Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of NEON Data to Model Spatio-Temporal Tick Dynamics in Florida
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Vegetation Strips, Fertilizer Levels and Varietal Resistance on the Integrated Management of Arthropod Biodiversity in a Tropical Rice Ecosystem
Previous Article in Journal
Population Genetic Structure of Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interactions between Fungal-Infected Helicoverpa armigera and the Predator Chrysoperla externa
Open AccessArticle

Diverging Effects of Landscape Factors and Inter-Row Management on the Abundance of Beneficial and Herbivorous Arthropods in Andalusian Vineyards (Spain)

1
Institute of Zoology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), 1180 Vienna, Austria
2
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture-CSIC, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
3
Institute of Integrative Nature Conservation Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), 1180 Vienna, Austria
4
Institute of Plant Protection, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), 1180 Vienna, Austria
5
Departamento de Protección Ambiental, Grupo de Protección Vegetal, Estación Experimental de Zaidín, CSIC, 18008 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(10), 320; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10100320
Received: 19 July 2019 / Revised: 19 September 2019 / Accepted: 23 September 2019 / Published: 26 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pest Management in Sustainable Farming Systems)

Abstract

Land use at landscape and field scales can increase the diversity and abundance of natural enemies for pest control. In this study, we investigated interactions between landscape elements (semi-natural vegetation, olive orchards, vineyards, other agricultural areas) and inter-row management (vegetation cover vs. bare soil) in relation to arthropod populations in Andalusian vineyards. Arthropods were collected from grapevine foliage in 15 vineyards using suction sampling. Landscape structure was analyzed within a 750 m radius surrounding the studied vineyards. Arthropods were categorized into functional groups (predators, parasitoids, herbivores), and their responses to the most influencing factors were analyzed by likelihood methods and model selection. Of the total of 650 arthropods collected, 48% were predators, 33% herbivores and 19% parasitoids. Numbers of predatory aeolothrips, parasitoids and herbivorous cicadas in the study vineyards decreased with an increased proportion of vineyards in the surroundings. Spider populations in vineyards increased with increasing proportions of other agricultural fields (non-flowering crops) in the surroundings. Semi-natural elements and olive orchards had no influence on the abundance of collected arthropods. We observed synergistic effects between landscape elements and inter-row management. The total numbers of arthropods, herbivores and parasitoids in vineyards benefitted from inter-row vegetation, while spiders benefitted from bare soil. Our findings underline the importance of both surrounding landscape elements and vineyard ground cover management to promote beneficial arthropods for potential natural pest control.
Keywords: agroecosystems; arthropods; biological control; management effects; landscape ecology; viticulture; ecosystem services agroecosystems; arthropods; biological control; management effects; landscape ecology; viticulture; ecosystem services

1. Introduction

The intensification of agriculture, with increasing field sizes at the expense of natural and semi-natural elements and high pesticide and fertilizer inputs, causes serious environmental problems including habitat and biodiversity loss [1,2,3]. However, biodiversity is strongly connected with ecosystem services such as natural pest regulation [4,5,6], and the conservation and protection of biological diversity has therefore become an important part of agri-environmental policies and science [7]. Moreover, conservation biological control (CBC) is increasingly seen as an alternative to the use of pesticides, especially in integrated production systems [8,9,10].
Practices stimulating CBC include the establishment, modification and management of natural and semi-natural elements (SNEs), such as cropland boundaries, hedgerows, fallows, grasslands, woodlands and forests. These SNEs can provide food, alternative prey and hosts, shelter, overwintering sites and other essential resources [11,12,13]. Sometimes, SNEs do not promote natural enemies [14,15] and can even foster disservices by providing habitats for pest species and crop diseases [16,17]. However, a number of studies have shown that the overall abundance and richness of natural enemies is generally higher in heterogenous landscapes with SNEs [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. To increase natural pest control, it is also important to maintain diverse predator assemblages in agroecosystems [25,26,27], because of spatial and temporal differences in the diversity and abundance of generalist and specialist natural enemies [28,29]. A high proportion of SNEs surrounding crop fields can translate into pest suppression [24,30,31] but not always [23,32,33]. Also, improved local habitat quality, e.g., via vegetation cover, can enhance natural enemy populations and can be advantageous for crop production, especially in simple structured landscapes [2,9,26,34,35]. Ground cover with perennial crops commonly stimulates the abundance of beneficial arthropods [36,37,38,39,40] but this effect depends on various factors such as the type, composition and management of the cover crop; type and management of the field crop; type of natural enemies and pest arthropods; and climatic conditions [33,41,42,43]. However, most previous studies did not consider possible synergistic effects between ground cover and surrounding landscape structure on natural enemy populations in perennial crop fields [44,45].
The diversity of farming systems and the interactions of different types of habitats with natural enemies, as well as interactions between species, result in complex responses for different groups of arthropod natural enemies. Therefore, findings are often case-specific and difficult to translate to other agroecosystems [32,46]. Further, these interactions have mainly been studied in annual arable crop systems while less focus has been put on perennial crops, although pest regulation by natural enemies has been reported to be higher in the latter [47,48]. It seems that the generally lower level of disturbance and the permanency of both crop vegetation, such as grapevines, and non-crop vegetation do benefit natural enemies because arthropods can find alternative prey and/or shelter during periods of disturbance caused by crop management activities, e.g., the application of pesticides or tillage operations [49].
Vineyards are managed with different intensities and strategies. For example, the timing and frequency of herbicide applications or soil tillage of inter-row strips determines the diversity of the plants and arthropods that can inhabit these strips [50]. The integration of ecological and viticultural practices can produce win-win solutions for both wine growers and nature conservation [51]. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of how natural enemy populations are altered by SNEs in the surrounding landscape and vineyard inter-row management is necessary to foster natural pest control.
We hypothesized that in vineyards, inter-row vegetation cover and surrounding landscape elements influence arthropod populations on vines. The goal of this research was (i) to investigate the effects of inter-row management (bare soil vs. vegetation cover) on the abundance and diversity of arthropods on vines; (ii) to determine whether these effects are influenced by surrounding landscape elements and; (iii) to identify potential synergistic effects between inter-row management systems and surrounding landscape elements. Findings could enable different stakeholders to promote CBC while potentially reducing the use of insecticides and their negative effects on biodiversity and the environment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in the Montilla-Moriles wine region, near Córdoba (37°38′–29′ N, 4°45′–31′ W), Andalusia, Spain. Although olive orchards dominate Andalusia’s agricultural landscape, winegrowing has a long tradition dating back at least to Roman times. In the study area, vines are cultivated on 5052 hectares at an altitude between 220 m and 682 m above sea level. Vineyards are interspersed with olive orchards, other agricultural crops, shrubs, grassland, grass stripes and tree rows (Figure 1). The region is characterized by a continental Mediterranean climate with an annual average temperature of 17.2 °C. Winters are mild and frosts are rare, while summers are typically hot with maximum daily temperatures of up to 40 °C. The hottest months are July and August with daily average temperatures of 28 °C. Grapes in this area receive between 2800 h and 3000 h of sunshine. The average annual rainfall is 604 mm, with precipitation mainly during the cooler winter months from December to February [52]. The typical soil types of the Montilla-Moriles region are “alberos” or “albarizas”, white soils that combine permeability with high moisture retention (around 30%) [53].

