2012
DOI: 10.1155/2012/793419
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: We evaluated the relation of cricket species richness and composition with forest regeneration time, evaluating canopy and litter depth as environmental drivers. Effects of forest patch area, nearest distance to the 300-year patch, cricket abundance, sampling sufficiency, and nestedness were also evaluated. We collected 1174 individuals (five families, 19 species). Species richness increased asymptotically with regeneration time and linearly with canopy cover and litter depth. Canopy cover increased linearly, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
17
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
4
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…From taxonomical inventories made on the same sites Anso et al 2016b), we know that the entire cricket community (species producing or not producing calls) are habitat specific. Although the acoustic approach allows the detection of only a subset of the overall cricket community, the results of our acoustic study confirm that the acousticmediated species of the cricket community are sensitive to different environmental conditions (DesutterGrandcolas 1992; Szinwelski et al 2012), and that each habitat can be defined by a specific acoustic signature as shown in Bormpoudakis et al (2013). More specifically, some cricket species have been recorded only in one habitat type, as documented for other Orthoptera in European/temperate countries (Schirmel et al 2011;Fartmann et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…From taxonomical inventories made on the same sites Anso et al 2016b), we know that the entire cricket community (species producing or not producing calls) are habitat specific. Although the acoustic approach allows the detection of only a subset of the overall cricket community, the results of our acoustic study confirm that the acousticmediated species of the cricket community are sensitive to different environmental conditions (DesutterGrandcolas 1992; Szinwelski et al 2012), and that each habitat can be defined by a specific acoustic signature as shown in Bormpoudakis et al (2013). More specifically, some cricket species have been recorded only in one habitat type, as documented for other Orthoptera in European/temperate countries (Schirmel et al 2011;Fartmann et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Among soniferous insects, crickets (Orthoptera, Grylloidea) possess several of the required qualities to potentially be bioacoustic indicators in the tropics: (1) crickets are widely distributed in the tropics with reasonably high overall abundance and wide local diversity (Otte and Alexander 1983;Otte 1994;Desutter-Grandcolas et al 2016), (2) many cricket species rely on acoustic signals to attract a mate, and their calls are most often species-specific and easy to identify (Riede 1997;Diwakar and Balakrishnan 2007), (3) convincing evidence placed crickets as sensitive to environmental changes, including ecological succession (Desutter-Grandcolas 1992;Szinwelski et al 2012) and biological invasion (LaPolla et al 2000). In this context, the survey of the acoustic community of crickets could represent a fast and efficient approach for habitat surveys in general and for the detection of invasive species in particular.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These conditions may reduce the diversity of nesting sites and availability of resources for the soil arthropods (CAMPOS et al, 2007). Because of this fact, the reproduction and survival of the soil arthropod organisms are more difficult, as are results in low richness and abundance / density of this community, in comparison with those areas where the forest presents high structure complexity (MENEZES et al, 2009;CAMARA et al, 2012;SZINWELSKI et al, 2012;PEREIRA et al, 2013). However, no significant differences among the forest fragments was previously noted in terms of total annual litterfall (SF: 4.74, MF: 4.96 and LF: 4.40 t ha-1 year-1), which suggested no differences among them in relation to the forest structure (GOMES et al, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results corroborated this fact only in relation to the total abundance. The higher complexity of the soil fauna community is a consequence of the higher structure of the plant community in advanced stages of natural forest regeneration, in comparison with initial stages of tropical forest regeneration (Negrete-Yankelevich et al, 2007;Menezes et al, 2009;Camara et al, 2012;Szinwelski et al, 2012;Rousseau et al, 2014;Machado et al, 2015). However, in terms of the effect of the natural forest regeneration stage on evenness and diversity of soil fauna community, the literature presented divergent data.…”
Section: /10mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to some authors, abundance, richness and diversity of soil fauna increases, as secondary succession in tropical forest ecosystems advances (Barberena-Arias & Aide, 2003;Negrete-Yankelevich et al, 2007;Morais et al, 2010;Menezes et al, 2009;Camara et al, 2012;Szinwelski et al, 2012;Rousseau et al, 2014;Machado et al, 2015). Additionally, the predators and saprophagous are both functional groups that are somehow favored in areas undergoing more advanced stages of forest regeneration (Menezes et al, 2009;Camara et al, 2012;Rousseau et al, 2014;Machado et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%