Author
Bea Maas
Other affiliations: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, University of Göttingen
Bio: Bea Maas is an academic researcher from University of Vienna. The author has contributed to research in topics: Biodiversity & Species richness. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 33 publications receiving 1577 citations. Previous affiliations of Bea Maas include University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna & University of Göttingen.
Topics: Biodiversity, Species richness, Ecosystem services, Habitat, Grassland
Papers
More filters
University of Würzburg1, National University of Comahue2, Spanish National Research Council3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, Universidade Federal de Goiás5, University of Lisbon6, Stanford University7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, National University of Río Negro9, ETH Zurich10, Cornell University11, University of California, Davis12, The Nature Conservancy13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University of British Columbia15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, University of California, Santa Cruz17, University of Padua18, University of New England (Australia)19, Lund University20, University of Göttingen21, Institut national de la recherche agronomique22, University of La Rochelle23, Federal University of Ceará24, University of Freiburg25, Concordia University Wisconsin26, University of Belgrade27, National University of Tucumán28, Michigan State University29, University of Brasília30, University of Greenwich31, University of Reading32, University of Wisconsin-Madison33, National Institute of Amazonian Research34, Boise State University35, University of Texas at Austin36, University of Haifa37, Kansas State University38, University of Hamburg39, Bioversity International40, University of California, Santa Barbara41, Seattle University42, University of Vienna43, University of Florida44, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza45, National Audubon Society46, University of Buenos Aires47, Virginia Tech48, University of Bordeaux49, University of Auckland50, University of California, Berkeley51, University College Dublin52, Trinity College, Dublin53, University of Tokyo54, Federal University of Bahia55, Lincoln University (New Zealand)56, National Institute for Environmental Studies57, International Food Policy Research Institute58, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University59
TL;DR: Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change is partitioned.
Abstract: Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.
434 citations
Daniel S. Karp1, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer2, Timothy D. Meehan3, Emily A. Martin4 +153 more•Institutions (81)
TL;DR: Analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others.
Abstract: The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win-win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win-win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.
398 citations
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden1, Boston University2, University of Montpellier3, University of Vienna4, Memorial University of Newfoundland5, National University of Singapore6, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research7, James Hutton Institute8, James Cook University9, University of Wisconsin-Madison10, Portland State University11, University of Guelph12
TL;DR: This editorial can only be a snapshot of a quickly evolving situation, but it hopes that it can offer some encouragement and insights for colleagues in lockdown and how the conservation community must be ready to respond.
267 citations
TL;DR: It is found that bat and bird exclusion increased insect herbivore abundance, despite the concurrent release of mesopredators such as ants and spiders, and negatively affected fruit development, with final crop yield decreasing by 31% across local (shade cover) and landscape gradients.
Abstract: Human welfare is significantly linked to ecosystem services such as the suppression of pest insects by birds and bats. However, effects of biocontrol services on tropical cash crop yield are still largely unknown. For the first time, we manipulated the access of birds and bats in an exclosure experiment (day, night and full exclosures compared to open controls in Indonesian cacao agroforestry) and quantified the arthropod communities, the fruit development and the final yield over a long time period (15 months). We found that bat and bird exclusion increased insect herbivore abundance, despite the concurrent release of mesopredators such as ants and spiders, and negatively affected fruit development, with final crop yield decreasing by 31% across local (shade cover) and landscape (distance to primary forest) gradients. Our results highlight the tremendous economic impact of common insectivorous birds and bats, which need to become an essential part of sustainable landscape management.
262 citations
University of Würzburg1, National University of Comahue2, Spanish National Research Council3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, Universidade Federal de Goiás5, University of Lisbon6, Stanford University7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, National University of Río Negro9, ETH Zurich10, Cornell University11, University of California, Davis12, The Nature Conservancy13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University of British Columbia15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, University of California, Berkeley17, University of Padua18, University of New England (United States)19, Lund University20, University of Göttingen21, Institut national de la recherche agronomique22, University of La Rochelle23, Federal University of Ceará24, Concordia University Wisconsin25, University of Belgrade26, National University of Tucumán27, Michigan State University28, University of Brasília29, University of Greenwich30, University of Reading31, University of Wisconsin-Madison32, Boise State University33, University of Texas at Austin34, University of Haifa35, Kansas State University36, University of Freiburg37, University of Hamburg38, University of California, Santa Barbara39, Seattle University40, University of Vienna41, University of Florida42, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza43, National Audubon Society44, University of Buenos Aires45, Virginia Tech46, University of Bordeaux47, University of Auckland48, University College Dublin49, Trinity College, Dublin50, University of Tokyo51, Federal University of Bahia52, Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)53, National Institute for Environmental Studies54, International Food Policy Research Institute55, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University56
TL;DR: Using a global database from 89 crop systems, the relative importance of abundance and species richness for pollination, biological pest control and final yields in the context of on-going land-use change is partitioned.
Abstract: Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by few abundant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 crop systems, we partition the relative importance of abundance and species richness for pollination, biological pest control and final yields in the context of on-going land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services independent of abundance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.
237 citations
Cited by
More filters
University of Göttingen1, University of Canterbury2, Agricultural Research Service3, University of Western Australia4, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation5, Carleton University6, Eötvös Loránd University7, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences8, Miami University9, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ10, Imperial College London11, University of Florida12, University of Würzburg13, Lüneburg University14, University of California, Berkeley15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, James Cook University17, Australian National University18, National University of Singapore19, Wageningen University and Research Centre20
TL;DR: This review uses knowledge gained from human‐modified landscapes to suggest eight hypotheses, which it hopes will encourage more systematic research on the role of landscape composition and configuration in determining the structure of ecological communities, ecosystem functioning and services.
