Post-dispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure

AbstractBird nests are specialized habitats because of their particular composition including nest detritus and bird droppings. In consequence, they attract a specialized arthropod community considered as nidicolous, which includes species only found in bird nests (strictly nidicolous) or sometimes found in bird nests (facultatively nidicolous). Because the factors influencing the entomofauna in bird nests are poorly understood, in autumn 2019, we collected nest material in 86 Barn Owl (Tyto alba) nest boxes. We investigated whether the invertebrate species richness was related to Barn Owl nest box occupancy, the density of available nest boxes and the landscape structure. We found 3,321 nidicolous beetle specimens belonging to 24 species. Species richness of strictly nidicolous beetles was 2.7 times higher in nest boxes occupied by a family of Barn Owls the previous spring compared to unoccupied nest boxes. It was also higher in sites that were more often occupied by Barn Owls in the five previous years and in areas surrounded by a higher proportion of crop fields. For facultatively nidicolous beetles, the density of Barn Owl nest boxes enhanced the species richness. In conclusion, our study suggests that the strictly nidicolous beetles benefit from occupied nest boxes of Barn Owls, whereas facultatively nidicolous beetles look for nest boxes independently of whether Barn Owls occupy them. Our study highlights the importance of bird nests for a suite of invertebrates.

Download Full-text

Landscape structure affects the sunflower visiting frequency of insect pollinators

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-87650-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Károly Lajos ◽

Ferenc Samu ◽

Áron Domonkos Bihaly ◽

Dávid Fülöp ◽

Miklós Sárospataki

Keyword(s):

Landscape Structure ◽

Honey Bees ◽

Agricultural Landscape ◽

Edge Density ◽

Wild Bees ◽

Natural Habitats ◽

Mass Flowering ◽

Positive Effects ◽

Pollinator Community ◽

Foraging Ranges

AbstractMass-flowering crop monocultures, like sunflower, cannot harbour a permanent pollinator community. Their pollination is best secured if both managed honey bees and wild pollinators are present in the agricultural landscape. Semi-natural habitats are known to be the main foraging and nesting areas of wild pollinators, thus benefiting their populations, whereas crops flowering simultaneously may competitively dilute pollinator densities. In our study we asked how landscape structure affects major pollinator groups’ visiting frequency on 36 focal sunflower fields, hypothesising that herbaceous semi-natural (hSNH) and sunflower patches in the landscape neighbourhood will have a scale-dependent effect. We found that an increasing area and/or dispersion of hSNH areas enhanced the visitation of all pollinator groups. These positive effects were scale-dependent and corresponded well with the foraging ranges of the observed bee pollinators. In contrast, an increasing edge density of neighbouring sunflower fields resulted in considerably lower visiting frequencies of wild bees. Our results clearly indicate that the pollination of sunflower is dependent on the composition and configuration of the agricultural landscape. We conclude that an optimization of the pollination can be achieved if sufficient amount of hSNH areas with good dispersion are provided and mass flowering crops do not over-dominate the agricultural landscape.

Download Full-text

Weed seed predation in organic and conventional fields

Biological Control ◽

10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.12.003 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 11-16 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

S. Navntoft ◽

S.D. Wratten ◽

K. Kristensen ◽

P. Esbjerg

Keyword(s):

Seed Predation ◽

Weed Seed

Download Full-text

Impact of agricultural landscape structure on energy flow and water cycling

Landscape Ecology ◽

10.1007/bf00156230 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 85-94 ◽

Cited By ~ 56

Author(s):

L. Ryszkowski ◽

A. Kędziora

Keyword(s):

Landscape Structure ◽

Energy Flow ◽

Agricultural Landscape ◽

Water Cycling

Download Full-text

DOES AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE AFFECT PARASITISM AND PARASITOID DIVERSITY?

Ecological Applications ◽

10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0634:dalsap]2.0.co;2 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 634-641 ◽

Cited By ~ 94

Author(s):

Fabián D. Menalled ◽

Paul C. Marino ◽

Stuart H. Gage ◽

Douglas A. Landis

Keyword(s):

Landscape Structure ◽

Agricultural Landscape

Download Full-text

Social Landscape Optimization of Towns and Villages at the County Level by Developing a Compound Ecological Capital System

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su11102764 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 11 (10) ◽

pp. 2764

Author(s):

Kai Ren ◽

Jianqiang Yang

Keyword(s):

Ecosystem Services ◽

Landscape Structure ◽

Agricultural Landscape ◽

Shanxi Province ◽

County Level ◽

The Social ◽

Social Landscape ◽

Dialectical Relationship ◽

Development Approach ◽

Ecological Capital

The development of the social landscape of towns and villages at the county level in China currently lacks sustainability and urgently needs to be optimized. By developing a compound ecological capital system, the optimization of the social landscape will be an important process. Based on the dialectical relationship between landscape production and landscape sustainability, a theoretical framework is proposed as a paradigm of landscape structure. By highlighting the culture base and life proposed in ecosystem services (ES) described in the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) methodology, we propose a new social landscape order. We used Hequ County, Shanxi Province, China as the study case, evaluating the ecology level of social capital by gravity. In this paper, four types of optimization approaches for social landscape structure are proposed: completing urbanization (urbanized approach), shaping social landscape (prioritized development approach), protecting nature (scale-controlled approach), and increasing agricultural landscape (migrated and merged approach).

Download Full-text

Poecilus lucublandus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and Pterostichus mutus Do Not Feed on Hair Fescue, Red Sorrel, and Poverty Oatgrass Seeds

Journal of Insect Science ◽

10.1093/jisesa/iez027 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Alexandre M M C Loureiro ◽

G Christopher Cutler ◽

Vilis O Nams ◽

Scott N White

Keyword(s):

Seed Predation ◽

Choice Test ◽

Weed Seed ◽

Weed Species ◽

Vaccinium Angustifolium ◽

Lowbush Blueberry ◽

Rumex Acetosella ◽

Weed Seeds ◽

Poecilus Lucublandus ◽

Danthonia Spicata

Abstract Poecilus lucublandus (Say), Pterostichus mutus (Say), and Harpalus rufipes (De Geer) are abundant Carabidae in lowbush blueberry fields and may contribute to weed seed predation. We used laboratory no-choice test experiments to determine if these beetles feed on seeds of hair fescue (Festuca filiformis Pourr., Poales: Poaceae), poverty oatgrass (Danthonia spicata L.), and red sorrel (Rumex acetosella L., Caryophyllales: Polygonaceae), which are common weeds in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait., Ericales: Ericaceae) fields. Poecilus lucublandus and P. mutus did not feed on seeds of the test weed species, but H. rufipes consumed on average over 30 seeds of each species. There are other weed seeds in blueberry fields that could be palatable to P. lucublandus and P. mutus, which warrants further research on the granivory potential of these important carabid species.

Download Full-text