Patterns in spring-active carabid assemblages were described in relation to four organic soil management regimes (no soil nutrient addition, undersowing, animal manure, undersowing + manure) in two areas of Denmark. On the island of Zealand, the Flakkebjerg study area had 22 species, 3-10 species/trap, and the species rank of these was the same for all treatments. The dominant species were Pterostichus melanarius, Agonum dorsale, Harpalus rufipes and Calathus fuscipes. At Foulum, Jutland, there were 46 species, 12-15 species/ trap, dominated by P. versicolor, P. melanarius,  A. dorsale and Nebria brevicollis. Their rank, however, was not the same for all treatments. There were remarkable differences in the carabid assemblages of the two sites, and manure addition modified the assemblages, more pronouncedly so in the poorer-soil Flakkebjerg site. However, we did not detect clear effects of the studied treatments on carabid species richness, overall abundance or Pterostichus melanarius alone

Axelsen, J.A.

Lövei, G.L.

Toft, S.

English

Organic Eprints

European Carabidology 2003. Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologist Meeting DIAS Report, No. 114 (2005),173-182.  173Composition and diversity of spring-active carabid beetle assemblages in relation to soil management in organic wheat fields in Denmark  Gabor L. Lövei1, Søren Toft2 & Jørgen A. Axelsen3  1Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences  Department of Crop Protection Research Centre Flakkebjerg DK-4200 Slagelse Denmark E-mail: gabor.lovei[a]agrsci.dk  2Institute of Biological Sciences University of Aarhus Bldg. 135 DK-8000 Århus C Denmark  3Department of Terrestrial Ecology National Environment Research Institute Vejlsøvej 25 DK-8600 Silkeborg Denmark   Abstract  Patterns in spring-active carabid beetle assemblages were described in relation to four organic soil management regimes (no soil nutrient addition, undersowing, animal manure, undersowing + manure) in two areas of Denmark by means of pitfall trapping. On the island of Zealand, the Flakkebjerg study area had 22 species, 3-10 species/trap, and the species rank of these was the same for all treatments. The dominant species were Pterostichus melanarius, Agonum dorsale, Harpalus rufipes and Calathus fuscipes. At Foulum, Jutland, there were 46 species, 12-15 species/ trap, dominated by P. versicolor, P. melanarius,  A. dorsale and Nebria brevicollis. Their rank, however, was not the same for all treatments. There were remarkable differences in the carabid assemblages of the two sites, and manure addition modified the assemblages, more pronouncedly so in the poorer-soil Flakkebjerg site. However, we did not detect clear effects of the treatments on carabid species richness, overall abundance or on Pterostichus melanarius alone.   Key words: Soil fertilisation, undersowing, manure, assemblage composition, carabids, diversity scaling   174Introduction  Polyphagous predators can survive on many different types of prey and this enables them to persist in habitats that experience fluctuations in prey availability (Symondson et al., 2002). In seasonal climates, however, this fluctuation can result in a complete lack of food, and a subsequent dormancy (not necessarily caused by the lack of food but climatic constraints). A critical period for polyphagous predators is when activity in the spring resumes. At this time, activity can be fuelled by reserves built up before the onset of winter, but this is not usually sufficient. Especially for invertebrate predators, prey availability early in the season is critical, and is often critically low (Toft & Bilde, 2002).  Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) are among the dominant soil-surface active arthropods in northern temperate ecosystems (Lövei & Sunderland, 1996). Many species of ground beetles occur in cultivated areas, and many of these are obligate or facultative predators. For this reason, ground beetles are usually considered beneficial in agricultural habitats (Lövei & Sunderland, 1996). Carabids also eat soil-born organisms (Hengeveld, 1980), that can, especially in early spring, be an important food source (Toft & Bilde, 2002).  Increased soil nutrient content can support a more rich soil fauna (Wardle, 2002) and it can also subsidise the above-ground food chain. Several examples of soil subsidies to the above-ground food webs are documented, but the potential effect on above-ground predators remains unexplored (Wardle, 2002).  As carabids are prominent predators active on the ground but spend an unknown part of their activity in the soil (Lövei & Sunderland, 1996), it is plausible to assume that soil food webs can subsidise above-ground food webs, specifically ground-active predators, by providing food for them during times of food shortage. If this occurs, we can expect a change in ground beetle assemblage composition, diversity, density, satiation level, or any combination of the above as a result of different soil management practices. We investigated whether ground beetle assemblages responded to different methods of soil nutrient management in an organic crop rotation. At two different locations in Denmark, we found that soil manipulation influenced the ground beetle assemblage in several ways, but undersowing was less influential than fertilising by animal manure on spring-active ground beetle assemblages.   Study area, material and methods  In order to sample carabids, we used selected plots in a long-term organic crop rotation experiment. This experiment has 10 x 10 m treatment plots as base units in a randomised block design, and is repeated exactly at four Danish locations. We selected two of these: at Flakkebjerg (55o19' N, 11 o23' E), on the island of Zealand and in Foulum (56 o30' N, 9 o34' E), on the peninsula of Jutland, Denmark. The individual plots were separated from each other    175by grass strips, 5 m within rows and 10 m between rows. We selected plots that had first-year wheat crop in the crop rotation sequence. There were four treatments: unfertilised control, undersowing with legumes, fertilising with animal manure and undersowing + manure. Each treatment had four replicate plots per location, giving us a total of sixteen 10 x 10 m sample plots at each location. Full details of the soil manipulation experiment are in Djurhuus & Olesen (2000).  We sampled ground beetles with pitfall traps, setting one trap near the centre of each of the 32 plots selected. Traps were 10 cm diameter plastic cups, containing ca. 200 ml of 70% ethylene glycol and a drop of detergent. In order to protect the catch from rain and scavenging as well as to prevent accidental killing of frogs and small mammals, we used a 25 cm x 25 cm metal cover, secured ca. 5 cm above the trap. Traps were set at the time of aphid immigration, and were checked fortnightly until aphids emigrated from the crop. In Flakkebjerg, this covered the period of 6 June - 18 July 2002 (3 fortnightly samples), and in Foulum, 17 May - 12 July 2002 (4 samples). The catches were sieved on site, and stored in vials with 70% ethyl alcohol until sorting and identification in the laboratory. For identification, keys by Lindroth (1985, 1986) and Hůrka (1996) were used. Nomenclature follows Lindroth (1985, 1986). Voucher specimens are deposited at the Department of Crop Protection, DIAS Flakkebjerg Research Centre, Denmark.  To evaluate diversity, the generalised Rényi entropy equation was used (Tóthmérész, 1995; Lövei et al., 2002). Rényi diversity, HR(a), is calculated as follows:   11() l o g1SaiiHR a pa ==− ∑  ,  where pi is the relative abundance of the i-th species, and S is the number of species; a is a so-called scale parameter. The equation is interpreted for the range a≥0, with the restriction that α≠1 . The results are graphically presented as a 'diversity profile'. The diversity profiles were generated by the DivOrd program package (Tóthmérész, 1993). For multivariate analysis (PCA), the NuCoSa program package (Tóthmérész, 1996) was used. For the PCA, no species were excluded, the Matsusita index was used, and the analysis was centered on samples. A repeated measures ANOVA (Sokal & Rohlf, 1995) was used to test for differences in the number of beetles between study areas, treatments and sampling occasions.   Results  Assemblage composition In Foulum, 46 species were captured (Table 1) with 12-15 species/trap. The most common species were Pterostichus versicolor, P. melanarius, Agonum dorsale and Nebria brevicollis. Their rank, however, was not the same for all treatments.  Table 1. The total list of the ground beetles captured in pitfall traps in the different soil fertility treatments. Foulum, Jutland, and Flakkebjerg, Zealand, during 2002.  Total number of beetles captured in the treatment Foulum Flakkebjerg Species  ControlUnder-sowing Manure Ma + Us* Total ControlUnder-sowing Manure Ma + Us TotalPterostichus versicolor   503 535 185 179 1402 1 6 2 10 19Pterostichus melanarius   324 399 300 265 1288 1033 965 1380 1363 4741Agonum dorsale   136 116 126 131 509 130 239 306 434 1109Nebria brevicollis  134 135 63 137 469 11 10 17 29 67Bembidion tetracolum  78 43 97 47 265 - - - - 0Amara plebeja   62 64 39 90 255 - - - - 0Clivina fossor   44 44 63 39 190 - - - - 0Harpalus rufipes   66 33 57 33 189 117 86 146 243 592Harpalus tardus  38 33 38 42 151  -  - 1  - 1Loricera pilicornis   43 39 38 29 149 1 2 5 3 11Harpalus affinis  42 36 30 17 125 11 9 12 23 55Bembidion lampros   44 25 26 18 113 1 1 1  - 3Amara familiaris   15 11 44 36 106 1 2 2  - 5Amara aenea  29 9 7 4 49 - - - - 0Pterostichus niger  7821 7 3 4 - - - - 0Synuchus vivalis   5 7 76 2 5 ---- 0Trechus obtusus  4 8 43 1 9 ---- 0Trechus quadristriatus   931 2 1 5  -  - 1  - 1Calathus cinctus  7 2 22 1 3 ---- 0Agonum muelleri  524  - 1 1  - 2  - 1 3Bembidion obtusum  2 4 32 1 1 ---- 0Borscus cephalotes  3 3 41 1 1 ---- 0Calathus fuscipes  551  - 1 1 1 93 12 71 7 9 4Carabus nemoralis  225 1 1 0 1 1 1  - 3Demetrias atricapillus  --- -0  -  - 3 7 1 0Amara similata  215 19 - - - - 0Bembidion properans  4  - 3 - 7 ---- 0176   Total number of beetles captured in the treatment Foulum Flakkebjerg Species  ControlUnder-sowing Manure Ma + Us* Total ControlUnder-sowing Manure Ma + Us TotalCalathus melanocephalus  241  -7  - 2 1  - 3Asaphidion flavipes  4 - - 26 - - - - 0Pterostichus niger  --- -0  - 3 2 1 6Amara bifrons  211 15 - - - - 0Pterostichus strenuus   - - - 55 - - - - 0Stomis pumicatus  11 - 24 - - - - 0Amara communis  3  -  - - 3 ---- 0Amara consularis  2  - 1 - 3 ---- 0Amara fulva  1 1 1 - 3 ---- 0Amara lunicollis   -21  -3 - - - - 0Calathus erratus  1 -1  -2  - 3 1 1 5Harpalus rubripes   -  - 2 - 2 ---- 0Notiophilus palustris   -11  -2 - - - - 0Notiophilus pusillus   2  -  - - 2 ---- 0Pterostichus cupreus    2  - - 2 ---- 0Amara aulica  --- -0  - 2  -  - 2Amara apricaria  1  -  - - 1 ---- 0Anisodactylus binotatus  1  -  - - 1 ---- 0Notiophilus aquaticus  1  -  - - 1 ---- 0Harpalus rufibarbis   -1 -  -1 - - - - 0Trechus micros  1  -  - - 1 ---- 0Amara ovata  --- -0 1  -  -  - 1Notiophilus aquaticus  --- -0 1  -  -  - 1Notiophilus pusillus   --- -0 1  -  -  - 1Total number of individuals  1636 1581 1163 1114 5494 1329 1364 1908 2132 6733Total numbers of species  40 34 34 28 46 14 16 17 12 22* Ma + Us: manure + undersowing177   178                          Figure 1. Multivariate analysis (Principal Component Analysis) of the ground beetle assemblages of the soil fertility treatments (4 replicates/treatment combined) at Flakkebjerg (to the left) and Foulum (right). The first two axes explain 93.5% of the variation in the data.  In Flakkebjerg, only 22 species were captured, and the species number / trap was also lower (3-10 species / trap). The most numerous species were P. melanarius, A. dorsale, Harpalus rufipes and Calathus fuscipes. Their ranks were the same in all treatments (Table 1).  Diversity The PCA clearly separated the ground beetle assemblages at the two locations (Fig. 1). The first two axes explained 93.5% of the variation in the data. Manure had a larger impact on the assemblage composition than undersowing at both locations.   The Rényi-diversity profiles at Foulum (Fig. 2A) indicated that the combined assemblage of the undersown patches was unequivocally less diverse than the control, and the manure-treated areas. Compared to the manure + undersowing treatment (M+U), it was more diverse only at small values of the scale parameter, sensitive to species richness. From scale parameter α= 0.5 upwards, the undersown plots fell below the profiles of all other treatments (Fig. 2A). The manure or manure + undersowing treatments could not be unequivocally ordered, as the profiles cross each other at different values of the scale parameter. The     179                              Figure 2. The Rényi diversity profiles of the four ground beetle assemblages studied at Foulum (A) and Flakkebjerg (B), spring 2002. The relative positions of the four profiles did not change at higher values of the scale parameter, so only the intervals α < 4 (a) and α < 2 are shown.  diversity relationship of the assemblages found in the plots that received animal manure and the manure + undersowing combined treatment is complex. The assemblage in manure treatment plots is more diverse when considering rare species (the curve runs above that of the M+U plots), but becomes less diverse (at scale parameters α>2.6, the curves cross, and the diversity of the assemblage in the M+U plots becomes more diverse, being less dominated by the common species) at higher values of the scale parameter (Fig. 2A). AB0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2Scale parameter00.511.522.53Rényi-diversity,  HR(α) ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2Scale parameter00.511.522.53Rényi-diversity,  HR(α) ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing00.511.522.53Rényi-diversity,  HR(α) ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 3.3 3.6 3.9Scale parameter0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 3.3 3.6 3.9Scale parameter11.522.533.54Rényi-diversity. HR(α)ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing11.522.533.54Rényi-. ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 3.3 3.6 3.9Scale parameter0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 3.3 3.6 3.9Scale parameter11.522.533.54Rényi-diversity. HR(α)ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing11.522.533.54Rényi-. ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing11.522.533.54Rényi-diversity. HR(α)ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing11.522.533.54Rényi-. ControlUndersowingManureManure + Undersowing   180The diversity profiles at Flakkebjerg (Fig. 2B) indicated a partially different situation. The control was unequivocally less diverse than manure or undersowing, but not their combination. However, the only difference was in the part of the curve where species richness has a large influence, at low values of the scale parameter. Near the value α = 0.3, the diversity profile of the combination treatment crosses that of the control, and remains consistently above it. At the value of α ≈ 1, this curve indicates the highest diversity. The relationship between the effect on diversity of manure vs. undersowing is not as different as in Foulum, but the diversity profile for the undersown plots runs mostly above the equivalent curve for the manure-fertilised plots (Fig. 2B).  Carabid response to soil treatments A repeated measures ANOVA on total number of beetles, and on common species indicated only a few significant relationships. There was a near-significant location * treatment interaction in the total number of beetles, mainly brought about by the significant difference in the number of individuals collected during the four sampling occasions. The only species with a significant treatment * sampling occasion effect on the number of individuals was Pterostichus melanarius (Table 2), again, mainly as a result of the different number of individuals collected during the sampling occasions.  Table 2. Analysis of variance on the total numbers of beetles captured, and on one of the common species, Pterostichus melanarius.    numDF  denDF F-value  Significance,  p Total number of beetles         (Intercept) 1 68  275.44356    <0.0001 Location   1 27       2.47774   0.1271 Treatment    3 27       0.03254   0.9919 Sampling.occasion   3 68       6.24635   0.0008 Treatment*Sampling.occasion      9 68       1.85750   0.0736 Pterostichus melanarius     (Intercept)  1 68 595.8805    <0.0001 Location  1 27 150.4353    <0.0001 Treatment   3 27     0.3976    0.7558 Sampling.occasion   3 68   40.2885    <0.0001 Treatment*Sampling.occasion   9 68     3.4687    0.0014        181Discussion  The strongest impact in our studies was the regional difference in the species richness of the ground beetle assemblages. This probably reflected soil differences. For example, the humus content in the top 25 cm of the soil was nearly two times higher in Foulum than in Flakkebjerg (Djurhuus & Olesen, 2000). Other parameters also indicated a more nutrient-rich soil in Foulum than in Flakkebjerg. This, however, did not result in higher overall activity-density.   The diversity of the assemblages was influenced by the treatments, as well as by regional differences. The soil manipulations seem to have caused a larger effect in Flakkebjerg. This could be a consequence of the poorer soil at this site.  At the activity-density level, however, ground beetles did not show an overwhelming, consistent response to soil treatments. The spring distribution of ground beetles could be influenced by habitat features and the composition of the regional species pool more strongly than soil nutrient status in the local patch. An effect of patch size is also possible. However, this is contradicted by the results of the multivariate analysis: the carabid assemblages in the different treatments separated well from each other, at least in some cases. As the patches were randomly arranged, this seemed to indicate that patch size was not unrealistically small.   Acknowledgements  This work is part of the research program of the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming. We thank Erling Nielsen and Ilse Rasmussen for allowing us to use the experimental plots, V. Ködöböcz for identifying the species, G. Christiansen, L. Chistensen, Lars Dall, I. W. Nielsen & B.P. Pedersen for technical assistance, Dr. R. Voland for statistical advice and T. Magura and H. Rasmussen for help with the figures. We thank J. Kotze who took over the editorial responsibility for this paper, and to an unknown reviewer for helpful suggestions.   References  Djurhuus J & Olesen JE. 2000. Charaterisation of four sites in Denmark for long-term experiments on crop rotations for organic farming. DIAS Report No. 33. 74 pp. Hengeveld R. 1980. Polyphagy, oligophagy, and food specialisation in ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30, 564-584. Hurka K. 1996. Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, Zlin, Czech Republic.    182Lindroth CH. 1985. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Vol. 15, part 1. E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Lindroth CH. 1986. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Vol. 15, part 2. E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Lövei GL, Magura T, Sigsgaard L & Ravn H-P. 2002. Patterns in ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in single-row hedgerows in a Danish agricultural landscape. In: Szyszko, J., den Boer, P. & Bauer, T. (Eds.) How to protect or what we know about Carabid Beetles. Proceedings of the 10th European Meeting of Carabidologists. Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, Poland, 201-212. Lövei GL & Sunderland KD. 1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41, 231-256. Sokal RR & Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. Freeman & Co., New York. Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD & Greenstone MH. 2002. Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annual Review of Entomology 47, 561-594. Toft S & Bilde T. 2002. Carabid diets and food value. In: Holland JM (Ed.) The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Intercept Publ., Andover, UK, 81-110. Tóthmérész B. 1993. DivOrd 1.50: A program for diversity ordering. Tiscia 27, 33-44. Tóthmérész B. 1995. Comparison of different methods of diversity ordering. Journal of Vegetation Science 6, 283-290. Tóthmérész B. 1996. NuCoSA: Program package for botanical, zoological and ecological studies. Scientia Publishing, Budapest, Hungary. Wardle DA. 2002. Communities and ecosystems. Linking aboveground and belowground components. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.  

Composition and diversity of spring-active carabid beetle assemblages in relation to soil management in organic wheat fields in Denmark

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints