increasing home range sizes with increasing resource variability, whereas hares in complex landscapes did not enlarge their home range. Animals in complex landscapes have the possibility to include various landscape elements within their home ranges and are more resilient against resource variability. But animals in simple landscapes with few elements experience shortcomings when resource variability becomes high. The increase in home range size, the movement related increase in energy expenditure, and a decrease in hare abundances can have severe implications for conservation of mammals in anthropogenic landscapes. Hence, conservation management could benefit from a better knowledge about fine-scaled effects of resource variability on movement behaviour.
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.