Introduction

Agro–ecosystems cover the majority of non–urbanized areas in Europe, so they are a prerequisite for conservation of a significant part of European biodiversity. Agricultural landscape has changed dramatically during second half of the 20th century, in the post–Second World War period as a consequence of increased input of pesticides and fertilizers, and the introduction of crop monoculture. Originally diverse and highly structured landscapes have been converted into uniform areas consisting of intensively used units. Biodiversity of agro–ecosystems in comparison to natural ecosystems has decreased. Management intensification was one of the main sources of biological simplification of the environment. During the long history of agriculture, numerous species have adapted to the high level of disturbances, uniformity and widespread form of land use (Schweiger et al. 2005, Hendrickx et al. 2007). The level of biodiversity in agro–ecosystems depends on vegetation cover, crop rotation, management intensity, adjacent cropland, as well as ecosystem isolation from communities of wild–living species. In highly disturbed environments, abundance and diversity of soil organisms on particular trophic levels has decreased, the food chain is simplifying (Lazzerini et al. 2007, Ivask et al. 2008). Environment quality can be assessed using model organisms. One of the most important fauna groups used for ecological and applied agricultural research are beetles of the Carabidae family. Ground beetles are equally used as bioindicators of environment and space structure changes. One of the reasons for this is their ability to reflect biotic and abiotic environmental conditions, ecological sustainability and ecosystem health, as well as consequences of management system and human disturbances (Rainio & Niemela 2003, Avgin & Luff 2010).

Occurrence of ground beetle on arable have been studied in connection to different factors. Porhajašová et al. (2004) and Vician et al. (2007) assessed the diversity of the Carabidae community in different farming systems. Ecological farming systems seem to support beetle diversity more than conventional systems, although after Porhajašová et al. (2004) both farming systems are able to provide the same suitable environmental and trophic conditions. Research of organic matter input in the form of bio–sludge confirmed its positive effect on present edaphon and beetles (Porhajašová et al. 2008). The presence, number of species, specimens and diversity of ground beetles in agro–ecosystems are linked with the number of composite relationships between structure of vegetation, crop amount, quantity and quality of agricultural applications, unity and interaction of ecological factors (Porhajašová et al. 2004, Varvara & Apostol 2008). Clearly, there does not exist just one factor alone which could significantly change the composition of the ground beetle community. Carabidae coenoses were monitored in the field with different crops, also the same as in this study, in wheat fields by Bukejs & Balalaikins (2008), in potato fields by Bukejs (2009). Varvara & Apostol (2008) focused on ecological requirements of epigeal ground beetles in sunflower fields. Loevei (1984) compared species composition, active density, seasonality, diversity and similarity of carabid communities among monoculture and crop–rotated maize fields, Haschek et al. (2011) in winter oilseed rape fields. In above mentioned researches, Poecilus cupreus (Linnaeus, 1758), Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798) and Pseudoophonus rufipes (De Geer, 1774) were determined as dominant species, which could indicate, that effect of crop type on the composition of the Carabidae community is merely very low.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the structure of the ground beetle community on arable land with different crops and asses the potential influence of different crop types on its diversity within wider research of anthropic habitats of agricultural landscape. 

Material and Methods

Study sites characteristics

Ground beetles were collected during the growing seasons 2010 and 2011 consequently on five sites of agricultural land in urban and suburban zones of the town of Prešov and Veľký Šariš in eastern Slovakia (Figure 1). The area belongs to the Košická basin and the Spišsko–Šarišské intermontane. Soil conditions are heterogeneous, with occurrence of heavy deep brown pseudogley soils, regosols, fluvisols and cambisols. The climate is warm, mildly humid, with cold winters, typical for upland and hilly country. The average annual rainfall amount is 630 mm. Short characteristic of study sites is introduced in Table 1.