2.2. Experimental Design and Sampling

2.2.1. Vineyards

Within the region, 15 conventional vineyards were selected according to differences in landscape complexity based on the proportion of semi-natural elements (SNEs) in the surrounding area. Vineyards were planted with the white grape variety Pedro Ximénez either in the traditional horizontal goblet system or in the trellis system (Figure 1). Within-row distances varied between 1.20 and 1.90 m, and inter-row distances between 1.75 m and 3.00 m. Fourteen vineyards were conventionally managed with similar fertilizer and pesticide inputs following recommended viticultural practices for the region, while one vineyard was cultivated according to the principles of organic farming.
Vineyards were classified into two groups regarding the inter-row management that had been implemented for at least the last three years. Eight vineyards had a temporary vegetation cover consisting of sown barley or a mixture including cereals, legumes and cruciferous plants, or had spontaneous vegetation (treatment vegetation cover). This vegetation was tilled or treated with herbicides at the beginning of March to prevent water competition. The other seven vineyards were more frequently tilled and/or treated with herbicides, resulting in bare soil throughout the year (treatment bare soil) [50].

2.2.2. Arthropod Sampling

Collection of arthropods took place on 23 May 2016, when grapevine flowerhoods were separating (phenology state BBCH 57), and on 1 July 2016, when berries were pea-sized (BBCH 75). Our aim was to investigate arthropods that directly inhabit vines. Therefore, in each vineyard, samples of arthropods were taken from the inside of the foliage wall along one vine row per study vineyard. Sampling was conducted with a portable field aspirator (InsectaZooka, BioQuip Product, Inc. Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA) along 10 m of the vine foliage wall for 40 s. This was conducted six times, covering a transect of 60 m per vineyard. Vine rows in the region are commonly several hundred meters long. Thus, in total 180 samples were taken across the study vineyards. All captured arthropods were frozen before being identified using a light microscope and an identification key [54]. Details on inter-row vegetation in the study vineyards are given in [50]. Briefly, a total of 52 plant taxa were identified in the inter-rows across the vineyards. The number of different species identified at the inter-rows of the bare soil and cover crop vineyards was 32 and 44, respectively. The Sørensen index (IS) between the inter-rows of the bare soil and cover crop vineyards was 63.2%, indicating significant differences between the plant communities of the two inter-row treatments. Despite these differences in vegetation communities, some plant species such as Brassica nigra were present in all vineyards.

2.3. Landscape Analysis

To assess the surrounding landscape structure, landscape elements within a 750 m radius around the center of the sampled vineyards were assessed by field mapping in 2016. Landscape elements were categorized according to CORINE Land Cover and EUNIS Habitat Classification into SNEs (hedges, tree rows, grass stripes, natural grassland, shrubs, woodlots, soft surfaced paths and roads and flowering crops), olive and other orchards, viticultural areas, other agricultural areas (non-flowering crops, mainly cereals), water items (ponds, rivers) and artificial/constructed entities (non-productive areas, urban areas, buildings and hard surfaced roads). Mapping and analysis were conducted using the programs ArcGis 10.2.1 [55], QGIS 2.8.1 [56], [57] FRAGSTATS 4.2 and CHLOE2012 [58].

2.4. Data Analysis

Due to the low number of individuals trapped, samples from both collection dates were pooled for each vineyard, resulting in one measurement per arthropod taxon per vineyard. Missing data from one vineyard were treated as not available (NA). Further, we examined data as one group (total) including all arthropod taxa and three subgroups summarizing predators, parasitoids and herbivores. As predators, we considered spiders (Araneae), aeolothrips (Thysanoptera: Aeolothripidae), ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), larvae of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), other net-winged insects (Neuroptera), flower bugs (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and snakeflies (Raphidioptera). Insect parasitoids (Hymenoptera) were treated separately. As herbivores, we considered thrips (Thysanoptera), cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadoidea), aphids (Hemiptera: Aphidoidea), psyllids (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) and grasshoppers (Orthoptera).
For data analysis, we used likelihood methods and model selection as an alternative to methods of traditional hypothesis testing [59]. We pre-selected explanatory variables according to their significance and frequency of occurrence. Then, we used Pearson correlations to check co-linearity among our selected explanatory variables (SNEs, vineyards, orchards, other agricultural areas). We established 13 linear models (LMs) using a Gaussian error distribution. Before computing the models, we log-transformed the response variables to better meet the assumption of this kind of analysis. We built four basic models, which contained only one of our explanatory variables (orchard area in percentage, vineyard area in percentage, other agricultural areas in percentage, area of semi-natural elements in percentage). The management models contained a combination of our explanatory variables and inter-row management, or the interaction of the landscape variables with inter-row management. We tested our models for arthropod groups (total arthropods, predators, herbivores, parasitoids) and for all arthropod groups, separately, that contained at least 25 individuals. Thus, we tested 143 models in total.
For model selection, we used the Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc). The model with the lowest AICc and a difference of more than two units to the next AICc score was chosen as the “best” model. If multiple models did not fit the criteria and more than one model was plausible and contained the variable of the other model, we used the most complex one. The analyses were performed in R Studio [60] with R packages lme4 [61] and MuMIn [62].

3. Results

Landscape data analysis showed that the selected study sites were mainly surrounded by orchards (on average, 50% of the area), followed by vineyards (25%), other agricultural areas (10%) and SNEs (8%) (Table 1).
In total, 650 arthropod specimens were trapped on both data collection dates (Table 2). Of these, 314 individuals (ind., 48.3%) were predators, 120 ind. parasitoids (18.5%) and 216 ind. (33.2%) herbivores. Table 3 presents a comparison of alternative models representing those that best fit the different response variables.
The resulting estimated parameters are shown in Table 4. More detailed results for our established groups (total and herbivores) and each relevant single group (parasitoids, spiders, aeolothrips, cicada) are given below. No best model could be identified for ants, aphids, thrips and grasshoppers. Total counts of larvae of Chrysoperla carnea and other net-winged insects, flower bugs, ladybirds, psyllids and snakeflies were too low to be further analyzed (Table 2).
For total arthropods and the herbivore group, models including surrounding vineyard area and management showed the best fit (Table 3). In both groups, surrounding vineyard area had a negative effect on arthropod numbers in the studied vineyards. Thus, with increasing surrounding vineyard area, the mean abundance of total arthropods and herbivores decreased, but was generally higher in plots with vegetation cover compared to plots with bare soil (Figure 2).
In the case of our predator group, the best-fit models included agricultural area and vineyard area (Table 3). Because of two influencing independent variables (vineyard area, agricultural area), this model is no longer considered.
Aeolothrips (130 ind. caught) were the most abundant beneficial insects (Table 2). Our best-fit model included only vineyard area (Table 3); abundance of aeolothrips decreased with increasing vineyard area (Figure 3a). Spider abundance (75 ind.) was best fit with a model containing the variables of agricultural area and inter-row management (Table 3). This was the only natural enemy group where we detected a positive influence of the surrounding landscape structure (agricultural area) on mean abundance, being higher in vineyards with bare soil than in those with vegetation cover (Figure 3c).
Parasitoids (120 ind.) were the second most abundant natural enemy group (Table 2). As for aeolothrips, models including vineyard area and inter-row management fitted best (Table 3), with increasing vineyard area having a negative effect on the abundance of parasitoids (Figure 3b). Again, the mean abundance of parasitoids was higher in plots with vegetation cover.
Cicadas (50 ind.) represented the second most abundant herbivore group in the vineyards (Table 2). No influence of inter-row management on mean abundance was detected. The best fit model for cicadas included surrounding vineyard area (Table 3), exerting a slightly negative effect (Figure 3d).

4. Discussion

The present study is among the first to investigate the influence of surrounding landscape elements and inter-row soil management on the abundance of arthropods in Andalusian vineyards. We found contrasting effects on beneficial arthropods and on herbivores. This is in line with other studies from more temperate regions showing that habitat management in the field and landscape elements play an important role in affecting arthropods of different functional guilds [11,63,64,65].
While non-crop habitats close to crops are regarded as a source of beneficial populations [34,66,67,68], the SNEs in our study’s vineyards had little influence on the abundance of arthropods that we collected. This contrasts with some previous studies [28,44,69,70,71]. However, most previous studies examined annual arable crops, which differ from perennial crops such as grapevines in terms of frequencies of disturbance for sowing, soil cultivation and harvesting, the use of agrochemicals and resource availability over time [72,73,74,75]. It could also be that in our study the conditions in some elements of our SNE group (e.g., tree rows, grass strips) were still more hospitable to the arthropods than the vineyards, so they did not migrate into vineyards [76,77]. Furthermore, our SNEs consisted of 55% soft-surfaced roads, which do not provide appropriate habitats for the investigated arthropods. Additionally, we did not observe an effect of the surrounding olive orchards, the predominant crop in the region, indicating that little arthropod migration takes place between these two perennial cropping systems [70,71]. However, more detailed studies would be necessary to further investigate this.
The surrounding vineyard area always had a negative impact on the abundance of arthropods in the studied vineyards, suggesting that arthropod populations might be diluted across vineyards in the landscape. A similar pattern has also been observed for oilseed rape [30]. Furthermore, the effect was most pronounced on aeolothrips, parasitoids and cicadas, suggesting different responses to disturbance and habitat characteristics as well as different dispersal ranges. [64,74,78,79]. In any case, our findings indicate the importance of heterogenous landscapes in order to sustain a broad diversity of natural enemies [80,81].
Further, we found that other agricultural areas surrounding vineyards (i.e., non-flowering crops such as cereals) increased the occurrence of spiders in the vineyards. First, this could mean that these areas may have functioned as a source for spiders, from where they migrated into the vineyards [70]. Second, and particularly in landscapes with arid conditions, perennial crops such as vineyards with vegetation cover could have provided better resources for spiders than other agricultural areas did. Indeed, we detected synergistic effects between landscape factors and inter-row management. At least for total arthropods, herbivores and parasitoids, vegetation cover had a positive influence [74,82]. In the case of parasitoids, the positive synergistic effect between surrounding vineyard area and vegetation cover within the sampled vineyards might also be due to the host- and habitat-specification of parasitoids [64,83] and thus to their stronger response to landscape complexity at smaller scales [28]. Our results on parasitoids underline previous findings that vegetation cover could be beneficial for natural enemies [38,84,85,86] by providing resources such as nectar, pollen, alternative hosts and shelter [40,70,87,88].
Spiders were more abundant in vineyards with bare soil. This is in contrast to an earlier finding that total spider densities in vineyards were unaffected by vegetation cover [89], and other studies reporting positive effects of vegetation cover on spider populations [33,37,90]. However, these contrasting effects are perhaps due to considering spiders in the vegetation cover versus spiders on the vines [33,89,91,92]. We assume that the higher spider abundance in plots with bare soil was due to a lack of prey on bare soil and a preference for the foliage wall [93,94]. Moreover, climatic preferences and especially humidity on the soil surface could have played an important role [29,33].
Also, climatic factors, e.g., July being one of the hottest and driest months in the year, could be the reason for the rather low arthropod abundances in our study.

5. Conclusions

In summary, our study is a first attempt to investigate inter-relationships between vineyard management and landscape structure on a variety of arthropod taxa in an infrequently studied Mediterranean vineyard ecosystem. The findings show that both landscape elements and field management practices affect the abundance of arthropods in vineyards. We found little influence of SNEs on vineyard arthropods, but a positive effect of vegetation cover in vineyards on some natural enemy taxa. However, the patterns found have to be interpreted with caution as the observed arthropod abundances were rather low. Assessments of predation and parasitism rates of the most important pest taxa (e.g., grape berry moths) would be necessary to gain a more comprehensive understanding of further effects on potential natural pest control. Based on these results, we recommend integrating local management and landscape structure parameters in existing pest management strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.P.; methodology, D.P., G.G., J.M.C.; formal analysis, C.J. and D.P.; investigation, D.P., G.G., J.M.C. and J.A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, review and edition, C.J., D.P., J.G.Z., G.G., J.A.G., J.M.C., J.A.E., S.W.

