Biodiversity indicators in organic and conventional farming systems: main results from the European project BIOBIO

In the framework of the European project BIOBIO, we compared between countries habitat and cumulated species richnesses of plants, wild bees, spiders and earthworms, measured in 169 conventional and organic farms belonging to 10 case studies in 10 European countries. For the French case study (Gascony Valleys and Hills), correlations between direct (habitat and taxonomic richnesses) and indirect (agricultural practices) indicators of biodiversity within 8 conventional and 8 organic farms, were calculated. Results showed that the main driver of biodiversity at the farm level was the number of cultivated and above all semi-natural habitats, inthe French case study region as well as inthe other regions. This factor partially explained the highest biodiversity level of the French case study region. However, farming practices, specific or not to the organic and conventional systems, most often drove biodiversity parameters at the habitat level. In fine, the project proposed the BIOBIO method for monitoring biodiversity in farms

Effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen deposition on early to mid-term stage litter decomposition across biomes

Litter decomposition is a key process for carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and is mainly controlled by environmental conditions, substrate quantity and quality as well as microbial community abundance and composition. In particular, the effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on litter decomposition and its temporal dynamics are of significant importance, since their effects might change over the course of the decomposition process. Within the TeaComposition initiative, we incubated Green and Rooibos teas at 524 sites across nine biomes. We assessed how macroclimate and atmospheric inorganic N deposition under current and predicted scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 8.5) might affect litter mass loss measured after 3 and 12 months. Our study shows that the early to mid-term mass loss at the global scale was affected predominantly by litter quality (explaining 73% and 62% of the total variance after 3 and 12 months, respectively) followed by climate and N deposition. The effects of climate were not litter-specific and became increasingly significant as decomposition progressed, with MAP explaining 2% and MAT 4% of the variation after 12 months of incubation. The effect of N deposition was litter-specific, and significant only for 12-month decomposition of Rooibos tea at the global scale. However, in the temperate biome where atmospheric N deposition rates are relatively high, the 12-month mass loss of Green and Rooibos teas decreased significantly with increasing N deposition, explaining 9.5% and 1.1% of the variance, respectively. The expected changes in macroclimate and N deposition at the global scale by the end of this century are estimated to increase the 12-month mass loss of easily decomposable litter by 1.1-3.5% and of the more stable substrates by 3.8-10.6%, relative to current mass loss. In contrast, expected changes in atmospheric N deposition will decrease the mid-term mass loss of high-quality litter by 1.4-2.2% and that of low-quality litter by 0.9-1.5% in the temperate biome. Our results suggest that projected increases in N deposition may have the capacity to dampen the climate-driven increases in litter decomposition depending on the biome and decomposition stage of substrate

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

Effects of Climate and Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition on Early to Mid-Term Stage Litter Decomposition Across Biomes

open263siWe acknowledge support by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the German Research Foundation (FZT 118), Scientific Grant Agency VEGA(GrantNo.2/0101/18), as well as by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (Grant Agreement No. 677232)Litter decomposition is a key process for carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and is mainly controlled by environmental conditions, substrate quantity and quality as well as microbial community abundance and composition. In particular, the effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on litter decomposition and its temporal dynamics are of significant importance, since their effects might change over the course of the decomposition process. Within the TeaComposition initiative, we incubated Green and Rooibos teas at 524 sites across nine biomes. We assessed how macroclimate and atmospheric inorganic N deposition under current and predicted scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 8.5) might affect litter mass loss measured after 3 and 12 months. Our study shows that the early to mid-term mass loss at the global scale was affected predominantly by litter quality (explaining 73% and 62% of the total variance after 3 and 12 months, respectively) followed by climate and N deposition. The effects of climate were not litter-specific and became increasingly significant as decomposition progressed, with MAP explaining 2% and MAT 4% of the variation after 12 months of incubation. The effect of N deposition was litter-specific, and significant only for 12-month decomposition of Rooibos tea at the global scale. However, in the temperate biome where atmospheric N deposition rates are relatively high, the 12-month mass loss of Green and Rooibos teas decreased significantly with increasing N deposition, explaining 9.5% and 1.1% of the variance, respectively. The expected changes in macroclimate and N deposition at the global scale by the end of this century are estimated to increase the 12-month mass loss of easily decomposable litter by 1.1-3.5% and of the more stable substrates by 3.8-10.6%, relative to current mass loss. In contrast, expected changes in atmospheric N deposition will decrease the mid-term mass loss of high-quality litter by 1.4-2.2% and that of low-quality litter by 0.9-1.5% in the temperate biome. Our results suggest that projected increases in N deposition may have the capacity to dampen the climate-driven increases in litter decomposition depending on the biome and decomposition stage of substrate.openKwon T.; Shibata H.; Kepfer-Rojas S.; Schmidt I.K.; Larsen K.S.; Beier C.; Berg B.; Verheyen K.; Lamarque J.-F.; Hagedorn F.; Eisenhauer N.; Djukic I.; Caliman A.; Paquette A.; Gutierrez-Giron A.; Petraglia A.; Augustaitis A.; Saillard A.; Ruiz-Fernandez A.C.; Sousa A.I.; Lillebo A.I.; Da Rocha Gripp A.; Lamprecht A.; Bohner A.; Francez A.-J.; Malyshev A.; Andric A.; Stanisci A.; Zolles A.; Avila A.; Virkkala A.-M.; Probst A.; Ouin A.; Khuroo A.A.; Verstraeten A.; Stefanski A.; Gaxiola A.; Muys B.; Gozalo B.; Ahrends B.; Yang B.; Erschbamer B.; Rodriguez Ortiz C.E.; Christiansen C.T.; Meredieu C.; Mony C.; Nock C.; Wang C.