1985
DOI: 10.1016/0378-1127(85)90013-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recolonisation of revegetated bauxite mine sites by predatory invertebrates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

1985
1985
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It may be due to more vigorously growing vegetation, leading to more abundant prey. Nichols and Burrows (1985) found that predatory arthropods (mostly spiders) requiring logs and dense leaf litter were less common in young rehabilitated areas than in surrounding unmined forest, whilst those utilising small bushes, open spaces or small amounts of cover were equally or more common in young rehabilitated areas than in the unmined forest. However, their study was conducted at a time before CWD was replaced as part of the mine rehabilitation process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It may be due to more vigorously growing vegetation, leading to more abundant prey. Nichols and Burrows (1985) found that predatory arthropods (mostly spiders) requiring logs and dense leaf litter were less common in young rehabilitated areas than in surrounding unmined forest, whilst those utilising small bushes, open spaces or small amounts of cover were equally or more common in young rehabilitated areas than in the unmined forest. However, their study was conducted at a time before CWD was replaced as part of the mine rehabilitation process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This would suggest that C. rubra could be equally efficient as a test candidate for use in reformed slope stabilisation and soil stability in any of the soils used in this experiment. It would, however, be beneficial to use biosolids to achieve rapid plant growth in aboveground revegetation programmes, which in turn could encourage recolonisation by important soil and litter fauna (Greenslade et al, 2011;Nichols and Burrows, 1985), and may benefit soil microbial factors that were not examined in the current study .…”
Section: Plant Growthmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The significant alterations to habitat and floristics associated with P. cinnamomi dieback have been predicted to substantially affect fauna through changes to important resources, such as food and nesting sites (Garkaklis et al, 2004;Wilson et al, 1994). Studies in southern Australia have tended to support these predictions, with declines in species richness and abundance of faunal communities recorded in areas with P. cinnamomi dieback (Armstrong and Nichols, 2000;Laidlaw and Wilson, 2006;Nichols and Bamford, 1985;Nichols and Burrows, 1985;Wilson et al, 1994), primarily due to changes in habitat structure. The negative effects of P. cinnamomi-induced floristic changes on faunal communities are likely to be significant given the wide range of plant species that are susceptible to P. cinnamomi (Garkaklis et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Similarly, the limited amount of research on the responses of other fauna to Phytophthora indicates that species richness is often reduced in diseased areas e.g. invertebrates (Nichols and Burrows, 1985); reptiles and frogs (Nichols and Bamford, 1985).…”
Section: Does P Cinnamomi Dieback Change Bird Community Compositionmentioning
confidence: 99%