Paoletti Invertebrate Biodiversity as Bioindicators of Sustainable Landscapes

Practical Use of Invertebrates to Assess Sustainable Land Use
1. Auflage 2012
ISBN: 978-0-444-59968-1
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 460 Seiten

Reducing environmental hazard and human impact on different ecosystems, with special emphasis on rural landscapes is the main topic of different environmental policies designed in developed countries and needed in most developing countries. This book covers the bioindication approach of rural landscapes and man managed ecosystems including both urbanised and industrialised ones. The main techniques and taxa used for bioindication are considered in detail. Remediation and contamination is faced with diversity, abundance and dominance of biota, mostly invertebrates. Invertebrate Biodiversity as Bioindicators of Sustainable Landscapes provides a basic tool for students and scientists involved in landscape ecology and planning, environmental sciences, landscape remediation and pollution.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Paoletti, Maurizio G.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Invertebrate Biodiversity as Bioindicators of Sustainable Landscapes: Practical Use of Invertebrates to Assess Sustainable Land Use
;6
3;Copyright Page;7
4;Table of Contents;8
5;Foreword
;10
6;Chapter 1. Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape sustainability;14
6.1;Abstract;14
6.2;1. Introduction;14
6.3;2. Plurality of species and bioindicators;15
6.4;3. What is biodiversity and how can it be used to assess the landscape?;17
6.5;4. What are bioindicators and how to use them;18
6.6;5. What is sustainability?;18
6.7;6. Which is a landscape and landscape structure?;20
6.8;7. Margin effects (hedgerows, shelterbelts, weed strips);20
6.9;8. Corridors in the landscape;22
6.10;9. Effect of mosaics in the landscape;24
6.11;10. Perennials versus annual crops;25
6.12;11. Impact of pollution;25
6.13;12. Waste disposal, reclamation and rehabilitation, bioremediation;25
6.14;13. Soil tillage and soil compaction;27
6.15;14. Biotechnology: genetically engineered plants;27
6.16;15. Practical approaches for field assessment with bioindicators to monitor decreasing impact;27
6.17;16. Decreasing environmental impact;28
6.18;17. Concluding remarks;28
6.19;Acknowledgements;29
6.20;References;29
7;Chapter 2. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems;32
7.1;Abstract;32
7.2;1. Introduction;32
7.3;2. The nature of biodiversity in agroecosystems;33
7.4;3. Biodiversity and insect pest management;36
7.5;4. Manipulating biodiversity at the landscape level;38
7.6;5. Biodiversity, soil fertility and plant health;39
7.7;6. Conclusion;42
7.8;References;44
8;Chapter 3. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects;46
8.1;Abstract;46
8.2;1. Introduction;46
8.3;2. Materials and methods;48
8.4;3. Results and discussion;57
8.5;4. Conclusions;74
8.6;Acknowledgements;75
8.7;References;75
9;Chapter 4. Bacterial diversity in agroecosystems;78
9.1;Abstract;78
9.2;1. Introduction;78
9.3;2. Functioning;79
9.4;3. Diversity measurements;82
9.5;4. Redundancy;82
9.6;5. Time and space;83
9.7;6. Resiliency;85
9.8;7. Conclusions;86
9.9;Acknowledgements;86
9.10;References;86
10;Chapter 5. Biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in agroecosystems;90
10.1;Abstract;90
10.2;1. Introduction;90
10.3;2. Methods for the study of AMF;91
10.4;3. Sampling;93
10.5;4. Special considerations in determining diversity of AMF;93
10.6;5. Impacts of soil management and cropping system practices;96
10.7;6. Case histories of AMF in field environments;96
10.8;7. Conclusion;100
10.9;References;101
11;Chapter 6. Soil protozoa as bioindicators: pros and cons, methods, diversity, representative examples;108
11.1;Abstract;108
11.2;1. Introduction;108
11.3;2. Protozoa as indicators of soil quality: pros and cons;109
11.4;3. Methodological pitfalls;110
11.5;4. Notes on the biology of soil protozoa related to their use as bioindicators;111
11.6;5. Examples of using soil protozoa as bioindicators;115
11.7;Acknowledgements;122
11.8;References;122
12;Chapter 7. Nematode diversity in agroecosystems;126
12.1;Abstract;126
12.2;1. Introduction;126
12.3;2. Sampling and handling nematodes;127
12.4;3. Diversity of nematodes and nematode faunae;128
12.5;4. Identification of nematodes;129
12.6;5. Measurement of nematode diversity;130
12.7;6. Grassland nematodes;132
12.8;7. Nematodes in managed forest ecosystems;136
12.9;8. Impact of other agroecosystems and management practices;137
12.10;9. Nematodes in polluted ecosystems;140
12.11;10. General patterns — the search for indicators;143
12.12;11. Process-based integration;144
12.13;12. Conclusions;145
12.14;Acknowledgements;145
12.15;References;145
13;Chapter 8. The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators;150
13.1;Abstract;150
13.2;1. Introduction;150
13.3;2. Taxonomy;151
13.4;3. Earthworm abundance and distribution;151
13.5;4. Collection systems;151
13.6;5. Ecological classification;154
13.7;6. Agricultural activities and earthworms;155
13.8;7. Soil and litter type;155
13.9;8. Tillage;155
13.10;9. Fertilization and mulching;157
13.11;10. Pesticides;157
13.12;11. 'Archeological' pesticide residues;158
13.13;12. Fungicides;158
13.14;13. Insecticides;160
13.15;14. Herbicides;160
13.16;15. Heavy metals;160
13.17;16. Engineered crops;160
13.18;17. Assessing environmental stress;161
13.19;18. Assessing farming sustainability: organic versus conventional farms;162
13.20;19. Comparing different orchards in an intensive agricultural rural landscape;163
13.21;20. Rural and urbanized landscapes;165
13.22;21. Conclusions;166
13.23;Acknowledgements;166
13.24;References;166
14;Chapter 9. Woodlice (Isopoda: Oniscidea): their potential for assessing sustainability and use as bioindicators;170
14.1;Abstract;170
14.2;1. Introduction;170
14.3;2. Taxonomy;171
14.4;3. Collection, sampling and preservation;172
14.5;4. Distribution;173
14.6;5. Predators and parasites;173
14.7;6. Assessing landscape sustainability;174
14.8;7. Heavy metals;175
14.9;8. Conclusions;176
14.10;Acknowledgements;176
14.11;References;176
15;Chapter 10. Use of soil dwelling Diptera (Insecta, Diptera) as bioindicators: a review of ecological requirements and response to disturbance;180
15.1;Abstract;180
15.2;1. Introduction;180
15.3;2. Methods for study of soil dwelling Diptera;181
15.4;3. Ecology of soil dwelling Diptera;182
15.5;4. Impact of human activities on soil dwelling Diptera;188
15.6;5. Using soil dwelling Diptera as bioindicators—a note about interpretation;193
15.7;6. Conclusions;194
15.8;Acknowledgements;195
15.9;References;195
16;Chapter 11. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement;200
16.1;Abstract;200
16.2;1. Introduction;200
16.3;2. A short outline of carabid morphology and general ecology;201
16.4;3. The carabid fauna of arable land: typical species and some density data;202
16.5;4. Impacts of cultivation intensity;203
16.6;5. Sampling and determination;206
16.7;6. Carabids as natural pest control agents;208
16.8;7. Soil cultivation: ploughing versus no-tillage;216
16.9;8. Fertilization;219
16.10;9. Crop diversification;220
16.11;10. Biodiversity of carabids in arable land;224
16.12;Acknowledgements;231
16.13;References;231
17;Chapter 12. Spiders (Araneae) useful for pest limitation and bioindication;242
17.1;Abstract;242
17.2;1. Introduction;242
17.3;2. Ecology;243
17.4;3. Methodology of sampling and preservation;245
17.5;4. Ecology of the group in rural landscapes;246
17.6;5. Spiders as bioindicators;267
17.7;6. Conclusions;279
17.8;Acknowledgements;280
17.9;References;280
18;Chapter 13. Diversity of Heteroptera in agroecosystems: role of sustainability and bioindication;288
18.1;Abstract;288
18.2;1. Introduction;288
18.3;2. Identification of heteropteran adults, eggs and nymphs;290
18.4;3. Sampling;291
18.5;4. Diversity of biological traits in Heteroptera;292
18.6;5. Distribution of Heteroptera in relation to climate, micro-climate and vegetation strata;294
18.7;6. Importance and diversity of the fauna of Heteroptera in orchards and in some crops;303
18.8;7. Influence of the environment on the colonization of orchards and crops by Heteroptera;308
18.9;8. Heteropera as bioindicators;309
18.10;9. Conclusion;311
18.11;Acknowledgements;311
18.12;References;311
19;Chapter 14. Neuroptera in agricultural ecosystems;318
19.1;Abstract;318
19.2;1. Introduction;318
19.3;2. Biology;319
19.4;3. Feeding habits;320
19.5;4. Sampling techniques;322
19.6;5. Species of interest in the agricultural ecosystem;322
19.7;6. Neuropteran communities in natural habitats;326
19.8;7. Neuropteran communities in agricultural ecosystems;326
19.9;8. Red Lists of Neuroptera in European countries and their use for nature conservation;329
