Advanced

Contrasting effects of field boundary management on three pollinator groups

Söderman, Annika M E LU ; Ekroos, Johan LU ; Hedlund, Katarina LU ; Olsson, Ola LU and Smith, Henrik G. LU (2016) In Insect Conservation and Diversity 9(5). p.427-437
Abstract

Uncultivated field boundaries constitute a significant part of the remaining semi-natural habitat in simplified agricultural landscapes, providing habitats for many grassland species. In Europe, agri-environment schemes (AES) offer incentives to farmers to manage farmland more environmentally friendly. In Sweden, one AES has specifically targeted management of incidental habitats on farmland by promoting removal of woody vegetation to benefit cultural heritage and biodiversity. This study investigates if pollinating insects benefit from removal of woody vegetation and whether any such benefits depend on the structural complexity of the surrounding landscape. Using a nested study design, pollinator communities were compared in pairs of... (More)

Uncultivated field boundaries constitute a significant part of the remaining semi-natural habitat in simplified agricultural landscapes, providing habitats for many grassland species. In Europe, agri-environment schemes (AES) offer incentives to farmers to manage farmland more environmentally friendly. In Sweden, one AES has specifically targeted management of incidental habitats on farmland by promoting removal of woody vegetation to benefit cultural heritage and biodiversity. This study investigates if pollinating insects benefit from removal of woody vegetation and whether any such benefits depend on the structural complexity of the surrounding landscape. Using a nested study design, pollinator communities were compared in pairs of managed and unmanaged field boundaries in landscapes of different complexity. The effect of removing trees and bushes in field boundaries varied among pollinator groups. Bumblebee species richness and abundance benefited from the management, whereas the species richness of solitary bees and hoverflies were unaffected. The abundance of solitary bees was higher in managed field boundaries, but only late in the season in complex landscapes, while the same management lowered the hoverfly abundance particularly late in the season. Landscape complexity did not affect bumblebees, while the abundance of solitary bees and the species richness of hoverflies were positively correlated with increasing landscape complexity, but at different spatial scales. The contrasting effects of management on different organism groups shown in this study, illustrate the importance of studies conducted on multiple taxa. Management prescriptions based on results from one pollinator group may not benefit other pollinator groups. Insect Conservation and Diversity

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Agri-environment scheme, Bumblebees, Hoverflies, Landscape complexity, Local management, Solitary bees
in
Insect Conservation and Diversity
volume
9
issue
5
pages
11 pages
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • Scopus:84977586313
  • WOS:000382494700006
ISSN
1752-458X
DOI
10.1111/icad.12179
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
c87ab5ae-237a-495b-beec-ec17a4147acb
date added to LUP
2016-07-25 13:44:34
date last changed
2017-01-01 08:31:02
@article{c87ab5ae-237a-495b-beec-ec17a4147acb,
  abstract     = {<p>Uncultivated field boundaries constitute a significant part of the remaining semi-natural habitat in simplified agricultural landscapes, providing habitats for many grassland species. In Europe, agri-environment schemes (AES) offer incentives to farmers to manage farmland more environmentally friendly. In Sweden, one AES has specifically targeted management of incidental habitats on farmland by promoting removal of woody vegetation to benefit cultural heritage and biodiversity. This study investigates if pollinating insects benefit from removal of woody vegetation and whether any such benefits depend on the structural complexity of the surrounding landscape. Using a nested study design, pollinator communities were compared in pairs of managed and unmanaged field boundaries in landscapes of different complexity. The effect of removing trees and bushes in field boundaries varied among pollinator groups. Bumblebee species richness and abundance benefited from the management, whereas the species richness of solitary bees and hoverflies were unaffected. The abundance of solitary bees was higher in managed field boundaries, but only late in the season in complex landscapes, while the same management lowered the hoverfly abundance particularly late in the season. Landscape complexity did not affect bumblebees, while the abundance of solitary bees and the species richness of hoverflies were positively correlated with increasing landscape complexity, but at different spatial scales. The contrasting effects of management on different organism groups shown in this study, illustrate the importance of studies conducted on multiple taxa. Management prescriptions based on results from one pollinator group may not benefit other pollinator groups. Insect Conservation and Diversity</p>},
  author       = {Söderman, Annika M E and Ekroos, Johan and Hedlund, Katarina and Olsson, Ola and Smith, Henrik G.},
  issn         = {1752-458X},
  keyword      = {Agri-environment scheme,Bumblebees,Hoverflies,Landscape complexity,Local management,Solitary bees},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {427--437},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Insect Conservation and Diversity},
  title        = {Contrasting effects of field boundary management on three pollinator groups},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/icad.12179},
  volume       = {9},
  year         = {2016},
}