Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 29;17(4):e0264881.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264881. eCollection 2022.

Landscape diversity and local temperature, but not climate, affect arthropod predation among habitat types

Affiliations

Landscape diversity and local temperature, but not climate, affect arthropod predation among habitat types

Ute Fricke et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Arthropod predators are important for ecosystem functioning by providing top-down regulation of insect herbivores. As predator communities and activity are influenced by biotic and abiotic factors on different spatial scales, the strength of top-down regulation ('arthropod predation') is also likely to vary. Understanding the combined effects of potential drivers on arthropod predation is urgently needed with regard to anthropogenic climate and land-use change. In a large-scale study, we recorded arthropod predation rates using artificial caterpillars on 113 plots of open herbaceous vegetation embedded in contrasting habitat types (forest, grassland, arable field, settlement) along climate and land-use gradients in Bavaria, Germany. As potential drivers we included habitat characteristics (habitat type, plant species richness, local mean temperature and mean relative humidity during artificial caterpillar exposure), landscape diversity (0.5-3.0-km, six scales), climate (multi-annual mean temperature, 'MAT') and interactive effects of habitat type with other drivers. We observed no substantial differences in arthropod predation rates between the studied habitat types, related to plant species richness and across the Bavarian-wide climatic gradient, but predation was limited when local mean temperatures were low and tended to decrease towards higher relative humidity. Arthropod predation rates increased towards more diverse landscapes at a 2-km scale. Interactive effects of habitat type with local weather conditions, plant species richness, landscape diversity and MAT were not observed. We conclude that landscape diversity favours high arthropod predation rates in open herbaceous vegetation independent of the dominant habitat in the vicinity. This finding may be harnessed to improve top-down control of herbivores, e.g. agricultural pests, but further research is needed for more specific recommendations on landscape management. The absence of MAT effects suggests that high predation rates may occur independent of moderate increases of MAT in the near future.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Probability of arthropod attack relative to local mean temperature during artificial caterpillar exposure.
Logistic regression curve and dots indicate absence (0) and presence (1) of arthropod attack on artificial caterpillars at plot level.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Relative importance (sum of Akaike weights) for explaining arthropod predation rates of A) spatial scale (i.e. models with all possible predictor combinations at one scale relative to the others) and of B) each candidate predictor per spatial scale.
White symbols refer to habitat characteristics (Habitat: habitat type, SpecNum: plant species richness, Temp or RH: local mean temperature or mean relative humidity during artificial caterpillar exposure, zi: included as zero-inflation term) and filled blue symbols to regional factors (LandDiv: landscape diversity, MAT: multi-annual mean temperature). Landscape diversity is the only landscape parameter (value changes with spatial scale).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Relationship between arthropod predation rates and candidate predictors.
A) Habitat type (For: forest, Gra: grassland, Ara: arable field, Set: Settlement), B) plant species richness, C+D) local mean temperature and mean relative humidity during artificial caterpillar exposure, E) landscape diversity at 2-km scale and F) multi-annual mean temperature (MAT). Light grey dots present values per plot; overlapping dots appear darker. In A) circles indicate outliers. In B-F) solid lines indicate model predictions of the best model derived through multimodel averaging.

References

    1. Hawkins BA, Cornell H V., Hochberg ME. Predators, parasitoids, and pathogens as mortality agents in phytophagous insect populations. Ecology. 1997;78: 2145–2152. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078[2145:PPAPAM]2.0.CO;2 - DOI
    1. Schmitz OJ, Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: A review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat. 2000;155: 141–153. doi: 10.1086/303311 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Halaj J, Wise DH. Terrestrial trophic cascades: How much do they trickle? Am Nat. 2001;157: 262–281. doi: 10.1086/319190 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schowalter TD. Herbivory. In: Schowalter TD, editor. Insect ecology. 4th ed. Academic Press; 2016. pp. 405–443. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803033-2.00012–1 - DOI
    1. Haan NL, Iuliano BG, Gratton C, Landis DA. Designing agricultural landscapes for arthropod-based ecosystem services in North America. In: Bohan DA, Vanbergen AJ, editors. The Future of Agricultural Landscapes, Part II. Academic Press; 2021. pp. 191–250. doi: 10.1016/bs.aecr.2021.01.003 - DOI

Publication types