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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Basic and applied ecology 2016-02, Vol.17 (1), p.33-42 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 |