Corresponding author: Anna Nicola Chapman (
Academic editor: Stephen Venn.
Pitfall traps were used to sample
The level of heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes can influence farmland wildlife (
Locally, soil moisture and soil type have a large impact on carabid distributions (
Small fields are thought to be easier for carabids to recolonize after disturbance, due to the shorter dispersal distances involved. Additionally, landscapes with small fields are likely to have high levels of land use diversity, which will create refuges for carabids in times of disturbance. This is because cultivation practices take place at different times in different crops, so a diverse landscape will always have some undisturbed habitat, while cultivation practices take place elsewhere (
Another aspect of landscape heterogeneity that is important for carabids, is the presence of non-cropped habitat. This may take the form of grassy field margins, hedgerows and areas of semi-natural habitat, such as fallow, woodland and wasteland. Although carabids live in the crops during the vegetation season, they are known to use field margins to hibernate in (
In Greece, agriculture is often extensive and small in scale, with large-scale, intensive farming occurring only on the flatter and more fertile land. This means that the country has relatively high levels of habitat richness (
This study aims to identify closely matched and situated areas of heterogeneous and homogeneous farmland. These areas will then be compared using landscape analysis, so that the different aspects of their heterogeneity can be examined. Finally, matched fields of the same crop types within the heterogeneous and homogeneous areas will be compared, to see how they differ in terms of their carabid abundance, activity density, species richness and diversity. In this way, it may be determined whether high levels of landscape heterogeneity benefit
The study was conducted on agricultural land in the Spercheios valley, Fthiotida, Central Greece. Four pairs of fields were sampled for
One field of each pair was located in a heterogeneous area, which had small field sizes, a large amount of non-cropped habitat and a high level of land use diversity. The other field of each pair was located in a more homogeneous area, which had larger field sizes, less non-cropped habitat and a lower level of land use diversity (Suppl. material
The heterogeneous and homogeneous areas were matched, in order to be as similar as possible regarding all factors apart from their heterogeneity. They were matched according to their mean elevation, their distances to villages and roads, as well as to large expanses of woodlandand wasteland.
Fig.
The sampled fields chosen from within the heterogeneous and homogeneous areas were also matched regarding their crop type, soil type, previous crop type, agrochemical treatment, harvesting time, elevation and whether or not they were irrigated. The data used to match the fields, along with the size and location of each field, are provided in Table
The land use maps in Figs
The program FRAGSTATS (
The metric "land use aggregation" which concerns land use configuration, is dimensionless, so therefore lacks units. The same is true for the metric "land use similarity", which indicates how similar the sampled fields were, regarding land use, to other fields in the surrounding areas (
The locations of the pitfall traps within the sampled fields are listed as geographic coordinates in Table
Not all of the pairs of fields were sampled during every 15 day sampling period. This was because access to the fields depended on the cultivation practices taking place at the time. Irrigation, spraying, harvesting, ploughing, pruning and fertilizer application would all prevent access to the fields and the setting of traps. Initially, a pair of alfalfa fields was also sampled, but the frequency of harvesting meant that most of these traps were destroyed before they could be collected. So sampling in these fields was not continued.
If one field of a pair was inaccessible for a given 15 day period, then the other field of that pair was not sampled either. This insured that comparisons between heterogeneous and homogeneous areas were fair, as the same amount of data was obtained in both fields, at the same time of year. In all, 440 traps were set and 391 were recovered successfully. Successful traps were those that were not flooded by irrigation, destroyed by other farming practices or dug up by animals. The dates covered by the 15 day sampling periods, as well as the numbers of traps set and successfully recovered are shown in Table
From the 391 successful traps, 320 (40 traps from each field) were chosen for use in the data analysis (Table
The traps themselves were made out of 250 ml plastic cups. These had a depth of 10 cm and a rim diameter of 7.3 cm. They were part filled with ethylene glycol, and covered with wooden lids to prevent flooding and the capture of larger, non-target species. This left a gap of 2 cm between the trap rims and their lids.
The
For each field, the data from 40 traps were combined, then the number of carabid species found in each field were recorded, along with their relative abundance (n). The annual activity density (ADa) (
The diversity of carabid species was calculated for each field using the Simpson's Diversity Index (D), which is presented here as the complement (1-D).
Carabid abundance and species richness were also calculated for each trap used in the data analysis. The resulting 40-trap data sets were tested using the Anderson-Darling test. This showed that the data sets were rarely normally distributed, even after transformation, meaning that nonparametric statistics were used for significance testing. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine the significance of differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous areas.
To compare between the different crop types, carabid abundance and species richness were again calculated for each trap. Then the data from both fields of each crop type were combined, resulting in four, 80-trap data sets, one for each crop type. Kruskal-Wallis tests were then used to determined the significance of differences between the cotton, maize, olive and wheat cultivations.
Suppl. material
continent:
Sampling took place in cotton, maize, olive, and wheat fields. It was conducted by Anna Chapman (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) and took place between the 5th of May and the 23rd of October 2007. All samples were preserved in alcohol and are now kept in the author's private collection.
Western Europe to Near East and Iran (
It digs burrows under stones and is mostly phytophagous (
From Macaronesia across Europe and the Mediterranean Region to Western Siberia
Xerophilous species, mainly inhabiting grassland, gardens, dunes and wasteland (
Near transpalaearctic (
It prefers damp areas, riverbanks and water meadows (
Europe to Central Asia. It is a very common species in Greece (
Prefers dry grassland and agricultural land, where it may be found in arable cultivations and alfalfa. It is one of the most common species of
Mediterranean Europe and parts of North Africa (
This species was rare in this study and was only found in the wheat field in the homogeneous area (n = 1).
Endemic to Greece, but widespread within the country (
This species was found in the cotton field in the heterogeneous area (n = 1), the maize field in the heterogeneous area (n = 51), the olive grove in the homogeneous area (n = 4), the wheat field in the heterogeneous area (n = 1) and the wheat field in the homogeneous area (n = 5).
Throughout Europe, to Western Asia and North Africa (
In agricultural areas, it is often found on arable land, pastureland and alfalfa. It is usually absent in fields with abundant weed cover (
Greece, Italy and the Balkans (
In this study, this species was only found rarely (n = 3) in the olive grove in the homogeneous area.
Greece, Turkey, the Balkans and the Middle East (
In this study, it was found in the olive grove in the heterogeneous area (n = 3), the olive grove in the homogeneous area (n = 7), the wheat field in the heterogeneous area (n = 3) and the wheat field in the homogeneous area (n = 12).
Eastern European, the Mediterranean region, the Balkan Peninsula, the Caucasus, Asia Minor and the Near East (
It is a phytophagous and xerophilous species (
The Western Mediterranean and the Balkan Peninsula (
It prefers open countryside (
Europe and large parts of Asia (
Found on loamy soil, often on flood plains (
The Balkans, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Iran, Iraq, the Caucasus and Southern Russia (
It was found in the olive grove in the heterogeneous area (n = 14) and the wheat field in the heterogeneous area (n = 3).
Europe (except the north) and the Balkans, where it prefers foothills to alpine regions (
It is a mesoxerophilous and polyphagous species, which prefers to live in forested areas (
Western Europe to the Caucasus and the Middle East (
A species of dry grassland, which prefers moderate temperatures and humidity levels (
Most of Europe (except the north), Asia Minor, east to Western Siberia and Western China, where it prefers plains to mountains (
It found rarely in the olive grove in the homogeneous area (n = 1) and the wheat field in the heterogeneous area (n = 1).
From the Azores, across Europe, to North Africa and Western China (
It is polyphagous and prefers open, dry habitats and light soils. It is most often found on arable land (
Southern Europe and Southwest Asia, widespread and common in Greece (
It prefers warm, dry places (
Southern and Western Europe, as well as the Near East (
Zoophagous (
Northwestern Africa, Northern, Central and Southern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Asia Minor and Northwestern China (
Consumes the seeds of common agricultural weed species such as
From the Iberian Peninsular, through Southern and Central Europe, the Balkans, to the Near East and the Caucasus (
It is polyphagous, taking insect prey, but is also known to feed on the fallen seeds of plants in the
Greece, FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Bulgaria and Turkey (
It lives in burrows underneath stones. A xerophilous species, preferring areas with sparse vegetation (
Southern Russia, the Caucasus, Iran, Asia Minor, the Balkans as well as Southern and Central Europe (
This species was rare (n = 1) and was only found in the olive grove in the homogeneous area.
Europe, Asia Minor, Central Asia and Siberia (
It may be found in woodland, arable land, meadows, pastures and alfalfa fields. It is one of the most common carabid species of agricultural land in Central Europe. It feeds on species of
Europe, Turkey, Iran, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Mongolia, Siberia and the Far East (
It is found in woodland, heathland and damp grassland (
Endemic to Greece and only ever found on Oiti mountain (
This species was found in the cotton field in the heterogeneous area (n = 2) and in the cotton field in the homogeneous area (n = 41). Both these areas were located close to Oiti.
Europe, the Nearctic, the Near East and North Africa (
This species was found in the maize field in the heterogeneous area (n = 1), the olive grove in the heterogeneous area (n = 1) and in the wheat field in the homogeneous area (n = 1).
Greece, Bulgaria, FYROM and the Near East. Often found in Attica and on the near islands (
This species was found in the cotton field in the heterogeneous area (n = 3), the maize field in the heterogeneous area (n = 1), the maize field in the homogeneous area (n = 1), the olive grove in the heterogeneous area (n = 7), the olive grove in the homogeneous area (n = 1), the wheat field in the heterogeneous area (n = 17) and the wheat field in the heterogeneous area (n = 6).
Neither the heterogeneous nor the homogeneous areas had consistently higher abundance, activity density, species richness, or diversity levels. This suggests that the level of heterogeneity of the study areas did not have a great influence on the carabid communities of the sampled fields. Areas with small field sizes, large amounts of non-cropped habitat and high land use diversity did not appear to benefit the
Additionally, there did not seem to be an association between any of the landscape metrics in Suppl. material
The results of this study do not agree with those reviewed by
A related issue is that too few land use types may have been sampled in this study. Heterogeneity is believed to enhance biodiversity, through different species being associated with different land use types, at different times in their lives (
Additionally, the need to compare closely situated areas, matched regarding other factors apart from their heterogeneity, meant that it was difficult to choose areas that differed greatly in all aspects of their heterogeneity. For example, although "land use diversity" was high and "land use similarity" was low in all of the heterogeneous areas, "land use richness" did not always follow this pattern. For the wheat comparison, "land use richness" was slightly higher in the homogeneous area, while for the cotton comparison "land use richness" was the same in both areas (Suppl. material
It is also possible, as mentioned by
Despite these issues, significant differences were seen in some of the comparisons between heterogeneous and homogeneous areas (Following Subsections). These results are interesting as they provide information about how the
For the cotton fields, carabid abundance per trap was significantly higher in the homogeneous area (U = 1178, p = 0.0003). For the maize fields though, there was not a significant difference between the heterogeneous and homogeneous area (U = 831.5, p = 0.7642). The olive groves had significantly higher carabid abundance in the heterogeneous area (U = 586, p = 0.0404). The result of this comparison was one of the few that showed a positive influence of heterogeneity. For the wheat fields though, there was not a significant difference between the heterogeneous and homogeneous area (U = 693, p = 0.3077). Finally, when the data from all of the fields in each type of area were combined, there was no significant difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous areas (U = 12721 p = 0.9283).
On the whole, crop type appeared to have a greater influence on the
When the abundances of individual species were considered, significant differences were seen between some heterogeneous and homogeneous areas, but these were not consistent for all of the crop type comparisons. Relative abundance patterns also varied depending on the carabid species, with some species showing higher abundances in a heterogeneous area, and others in a homogeneous area. This may have been due to differences in dispersal ability, causing variation in they way individual species experienced heterogeneity (
For the cotton comparison,
For the olive comparison,
For the maize comparison,
For the cotton comparison,
For the maize comparison,
The most common species in this study,
For the cotton fields, there were significantly higher numbers of carabid species per trap in the homogeneous area (U = 1190, p = 0.0002), something that does not indicate a positive influence of landscape heterogeneity. For the maize and wheat fields, no significant differences were seen between heterogeneous and homogeneous areas (maize U = 673.5, p = 0.2263, wheat U = 759.5, p = 0.7039). For the olive groves too, there was not a significant difference between the heterogeneous and homogeneous area (U = 644.5, p = 0.1362). Additionally, when the data from all of the fields in each type of area were combined, there was no significant difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous areas (U = 13255, p = 0.5823).
The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test; however, showed that there was a highly significant difference in species numbers per trap between the different crop types (H = 90, p = <0.0001). The olive groves and the wheat fields had the highest overall richness levels of the four crop types. This may have been because these fields were organically farmed (
Carabid diversity levels were not consistently higher in either the heterogeneous or the homogeneous areas. Nor was there a clear association between carabid diversity levels and the levels of any of the landscape metrics in Suppl. material
Neither were diversity levels consistently higher in any one crop type. Although overall diversity levels were highest in the olives groves, the least disturbed of all of the different cultivations. The highest diversity levels for individual fields were seen in the wheat and olive cultivations in the homogeneous areas. However, the lowest diversity level was seen in the wheat field in the heterogeneous area.
Again these results suggest that the level of heterogeneity had little influence on the
I would like to thank my doctoral supervisors: Professors Anastasios Legakis, Spyros Sfendourakis and Margarita Arianoutsou. Then I would like to thank Giannis Anastasiou (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Beulah Garner, Max Barclay and Roger Booth (Natural History Museum, London) for verifying the identifications of the carabid species. Also I would like to thank Apostolos Alexakis, Apostolis Christopoulos, Stathis Gidarakos, Dina Illiopoulou, Leonidas Kontogiorgos, Socrates Kontos, Kostas Kostopoulos, Lambros Gravaritis, Kostas Oikonomou and Savas Papazahariou for allowing sampling to take place on their land. Finally, I would like to thank IKY - The Greek State Scholarships Foundation for providing funding for this work.
Map showing the relative positions of each of the heterogeneous (a) and homogeneous (b) areas.
Land use maps of areas 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b. The sampled maize and olive fields within these areas are marked with red circle.
Land use map of area 3a. The sampled wheat and cotton fields within this area are marked with red circle.
Land use maps of areas 3bi and 3bii. The sampled wheat and cotton fields within these areas are marked with red circle.
Key for the land use maps in Figs
The size and location of each of the sampled fields. Also the data used to match fields in heterogeneous and homogeneous areas.
Sampled Field - (Study Area) | Field Size (ha) | Location - (Trap Line Coordinates) | Mean Elevation of Field (m) | Dominant Soil Type | Insecticide | Fertilizer | Previous Crop | Harvest Time | Irrigation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cotton a - (3a) | 0.72 |
