Multifunctional shade‐tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes – a review

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87099/1/j.1365-2664.2010.01939.x.pd

Grain Yield Stability of Cereal-Legume Intercrops Is Greater Than Sole Crops in More Productive Conditions

The intercropping of two or more crop species on the same piece of land at a given time has been hypothesized to enhance crop yield stability. To address this hypothesis, we assessed the grain yield stability of various barley-pea and wheat-faba bean mixtures grown in seven experimental field trials (locations) across Europe during two years with contrasting weather (2017 and 2018). Three different yield stability measures were used, all based on the expected yield variability of the mixture components grown as sole crops, and the corresponding observed yield variability of the same components grown in 50:50 mixtures in a replacement design. Stability indices were calculated as ratios between the expected and observed variabilities, with values > 1 indicating greater stability of the intercrops. Mean grain yields tended to be higher in intercrops than sole crops. However, in contrast to our hypothesis, the observed (intercrop) yield stability was similar or lower than the expected (sole crop) stability in most locations except one. Furthermore, yield stability significantly increased with increasing mean yields when assessed across differentially productive locations. The results are relevant for the designing of intercropping systems as a means to increase yield stability and the resilience of cropping systems.This research was funded by the DIVERSify project, a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 727284. MR was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—420661662. A.J.K. and A.C.N. are also supported by the strategic research programme funded by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division.Peer reviewe

Improving insect conservation management through insect monitoring and stakeholder involvement

In recent years, the decline of insect biodiversity and the imminent loss of provided ecosystem functions and services has received public attention and raised the demand for political action. The complex, multi-causal contributors to insect decline require a broad interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach that addresses ecological and social aspects to find sustainable solutions. The project Diversity of Insects in Nature protected Areas (DINA) assesses insect communities in 21 nature reserves in Germany, and considers interactions with plant diversity, pesticide exposure, spatial and climatic factors. The nature reserves border on agricultural land, to investigate impacts on insect diversity. Part of the project is to obtain scientific data from Malaise traps and their surroundings, while another part involves relevant stakeholders to identify opportunities and obstacles to insect diversity conservation. Our results indicate a positive association between insect richness and biomass. Insect richness was negatively related to the number of stationary pesticides (soil and vegetation), pesticides measured in ethanol, the amount of area in agricultural production, and precipitation. Our qualitative survey along with stakeholder interviews show that there is general support for insect conservation, while at the same time the stakeholders expressed the need for more information and data on insect biodiversity, as well as flexible policy options. We conclude that conservation management for insects in protected areas should consider a wider landscape. Local targets of conservation management will have to integrate different stakeholder perspectives. Scientifically informed stakeholder dialogues can mediate conflicts of interests, knowledge, and values to develop mutual conservation scenarios

Earthworm and belowground competition effects on plant productivity in a plant diversity gradient

Diversity is one major factor driving plant productivity in temperate grasslands. Although decomposers like earthworms are known to affect plant productivity, interacting effects of plant diversity and earthworms on plant productivity have been neglected in field studies. We investigated in the field the effects of earthworms on plant productivity, their interaction with plant species and functional group richness, and their effects on belowground plant competition. In the framework of the Jena Experiment we determined plant community productivity (in 2004 and 2007) and performance of two phytometer plant species [Centaurea jacea (herb) and Lolium perenne (grass); in 2007 and 2008] in a plant species (from one to 16) and functional group richness gradient (from one to four). We sampled earthworm subplots and subplots with decreased earthworm density and reduced aboveground competition of phytometer plants by removing the shoot biomass of the resident plant community. Earthworms increased total plant community productivity (+11%), legume shoot biomass (+35%) and shoot biomass of the phytometer C. jacea (+21%). Further, phytometer performance decreased, i.e. belowground competition increased, with increasing plant species and functional group richness. Although single plant functional groups benefited from higher earthworm numbers, the effects did not vary with plant species and functional group richness. The present study indicates that earthworms indeed affect the productivity of semi-natural grasslands irrespective of the diversity of the plant community. Belowground competition increased with increasing plant species diversity. However, belowground competition was modified by earthworms as reflected by increased productivity of the phytometer C. jacea. Moreover, particularly legumes benefited from earthworm presence. Considering also previous studies, we suggest that earthworms and legumes form a loose mutualistic relationship affecting essential ecosystem functions in temperate grasslands, in particular decomposition and plant productivity. Further, earthworms likely alter competitive interactions among plants and the structure of plant communities by beneficially affecting certain plant functional groups

Functional identity versus species richness: herbivory resistance in plant communities

The resistance of a plant community against herbivore attack may depend on plant species richness, with monocultures often much more severely affected than mixtures of plant species. Here, we used a plant–herbivore system to study the effects of selective herbivory on consumption resistance and recovery after herbivory in 81 experimental grassland plots. Communities were established from seed in 2002 and contained 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 or 60 plant species of 1, 2, 3 or 4 functional groups. In 2004, pairs of enclosure cages (1 m tall, 0.5 m diameter) were set up on all 81 plots. One randomly selected cage of each pair was stocked with 10 male and 10 female nymphs of the meadow grasshopper, Chorthippus parallelus. The grasshoppers fed for 2 months, and the vegetation was monitored over 1 year. Consumption resistance and recovery of vegetation were calculated as proportional changes in vegetation biomass. Overall, grasshopper herbivory averaged 6.8%. Herbivory resistance and recovery were influenced by plant functional group identity, but independent of plant species richness and number of functional groups. However, herbivory induced shifts in vegetation composition that depended on plant species richness. Grasshopper herbivory led to increases in herb cover at the expense of grasses. Herb cover increased more strongly in species-rich mixtures. We conclude that selective herbivory changes the functional composition of plant communities and that compositional changes due to selective herbivory depend on plant species richness

Diversity Promotes Temporal Stability across Levels of Ecosystem Organization in Experimental Grasslands

The diversity–stability hypothesis states that current losses of biodiversity can impair the ability of an ecosystem to dampen the effect of environmental perturbations on its functioning. Using data from a long-term and comprehensive biodiversity experiment, we quantified the temporal stability of 42 variables characterizing twelve ecological functions in managed grassland plots varying in plant species richness. We demonstrate that diversity increases stability i) across trophic levels (producer, consumer), ii) at both the system (community, ecosystem) and the component levels (population, functional group, phylogenetic clade), and iii) primarily for aboveground rather than belowground processes. Temporal synchronization across studied variables was mostly unaffected with increasing species richness. This study provides the strongest empirical support so far that diversity promotes stability across different ecological functions and levels of ecosystem organization in grasslands

Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment

Biodiversity is rapidly declining1, and this may negatively affect ecosystem processes, including economically important ecosystem services. Previous studies have shown that biodiversity has positive effects on organisms and processes4 across trophic levels. However, only a few studies have so far incorporated an explicit food-web perspective. In an eight-year biodiversity experiment, we studied an unprecedented range of above- and below-ground organisms and multitrophic interactions. A multitrophic data set originating from a single long-term experiment allows mechanistic insights that would not be gained from meta-analysis of different experiments. Here we show that plant diversity effects dampen with increasing trophic level and degree of omnivory. This was true both for abundance and species richness of organisms. Furthermore, we present comprehensive above-ground/below-ground biodiversity food webs. Both above ground and below ground, herbivores responded more strongly to changes in plant diversity than did carnivores or omnivores. Density and richness of carnivorous taxa was independent of vegetation structure. Below-ground responses to plant diversity were consistently weaker than above-ground responses. Responses to increasing plant diversity were generally positive, but were negative for biological invasion, pathogen infestation and hyperparasitism. Our results suggest that plant diversity has strong bottom-up effects on multitrophic interaction networks, with particularly strong effects on lower trophic levels. Effects on higher trophic levels are indirectly mediated through bottom-up trophic cascades

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid