Organic versus conventional arable farming systems: Functional grouping helps understand staphylinid response

By Y. Clough, A. Kruess, T. Tscharntke. 2007

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The response of different feeding groups of staphylinid beetles to organic management, distance to perennial boundary and landscape context was studied in 42 paired organic and conventional winter wheat fields. Management effects were found to strongly depend on feeding group. While the activity-density of predators was higher in the conventional fields, both activity-density and species richness of detritivores were higher in the organic fields. Activity-density and species richness of detritivores were positively correlated to crop yield in the conventional but not in the organic fields. Unexpectedly, species richness as high as in the less productive organic fields was thus found in intensified conventional systems. No significant effects of landscape context could be found on activity-density or species richness of the different feeding groups. More species were caught near the field edge than in the middle, showing the importance of spill-over from field boundaries into arable crops for diversity. In conclusion, separation of species into feeding groups revealed patterns that have not been shown before. Decomposer diversity (but not that of predators and fungivores) was higher in organic fields, but reached similar levels in high-yielding conventional fields. Thus resource quality (purely organic or organic/synthetic fertiliser) and quantity appear to play a major role for this functional group.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83abb7d7ff9bff4421aa226826e8e443791ecd6a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. T. Tscharntke
2. Carsten Thies
3. J. Sarthou
4. A. Rusch
5. M. Valantin-Morison
6. J. Roger-Estrade
7. Wolfgang Nentwig
8. Martin Schmidt

In Insect Science

1. T. Tscharntke
2. Carsten Thies
3. Wolfgang Nentwig
4. J. Sarthou
5. A. Rusch
6. J. Roger-Estrade
7. M. Valantin-Morison
8. Martin Schmidt

In Plant Science

1. T. Tscharntke
2. J. Sarthou
3. A. Rusch
4. J. Roger-Estrade
5. M. Valantin-Morison
6. Carsten Thies
7. Marco Isaia
8. E. Caprio

Citations in the corpus

• Contrasting responses of arable spiders to the landscape matrix at different spatial scales (2007, background): “Carabidae and Staphylinidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) are also potential spider antagonists; however, the densities of ants and beetles in arable fields did not show any positive effects of non-crop habitats in the surrounding landscape (Dauber et al., 2005; Clough et al., 2007).”
• Biological Control of Insect Pests in Agroecosystems: Effects of Crop Management, Farming Systems, and Seminatural Habitats at the Landscape Scale: A Review (2010, background): “1% of cases) (Clough et al., 2007) found that landscape context had no effect on natural enemies (Staphylinids).”
• Organic versus conventional systems in viticulture: Comparative effects on spiders and carabids in vineyards and adjacent forests (2015, methodology): “Our approach allowed us to take into account the heterogeneity of the ecological requirements of distinct functional groups within carabid and spider assemblages (Batáry et al., 2012; Clough et al., 2007; Cole et al., 2002; Negro et al., 2009).”