Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins

The introduction and conservation of field margins have been proposed as an intervention to counteract the decline in farmland biodiversity. However, how these margins can affect the movement of species and individuals (i.e. spillover) of natural enemies between field margins and crop is still uncle...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Basic and applied ecology 2016-02, Vol.17 (1), p.33-42
Hauptverfasser: Inclán, Diego J., Dainese, Matteo, Cerretti, Pierfilippo, Paniccia, Dino, Marini, Lorenzo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1
container_start_page 33
container_title Basic and applied ecology
container_volume 17
creator Inclán, Diego J.
Dainese, Matteo
Cerretti, Pierfilippo
Paniccia, Dino
Marini, Lorenzo
description The introduction and conservation of field margins have been proposed as an intervention to counteract the decline in farmland biodiversity. However, how these margins can affect the movement of species and individuals (i.e. spillover) of natural enemies between field margins and crop is still unclear. In this work, we investigated the spillover of two different groups of natural enemies: tachinids (Diptera: Tachinidae) and aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). For comparison we also investigated the response of non-aphidophagous hoverflies. We examined the spillover from two types of field margin (grass margin vs. hedgerow+grass margin) to adjacent maize fields located in landscapes with different proportion of arable land. The spillover of natural enemies was affected by the field margins, but the response varied between insect groups. The spillover of tachinids was higher from the grass margin than from hedgerows, suggesting that the spillover of this group may be related to the low contrast between the vegetation structure of the margin and the crop. In contrast to tachinids, the abundance of aphidophagous hoverflies was higher toward the center of the crop field, independently of the type of field margin. The spillover of non-aphidophagous hoverflies was not affected by the type of field margin. These species were only affected by the landscape composition as their species richness and abundance were higher in landscapes with low amounts of arable land. Measures focusing on the creation and management of field margins need to consider the local contrast between field margins and crops in relation to the life-history traits of different taxa. Es wurde vorgeschlagen, dass Einrichtung und Schutz von Feldrändern dem Rückgang der Biodiversität in der Agrarlandschaft entgegenwirken sollten, aber wie diese Ränder die Bewegung von Arten und Individuen von natürlichen Feinden zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfläche (sog. “spillover”) beeinflussen ist immer noch unklar. Wir untersuchten den spillover von zwei unterschiedlichen Gruppen von natürlichen Feinden: Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) und aphidivore Schwebfliegen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Zum Vergleich betrachteten wir auch die nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen. Wir untersuchten den spillover zwischen zwei Arten von Feldrändern (Grasrand und Hecke mit Grasrand) und den angrenzenden Maisfeldern, die in Landschaften mit unterschiedlichen Anteilen von Ackerflächen lagen. Der spillover der natürlichen Fein
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1793258682</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1439179115001061</els_id><sourcerecordid>1793258682</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-364c0d5bb13e776d14345d53876733ca2e959ea11b80d3df66ed6572577ea2673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkLtOwzAUhjOARCm8AAseWRJ8iR1HYoGKm1SJoXS2HPu4dZUmxU4r8fY4CjNiOtLR95_Ll2U3BBcEE3G_KxqtoaCY8ALLAmN-ls1IyeqcVDW5yC5j3GFMSszkLHtaHXzb9icIqHdo0GbrO28j0p1F27HtWg8RudDvkfXOQYBuQM5Da9Feh43v4lV27nQb4fq3zrP1y_Pn4i1ffry-Lx6XuSkFHnImSoMtbxrCoKqETReV3HImK1ExZjSFmtegCWkktsw6IcAKXlFeVaBpYubZ3TT3EPqvI8RB7X000La6g_4YVfqOUS6FpP9AheSyxJIklE6oCX2MAZw6BJ8--1YEq9Gn2qnRpxp9KixV8plCt1PI6V7pTfBRrVcJEMmrxJSWiXiYCEhGTh6CisZDZ8D6AGZQtvd_LfgB23SIGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1768584081</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Inclán, Diego J. ; Dainese, Matteo ; Cerretti, Pierfilippo ; Paniccia, Dino ; Marini, Lorenzo</creator><creatorcontrib>Inclán, Diego J. ; Dainese, Matteo ; Cerretti, Pierfilippo ; Paniccia, Dino ; Marini, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><description>The introduction and conservation of field margins have been proposed as an intervention to counteract the decline in farmland biodiversity. However, how these margins can affect the movement of species and individuals (i.e. spillover) of natural enemies between field margins and crop is still unclear. In this work, we investigated the spillover of two different groups of natural enemies: tachinids (Diptera: Tachinidae) and aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). For comparison we also investigated the response of non-aphidophagous hoverflies. We examined the spillover from two types of field margin (grass margin vs. hedgerow+grass margin) to adjacent maize fields located in landscapes with different proportion of arable land. The spillover of natural enemies was affected by the field margins, but the response varied between insect groups. The spillover of tachinids was higher from the grass margin than from hedgerows, suggesting that the spillover of this group may be related to the low contrast between the vegetation structure of the margin and the crop. In contrast to tachinids, the abundance of aphidophagous hoverflies was higher toward the center of the crop field, independently of the type of field margin. The spillover of non-aphidophagous hoverflies was not affected by the type of field margin. These species were only affected by the landscape composition as their species richness and abundance were higher in landscapes with low amounts of arable land. Measures focusing on the creation and management of field margins need to consider the local contrast between field margins and crops in relation to the life-history traits of different taxa. Es wurde vorgeschlagen, dass Einrichtung und Schutz von Feldrändern dem Rückgang der Biodiversität in der Agrarlandschaft entgegenwirken sollten, aber wie diese Ränder die Bewegung von Arten und Individuen von natürlichen Feinden zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfläche (sog. “spillover”) beeinflussen ist immer noch unklar. Wir untersuchten den spillover von zwei unterschiedlichen Gruppen von natürlichen Feinden: Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) und aphidivore Schwebfliegen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Zum Vergleich betrachteten wir auch die nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen. Wir untersuchten den spillover zwischen zwei Arten von Feldrändern (Grasrand und Hecke mit Grasrand) und den angrenzenden Maisfeldern, die in Landschaften mit unterschiedlichen Anteilen von Ackerflächen lagen. Der spillover der natürlichen Feinde wurde vom Feldrandtyp beeinflusst, aber die beiden Gruppen reagierten unterschiedlich. Der spillover der Raupenfliegen war vom Grasrand größer als von der Hecke, was nahelegt, dass der spillover bei dieser Gruppe eher mit dem geringen Kontrast zwischen der Vegetationsstruktur von Rand und Feldfrucht zusammenhängt. Dagegen war die Abundanz der aphidivoren Schwebfliegen zur Feldmitte hin erhöht, unabhängig vom Typ des Feldrands. Der spillover der nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen wurde nicht durch den Typ des Feldrandes beeinflusst. Wir fanden nur einen Einfluss der Landschaft, da ihr Artenreichtum und ihre Abundanz in Landschaften mit geringem Ackerflächenanteil höher waren. Maßnahmen zur Schaffung und Pflege von Feldrändern müssen den lokalen Unterschied zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfrüchten in Bezug auf die Biologie der verschiedenen Taxa berücksichtigen.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1439-1791</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.005</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier GmbH</publisher><subject>Abundance ; Agri-environment schemes ; Agricultural intensification ; agricultural land ; Arable land ; arable soils ; corn ; Crops ; Diptera ; edge effects ; field crops ; Grasses ; Hedgerows ; Insects ; Landscapes ; life history ; Natural enemies ; Parasitoids ; species diversity ; Species movement ; Syrphidae ; Tachinidae ; vegetation structure ; Wildlife conservation ; Zea mays</subject><ispartof>Basic and applied ecology, 2016-02, Vol.17 (1), p.33-42</ispartof><rights>2015 Gesellschaft für Ökologie</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-364c0d5bb13e776d14345d53876733ca2e959ea11b80d3df66ed6572577ea2673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-364c0d5bb13e776d14345d53876733ca2e959ea11b80d3df66ed6572577ea2673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Inclán, Diego J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dainese, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cerretti, Pierfilippo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paniccia, Dino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marini, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><title>Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins</title><title>Basic and applied ecology</title><description>The introduction and conservation of field margins have been proposed as an intervention to counteract the decline in farmland biodiversity. However, how these margins can affect the movement of species and individuals (i.e. spillover) of natural enemies between field margins and crop is still unclear. In this work, we investigated the spillover of two different groups of natural enemies: tachinids (Diptera: Tachinidae) and aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). For comparison we also investigated the response of non-aphidophagous hoverflies. We examined the spillover from two types of field margin (grass margin vs. hedgerow+grass margin) to adjacent maize fields located in landscapes with different proportion of arable land. The spillover of natural enemies was affected by the field margins, but the response varied between insect groups. The spillover of tachinids was higher from the grass margin than from hedgerows, suggesting that the spillover of this group may be related to the low contrast between the vegetation structure of the margin and the crop. In contrast to tachinids, the abundance of aphidophagous hoverflies was higher toward the center of the crop field, independently of the type of field margin. The spillover of non-aphidophagous hoverflies was not affected by the type of field margin. These species were only affected by the landscape composition as their species richness and abundance were higher in landscapes with low amounts of arable land. Measures focusing on the creation and management of field margins need to consider the local contrast between field margins and crops in relation to the life-history traits of different taxa. Es wurde vorgeschlagen, dass Einrichtung und Schutz von Feldrändern dem Rückgang der Biodiversität in der Agrarlandschaft entgegenwirken sollten, aber wie diese Ränder die Bewegung von Arten und Individuen von natürlichen Feinden zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfläche (sog. “spillover”) beeinflussen ist immer noch unklar. Wir untersuchten den spillover von zwei unterschiedlichen Gruppen von natürlichen Feinden: Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) und aphidivore Schwebfliegen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Zum Vergleich betrachteten wir auch die nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen. Wir untersuchten den spillover zwischen zwei Arten von Feldrändern (Grasrand und Hecke mit Grasrand) und den angrenzenden Maisfeldern, die in Landschaften mit unterschiedlichen Anteilen von Ackerflächen lagen. Der spillover der natürlichen Feinde wurde vom Feldrandtyp beeinflusst, aber die beiden Gruppen reagierten unterschiedlich. Der spillover der Raupenfliegen war vom Grasrand größer als von der Hecke, was nahelegt, dass der spillover bei dieser Gruppe eher mit dem geringen Kontrast zwischen der Vegetationsstruktur von Rand und Feldfrucht zusammenhängt. Dagegen war die Abundanz der aphidivoren Schwebfliegen zur Feldmitte hin erhöht, unabhängig vom Typ des Feldrands. Der spillover der nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen wurde nicht durch den Typ des Feldrandes beeinflusst. Wir fanden nur einen Einfluss der Landschaft, da ihr Artenreichtum und ihre Abundanz in Landschaften mit geringem Ackerflächenanteil höher waren. Maßnahmen zur Schaffung und Pflege von Feldrändern müssen den lokalen Unterschied zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfrüchten in Bezug auf die Biologie der verschiedenen Taxa berücksichtigen.</description><subject>Abundance</subject><subject>Agri-environment schemes</subject><subject>Agricultural intensification</subject><subject>agricultural land</subject><subject>Arable land</subject><subject>arable soils</subject><subject>corn</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>Diptera</subject><subject>edge effects</subject><subject>field crops</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>Hedgerows</subject><subject>Insects</subject><subject>Landscapes</subject><subject>life history</subject><subject>Natural enemies</subject><subject>Parasitoids</subject><subject>species diversity</subject><subject>Species movement</subject><subject>Syrphidae</subject><subject>Tachinidae</subject><subject>vegetation structure</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Zea mays</subject><issn>1439-1791</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkLtOwzAUhjOARCm8AAseWRJ8iR1HYoGKm1SJoXS2HPu4dZUmxU4r8fY4CjNiOtLR95_Ll2U3BBcEE3G_KxqtoaCY8ALLAmN-ls1IyeqcVDW5yC5j3GFMSszkLHtaHXzb9icIqHdo0GbrO28j0p1F27HtWg8RudDvkfXOQYBuQM5Da9Feh43v4lV27nQb4fq3zrP1y_Pn4i1ffry-Lx6XuSkFHnImSoMtbxrCoKqETReV3HImK1ExZjSFmtegCWkktsw6IcAKXlFeVaBpYubZ3TT3EPqvI8RB7X000La6g_4YVfqOUS6FpP9AheSyxJIklE6oCX2MAZw6BJ8--1YEq9Gn2qnRpxp9KixV8plCt1PI6V7pTfBRrVcJEMmrxJSWiXiYCEhGTh6CisZDZ8D6AGZQtvd_LfgB23SIGA</recordid><startdate>20160201</startdate><enddate>20160201</enddate><creator>Inclán, Diego J.</creator><creator>Dainese, Matteo</creator><creator>Cerretti, Pierfilippo</creator><creator>Paniccia, Dino</creator><creator>Marini, Lorenzo</creator><general>Elsevier GmbH</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160201</creationdate><title>Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins</title><author>Inclán, Diego J. ; Dainese, Matteo ; Cerretti, Pierfilippo ; Paniccia, Dino ; Marini, Lorenzo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-364c0d5bb13e776d14345d53876733ca2e959ea11b80d3df66ed6572577ea2673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Abundance</topic><topic>Agri-environment schemes</topic><topic>Agricultural intensification</topic><topic>agricultural land</topic><topic>Arable land</topic><topic>arable soils</topic><topic>corn</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>Diptera</topic><topic>edge effects</topic><topic>field crops</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>Hedgerows</topic><topic>Insects</topic><topic>Landscapes</topic><topic>life history</topic><topic>Natural enemies</topic><topic>Parasitoids</topic><topic>species diversity</topic><topic>Species movement</topic><topic>Syrphidae</topic><topic>Tachinidae</topic><topic>vegetation structure</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Zea mays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Inclán, Diego J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dainese, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cerretti, Pierfilippo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paniccia, Dino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marini, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Basic and applied ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Inclán, Diego J.</au><au>Dainese, Matteo</au><au>Cerretti, Pierfilippo</au><au>Paniccia, Dino</au><au>Marini, Lorenzo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins</atitle><jtitle>Basic and applied ecology</jtitle><date>2016-02-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>33</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>33-42</pages><issn>1439-1791</issn><abstract>The introduction and conservation of field margins have been proposed as an intervention to counteract the decline in farmland biodiversity. However, how these margins can affect the movement of species and individuals (i.e. spillover) of natural enemies between field margins and crop is still unclear. In this work, we investigated the spillover of two different groups of natural enemies: tachinids (Diptera: Tachinidae) and aphidophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). For comparison we also investigated the response of non-aphidophagous hoverflies. We examined the spillover from two types of field margin (grass margin vs. hedgerow+grass margin) to adjacent maize fields located in landscapes with different proportion of arable land. The spillover of natural enemies was affected by the field margins, but the response varied between insect groups. The spillover of tachinids was higher from the grass margin than from hedgerows, suggesting that the spillover of this group may be related to the low contrast between the vegetation structure of the margin and the crop. In contrast to tachinids, the abundance of aphidophagous hoverflies was higher toward the center of the crop field, independently of the type of field margin. The spillover of non-aphidophagous hoverflies was not affected by the type of field margin. These species were only affected by the landscape composition as their species richness and abundance were higher in landscapes with low amounts of arable land. Measures focusing on the creation and management of field margins need to consider the local contrast between field margins and crops in relation to the life-history traits of different taxa. Es wurde vorgeschlagen, dass Einrichtung und Schutz von Feldrändern dem Rückgang der Biodiversität in der Agrarlandschaft entgegenwirken sollten, aber wie diese Ränder die Bewegung von Arten und Individuen von natürlichen Feinden zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfläche (sog. “spillover”) beeinflussen ist immer noch unklar. Wir untersuchten den spillover von zwei unterschiedlichen Gruppen von natürlichen Feinden: Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) und aphidivore Schwebfliegen (Diptera: Syrphidae). Zum Vergleich betrachteten wir auch die nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen. Wir untersuchten den spillover zwischen zwei Arten von Feldrändern (Grasrand und Hecke mit Grasrand) und den angrenzenden Maisfeldern, die in Landschaften mit unterschiedlichen Anteilen von Ackerflächen lagen. Der spillover der natürlichen Feinde wurde vom Feldrandtyp beeinflusst, aber die beiden Gruppen reagierten unterschiedlich. Der spillover der Raupenfliegen war vom Grasrand größer als von der Hecke, was nahelegt, dass der spillover bei dieser Gruppe eher mit dem geringen Kontrast zwischen der Vegetationsstruktur von Rand und Feldfrucht zusammenhängt. Dagegen war die Abundanz der aphidivoren Schwebfliegen zur Feldmitte hin erhöht, unabhängig vom Typ des Feldrands. Der spillover der nicht-aphidivoren Schwebfliegen wurde nicht durch den Typ des Feldrandes beeinflusst. Wir fanden nur einen Einfluss der Landschaft, da ihr Artenreichtum und ihre Abundanz in Landschaften mit geringem Ackerflächenanteil höher waren. Maßnahmen zur Schaffung und Pflege von Feldrändern müssen den lokalen Unterschied zwischen Feldrändern und Feldfrüchten in Bezug auf die Biologie der verschiedenen Taxa berücksichtigen.</abstract><pub>Elsevier GmbH</pub><doi>10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.005</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1439-1791
ispartof Basic and applied ecology, 2016-02, Vol.17 (1), p.33-42
issn 1439-1791
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1793258682
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Abundance
Agri-environment schemes
Agricultural intensification
agricultural land
Arable land
arable soils
corn
Crops
Diptera
edge effects
field crops
Grasses
Hedgerows
Insects
Landscapes
life history
Natural enemies
Parasitoids
species diversity
Species movement
Syrphidae
Tachinidae
vegetation structure
Wildlife conservation
Zea mays
title Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T16%3A23%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Spillover%20of%20tachinids%20and%20hoverflies%20from%20different%20field%20margins&rft.jtitle=Basic%20and%20applied%20ecology&rft.au=Incl%C3%A1n,%20Diego%20J.&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=33&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=33-42&rft.issn=1439-1791&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1793258682%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1768584081&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1439179115001061&rfr_iscdi=true