Greenveining Elements of the Landscape Structure as the Main Supporter of Biodiversity in Agroecosystems

Document Type : Scientific - Research

Authors

• Reza Rostami
• Alireza Koocheki
• Parviz Rezvani Moghaddam
• Mehdi Nassiri Mahallati

Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

10.22067/jag.v1i1.51010

Abstract

Introduction
Natural and semi-natural features including those as patches and marginal elements, construct a network of habitats referred to as green vein elements. In the green veining, the linear elements connect the different parts of the network, while the patches have a role as nodes within the network. These networks potentially place a vast range of biodiversity and play an important role as a refuge for sensitive organisms as well as some habitat specialist species. With regards to crop production and pest management in agricultural fields, pollinators and biological control agents, like predators, are among the most beneficial organisms mostly found in green vein elements. As the biodiversity in agroecosystems is considerably declining, this study was conducted to address the important role of natural and semi-natural elements of the landscape in biodiversity conservation.
 
Materials and Methods
The study area was an agricultural landscape located in Gilane-Gharb County, Kermanshah Province, Iran with a Mediterranean climate. The level of agricultural intensification (AI) was surveyed through interviewing the farmers and considering the indicators such as chemical and organic fertilizers (Kg N/ha/year), pesticide input (utilization frequency of e.g. herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) and the number of tillage operations and mechanical weed control. by providing the geographic map of the area and frequent field observation, seven different types of patches and marginal habitats were identified, including: 1) arable and horticultural fields (Fi); linear elements adjacent to the fields including: 2) within field edges (W.F.E) and 3) non-crop field edges (N.F.E); 4) roads; ditches including 5) permanent ditches (P.D) , 6) non-permanent ditches (N.P.D) , and 7) woody greenvein (W.Gr) element. 87 sample plots (2 m × 2 m) were recorded in all the elements. Vegetation data from fields were recorded using 18 sample plots; woody green vein 19 sample plots; and other marginal habitats including within field edges, non-crop field edges, permanent ditches, non-permanent ditches and roads, were sampled by 50 plots. Sampling was done based on systematic-randomized method. Two emergent groups of plant species were introduced regarding their response to land use intensification: Agrotolerant and Nature-value species.The calculated biodiversity indices were: Jackknife species richness, Shannon-wiener, Simpson and Brillion diversity indices, Camargo and Smith-Wilson Evenness, and finally Sorenson Similarity index using Ecological Methodology software.
Results and Discussion
The calculated agricultural intensification index (AI) was 49.56; this score was at the range of high intensified agricultural utilization (High AI). Mean observed value of nitrogen input was 211.36 kg/ha, the weighted frequency of tillage operations and pesticide application per hectare was the same as 2.36. Apart from crop species, a total of 87 vascular plants were recorded in the agricultural landscape. The highest species richness was for agricultural fields (43 species), which followed by non-crop field edges (37), woody greenveins (32), within field edges (30), permanent ditches (26), non-permanent ditches (23) and roads (22). Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.  (46.56% of the total frequency of individuals existing in the field sample plots) was the most frequent species in the landscape. 21 species were recorded as agrotolerant species. Jackknife species richness was 48.7 in the fields as the most, and 23.8 in the road verges as the minimum. Woody Green veins (W.Gr) had the most number of unique species. The most Shannon-wiener and Brillion diversity indices were recorded for agrotolerant and nature-value species in within field edges (Shannon-wiener: 2.03 and Brillion: 1.85) and fields (2.52 and 3.08) respectively. Sorenson similarity index revealed that the elements inhabiting high number of agrotolerant species had a similar spatial condition especially regarding being adjacent to the agricultural fields. Studies reported the outstanding benefits of greenvein elements in promoting plant biodiversity and as a result enhancing diversity of organisms which inhabit in such elements.
Conclusion
The study indicated the effect of agricultural intensification and types of land use throughout the landscape on biodiversity. Elements with high connectivity to natural or seminatural habitats had the most positive effect on biodiversity of plant spesies. To gain the targets of sustainability in agroecosystems, providing as much as possible natural and semi-natural habitats and corridors are suggested.

Keywords

• Agrotolerant species
• Biodiversity indices
• Nature-value species
• Semi-natural elements

20.1001.1.20087713.1400.13.1.3.2

---

References

Aavik, T., Augenstein, I., Bailey, D., Herzog, F., Zobel, M., and Liira, J., 2008. What is the role of local landscape structure in the vegetation composition of field boundaries? Applied Vegetation Science 11: 375–386.

Aavik, T., and Liira, J., 2009. Agrotolerant and high nature-value species—plant biodiversity indicator groups in agroecosystems. Ecological Indicators 9: 892–901.

Aavik, T., and Liira, J., 2010. Quantifying the effect of organic farming, field boundary type and landscape structure on the vegetation of field boundaries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 135: 178-186.

Akbarinia, A., Ghalavand, A., Sefidcon, F., Rezaee, M.B., and Sharifi, A., 2004. Study on the effect of different rates of chemical fertilizer, manure and mixure of them on seed yield and main, compositions of essential oil of ajowan (Trachyspermum copticum). Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 61: 32-41. (In Persian with English Summary)

Aude, E., Tybirk, K., and Pedersen, M.B., 2003. Vegetation density of conventional and organic hedgerows in Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99: 135–147.

Barbour, M.G., Burk, J.H., and Pitts, W.D., 1999. Terrestrial plant ecology. 3^rd edition ed. Benjamin/Cumming Publication Company. Menlo Park, California, USA.

Boutin, C., Baril, A., and Martin, P.A., 2008. Plant diversity in crop fields and woody hedgerows of organic and conventional farms in contrasting landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 123: 185–193.

Daneshian, J., Rahmani, N., and Alimohammadi, M., 2012.  Effects of application nitrogen and fertilizer manure on physiological characteristics of calendula (Calendula officinalis L.) under water deficit stress. New findings in agriculture 3: 230-240. (In Persian with English Summary)

Falinski, J.B., and Canullo, R., 1985. La recolonisation des champs abandonnesparl’especeforestiere Anemone nemorosa L.: I-Distribution etdynamique. Giorn Botany of Italy 119: 1–26

Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., and Bommarco, R., 2011. Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Application 21: 1772–1781.

Grashof-Bokdam, C.J., and Van Langevelde, F., 2004. Green veining: landscape determinants of biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 20: 417–439.

Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P.W., and Balmford, A., 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature.Science307: 550–555.

Heck, K.L., van Belle, G., and Simberloff, D., 1975. Explicit calculation of the rarefaction diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology 56: 1459-1461.

Herzog, F., Steiner, B., and Bailey, D., 2006. Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 165–181.

Holzschuh, A., Steffan Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T., 2010. How do landscape compo-sition and configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasitoids? Journal of Animal Ecology 79: 491–500.

Hurlbert, S.H., 1971. The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577-586.

Jongman, R.H.G., 1996. Ecological and Landscape Consequences of Land Use Change in Europe. ECNC, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Khodakarami, Y., 2003. Evaluation of vegetation in Ghalageforst area, Kermanshah.Gilan Nature Department, 95 pp. (In Persian)

Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., and Gilissen, N., 2001. Agrienvironmental schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413: 723–725.

Ma, M., Hietala, R., Kuussaari, M., and Helenius, J., 2012. Impact of edge density of field patches on plant species richness and community turnover among margin habitats in agricultural habitats. Ecolindic 31: 25-34.

Ma, M., Tarmi, S., and Helenius, J., 2002. Revisited species–area relationship in a semi nat-ural habitat: floral richness in agricultural buffer zones. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89: 137–148.

Milady, M., 1995. Climatic classification: west of Iran. Paper based meteorology publication. Meteorology of Iran 3: 34-43.

Milsom, T.P., Sherwood, A.J., Rose, S.C., Town, S.J., and Runham, S.R., 2004. Dynamics and management of plant communities in ditches bordering arable fenland in eastern England. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 103:85–99.

Muskens, G.J.D.M., Wegman, R.M.A., and Braak, C.J.F., 2002. Boommarters en Wegen: eeneersteanalyse van de relatie ‘wegbermen-verkeersslachtoffers’. ALTERRA Internal Report, the Netherlands.

Opdam, P., Grashof, C., and Wingerden, W., 2000. Groene dooradering.Een ruimtelijk concept voor functiecombinaties in het agrarisch landschap. Landschap 17(1): 45–50.

Paoletti, M.G., 1999. Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 1–18.

Partel, M., Helm, A., Roosaluste, E., and Zobel, M., 2007. Biological diversity of Estonian semi-natural grassland ecosystems. In: Punning, J. (Ed.), Problems of Contemporary Environmental Studies. Tallinn University, Institute of Ecology, Tallinn, pp. 223–302.Pollock, M.M., Naiman, R.J., Hanley, T.A., 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands: a test of biodiversity theory. Ecology 1: 94–105.

Poorbabee, H., and Ahani, H., 2004. Biodiversity of woody species in Karkaf, Gilan. Rostaniha, 5:147-158. (In Persian)

Sharifi, M., Mirzakhani, M., and Sajedi, N.A., 2012. Effect of nitroxin, nitrogen and manure application on yield, nitrogen use efficiency and some crop characteristics in sweet corn. New Findings in Agriculture 2: 139-149. (In Persian with English Summary)

Simberloff, D.S., 1972. Use of rarefaction and related methods in ecology. In: Dickson, K.L., Cairns JrJ, Livingston R.J., (Eds.), Biological data in water pollution assessment: quantitative and statistical analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Philadelphia, STP 652: 150-165.

Tao, L., Keming, M., Hongwei, N., Bojie, F., and Jieyu, Z., 2008. Variation in species composition and diversity of wetland communities under different disturbance intensity in the Sanjiang plain.Acta EcologicaSinica 5: 1893-1900.

Tarmi, S., Helenius, J., and Hyvonen,T., 2009. Importance of edaphic, spatial and management factors for plant communities of field boundaries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 131: 201–206.

Tarmi, S., Tuuri, H., and Helenius, J., 2002. Plant communities of field boundaries in Finnish farmland. Agriculture Food Science Finland 11: 121–135.

Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Thies, C., 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters8: 857–874.

Verboom, B., 1998. The use of edge habitats by commuting and foraging bats IBN Scientific Contributions 10. DLO Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO), Wageningen, the Netherlands.