Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1283–1292 | Cite as

Trait-dependent responses of flower-visiting insects to distance to semi-natural grasslands and landscape heterogeneity

  • Johan Ekroos
  • Maj Rundlöf
  • Henrik G. Smith
Research Article

Abstract

Protecting semi-natural grasslands may through spill-over benefit species richness and abundance of flower-visiting insects in linear habitats, such as uncultivated field boundaries, in agricultural landscapes. However, whether local diversity increases both with decreasing distance from potential source habitats and increasing landscape heterogeneity is poorly known due to a general lack of studies replicated at the landscape scale. We analysed if local assemblages of bumblebees, butterflies and hoverflies in linear uncultivated habitats increased with increasing distance to the nearest semi-natural grassland in 12 replicated landscapes along a gradient of landscape heterogeneity in Scania, Southern Sweden. Species richness and abundance of bumblebees and butterflies, but not hoverflies, decreased with increasing distance to semi-natural grasslands, but none of these groups were related to increasing landscape heterogeneity. Further analyses on trait-specific groups revealed significant decreases in the abundance of sedentary and grassland specialist butterflies with increasing distance to assumed source populations, whereas this was not the case concerning mobile species and grassland generalists. The abundance of all bumblebee trait groups decreased with increasing distance to semi-natural grasslands, but only some species (those nesting above ground, with long colony cycles and with small colony sizes) also increased with increasing landscape heterogeneity. We conclude that local species assemblages of flower-visiting insects in linear habitat elements were mainly affected by the occurrence of nearby semi-natural grasslands. In order to conserve diverse assemblages of flower-visiting insects, including the ecological services they provide, it is important to conserve semi-natural grasslands dispersed throughout agricultural landscapes.

Keywords

Agricultural intensity Breeding habitat preference Colony cycle length Colony size Habitat specialist Larval diet Mobility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Sven Hellqvist for identifying the collected hoverflies and Erik Nordh for assistance in the field. Anna Persson, Juliet Osborne, Jochen Krauss and two anonymous reviewers are acknowledged for many constructive suggestions improving the quality of this manuscript. The study was supported by the strategic research initiative BECC, the EU in the FP7 project “STEP—Status and Trends of European Pollinators” (Grant Agreement No. 244090) and a grant from Formas to H.G. Smith.

Supplementary material

10980_2013_9864_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. Alanen E-L, Hyvönen T, Lindgren S, Härmä O, Kuussaari M (2011) Differential responses of bumblebees and diurnal Lepidoptera to vegetation succession in long-term set-aside. J Appl Ecol 48:1251–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartsch H, Binkiewitz E, Rådén A, Nasibov E (2009a) Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. Tvåvingar: Blomflugor: Syrphinae. Diptera: Syrphidae: Syrphinae. ArtDatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartsch H, Binkiewitz E, Klintbjer A, Rådén A, Nasibov E (2009b) Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. Tvåvingar: Blomflugor: Eristalinae and Microdontinae. Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalinae and Microdontinae. ArtDatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhanced the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjornstad ON (2009) ncf: spatial nonparametric covariance functions. R package version 1.1-3. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ncf
  6. Blitzer EJ, Dormann CF, Holzschuh A, Klein A-M, Rand TA, Tscharntke T (2012) Spillover of functionally important organisms between managed and natural habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carwell C, Jordan WC, Bourke AFG, Pickles R, Redhead JW, Heard MS (2012) Molecular and spatial analyses reveal links between colony-specific foraging distance and landscape-level resource availability in two bumblebee species. Oikos 121:734–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekroos J, Kuussaari M (2012) Landscape context affects the relationship between local and landscape species richness of butterflies in semi-natural habitats. Ecography 35:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ekroos J, Heliölä J, Kuussaari M (2010) Homogenization of lepidopteran communities in intensively cultivated agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzpatrick U, Murray TE, Paxton RJ, Breen J, Cotton D, Santorum V, Brown MJF (2007) Rarity and decline in bumblebees: a test of causes and correlates in the Irish fauna. Biol Conserv 136:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fontaine C, Dajoz I, Meriguet J, Loreau M (2006) Functional diversity of plant-pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biol 4:0129–0135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goulson D, Lye GC, Darwill B (2008) Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in bumblebees. Biodivers Conserv 17:3269–3288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grafen A, Hails R (2002) Modern statistics for the life sciences. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haddad NM (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9:612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haenke S, Scheid B, Schaefer M, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2009) Increasing syrphid fly diversity and density in sown flower strips within simple vs. complex landscapes. J Appl Ecol 46:1106–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hambäck PA, Bergman K-O, Bommarco R, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Pöyry J, Öckinger E (2010) Allometric density responses in butterflies: the response to small and large patches by small and large species. Ecography 33:1149–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jauker F, Wolters V (2008) Hover flies are efficient pollinators of oilseed rape. Oecologia 156:819–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jauker F, Diekötter T, Schwarzbach F, Wolters V (2009) Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from the main habitat. Landscape Ecol 24:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohler F, Verhulst J, van Klink R, Kleijn D (2008) At which spatial scale do high-quality habitats enhance the diversity of forbs and pollinators in intensively farmed landscapes? J Appl Ecol 45:753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krebs JR, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB, Siriwardena GM (1999) The second silent spring? Nature 400:611–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Öckinger E, Smith HG (2007) Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 44:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Osborne JL, Martin AP, Carreck NL, Swain JL, Knight ME, Goulson D, Hale RJ, Sanderson RA (2008) Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. J Anim Ecol 77:406–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proença V, Alkemade R, Scharlemann JPW, Fernandez-Manjarrés JF, Araújo MB, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Cheung WWL, Chini L, Cooper HD, Gilman EL, Guénette S, Hurtt GC, Huntington HP, Mace GM, Oberdorff T, Revenga C, Rodrigues P, Scholes PJ, Sumaila UR, Walpole M (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Persson AS (2011) Effects of landscape context on populations of bumblebees. Dissertation, University of LundGoogle Scholar
  29. Persson AS, Olsson O, Rundlöf M, Smith HG (2010) Land use intensity and landscape complexity: analysis of landscape characteristics in an agricultural region in southern Sweden. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D; R Development Core Team (2011) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1.-100Google Scholar
  31. Poschlod P, WallisDeVries MF (2002) The historical and socioeconomic perspective of calcareous grasslands: lessons learned from the distant and recent past. Biol Conserv 104:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Proctor M, Yeou P, Lack A (1996) The natural history of pollination. Timber Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  34. Rundlöf M, Smith HG (2006) The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape context. J Appl Ecol 43:1121–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rundlöf M, Nilsson H, Smith HG (2008) Interacting effects of farming practice and landscape context on bumblebees. Biol Conserv 141:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Samnegård U, Persson AS, Smith HG (2011) Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmlands. Biol Conserv 144:2602–2606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schweiger O, Maelfait JP, Van Wingerden W, Hendrickx F, Billeter R, Speelmans M, Augenstein I, Aukema B, Aviron S, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, Diekötter T, Dirksen J, Frenzel M, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M, Bugter R (2005) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales. J Appl Ecol 42:1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2002) Insect communities and biotic interactions on fragmented calcareous grasslands. Biol Conserv 104:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tenhumberg B, Poehling H-M (1995) Syrphids as natural enemies of cereal aphids in Germany: aspects of their biology and efficacy in different years and regions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 52:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tscharntke T, Rand TA, Bianchi FJJA (2005) The landscape context of trophic interactions: insect spillover across the crop–noncrop interface. Ann Zool Fenn 42:421–432Google Scholar
  41. Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Mass-flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 6:961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2006) Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence. Oecologia 149:289–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams P, Colla S, Xie Z (2009) Bumblebee vulnerability: common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. Conserv Biol 23:931–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams NM, Crone EE, Roulston TH, Minckley RL, Packer L, Potts SG (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol Conserv 143:2280–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith G (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Ekroos
    • 1
  • Maj Rundlöf
    • 2
    • 3
  • Henrik G. Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Environmental and Climate ResearchLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of BiologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations