Dispersal of Harpalus rufipes [Degeer] [Carabidae] between shelterbelt and cereal field

• Autorzy: Kujawa K , Sobczyk D. , Kajak A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Former studies usually show a positive effect of landscape heterogeneity on different groups of animals occurring in crop fields but some controversies have been discovered. The aim of this study was to answer the question whether the introduction of mid-field tree belts can help to increase numbers of predatory carabids in crop fields. Distance and the direction of movements of individually marked carabids caught in traps in the shelterbelts and in the adjacent crop fields were measured during one week of July (in 2003 and 2004). Pitfall traps (N=360) were placed 2 meters apart in 30 parallel rows which formed a rectangle of 58 × 22 m divided into 5 strips (5 rows in each one). Strip A was located in the shelterbelt, the others (B-E) were placed in the field. Beetles (exclusively – Harpalus rufipes (Degeer, 1774) which predominated in both habitats) after being marked with fast drying paint (non-dissolving in water, not harmful, and using dot code) were released at the same spots where they were caught. Accordingly 1099 and 1683 individuals in both years were marked and the number of recaptured individuals was equal to 259 (24%) and 307 (18%). Proportion of recapture rate for individuals marked in particular strips ranged between 18 and 28%. Mobility of the beetles was similar in both years (15.9 m and 16.5 m; t = 0.59, df = 579, P> 0.5). Individuals marked within the shelterbelt (strip A) were in both years caught much further away (25 and 27 m) than the individuals marked in opposite strip E, located in crop field (15 and 17.5 m). Differences between the distance covered daily by insects marked in the field and in the shelterbelt were statistically significant whereas differences between distances covered within the field by insects marked in particular strips – were not significant. Only 8–9% of insects marked in the shelterbelt (strip A) was recaptured in the same strip while recapture rate for individuals marked in other strips was higher –16 to 32%. The proportion of insects marked in the field (strip B, C, D, E) and recaptured in the shelterbelt was very low (2–11%). The comparison of recapture rates between strips A and B also shows that insects move mostly from the shelterbelt to the field. As much as 30–34% of the insects marked in the shelterbelt were caught in the bordering field. Among the insects marked in the next strip B, adjacent to the shelterbelt, only 10–11% individuals were caught in the shelterbelt. Presented results indicate that dominating direction of the dispersal in the mosaic landscape is from the shelterbelt to the field.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

farmland; landscape structure; Carabidae; cereal field; individual marking; shelter belt; Harpalus rufipes

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 54
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.243-252,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Kujawa K

• Polish Academy of Sciences, Field Station, Szkolna 4, Turew, 64-000 Koscian, Poland

autor

Sobczyk D.

autor

Kajak A.

Bibliografia

• Andersen A. 1999 – Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. II. Pests and beneficial insects – Crop. Prot. 18: 651–657.
• Collins K.L., Boatman N.D., Wilcox A., Holland J. M. 2003 – Effects of different grass treatments used to create overwintering habitat for predatory arthropods on arable farmland – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 96: 59–67.
• De Snoo G.R. 1999 – Ungrazed field margins: effect on environment, biodiversity and agricultural practice – Landscape Urban Plan. 46: 151–160.
• Dennis P., Thomas M.B., Sotherton N.W. 1994 – Structural features of field boundaries which influence the overwintering densities of beneficial arthropod predators – J. Appl. Ecol. 31: 361–370.
• Desender K. 1982 – Ecological and faunal studies on Coleoptera in agricultural land II. Hibernation of Carabidae in agroecosystems – Pedobiologia 23: 295–303.
• Dőring T.F., Kromp B. 2003 – Which carabid species benefit from organic agriculture? – a review of comparative studies in winter cereals from Germany and Switherland – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 153–161.
• Du Bus de Warnaffe G., Lebrun P. 2004 – Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity consevation – Biol. Conserv. 118: 219–234.
• Ehrlich P.R., Davidson S.E. 1961 – Techniques for capture – recapture studies of Lepidoptera population – J. Lepid. Soc. 14: 227– 229.
• Frampton G.K., Cilgi T., Fry G.L.A., Wratten S.D. 1995 – Effects of grassy banks on the dispersal of some carabid beetles (coleoptera: carabidae) on farmland – Biol. Conserv. 71: 347–355.
• Günther J., Assman T. 2004 – Fluctuations of carabid populations inhabiting an ancient woodland (Coleoptera, Carabidae) – Pedobiologia 48: 159–164.
• Hartke A., Drummond F.A., Liebman M. 1998 – Seed feeding, seed caching, and burrowing behaviors of Harpalus rufipes De Geer larvae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the marine potato agroecosystem – Biol. Control 13: 91–100.
• Hawthorne A.J., Hassall M., Sotherton N.W. 1998 – Effects of cereal headland treatments on the abundance and movements of three species of carabid beetles – Appl. Soil Ecol. 9: 417–422.
• Holland J., Fahrig L. 2000 – Effect of woody borders on insect density and diversity in crop fields: A landscape-scale analysis – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 78: 115–122.
• Imler U. 2003 – The spatial and temporal pattern of carabid beetles on arable fields in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) and their value as ecological indicators – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 141–151.
• Kajak A., Oleszczuk M. 2004 – Effect of shelterbelts on adjoining cultivated fields: patrolling intensity of carabid beetles (Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) – Pol. J. Ecol. 52: 155–172.
• Karg J. 1999 – Nowe zadrzewienie w Parku Krajobrazowym im. Gen. D. Chłapowskiego. Rozwój i funkcje – Biuletyn Parków Krajobrazowych Wielkopolski 5 (7), 2: 102–120.
• Kromp B. 1999 – Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 74: 187–228.
• Loughridge A.H., and M.L. Luff. 1983 – Aphid predation by Harpalus rufipes (Degeer) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the laboratory and field – J. Appl. Ecol. 20: 451–462.
• Lys J.A., Nentwig W. 1992 – Augmentation of beneficial arthropods by strip management – Oecologia 92: 373–382.
• Magura T. 2002 – Carabids and forest edge: spatial pattern and edge effect – Forest Ecol. Manag. 157: 23–37.
• Mauremooto J.R., Wratten S.D., Worner S.P., Fry G.L.A. 1995 – Permeability of hedgerows to predatory carabid beetles – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 52: 141–148.
• Molnár T., Magura T., Tóthmérész B., Elek Z. 2001 – Ground beetles (Carabidae) and edge effect in oak-hornbeam forest and grassland transects – Eur. J. Soil. Biol. 37: 297–300.
• Purtauf T., Dauber J., Wolters V. 2004 – Carabid communities in the spatio-temporal mosaic of a rural lanscape – Landscape Urban Plan. 67: 185–193.
• Skłodowski J.W. 1995 – Antropogeniczne przeobrażenia zespołów biegaczowatych (Col. Carabidae) w ekosystemach borów sosnowych Polski [Anthropogenic transformations of ground beetles communities (Col. Carabidae) in pine forests (In: Antropogeniczne przeobrażenia epigeicznej i glebowej entomofauny borów sosnowych [Anthropogenic transformations of epigeic and soil entomofauna in pine forests] Eds: A Szujecki, J.W. Skłodowski, A. Wojciechowska) – Rozwój SGGW: 17–163. (in Polish).
• Sorokin, N.S. 1981 – Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as natural enemies of the Colorado beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say – Entomol. Rev. 60: 44–52.
• Sotherton N.W. 1985 – The distribution and abundance of predatory arthropods overwintering in field boundaries – Ann. App. Biol. 106: 423–429.
• Sunderland K.D., Vickerman G.P. 1980 – Aphid feeding by some polyphagous predators in relation to aphid density in cereal fields – J. Appl. Ecol. 17: 389–396.
• Thomas C.F.G., Marshall E.J.P. 1999 – Arthropod abundance and diversity in differently vegetated margins of arable fields – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 72: 131–144.
• Thomas C.F.G., Parkinson L., Griffiths C.J.K., Fernandez-Garcia A. and Marshall E.J.P. 2001 – Aggregation and temporal stability of carabid beetle distributions in field and hedgerow habitats – J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 100–116.
• Thomas M.B., Wratten S.D., Sotherton N.W. 1991 – Creation of island habitats in farmland to manipulate populations of beneficial arthropods: predator densities and emigration – J. Appl. Ecol. 28: 906–917.
• Topp W., Simon M., Kautz G., Dworschak U., Nicolini F., Prückner S. 2001 – Soil fauna of a reclaimed lignite open cast mine of the Rhineland: improvement of soil quality by surface pattern – Ecol. Eng. 17: 307–322.
• Traugott M. 1999 – Larval and adult species composition, phenology and life cycles of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in an organic potato field – Eur. J. Soil Biol. 34: 189–197.
• Turin K., Alders P.J., Den Boer S., Van Essen, Th. Heijerman W., Laane, Penterman E. 1991 – Ecological characterization of Carabid species (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Netherlands from thirty years of pitfall sampling. – Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 134: 279–304.
• Vanbergen A.J., Woodcock B.A., Watt A.D., Niemelä J. 2005 – Effect of land-use heterogenity on carabid communities at the landscape scale – Ecography 28: 3–16.
• Varchola J.M., Dunn J.P. 2001 – Influence of hedgerow and grassy field borders on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) activity in fields of corn – Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 83: 153–163.
• Wallin H. 1986 – Habitat choice of some fieldinhabiting carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) studied by recapture of marked individuals – Ecol. Entomol. 11: 457–466.