Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:56:23.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop and field boundary influences on the activity of a wide range of beneficial invertebrate groups on a split conventional/organic farm in northern England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2010

M.D. Eyre  and
C. Leifert
M.D. Eyre*
Affiliation:
Nafferton Ecological Farming Group, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Nafferton Farm, Stocksfield, Northumberland, NE43 7XD, UK
C. Leifert
Affiliation:
Nafferton Ecological Farming Group, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Nafferton Farm, Stocksfield, Northumberland, NE43 7XD, UK
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +44 1661 831006 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Activity of 12 beneficial invertebrate groups was assessed in 2005 and 2006 on a farm in northern England split into conventional and organic management halves, using pitfall and pan traps set in both crops and field boundaries. Management, crop and boundary structure influences on invertebrate activity were assessed, as was the relationship between crop and boundary type. Classification of crop and boundary assemblages produced three and two groups, respectively, in both years. Organic arable crops had well-defined assemblages in both years; and, while grass and grass/clover fields were separated from conventional arable fields in 2005, there was mixing in 2006. One boundary group, in both years, was dominated by conventional arable fields with tall herbaceous boundary vegetation. The other group had more organic arable and grassy fields with shorter boundary vegetation. Redundancy analyses showed that a number of groups (Cantharidae, Coccinellidae, Syrphidae, Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, Proctotrupoidea, Lycosidae) were more active in organic arable fields with more Staphylinidae in conventional arable crops and no obvious trend with Carabidae, Hemiptera, Neuroptera and Linyphiidae. Activity of some groups, especially Coccinellidae, Syrphidae and parasitic wasps, was strongly related to weed cover. Staphylinidae were most active in tall herbaceous boundaries by conventional arable crops with more of a number of groups (Cantharidae, Coccinellidae, parasitic wasps) in short herbaceous boundaries by organic arable crops. Organic management produced most differences in aerially-dispersed invertebrates, and management had a profound effect on activity in field boundaries. Possible management prescriptions to increase invertebrate activity include changing sowing times, weed cover manipulation and field boundary and margin management.