Abstract: Understanding how landscape characteristics affect biodiversity patterns and ecological processes at local and landscape scales is critical for mitigating effects of global environmental change. In this review, we use knowledge gained from human-modified landscapes to suggest eight hypotheses, which we hope will encourage more systematic research on
1,513 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the true value of functional biodiversity on the farm is often inadequately acknowledged or understood, while conventional intensification tends to disrupt beneficial functions of biodiversity.
1,463 citations
01 Jan 2012
1,255 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Changes in ecosystems complexity- functioning relationships could diminish the stability, resistance and resilience of managed terrestrial ecosystems, and may jeopardize important food and fibre sources, and ability of natural ecosystems both to provide natural resources, and to remove pollutants from atmosphere.
Abstract: Over the past 50 years, humans have altered their environment to a significant extent, although human well-being is dependent on ecosystem functioning. Ecosystems are particularly affected by unsustainable use of resources, such as, food, water, and timber. Ecosystem functions depend on water, carbon, and other nutrients cycles. Human activities have modified these cycles in a number of way. Use of ecosystems for recreation, spiritual enrichment, cultural purposes, and for other short term benefits is growing continuously, although ecosystem capacity to provide such services has reported to be declined significantly. Human well-being depends on material welfare, health, good social relations, security and freedom, which are affected by changes in ecosystem services. Intensive ecosystem use often produces short-term advantage. Poverty level remains high in more than one billion people, who are dependent on ecosystems with an income of less than $1 per day as reported elsewhere. Regions including some parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America have the greatest ecosystemrelated problems and are facing developmental challenges. Habitat change occurs, for instance, when the area of land used for agriculture or cities is expanded. Instability and unproductivity including desertification, water logging, mineralization and many other unwanted outcomes throughout the world are continuing. Habitat fragmentation by roads, canals, power lines limits the species potential for dispersal and colonization. Indirect drivers, like changes in human population, economic activity and technology as well as socio-political and cultural factors affect ecosystems by influencing direct drivers. World climate has changed and continues to change, affecting temperature, rainfall and sea levels. Intensive fertilizer use has polluted ecosystems. Climate change and high nutrient levels in water are becoming increasing problems. Ecosystem management for shortterm benefits is increasing. Loss of biodiversity makes it difficult for ecosystems to recover from damage. Once an ecosystem has undergone an abrupt change, recovery to the original state is slow, costly, and sometimes impossible. Changes in ecosystems complexity- functioning relationships could diminish the stability, resistance and resilience of managed terrestrial ecosystems, and may jeopardize important food and fibre sources, and ability of natural ecosystems both to provide natural resources, and to remove pollutants from atmosphere. Ecological complexity and ecosystem functioning depend on factors that govern species coexistence. Complexity of landscapes is determined by number of ecosystem types, their characteristics, their sizes and shapes, and associated connectivity. Complexity at this scale would have large consequences on regional to global scale processes. Presence and arrangement of keystone ecosystem types, such as, wetlands often determine total carbon and nitrogen balance of a region. Changes in average or extreme environmental events and intense land use management are believed to increase species extinction rate in isolated habitat fragments. Loss of key species, such as, top predators, fruit dispersers and pollinators from habitat may severely disrupt ecosystems functioning. Land use changes due to expanding urbanization, concomitant landscape fragmentation and intensification of production systems. Such change results in transformation of an ecosystem, form one state to another state, via a transition phase. The combined value of 17 ecosystem services has been reported in the estimated range of US$16-54 trillion per year by Costanza and others. About 30% of modern medicines are developed from plants and animals, and 10 of the world's 25 topselling drugs in 1997 were reported to be derived from natural sources. Global market value of pharmaceuticals derived from genetic resources is estimated at US $ 75 000-150 000 million annually. Some 75% of the world's populations rely for health care on traditional medicines, which are derived directly from natural sources as recorded elsewhere. Socio-economic development of human civilization and human well-being depends on long-term health of environment including ecosystems. Environmental problems are generally addressed in isolation, but practically such problems are interrelated, and originate from the root cause of unsustainable development. Damage to natural ecosystems and release of environmental pollutants must be minimized for protecting natural ecosystem, and human well-being.
559 citations
University of Würzburg1, National University of Comahue2, Spanish National Research Council3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, University of Lisbon5, Universidade Federal de Goiás6, Stanford University7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, National University of Río Negro9, ETH Zurich10, Cornell University11, University of California, Davis12, The Nature Conservancy13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University of British Columbia15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, University of California, Santa Cruz17, University of Padua18, University of New England (Australia)19, Lund University20, University of Göttingen21, Institut national de la recherche agronomique22, University of La Rochelle23, Federal University of Ceará24, University of Freiburg25, Concordia University Wisconsin26, University of Belgrade27, National University of Tucumán28, Michigan State University29, University of Brasília30, University of Greenwich31, University of Reading32, University of Wisconsin-Madison33, National Institute of Amazonian Research34, Boise State University35, University of Texas at Austin36, University of Haifa37, Kansas State University38, University of Hamburg39, Bioversity International40, University of California, Santa Barbara41, Seattle University42, University of Vienna43, University of Florida44, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza45, National Audubon Society46, University of Buenos Aires47, Virginia Tech48, University of Bordeaux49, University of Auckland50, University of California, Berkeley51, University College Dublin52, Trinity College, Dublin53, University of Tokyo54, Federal University of Bahia55, Lincoln University (New Zealand)56, National Institute for Environmental Studies57, International Food Policy Research Institute58, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University59
TL;DR: Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change is partitioned.
Abstract: Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.
434 citations