19.10;9. Neuroptera in integrated control programs;329
19.11;Acknowledgements;330
19.12;References;330
20;Chapter 15. Biodiversity of predaceous coccinellidae in relation to bioindication and economic importance;336
20.1;Abstract;336
20.2;1. Introduction;336
20.3;2. General taxonomy;337
20.4;3. Sampling;338
20.5;4. Typical habitat;339
20.6;5. Voltinism and reproduction;339
20.7;6. Eating habits;341
20.8;7. Migration and dormancy;343
20.9;8. Natural enemies;344
20.10;9. Anthropological influences;345
20.11;10. Conservation;345
20.12;11. Ecology of coccinellids in rural landscapes;347
20.13;12. Coccinellidae as bioindicators;349
20.14;13. Intensification of biological control with coccinellids and landscape manipulation;352
20.15;14. Conclusion;353
20.16;Acknowledgements;353
20.17;References;353
21;Chapter 16. Syrphidae: can they be used as environmental bioindicators?;356
21.1;Abstract;356
21.2;1. Introduction;356
21.3;2. Morphology and biology;356
21.4;3. Collecting and identification;359
21.5;4. Role of syrphids as bioindicators;360
21.6;5. Conclusion;366
21.7;Acknowledgements;366
21.8;References;366
22;Chapter 17. Staphylinid beetles as bioindicators;370
22.1;Abstract;370
22.2;1. Staphylinid beetles – general biology;370
22.3;2. Staphylinids as bioindicators – methods of study;374
22.4;3. Species diversity and ecological characteristics of staphylinids in managed and unmanaged areas;376
22.5;4. Staphylinids as bioindicators of land use in agricultural settlements;381
22.6;5. Long-term monitoring of staphylinid communities in montane ecosystems influenced by man;381
22.7;6. Staphylinids in urbanized areas;381
22.8;7. Accumulation of metals in staphylinids and their role as bioindicators of radionuclides;382
22.9;8. Conclusions – perspectives for use of staphylinids as bioindicators;382
22.10;Acknowledgements;382
22.11;References;383
23;Chapter 18. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity and diversity;386
23.1;Abstract;386
23.2;1. Introduction;386
23.3;2. Pollination, pollinators, and anthophiles;387
23.4;3. Pollinators and their demise;391
23.5;4. Ecosystemic stress and health;398
23.6;5. Conclusions;399
23.7;Acknowledgements;399
23.8;References;399
24;Chapter 19. Predatory mites (Gamasina, Mesostigmata);408
24.1;Abstract;408
24.2;1. Introduction;408
24.3;2. Uropodina;411
24.4;3. Gamasina;411
24.5;4. Methods;416
24.6;5. Conclusion;418
24.7;Acknowledgements;419
24.8;Appendix A. Annotations to taxa some selected examples of species found in agricultural soils;419
24.9;References;419
25;Chapter 20. Oribatid mite biodiversity in agroecosystems: role for bioindication;424
25.1;Abstract;424
25.2;1. Introduction;424
25.3;2. General ecology;425
25.4;3. Biology and life history;426
25.5;4. Sampling and preparation;426
25.6;5. Identification;427
25.7;6. Role as bioindicators;427
25.8;7. Conclusions;432
25.9;Acknowledgements;433
25.10;References;433
26;Chapter 21. Ants as bioindicators of soil function in rural environments;438
26.1;Abstract;438
26.2;1. Introduction;438
26.3;2. The need for ants as bioindicators of soil function and their desirable attributes;439
26.4;3. Ant biodiversity in rural and naturally vegetated environments;440
26.5;4. Methods to estimate ant biodiversity;444
26.6;5. Current status of biopedological research into ant–soil relationships: trends and gaps;446
26.7;6. Research implications;449
26.8;Acknowledgements;451
26.9;References;451
27;Subject Index, Volume 74;456
28;Author Index, Volumes 74;460

Leseproben

Foreword
Maurizio G. [e-mail], Department of Biology, Padova University, 35121 Padova, Italy Tel.: + 39-49-8276304/5; fax: + 39-49-8276300 A thorough understanding of landscape quality is essential for monitoring environmental changes, promoting remediation of contaminated and polluted areas, improving the sustainability of farming systems, comparing different farming techniques and assessing policies aimed at reducing environmental damage. This special issue on Invertebrate Biodiversity Bioindicators of Sustainable Rural Landscapes was compiled with the aim of providing an up-to-date summary of our current knowledge of how and where small organisms could help in assessing environmental status. As outlined in my introductory chapter ‘Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape sustainability’, more extensive application of biodiversity as bioindicators would undoubtedly aid in improving our countryside and rural landscapes. However, in order for bioindicators to be used to their fullest advantage, we must close gaps in our knowledge of biodiversity and it dimensions. This learning process will be accelerated by increased availability of new more powerful user-friendly databases and streamlined systems to rapidly identify the taxa living around us. The topics covered in this issue were chosen to suggest groups of organisms, mostly invertebrates, with either demonstrated value or strong potential as bioindicators. Although all the bioindicators discussed here are small in size, the majority are macroscopic, and all are readily found in a wide variety of landscapes. Miguel A. Altieri provides us with a general overview of biodiversity in rural landscapes and its meaning for sustainable agriculture. Peter Duelli, Martin K. Obrist, Dirk R. Schmatz offer their updated view on the subject and methodologies to develop indicators, with special focus on aboveground insects. These chapters are followed by more specialized summaries of individual bioindicators, starting with the tiniest organisms and those most closely associated with the soil. Anne C. Kennedy convinces us of the utility of bacteria as bioindicators of different management in all landscapes. The current status of mycorrhizal fungi as bioindicators is discussed by David D. Douds and Patricia Millner. Although protozoa need sophisticated preparation techniques, as decscribed by Wilhelm Foissner, they offer important indications of soil type and use. In their summary of nematodes, George W. Yeates and Tom Bongers illustrate the value of these organisms for discriminating different soils and farming situations. I discuss the use of earthworms, which already have a strong tradition in ecological studies, for assessment of landscape status. As outlined by Mark Hassall and myself, although terrestrial isopods have not been intensively used as tools for environmental evaluations, these crustaceans deserve more attention in the future. Moving on to organisms with less intimate connections to the soil, Peter G. Kevan’s chapter on pollinators with special reference to the Hymenoptera, highlights the relevance of this extraordinary group to landscape assessment, the importance of which would justify occupying several volumes instead of just one chapter. The review of ants by Lisa Lobry de Bruyn illustrates their important and growing role as bioindicators, while pointing out that much work remains to be done in order to understand their ecology in agro-ecosystems. Many coleopteran families merit attention as bioindicators; three important examples are considered here. The staphylinids are discussed in detail by Jaroslav Bohac, and Bernhard Kromp has provided a thorough summary of current knowledge of ground beetles and their relationships with various landscapes; although information on both groups would fill a very large book, these reviews effectively illustrate how they could be useful as bioindicators in many different situations. Almost everyone agrees that coccinellids are cute; the review by G. Iperti reminds us that they also have a proven reputation as biological control agents and can play a critical role in rural landscape ecology. As described by Guy Fauvel, Heteroptera are of interest due to their activities as very important predators of whiteflies, aphids and scales, or, in some cases, as potentially noxious pests themselves. In their presentation of Neuroptera, M. Stelzl and Drusan Devetak highlight the major role that these delicate winged creatures play in controlling some pests. Diptera comprises a huge group of insects whose larvae are found in most topsoils, especially in the litter layer, and adults of which sometimes represent the most abundant component in many different environments. Jan Frouz has focused his chapter on larvae and adults of specific dipteran families. Daniele Sommaggio has considered Syrphidae, the rapidly flying mimics of wasps that in most cases lay their eggs in aphid colonies and produce aphidophagous larvae. The fascinating biology and bioindicative value of spiders have received special attention in a chapter by Patric Marc, Alain Canard and Frederic Ysnel. Although the small size of detritivore oribatid mites and the predatory Gamasina makes identification a challenge, the solid evidence for links between their ecology and environmental disturbances presented in reviews by Valerie Behan-Pelletier and Harmut H. Koehler provide a strong argument for their utility as bioindicators. The fact that this special issue is limited to approximately 20 groups of organisms does not signify that other taxa do not merit study as indicators of landscape quality. Although the choice of topics could (and probably will) be criticized, in my view, the groups described here represent a mixture of the most widely accepted bioindicators and organisms that present features supporting their further study as potential bioindicators (McGeoch, 1998). The attention paid to these groups in part reflects the body of knowledge regarding their biology and taxonomy, the obvious links of these organisms to agriculture or the countryside and/or an established tradition of sampling these groups in various landscapes. I hope to be immediately contradicted by rapid development of other ecological, biological and taxonomical studies that soon will permit us to consider the bioindicative features of many other taxa. For example, Collembola represent a very large group in the soil (Hopkin, 1997), but are at present quite difficult to identify by non specialists, making their use more or less limited to laboratory microcosm investigations. Diplura, Miriapoda, and enchytraeids deserve more attention as well (Dindal, 1989). Orthoptera and possibly Lepidoptera (Samways, 1989) have important features that support their potential as bioindicators; further studies of the inconspicuous Psocoptera could also offer interesting insights into landscape management (Mockford, 1996). I hope that students, technicians and a new generation of professional farmers will promote and adopt practices that are favorable to the organisms described in this volume. Policies aimed at supporting farming activities should strive to consider the use of bioindicators as a potential element for assessing reduction of pesticides and other negative impacts. Acknowledgements
I am indebted to many people for the idea of this special issue. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by some of my students R. Favretto, L. Dreon, C. Targa, M. Schirato, E. Toffanello, M. Babetto, A. Marchiorato, P. Cenzi, E. Celano, M. Bressan, D. Sommaggio, C. Silvestri, E. Rampazzo, E. Carli, U. Schwaigl, G. Borgo, P. Boscolo, E. Rampazzo, C. Maltese and S. Ottaviani who have prepared their theses at the University of Padova under the framework of assessing rural landscapes and/or differently managed landscapes, margins, hedgerows, and organic, integrated and conventional farms. The idea for this book stems from their field-work and the enthusiasm that they have developed during the course of their studies. The European Field Boundary Habitat for Wildlife, Crop and Environmental Protection of the European Commission, DG VI, has created opportunities for new contacts and in-depth field margin studies. Having had the privilege to work in subtropical China and the Amazon within different projects sponsored by the European Commission DG XI and DGXII and Conferenza Episcopale Italiana (CEI) helped me to widen my view and interact in many different landscapes and people. I am learning much from native Amerindians about biodiversity and its use. I am particularly indebted to M. Catizzone, J. Ruiz Murrieta, F. Fasella, U. Finzi and J. Routti for their continuous support. The courses I have held in Budapest and Sofia under the Tempus projects directed by B. Nath and recently in Brussels at the Free University Human Ecology International Master, have helped me in organizing ideas and methodologies for easy transfer to students. I am indebted to L. Hens for having invited me several times to Brussels for joining the International Master Course on Human Ecology and I am very thankful to David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel for their willingness to exchange ideas and implementing continuous stimuli. Thanks to C.A. Edwards and Ben and Debby Stinner for their suggestions. I am also indebted to the artists R. Mazzaro, U. Arezzini and C. Friso for photographs and figures, and to Donna D’Agostino for her efforts (at times heroic) to improve the quality of the English grammar in some of the manuscripts. Carto Graderigo supported us with his superb sofware expertise. The European Commission, DGXII, the Italian CNR, The University of Padova and my...