Sampling method and material processing

The material of ground beetles was collected using pitfall trapping. As traps, two white plastic cups inserted into each other with 0.5 L volume, height of 150 and opening diameter 90 mm were used, equipped by protective wooden roof. As the preservative liquid 4 % water solution of formaldehyde with addition of drop of detergent was used. Traps were filled–up approximately one third of volume. Three traps were placed in each site, 15 traps in total. Traps were placed in a line with 25 metres spacing and if possible, located 50 metres from the edge of habitat to exclude the ecotone effect. Traps were placed from May till October, exposed from May till July, September till October. Traps were picked up in two till four weeks period, at least once per month. The captured Carabidae family beetles were identified up to species level according to Hůrka (1996). The documentary material is deposited with the first author. Because of some traps were damaged by ploughing, the epigeic activity was calculated for particular Carabidae species. The epigeic activity was counted as a ratio of number of entrapped specimens per number of exposed traps for every pick up of traps, then as a total sum of partial data for entire researched period. Obtained data were used to asses diversity, equitability and similarity of ground beetles communities. To asses community diversity and equitability Shannon_H, Dominance_D and Equitability_J indexes were used (Hammer et al. 2001). To determine Carabidae community structure, species constancy and dominance (relative abundance) (Losos et al. 1984), than the ratio of dominance and constancy groups were determined. Following Hůrka (1996), the ground beetle species were determined to groups according their geographical distribution, wing morphology and habitats preferences. For biological site evaluation and site quality comparing Carabidae species were classified into relict classes by Hůrka et al. (1996), than the ratio of relict classes for particular communities and indexes of anthropogenical site disturbance according to Boháč (in Frydrych et al. 2007) were determined. To set Carabidae species community structure identity within sites, Renkonen index of dominance identity were used (Losos et al. 1984). To asses Carabidae communities species distinction of particular sites and so the potential effect of different crop type on Carabidae community composition, Jaccard index was counted (Losos et al. 1984), than the Kolmogorov–Smirnof test, the hierarchical cluster analysis by Ward, diversities comparison and SIMPER analysis were used too (Hammer et al. 2001). 

Table 1. Study Sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš – short characteristics.

Figure 1. Geographic position of study sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

By the regular sampling of ground beetles during the growing seasons 2010 and 2011 from arable land with different crops on five sites of agricultural land in urban and suburban zones of Prešov and Veľký Šariš in eastern Slovakia there were entrapped all together 10 459 ground beetle specimens, the lowest number within Site 5, the highest within Site 1. All together there were determined 68 species of family Carabidae, the lowest number, 27 for Site 3, the highest, 41 for Site 4. The highest number of specimens was entrapped at Site 1, however, the community showed the lowest diversity and equitability and the highest value of dominance index (Table 2). In contrast, the community at Site 3, where the lowest number of species and second lowest number of specimens was entrapped showed the highest level of diversity and equitability and the lowest value of dominance index. The list of found species for particular sites is introduced in Table 3. To avoid the so–called losing of traps in the field and damage to them caused by ploughing, on Sites 3 and 5, where they were present, traps were placed in very close proximity of electric pylons. Because of practical reasons, ploughing could not be provided near the bottom of the pylons. So there remain a small a–spots with proved vegetation, which could represent a valuable microhabitat with diversified soil macrofauna community, mainly its detritofagous branch (Baranová & Fazekašová 2012), which is represented on arable land in very small numbers or is completely absent (Baranová & Fazekašová 2011). Simultaneously, with increasing number and abundance of orders other than Coleoptera, the number of beetle specimens decreased and community became more diversified and with higher equitability. That´s probably why communities from Sites 3 and 5 shoved the highest measure of diversity and equitability.

Table 2. Number of sampled species and specimens for particular sites, indexes values of Carabidae communities on study sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš town, years 2010, 2011.

Table 3. List of Carabidae species sampled on study sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš town, years 2010, 2011, activity per trap.

As a dominant species for Carabidae communities for all study sites, Poecilus cupreus (Linnaeus, 1758), Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798) and Pseudoophonus rufipes (De Geer, 1774) were determined, which is in accordance with the results of several authors, for example, Rivard (1966), Loevei (1984), Porhajašová et al. (2004), Bukejs & Balalaikins (2008).

The summary value of relative abundance of P. cupreus achieved 37,9 % at all, which represented one third of the entire entrapped specimens. P. cupreus was determined as a eudominant species of open sites and different agrocoenosis by several authors (Bukejs 2009). A relative summary abundance higher than 2 % was also achieved by the species Anchomenus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763), Brachinus crepitans (Linnaeus, 1758), Carabus cancellatus (Illiger, 1798), C. granulatus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Harpalus affinis (Schrank, 1781).

