publication . Research . Other literature type . Article . 2019

Which pitfall traps and sampling efforts should be used to evaluate the effects of cropping systems on the taxonomic and functional composition of arthropod communities?

Gardarin, Antoine; Valantin-Morison, Muriel;
Open Access English
  • Published: 07 Jan 2019
  • Publisher: Zenodo
  • Country: France
Abstract
International audience; Ground dwelling arthropods are affected by agricultural practices, and analyses of their responses to different crop management are required. The sampling efficiency of pitfall traps has been widely studied in natural ecosystems. In arable agroecosystems, arthropod communities are more simplified than in natural ones and sampling techniques need to be adjusted to these specific conditions. In particular, the ability to distinguish between simplified communities and the sampling effort required have been little investigated. We evaluated the suitability of pitfall traps for characterizing the effects of arable cropping systems on the taxonomic and functional composition of spider and carabid communities. In a field experiment comparing three cropping systems, we compared the effects of two pitfall trap diameters, the type of preserving fluid used in pitfall traps and the sampling effort on six metrics describing communities: activity-density, richness and community weighted mean (CWM) of body size, each one for carabid and spiders. Trap size affected the observed composition of carabid and spider communities, with large traps yielding a higher relative proportion of spiders, and a higher species richness and CWM body size for both taxa. The type of preserving fluid had no marked effect on any of the metrics considered. For this experiment in arable crops, simulations with various sampling efforts showed that only very different communities could be significantly distinguished
Persistent Identifiers

doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3468919 , 10.5281/zenodo.3451553 , 10.5281/zenodo.2533857 , 10.5281/zenodo.3468920 , 10.5281/zenodo.2533856

Subjects
free text keywords: activity-density, arthropod community, computer simulation, cropping system, CWM body size, ground beetle, pitfall trap, sampling effort, species richness, spider, Activity-density, arthropod community, computer simulation, cropping system, CWM body size, ground beetle, pitfall trap, sampling effort, species richness, spider, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology
Related Organizations
Download fromView all 8 versions
Open Access
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo...
Research . 2019
Providers: Datacite
Open Access
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2019
Providers: ZENODO
Open Access
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo...
Article . 2019
Providers: Datacite
Open Access
ZENODO
Article . 2019
Providers: ZENODO
View more
30 references, page 1 of 2

Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32-46. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x

Arnold BF, Hogan DR, Colford JM, Hubbard AE (2011) Simulation methods to estimate design power: an overview for applied research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 11:94. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-94

Ball SL, Woodcock BA, Potts SG, Heard MS (2015) Size matters: Body size determines functional responses of ground beetle interactions. Basic Appl Ecol 16:621-628. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2015.06.001

Baumgardt JA, Morrison ML, Brennan LA, Pierce BL, Campbell TA (2019) Development of Multispecies, Long-Term Monitoring Programs for Resource Management. Rangeland Ecol Manage 72:168-181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2018.07.010

Botta-Dukát Z, Czúcz B (2016) Testing the ability of functional diversity indices to detect trait convergence and divergence using individual-based simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7:114-126. doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12450 [OpenAIRE]

Brown GR, Matthews IM (2016) A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring groundactive arthropod biodiversity. Ecol Evol 6:3953-3964. doi:10.1002/ece3.2176 [OpenAIRE]

Colnenne-David C, Doré T (2015) Designing innovative productive cropping systems with quantified and ambitious environmental goals. Renew Agric Food Syst 30:487-502. doi:10.1017/s1742170514000313

Entling W, Schmidt-Entling MH, Bacher S, Brandl R, Nentwig W (2010) Body sizeclimate relationships of European spiders. J Biogeogr 37:477-485. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02216.x [OpenAIRE]

Eyre MD, Luff ML, Atlihan R, Leifert C (2012) Ground beetle species (Carabidae, Coleoptera) activity and richness in relation to crop type, fertility management and crop protection in a farm management comparison trial. Ann Appl Biol 161:169-179. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.2012.00562.x [OpenAIRE]

Foley JA et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337. doi:10.1038/nature10452

Gaba S et al. (2018) Ecology for sustainable and multifunctional agriculture. In: Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 28. p 362 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90309-5

Gallé R, Happe AK, Baillod AB, Tscharntke T, Batáry P (2019) Landscape configuration, organic management, and within-field position drive functional diversity of spiders and carabids. J Appl Ecol 56:63-72. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13257

Johnson PCD, Barry SJE, Ferguson HM, Müller P (2015) Power analysis for generalized linear mixed models in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6:133-142. doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12306 1.37 ± 0.11

5.5 cm salt water -0.37 ± 0.12

5.5 cm salt vinegar -0.21 ± 0.11

30 references, page 1 of 2
graphPowered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue