Monitoring arthropod diversity in
Douro Wine Region vineyards
Alexis Rataux, Cristina Carlos, Fátima Gonçalves, José Aranha,
Josépha Guenser, Fernando Alves, Maarten Van Helden
Why the interest about Biodiversity in DWR?
Ex. Quinta das Carvalhas
20% scrubland
(42% of the surface with scrubland)
• Growers
researchers
are concerned
in understanding
they
Alto
Douroand
Vinhateiro
(ADV)
– 10% of the
Douro Winehow
Region
couldHa
improve the presence of natural enemies in cultivated
landscapes
24960
250
000 ha
13% olive groves
• IOBC guidelines: the presence of Ecological Compensation Areas (ECA)
must cover at least 5 % of the total farm surface (excluding
39% vineyards
forest)
• UNESCO designated Alto Douro Vinhateiro (ADV) area has legally
protected landscapes and contains a significant area of non-crop
habitats (e.g. woodland remnants, grassy slopes, or terraces with
natural vegetation and dry stone walls).
BIODIVINE – main goals
•
To understand the impact of the lanscape on biodiversity
(in particular of some semi-natural elements left in the
countryside such as hedges, groves, scrubland)
•
To understand how the presence of those elements nearby the
vineyards can enhance the presence of arthropods?
1- Scrubland
Material & methods
2- Vineyard
• Characterization of the landscape by GIS
5 different classes of land use (5 habitats), replicated 5 times
3- Olive groves, 4- olives hedges
5- Urban
Experimental Sites
• 25 points monitorized in 5 pilot farms (500 ha) located in the ADV area
(S. Luíz, Seixo/Bateiras, Carvalhas & Ventozelo)
Material
2
types of&Traps
methods
in each point (5 / habitat)
10 weeks of assessment (April-June)
Combi trap
Pitfall trap
Classification of arthropods by RBA method
Results
Buffer’s radius (m)
Habitats (%):
Dirt roads
Olive hedges
Olive groves
Riparian forest
River
Sealed roads
Scrubland
Urban sites
Vineyards
50
6,66
1,58
15,53
1,81
0,30
2,62
23,80
6,97
39,13
100
6,48
1,21
10,42
1,36
2,01
2,07
25,85
4,90
44,03
Buffer’s radius (m)
Global surface (ha)
Interstitial space (ha)
Interstitial space (%)
Shannon W. Index for landscape
50
0,59
0,01
2%
0,64
150
6,35
1,09
8,15
1,06
3,33
1,74
24,87
2,70
49,07
200
5,88
0,95
6,38
0,96
4,61
1,44
23,13
1,92
53,19
100 150 200
2,36 5,32 9,47
0,04 0,09 0,15
2%
2% 2%
0,87 0,97 1,01
Impact of the lanscape in some natural enemies
Ripys.
Scrub
Olive
hedge
vines
Urban
Olive
groves
Shannon
W. Index
Spiders
/-
/
-
/
-
-
---
Coccinellidae
/
/-
/
/
++
-+-
+
++
+
++
Staphylinid
/
/-
/
/-
/
++
++
+
+
++
Opilion
/
/
/
/
/
+
/
/ - non sign.; + - sig. (0,05); ++ - sig. (0,01);
Results
52187 indiv. , 27 orders identified, 5 classes of Arthropoda
Abundance
%
Richness
%
Total
52187
-
789
-
Combi
46859
89,7
703
89,1
Pitfall
5328
10,2
316
40,1
Abundance
Others
13%
Hymenopte
ra
15%
Diptera
20%
90%
Richness
Others Araneae
3%
3%
Hemiptera
13%
10%
Coleoptera
46%
Araneae
8%
Coleoptera
25%
Hymenopter
a
22%
Hemiptera
19%
Diptera
13%
Analysis of Order by habitat
Combi trap
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera
Hymenoptera, Spiders
Olive hedges Urban sites
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
Scrubland Olive groves
100%
Hymenoptera Araneae
Diptera
Lepidoptera
Others
Pitfall trap
Vineyard
80%
60%
Order distribution were different among
habitats for both Combi- and Pitfall traps
40%
20%
0%
Olive hedges Urban sites
Coleoptera
Centipeda
Hemiptera
Opilion
Vineyard
Scrubland Olive groves
Hymenoptera
Others
Araneae
Impact of the habitat on the abundance
Abundance
Combi
Olive Hedges
7523
Scrubland
12846
Urban
10893
Olive groves
7991
Vineyard
7606
46859
Habitat
Abundance
Pitfall
1135
756
1114
931
1392
5328
%
16,1
27,4
23,2
17,1
16,2
%
21,3
14,2
20,9
17,5
26,1
Global
Abundance
8658
13602
12007
8922
8998
52187
%
16,6
26,1
23,0
17,1
17,2
a
Scrubland habitat attracted more indiv.
than vineyard or olive hedges
ab
bc
Scrubland
Urban
c
c
Olive groves Vineyard Olive hedges
Impact of the habitat on Richness
Richness / habitat
100%
90%
a
80%
ab
70%
abc
68%
60%
60%
64%
67%
bc
63%
a
50%
c
a
40%
a
a
a
30%
ab
bc
bc
20%
c
10%
a
ab
bc
b
c bc
0%
haie: 473 urbain: 536 vigne: 507 maquis: 527 verger: 494
Olive groves Olive hedges
Urban
Vines
Scrubland
For arthropods’ richness, the statistical tests did not show any significant differences.
The impact of the habitat in each order must be analyzed separately
Discussion – 1st year data
• The impact that scrubland and olive groves could have on biodiversity around
vineyards and in particular in some orders and families of Arthropoda
Thank you for your atention!