DataSheet_1_Varying Responses of Invertebrates to Biodynamic, Organic and Conventional Viticulture.docx

Alternative farming methods must be deployed to mitigate the detrimental impacts of intensive agriculture on climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Organic and biodynamic farming are environmental-friendly practices that progressively replace conventional agriculture. While potential biodiversity benefits of organic vs. conventional farming have been studied repeatedly, the effects of biodynamic farming on biodiversity remain ill-understood. We investigated the effects of these three main management regimes, and their interaction with ground vegetation cover, on vineyard invertebrate communities in SW Switzerland. Invertebrates were sampled three times during the vegetation season in 2016, focusing on ground-dwelling (pitfall traps) and epiphytic (sweep-netting) invertebrates, and their abundance was modelled for single, additive, and interactive influences of management and ground vegetation cover. Overall, organic and, but to a lesser degree, biodynamic vineyards provided better conditions for invertebrate abundance than conventional vineyards. On the one hand, there was a significant interaction between management and ground vegetation cover for epiphytic invertebrates with a positive linear increase in abundance in organic, a positive curvilinear relationship in biodynamic but a negative curvilinear response to vegetation cover in conventional vineyards. The abundance of ground-dwelling invertebrates was primarily affected by the management regime alone, i.e. without any interaction with ground vegetation characteristics, leading to much higher abundances in organic compared to conventional vineyards, while biodynamic did not differ from the other two regimes. We interpret the patterns as follows: organic grape production offers more suitable habitat conditions for invertebrates due to a spatially more heterogenous but also less often disturbed (compared to biodynamic management) or destroyed (compared to conventional) ground vegetation cover, in line with the predictions of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Biodynamic and conventional viticultural management regimes often provide a habitat that is either too mineral (conventional: ground vegetation widely eliminated) or subject to soil disturbance happening frequently through ploughing (biodynamic). We conclude that alternative farming methods do promote biodiversity in vineyard agro-ecosystems, especially so organic management.

为缓解集约化农业（intensive agriculture）对气候、生物多样性（biodiversity）及生态系统服务（ecosystem services）的不利影响，亟需推广替代性耕作方式。有机农业（organic farming）与生物动力农业（biodynamic farming）均为环境友好型生产模式，正逐步取代常规农业（conventional agriculture）。尽管已有诸多研究反复探讨有机农业与常规农业对生物多样性的潜在增益效应，但生物动力农业对生物多样性的影响仍未得到充分阐释。本研究以瑞士西南部（SW Switzerland）葡萄园的无脊椎动物群落（invertebrate communities）为研究对象，探究了有机、生物动力、常规三种核心耕作管理模式及其与地表植被覆盖的交互作用。2016年生长季期间，研究团队开展了三次采样：针对地表栖无脊椎动物采用陷阱法（pitfall traps）取样，针对附生无脊椎动物采用扫网法（sweep-netting）取样，并基于管理模式与地表植被覆盖的单一效应、加性效应及交互效应构建了无脊椎动物丰度模型。整体而言，有机葡萄园，以及效果稍弱的生物动力葡萄园，为无脊椎动物提供了比常规葡萄园更优越的栖息条件。具体而言，附生无脊椎动物的丰度与管理模式、地表植被覆盖间存在显著交互效应：有机葡萄园的附生无脊椎动物丰度随植被覆盖呈线性正向增长；生物动力葡萄园呈曲线正向增长；而常规葡萄园则随植被覆盖呈曲线负向响应。地表栖无脊椎动物的丰度主要受耕作管理模式的单一效应主导，未与地表植被特征产生交互作用，其丰度在有机葡萄园显著高于常规葡萄园，而生物动力葡萄园与其余两种模式无显著差异。本研究对上述结果的解读如下：相较于生物动力管理模式下的低频次干扰、常规管理模式下的地表植被大面积破坏，有机葡萄生产凭借空间异质性更高、受干扰更少的地表植被覆盖，为无脊椎动物提供了更适宜的栖息环境，这一结果契合中度干扰假说（intermediate disturbance hypothesis）的预测。生物动力与常规葡萄栽培（viticultural）管理模式往往会形成两类不适宜的栖息环境：常规模式下地表植被被广泛清除，生境过于贫瘠；生物动力模式下则因频繁翻耕导致土壤扰动剧烈。综上，替代性耕作方式确实能够提升葡萄园农业生态系统（agro-ecosystems）的生物多样性，其中有机管理模式的效果尤为显著。