EFFECT OF AGROFORESTRY MICROCLIMATE OVER SPIDERS AND GROUND

BEETLES DAILY-ACTIVITY

Ambroise Martin-Chave : AGROOF

Christophe Mazzia : IMBE UMR 7263

Camille Beral : AGROOF

Yvan Capowiez : INRA PSH

3rd European Agroforestry Conference

contact : martin-chave@agroof.net 1

PROJECT CONTEXT

Part of the ARBRATATOUILLE project :

AGROOF + INRA PSH & ECODEV + 3 Farmers

Supported by Fondation de France, Picard Fundation and Terra

Symbiosis (2014-2016)

Agroforestry microclimate : effects over organic vegetable

crops (I) and associated biodiversity (II)

Introduction

2

ISSUES

Chemicals use reduction ; Organic pests management

Agroforestry potential for biodiversity conservation (Burgess

1999; Malézieux et al. 2009)

Trees create new habitats and alter various microclimatic factors

(shade, T°, rH) indirect impact on biotic interactions, such as tri

trophic interactions (Batish 2008)

Predatory arthopods play major role in pests biocontrol, but how

are they affected by agroforestry microclimate ?

Introduction

3

What we know : daily-activity is mainly influenced by site openness

(Thiele 1977, Tuf 2012) and temperature (Thiele 1977)

Daily activity patterns provide informations over habitats suitability

and can also influence predation potential (Edgar 1969)

How agroforestry microclimates could affect the daily-activity of

major predatory arthropods in organic vegetable crops?

PROBLEMATIC

Introduction

4

Playing field :

The study site is part

of the « Terres de

Roummassouze »

organic farm owned

by Denis and Virginie

Flores, in Vézénobres

(30 – France).

Vegetables crops

are conducted in a

north-south axe.

Control

AF + AF - AF ++

40 meters

Materials & Methods

5

Samplings : Arachnids and ground beetles, 5 times a day, 10

days in July and 10 days in september

30 pitfalls traps by treatment, to monitor grass strips (2 x 5

pitfall traps), lettuces (10 pitfall traps) and tomatoes (10 pitfall

traps)

Microclimatic measurements : hemispherical photographs,

temperature and hygrometry continuous aquisition (iButtons)

Materials & Methods

6

1) MICROCLIMATE

Canopy openness at three period, in the three agroforestry plots

Leaves appeared after the April assessment, and fall later in November.

Results

7

8

35°C

25°C

-2,5°C

-2,5°C

+2°C

+2°C

7h-10h 10h-14h 14h-18h 18h-21h 21h-7h

Results

9

a a b b

Significant difference

between AF++, Af+ vs

AF- and control

Significant

difference at mid

day period (10h-

14h) between AF-,

CONTROL and

AF++

(the shadiest vs the

less shaded plots,

ANOVA +

TukeyHSD tests)

Pardosa hortensis daily abundance in July JULY

No significant

difference (ANOVA),

but no point were

made during night

Results

10

a b c c

7h-10h 10h-14h 14h-18h 18h-21h 21h-7h

Pseudoophonus rufipes daily abundance in July

Similar abundance in

AF- and control, less

individuals in AF++

and AF+

SEPTEMBER

Results

11

Effects seem to be

less importants

during september.

Activity is similar in

each treatment.

Differences between

treatments are non

significatives (ANOVA)

a a a a

7h-10h 10h-14h 14h-18h 18h-21h 21h-7h

Pardosa hortensis daily abundance in September

Significant

differences

between AF++

and others at

midday,

between AF++

and control at dusk

and night. 12

Great differences

between treatments

occured in September

a b bc a

7h-10h 10h-14h 14h-18h 18h-21h 21h-7h

Results

a b c a

Pseudoophonus rufipes daily abundance in September

DISCUSSION

Trees buffered temperatures

Agroforestry enhanced wolf spiders global activity at the

warmer period : sun protection ? (Edgar 1969)

P. rufipes daily-activity seems not to be affected, but

abundances are affected in July -> functional effect ?

In September, « disorganized » differences

Discussion

13

CONCLUSION

Agroforestry buffering general climate (Chen et al. 1999)

Impacts on species depending on their respective ecology

Potentially affect predation rate at the day and season scale.

Interest of low dispersion hability fauna for agroforestry

Conclusion

14

15

Thank you for your attention,

and see you tomorrow at the study site !

REFERENCES

Batish D (ed) (2008) Ecological basis of agroforestry. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

Burgess PJ (1999) Effects of agroforestry on farm biodiversity in the UK.

Chen J, Saunders SC, Crow TR, et al (1999) Microclimate in Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Ecology Variations in local climate can be used to monitor and compare the effects of different management regimes. BioScience 49:288–297.

Edgar WD (1969) Prey and Feeding Behaviour of Adult Females of the Wolf Spider Pardosa Amentata (Clerck). Neth J Zool 20:487–491. doi: 10.1163/002829670X00259

I. H. Tuf PD (2012) Does the diurnal activity pattern of carabid beetles depend on season, ground temperature and habitat? Arch Biol Sci. doi: 10.2298/ABS1202721T

Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, et al (2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:43–62. doi: 10.1051/agro:2007057

Thiele H-U (1977) Carabid Beetles in Their Environments. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg

16