Optimizing the design of flower areas to enhance their effectiveness in supporting ground‐active predators: A meta‐analysis across Europe

Abstract To counteract the negative effects of agricultural intensification, several European countries support the use of flower strips or fields as part of agri‐environment‐climate measures. These habitats provide refuge and food resources for many taxa, including ecosystem service providers. Ground‐active predators are important pest control agents. However, comprehensive evidence on how to design these flower areas to maximize their benefits for ground‐active predators remains limited. We conducted a meta‐analysis of 36 studies spanning the Mediterranean region, Central and Northern Europe to quantify the impact of flower areas on the abundance and species richness of ground‐active predators. We also examined whether the overall effects varied in terms of different reference habitats (i.e. semi‐natural habitats and crop fields) and regions. Moreover, we identified which characteristics (shape, age and sown plant species richness) contribute to the effectiveness of the flower areas. Flower areas had a moderate positive effect on species richness (Hedges' g = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.22–1.09) and a small positive effect on the abundance of ground‐active predators (Hedges' g = 0.21, 95% CI = −0.05–0.48). The effects varied in terms of reference habitats and across regions. Flower areas supported substantially higher species richness compared to crop fields, with an effect size 7.9 times higher than when compared to semi‐natural habitats. The positive effect of flower areas on the abundance of ground‐active predators in the Mediterranean region was the highest (Hedges' g = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.60–1.45). Among flower area characteristics, linear strips were more effective than large fields in enhancing the species richness of ground‐active predators, with an effect size approximately 4.3 times higher. While flower area age and sown plant species richness did not significantly influence either predator abundance or species richness. Synthesis and applications . Our meta‐analysis highlights the value of flower areas in supporting ground‐active predators, particularly in intensively managed landscapes dominated by crop fields. The strong positive effects observed in the Mediterranean warrant further investigation into underlying mechanisms. We recommend the implementation of flower areas as linear strips, especially in conservation programmes targeting enhancing ground‐active predator diversity and associated pest control services.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Ecology
Published
2025-08-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70138
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Plant and animal studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.03

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Optimizing the design of flower areas to enhance their effectiveness in supporting ground‐active predators: A meta‐analysis across Europe

Marco Ferrante, Sandra Elena Schweiger, Catrin Westphal, Qian Zhang
1 citations
Journal of Applied Ecology
Plant and animal studies
3.03
article

Optimizing the design of flower areas to enhance their effectiveness in supporting ground‐active predators: A meta‐analysis across Europe

Marco Ferrante, Sandra Elena Schweiger, Catrin Westphal, Qian Zhang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract To counteract the negative effects of agricultural intensification, several European countries support the use of flower strips or fields as part of agri‐environment‐climate measures. These habitats provide refuge and food resources for many taxa, including ecosystem service providers. Ground‐active predators are important pest control agents. However, comprehensive evidence on how to design these flower areas to maximize their benefits for ground‐active predators remains limited. We conducted a meta‐analysis of 36 studies spanning the Mediterranean region, Central and Northern Europe to quantify the impact of flower areas on the abundance and species richness of ground‐active predators. We also examined whether the overall effects varied in terms of different reference habitats (i.e. semi‐natural habitats and crop fields) and regions. Moreover, we identified which characteristics (shape, age and sown plant species richness) contribute to the effectiveness of the flower areas. Flower areas had a moderate positive effect on species richness (Hedges' g = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.22–1.09) and a small positive effect on the abundance of ground‐active predators (Hedges' g = 0.21, 95% CI = −0.05–0.48). The effects varied in terms of reference habitats and across regions. Flower areas supported substantially higher species richness compared to crop fields, with an effect size 7.9 times higher than when compared to semi‐natural habitats. The positive effect of flower areas on the abundance of ground‐active predators in the Mediterranean region was the highest (Hedges' g = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.60–1.45). Among flower area characteristics, linear strips were more effective than large fields in enhancing the species richness of ground‐active predators, with an effect size approximately 4.3 times higher. While flower area age and sown plant species richness did not significantly influence either predator abundance or species richness. Synthesis and applications . Our meta‐analysis highlights the value of flower areas in supporting ground‐active predators, particularly in intensively managed landscapes dominated by crop fields. The strong positive effects observed in the Mediterranean warrant further investigation into underlying mechanisms. We recommend the implementation of flower areas as linear strips, especially in conservation programmes targeting enhancing ground‐active predator diversity and associated pest control services.

Journal of Applied EcologyVol. 62(10)
University of Göttingen (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, China Scholarship Council, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Plant and animal studies
3.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.