Does the surrounding landscape heterogeneity affect the butterflies of insular grassland reserves? A contrast between composition and configuration

Šlancarová, Jana; Beneš, Jiří; Kristynek, Michal; Kepka, Pavel; Konvička, Martin

doi:10.1007/s10841-013-9607-3

Cited by 47 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While pine plantations appear to negatively impact ground-active beetle communities generally, this result suggests that patches with edges of mixed matrix types and therefore more heterogeneous edges, represent a unique habitat. This has broader implications for the management of fragmented landscapes, as it suggests that increasing edge heterogeneity may enable unique patch-associated species to persist (Dauber et al, 2003;Slancarova et al, 2014). Further research is needed to identify what patch-level variables are influencing the high levels of species uniqueness we observed between the various site types.…”

Section: Patches With Mixed Matrix Edgesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Plantations, not farmlands, cause biotic homogenisation of ground-active beetles in south-eastern Australia

Sweaney

Driscoll

Lindenmayer

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tFollowing landscape change, species invasions and extinctions may lead to biotic homogenisation, resulting in increased taxonomic and functional similarity between previously distinct biotas. Biotic homogenisation is more likely to occur in landscapes where the matrix contrasts strongly with native vegetation patches. To test this, we examined the distribution of ground-active beetles in a landscape of remnant Eucalyptus open woodland patches where large areas of lower contrast matrix (farmland) are being transformed to high-contrast pine plantations in south-eastern Australia. We sampled beetles from 30 sites including six replicates of five categories; (1) remnants adjacent to farmland, (2) remnants adjacent to plantation, (3) farmland, (4) plantation, and, (5) remnants between pine plantation and farmland. Community composition in the pine matrix was similar to native patches embedded in pine (ANOSIM, Global R = 0.49, P < 0.000), which we suggest is due to biotic homogenisation. Remnant patches with edges of both farmland and pine plantation did not represent an intermediate community composition between patches surrounded by either matrix type, but rather a unique habitat with unique species. Farmland supported the greatest number of individuals (F = 9.049, df = 25, P < 0.000) and species (F = 5.875, df = 25, P = 0.002), even compared to native remnant patches. Our results suggest that matrix transformations can reduce species richness and homogenise within-patch populations. This may increase the risk of species declines in fragmented landscapes where plantations are not only replacing native vegetation patches, but also other matrix types that may better support biodiversity. Our findings are particularly concerning given expanding plantation establishment worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Patches With Mixed Matrix Edgesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Plantations, not farmlands, cause biotic homogenisation of ground-active beetles in south-eastern Australia

Sweaney

Driscoll

Lindenmayer

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Slancarova et al. ). This suggests that farmland biodiversity conservation should focus on maintaining or increasing the number and biological quality of such unfarmed sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Large moths captures by a pest monitoring system depend on farmland heterogeneity

Novotný

Zapletal

Kepka

et al. 2014

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As intensive farmlands cover increasing areas of the world, associated biotic richness is crucial for the biodiversity of entire regions. Using data on non‐target Macrolepidopteran moths captured by a crop pest monitoring system, we compared local (100 m perimeter)‐ and landscape‐scale (1000 m perimeter) predictors of the numbers of moth individuals and moth species richness. During a single year (2009), eighteen light traps captured 91 726 individuals of 564 moths species. Typically for biotically impoverished habitats, the catches were dominated by a few superabundant species. Even in these impoverished assemblages, numbers of species increased with increasing herb and woody plants diversity (100 m around the traps), crop diversity (1000 m perimeter), landscape composition (1000 m) and configuration (100 and 1000 m). Abundance of the catches increased only with woody plants diversity in 100 m perimeters. In separate analyses of two species‐rich families, the presumably less mobile Geometridae increased with landscape configuration (i.e. density of edges) within 100 m perimeters around the traps, whereas the species richness of more mobile Noctuidae also reflected the landscape composition (i.e. proportional representation of land covers) at 100 m perimeters. Proportional representation of pest species decreased with increasing richness of herb and woody plants. Taken together, farmland heterogeneity increases moth species richness, whereas abundance of the catches mainly depends on local factors in the vicinity of light traps, and the local factors are more important for presumably less mobile Geometridae than for more mobile Noctuidae.

show abstract

“…In fact, Kennedy et al (2013) modeled landscape structure effects on bee communities and suggested that for each 10% increase of high quality habitats, bee abundance must increase about 37%. Since pollinators must move through the landscape to gather needed resources, the quality of different land units may change their flux among patches (Slancarova et al, 2014). These processes can deeply change landscape functional connectivity for pollinators, directly influencing their populations and maybe even hindering pollen transfer and overall pollination effectiveness (Vögeli et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive responses of flower visiting bees to landscape heterogeneity depend on functional connectivity levels

Bôscolo

Tokumoto

Ferreira

et al. 2017

Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tLandscape changes can lead to bee species loss, what impairs proper landscape level pollination processes, impacting both nature conservation and human welfare. Although landscape heterogeneity can rescue bee communities from collapsing, these insects seem sensitive to reduced functional connectivity, hindering pollen transfer among plants. Our objective was to verify which of these two factors, landscape heterogeneity or functional connectivity, can better explain variations of bee abundance and richness in a fragmented Atlantic Forest region. We sampled flower-visiting bees in 12 landscapes with varying heterogeneity and functional connectivity measured using a Functional Ecological Corridors framework. Both richness and abundance were affected by landscape factors, reaching its highest levels at intermediate levels of functional connectivity in highly heterogeneous landscapes, indicating the existence of strong regime shifts in the system. In low-forested landscapes, conservation actions for pollinating bees should focus on implementing diversified environments with high quality which are interspersed among each other and with native vegetation.

show abstract

Does the surrounding landscape heterogeneity affect the butterflies of insular grassland reserves? A contrast between composition and configuration

Cited by 47 publications

References 71 publications

Plantations, not farmlands, cause biotic homogenisation of ground-active beetles in south-eastern Australia

Plantations, not farmlands, cause biotic homogenisation of ground-active beetles in south-eastern Australia

Large moths captures by a pest monitoring system depend on farmland heterogeneity

Positive responses of flower visiting bees to landscape heterogeneity depend on functional connectivity levels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About