Influence of forest riparian vegetation on abundance and biomass of nocturnal flying insects

Ober, Holly K.; Hayes, John P.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.010

Cited by 42 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(77 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior to this analysis, independent variables (for transformations, see Table 1) were standardized to zero mean and unit variance, which allows comparison of estimates directly. Significant on the foliage is well correlated to the abundance estimated using light traps (Raimondo et al 2004), which indicates that light traps provide reliable information on the availability of prey for bats (Brigham and Saunders 1990;Ober and Hayes 2008;Sleep and Brigham 2003). Note also that prey abundance increased with vegetation density independent of ambient temperature (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Light traps have been extensively used to sample the prey of bats feeding on moths and flies (Grindal and Brigham 1998;Tibbels and Kurta 2003). The light trap on each plot was mounted at a distance of 5 m from the microphone and at a 45°angle to avoid disturbing foraging bats (Ober and Hayes 2008). A light sensor allowed the power supply to be switched on at the same time as the batcorder.…”

Section: Insect Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aggregative response in bats: prey abundance versus habitat

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In habitats where prey is either rare or difficult to predict spatiotemporally, such as open habitats, predators must be adapted to react effectively to variations in prey abundance. Open-habitat foraging bats have a wing morphology adapted for covering long distances, possibly use information transfer to locate patches of high prey abundance, and would therefore be expected to show an aggregative response at these patches. Here, we examined the effects of prey abundance on foraging activities of open-habitat foragers in comparison to that of edge-habitat foragers and closed-habitat foragers. Bat activity was estimated by counting foraging calls recorded with bat call recorders (38,371 calls). Prey abundance was estimated concurrently at each site using light and pitfall traps. The habitat was characterized by terrestrial laser scanning. Prey abundance increased with vegetation density. As expected, recordings of open-habitat foragers clearly decreased with increasing vegetation density. The foraging activity of edge- and closed-habitat foragers was not significantly affected by the vegetation density, i.e., these guilds were able to forage from open habitats to habitats with dense vegetation. Only open-habitat foragers displayed a significant and proportional aggregative response to increasing prey abundance. Our results suggest that adaptations for effective and low-cost foraging constrains habitat use and excludes the guild of open-habitat foragers from foraging in habitats with high prey abundance, such as dense forest stands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Insect Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregative response in bats: prey abundance versus habitat

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, we controlled for the effect of vegetation structure on insect abundance/diversity and risk of road mortality (Keilsohn et al, 2018;Ober & Hayes, 2008), by selecting transects that were as similar in vegetation structure as possible (along transects, among transects, and among freeways). For example, we controlled for the effect of vegetation structure on insect abundance/diversity and risk of road mortality (Keilsohn et al, 2018;Ober & Hayes, 2008), by selecting transects that were as similar in vegetation structure as possible (along transects, among transects, and among freeways).…”

Section: Roads and Road Network Can Have Detrimental Impacts On Wildmentioning

confidence: 99%

Little evidence of a road‐effect zone for nocturnal, flying insects

Bhardwaj

Soanes

Lahoz‐Monfort

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roads and traffic may be contributing to global declines of insect populations. The ecological effects of roads often extend far into the surrounding habitat, over a distance known as the road‐effect zone. The quality of habitat in the road‐effect zone is generally degraded (e.g., due to edge effects, noise, light, and chemical pollution) and can be reflected in species presence, abundance, or demographic parameters. Road‐effect zones have been quantified for some vertebrate species but are yet to be quantified for insects. Investigating the road‐effect zone for insects will provide a better understanding of how roads impact ecosystems, which is particularly important given the role insects play as pollinators, predators, and prey for other species. We quantified the road‐effect zone for nocturnal flying insects along three major freeways in agricultural landscapes in southeast Australia. We collected insects using light traps at six points along 2‐km transects perpendicular to each highway (n = 17). We sorted the samples into order, and dried and weighed each order to obtain a measure of dry biomass. Using regression models within a Bayesian framework of inference, we estimated the change in biomass of each order with distance from the road, while accounting for environmental variables such as temperature, moon phase, and vegetation structure. The biomass of nine of the ten orders sampled did not change with distance from the freeway. Orthoptera (i.e., grasshoppers and crickets) was the only order whose biomass increased with distance from the freeway. From our findings, we suggest that the impacts of roads on insects are unlikely extending into the surrounding landscape over a distance of 2 km. Therefore, if there are impacts of roads on insects, these are more likely to be concentrated at the road itself, or on finer taxonomic scales such as family or genus level.

show abstract

“…However, highly braided floodplains might have similar stream margin-to-water-volume effects, increasing prey inputs to streams per unit surface area (Baxter et al 2005; and see Figure 5). In addition, inputs of terrestrial invertebrates can be affected by spatial patchiness in the type of riparian vegetation present (Wipfli 1997; Kawaguchi and nakano 2001; Allan et al 2003), with deciduous species generally housing more insects than conifers (Southwood 1961;Mason and MacDonald 1982;Ober and Hayes 2008).…”

Section: Incorporating Spatial Variation Into Food Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking Ecosystems, Food Webs, and Fish Production: Subsidies in Salmonid Watersheds

Wipfli¹,

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical characteristics of riverine habitats, such as large wood abundance, pool geometry and abundance, riparian vegetation cover, and surface flow conditions, have traditionally been thought to constrain fish production in these ecosystems. Conversely, the role of food resources (quantity and quality) in controlling fish production has received far less attention and consideration, though they can also be key productivity drivers. Traditional freshwater food web illustrations have typically conveyed the notion that most fish food is produced within the local aquatic habitat itself, but the concepts and model we synthesize in this article show that most fish food comes from external or very distant sources-including subsidies from marine systems borne from adult returns of anadromous fishes, from fishless headwater tributaries that transport prey to downstream fish, and from adjacent streamside vegetation and associated habitats. The model we propose further illustrates how key trophic pathways and food sources vary through time and space throughout watersheds. Insights into how food supplies affect fishes can help guide how we view riverine ecosystems, their structure and function, their interactions with marine and terrestrial systems, and how we manage natural resources, including fish, riparian habitats, and forests.

show abstract

Influence of forest riparian vegetation on abundance and biomass of nocturnal flying insects

Cited by 42 publications

References 70 publications

Aggregative response in bats: prey abundance versus habitat

Aggregative response in bats: prey abundance versus habitat

Little evidence of a road‐effect zone for nocturnal, flying insects

Linking Ecosystems, Food Webs, and Fish Production: Subsidies in Salmonid Watersheds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About