Funding

This work is part of the project VineDivers (www.vinedivers.eu) funded through the 2013–2014 BiodivERsA/FACCE JPI joint call with the national funders Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, Germany), Agence National de la Recherche (ANR, France), Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI, Romania), Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO, Spain) and FWF-Der Wissenschaftsfonds (Austria, project no. I 2042-B25). Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (D.P.’s José Castillejo grant CAS17/00351-MECD, Spain; Visiting Scholar at BOKU).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Appellation of Origin “Montilla-Moriles” and the winegrowers who took part in the study. Open Access Funding by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Isenring, R. Pesticides and the Loss of Biodiversity; Pesticide Action Network Europe: London, UK, 2010; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Booij, C.J.H.; Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: A review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 273, 1715–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sánchez-Bayo, F.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 232, 8–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wilby, A.; Thomas, M.B. Natural enemy diversity and pest control: Patterns of pest emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecol. Lett. 2002, 5, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Geiger, F.; Bengtsson, J.; Berendse, F.; Weisser, W.W.; Emmerson, M.; Morales, M.B.; Ceryngier, P.; Liira, J.; Tscharntke, T.; Winqvist, C.; et al. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010, 11, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Muneret, L.; Mitchell, M.; Seufert, V.; Aviron, S.; Djoudi, E.A.; Pétillon, J.; Plantegenest, M.; Thiéry, D.; Rusch, A. Evidence that organic farming promotes pest control. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/history/ (accessed on 22 May 2018).
  8. Wilson, H.; Daane, K.M. Review of ecologically-based pest management in California Vineyards. Insects 2017, 8, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—Ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pfiffner, L.; Cahenzli, F.; Steinemann, B.; Jamar, L.; Bjørn, M.C.; Porcel, M.; Tasin, M.; Telfser, J.; Kelderer, M.; Lisek, J.; et al. Design, implementation and management of perennial flower strips to promote functional agrobiodiversity in organic apple orchards: A pan-European study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 278, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Losey, J.E.; Vaughan, M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 2006, 56, 311–323. [Google Scholar]
  13. Schmidt, M.H.; Thies, C.; Nentwig, W.; Tscharntke, T. Contrasting responses of arable spiders to the landscape matrix at different spatial scales. J. Biogeogr. 2008, 35, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schäckermann, J.; Pufal, G.; Mandelik, Y.; Klein, A.-M. Agro-ecosystem services and dis-services in almond orchards are differentially influenced by the surrounding landscape: Services, dis-services, and landscapes. Ecol. Entomol. 2015, 40, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rusch, A.; Delbac, L.; Muneret, L.; Thiéry, D. Organic farming and host density affect parasitism rates of tortricid moths in vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 214, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tscharntke, T.; Karp, D.S.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Batáry, P.; DeClerck, F.; Gratton, C.; Hunt, L.; Ives, A.; Jonsson, M.; Larsen, A.; et al. When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control—Five hypotheses. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 204, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Veres, A.; Petit, S.; Conord, C.; Lavigne, C. Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 166, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Langellotto, G.A.; Denno, R.F. Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: A meta-analytical synthesis. Oecologia 2004, 139, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gagic, V.; Paull, C.; Schellhorn, N.A. Ecosystem service of biological pest control in Australia: The role of non-crop habitats within landscapes: Native vegetation and biocontrol. Austral. Entomol. 2018, 57, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. González, E.; Salvo, A.; Valladares, G. Sharing enemies: Evidence of forest contribution to natural enemy communities in crops, at different spatial scales. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2015, 8, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rundlöf, M.; Smith, H.G. The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape context: Organic farming, landscape and butterflies. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Birkhofer, K.; Andersson, G.K.S.; Bengtsson, J.; Bommarco, R.; Dänhardt, J.; Ekbom, B.; Ekroos, J.; Hahn, T.; Hedlund, K.; Jönsson, A.M.; et al. Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 218, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karp, D.S.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Meehan, T.D.; Martin, E.A.; DeClerck, F.; Grab, H.; Gratton, C.; Hunt, L.; Larsen, A.E.; Martínez-Salinas, A.; et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E7863–E7870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Djoudi, E.A.; Marie, A.; Mangenot, A.; Puech, C.; Aviron, S.; Plantegenest, M.; Pétillon, J. Farming system and landscape characteristics differentially affect two dominant taxa of predatory arthropods. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 259, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Batáry, P.; Báldi, A.; Samu, F.; Szűts, T.; Erdős, S. Are spiders reacting to local or landscape scale effects in Hungarian pastures? Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2062–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Diehl, E.; Mader, V.L.; Wolters, V.; Birkhofer, K. Management intensity and vegetation complexity affect web-building spiders and their prey. Oecologia 2013, 173, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Drieu, R.; Rusch, A. Conserving species-rich predator assemblages strengthens natural pest control in a climate warming context: Natural pest control in a climate warming context. Agric. For. Entomol. 