Abstract Agri-environment scheme (AES) approaches can be classified according to whether they prescribe management in non-productive areas, such as field boundaries and wildflower strips, or in productive areas, such as arable crops. Here we tested the ecological effectiveness of two popular AESs in Germany: wildflower strips next to winter wheat fields as off-field management and organic farming on winter wheat fields as on-field management. We selected ten landscapes along a field size gradient with three focal wheat fields, one conventional field with flower strip, one organic field and one conventional field without flower strip as a control. We sampled arthropods with pitfall traps at field edges and field interiors. We selected three ecological traits for spiders and carabids (body size, feeding trait, dispersal ability). We calculated community weighted mean values (CWM), and we used linear mixed effects models to test the effect of management type and transect position on CWM values. We found pronounced edge effects on most traits, and weaker effects of field size and AES in shaping functional traits. Smaller spiders, spiders with higher ballooning propensity and more web-builders were in the field interior than at the field edge, whereas carnivore carabids preferred field interiors. We also found a strong effect of landscape configuration, i.e. mean field size, as larger field size was positively related to more web-building spiders and more carnivore beetles. Flower strips enhanced populations of web-building spiders. Our results suggest that small-scale agriculture leading to high landscape-scale edge density has a major effect in shaping functional traits and potential ecosystems services in agricultural landscapes. Spider and carabid communities exhibit very different responses to edge vs. interior sites, and, based on the landscape-scale field size gradient emphasize the importance of landscape configuration in shaping the heterogeneity of the arthropods’ traits and presumably ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes.

中文翻译：

---

由景观尺度田地大小、当地农业环境方案和边缘效应塑造的节肢动物功能特征

摘要 农业环境计划 (AES) 方法可以根据它们是否规定在非生产区域（如田间边界和野花带）或生产区域（如可耕作作物）进行管理进行分类。在这里，我们测试了德国两种流行的 AES 的生态有效性：冬小麦田旁边的野花带作为场外管理，以及冬小麦田的有机农业作为场内管理。我们沿着田地大小梯度选择了十个景观，其中三个重点麦田，一个带花条的常规田，一个有机田和一个没有花条的常规田作为对照。我们在田地边缘和田地内部采集了带有陷阱陷阱的节肢动物。我们为蜘蛛和甲虫选择了三个生态特征（体型、摄食性状、传播能力）。我们计算了社区加权平均值 (CWM)，并使用线性混合效应模型来测试管理类型和样带位置对 CWM 值的影响。我们发现对大多数性状有明显的边缘效应，而场大小和 AES 在塑造功能性状方面的影响较弱。较小的蜘蛛、具有较高气球倾向的蜘蛛和更多的蜘蛛在田地内部而不是在田地边缘，而食肉动物carabids更喜欢田地内部。我们还发现了景观配置的强烈影响，即平均田地大小，因为更大的田地大小与更多的网蜘蛛和更多的食肉甲虫呈正相关。花带增强了建网蜘蛛的数量。我们的研究结果表明，导致高景观边缘密度的小规模农业对塑造农业景观中的功能特征和潜在的生态系统服务具有重大影响。蜘蛛和甲虫群落对边缘和内部场地表现出非常不同的反应，并且基于景观尺度的田地大小梯度强调景观配置在塑造节肢动物特征的异质性和农业景观中可能的生态系统服务方面的重要性。