-P.; Baum C.; Rixen C.; Delire C.; Piscart C.; Andrews C.; Rebmann C.; Branquinho C.; Jan D.; Wundram D.; Vujanovic D.; Adair E.C.; Ordonez-Regil E.; Crawford E.R.; Tropina E.F.; Hornung E.; Groner E.; Lucot E.; Gacia E.; Levesque E.; Benedito E.; Davydov E.A.; Bolzan F.P.; Maestre F.T.; Maunoury-Danger F.; Kitz F.; Hofhansl F.; Hofhansl G.; De Almeida Lobo F.; Souza F.L.; Zehetner F.; Koffi F.K.; Wohlfahrt G.; Certini G.; Pinha G.D.; Gonzlez G.; Canut G.; Pauli H.; Bahamonde H.A.; Feldhaar H.; Jger H.; Serrano H.C.; Verheyden H.; Bruelheide H.; Meesenburg H.; Jungkunst H.; Jactel H.; Kurokawa H.; Yesilonis I.; Melece I.; Van Halder I.; Quiros I.G.; Fekete I.; Ostonen I.; Borovsk J.; Roales J.; Shoqeir J.H.; Jean-Christophe Lata J.; Probst J.-L.; Vijayanathan J.; Dolezal J.; Sanchez-Cabeza J.-A.; Merlet J.; Loehr J.; Von Oppen J.; Loffler J.; Benito Alonso J.L.; Cardoso-Mohedano J.-G.; Penuelas J.; Morina J.C.; Quinde J.D.; Jimnez J.J.; Alatalo J.M.; Seeber J.; Kemppinen J.; Stadler J.; Kriiska K.; Van Den Meersche K.; Fukuzawa K.; Szlavecz K.; Juhos K.; Gerhtov K.; Lajtha K.; Jennings K.; Jennings J.; Ecology P.; Hoshizaki K.; Green K.; Steinbauer K.; Pazianoto L.; Dienstbach L.; Yahdjian L.; Williams L.J.; Brigham L.; Hanna L.; Hanna H.; Rustad L.; Morillas L.; Silva Carneiro L.; Di Martino L.; Villar L.; Fernandes Tavares L.A.; Morley M.; Winkler M.; Lebouvier M.; Tomaselli M.; Schaub M.; Glushkova M.; Torres M.G.A.; De Graaff M.-A.; Pons M.-N.; Bauters M.; Mazn M.; Frenzel M.; Wagner M.; Didion M.; Hamid M.; Lopes M.; Apple M.; Weih M.; Mojses M.; Gualmini M.; Vadeboncoeur M.; Bierbaumer M.; Danger M.; Scherer-Lorenzen M.; Ruek M.; Isabellon M.; Di Musciano M.; Carbognani M.; Zhiyanski M.; Puca M.; Barna M.; Ataka M.; Luoto M.; H. Alsafaran M.; Barsoum N.; Tokuchi N.; Korboulewsky N.; Lecomte N.; Filippova N.; Hlzel N.; Ferlian O.; Romero O.; Pinto-Jr O.; Peri P.; Dan Turtureanu P.; Haase P.; Macreadie P.; Reich P.B.; Petk P.; Choler P.; Marmonier P.; Ponette Q.; Dettogni Guariento R.; Canessa R.; Kiese R.; Hewitt R.; Weigel R.; Kanka R.; Cazzolla Gatti R.; Martins R.L.; Ogaya R.; Georges R.; Gaviln R.G.; Wittlinger S.; Puijalon S.; Suzuki S.; Martin S.; Anja S.; Gogo S.; Schueler S.; Drollinger S.; Mereu S.; Wipf S.; Trevathan-Tackett S.; Stoll S.; Lfgren S.; Trogisch S.; Seitz S.; Glatzel S.; Venn S.; Dousset S.; Mori T.; Sato T.; Hishi T.; Nakaji T.; Jean-Paul T.; Camboulive T.; Spiegelberger T.; Scholten T.; Mozdzer T.J.; Kleinebecker T.; Runk T.; Ramaswiela T.; Hiura T.; Enoki T.; Ursu T.-M.; Di Cella U.M.; Hamer U.; Klaus V.; Di Cecco V.; Rego V.; Fontana V.; Piscov V.; Bretagnolle V.; Maire V.; Farjalla V.; Pascal V.; Zhou W.; Luo W.; Parker W.; Parker P.; Kominam Y.; Kotrocz Z.; Utsumi Y.Kwon T.; Shibata H.; Kepfer-Rojas S.; Schmidt I.K.; Larsen K.S.; Beier C.; Berg B.; Verheyen K.; Lamarque J.-F.; Hagedorn F.; Eisenhauer N.; Djukic I.; Caliman A.; Paquette A.; Gutierrez-Giron A.; Petraglia A.; Augustaitis A.; Saillard A.; Ruiz-Fernandez A.C.; Sousa A.I.; Lillebo A.I.; Da Rocha Gripp A.; Lamprecht A.; Bohner A.; Francez A.-J.; Malyshev A.; Andric A.; Stanisci A.; Zolles A.; Avila A.; Virkkala A.-M.; Probst A.; Ouin A.; Khuroo A.A.; Verstraeten A.; Stefanski A.; Gaxiola A.; Muys B.; Gozalo B.; Ahrends B.; Yang B.; Erschbamer B.; Rodriguez Ortiz C.E.; Christiansen C.T.; Meredieu C.; Mony C.; Nock C.; Wang C.-P.; Baum C.; Rixen C.; Delire C.; Piscart C.; Andrews C.; Rebmann C.; Branquinho C.; Jan D.; Wundram D.; Vujanovic D.; Adair E.C.; Ordonez-Regil E.; Crawford E.R.; Tropina E.F.; Hornung E.; Groner E.; Lucot E.; Gacia E.; Levesque E.; Benedito E.; Davydov E.A.; Bolzan F.P.; Maestre F.T.; Maunoury-Danger F.; Kitz F.; Hofhansl F.; Hofhansl G.; De Almeida Lobo F.; Souza F.L.; Zehetner F.; Koffi F.K.; Wohlfahrt G.; Certini G.; Pinha G.D.; Gonzlez G.; Canut G.; Pauli H.; Bahamonde H.A.; Feldhaar H.; Jger H.; Serrano H.C.; Verheyden H.; Bruelheide H.; Meesenburg H.; Jungkunst H.; Jactel H.; Kurokawa H.; Yesilonis I.; Melece I.; Van Halder I.; Quiros I.G.; Fekete I.; Ostonen I.; Borovsk J.; Roales J.; Shoqeir J.H.; Jean-Christophe Lata J.; Probst J.-L.; Vijayanathan J.; Dolezal J.; Sanchez-Cabeza J.-A.; Merlet J.; Loehr J.; Von Oppen J.; Loffler J.; Benito Alonso J.L.; Cardoso-Mohedano J.-G.; Penuelas J.; Morina J.C.; Quinde J.D.; Jimnez J.J.; Alatalo J.M.; Seeber J.; Kemppinen J.; Stadler J.; Kriiska K.; Van Den Meersche K.; Fukuzawa K.; Szlavecz K.; Juhos K.; Gerhtov K.; Lajtha K.; Jennings K.; Jennings J.; Ecology P.; Hoshizaki K.; Green K.; Steinbauer K.; Pazianoto L.; Dienstbach L.; Yahdjian L.; Williams L.J.; Brigham L.; Hanna L.; Hanna H.; Rustad L.; Morillas L.; Silva Carneiro L.; Di Martino L.; Villar L.; Fernandes Tavares L.A.; Morley M.; Winkler M.; Lebouvier M.; Tomaselli M.; Schaub M.; Glushkova M.; Torres M.G.A.; De Graaff M.-A.; Pons M.-N.; Bauters M.; Mazn M.; Frenzel M.; Wagner M.; Didion M.; Hamid M.; Lopes M.; Apple M.; Weih M.; Mojses M.; Gualmini M.; Vadeboncoeur M.; Bierbaumer M.; Danger M.; Scherer-Lorenzen M.; Ruek M.; Isabellon M.; Di Musciano M.; Carbognani M.; Zhiyanski M.; Puca M.; Barna M.; Ataka M.; Luoto M.; H. Alsafaran M.; Barsoum N.; Tokuchi N.; Korboulewsky N.; Lecomte N.; Filippova N.; Hlzel N.; Ferlian O.; Romero O.; Pinto-Jr O.; Peri P.; Dan Turtureanu P.; Haase P.; Macreadie P.; Reich P.B.; Petk P.; Choler P.; Marmonier P.; Ponette Q.; Dettogni Guariento R.; Canessa R.; Kiese R.; Hewitt R.; Weigel R.; Kanka R.; Cazzolla Gatti R.; Martins R.L.; Ogaya R.; Georges R.; Gaviln R.G.; Wittlinger S.; Puijalon S.; Suzuki S.; Martin S.; Anja S.; Gogo S.; Schueler S.; Drollinger S.; Mereu S.; Wipf S.; Trevathan-Tackett S.; Stoll S.; Lfgren S.; Trogisch S.; Seitz S.; Glatzel S.; Venn S.; Dousset S.; Mori T.; Sato T.; Hishi T.; Nakaji T.; Jean-Paul T.; Camboulive T.; Spiegelberger T.; Scholten T.; Mozdzer T.J.; Kleinebecker T.; Runk T.; Ramaswiela T.; Hiura T.; Enoki T.; Ursu T.-M.; Di Cella U.M.; Hamer U.; Klaus V.; Di Cecco V.; Rego V.; Fontana V.; Piscov V.; Bretagnolle V.; Maire V.; Farjalla V.; Pascal V.; Zhou W.; Luo W.; Parker W.; Parker P.; Kominam Y.; Kotrocz Z.; Utsumi Y

