Do Eucalyptus plantations host an insect community similar to remnant Eucalyptus forest?

Cunningham, Saul A.; Floyd, R. B.; Weir, Tom A.

doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.tb00370.x

Cited by 25 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with our initial hypothesis, species richness of all insect groups was significantly higher in natural forest compared to reforestation sites, thus mirroring the sharp decline in plant species richness between the habitats ). This correlation between floristic and faunistic diversity has been well documented in other studies (Castagneyrol and Jactel 2012;Scherber et al 2010), and the prevalence of less complex arthropod communities in disturbed sites is a common finding (Gormley et al 2007;Schulze et al 2004), although not necessarily a universal one (Cunningham et al 2005;Hilt and Fiedler 2006;Pawson et al 2008). Due to the design constraints acting on the present study, treelets in the forest had to be recruited from natural regeneration stock, while treelets on reforestations had been reared in a nursery and then planted in the field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

Adams

Fiedler

2015

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We surveyed insect communities (Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera) on native treelets (Cedrela montana, Heliocarpus americanus, Tabebuia chrysantha) planted among anthropogenic land cover types (pasture, secondary shrub, and a pine plantation), comparing them among one another and to those found on conspecific treelets in adjacent montane rainforest. Between 2010 and 2012, we sampled 160 treelets (Pasture: 47, Shrub: 26, Pine: 44, Forest: 43). Habitability of reforestations for forest insects was quantified by examining species richness, diversity partitioning and community composition on reforestations relative to natural forest. Species richness was high (phytophagous Coleoptera: 185 spp., predatory Coleoptera: 101 spp., phytoph. Hemiptera: 174 spp., phytoph. Lepidoptera: 147 spp.) with values being highest in natural forest, and significantly lower in all reforestations. Phytophagous Coleoptera and Lepidoptera communities showed a trend toward higher species richness in pine than in pasture or shrub. Predatory Coleoptera showed higher values in pasture and pine compared to shrub. These findings suggest that microclimatic effects of surrounding vegetation may affect species richness. Given high habitat heterogeneity and prevalence of rare species, tree-level a-diversity and turn-over between individual sample treelets emerged as the strongest contributors to overall diversity. Coleoptera community composition was mainly a function of habitat, but colonization of reforestations by forest species was restricted to phytophagous taxa and contingent on the presence of canopy cover. For Hemiptera and Lepidoptera, community composition was similar across habitats and determined mainly by host species. In summary, young reforestations maintain less diverse insect communities compared to natural Communicated by Kwek Yan Chong.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (forest but still harbor a considerable number of species, particularly if canopy cover is present.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

Adams

Fiedler

2015

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, spatial context (amount of nearby rainforest) had a relatively modest inXuence on the beetle assemblages of reforested sites. Thomas et al (2001) and Cunningham et al (2005) also found that isolation had less eVect than habitat quality on insect assemblages in remnant or reforested patches.…”

Section: Sampling Eyciencymentioning

confidence: 88%

Responses of ground-active beetle assemblages to different styles of reforestation on cleared rainforest land

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite increasing eVorts to re-establish forest cover in landscapes that have been previously cleared, the relative ability of diVerent styles of reforestation to contribute to conservation and support forest biota is poorly known, particularly for invertebrates. We investigated the use of diVerent types of reforested habitat by ground-active rainforest beetle assemblages on land, which had been previously cleared of rainforest, in the tropics and subtropics of eastern Australia. Between Wve and ten replicate sites within each of Wve reforestation styles were selected in each region: un-managed regrowth, young mono-species timber plantations, young mixed-species timber plantations, ecological restoration plantings, and old monospecies timber plantations, together with reference sites in pasture and in intact rainforest. Ground-active beetles were sampled using pitfall traps, and assemblages were compared among site-types. In both regions, beetle assemblages in all styles of reforestation were intermediate in species composition between pasture and rainforest. The similarity of beetle assemblages to intact rainforest increased with the age and structural complexity of reforested sites. The most rainforest-like beetle assemblages were from older reforestation sites (38-70 year plantations in tropics, and 30-40 year regrowth in subtropics) and in younger (6-22 years) but Xoristically and structurally diverse ecological restoration plantings in both regions.Assemblages in younger (5-20 year) sites of regrowth, mono-species timber plantations, and mixed-species timber plantations were more similar to pasture than rainforest. We conclude that achieving high canopy cover and suYcient structural complexity are important factors associated with the restoration of rainforest-like beetle assemblages to reforested sites.

show abstract

“…Four survey events were conducted (October (Cunningham et al 2005). In addition to comparing the two habitat types, sampling was originally designed to address site isolation and edge eVects on beetle assemblages, but these eVects were found to be minor (Cunningham et al 2005).…”

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DiVerences in the composition of the plantation and remnant forest faunas were examined in a separate paper (Cunningham et al 2005). We choose body length as a measure of size because it is well deWned and can be relatively easily measured from a large number of specimens.…”

Section: Describing Beetle Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Average body length of arboreal and aerial beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages from remnant and plantation Eucalyptus forests in southwestern Australia

Cunningham

Murray

2006

Oecologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined body length differences between the beetle fauna of Eucalyptus plantation forests and remnant Eucalyptus forest in the same region using aerial and arboreal sampling. Mean body length of plantation-using species was greater than for remnant forest species, and the same pattern was apparent in the mean of all individuals collected regardless of species. This pattern was true for both Malaise-trap-collected beetles (aerial) and canopy-collected (arboreal) beetles. The tendency for plantation-restricted species to have longer bodies is significant even if clade is treated as a random factor in the analysis. Greater body length among plantation-using species is consistent with a few other studies that have found body size of insect species in early successional environments is typically greater than in late successional environments. Some studies suggest that larger species are better dispersers, which can rapidly colonise early successional habitats. In this study, however, there was little relationship between body length and the number of sites occupied; suggesting dispersal was not a major determinant of community membership. Two different patterns in this study support the hypothesis that body size differences are linked to trophic structure of the communities. First, the body length shift comparing remnant users to plantation users was greater among phytophages than for predators or saprophages. Second, saprophages were typically smaller than phytophages, and constituted a larger fraction of the remnant forest using fauna, driving down the mean body length in the saprophage-rich remnant forest community.

show abstract

Do Eucalyptus plantations host an insect community similar to remnant Eucalyptus forest?

Cited by 25 publications

References 38 publications

The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

Responses of ground-active beetle assemblages to different styles of reforestation on cleared rainforest land

Average body length of arboreal and aerial beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages from remnant and plantation Eucalyptus forests in southwestern Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About