Cited by 38Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant and animal studiesLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Landscape simplification weakens the association between terrestrial producer and consumer diversity in Europe

Open access
Dainese, Matteo, Isaac, Nick J. B., Powney, Gary D., Bommarco, Riccardo, Öckinger, Erik, Kuussaari, Mikko, Pöyry, Juha, Benton, Tim G. +6 more·2017·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Land‐use change is one of the primary drivers of species loss, yet little is known about its effect on other components of biodiversity that may be at risk. Here, we ask whether, and to what extent, landscape simplification, measured as the percentage of arable land in the landscape, disrupts the functional and phylogenetic association between primary producers and consumers. Across seven European regions, we inferred the potential associations (functional and phylogenetic) between host plants and butterflies in 561 seminatural grasslands. Local plant diversity showed a strong bottom‐up effect on butterfly diversity in the most complex landscapes, but this effect disappeared in simple landscapes. The functional associations between plant and butterflies are, therefore, the results of processes that act not only locally but are also dependent on the surrounding landscape context. Similarly, landscape simplification reduced the phylogenetic congruence among host plants and butterflies indicating that closely related butterflies become more generalist in the resources used. These processes occurred without any detectable change in species richness of plants or butterflies along the gradient of arable land. The structural properties of ecosystems are experiencing substantial erosion, with potentially pervasive effects on ecosystem functions and future evolutionary trajectories. Loss of interacting species might trigger cascading extinction events and reduce the stability of trophic interactions, as well as influence the longer term resilience of ecosystem functions. This underscores a growing realization that species richness is a crude and insensitive metric and that both functional and phylogenetic associations, measured across multiple trophic levels, are likely to provide additional and deeper insights into the resilience of ecosystems and the functions they provide.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcb.13601

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The percentage of cropland within 1 km is a relevant proxy for landscape simplification.

    “This landscape metric has been used as a relevant proxy for characterizing landscape simplification (28, 29) and is often correlated with other indicators of landscape complexity (30, 31).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dainese, M., Isaac, N. J. B., Powney, G. D., Bommarco, R., Öckinger, E., Kuussaari, M., Pöyry, J., Benton, T. G., Gabriel, D., Hodgson, J. A., Kunin, W. E., Lindborg, R., Sait, S. M., & Marini, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (GB)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Finnish Environment Institute (FI)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Julius Kühn-Institut (DE)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Dainese, Matteo
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-15
Volume
23
Issue
8
Pages
3040-3051
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2563535563
Cited by
38
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Change Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Seventh Framework Programme (311781)
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
landscape simplification, arable land, functional diversity, phylogenetic diversity, bottom-up control, semi-natural grasslands, trophic interactions, land use change, ecosystem resilience
MeSH terms
Animals, Butterflies, Europe, Phylogeny, Ecosystem, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review