According to dominance, most of species represented in particular communities were subrecedent (Table 4), concerning constancy, communities were dominated by accidental species (Table 5). In general, the ground beetle community of arable land shows typical structure. It could by characterized as consisting of a low number of euconstant species with dominant and eudominant representation, represented by a high number of specimens and their activity per trap. On the other hand, in the community, additional, accidentally occurring species with subdominant, recedent until subrecedent representation prevailed, represented by a low number of specimens and their activity per trap. Such an unequal redistribution of dominance and constancy is grounds for low diversity and equitability of the arable land ground beetle community.

Table 4. Ratio of classes of dominance of Carabidae communities on study sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš town, years 2010, 2011.

With reference to geographical distribution, a large majority of species was Palearctic and West Palearctic (Hůrka 1996), what corresponds with results obtained by Varvara & Apostol (2008). Concerning wing morphology, most of the present species were macropterous, what could be explained through that species pervasion into strongly disturbed ecosystems is affected by their flying ability (Šustek 1981). Consequently with the increasing of human disturbances, a number of big, micro and brachypterous specialists decreases. A number of small species with big disperse ability increase, because they are more mobile and so able to occupy unstable, temporary habitats (Rainio & Niemela 2003). Species of open habitats without obscuration were mostly represented (Hůrka 1996), what correspond with the environment characteristic of study type of habitat.

Regarding relict classes, more than 64 % of the entire determined species represented E relict class, which means species without special environmental character and quality requirements, inhabit unstable, changing habitats and anthropogenically affected, damaged land (Hůrka et al. 1996) reflected also by high values of index of anthropogenic site disturbance (Table 6) approaching to critical value 1. Occurrence of R class species was recorded only within two communities, Abax schueppeli rendschmidti (Germar, 1839), endemic species of Carpathian curve within Site 4 and Aptinus bombarda (Illiger, 1800) within Site 5. Low number of R class species recorded corresponds with Šustek (1981), Eversham et al. (1996) and Porhajašová et al. (2004) ascertaining, that the Carabidae community in most intensively used agricultural landscape consists of eurytopic, nonspecific species and that with increasing human disturbances the number of species with narrow occurrence range, high ecological specialization and low ecological valency decreases. Arable land could be found as degraded environment with very small or no contribution to ecological land stability (Hůrka et al. 1996). Accordingly, just as interesting was finding of Dolichus halensis (Schaller, 1783). The species is characterized as an exclusive field species, the population of which is, after a decrease in agricultural chemicalisation intensity again in restoration.

Table 5. Ratio of classes of constancy of Carabidae communities on study sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš town, years 2010, 2011.

Table 6. Ratio of Carabidae species relict classes representation, values of index of anthropogenic site disturbance.

