1 2 Can woodlands, scrublands and terraces vegetation in Douro Demarcated Region vineyards enhance functional biodiversity of arthropods? C. Carlos 1,2, F. Gonçalves 2, A. Crespí 2, L. Torres 2
Região Demarcada do Douro / Douro Demarcated Region (DDR) 43 600 ha of vineyards 36 000 ha of steeply sloping vineyards When compared to many other wine-producing regions of the world, the Douro Demarcated Region still has relatively large amounts of natural habitat fragments in the cultivated landscape
Alto Douro Vinhateiro classified by UNESCO in 2001 A significant part of this area is still occupied by non-crop habitats, specially by scrublands (20.4%) and woodlands (13.2%). Moreover, in the area covered by vineyards (42.9%), a significant part is occupied by grassy/shrubby slopes and/or dry stone walls (Andresen and Rebelo 2013).
High presence of semi-natural areas and other crops Riparian galleries
Patches of native vegetation on slopes
Scrubland and woodland lots around vineyards
Vegetation of slopes According to Böller et al. (2004), a high potential for a species rich and natural green cover has been found in sloping vineyards, with small-scale terraces. By mowing the banks in alternating fashion and with lowest possible frequency, the flora can be converted into a plant community similar to that in meadows with low management intensity which contains several perennial plant species of value in fostering beneficial parasitoids and therefore this banks serve as an internal ecological infrastructure of the vineyard and face the grapevine at very short distance In Böller EF, Häni F, Poehling H-M (eds.) (2004) Ecological infrastructures: Ideabook on functional biodiversity at the farm level. Temperate zones of Europe. Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Switzerland, 212 pp
Conservation biological control strategy Biological control agents Key-pests Grapevine moth Green leafhopper Predators 1- Protect biological control agents (eg. limited and selective use of pesticides) + 2- Provide resources so that they can be more effective (shelter, nectar, pólen, alternative food) Parasitoids
SNAP (Shelter, Néctar, Alternative food, Pólen) Shelter Néctar, Pólen Alternative food
Which is the impact of these ecological infrastructures on arthropods (pests and beneficials) in DDR? Do they provide key ecological resources to natural enemies?
PhD: Development of a sustainable strategy to control arthropod pests in Douro Demarcated Region vineyards with emphasis on the grape berry moth, Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schifermüller)* 1. Mating disruption 2. Development of phenological models (degree-days) 3. Determinants of parasitism 4. Evaluation of the impact of ecological infrastructures on functional biodiversity *PhD C. Carlos
Evaluation of the impact of ecological infra-structures on functional biodiversity Main goals: - Evaluate the diversity of arthropods of terraced vineyards (canopy and slopes vegetation) / non-crop habitats (NHC) and the diversity of plants - Evaluate the impact of NHC and vegetation of terraced vineyards on their abundance and richness Methods 3 vineyard s ecosystems (sites A, B and C) installed in terraces in the DDR (Cima Corgo) (slopes managed by mowing vegetation herbicide only in the line, under the vines) NCH1 NCH2 Road NCH3 Arthropods were sampled using two sampling methods (suction and yellow sticky traps) in NCH and in vineyards at three distances from the edge (5, 25 and 50 m from NCH) Periods of sampling: 2010 (3 sampling periods, between June and October) SV 5 SV 25 V 5 V 25 SV 50 V 50 PhD C. Carlos
Experimental design (site A Quinta das Carvalhas Real Companhia Velha) Non-crop habitat (NCH)
Experimental design (site B Quinta de S. Luiz Sogevinus Quintas) 50 m 25 m 5 m Non-crop habitat (NCH)
Experimental design (site C Quinta do Seixo Sogrape Vinhos SA)
Yellow sticky traps DVAC (Suction) Assessment of biodiversity of arthropods in vineyards and NCH close to vineyards 50 m 25 m 5 m Abundance and richness of arthropods were calculated for several groups: - predators, parasitoids and herbivores - among specific predators (ex. coccinellidae and spiders) and parasitoids (Eulophidae, Mymaridae) - among specific herbivores (cicadellidae)
Flora assessment (Richness and % cover)
Results - High richness of DDR flora resources
Results Flora assessment Site A - 59 species were identified belonging to 29 families - Asteraceae (32.3%), Rosaceae (6.5%), Ericaceae (5.9%) and Poaceae (5.9%) - The vegetation was significantly more rich in NCH than in slopes located inside vineyards (χ 2 KW = 20.32, p=0.009 for richness of plants) Site B - 36 plant species were identified, belonging to 24 families - The more frequent families were: Asteraceae (39.5%), Apiaceae (13.2%) and Fabaceae (9.3%) - No significant differences were found between habitats analyzed Site C - 24 species were identified, belonging to 14 families - The most frequent families were Asteraceae (45.1%), Poaceae (17.6%) and Apiaceae (14.7%) - No significant differences were found between habitats analyzed - With exception of site A, in which we found a higher richness and percentage of cover in NCH than in slopes of vineyards, the differences found among sampling stations (NCH and several points inside vineyards ecossystem) were not significant, suggesting a high diversity of flora inside vineyards. - Some families identified (Apiaceae, Asteraceae and Fabaceae) could play, according Barberi (2010), an important ecological role, by nurturing a complex of beneficial arthropods
Importance of diversity of flora in supporting diversity of fauna (e.g arthropods)
Results Arthopods assessments - A total of 6 923 arthropods was caught by suction - Hemiptera (39.7%), Hymenoptera (21.7%), Araneae (12.9%) and Coleoptera (9.0%). The main herbivores found were Cicadellidae The main natural enemies of pests (beneficials) found were: - Parasitic Hymenoptera (17,5% of total arthropods) - Spiders (12,9%) and ladybugs (Coccinellidae) (3,9%) - A total of 29 255 individuals was collected by yellow sticky traps - Hemiptera (68.3%), Hymenoptera (24.2%) and Coleoptera (5.8%) The herbivores found were mainly from Cicadellidae (Empoasca vitis the most important, but 26 species were identified) The main natural enemies of pests found were: - Parasitic Hymenoptera (22,7%) - Coccinellidae, Carabidae and spiders (Predators - 7,2%)
Results Impact of NCH and native vegetation found in terraced vineyards NCH- woodland/scrubland); V: Vineyard canopy; SV: vegetation of slopes Statistical significance based on marginal estimated means for p<0.05 30 Coccinelidae (Predator) 12 Spiders (Predator) Parasitic hymenoptera a 35 25 20 a 10 8 a ab ab 30 25 15 6 20 a ab 10 5 b c c 4 2 b b c 15 10 5 abcde abc cde bcde abcd de e 0 NCH V 5 V 25 V 50 0 NCH SV 5 V 5 SV 25 V 25 SV 50 V 50 0 NCH 1 NCH 2 NCH 3 SV 5 V 5 SV 25 V 25 SV 50 V 50 The abundance of predators (spiders and ladybugs) and most of parasitic hymenoptera was, in general, significantly higher in NCH than in vineyards located at higher distances (positive impact of NCH) In samples collected by suction, they were not different between NCH and vegetation of slopes (SV) positif effect
200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 bd cd Cicadellidae (Pest) ab NCH2 NCH3 V 5 V 25 V 50 bc a 15 12 9 6 3 bc Mymaridae (Parasitoid of Cicadellidae) 0 NCH GC 5 V 5 GC 25 V 25 GC 50 V 50 Statistical significance based on marginal estimated means for p<0.05 ab c ab bc a bc The abundance of Cicadellidae and Mymaridae caught by sticky traps was higher inside vineyards than in NCH Possible reasons - Predator s effect at vineyard s edge, differences in vigour of vineyards inside (?) - Presence of parasitoid Mymaridae is linked to the presence of its prey (Cicadellidae)
Some conclusions Positif effect of NCH on the abundance and richness of predators (ex. spiders and ladybugs) and abundance of parasitoids (except for mymaridae) which follow its main prey distribution (Cicadellidae) The positive impact of NCH seems to decrease substantially in vines located at 50 m from the edge, even if in slopes, a high abundance and diversity of most predators and parasitoids was found Positif effect of native vegetation found on slopes (similar to NCH)
The proximity of non-crop habitats (woodland, scrubland, weedy or shrubby margins), when combined with native vegetation grown on slopes or with the ground cover present on the horizontal alley, can increase the presence of several natural enemies in vineyards ecosystem. Slopes and ground cover vegetation found in DDR can be considered as part of an ecological infrastructure network connecting biodiversity from non-crop habitat to vineyards Non-crop habitats and native vegetation found in terraced vineyards showed benefits in supporting functional biodiversity in DDR vineyards and assist in conservation biological control strategies
High risk of Erosion
Acknowledgments Wine companies Sogevinus, Sogrape and Real Companhia Velha (RCV) - for all facilities provided for fieldwork Viticulture managers - M. Nóbrega (Sogevinus), R. Soares (RCV) and E. Gomes (Sogrape) - for technical support Taxonomists who collaborated in the identification of the arthropods - Claire Villemant (Museum of Natural History in Paris), for the identification of Hymenoptera - Luís Crespo (University of Lisbon), for the identification of Araneae - Valeria Trivellone (Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL) for the identification of Cicadomorpha and Fulgoromorpha - Marta Goula (University of Barcelona), for the identification of Heteroptera - Vera Zina (University of Lisbon), for the identification of Formicidae - Roberto Canovai (University of Pisa) for the identification of Coccinellidae ECOVITIS project (PRODER, PA 24043) for Identifications of main Coleoptera (except coccinellidae) ADVID for funding this work and ADVID colleagues M. do Carmo Val, S. Meireles e S. Sousa, for field support
Thanks for your attention!!!
Other projects with results: Implementation of conservation actions to enhance biodiversity And training of workers
Results of conservation actions (Hedges planted in 2013)
Results - training of growers (protection of native species)