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

This is the final version of the article. Available from National Academy of Sciences via the DOI in this recordThe idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.This work was supported through the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)—National Science Foundation Award DBI-1052875 for the project “Evidence and Decision-Support Tools for Controlling Agricultural Pests with Conservation Interventions” organized by D.S.K. and R.C.-K

Effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen deposition on early to mid-term stage litter decomposition across biomes

Litter decomposition is a key process for carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems and is mainly controlled by environmental conditions, substrate quantity and quality as well as microbial community abundance and composition. In particular, the effects of climate and atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition on litter decomposition and its temporal dynamics are of significant importance, since their effects might change over the course of the decomposition process. Within the TeaComposition initiative, we incubated Green and Rooibos teas at 524 sites across nine biomes. We assessed how macroclimate and atmospheric inorganic N deposition under current and predicted scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 8.5) might affect litter mass loss measured after 3 and 12 months. Our study shows that the early to mid-term mass loss at the global scale was affected predominantly by litter quality (explaining 73% and 62% of the total variance after 3 and 12 months, respectively) followed by climate and N deposition. The effects of climate were not litter-specific and became increasingly significant as decomposition progressed, with MAP explaining 2% and MAT 4% of the variation after 12 months of incubation. The effect of N deposition was litter-specific, and significant only for 12-month decomposition of Rooibos tea at the global scale. However, in the temperate biome where atmospheric N deposition rates are relatively high, the 12-month mass loss of Green and Rooibos teas decreased significantly with increasing N deposition, explaining 9.5% and 1.1% of the variance, respectively. The expected changes in macroclimate and N deposition at the global scale by the end of this century are estimated to increase the 12-month mass loss of easily decomposable litter by 1.1-3.5% and of the more stable substrates by 3.8-10.6%, relative to current mass loss. In contrast, expected changes in atmospheric N deposition will decrease the mid-term mass loss of high-quality litter by 1.4-2.2% and that of low-quality litter by 0.9-1.5% in the temperate biome. Our results suggest that projected increases in N deposition may have the capacity to dampen the climate-driven increases in litter decomposition depending on the biome and decomposition stage of substrate. © Copyright © 2021 Kwon, Shibata, Kepfer-Rojas, Schmidt, Larsen, Beier, Berg, Verheyen, Lamarque, Hagedorn, Eisenhauer, Djukic and TeaComposition Network

Comparison of tree microhabitat abundance and diversity in the edges and interior of small temperate woodlands

International audienceForest edges are important features of wooded farmland. Their role for biodiversity was investigated using tree microhabitats (TMH) as an indirect indicator of forest biodiversity. Because they are managed more intensively, trees in the edges of fragmented temperate woodlands are likely to host more TMH than trees in their interior. In this study, we tested this hypothesis in relation to tree density, diameter, species composition and the structure and management of woodland edges. We selected 28 woodlands with edges differing by their structure and the adjacent fields. Eleven types of TMH were recorded in two transects set up in the edges and interior of the woodlands. TMH density was significantly higher in the woodland edges (4.67 ± 0.78 per 100 m2 area) than in the interior (1.86 ± 0.23 per 100 m2 area). Some TMH - patches of bark loss, cracks, sap runs and epiphytes – were significantly more abundant in the edges than in the interior. These results were accounted for by the convergence of several factors: (i) significantly higher tree density in woodland edges, (ii) a significantly higher proportion of TMH host trees in woodland edges, (iii) a larger tree diameter on average in woodland edges and, even in the same given size class, a higher frequency of TMH host trees, and (iv) greater abundance in woodland edges of tree species more likely to host TMH, even with small diameters. The positive relationship found between the height of the bottom of the crown and TMH abundance may have resulted from abiotic factors (micro-climatic conditions) related to long management rotations, but we did not demonstrate any direct effect of management practices. Given the large number of forest taxa, but also farmland taxa, that depend on TMH, woodland edges should be reconsidered as zones of high potential interest for forest biodiversity conservation