Communities from all study sites, in spite of different type of crop showed the same structure, confirmed by Renkonen index of dominance identity (Table 7). Values of Jaccard index (Table 8) same as cluster analysis (Figure 2) show distinctness in species community composition of the study sites. Anyway, at each site and so in spite of different crop types, there were the same dominant species determined, namely Poecilus cupreus, Pterostichus melanarius and Pseudoophonus rufipes. This is with accordance with conclusion of Rivard (1966), that the variant occurrence of ground beetles between sites with different crops is not necessarily related to the kind of crop, which is an opinion shared by observations by Cárcamo et al. (1995), that ground beetle abundance and species richness is not affected by crop type. The measure of distinctness assigned by the Kolmogorov–Smirnof test did not show significant distinctness between particular communities. Accordingly, the measure of distinctness according to cluster analysis, the third lowest values of Jaccard index and the statistically significant distinctness (> 0.001) between almost all evaluating indexes (diversities comparison) was ascertained for sites 1 and 5, then for fields with the same crop type (sunflower), whereby the distinctness between the fields with the different crop were the smaller. Same the SIMPER analysis confirmed the huge distinctness of activity per trap of the three dominant species, Poecilus cupreus, Pterostichus melanarius and Pseudoophonus rufipes for sites 1 and 5. Variation of entrapped specimen numbers in study fields with different crops could be explained by the nature of the crop, which, after, Rivard (1966), in coincidence with humidity, influences beetle specimen numbers. Contrary, at variance with this conclusion of Rivard (1966), in this research, the biggest distinctness among entrapped numbers of specimens was between Site 1 and Site 5 with the same crop type. On the base of Site 1 and Site 5 character comparison, distinctness in ground beetle communities seems to depend more on land structure heterogeneity as, for example, variety of adjacent habitats as well as ecosystem isolation from communities of wild–living species (Lazzerini et al. 2007, Ivask et al. 2008). Whereas, on Site 1, only harvested meadows and other crop fields were adjacent to the study sunflower field, on Site 5, besides non–harvested meadows, forest, as well as shrubs and illegal waste dump were presented. The entire extent of arable land, placing traps within fields and so their distance from adjacent habitats could affect community composition, because with increasing distance from adjacent semi–natural habitats, species number within arable land decreases and dominance ratio changes to account for one species (Fournier et al. 1998), the density and number of taxa decreases too (Olechowicz 2007). Distinctness could also result from vegetation structure associated with differences in agronomic practices (Cárcamo et al. 1994). Traps placing close to the bottom of a pylon could also play an important role as previously mentioned. Consequently, distinctness between sites results from different community composition on the level of additional, accidentally occurring species with subdominant, recedent until subrecedent representation. That was confirmed also by SIMPER analysis showing that the three dominant species, Poecilus cupreus, Pterostichus melanarius and Pseudoophonus rufipes cause the 77 % of communities distinctions. The presence of additional, accidentally occurring species with subdominant, recedent until subrecedent representation probably mostly depends on local site environmental conditions in a particular year. Species composition on these level in fields with the same crop type as confirmed by Jones (1979) could also vary during the years. Furthermore, determined dominant species Pterostichus melanarius and Pseudoophonus rufipes reproduce in the spring, the same as the most of the Carabidae species found in agrocoenosis (Varvara & Apostol 2008), so their future occurrence in the following season cold not be accordingly affected by crop type. Overall, a significant effect of crop type on the ground beetle community species composition could not be confirmed by this research.

Figure 2. Carabidae communities cluster analysis diagram.

Table 7. Values of Renkonen index of dominance identity of Carabidae communities on study sites in urban and suburban zone of Prešov and Veľký Šariš town, years 2010, 2011.

Table 8. Carabidae communities Jaccard species identity index.

On the basis of result processing and evaluating, it could be concluded that there is merely a low number of species without special requirements to environmental conditions, able to survive and permanently inhabit arable land in spite of high anthropogenic disturbances. The community is dominated by eurytopic species of open habitats without obscuration. Concerning its structure, a typical ground beetle community of arable land consists of a small number of dominant species represented by a high number of specimens. On the other hand, the community is dominated by accidental, subdominant species represented by a small number of specimens. The community is characterised by low diversity and equitability. A significant effect of crop type on ground beetle community composition variation was not confirmed. Because of high disturbances and anthropogenic actions intensity, arable land could be found as degraded environment with low contribution to ecological land stability. In connection to world–wide arable land extension, the impact of agriculture on soil fauna biodiversity could be considered serious.  

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by VEGA 1/0601/08.

References

Avgin SS & Luff M L, 2010: Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators of human impact. Munis Entomology & Zoology, 5 (1): 209–215.

Baranová B & Fazekašová D, 2011: Diversity of epigeal macrofauna of non–productive parts of agroecosystems. Folia Oecologica, 53 (5): 18–30.

Baranová B & Fazekašová D, 2012: Čo zvyšuje biodiverzitu poľnohospodárskej krajiny. In: Bryja J, Albrechtová J & Tkadlec E (Eds): Sborník abstraktů z konference Zoologické dny Olomouc 2012. 9.–10. února 2012, Olomouc. Ústav biologie obratlovců AV ČR, v. v. i., Brno. pp. 24.

Bukejs A & Balalaikins M, 2008: Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of wheat agrocenosis in Latvia. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 18 (2): 134–138.

Bukejs A, 2009: Complex of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of potato field agrocenosis in eastern Latvia. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 19 (3): 216–222.

Cárcamo HA & Spence JR, 1994: Crop Type Effects on the Activity and Distribution of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Environmental Entomology, 23 (3): 684–692.

Cárcamo HA, Niemelä JK & Spence JR, 1995: Farming and ground beetles: effect of agronomic practice on populations and community structure. In The Canadian Entomologist, 127 (1): 123–140.

Eversham BC, Roy DB & Telfer MG, 1996: Urban, industrial and otther manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for Carabidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 33 (1): 149–156.

