Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The response of carabids to landscape simplification differs between trophic groups

  • Community Ecology
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We studied the response of carabid species richness and density to landscape simplification (measured as percentage cover of non-crop habitat surrounding each study site) in 36 wheat fields using pitfall traps. Carabids were divided to trophic groups following the literature. The number of species from different trophic groups declined with increasing landscape simplification in the order: carnivores > phytophages > omnivores. Density compensation of both carnivores and phytophages suggests that species decline is caused by the loss of specific resources rather than by an overall reduction in food availability. Increasing evenness indicates that a greater share of phytophagous species contributes to density compensation at poorer sites. A comparison with data from complementing studies shows that marked differences in species numbers (carnivores > omnivores > phytophages) are due to a different sensitivity of trophic groups to agricultural management. Since our findings seem to be partly due to increasing sensitivity to landscape changes with trophic rank, and partly to decreasing sensitivity of depauperate communities to local environmental stress, species loss can best be explained by the co-action of factors at local and regional scales. Species richness decline might significantly alter the role of carabids as biocontrol agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bengtsson J, Engelhart K, Giller P, Hobbie S, Lawrence D, Levine J, Vilà M, Wolters V (2002) Slippin’ and slidin’ between the scales: the scaling components of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relations. In: Loreau M, Inchausti P, Naeem S (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 209–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Bestelmeyer BT, Miller JR, Wiens JA (2003) Applying species diversity theory to land management. Ecol Appl 13:1750–1761

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohan DA, Bohan AC, Glen DM, Symondson WOC, Wiltshire CW, Hughes L (2000) Spatial dynamics of predation by carabid beetles on slugs. J Anim Ecol 69:367–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommarco R (1999) Feeding, reproduction and community impact of a predatory carabid in two agricultural habitats. Oikos 87:89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrvall C, Ebenman B, Jonsson T (2000) Biodiversity lessens the risk of cascading extinction in model food webs. Ecol Lett 3:131–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruun HH (2000) Patterns of species richness in dry grassland patches in an agricultural landscape. Ecography 23:641–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole LJ, McCracken DI, Dennis P, Downie IS, Griffin AL, Foster GN, Murphy KJ, Waterhouse T (2002) Relationships between agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish farmland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauber J, Hirsch M, Simmering D, Waldhardt R, Otte A, Wolters V (2003) Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desender K (1982) Ecological and faunal studies on Coleoptera in agricultural land II. Hibernation of Carabidae in agro-ecosystems. Pedobiologia 23:295–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Dombos M (2001) Collembola of loess grassland: effects of grazing and landscape on community composition. Soil Biol Biochem 33:2037–2045

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Findley JS, Findley MT (2001) Global, regional, and local patterns in species richness and abundance of butterflyfishes. Ecol Monogr 71:69–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier E, Loreau M (2002) Foraging activity of the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius Ill. in field margin habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel D, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape structure on plant diversity in cereal fields. Verh Ges Ökol 32:352

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Lawton JH (1990) Effects of scale and habitat on the relationship between regional distribution and local abundance. Oikos 58:329–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Lawton JH, Polis GA, Martinez ND (1999) Trophic rank and the species-area relationship. Ecology 80:1495–1504

    Google Scholar 

  • Honek A, Martinkova Z, Jarosik V (2003) Ground beetles (Carabidae) as seed predators. Eur J Entomol 100:531–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret PH, Schüpbach B, Luka H (2003) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RHG (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landsc Urban Plan 58:211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen HB, Toft S (1997) Role of granivory and insectivory in the life cycle of the carabid beetle Amara similata. Ecol Entomol 22:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P (1994) Space: the final frontier for ecological theory. Ecology 75:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromp B (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:187–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruess A (2003) Effects of landscape structure and habitat type on a plant-herbivore-parasitoid community. Ecography 26:283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagerlöf J, Goffre B, Vincent C (2002) The importance of field boundaries for earthworms (Lumbricidae) in the Swedish agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH, Brown VK (1993) Redundancy in ecosystems. In: Schulze ED, Mooeney HA (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 255–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth CH (1992) Ground beetles (Carabidae) of Fennoscandia: a zoogeographic study. Part I. Specific knowledge regarding the species. Intercept, Andover, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR, Ward LK (2003) The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res 43:77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrady-Steed J, Morin PJ (2000) Biodiversity, density compensation, and the dynamics of populations and functional groups. Ecology 82:361–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Östman Ö (2002) Landscape and farm management influence generalist predators: effects on condition, abundance and biological control. Acta Univ Agric Suec Agr, p 363

    Google Scholar 

  • Östman Ö, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J (2001) Natural enemy impacts on a pest aphid varies with landscape structure and farming practice. Basic Appl Ecol 2:365–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Purtauf T, Dauber J, Wolters V (2004) Carabid communities in the spatio-temporal mosaic of a rural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 67:185–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribera I, Dolédec S, Downie IS, Foster GN (2001) Effect of land disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assemblages. Ecology 82:1112–1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie M, Olff H (1999) Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400:557–560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruesink JL, Srivastava DS (2001) Numerical and per capita responses to species loss: mechanisms maintaining ecosystem function in a community of stream insect detritivores. Oikos 93:221–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt MH, Lauer A, Purtauf T, Thies C, Schäfer M, Tscharntke T (2003) Relative importance of predators and parasitoids for cereal aphid control. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1905–1909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skuhravý V (1959) Die Nahrung der Feldcarabiden. Acta Soc Entomol Cech 56:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanners D, Bordeau P (1995) Europe’s environment: the Dobris assessment. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Symondson WOC, Glen DM, Ives AR, Langdon CJ, Wiltshire CW (2002) Dynamics of the relationship between a generalist predator and slugs over five years. Ecology 83:137–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele HU (1977) Carabid beetles in their environments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 101:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landsc Ecol 16:235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallin H, Ekbom BS (1988) Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a field tracing study. Oecologia 77:39–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull AC, Östman Ö, Granqvist A (2003) Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers Conserv 12:1335–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters V (2001) Biodiversity of soil fauna and its function. Eur J Soil Biol 37:221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward G, Hildrew AG (2002) Food web structure in riverine landscapes. Freshw Biol 47:777–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Manfred Hollenhorst for help with the statistics. This study was funded by the German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) in the context of the ‘Sonderforschungsbereich 299’ and by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the context of the project ‘Biodiversity and Spatial Complexity in Agricultural Landscapes under Global Change’ (BIOPLEX). The study complies with the current laws of Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IFZ, Department of Animal Ecology, Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, 35392, Giessen, Germany

    Tobias Purtauf, Jens Dauber & Volkmar Wolters

Authors
  1. Tobias Purtauf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jens Dauber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volkmar Wolters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Purtauf.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 lists all of the species recorded during this study

Table 2 Speceis recorded during this study, giving their feeding group (c carnivorous, o omnivorous, p phytophagous, ? no classification possible), abundance (number of individuals per site), and distribution (number of sites where each species was found)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purtauf, T., Dauber, J. & Wolters, V. The response of carabids to landscape simplification differs between trophic groups. Oecologia 142, 458–464 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1740-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1740-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation