Cited by 633Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant and animal studiesLand Use and Ecosystem Services

How landscape structure, land‐use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes

Open access
HENDRICKX, FREDERIK, MAELFAIT, JEAN‐PIERRE, VAN WINGERDEN, WALTER, SCHWEIGER, OLIVER, SPEELMANS, MARJAN, AVIRON, STÉPHANIE, AUGENSTEIN, ISABEL, BILLETER, REGULA +10 more·2007·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Agricultural intensification poses a serious threat to biodiversity as a consequence of increased land‐use intensity, decreased landscape heterogeneity and reduced habitat diversity. Although there is interest in the preservation of total species richness of an agricultural landscape (γ diversity), the effects of intensification have been assessed primarily by species richness at a local scale (α diversity). This ignores species richness between local communities (β diversity), which is an important component of total species richness. In this study, measures of land‐use intensity, landscape structure and habitat diversity were related to γ, α and β diversity of wild bees (Apoidea), carabid beetles (Carabidae), hoverflies (Syrphidae), true bugs (Heteroptera) and spiders (Araneae) within 16 local communities in 24 temperate European agricultural landscapes. The total landscape species richness of all groups was most strongly affected by increased proximity of semi‐natural habitat patches. Bees also decreased in landscapes with a high intensity of farmland management, demonstrating additive effects of both factors. Separating total species diversity into components, the decrease in total species richness could be attributed primarily to a decrease in species diversity between local communities. Species richness of the local communities of all investigated groups decreased with increasing land‐use intensity and, in the case of spiders, decreasing proximity of the semi‐natural habitat patches. The effect of increased habitat diversity appeared to be of secondary importance to total species richness but caused a shift in the relative contribution of α and β diversity towards the latter. Synthesis and applications. This study demonstrates that the effects of agricultural change operate at a landscape level and that examining species diversity at a local level fails to explain the total species richness of an agricultural landscape. The coincidence of patterns of β diversity with those of γ diversity emphasizes that such information is of crucial importance for the implementation and evaluation of restoration programmes aiming to restore sustainable countryside diversity. As local extinction processes in highly fragmented landscapes shape biodiversity, priority should be given to the conservation of diverse agricultural landscape remnants in Europe.

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/j.1365-2664.2006.01270.x

Cites

64 of 64 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 effects of agricultural intensification at different spatial scales on functional community composition are unknown for almost all agroecosystems.

    “Although species loss and biotic homogenization7 have been identified as major responses to agricultural intensification—clearly evidenced by the decline of specialist species, progressively replaced by more-generalist species34101112—the effects of agricultural intensification at different spatial scales on functional community composition are unknown for almost all agroecosystems, but see refs”

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
HENDRICKX, F., MAELFAIT, J., VAN WINGERDEN, W., SCHWEIGER, O., SPEELMANS, M., AVIRON, S., AUGENSTEIN, I., BILLETER, R., BAILEY, D., BUKACEK, R., BUREL, F., DIEKÖTTER, T., DIRKSEN, J., HERZOG, F., LIIRA, J., ROUBALOVA, M., VANDOMME, V., & BUGTER, R.
Affiliations
  • Research Institute for Nature and Forest (BE)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE)
  • Agroscope (CH)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution (FR)
  • University of Tartu (EE)
  • Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research (CZ)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
HENDRICKX, FREDERIK
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02-19
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
340-351
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W1919328240
Cited by
633
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 39
FWCI
19.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
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
agricultural intensification, arthropod diversity, beta diversity, gamma diversity, alpha diversity, landscape structure, land use intensity, habitat diversity, wild bees, ground beetles, hoverflies, Heteroptera, spiders, agricultural land management, landscape fragmentation, biodiversity conservation

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