- Ng, Katherine, Barton, Philip, Macfadyen, Sarina, Lindenmayer, David, Driscoll, Don
- Authors: Ng, Katherine , Barton, Philip , Macfadyen, Sarina , Lindenmayer, David , Driscoll, Don
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Landscape Ecology Vol. 33, no. 1 (2018), p. 109-125
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Context: Farming practices influence the degree of contrast between adjoining habitats, with consequences for biodiversity and species movement. Little is known, however, on insect community responses to different kinds of edges over time, and the extent of cross-habitat movement in agricultural landscapes. Objective: To determine temporal changes in beetle responses to different farmland-woodland edges, and document cross-habitat movement. Methods: We examined species richness, abundance, and movement across edges between remnant woodlands and four farmland uses (plantings, fallow, annual crops, woody debris applied over crops post-harvest) in southeastern Australia. We used directional pitfall traps to infer movement, and sampled at edges, and 20 and 200 m on both sides of edges, during spring and summer. Results: Detritivore and predator abundance varied between seasons across the edge between woodlands and all farmlands, but seasonal differences were weaker for fallow-woodland and woody debris-woodland edges. Detritivores moved from farmlands towards woodlands, but not across fallow-woodlands and woody debris-woodlands edges during summer. During summer, predators showed short-range movement towards edges from all farmlands except plantings, and towards woody debris from woodlands. Edges showed temporally stable predator richness and higher herbivore richness than adjoining habitats. Conclusions: Farmland use and season interactively affect beetle abundance across farmland-woodland edges. Woody debris can reduce seasonal fluctuations in beetle edge responses and increase permeability for cross-habitat movement, while plantings provide habitat during summer. Edges provide important resources for beetles in adjoining habitats, however, seasonal movement of predators specifically into edges may affect prey assemblages—a link requiring further study. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Conserving focal insect groups in woodland remnants : the role of landscape context and habitat structure on cross-taxonomic congruence
- Yong, Ding, Barton, Philip, Okada, Sachiko, Crane, Mason, Cunningham, Saul, Lindenmayer, David
- Authors: Yong, Ding , Barton, Philip , Okada, Sachiko , Crane, Mason , Cunningham, Saul , Lindenmayer, David
- Date: 2020
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Ecological Indicators Vol. 115, no. (2020), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Determining the shared responses of different taxa to landscape modification is a key step for identifying which groups of species are good surrogates for other groups. Yet, surprisingly little is known about the spatial processes that drive cross-taxonomic congruence of diversity and how this knowledge can be used to improve the management of modified landscapes for biodiversity, especially insects. We investigated how assemblages of two ecologically important insect groups, wild bees and beetles, respond to different landscape contexts and habitat structure in an Australian agricultural landscape, and how this, in turn, influenced either group's potential as a surrogate for the other. Bee and ground-active beetle assemblages were sampled in remnant woodland patches in two landscape contexts: woodland patches surrounded by pine plantation and woodland patches surrounded by open grazing land. Bee species richness, and the richness of functionally-defined bee groups did not differ between landscape contexts, in contrast to beetles. We found that landscape context exerted a stronger effect on species composition than species richness of both groups. Although some landscape and habitat variables were useful in predicting the diversity of both insect groups, few were shared. Our findings showed that bee and beetles are poor surrogates for each other in landscapes that are highly modified. Our study highlighted the need to consider: (1) taxon-specific responses to landscape context, (2) the influence of different metrics of cross-taxonomic surrogacy and, (3) dissimilar ecological attributes among insect taxa when selecting insects as biodiversity surrogates. It should not be assumed that agricultural landscapes managed to conserve specific insects (e.g. bees) will necessarily benefit other insects. © 2020
- Authors: Yong, Ding , Barton, Philip , Okada, Sachiko , Crane, Mason , Cunningham, Saul , Lindenmayer, David
- Date: 2020
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Ecological Indicators Vol. 115, no. (2020), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Determining the shared responses of different taxa to landscape modification is a key step for identifying which groups of species are good surrogates for other groups. Yet, surprisingly little is known about the spatial processes that drive cross-taxonomic congruence of diversity and how this knowledge can be used to improve the management of modified landscapes for biodiversity, especially insects. We investigated how assemblages of two ecologically important insect groups, wild bees and beetles, respond to different landscape contexts and habitat structure in an Australian agricultural landscape, and how this, in turn, influenced either group's potential as a surrogate for the other. Bee and ground-active beetle assemblages were sampled in remnant