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.