373© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019M. Schröter et al. (eds.), Atlas of Ecosystem Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0_57

Rice Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: The LEGATO Project, Its Approaches and Main Results with a Focus on Biocontrol Services

Josef Settele, Joachim H. Spangenberg, Kong Luen Heong, Ingolf Kühn, Stefan Klotz, Gertrudo Arida, Benjamin Burkhard, Jesus Victor Bustamante, Jimmy Cabbigat, Le Xuan Canh, Josie Lynn A. Catindig, Ho Van Chien, Le Quoc Cuong, Monina Escalada, Christoph Görg, Volker Grescho, Sabine Grossmann, Buyung A. R. Hadi, Le Huu Hai, Alexander Harpke, Annika L. Hass, Norbert Hirneisen, Finbarr G. Horgan, Stefan Hotes, Reinhold Jahn, Anika Klotzbücher, Thimo Klotzbücher, Fanny Langerwisch, Damasa B. Magcale-Macandog, Nguyen Hung Manh, Glenn Marion, Leonardo Marquez, Jürgen Ott, Lyubomir Penev, Beatriz Rodriguez-Labajos, Christina Sann, Cornelia Sattler, Martin Schädler, Stefan Scheu, Anja Schmidt, Julian Schrader, Oliver Schweiger, Ralf Seppelt, Nguyen Van Sinh, Pavel Stoev, Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, Vera Tekken, Kirsten Thonicke, Y. Andi Trisyono, Dao Thanh Truong, Le Quang Tuan, Manfred Türke, Tomáš Václavík, Doris Vetterlein, Sylvia “Bong” Villareal, Catrin Westphal, and Martin Wiemers

57

Which ecosystem services are addressed? Provisioning services (soil nutrients).

Regulating services (biocontrol, pollination).

Cultural services (recreation, cultural identity, tourism).

What is the research question addressed? How can provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services in irrigated rice production systems in South-East Asia be improved through modifications particularly of land use-related drivers (intensity, pesticide application, etc.)?

Which methods have been applied? Field studies on nutrients, decomposition, and insect dynamics; Designed experiments; Species inventories; GIS- analyses based on urban land cover data; Questionnaires.

57.1 Introduction

LEGATO stands for “Land-use intensity and Ecological EnGineering – Assessment Tools for risks and Opportunities in irrigated rice based production systems.”

To advance long-term sustainable development of intensive land-use systems against risks arising from multiple aspects of global change, LEGATO quantified ecosystem functions (ESF) and the services (ESS) generated from them in irrigated rice landscapes in South-East Asia. The focus was on local as well as regional land-use intensity (including the socio-cul-tural and economic background) and biodiversity, and the potential impacts of future climate and land-use change.

In particular, LEGATO investigated the interactions between irrigated rice and the surrounding landscapes in the

374

light of ecological engineering (as an emerging discipline, concerned with design, monitoring, and construction of eco-systems). The overall objective was the elaboration and test-ing of generally applicable principles for the improvement of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services through modifications particularly of land use-related drivers (intensity, pesticide application, etc.). For a general project overview, see Settele et al. [1].

57.2 Ecosystem Services Under Study

Following the framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [2], LEGATO defined supporting services as ESF and dealt with selected characteristic elements of the three service strands defined by the MA: (a) Provisioning (PS): nutrient cycling (e.g., Schmidt et  al. [3] and crop production (e.g., Klotzbücher et al. [4]); (b) Regulating (RS): biocontrol and pollination (e.g., Westphal et  al. [5]); (c) Cultural Services (CS): cultural identity and aesthetics (e.g., Tekken et  al. [6]). Studies were conducted mainly in two countries: Vietnam and the Philippines, in landscapes along a gradient reflecting changing geo-climatic and land-use intensity, and, where possible, also cultural conditions (for more details see Settele et al. [1]).

57.3 Study Regions and Sites for Field- Based Research

As solutions elaborated within the funding scheme were expected to have a model character (i.e., these should be transferable to other regions [7], LEGATO opted for a trans- regional and international approach. The Philippines and

Vietnam are particularly suitable, as they represent both important similarities and differences in a region of critical importance for global development. The topological simi-larities allowed the selection of comparable transects in both countries along gradients that reflect different land- system archetypes [7] with changing geo-climatic conditions and land-use intensities, and also different levels of socioeco-nomic and cultural diversities (see Table 57.1). They range from mountain areas to fertile hilly lowlands to low- lying, flood-prone high production areas. In both countries, the mountain areas are characterised by the terrace agriculture of indigenous peoples (see, e.g., Fig. 57.1). The final selection of study regions was also based on results of focus group discussions and interviews with stakeholders, resulting in the selection of seven regions (each 15  ×  15  km2), three in Luzon/Philippines, three in northern Vietnam, and one in the Mekong delta in southern Vietnam. For their locations see Figs. 57.2a, b. For further details on climates, land uses, and soils, see Klotzbücher et al. [4].

In each of these regions, 10 core sites (all of them are rice fields; i.e., 70 rice fields in total) were selected to ensure collection of sufficient data for scientifically-profound, comparative analyses (see also Klotzbücher et al. [4]). The 10 sites made up 5 site-pairs, with: (a) one site of each pair being located in an agriculturally more intensively used setting (structurally poor, more homogenous surroundings with more than 50% of rice fields in an area within a radius of 100 m around the centroid of the patch/site), henceforth called “monoculture rice field”; and (b) a second site, at a distance of 300–1000 m from the previously described site, with more heterogeneous surroundings (structurally rich, less than 30% rice fields in an area within a radius of 100 m and a higher proportion of non-intensively used areas such as house gardens, fallows, forests, etc.), henceforth called “structurally diverse rice field.” The selection was based on the hypothesis that higher structural diversity leads to higher biodiversity, enabling us to test biodiversity effects on irrigated rice agro-ecosystems. During the project, the above two categories were complemented by “agroforest” fields without rice in the vicinity of most of the 10 sites (resulting in 5 triple-sites; see Fig. 57.3).

Site selections were made in close consultation with local administrators and LEGATO collaborators. This also made it possible to include in the project local communities that differed in some socio-cultural and economic characteristics. Inclusion of local communities allowed comparative socio- cultural analyses, of community responses to generally similar environmental conditions, thus providing a good baseline for social research (e.g., comparison of topographic pictures to identity terraced landscapes).

What is the main result? (a) Ecological engineering is a promising approach for more sustainability in intensive rice production landscapes;

(b) Planting of flower strips around rice fields is an exam-ple of ecological engineering that increases biodiversity and provides habitats for natural antagonists of rice pest species, thereby reducing the need for insecticide use; and

(c) Participatory approaches are needed to convince farmers to switch to more sustainable management practices.

What is concluded, recommended? (a) Ecological engineering; (b) Planting of flower strips; (c) Participatory approaches.

J. Settele et al.

375

LEGATO region(code and name of province)

Land use intensity Landscape structuraldiversity

Culturaldiversity

low medium high low medium High Low high

Philippines (Luzon island)PH_1: LagunaPH_2: Nueva EcijaPH_3: Ifugao (Fig. 57.1)

VietnamVN_1: Hai DuongVN_2: Vinh PhucVN_3: SapaVN_4: Tien Giang (Fig. 57.5)

Table 57.1 LEGATO regions (selected along geologic-climatic gradients) and their categorisations along a spectrum of land-use intensity (e.g., work-load, agro-chemical input), landscape structural diversity (large monocultures vs. small fields with other habitat elements in between), and cultural diversity (traditional knowledge and practices applied; diversity of ethnic groups). (Source: qualitative assessment based on authors’ knowledge of the regions before the start of the project; if two levels are marked for one region this indicates a range of levels with the region)

Fig. 57.1 LEGATO landscape at Batad within region “PH_3 Ifugao“ (compare Table 57.1). These Amphitheatre-like terraces are part of the UNESCO world heritage sites of Ifugao province, North Luzon, Philippines. (Image courtesy of J. Settele, 2012)

57 Rice Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: The LEGATO Project, Its Approaches and Main Results with a Focus on Biocontrol…

376

Fig. 57.2 (a) Geographical distribution of the 3 LEGATO research regions in the Philippines (© Harpke/Grescho, UFZ). (b) Geographical distri-bution of the 4 LEGATO research regions in Vietnam. (Image courtesy of Harpke/Grescho, UFZ)

J. Settele et al.

377

Fig. 57.2 (continued)

57 Rice Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: The LEGATO Project, Its Approaches and Main Results with a Focus on Biocontrol…

378

Fig. 57.3 The three habitat types investigated in LEGATO – exemplified for PH_1, Laguna, Philippines; (a) “monoculture rice field” (image courtesy of C. Sann); (b) “structurally diverse rice field;” (c) “agroforest.” (Images B and C courtesy of A. L. Hass)

57.4 Co–Design of Research and Co–Production of Knowledge

As with most projects, LEGATO was organised into Work Packages (WPs) and followed the work flow shown in Fig.  57.4. Core elements of the project structure were the feedback loops, particularly those in relation to the co-design of research with stakeholders that directly influence recom-mendations and implementations – often via several feed-back loops (co-design: feedback WPs 1 with WP 2/3; and co-production for practical outputs, like e.g., Ecological Engineering: feedback WP 5 with WPs 2/3 and 4).

Our experience with this approach was very positive in terms of openness of farmers to our research activities and our approach has been analysed in more detail by Görg et al. [8] and Spangenberg et al. [9]. The main conclusions of these studies were that large integrated research projects are necessary to address the complexity of nature-society interactions within biodiversity research and beyond. Such large-scale research projects create challenges in terms of management and knowledge integration, but also offer promising opportunities for transdisciplinary research if managed properly. However, for an appropriate integration of knowledge across different disciplines and with stake-holders, two-way communication between researchers and practice partners is critical to the development of solutions to complex societal problems [10]. Such two-way com-munication goes beyond the more linear outreach and dis-semination activities that are often involved in conventional project management.

Therefore, a particular characteristic and highlight of LEGATO was the close collaboration with farmers and other local stakeholders (partnerships which are necessary to achieve real progress in the field of sustainable land use and biodiversity conservation [11]). The research sites were all located in farmers’ fields, selected during close interaction with these farmers and managed throughout the project with their enormous support. The project interacted with a range

of different groups of stakeholders: The number of people involved in each group is roughly estimated to include the following (see also Förster et al. [12]):

• Government institutions (Agriculture: 10; Environmental protection: 5; Municipal administration: 20; Tourism and culture: 20; general/top level: 20).

• Private sector (Business catering for the local market: 40; Business catering for the national and international market: 5).

• NGOs: 5.• International organisations: 20.• Individual farmers and land owners: 500.

57.5 Outputs: The Example of Biological Control Services

As core output, LEGATO has developed guidelines for optimising ESF/ESS and their stabilisation under future climate and land-use change, which will affect South-East Asia in particular. LEGATO examined the potential for ecological engineering to achieve this, and tested its imple-mentation and transferability across regions. The latter was achieved through inclusion of, for example, local agri-cultural agencies and extension services as partners. Implementation included assessments of ESS risks and opportunities in the light of changes in land-use intensity, biodiversity, and climate.

One of the key problems in intensively managed irrigated rice production systems is the high level of pesticide use [13], which can lead to health problems and declining bio-diversity. Lower biodiversity can aggravate problems with pest outbreaks, because insecticides often have a greater impact on the more sensitive natural antagonists of pest species, such as predatory spiders or parasitoid wasps, than they do on major rice pest species such as planthoppers and leafhoppers, particularly when they have developed insecticide-resistance.

J. Settele et al.

379

Ecological engineering aims to address this problem by providing habitats for the natural antagonists of rice pests and thereby reducing the need for insecticide applications. One technology of ecological engineering used by LEGATO was the planting of flower strips along rice field margins [5]. These flower strips, according to local farmers, also have the added benefit of improving the aesthetic appearance of rice landscapes (Fig. 57.5). However, this technology can work only if the whole farmer community of a region either stops

using pesticides or uses them in a very restricted way as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) approach. As shown in a few first exploratory case studies, another way to increase biodiversity and improve sustainability is to leave a few square meters in a paddy unplanted. This allows dragonfly populations to establish themselves; dragonflies are natural antagonists of the pests. A permanent pond with water veg-etation could be installed, which functions as a stable source of dragonflies to (re-)populate the nearby paddies.

Fig. 57.4 LEGATO overview structure and work flow – the basis for co-design and co-production

Fig. 57.5 Flower strips along rice field margins during a LEGATO school PR event in southern Vietnam. (Image courtesy of Le Huu Hai)

57 Rice Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: The LEGATO Project, Its Approaches and Main Results with a Focus on Biocontrol…

380

To convince farmer communities to revert to more sus-tainable management practices requires effective communi-cation and education, often against powerful lobbying from the pesticide industry. One LEGATO approach was enter-tainment education, which uses mass media campaigns to spread the information among farming communities [5].

The first results from this approach are encouraging, particu-larly among farmer communities in southern Vietnam, where ecological engineering techniques have been adopted especially by female members of the communities. Analogous to adver-tisements of agro-chemicals, mass media campaigns can be highly efficient and cost-effective, and have the potential to reach and motivate thousands of farmers to implement ecologi-cal engineering practices. In southern Vietnam, insecticide spraying was reduced by over 50% in response to the dissemi-nation of information in posters and leaflets [14]. A follow-up mass media campaign (locally named “Three Reductions, Three Gains”) has been developed and reached more than three mil-lion farmers in South and Central Vietnam [15]. Within LEGATO, a TV series to promote ecological engineering was launched in Vietnam (Fig. 57.6). The TV series sought to mod-ify farmers’ attitudes and practices, and is estimated to have reduced insecticide use among farmer-viewers by 19% [16].

To identify management deficits and achieve improvements, it is important to understand that rice farmers often base their decisions on simple rules of thumb [17]. Scientific information must therefore be distilled into simple and easy to communi-

cate rules. LEGATO suggested a heuristic communication Scheme [13] to structure complex information and convey it in a simplified but meaningful way. These insights can be pre-sented in several linked rules to explain complex biotic interac-tions, the importance of different groups of service-providing animals, and the synergistic management of their services [18].

Implementing ecological engineering as a dominant prac-tice in irrigated rice production systems therefore requires continuous support of farmer communities using participa-tory approaches More research is also needed, e.g., to iden-tify the most suitable plant composition for flower strips in different regions.

57.6 Some Key Messages

Based on the experience from and investigations performed within LEGATO, we present some important key messages:

(a) Ecological engineering is a promising approach for more sustainability in intensive rice production landscapes.

(b) Planting of flower strips around rice fields is an example of ecological engineering that increases biodiversity and provides habitats for natural antagonists of rice pest spe-cies, thereby reducing the need for insecticide use.

(c) Participatory approaches are needed to convince farmers to switch to more sustainable management practices.

Fig. 57.6 Launching of TV series on education entertainment in southern Vietnam. (Image courtesy of M. Escalada)

J. Settele et al.

381

Initial successes have been achieved, but continuous support of farmers and additional research is required for long-term adoption of sustainable management practices.

Acknowledgements We are indebted to more than 70 farmers who have wholeheartedly supported our research on their land. We also thank the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for funding the LEGATO project (Funding codes 01LL0917A until 01LL0917O) within the BMBF-Funding Measure “Sustainable Land Management” (http://nachhaltiges-landmanagement.de), and espe-cially Uta von Witsch for her continuous support from the funding organisation’s side.

References

1. Settele J, Spangenberg JH, Heong KL, Burkhard B, Bustamante JV, Cabbigat J, et  al. Agricultural landscapes and ecosystem ser-vices in South-East Asia-the LEGATO-Project. Basic Appl Ecol. 2015;16(8):661–4.

2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well- being: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 2005.

3. Schmidt A, John K, Auge H, Brandl R, Horgan FG, Settele J, et al. Compensatory mechanisms of litter decomposition under alter-nating moisture regimes in tropical rice fields. Appl Soil Ecol. 2016;107:79–90.

4. Klotzbücher T, Marxen A, Vetterlein D, Schneiker J, Turke M, Sinh NV, et al. Plant-available silicon in paddy soils as a key factor for sustainable rice production in Southeast Asia. Basic Appl Ecol. 2015;16(8):665–73.

5. Westphal C, Vidal S, Horgan FG, Gurr GM, Escalada M, Chien HV, et al. Promoting multiple ecosystem services with flower strips and participatory approaches in rice production landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol. 2015;16(8):681–9.

6. Tekken V, Spangenberg JH, Burkhard B, Escalada M, Stoll- Kleemann S, Truong DT, et  al. “Things are different now”: Farmer perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of traditional rice landscapes in Vietnam and the Philippines. Ecosyst Serv. 2017;25:153–66.

7. Václavík T, Lautenbach S, Kuemmerle T, Seppelt R. Mapping global land system archetypes. Glob Environ Change. 2013;23(6):163–47.

8. Görg C, Spangenberg JH, Tekken V, Burkhard B, Truong DT, Escalada M, et  al. Engaging local knowledge in biodiversity research: experiences from large inter- and transdisciplinary proj-ects. Interdiscipl Sci Rev. 2014;39(4):323–41.

9. Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Settele J.  Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences–risks, challenges and tested tools. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;16:201–11.

10. Siew TF, Aenis T, Spangenberg JH, Nauditt A, Döll P, Frank SK, et al. Transdisciplinary research in support of land and water man-agement in China and Southeast Asia: evaluation of four research projects. Sustain Sci. 2016;11(5):813–29.

11. Settele J. Biodiversity and our future—new alliances for new poli-cies? Gaia. 2010;19(3):161.

12. Förster J, Barkmann J, Fricke R, Hotes S, Kleyer M, Kobbe S, et al. Assessing ecosystem services for informing land-use decisions: a problem-oriented approach. Ecol Soc. 2015;20(3):31.

13. Spangenberg JH, Douguet JM, Settele J, Heong KL. Escaping the lock-in of continuous insecticide spraying in rice: Developing an integrated ecological and socio-political DPSIR analysis. Ecol Model. 2015;295:188–95.

14. Escalada MM, Heong KL, Huan NH, Mai V. Communication and behavior change in rice farmers’ pest management: The case of using mass media in Vietnam. J Appl Commun. 1999;83:7–26.

15. Huan NH, Chien HV, Quynh PV, Tan PS, Du PV, Escalada MM, et al. Motivating rice farmers in the Mekong Delta to modify pest management and related practices through mass media. Int J Pest Manage. 2008;54(4):339–46.

16. Heong KL, Escalada MM, Chien HV, Cuong LQ. Restoration of rice landscape biodiversity by farmers in Vietnam through educa-tion and motivation using media. SAPIENS [Online] 2014;7.2. http://sapiens.revues.org/1578. Accessed 9 Nov 2017.

17. Heong KL, Escalada MM. Quantifying rice farmers’pest manage-ment decisions: Beliefs and subjective norms in stemborer control. Crop Protect. 1999;18:315–22.

18. Escalada MM, Heong KL.  Using decision theory and sociologi-cal tools to facilitate adoption of biodiversity-based pest manage-ment strategies. In: Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Snyder WE, editors. Biodiversity and insect pests. Chichester: Wiley; 2012. p. 197–213.

J. Settele (*) Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, Germany

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Institute of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños College, Laguna, Philippines e-mail: Josef.Settele@ufz.de

J. H. Spangenberg Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, Germany

Sustainable Europe Research Institute SERI Germany e.V., Cologne, Germany

K. L. Heong · J. L. A. Catindig · B. A. R. Hadi · S.B. Villareal Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, IRRI–International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippinese-mail: j.catindig@irri.org; b.hadi@irri.org; S.Villareal@irri.org

I. Kühn · V. Grescho · M. Schädler · A. Schmidt Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, Germany

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany e-mail: ingolf.kuehn@ufz.de; volker.grescho@olanis.de; Martin.Schaedler@ufz.de; A.Schmidt@ufz.de

S. Klotz Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental, Research–UFZ, Halle, Germanye-mail: Stefan.Klotz@ufz.de

G. Arida · L. Marquez Crop Protection Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippinese-mail: lv.marquez@philrice.gov.ph

B. Burkhard Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germanye-mail: burkhard@phygeo.uni-hannover.de

J. V. Bustamante · J. Cabbigat LEGATO Office, Banaue, Ifugao, Philippines

L. X. Canh · N. H. Manh · L. Q. Tuan Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietname-mail: lxcanh@vast.ac.vn

57 Rice Ecosystem Services in South-East Asia: The LEGATO Project, Its Approaches and Main Results with a Focus on Biocontrol…

382

H. Van Chien · L. Q. Cuong Southern Regional Plant Protection Center, Long Dinh, Chau Thanh, Tien Giang, Vietname-mail: chienhv@hoptri.com

M. Escalada Department of Development Communication, Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines

C. Görg Institute of Social Ecology, University of Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austriae-mail: christoph.goerg@aau.at

S. Grossmann · A. Harpke · C. Sattler · O. Schweiger · M. Wiemers Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, Germany e-mail: Alexander.Harpke@ufz.de; cornelia.sattler@ufz.de; Oliver.Schweiger@ufz.de; martin.wiemers@ufz.de

L. H. Hai Tien Giang University, My Tho, Vietname-mail: lehuuhai@tgu.edu.vn

A. L. Hass · C. Westphal Agroecology, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germanye-mail: ahass@gwdg.de; cwestph@gwdg.de

N. Hirneisen Science + Communication, Bonn, Germanye-mail: nobbi@s2you.de

F. G. Horgan University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Sydney, Australiae-mail: Finbarr.Horgan@uts.edu.au

S. Hotes Department of Ecology, Animal Ecology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germanye-mail: stefan.hotes@biologie.uni-marburg.de

R. Jahn · A. Klotzbücher · T. Klotzbücher Chair of Soil Science, Martin Luther University Halle- Wittenberg, Halle, Germanye-mail: reinhold.jahn@landw.uni-halle.de; anika.klotzbuecher@landw.uni-halle.de; thimo.klotzbuecher@Iandw.uni-halle.de

F. Langerwisch · K. Thonicke Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germanye-mail: Fanny.Langerwisch@pik-potsdam.de; Kirsten.Thonicke@pik-potsdam.de

D. B. Magcale-Macandog Institute of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños College, Laguna, Philippines

G. Marion Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKe-mail: glenn@bioss.ac.uk

J. Ott Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, Germany

L.U.P.O. GmbH, Trippstadt, Germany e-mail: ott@lupogmbh.de

L. Penev Pensoft Publishers Ltd., Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgariae-mail: penev@pensoft.net

B. Rodriguez-Labajos Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spaine-mail: beatriz.rodriguez@uab.es

C. Sann Department of Crop Sciences/Agricultural Entomology, Georg August University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germanye-mail: Christina.Sann@gmx.de

S. Scheu J.F. Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germanye-mail: Stefan.Scheu@biologie.uni-goettingen.de

J. Schrader Department of Biodiversity, Macroecology and Biogeography, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

Agroecology, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germanye-mail: jschrad@uni-goettingen.de

R. Seppelt Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

Institute of Geoscience and Geography, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germanye-mail: ralf.seppelt@ufz.de

N. Van Sinh Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

P. Stoev Pensoft Publishers Ltd., National Museum of Natural History, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgariae-mail: projects@pensoft.net

S. Stoll-Kleemann Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University, Greifswald, Germanye-mail: stollkle@uni-greifswald.de

V. Tekken Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy, Potsdam, Germanye-mail: vera.tekken@posteo.de

Y. A. Trisyono Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

D. T. Truong Center for Policy Studies and Analysis (CEPSTA), The University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi, Vietnam

M. Türke German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germanye-mail: manfred.tuerke@idiv.de

T. Václavík Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic

Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Leipzig, Germanye-mail: tomas.vaclavik@ufz.de

D. Vetterlein Department of Soil Systems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, Germanye-mail: Doris.Vetterlein@ufz.de

J. Settele et al.