Keywords

beneficial invertebratesCarabidaeStaphylinidaeCoccinellidaespidersparasitic waspsorganic farmingfield boundaries
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 135 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, A. & Eltun, R. (2000) Long-term developments in the carabid and staphylinid (Col., Carabidae and Staphylinidae) fauna during conversion from conventional to biological farming. Journal of Applied Entomology 124, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, G. (1995) Carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) diversity and abundance in organic potatoes and conventionally grown seed potatoes in the north of Scotland. Pedobiologia 39, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J. & Weibull, A.C. (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, N.A., Wratten, S.D., McErlich, A. & Frampton, C. (1996) Abundance and diversity of beneficial arthropods in conventional and ‘organic’ carrot crops in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 24, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezdek, J. C. (1981) Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Algorithms. 272 pp. New York, USA, Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Baudry, J., Bukacek, R., Burel, F., Cerny, M., De Blust, G., De Cock, R., Diekötter, T., Dietz, H., Dirksen, J., Dormann, C., Durka, W., Frenzel, M., Hamersky, R., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Klotz, S., Koolstra, B., Lausch, A., Le Coeur, D., Maelfait, J.P., Opdam, P., Roubalova, M., Schermann, A., Schermann, N., Schmidt, T., Schweiger, O., Smulders, M.J.M., Speelmans, M., Simova, P., Verboom, J., van Wingerden, W.K.R.E., Zobel, M. & Edwards, P.J. (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landcapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 141–150.Google Scholar
Booij, C.J.H. & Noorlander, J. (1992) Farming systems and insect predators. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 40, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clough, Y., Holzschuh, A., Gabriel, D., Purtauf, T., Kleijn, D., Kreuss, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2007) Alpha and beta diversity of arthropods and plants in organically and conventionally managed wheat fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 44, 804–812.Google Scholar
Cole, L.J., McCracken, D.I., Downie, I.S., Dennis, P., Foster, G.N., Waterhouse, T., Murphy, K.J., Griffin, A.L. & Kennedy, M.P. (2005) Comparing the effects of farming practices on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages of Scottish farmland. Biodiversity and Conservation 14, 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Critchley, C.N.R., Allen, D.S., Fowbert, J.A., Mole, A.C. & Gundrey, A.L. (2004) Habitat establishment on arable land: assessment of an agri-environment scheme in England, UK. Biological Conservation 119, 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, T.F. & Kromp, B. (2003) Which carabid species benefit from organic agriculture? – a review of comparative studies in winter cereals from Germany and Switzerland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duelli, P., Obrist, M.K. & Schmatz, D.R. (1999) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 74, 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D. (2006) A strategic interpretation of beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages, biotopes, habitats and distribution, and the conservation implications. Journal of Insect Conservation 10, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, M.D., Labanowska-Bury, D., Avayanos, J.G., White, R. & Leifert, C. (2009) Ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in an intensively managed vegetable crop landscape in eastern England. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 131, 340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feber, R.E., Bell, J., Johnson, P.J., Firbank, L.G. & Macdonald, D.W. (1998) The effects of organic farming on surface-active spider (Araneae) assemblages in wheat in southern England, UK. Journal of Arachnology 26, 190–202.Google Scholar
Fuller, R.J., Norton, L.R., Feber, R.E., Johnson, P.J., Chamberlain, D.E., Joys, A.C., Mathews, F., Stuart, R.C., Townsend, M.C., Manley, W.J., Wolfe, M.S., Macdonald, D.W. & Firbank, L.G. (2005) Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biology Letters 1, 431–434.Google Scholar
Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D. & Luna, J.M. (2003) Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology 4, 107–116.Google Scholar
Hausammann, A. (1996) Strip-management in rape crop: Is winter rape endangered by negative impacts of sown weed strips? Journal of Applied Entomology 120, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, F. & Evans, A.D. (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122, 113–130.Google Scholar
Hummel, R.L., Walgenbach, J.F., Hoyt, G.D. & Kennedy, G.G. (2002) Effects of vegetable production system on epigeal arthropod populations. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 93, 177–188.Google Scholar
Kromp, B. (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 74, 187–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroos, S. & Schaefer, M. (1998) The effect of different farming systems on epigeic arthropods: a five-year study on the rove beetle fauna (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) of winter wheat. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 69, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, D.A., Menalled, F.D., Costamagna, A.C. & Wilkinson, T.K. (2005) Manipulating plant resources to enhance beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Weed Science 53, 902–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifert, C., Rembialkowska, E., Nielson, J.H., Cooper, J.M., Butler, G. & Lueck, L. (2007) Effects of organic and ‘low input’ production methods on food quality and safety. pp. 75–95 in Niggli, U., Leifert, C., Alföldi, T., Lück, L. & Willer, H. (Eds) Improving Sustainability in Organic and Low Input Food Production System. Frick, Switzerland, Research Institute of Organic Farming FiBL.Google Scholar
MacLeod, A. (1999) Attraction and retention of Episyrphus balteatus DeGeer (Diptera: Syrphidae) at an arable field margin with rich and poor floral resources. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 73, 237–244.Google Scholar
Meyer, B., Jauker, F. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2009) Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure. Basic and Applied Ecology 10, 178–186.Google Scholar
Norton, L., Johnson, P., Joys, A., Stuart, R., Chamberlain, D., Feber, R., Firbank, L., Manley, W., Wolfe, M., Hart, B., Mathews, F., Macdonald, D. & Fuller, R.J. (2008) Consequences of organic and non-organic farming practices for field, farm and landscape complexity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 129, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfiffner, L. & Luka, H. (2003) Effects of low-input farming systems on carabids and epigeal spiders – a paired farm approach. Basic and Applied Ecology 4, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purtauf, T., Roschewitz, I., Dauber, J., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T. & Wolters, V. (2005) Landscape context of organic and conventional farms: Influences on carabid beetle diversity. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 108, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, G., Fadl, A. & Bolger, T. (2001) A multivariate analysis of cropping effects on Irish ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in mixed arable and grass farmland. Annals of Applied Biology 139, 351–360.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rushton, S.P., Luff, M.L. & Eyre, M.D. (1989) The effects of pasture improvement and management on the ground beetle and spider communities of upland grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology 26, 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M.H., Roschewitz, I., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 281–287.Google Scholar
Shah, P.A., Brooks, D.R., Ashby, J.E., Perry, J.N. & Woiwod, I.P. (2003) Diversity and abundance of the coleopteran fauna from organic and conventional management systems in southern England. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 5, 51–60.Google Scholar
Stephens, C.J., Schellhorn, N.A., Wood, G.M. & Austin, A.D. (2006) Parasitic wasp assemblages associated with native and weedy plant species in an agricultural landscape. Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. (1998) CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (ver. 4). Wageningen, The Netherlands, Centre for Biometry.Google Scholar
Thies, C., Roschewitz, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2005) The landscape context of cereal aphid-parasitoid interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences 272, 203–210.Google Scholar
Thorbek, P. & Bilde, T. (2004) Reduced numbers of generalist arthropod predators after crop management. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 526–538.Google Scholar
Van Der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., Achten, V.T.J.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Fogelberg, F. & Melander, B. (2008) Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Research 48, 215–224.Google Scholar
Weibull, A.C. & Östman, O. (2003) Species composition in agroecosystems: The effect of landscape, habitat, and farm management. Basic and Applied Ecology 4, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibull, A.C., Östman, O. & Granqvist, A. (2003) Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1335–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Eyre supplementary material

Figure 1.doc

Download Eyre supplementary material(File)
File 129.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Eyre supplementary material

Table 1.doc

Download Eyre supplementary material(File)
File 26.1 KB