Showing items 1 - 2 of 2

Beetle ecological indicators – A comparison of cost vs reward to understand functional changes in response to restoration actions

- Evans, Maldwyn, Cunningham, Saul, Gibb, Heloise, Manning, Adrian, Barton, Philip

  • Authors: Evans, Maldwyn , Cunningham, Saul , Gibb, Heloise , Manning, Adrian , Barton, Philip
  • Date: 2019
  • Type: Text , Journal article
  • Relation: Ecological Indicators Vol. 104, no. (2019), p. 209-218
  • Full Text: false
  • Reviewed:
  • Description: Ecosystem restoration can play a vital role in conserving biodiversity, but its effectiveness can be difficult to assess for hyperdiverse biota such as insects. Species traits of insects can be used to understand their functional responses to restoration, but their use often requires considerable effort, and few studies have examined what additional insight can be gained from this approach. We used a spatially and temporally controlled restoration experiment to examine beetle species, grouped by flight ability, family membership and feeding guild, as indicators of ecosystem functional change. We tested for the effects of reduced vertebrate grazing on beetle assemblages sampled from two different microhabitats (next to log and in open ground)one year prior and two years after a vertebrate grazing treatment was applied. We compared the responses of the different beetle functional groupings, and then related these to the effort involved in employing these indicators. We found that beetle species traits gave several functional insights into their responses to reduced grazing, including responses to changes in vegetation structure and biomass. Species richness indicators and abundance indicators of beetle functional groups showed similar responses in many cases, whereas biomass indicators gave additional insights related to the extra biomass of vegetation and detritus resulting from the reduction in grazing. We found that most results were revealed by using family groups as indicators for functional change. This is because the traits that often define beetle families, such as size, flight ability and feeding guilds each have distinctive functional roles, allowing a link from family to function, and supporting the idea that phylogeny is often a useful shortcut to species ecology. We conclude that in our study system, the least-cost approach to identifying functional responses of beetles to reduced vertebrate grazing, and possibly other restoration actions, is to use abundance indicators of the most common family groups. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd

Does wing morphology affect recolonization of restored farmland by ground-dwelling beetles?

- Gibb, Heloise, Retter, Bryony, Cunningham, Saul, Barton, Philip

  • Authors: Gibb, Heloise , Retter, Bryony , Cunningham, Saul , Barton, Philip
  • Date: 2017
  • Type: Text , Journal article
  • Relation: Restoration Ecology Vol. 25, no. 2 (2017), p. 234-242
  • Full Text: false
  • Reviewed:
  • Description: Revegetation of previously cleared land is widely used to increase habitat area and connectivity of remnant vegetation for biodiversity conservation. Whether new habitat attracts or supports fauna depends on the dispersal traits of those fauna as well as the structure and composition of the surrounding landscape. Here, we examined wing morphology as a key dispersal trait for beetles in a revegetated landscape and asked, first, how it was related to phylogeny (family), trophic position, and body size. Second, we asked if wing morphology of recolonizing (or persisting) beetles varied with habitat characteristics at multiple scales, from microhabitat to landscape context. Third, we examined how common winged and wingless species responded to habitat at multiple scales. We measured the wing morphology of ground-dwelling beetles from a restoration chronosequence, including paddocks, “young” revegetation (8–11 years old), “old” revegetation (14–19 years old), and fenced remnant vegetation. We found that body size and family membership were significant predictors of winglessness, with wingless species of carabids and curculionids being larger than their winged counterparts. We found no difference in the number of sites occupied by winged and wingless species, and no relationship between the wing morphology traits represented in different locations and habitat characteristics or landscape context. Furthermore, the most abundant species of both winged and wingless ground-dwelling beetles had relatively little affinity to any habitat successional stage. Thus, despite intrinsic differences in wing morphology among species of ground-dwelling beetle, we found no evidence that flight-related dispersal limitations influenced recolonization (or persistence) in this landscape. © 2016 Society for Ecological Restoration
  • 1