Enhancing flowering plant functional richness improves wild bee diversity in vineyard inter-rows in different floral kingdoms.

Wild bees are threatened by multiple interacting stressors, such as habitat loss, land use change, parasites, and pathogens. However, vineyards with vegetated inter-rows can offer high floral resources within viticultural landscapes and provide foraging and nesting habitats for wild bees. Here, we assess how vineyard management regimes (organic vs. conventional; inter-row vegetation management) and landscape composition determine the inter-row plant and wild bee assemblages, as well as how these variables relate to functional traits in 24 Austrian and 10 South African vineyards. Vineyards had either permanent vegetation cover in untilled inter-rows or temporary vegetation cover in infrequently tilled inter-rows. Proportion of seminatural habitats (e.g., fallows, grassland, field margins) and woody structures (e.g., woodlots, single trees, tree rows) were used as proxies for landscape composition and mapped within 500-m radius around the study vineyards. Organic vineyard management increased functional richness (FRic) of wild bees and flowering plants, with woody structures marginally increasing species richness and FRic of wild bees. Wild bee and floral traits were differently associated across the countries. In Austria, several bee traits (e.g., lecty, pollen collection type, proboscis length) were associated with flower color and symmetry, while in South African vineyards, only bees' proboscis length was positively correlated with floral traits characteristic of Asteraceae flowers (e.g., ray-disk morphology, yellow colors). Solitary bee species in Austria benefitted from infrequent tillage, while ground nesting species preferred inter-rows with undisturbed soils. Higher proportions of woody structures in surrounding landscapes resulted in less solitary and corbiculate bees in Austria, but more aboveground nesting species in South Africa. In both countries, associations between FRic of wild bees and flowering plants were positive both in organic and in conventional vineyards. We recommend the use of diverse cover crop seed mixtures to enhance plant flowering diversity in inter-rows, to increase wild bee richness in viticultural landscapes.

Effects of vineyard inter-row management on the diversity and abundance of plants and surface-dwelling invertebrates in Central Romania.

Vineyard inter-rows are important biodiversity hotspots within agricultural landscapes, especially when they are covered with vegetation. However, little is known on the effects to management intensity on a broad range of surface-dwelling invertebrates and their interaction with vegetation. We assessed the diversity and activity density of ants, beetles, millipedes, mites, spiders, springtails and woodlice using pitfall traps in vineyards with either high management intensity (HI) consisting of frequently tilled inter-rows or low management intensity (LO) with alternating tillage in every second inter-row. The study was performed in the Târnave wine region in Central Romania. We wanted to know whether, (i) vineyard management intensity affects the diversity of plants and invertebrates, and (ii) local habitat characteristics affect species richness of different functional guilds and taxa. Species richness of some invertebrate taxa (Coleoptera, Araneae, Formicidae) did significantly differ between HI and LO vineyards. Only phytophages (some Coleoptera) increased in species richness and activity density with vegetation cover. Vineyard soil properties (organic matter content, pH, P, and K) did not significantly differ between HI and LO vineyards. We conclude that vineyard inter-row management can affect both the conservation of biodiversity and the provision of biodiversity-driven ecosystem services.

Response of wild bee diversity, abundance, and functional traits to vineyard inter-row management intensity and landscape diversity across Europe.

Agricultural intensification is a major driver of wild bee decline. Vineyards may be inhabited by plant and animal species, especially when the inter-row space is vegetated with spontaneous vegetation or cover crops. Wild bees depend on floral resources and suitable nesting sites which may be found in vineyard inter-rows or in viticultural landscapes. Inter-row vegetation is managed by mulching, tillage, and/or herbicide application and results in habitat degradation when applied intensively. Here, we hypothesize that lower vegetation management intensities, higher floral resources, and landscape diversity affect wild bee diversity and abundance dependent on their functional traits. We sampled wild bees semi-quantitatively in 63 vineyards representing different vegetation management intensities across Europe in 2016. A proxy for floral resource availability was based on visual flower cover estimations. Management intensity was assessed by vegetation cover (%) twice a year per vineyard. The Shannon Landscape Diversity Index was used as a proxy for landscape diversity within a 750 m radius around each vineyard center point. Wild bee communities were clustered by country. At the country level, between 20 and 64 wild bee species were identified. Increased floral resource availability and extensive vegetation management both affected wild bee diversity and abundance in vineyards strongly positively. Increased landscape diversity had a small positive effect on wild bee diversity but compensated for the negative effect of low floral resource availability by increasing eusocial bee abundance. We conclude that wild bee diversity and abundance in vineyards is efficiently promoted by increasing floral resources and reducing vegetation management frequency. High landscape diversity further compensates for low floral resources in vineyards and increases pollinating insect abundance in viticulture landscapes.

Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis.

At the global scale, vineyards are usually managed intensively to optimize wine production without considering possible negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) such as high soil erosion rates, degradation of soil fertility or contamination of groundwater. Winegrowers regulate competition for water and nutrients between the vines and inter-row vegetation by tilling, mulching and/or herbicide application. Strategies for more sustainable viticulture recommend maintaining vegetation cover in inter-rows, however, there is a lack of knowledge as to what extent this less intensive inter-row management affects biodiversity and associated ES.We performed a hierarchical meta-analysis to quantify the effects of extensive vineyard inter-row vegetation management in comparison to more intensive management (like soil tillage or herbicide use) on biodiversity and ES from 74 studies covering four continents and 13 wine-producing countries.Overall, extensive vegetation management increased above- and below-ground biodiversity and ecosystem service provision by 20% in comparison to intensive management. Organic management together with management without herbicides showed a stronger positive effect on ES and biodiversity provision than inter-row soil tillage.Soil loss parameters showed the largest positive response to inter-row vegetation cover. The second highest positive response was observed for biodiversity variables, followed by carbon sequestration, pest control and soil fertility. We found no trade-off between grape yield and quality vs. biodiversity or other ES. Synthesis and applications. Our meta-analysis concludes that vegetation cover in inter-rows contributes to biodiversity conservation and provides multiple ecosystem services. However, in drier climates grape yield might decrease without irrigation and careful vegetation management. Agri-environmental policies should therefore focus on granting subsidies for the establishment of locally adapted diverse vegetation cover in vineyard inter-rows. Future studies should focus on analysing the combined effects of local vineyard management and landscape composition and advance research in wine-growing regions in Asia and in the southern hemisphere.

Author Correction: Soil biota in vineyards are more influenced by plants and soil quality than by tillage intensity or the surrounding landscape.

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper.

Soil biota in vineyards are more influenced by plants and soil quality than by tillage intensity or the surrounding landscape.

Tillage is known for its adverse effects on soil biota, at least in arable agroecosystems. However, in vineyards effects might differ as tillage is often performed during dry periods or only in every other inter-row allowing species to re-colonise disturbed areas. We examined the response of earthworms (lumbricids), springtails (collembola) and litter decomposition to periodically mechanically disturbed (PMD) and permanently green covered (PGC) vineyard inter-rows and assessed whether site effects are altered by the surrounding landscape. In commercial vineyards in Austria we sampled earthworms by handsorting, springtails by soil coring and pitfall trapping and installed litter decomposition bags. Earthworm species diversity increased with plant biomass under PMD but not under PGC; earthworm density was unaffected by tillage but increased with plant biomass mainly at high soil quality (soil fertility index). Springtail species diversity was unaffected by tillage; springtail densities (mainly larger species) were reduced under PGC. Litter decomposition was little affected by investigated parameters. Landscape heterogeneity affected the functional diversity of surface springtails, but did not influence soil-dwelling springtails, earthworms or litter decomposition. We conclude that effects on soil biota of periodical tillage in vineyards need not necessarily be detrimental and will be modified by plant biomass and soil quality.