|
51 | Poorly sorted, very coarse sand | Phosalone | 11-15-15 | Cotton | Late October | Yes |
Cotton b - (3bii) | 2.16 |
|
36 | Poorly sorted, very coarse sand | Phosalone | 11-15-15 | Cotton | Late October | Yes |
Maize a - (1a) | 0.08 |
|
97 | Very coarse, silty, very coarse sand | None | 10-20-10, Lime | Maize | Mid September | Yes |
Maize b - (1b) | 4.76 |
|
105 | Very coarse, silty, very coarse sand - Very coarse, silty coarse sand. | None | 23-8-6, 0.5 Zn | Maize | Mid September | Yes |
Olives a - (2a) | 0.14 |
|
80 | Poorly sorted, very coarse sand | None | None | Olives | Late November | No |
Olives b - (2b) | 10.37 |
|
70 | Poorly sorted, very coarse sand - Poorly sorted, medium sand | None | None | Olives | Late November | No |
Wheat a - (3a) | 0.36 |
|
52 | Poorly sorted, medium sand | None | None | Alfalfa | Early June | No |
Wheat b - (3bi) | 1.81 |
|
53 | Poorly sorted, coarse sand | None | None | Alfalfa | Early June | No |
Sampling Procedure
|
|
|
|
|
|
22nd May to 6th June | 10 | 10 | 10 |
7th June to 22nd June | 10 | 9 | 9 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 6 | 5 | |
8th Sept to 23rd Sept | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
23rd Sept to 8th Oct | 10 | 7 | 6 | |
Total = 5 periods of 15 days | Total = 50 | Total = 42 |
|
|
|
22nd May to 6th June | 10 | 10 | 10 |
7th June to 22nd June | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 5 | 5 | |
8th Sept to 23rd Sept | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
23rd Sept to 8th Oct | 10 | 10 | 6 | |
Total = 5 periods of 15 days | Total = 50 | Total = 45 |
|
|
|
7th June to 22nd June | 10 | 10 | 10 |
23rd June to 8th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
9th Aug to 24th Aug | 10 | 9 | 8 | |
8th Sept - 23rd Sept | 10 | 4 | 4 | |
Total = 5 periods of 15 days | Total = 50 | Total = 43 |
|
|
|
7th June to 22nd June | 10 | 10 | 10 |
23rd June to 8th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 9 | 9 | |
9th Aug to 24th Aug | 10 | 9 | 8 | |
8th Sept to 23rd Sept | 10 | 7 | 4 | |
Total = 5 periods of 15 days | Total = 50 | Total = 45 |
|
|
|
5th May to 20th May | 10 | 8 | 7 |
22nd May to 6th June | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
23rd June to 8th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
25th July to 9th Aug | 10 | 10 | 6 | |
8th Oct to 23rd Oct | 10 | 10 | 0 | |
Total = 6 periods of 15 days | Total = 60 | Total = 58 |
|
|
|
5th May to 20th May | 10 | 10 | 7 |
22nd May to 6th June | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
23rd June to 8th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 10 | 9 | |
25th July to 9th Aug | 10 | 10 | 6 | |
8th Oct to 23rd Oct | 10 | 9 | 0 | |
Total = 6 periods of 15 days | Total = 60 | Total = 59 |
|
|
|
5th May to 20th May | 10 | 10 | 10 |
23rd June to 8th July | 10 | 10 | 8 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 10 | 8 | |
9th Aug to 24th Aug | 10 | 8 | 7 | |
23rd Sept to 8th Oct | 10 | 9 | 7 | |
8th Oct to 23rd Oct | 10 | 0 | 0 | |
Total = 6 periods of 15 days | Total = 60 | Total = 47 |
|
|
|
5th May to 20th May | 10 | 10 | 10 |
23rd June to 8th July | 10 | 8 | 8 | |
9th July to 24th July | 10 | 10 | 8 | |
9th Aug to 24th Aug | 10 | 7 | 7 | |
23rd Sept to 8th Oct | 10 | 10 | 7 | |
8th Oct to 23rd Oct | 10 | 7 | 0 | |
Total = 6 periods of 15 days | Total = 60 | Total = 52 |
|
The total abundance (N), total annual activity density (ADa), species richness and diversity (1-D) of
Sampled Field - (Study Area) | Total Abundance (N) | Total Annual Activity Density (ADa) | Species Richness | Diversity (1-D) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cotton a - (3a) | 9 | 0.150 | 5 | 0.86 |
Cotton b - (3bii) | 71 | 1.183 | 6 | 0.60 |
Maize a - (1a) | 892 | 14.869 | 11 | 0.48 |
Maize b - (1b) | 897 | 14.950 | 7 | 0.34 |
Olives a - (2a) | 105 | 1.750 | 11 | 0.69 |
Olives b - (2b) | 47 | 0.683 | 14 | 0.97 |
Wheat a - (3a) | 681 | 11.350 | 9 | 0.09 |
Wheat b - (3bi) | 208 | 3.467 | 14 | 0.97 |
Data type: Abundance, Activity Density, Species Richness
File: oo_6077.xls
Landscape Metrics
Data type: Landscape Metrics
File: oo_6078.xls