woodland patches in two landscape contexts: woodland patches surrounded by pine plantation and woodland patches surrounded by open grazing land. Bee species richness, and the richness of functionally-defined bee groups did not differ between landscape contexts, in contrast to beetles. We found that landscape context exerted a stronger effect on species composition than species richness of both groups. Although some landscape and habitat variables were useful in predicting the diversity of both insect groups, few were shared. Our findings showed that bee and beetles are poor surrogates for each other in landscapes that are highly modified. Our study highlighted the need to consider: (1) taxon-specific responses to landscape context, (2) the influence of different metrics of cross-taxonomic surrogacy and, (3) dissimilar ecological attributes among insect taxa when selecting insects as biodiversity surrogates. It should not be assumed that agricultural landscapes managed to conserve specific insects (e.g. bees) will necessarily benefit other insects. © 2020
Contrasting beetle assemblage responses to cultivated farmlands and native woodlands in a dynamic agricultural landscape
- Ng, Katherina, Driscoll, Don, MacFadyen, Sarina, Barton, Philip, McIntyre, Sue, Lindenmayer, David
- Authors: Ng, Katherina , Driscoll, Don , MacFadyen, Sarina , Barton, Philip , McIntyre, Sue , Lindenmayer, David
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Ecosphere Vol. 8, no. 12 (2017), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: There is an urgent need to identify ways of managing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity conservation without reducing food production. Farming practices that consider spatiooral heterogeneity of farm fields may be a feasible alternative to large-scale revegetation of farmlands for maintaining arthropod biodiversity and their important ecological function. We examined seasonal differences in beetle assemblages in woodland remnants and four adjoining farmland uses in a highly modified agricultural landscape in southeastern Australia. The farmland uses were crops, fallows, and two restoration treatments (fine woody debris applied over harvested crop fields, and restoration plantings). Unexpectedly, overall species richness was significantly lower in remnants than in adjacent farmlands. Remnants and farmlands supported significantly different assemblages, with a third of species found in both habitats. Abundance responses were taxon-specific and influenced by interactions between land use and season. In particular, predator abundance was significantly higher in plantings and fallows during spring compared to summer. Detritivore abundance was significantly higher in the woody debris compared to the adjacent remnants. Herbivore abundance did not differ between remnants and farmlands over time. Complex responses provide strong support for a mosaic of land uses to effectively conserve different beetle groups. Species richness results suggest that further agricultural intensification, in farm fields and through the removal of remnant vegetation, risks reducing beetle diversity in this region. Maintaining farmland heterogeneity with a mix of low-intensity land uses, such as conservation tillage, crop-fallow rotation, restoration plantings, and the novel application of fine woody debris over cultivated fields, may provide seasonal refuge and resources for beetles. © 2017 Ng et al.
- Authors: Ng, Katherina , Driscoll, Don , MacFadyen, Sarina , Barton, Philip , McIntyre, Sue , Lindenmayer, David
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Ecosphere Vol. 8, no. 12 (2017), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: There is an urgent need to identify ways of managing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity conservation without reducing food production. Farming practices that consider spatiooral heterogeneity of farm fields may be a feasible alternative to large-scale revegetation of farmlands for maintaining arthropod biodiversity and their important ecological function. We examined seasonal differences in beetle assemblages in woodland remnants and four adjoining farmland uses in a highly modified agricultural landscape in southeastern Australia. The farmland uses were crops, fallows, and two restoration treatments (fine woody debris applied over harvested crop fields, and restoration plantings). Unexpectedly, overall species richness was significantly lower in remnants than in adjacent farmlands. Remnants and farmlands supported significantly different assemblages, with a third of species found in both habitats. Abundance responses were taxon-specific and influenced by interactions between land use and season. In particular, predator abundance was significantly higher in plantings and fallows during spring compared to summer. Detritivore abundance was significantly higher in the woody debris compared to the adjacent remnants. Herbivore abundance did not differ between remnants and farmlands over time. Complex responses provide strong support for a mosaic of land uses to effectively conserve different beetle groups. Species richness results suggest that further agricultural intensification, in farm fields and through the removal of remnant vegetation, risks reducing beetle diversity in this region. Maintaining farmland heterogeneity with a mix of low-intensity land uses, such as conservation tillage, crop-fallow rotation, restoration plantings, and the novel application of fine woody debris over cultivated fields, may provide seasonal refuge and resources for beetles. © 2017 Ng et al.
Dynamic effects of ground-layer plant communities on beetles in a fragmented farming landscape
- Ng, Katherina, McIntyre, Sue, Macfadyen, Sarina, Barton, Philip, Driscoll, Don, Lindenmayer, David
- Authors: Ng, Katherina , McIntyre, Sue , Macfadyen, Sarina , Barton, Philip , Driscoll, Don , Lindenmayer, David
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 27, no. 9 (2018), p. 2131-2153
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Vegetation effects on arthropods are well recognized, but it is unclear how different vegetation attributes might influence arthropod assemblages across mixed-agricultural landscapes. Understanding how plant communities influence arthropods under different habitat and seasonal contexts can identify vegetation management options for arthropod biodiversity. We examined relationships between vegetation structure, plant species richness and plant species composition, and the diversity and composition of beetles in different habitats and time periods. We asked: (1) What is the relative importance of plant species richness, vegetation structure and plant composition in explaining beetle species richness, activity-density and composition? (2) How do plant-beetle relationships vary between different habitats over time? We sampled beetles using pitfall traps and surveyed vegetation in three habitats (woodland, farmland, their edges) during peak crop growth in spring and post-harvest in summer. Plant composition better predicted beetle composition than vegetation structure. Both plant richness and vegetation structure significantly and positively affected beetle activity-density. The influence of all vegetation attributes often varied in strength and direction between habitats and seasons for all trophic groups. The variable nature of plant-beetle relationships suggests that vegetation management could be targeted at specific habitats and time periods to maximize positive outcomes for beetle diversity. In particular, management that promotes plant richness at edges, and promotes herbaceous cover during summer, can support beetle diversity. Conserving ground cover in all habitats may improve activity-density of all beetle trophic groups. The impacts of existing weed control strategies in Australian crop margins on arthropod biodiversity require further study. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature.
- Authors: Ng, Katherina , McIntyre, Sue , Macfadyen, Sarina , Barton, Philip , Driscoll, Don , Lindenmayer, David
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 27, no. 9 (2018), p. 2131-2153
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Vegetation effects on arthropods are well recognized, but it is unclear how different vegetation attributes might influence arthropod assemblages across mixed-agricultural landscapes. Understanding how plant communities influence arthropods under different habitat and seasonal contexts can identify vegetation management options for arthropod biodiversity. We examined relationships between vegetation structure, plant species richness and plant species composition, and the diversity and composition of beetles in different habitats and time periods. We asked: (1) What is the relative importance of plant species richness, vegetation structure and plant composition in explaining beetle species richness, activity-density and composition? (2) How do plant-beetle relationships vary between different habitats over time? We sampled beetles using pitfall traps and surveyed vegetation in three habitats (woodland, farmland, their edges) during peak crop growth in spring and post-harvest in summer. Plant composition better predicted beetle composition than vegetation structure. Both plant richness and vegetation structure significantly and positively affected beetle activity-density. The influence of all vegetation attributes often varied in strength and direction between habitats and seasons for all trophic groups. The variable nature of plant-beetle relationships suggests that vegetation management could be targeted at specific habitats and time periods to maximize positive outcomes for beetle diversity. In particular, management that promotes plant richness at edges, and promotes herbaceous cover during summer, can support beetle diversity. Conserving ground cover in all habitats may improve activity-density of all beetle trophic groups. The impacts of existing weed control strategies in Australian crop margins on arthropod biodiversity require further study. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »