Butterfly communities respond to structural changes in forest restorations and regeneration in lowland Atlantic Forest, Paraná, Brazil

Shuey, John A.; Labus, Paul; Carneiro, Eduardo; Dias, Fernando Maia Silva; Leite, Luis Anderson Ribeiro; Mielke, Olaf Hermann Hendrik

doi:10.1007/s10841-017-9994-y

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the growing human-induced landscape changes that have occurred in the region surrounding the study area (within a radius of less than 50 km) during the last 6 decades, the large size of the forest within which the BBS is located may have provided ideal conditions for long-term maintenance of the hawkmoth fauna. Since habitat disturbance is known to affect the species composition and community structure of hawkmoths in the Brazilian Amazon Forest (Camargo et al 2016), it is reasonable to infer that small fragments of Atlantic Forest might be under similar pressure, resulting in loss of biodiversity and changes in the faunistic composition and community structure, as observed for other insect groups (Gonçalves et al 2014;Justino et al 2016;Shuey et al 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Long-term stability of the hawkmoth fauna (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) in a protected area of Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hawkmoths are an important component of tropical ecosystems, with significant roles as herbivores and pollinators. These moths can be used as indicators in biodiversity assessments because they can be easily sampled and identified. However, hawkmoths have seldom been surveyed over the long term for this purpose, especially in the Neotropical region. Considering that long-term datasets are of indisputable importance for understanding and monitoring temporal changes in biodiversity, this study assessed long-term changes in the hawkmoth fauna in a protected Atlantic Rain Forest area over a period of 64 years. We used historical and recent empirical datasets to ask whether faunal-diversity patterns and species composition have changed over time. We used individual-and sample-based rarefaction and extrapolation curves based on Hill number (diversity order of q = 0) to compare species richness, and the probability version of the abundance-based Chao-Jaccard index to assess beta diversity over time. To assess changes in faunal composition, we conducted a nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis and performed an analysis of similarities to test whether the community composition has changed. Our results clearly showed long-term stability of the hawkmoth community over the 64 years, despite the growing humaninduced landscape changes that occurred in the region surrounding the study area during the last 6 decades. This study emphasizes the importance of large remnants of Atlantic Forest for long-term maintenance of both functional diversity and ecosystem functioning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Long-term stability of the hawkmoth fauna (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) in a protected area of Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that butterfly species richness is not always a good descriptor of habitat quality (Shuey et al, 2017). Instead, species composition has shown to be more sensitive measurement to detect differences between habitat types (Uehara-Prado et al, 2007;Truxa & Fiedler, 2012;Filgueiras et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of microhabitats affects butterfly assemblages in a rural landscape

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscapes composed of small rural properties may support highly heterogeneous habitat, because they often cover distinct types of land uses adjacent to surrounding forest fragments. Many butterfly species may benefit from this kind of landscape, as very distinct microhabitats can be found in a very restricted spatial scale. To better understand how different microhabitats are related to fragmentation in rural landscapes the present study collected the butterfly fauna in 18 sampling point sites, representing distinct types of forest edges and forest interiors. Although closely located, these sites showed no spatial autocorrelation. Instead, a major distinction in species richness and composition was found among forest interior and edge habitats while no significant difference was found in species composition among distinct edge types. Therefore, the high segregation of butterfly assemblages found in a very restricted geographic scale suggests the presence of two different groups of butterflies that respond independently to forest fragmentation, the forest interior assemblages and forest edge assemblages. This distinction of butterfly assemblages related to forest interior and forest edges were already reported, but our results highlights that these differences are found mostly due to species turnover between those habitats. In other words, both microhabitat types present a high number of specialized species compared to a smaller fraction of generalist species that may occurs in both microhabitats. In the case of Atlantic Forest, the species of special conservation concern are those true specialized in forest interior habitats and not those specialized in forest edges, thus the present study corroborates the importance of sampling different microhabitats when studying fragmentation processes, both inside and outside of fragments. Although forest edges may present different kinds of habitat types, species present along border tend to be as heterogeneous as species present in different locations inside the forest. This information should be considered in sampling designs of biodiversity essays that focus on a more consistent representation of local diversity.

show abstract

“…microclimate (Milling et al ), carbon storage and sequestration (Wang et al ; Chazdon et al ), water yield (Filoso et al ), protection against soil erosion (Musick & Gillette ; Zhou et al ; Zhang et al ), improving water quality (Dosskey et al ), and pollination (Cho et al ). More broadly, if vegetation structure is on a trajectory to be restored to a target, it usually means restoration of composition and abundance of plant species (Liebsch et al ; Suganuma & Durigan ), microorganisms (Banning et al ), and faunal groups, such as soil fauna (Frouz et al ; Dalle Laste et al ), butterflies (Nyafwono et al ; Shuey et al ), amphibians (Díaz‐García et al ), reptiles (Kanowski et al ), and birds (Twedt et al ), will also be restored. This reflects the “Field of Dreams” hypothesis, that is, if physical habitat is restored, native species will recolonize that habitat (Palmer et al ).…”

Section: Measuring Attributes Of Vegetation Structure As Indicators Omentioning

confidence: 99%

A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

Prach

Durigan

Fennessy

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This first requires clearly stated and justified restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justified in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sufficient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specific indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects.

show abstract

Butterfly communities respond to structural changes in forest restorations and regeneration in lowland Atlantic Forest, Paraná, Brazil

Cited by 7 publications

References 32 publications

Long-term stability of the hawkmoth fauna (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) in a protected area of Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest

Long-term stability of the hawkmoth fauna (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) in a protected area of Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest

Use of microhabitats affects butterfly assemblages in a rural landscape

A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About