SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2015 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3

Composition and seasonal variation of epigeic arthropods in field margins of NW Portugal

FÁTIMA CRISTINA PAULINO SIMÃO
MIGUEL ANGEL CARRETERO
MARIA JOSÉ AIRES DO AMARAL
AMADEU MORTÁGUA VELHO DA MAIA SOARES
EDUARDO MATEOS
Pages
404–414
Publication Date
2015-08-13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicate that the higher taxa approach is useful to distinguish seasonally distinct communities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Field margins act as shelters for different arthropod taxa in agricultural fields.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Epigeic arthropods were sampled from the margins of fields located in northwestern Portugal during 2 contrasting seasons, spring and autumn.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicate that the higher taxa approach is useful to distinguish seasonally distinct communities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Field margins · seasonal variation · epigeic arthropods

Abstract

Field margins act as shelters for different arthropod taxa in agricultural fields. Several factors may promote seasonal changes in arthropod communities, especially in regions with marked seasonality, such as Mediterranean areas. Epigeic arthropods were sampled from the margins of fields located in northwestern Portugal during 2 contrasting seasons, spring and autumn. Organisms were identified to family or order level and seasonal variation in arthropod communities was evaluated. Abundance, group richness, and feeding guild parameters were affected by sampling season, with both abundance and richness being higher in spring. Of the groups captured in both seasons, most evidenced either higher abundance in spring or similar abundance between seasons. Ants constituted one of the most abundant trophic guilds in spring but one of the least captured in autumn, while catches of parasitoids and parasites were not affected by sampling season. Results indicate that the higher taxa approach is useful to distinguish seasonally distinct communities.

Özet

Field margins act as shelters for different arthropod taxa in agricultural fields. Several factors may promote seasonal changes in arthropod communities, especially in regions with marked seasonality, such as Mediterranean areas. Epigeic arthropods were sampled from the margins of fields located in northwestern Portugal during 2 contrasting seasons, spring and autumn. Organisms were identified to family or order level and seasonal variation in arthropod communities was evaluated. Abundance, group richness, and feeding guild parameters were affected by sampling season, with both abundance and richness being higher in spring. Of the groups captured in both seasons, most evidenced either higher abundance in spring or similar abundance between seasons. Ants constituted one of the most abundant trophic guilds in spring but one of the least captured in autumn, while catches of parasitoids and parasites were not affected by sampling season. Results indicate that the higher taxa approach is useful to distinguish seasonally distinct communities.

🔖

Cite This Article

SIMÃO, F. C. P., CARRETERO, M. A., AMARAL, M. J. A. D., SOARES, A. M. V. D. M., MATEOS, E. (2015). Composition and seasonal variation of epigeic arthropods in field margins of NW Portugal. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 3, 404–414. https://ajindex.com/articles/176740

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Abbott I, Parker CA, Sills ID (1979). Changes in the abundance of large soil animals and physical properties of soils following cultivation. Aust J Soil Res 17: 343–353.
  2. Altieri MA (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74: 19–31.
  3. Amaral MJ, Carretero MA, Bicho RC, Soares AMVM, Mann RM (2012). The use of a lacertid lizard as a model for reptile ecotoxicology studies - Part 1. Field demographics and morphology. Chemosphere 87: 757–764.
  4. Asteraki E (1993). The potential of carabid beetles to control slugs in grass/clover swards. Entomophaga 38: 193–198.
  5. Asteraki EJ, Hart BJ, Ings TC, Manley WJ (2004). Factors influencing the plant and invertebrate diversity of arable field margins. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102: 219–231. Báldi A (2003). Using higher taxa as surrogates of species richness: a study based on 3700 Coleoptera, Diptera, and Acari species in Central-Hungarian reserves. Basic Appl Ecol 4: 589–593. Barrientos JA, editor (2004). Curso Práctico de Entomología. Barcelona, Spain: Asociación Española de Entomología, CIBIO-Centro Iberoamericano de Biodiversidad & Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (in Spanish). Basset Y, Mavoungou J, Mikissa J, Missa O, Miller S, Kitching R, Alonso A (2004). Discriminatory power of different arthropod data sets for the biological monitoring of anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests. Biodivers Conserv 13: 709–732.
  6. Berg MP, Bengtsson J (2007). Temporal and spatial variability in soil food web structure. Oikos 116: 1789–1804.
  7. Biaggini M, Consorti R, Dapporto L, Dellacasa M, Paggetti E, Corti C (2007). The taxonomic level order as a possible tool for rapid assessment of arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122: 183–191.
  8. Boone RD, Grigal DF, Sollins P, Ahrens RJ, Armstrong DE (1999). Soil sampling, preparation, archiving, and quality control. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P, editors. Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28.
  9. Churchill TB, Arthur JM (1999). Measuring spider richness: effects of different sampling methods and spatial and temporal scales. J Insect Conserv 3: 287–295.
  10. Clarke KR (2003). Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117–143. de Snoo GR (1999). Unsprayed field margins: effects on environment, biodiversity and agricultural practice. Landsc Urban Plann 46: 151–160.
  11. Doblas-Miranda E, Sánchez-Piñer