Nesting habitat segregation between closely related terricolous sphecid species (Hymenoptera:Spheciformes): key role of soil physical characteristics

Abstract

Microhabitat selection based on abiotic factors was examined in five species of digger wasps (Sphex funerarius, Ammophila heydeni, Ammophila pubescens, Ammophila sabulosa, Bembix tarsata), four of which are of high conservation interest. All the study sites were located in areas affected by anthropogenic disturbance (reclaimed brown-coal mining areas, and railway dykes) in Central Europe. The individual species responded differentially to the variability in each of the physical characteristics measured, which resulted in site-specific exclusion of individual sphecid species. The sphecids were found to discriminate between available microhabitats based on ground inclination (slope) and vegetation cover. All but A. heydeni segregated the microhabitats according to the content of gravel and sand particles. S. funerarius and B. tarsata were limited by their preferences of low soil compactness, whereas A. pubescens utilized highly compacted soils, which were predominant in the study area. Soil shear strength (cohesiveness) was driving the level of gregariousness of the sphecids. In B. tarsata, number of cells per burrow was found to be higher in soils with increased penetration resistance. Experimental increase in soil compactness led to the abandonment of nesting microhabitats in the subsequent nesting seasons. Besides the well-known biotic factors, such as specialization at different size or type of prey, variability in abiotic factors between individual microhabitats (e.g. patches of sand) was found to be both necessary and sufficient to allow the parallel presence of viable populations of several sphecid species.

Forgotten role of fires in Central European forests: critical importance of early post-fire successional stages for bees and wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata)

“…Mounting evidence suggests that specific groups of organisms are strictly dependent on the occurrence of repeated disturbations, and as long as sites of natural disturbations become extremely rare in the intensively cultivated landscape, part of these organisms managed to utilize the sites disturbed by humans. When considering Aculeata, such sites are typically represented by stone quarries (Krauss et al 2009), sandpits and gravelsandpits (Heneberg et al 2013(Heneberg et al , 2014, or road and railway embankments (Srba and Heneberg 2012;Moroń et al 2014). The above disturbances are beneficial specifically to species of the open landscape, particularly to those requiring the presence of bare ground.…”

Sandpits provide critical refuge for bees and wasps (Hymenoptera: Apocrita)

“…In recent years, the interest in the entomofauna of postindustrial sites has increased (Babin-Fenske and Anand 2011; Milisa et al 2010;Tropek et al 2010;Harabiš and Dolný 2012;Heneberg 2012;Srba and Heneberg 2012). In particular, post-mining sites, which are typically highly degraded or even destroyed, represent habitats where succession starts on bare substrate.…”

“…Bees and wasps are especially useful as an indicator of the collateral benefits of the quarrying activities since many of them require the presence of bare soil patches, and soil characteristics are considered as the limiting variables for the presence of at least some of these species (Brockmann 1979;Cane 1991;Kim et al 2006;Heneberg 2012;Srba and Heneberg 2012). The number of available high-quality habitats for bees and wasps is rapidly decreasing throughout the industrialized world.…”

In search for a compromise between biodiversity conservation and human health protection in restoration of fly ash deposits: effect of anti-dust treatments on five groups of arthropods

“…1 Significant results of the GLMM analyses of the studied arthropod groups' species richness (a), community conservation value (b) and community psammophilous specialisation (c), at plots with different anti-dust treatments (*P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001). Such results similar for localities in different regions are not surprising, as numerous threatened aculeate hymenopterans are well known to find secondary refuges in various post-industrial sites (Krauss et al 2009;Srba and Heneberg 2012;Heneberg et al 2013;Tropek et al 2013aTropek et al , 2014. Differing letters above the boxes indicate significant differences between the habitats.…”