Fournier E, Loreau M & Havet P, 1998: Effects of new agricultural management practises on the structure and diversity of ground–beetle communities (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Gibier Faune Sauvage, Game Wildlife, 15 (Special Issue, Part 1): 43–53.

Hammer O, Harper DAT & Ryan PD, 2001: PAST: Palaeontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4 (1): 9. PAST version 1.87b.

Haschek C, Drapela T, Schuller N, Fiedler K & Frank T, 2011: Carabid beetle condition, reproduction and density in winter oilseed rape affected by field and landscape parameters. Journal of Applied Entomology, doi: 10.1111/j.1439–0418.2011.01694.x

Hendrickx F, Maelfait JP, Van Wingerden W, Shweiger O, Speelmans M, Aviron S, Augenstein I, Billeter R, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, DiekÖtter T, Dirksen J, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M, Van domme V & Bugter R, 2007: How landscape structure, land use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44: 340–351.

Hůrka K, Veselý P & Farkač J, 1996: Využití střevlíkovitých (Coleoptera: Carabidae) k indikaci kvality prostředí. Klapalekiana, 32: 15–26.

Hůrka K, 1996: Carabidae České a Slovenské republiky. Ilustrovaný klíč. Vydavatelství Kabourek, Zlín, 565 pp.

Ivask M, Kuu S, Meriste M, Truu J, Truu M & Vaater V, 2008: Invertebrate communities (Annelida and epigeic fauna) in three types of Estonian cultivated soils. European Journal of Soil Biology, 44 (5–6): 532–540.

Jones M G, 1979: The abundance and reproductive activity of common Carabidae in a winter wheat crop. Ecological Entomology, 4: 31–43.

Lazzerini G, Camera A, Benedettelli S & Vazzana C, 2007: The role of field margins in agro–biodiversity management at the farm level. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 2: 127–134.

Loevei GL, 1984: Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in two types of maize fields in Hungary. Pedobiologia, 26 (1): 57–64.

Losos B, Gulička J, Lellák J & Pelikán J, 1984. Ekologie živočichů. SPN Praha, 316 pp.

Olechowicz E, 2007: Soil and litter macrofauna in shelterbelts and in adjacent croplands: changes in community structure after tree planting. Polish Journal of Ecology, 55 (4): 647–664.

Porhajašová J, Petřvalský V, Macák M, Urminská J & Ondrišík P, 2008: Zastúpenie druhov čeľade Carabidae (Coleoptera) v závislosti od vstupov organickej hmoty. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 9 (3): 57–66.

Porhajašová J, Petřvalský V, Peterková V & Urminská J, 2004: Vplyv agronomických praktík na výskyt populácie bystruškovitých (Carabidae, Coleoptera). Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica, 7 (1): 24–27.

Rainio J & Niemelä J, 2003: Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 487–506.

Rivard I, 1966: Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: carabidae) in Relation to Agricultural Crops. The Canadian Entomologist, 98 (2): 189–195.

Schweiger O, Maelfait JP, Van Wingerden W, Hendrickx F, Billeter R, Speelmans M, Augenstein I, Aukema B, Aviron S, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, DiekÖtter T, Dirksen J, Frenzel M, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M & Bugter R, 2005: Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42: 1129–1139.

Šustek Z, 1981: Některé souvislosti geografického rozšíření strěvlíkovitých (Col. Carabidae) a jejich schopnost pronikat do ekosystému urbanizované krajiny. Zprávy Geografického ústavu ČSAV, 18 (1): 30–40.

Varvara M & Apostol E, 2008: Diversity and the main ecological requirements of the epigeic species of Carabidae (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the sun flower ecosystem, Broscuţi (Botoşani county). Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, s. Biologie animală, Tom 54.

Vician V, Stašiov S, Kočík K & Hazuchová L, 2007: Štruktúra chrobákov (Coleoptera, Carabidae) na rôzne obhospodarovaných poľnohospodárskych plochách. In: Daniš D (ed.): Zborník vedeckých prác spracovaných v nadväznosti na grant VEGA č. 1/2379/05 „Vplyv foriem obhospodarovania poľnohospodárskej krajiny na základné zložky agroekosystémov vo vzťahu k optimalizácii využívania krajiny“, p. 67.