2017, 19, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; O’Rourke, M.E.; Blitzer, E.J.; Kremen, C. A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity: Pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 922–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cotes, B.; Gonzales, M.; Benitez, E.; De Mas, E.; Clemente-Orta, G.; Campos, M.; Rodriguez, E. Spider communities and biological control in native habitats surrounding greenhouses. Insects 2018, 9, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zaller, J.G.; Moser, D.; Drapela, T.; Schmöger, C.; Frank, T. Parasitism of stem weevils and pollen beetles in winter oilseed rape is differentially affected by crop management and landscape characteristics. BioControl 2009, 54, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bosem Baillod, A.; Tscharntke, T.; Clough, Y.; Batáry, P. Landscape-scale interactions of spatial and temporal cropland heterogeneity drive biological control of cereal aphids. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1804–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schellhorn, N.A.; Parry, H.R.; Macfadyen, S.; Wang, Y.; Zalucki, M.P. Connecting scales: Achieving in-field pest control from areawide and landscape ecology studies: Connecting scales. Insect Sci. 2015, 22, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanna, R.; Zalom, F.G.; Roltsch, W.J. Relative impact of spider predation and cover crop on population dynamics of Erythroneura variabilis in a raisin grape vineyard. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2003, 107, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Thomson, L.J.; Hoffmann, A.A. Vegetation increases the abundance of natural enemies in vineyards. Biol. Control 2009, 49, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pennington, T.; Kraus, C.; Alakina, E.; Entling, M.; Hoffmann, C. Minimal pruning and reduced plant protection promote predatory mites in grapevine. Insects 2017, 8, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Colloff, M.J.; Lindsay, E.A.; Cook, D.C. Natural pest control in citrus as an ecosystem service: Integrating ecology, economics and management at the farm scale. Biol. Control 2013, 67, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Daane, K.M.; Hogg, B.N.; Wilson, H.; Yokota, G.Y. Native grass ground covers provide multiple ecosystem services in Californian vineyards. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2473–2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Irvin, N.A.; Pinckard, T.R.; Perring, T.M.; Hoddle, M.S. Evaluating the potential of buckwheat and cahaba vetch as nectar producing cover crops for enhancing biological control of Homalodisca vitripennis in California vineyards. Biological Control 2014, 76, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vogelweith, F.; Thiéry, D. Cover crop differentially affects arthropods, but not diseases, occurring on grape leaves in vineyards: Cover crop effect on grapevine leaf communities. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2017, 23, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kratschmer, S.; Pachinger, B.; Schwantzer, M.; Paredes, D.; Guzmán, G.; Goméz, J.A.; Entrenas, J.A.; Guernion, M.; Burel, F.; Nicolai, A.; et al. Response of wild bee diversity, abundance, and functional traits to vineyard inter-row management intensity and landscape diversity across Europe. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 4103–4115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Winter, S.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Kratschmer, S.; Paredes, D.; Popescu, D.; Landa, B.; Guzmán, G.; Gómez, J.A.; Guernion, M.; et al. Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2484–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bugg, R.L.; Waddington, C. Using cover crops to manage arthropod pests of orchards: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1994, 50, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Danne, A.; Thomson, L.J.; Sharley, D.J.; Penfold, C.M.; Hoffmann, A.A. Effects of native grass cover crops on beneficial and pest invertebrates in Australian vineyards. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 970–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Paredes, D.; Cayuela, L.; Campos, M. Synergistic effects of ground cover and adjacent vegetation on natural enemies of olive insect pests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 173, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saunders, M.E.; Luck, G.W. Interaction effects between local flower richness and distance to natural woodland on pest and beneficial insects in apple orchards: Local and landscape interaction effect on insects. Agric. For. Entomol. 2018, 20, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Winkler, K.J.; Viers, J.H.; Nicholas, K.A. Assessing ecosystem services and multifunctionality for vineyard systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hall, R.W.; Ehler, L.E. Rate of establishment of natural enemies in classical biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1979, 25, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Risch, S.J.; Andow, D.; Altieri, M.A. Agroecosystem diversity and pest control: Data, tentative conclusions, and new research directions. Environ. Entomol. 1983, 12, 625–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lu, Z.-X.; Zhu, P.-Y.; Gurr, G.M.; Zheng, X.-S.; Read, D.M.Y.; Heong, K.-L.; Yang, Y.-J.; Xu, H.-X. Mechanisms for flowering plants to benefit arthropod natural enemies of insect pests: Prospects for enhanced use in agriculture: Flowering plants benefit natural enemies. Insect Sci. 2014, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Guzmán, G.; Cabezas, J.M.; Sánchez-Cuesta, R.; Lora, Á.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Winter, S.; Zaller, J.G.; Gómez, J.A. A field evaluation of the impact of temporary cover crops on soil properties and vegetation communities in southern Spain vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 272, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Viers, J.H.; Williams, J.N.; Nicholas, K.A.; Barbosa, O.; Kotzé, I.; Spence, L.; Webb, L.B.; Merenlender, A.; Reynolds, M. Vinecology: Pairing wine with nature: Vinecology. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Agencia Estatal de Meteorología-AEMET. Gobierno de España. Available online: http://www.aemet.es/es/ (accessed on 24 April 2018).
  53. Álvarez, M.; Moreno, I.M.; Jos, Á.M.; Cameán, A.M.; González, A.G. Study of mineral profile of Montilla-Moriles “fino” wines using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry methods. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2007, 20, 391–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chinery, M. Pareys Buch der Insekten, 2nd ed.; Franckh-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH & Co.: Stuttgart, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-3-440-13289-0. [Google Scholar]
  55. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.2. (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2013); ESRI: Redlands, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  56. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation, 2015. Available online: http://qgis.osgeo.org (accessed on 23 August 2019).
  57. McGarigal, K.; Cushman, S.; Ene, E. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer Software Program Produced by the Authors at the University of Massachusetts. Amherst. 2012. Available online: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (accessed on 23 August 2019).
  58. Boussard, H.; Baudry, J. Documentation Utilisateur Pour le Logiciel Chloe2012; ISRA: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  59. Johnson, J.B.; Omland, K.S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; RStudio, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Barton, K. Mu-MIn: Multi-Model Inference. R Package Version 1.9.13. 2013. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html (accessed on 22 June 2017).
  63. Wratten, S.D.; van Emden, H.F. Habitat management for enhanced activity of natural enemies of insect pests. In Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 1995; pp. 117–145. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hoffmann, C.; Köckerling, J.; Biancu, S.; Gramm, T.; Michl, G.; Entling, M. Can flowering greencover crops promote biological control in german vineyards? Insects 2017, 8, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Barbaro, L.; Rusch, A.; Muiruri, E.W.; Gravellier, B.; Thiery, D.; Castagneyrol, B. Avian pest control in vineyards is driven by interactions between bird functional diversity and landscape heterogeneity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gurr, G.M.; Lu, Z.; Zheng, X.; Xu, H.; Zhu, P.; Chen, G.; Yao, X.; Cheng, J.; Zhu, Z.; Catindig, J.L.; et al. Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Schellhorn, N.A.; Cunningham, S.A. Habitat functionality for the ecosystem service of pest control: Reproduction and feeding sites of pests and natural enemies. Agric. For. Entomol. 2013, 15, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Macfadyen, S.; Davies, A.P.; Zalucki, M.P. Assessing the impact of arthropod natural enemies on crop pests at the field scale: Impact of arthropod natural enemies. Insect Sci. 2015, 22, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Rusch, A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Gardiner, M.M.; Hawro, V.; Holland, J.; Landis, D.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T.; Weisser, W.W.; Winqvist, C.; et al. Agricultural landscape simplification reduces natural pest control: A quantitative synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 221, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kratschmer, S.; Pachinger, B.; Schwantzer, M.; Paredes, D.; Guernion, M.; Burel, F.; Nicolai, A.; Strauss, P.; Bauer, T.; Kriechbaum, M.; et al. Tillage intensity or landscape features: What matters most for wild bee diversity in vineyards? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 266, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Drapela, T.; Moser, D.; Zaller, J.G.; Frank, T. Spider assemblages in winter oilseed rape affected by landscape and site factors. Ecography 2008, 31, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jonsson, M.; Buckley, H.L.; Case, B.S.; Wratten, S.D.; Hale, R.J.; Didham, R.K. Agricultural intensification drives landscape-context effects on host-parasitoid interactions in agroecosystems: Land-use intensity decreases parasitism rates. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pfingstmann, A.; Paredes, D.; Buchholz, J.; Querner, P.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Kratschmer, S.; Winter, S.; Zaller, J.G. Contrasting effects of tillage and landscape structure on spiders and springtails in vineyards. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bruggisser, O.T.; Schmidt-Entling, M.H.; Bacher, S. Effects of vineyard management on biodiversity at three trophic levels. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 1521–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schmidt, M.H.; Roschewitz, I.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T. Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders: Landscape vs. management effects on spiders. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dunning, J.B.; Danielson, B.J.; Pulliam, H.R. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 1992, 65, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wood, J.R.; Holdaway, R.J.; Orwin, K.H.; Morse, C.; Bonner, K.I.; Davis, C.; Bolstridge, N.; Dickie, I.A. No single driver of biodiversity: Divergent responses of multiple taxa across land use types. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wootton, J.T. Effects of disturbance on species diversity: A multitrophic perspective. Am. Nat. 1998, 152, 803–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Mackey, R.L.; Currie, D.J. The diversity-disturbance relationship: Is it generally strong and peaked? Ecology 2001, 82, 3479–3492. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wilby, A.; Villareal, S.C.; Lan, L.P.; Heong, K.L.; Thomas, M.B. Functional benefits of predator species diversity depend on prey identity. Ecol. Entomol. 2005, 30, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kuusk, A.-K.; Ekbom, B. Lycosid spiders and alternative food: Feeding behavior and implications for biological control. Biol. Control 2010, 55, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Buchholz, J.; Querner, P.; Paredes, D.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Guernion, M.; Scimia, J.; Cluzeau, D.; Burel, F.; Kratschmer, S.; et al. Soil biota in vineyards are more influenced by plants and soil quality than by tillage intensity or the surrounding landscape. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Powell, W. Enhancing parasitoid activity in crops. In Insect Parasitoids; Academic Press: London, UK, 1986; pp. 319–340. [Google Scholar]
  84. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Altieri, M.A. Ecological Engineering for Pest. Management: Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2004; ISBN 0 643 099022 3. [Google Scholar]
  85. Nicholls, C.I.; Parrella, M.P.; Altieri, M.A. Reducing the abundance of leafhoppers and thrips in a northern California organic vineyard through maintenance of full season floral diversity with summer cover crops. Agric. For. Entomol. 2000, 2, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. English-Loeb, G.; Rhainds, M.; Martinson, T.; Ugine, T. Influence of flowering cover crops on Anagrus parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) and Erythroneura leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) in New York vineyards. Agric. For. Entomol. 2003, 5, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Smith, I.M.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Thomson, L.J. Ground cover and floral resources in shelterbelts increase the abundance of beneficial hymenopteran families: Shelterbelts increase wasp abundance. Agric. For. Entomol. 2015, 17, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Van Rijn, P.C.J.; Wäckers, F.L. Nectar accessibility determines fitness, flower choice and abundance of hoverflies that provide natural pest control. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Costello, M.J.; Daane, K.M. Influence of ground cover on spider populations in a table grape vineyard. Ecol. Entomol. 1998, 23, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Costello, M.J.; Daane, K.M. Spider and Leafhopper (Erythroneura spp.) Response to Vineyard Ground Cover. Environ. Entom. 2003, 32, 1085–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Benz, G.; Nyffeler, M. Spiders in natural pest control: A review. J. Appl. Entomol. 1987, 103, 321–339. [Google Scholar]
  92. Isaia, M.; Bona, F.; Badino, G. Influence of Landscape Diversity and Agricultural Practices on Spider Assemblage in Italian Vineyards of Langa Astigiana (Northwest Italy). Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hogg, B.N.; Daane, K.M. The role of dispersal from natural habitat in determining spider abundance and diversity in California vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 135, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sunderland, K.; Samu, F. Effects of agricultural diversification on the abundance, distribution, and pest control potential of spiders: A review. Entomol. Exp. et Appl. 2000, 95, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Views of the fifteen vineyards studied in the Montilla-Moriles wine region, near Córdoba, Andalusia, Spain. Black circles and solid arrows show vineyards with treatment bare soil; white circles and dotted arrows show treatment with inter-row vegetation cover. Adapted from [50].
Figure 1. Views of the fifteen vineyards studied in the Montilla-Moriles wine region, near Córdoba, Andalusia, Spain. Black circles and solid arrows show vineyards with treatment bare soil; white circles and dotted arrows show treatment with inter-row vegetation cover. Adapted from [50].
Insects 10 00320 g001
Figure 2. Model predictions and influence of landscape factors on the mean abundance of: (a) total arthropods; (b) the herbivore group. Dashed lines/black symbols represent the abundance of individuals in vineyards with vegetation cover, dotted lines/white symbols in vineyards with bare soil.
Figure 2. Model predictions and influence of landscape factors on the mean abundance of: (a) total arthropods; (b) the herbivore group. Dashed lines/black symbols represent the abundance of individuals in vineyards with vegetation cover, dotted lines/white symbols in vineyards with bare soil.
Insects 10 00320 g002
Figure 3. Model predictions and influence of landscape factors on the mean abundance of beneficial arthropods: (a) aeolothrips; (b) parasitoids; (c) spiders; and herbivorous insects: (d) cicadas. Dashed lines/black symbols represent the abundance of arthropods in vineyards with vegetation cover, dotted lines/white symbols in vineyards with bare soil. For aeolothrips and cicadas, no differences between vegetation cover and bare soil could be detected (black solid line).
Figure 3. Model predictions and influence of landscape factors on the mean abundance of beneficial arthropods: (a) aeolothrips; (b) parasitoids; (c) spiders; and herbivorous insects: (d) cicadas. Dashed lines/black symbols represent the abundance of arthropods in vineyards with vegetation cover, dotted lines/white symbols in vineyards with bare soil. For aeolothrips and cicadas, no differences between vegetation cover and bare soil could be detected (black solid line).
Insects 10 00320 g003
Table 1. Surrounding landscape types for the studied vineyards. Numbers are mean percentages ± SD.
Table 1. Surrounding landscape types for the studied vineyards. Numbers are mean percentages ± SD.
Landscape StructureInter-Row Management
Bare Soil (in %)Vegetation Cover (in %)
Semi-natural elements 17.9 ± 3.39.0 ± 3.1
Orchards 250.8 ± 7.849.6 ± 17.2
Vineyards26.5 ± 12.523.1 ± 15.9
Other agriculture 35.5 ± 6.914.1 ± 17.0
1 55% consisted of soft-surfaced agricultural roads, 18% tree roads, 16% grass stripes, 4% hedges, 3% natural grassland, 1.5% shrubs and grassland, 1% woodlots, 0.2% flowering crops; 2 98% olive orchards; 3 cereals.
Table 2. Overview of main arthropod groups (predators, parasitoids, herbivores, in bold letters) and respective taxa trapped in vineyard plots on both sampling dates.
Table 2. Overview of main arthropod groups (predators, parasitoids, herbivores, in bold letters) and respective taxa trapped in vineyard plots on both sampling dates.
Arthropod TaxaCounts% of Total Catch
Predators31448.3
Aeolothrips13020.0
Ants9714.9
Spiders7511.5
Chrysoperla carnea larvae60.9
Cocinellidae20.3
Neuroptera20.3
Raphidioptera10.15
Anthocorids10.15
Parasitoids12018.5
Herbivores21633.2
Thrips7211.1
Cicada507.7
Grasshoppers487.3
Aphids274.2
Psyllids192.9
Total arthropods650100
Table 3. Comparison of alternative models (using Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes, AICc) for the main arthropods and groups found in Andalusian vineyards. The best model(s) is indicated in bold font. SNE = semi-natural elements.
Table 3. Comparison of alternative models (using Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes, AICc) for the main arthropods and groups found in Andalusian vineyards. The best model(s) is indicated in bold font. SNE = semi-natural elements.
Model ParameterTotalPredatorsHerbivoresAeolothripsParasitoidsSpidersCicadas
Basic models
Null29.026.016.611.011.97.34.6
SNE32.229.119.814.115.19.67.6
Other agric.26.322.815.813.79.8−10.34.5
Viticulture20.221.511.47.12.16.61.5
Orchards31.328.618.910.414.99.57.4
Management models
Null29.027.914.413.712.410.47.1
SNE + management32.731.717.817.516.213.110.6
SNE × management37.135.522.322.120.115.815.2
Other agric. + management28.426.515.817.312.3−9.28.2
Other agric. × management33.131.120.221.616.8−4.611.8
Viticulture + management19.424.37.810.72.010.44.9
Viticulture × management24.027.811.615.14.315.09.4
Orchards + management31.431.016.513.415.913.210.4
Orchards × management35.735.720.817.919.417.814.5
Multiple R20.67-0.650.380.580.790.34
Adjusted R20.62-0.590.330.550.760.29
Table 4. Parameter estimates for the selected best models of the abundance of individual arthropod taxa and groups. Semi-natural elements and orchards were not among the selected models and are therefore not shown.
Table 4. Parameter estimates for the selected best models of the abundance of individual arthropod taxa and groups. Semi-natural elements and orchards were not among the selected models and are therefore not shown.
TaxaEstimates
InterceptVineyard as % of Surrounding AreaAgric. Land as % of Surrounding AreaPresence of Vegetation Cover
Total arthropods1.86−0.028-0.38
Herbivores0.93−0.01-0.34
Aeolothrips0.83−0.02--
Parasitoids0.83−0.02-0.19
Spiders0.15-0.02−0.11
Cicada0.47−0.01--
Back to TopTop