Contrasting Patterns of Species Richness and Composition of Solitary Wasps and Bees (<scp>I</scp>nsecta: <scp>H</scp>ymenoptera) According to Land‐use

Batista, Michela Costa; Sousa-Souto, Leandro; Almeida, Ruanno Silva; Teodoro, Adenir Vieira

doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00886.x

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have found that richness and abundance of CNBW depends on various local and landscape factors, such as the proportion of seminatural habitat, edge density of surrounding landscape, vegetation structure, and microclimate (Steffan-Dewenter 2002, Holzschuh et al 2010, Batista Matos et al 2013). Using trap-nesting units, information on species richness, abundance, and interactions with nest associates (parasitoids, cleptoparasites, and nest scavengers) can be obtained simultaneously in different locations, and sampling effort can be standardized and replicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local and landscape effects in a host–parasitoid interaction network along a forest–cropland gradient

Osorio

Arnán

Bassols³

et al. 2015

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land-use driven habitat modification is a major driver of biodiversity loss and impoverishment of interaction diversity. This may affect ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control. Our objective is to analyze the effects of local (nesting environment: farms vs. tree stands) and landscape (forest-cropland gradient) factors on the structure and composition of a cavity-nesting bee-wasp (CNBW) community, their nests associates (henceforth parasitoids), and their interactions. We set up 24 nest-trapping stations in a fragmented, extensively farmed area of ~100 km². We obtained 2035 nests containing 7572 brood cells representing 17 bee and 18 wasp species, attacked by 20 parasitoid species. Community structure and composition, as well as network structure, were much more dependent on local than on landscape factors. Host abundance and richness were higher in farms. In addition, host abundance was positively correlated to cropland cover. We also found highly significant differences between nesting environments in host community composition. Structure and composition of the parasitoid community were conditioned by the structure and composition of the host community. Network structure was affected by nesting environment but not by landscape factors. Interactions tended to be more diverse in farms. This result was mostly explained by differences in network size (greater in farms). However, generality was significantly higher in farms even after controlling for network size, indicating that differences in species' interaction patterns associated to differences in community composition between the two nesting environments are also affecting network structure. In conclusion, open habitats associated with extensively farmed exploitations favor local CNBW diversity (especially bees) and result in more complex host-parasitoid interaction networks in comparison to forested areas. The conservation value of this kind of open habitat is important in view of the progressive abandonment of extensively cultivated farmland taking place in Europe at the expense of agricultural intensification and reforestation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local and landscape effects in a host–parasitoid interaction network along a forest–cropland gradient

Osorio

Arnán

Bassols³

et al. 2015

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the recovery process many plant species become mature and start flowering and fruiting which attract insects (bees, wasps, butterflies, moths, beetles and flies) which is a major diet of avian species. Invertebrate communities of the tropical rain forest are highly diverse and their distribution and richness is associated with a diversity of vegetation structure and composition such as foliage, flowers, fruits, barks (Small and Pringle, 2010;Batista Matos et al, 2013;Peters et al, 2013). Silva and Brandao (2010) reported that invertebrate density strongly associated with vegetation structure and may vary at spatial scales of a few meters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Effects of Logging Activities on Avian Richness and Diversity in Different Aged Post-Harvested Hill Dipterocarp Tropical Rainforest of Malaysia

Rajpar¹,

Mohamed²

2014

American Journal of Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Logging activities have encroached into the hill dipterocarp tropical rainforest area since the lowland dipterocarp forests have decreased in size. Hill dipterocarp tropical rainforest is rich in habitat diversity and provide a variety of resources for avian species such as food, habitat and shelter. Therefore it is important to examine the logging effects of hill dipterocarp rainforest on avian species. We compared the avian richness and diversity in different aged post-harvested hill dipterocarp tropical rainforest at the Berkelah Hill Dipterocarp Rainforest Reserve in Maran, Pahang, West Malaysia using mist-netting method. We captured a total of 1908 individuals representing 86 species and 29 families (i.e., 18.55% from two years postharvested forest, 25.10% from ten years post-harvested, 23.90% from twenty years post-harvested and 32.44% from thirty five years post-harvested forests). Forty nine species were caught in two years and ten years, 55 species in twenty years and 59 species in thirty five years' post-harvested forest. Seventeen species were common in all four types of forest. Pycnonotidae, Timaliidae and Nectariniidae were the most dominant families in all types of post-harvested hill dipterocarp tropical rainforest. Diversity analysis indicated that the bird species in twenty years post-harvested hill dipterocarp rainforest was most diverse (i.e., Fisher's Alpha Diversity Index; 16.34) and evenly distributed (i.e., McIntosh Evenness index E; 0.933) as compared to two years, ten years and thirty five years post-harvested forest. However, thirty five years post-harvested forest was richest in avian species (i.e., Margalef's Richness index R 1 ; 9.02) as compared to other post-harvested forest. The findings of this study revealed that logging and recovery process may affects on avian distribution and diversity. However, these effects may vary from species to species.

show abstract

“…In heterogeneous landscapes consisting of multiple ecosystems types, the size and connectivity of (semi-)natural habitats increase trap-nesting bee and wasp diversity (e.g., Holzschuh et al, 2009;Steffan-Dewenter, 2003) and change species composition (e.g., Morato & Campos, 2000) according to hypotheses derived from island biogeography theory, but the strength of these effects may depend on the specific landscape context (Steckel et al, 2014). Similarly, land-use intensity in agricultural landscapes influences trap-nesting Hymenoptera composition and diversity (e.g., Matos, Sousa-Souto, Almeida, & Teodoro, 2013;Tylianakis, Klein, & Tscharntke, 2005), with less intensive and more varied cropping systems characterized by more bee and wasp species. However, in very intensively farmed areas, trap-nesting bees may depend on mass-flowering crops such as oilseed rape, which can increase bee abundance (e.g., Diekötter, Peter, Jauker, Wolters, & Jauker, 2014;Holzschuh, Dormann, Tscharntke, & Steffan-Dewenter, 2013).…”

Section: Landscape and Community Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Landscape variables not only influence parasitoid diversity but also host-parasitoid interaction networks, which are usually simpler and less stable in more intensively used landscapes (Osorio et al, 2015;Tylianakis et al, 2007). Conversely, habitat restoration can increase the stability of host-parasitoid interactions in trap nests (Albrecht et al, 2007) (Matos et al, 2013;Stangler et al, 2015).…”

Section: Landscape and Community Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trap nests for bees and wasps to analyse trophic interactions in changing environments—A systematic overview and user guide

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trap nests are artificially made nesting resources for solitary cavity‐nesting bees and wasps and allow easy quantification of multiple trophic interactions between bees, wasps, their food objects and natural enemies. We synthesized all trap nest studies available in the ISI Web of Science™ to provide a comprehensive overview of trap nest research and identify common practical challenges and promising future research directions. Trap nests have been used on all continents and across climate zones and publication numbers have increased exponentially since the first studies in the 1950s. Originally used for detailed exploratory natural history observations, trap nests are now also an established method in hypothesis‐driven ecology and to assess environmental changes. We identify the potential of trap nests for environmental monitoring by assessing trophic interaction networks of the groups involved. While pollen collection by bees or prey hunting by wasps has often been addressed, and interactions with natural enemies were included in almost half of all publications, surprisingly few studies have quantified trophic interaction networks in response to natural and anthropogenic environmental changes. By simultaneously revealing a multitude of trophic interactions, trap nests have the potential to broaden our understanding how species interaction networks are influenced by manifold environmental changes, which are pressing topics in ecological research. To foster the use of trap nests in future studies, we identify common challenges and offer guidance on practical solutions.

show abstract

Contrasting Patterns of Species Richness and Composition of Solitary Wasps and Bees (Insecta: Hymenoptera) According to Land‐use

Cited by 26 publications

References 32 publications

Local and landscape effects in a host–parasitoid interaction network along a forest–cropland gradient

Local and landscape effects in a host–parasitoid interaction network along a forest–cropland gradient

Assessing the Effects of Logging Activities on Avian Richness and Diversity in Different Aged Post-Harvested Hill Dipterocarp Tropical Rainforest of Malaysia

Trap nests for bees and wasps to analyse trophic interactions in changing environments—A systematic overview and user guide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About