Introduction to Field Margin Vegetation (FMV)

Author(s):  
Sunil Nautiyal ◽  
Mrinalini Goswami ◽  
Puneeth Shivakumar
Keyword(s):  
Bird Study ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chas A. Holt ◽  
Philip W. Atkinson ◽  
Juliet A. Vickery ◽  
Robert J. Fuller

2002 ◽  
Vol 89 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 117-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.E. Tsiouris ◽  
A.P. Mamolos ◽  
K.L. Kalburtji ◽  
D. Alifrangis

Weed Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Sosnoskie ◽  
Edward C. Luschei ◽  
Mark A. Fanning

The importance of managing weeds in seminatural habitats that are adjacent to farm fields is unclear. Weedy-margin vegetation may harbor pests or pathogens and may ALSo serve as source populations for ongoing immigration of weeds into the field. It is ALSo possible, however, that margin vegetation provides habitat for organisms that consume weed seeds or suppress the likelihood of pest or pathogen outbreak. We examined the nature of margin habitat using spatial-scaling of Weed-Species richness as an ecological assay. In 2003, we recorded the occurrence of weedy species along the perimeters of 63 fields in Wisconsin. The fields were distributed within six counties that differed in topography, geological history, local climate, and soil type and which spanned the range of variability in the agricultural landscape. We identified seven habitats that differed in geology and land use. The relationship between species richness and margin class was estimated using an analog of the power law. Additionally, we investigated broadscale correlates of habitat heterogeneity at the field level, using a modeling strategy that included additional explanatory factors logically connected to plant diversity. Using a model-confrontation approach, the survey supported the inclusion of two topographical diversity indices, elevation gradient and a field-shape index, into our model. Our broadscale survey provides information on one of a suite of important considerations needed to make decisions about the importance of managing weeds in field margins.


Biologia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (10) ◽  
pp. 1631-1641
Author(s):  
Janina Bennewicz ◽  
Tadeusz Barczak

Abstract The aim of this study was to identify the role of field margin habitats in preserving the diversity and abundance of ground beetle assemblages, including potentially entomophagous species and those with conservation status in Poland. Research material was collected in 2006–2007 in four types of margin habitats – a forest, bushes, ditches and in two arable fields. Insects were captured into pitfalls, without preservation liquid or bait added to the traps. Traps were inspected twice a week, between May and August, and one sample was a weekly capture. In field margin habitats the most abundant species were Limodromus assimilis, Anchomenus dorsalis, Pterostichus melanarius and Carabus auratus. A lower abundance of species was noted on fields, with dominant Poecilus cupreus and P. melanarius. The group of zoophagous carabids found in our study includes 30 species from field margin habitats, i.e. 37.5% of all captured Carabidae taxa and 58.3% of all specimens. The share of aphidophagous species was 84.9% among bushes, 86.7% near ditches, and 88.0% in the forest habitat. Several species captured during the study are under protection in Poland. These include the partly protected Carabus convexus, which also has the status of near threatened species, the partly protected Calosoma auropunctatum, and Broscus cephalotes. Considering all the investigated field margin habitats, ground beetles were most numerous in the oak-hornbeam habitat, defined as bushes, formed predominantly by Prunus spinosa, Crataegus leavigata, Sambucus nigra and Rosa canina. Thus, this habitat was the most important reservoir/refugium for the ground beetles.


2006 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. WOODCOCK ◽  
S. G. POTTS ◽  
E. PILGRIM ◽  
A. J. RAMSAY ◽  
T. TSCHEULIN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M.R. Hanneke Wiggers ◽  
Jasper van Ruijven ◽  
Frank Berendse ◽  
Geert R. de Snoo

1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 205-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.J.P. Marshall ◽  
G.M. Arnold

Ecography ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Baines ◽  
C. Hambler ◽  
P. J. Johnson ◽  
D. W. Macdonald ◽  
H. Smith

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document