Influence of farming system on ground beetle communities ...
Transcript of Influence of farming system on ground beetle communities ...
HAL Id: hal-01458651https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01458651
Submitted on 3 Jun 2020
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.
Influence of farming system on ground beetlecommunities at local and landscape scales
Maud Belhache, El Aziz Djoudi, Stéphanie Aviron, Julien Pétillon, ManuelPlantegenest
To cite this version:Maud Belhache, El Aziz Djoudi, Stéphanie Aviron, Julien Pétillon, Manuel Plantegenest. Influenceof farming system on ground beetle communities at local and landscape scales. 17th European Cara-bidologists Meeting, Sep 2015, Primosten, Croatia. 48 p. �hal-01458651�
UMR 1349 INRA-Agrocampus Ouest-Université Rennes, IGEPP
Maud Belhache, El Aziz Djoudi, Stéphanie Aviron, Julien Pétillon and Manuel Plantegenest
Influence of farming system on ground beetle communities at local and landscape scales
Context
1
Needs for more sustainable and healthy agricultural systems Development of Organic farming
based on ecological processes
no petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides used
Context
1
Needs for more sustainable and healthy agricultural systems Development of Organic farming
based on ecological processes
no petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides used
Beneficial effect on the
abundance and species richness
of ground beetle communities.
Context
1
Needs for more sustainable and healthy agricultural systems Development of Organic farming
based on ecological processes
no petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides used
Beneficial effect on the
abundance and species richness
of ground beetle communities.
How does organic farming affect ground beetle communities at local and landscape scales ?
Context
2
Organic farming Conventional farming
Abundance Species richness + -
Differences in abundances and species composition (richness)
Context
3
Environmental characteristics
Resources Constraints
Differences in species abundances and composition
Reproduction Survival
Differences in abundances and species composition (richness)
local scale processes
Organic farming Conventional farming
Context
4 Organic farming Conventional farming
Marginal areas
Immigration process
Differences in attractivity
Differences in abundances and species composition (richness)
landscape scale processes
Context
5
Differences in abundances and species composition (richness)
landscape scale processes : coexistence of the two systems
Context
6
Influence of the proportion of organic farming at landscape scale ?
Differences in abundances and species composition (richness)
landscape scale processes : Source/Sink dynamics ?
Contrasting assemblages in organic vs conventional farming
habitat characteristics differ between systems
Contrasting emerging vs circulating communities
local vs landscape contribution
Assessing landscape influence on local communities
source/sink dynamics
7
Goal and hypotheses
How does organic farming affect ground beetle communities at local and landscape scales ?
Study site
8
Selection of :
10 landscapes in Brittany
20 wheat fields 10 under organic farming 10 under conventional farming
Method
Experimental device
In each sampled field :
3 emergence arenas including two pitfall traps
1 pitfall trap located in the vicinity of each emergence arena Samples collection every 2 weeks (april-may 2015).
9
Pitfall trap
Emergence arena
Method
Higher abundances in OF :
attractive effect ?
differences in mortality rates ?
10
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
N.S
*
Results : Local scale
Abundances
11
N.S N.S
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
Species richness
Total = 44 species
Results : Local scale
Similar species richness in the two systems.
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
N.S N.S
Species richness
Total = 44 species
11
Results : Local scale
Similar species richness between the two systems.
Variation in communities composition.
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
N.S N.S
Species richness
Total = 44 species
11
Results : Local scale
Similar species richness between the two systems.
Variation in communities composition.
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
N.S N.S
Species richness
Total = 44 species
11
Results : Local scale
Similar species richness between the two systems.
Variation in communities composition.
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
Similar species richness between the two systems.
Variation in communities composition.
N.S N.S
Species richness
Total = 44 species
11
Results : Local scale
N.S : nonsignificant difference ; * : P<0.05 green : OF and red: CF
Similar species richness between the two systems.
Majority of species are present in the two systems.
N.S N.S
Species richness
Total = 44 species
11
Results : Local scale
PCA : species proportions captured in both trap types during the entire sampling period.
12
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
)
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
OF
CF
A
Pt
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
Axe 1 & 2 : organic and conventional
communities differ
OF
13
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
OF
CF
A
Pt
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
CF
CF
14
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Results : Local scale
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
)
Axe 2 : circulating and emerging
communities differ
A OF
CF Pt
Arenas
Pitfall traps
15
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
)
OF
CF
A
Pt
Results : Local scale
16
CF
OF Organic farming :
- Rich vegetation cover
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
Organic farming :
- Rich vegetation cover
phytophagous
17
CF
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
Organic farming :
- Rich vegetation cover
phytophagous
- Genus Amara
genus Brachinus
18
CF
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
19
CF
OF Conventional farming :
- less diverse resources
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
Conventional farming :
- less diverse resources
collembola
slugs
aphids
20
CF
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
) Results : Local scale
21
CF
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
)
Conventional farming :
- less diverse resources
collembola
slugs
aphids
Results : Local scale
22
CF
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
)
Conventional farming :
- less diverse resources
collembola
slugs
aphids
Results : Local scale
23
CF
OF
Specific composition of ground beetle communities
Principal component 1 (12.03%)
Prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt 2
(11.
16%
)
Conventional farming :
- less diverse resources
collembola
slugs
aphids
Results : Local scale
Cartography :
Buffer of 500m around fields Information on crops management
OF gradient in the surroundings of sampling fields.
Method
24
Landscape scale
Influence of OF percentage in the landscape
Increasing the percentage of organic farming in the landscape : - abundance of circulating communities in CF
- abundance of circulating phytophagous species in CF
R²=0.29
R²=0.71
25
Results : Landscape scale
Total abundances in CF fields Abundances of phytophagous species in CF fields
Differences in species composition : - OF : phytophagous species - CF : collembola eaters
Communities structure driven by resources availability.
26
Conclusions
Differences in species composition : - OF : phytophagous species - CF : collembola eaters
Communities structure driven by resources availability.
26
Organic farming
Conventional farming
Conclusions
Differences in species composition : - OF : phytophagous species - CF : collembola eaters
Communities structure driven by resources availability.
Abundances in circulating communities > in OF. Slight differences in abundances in emerging communities. Differences between circulating & emerging communities in OF.
OF acts as a sink attractiveness of crops
26
Organic farming
Conventional farming
Conclusions
Differences in species composition : - OF : phytophagous species - CF : collembola eaters
Communities structure driven by resources availability.
Abundances in circulating communities > in OF. Slight differences in abundances in emerging communities. Differences between circulating & emerging communities in OF.
OF acts as a sink attractiveness of crops
Abundances increase in circulating communities in CF in relation with the augmentation of OF percentage in the landscape.
OF acts as a source dispersion/dynamics at landscape scale
26
Organic farming
Conventional farming
Conclusions
Interactions between systems
27
To go further ...
Interactions between systems
Isotopic tool identifying and quantifying migrant flows
27
To go further ...
Interactions between systems
Isotopic tool identifying and quantifying migrant flows
Changes in soil’s isotopic labelling :
differences in fertilization methods
differences in organic matter origin
27
To go further ...
Interactions between systems
Isotopic tool identifying and quantifying migrant flows
Changes in soil’s isotopic labelling :
differences in fertilization methods
differences in organic matter origin Isotopic labelling transmission from soils to ground beetle ?
27
To go further ...
4 5 6 7 8
67
89
Metallina lampros
R²=0,6
Isotopic labelling of emerging individuals
d15N
(‰) M
_lam
d15N (‰) soil
First results : Isotopic labelling
4,5 mm
28
-28 -27 -26 -25
-28
-26
-24
Anchomenus dorsalis
R²=0,
9 mm
d13C
(‰) A
_dor
d13C (‰) soil
Metallina lampros Anchomenus dorsalis
First conclusions
Coherence soil / ground beetle isotopic labelling
confirms usefulness of the method High intrascpecific variability no individual assignment
Isotopic labelling
29
First conclusions
Coherence soil / ground beetle isotopic labelling
confirms usefulness of the method High intrascpecific variability no individual assignment
The method allows the evaluation of the contribution at populational
scale.
importance and temporality exchanges
between both farming systems.
Isotopic labelling
29
Organic farming :
- sink in spring attractiveness of crops - source at farm scale management and type of marginal areas - source at the scale of multiannual dynamics
Prospects
30
Organic farming :
- sink in spring attractiveness of crops - source at farm scale management and type of marginal areas - source at the scale of multiannual dynamics
Take into account: landscape features associated with farming systems temporal variability of habitats
to assess : relative contribution of farming systems for auxiliary production exchanges of migrants between farming systems
and thus quantify their influence in terms of biological control.
Prospects
30
Organic farming :
- sink in spring attractiveness of crops - source at farm scale management and type of marginal areas - source at the scale of multiannual dynamics
Take into account: landscape features associated with farming systems temporal variability of habitats
to assess : relative contribution of farming systems for auxiliary production exchanges of migrants between farming systems
and thus quantify their influence in terms of biological control. Utilization of isotopic tool to characterize the migrant flows between farming systems.
Prospects
30
Thank you for your attention.