, Volume 189, Issue 1, pp 267–277 | Cite as

Linking conservation implications of modified disturbance regimes, plant communities, plant associations, and arthropod communities

  • Kevin P. Sierzega
  • Michael W. EichholzEmail author
Conservation ecology – original research


Modifications to disturbance regimes have landscape-level effects on plant communities and have the potential to influence organisms at multiple trophic levels. We examined differences in the arthropod community across a gradient of oak/hickory dominance, a plant community maintained by disturbance such as periodic fires and extensive land clearing. In southern Illinois, we used patches of forest that varied in tree dominance ranging from 94 to 0% oak/hickory composition dependent on prior land usage that occurred > 50 years ago at minimum, to test two predictions: (1) oak (Quercus) and hickory (Carya) species contain more arthropod biomass and diversity than mesic tree species [e.g., American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and maples (Acer spp.)] and (2) due to plant associations, arthropod communities are more diverse and abundant on host trees within oak/hickory stands than non-oak/hickory stands. Our results were consistent with the prediction that arthropod biomass, guild Shannon diversity, and guild richness are higher on oaks, hickories and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) than beech and maples. We also found support for the prediction that due to plant associations, % non-oak/hickory stand composition negatively influenced arthropod guild Shannon diversity and guild richness on host trees, including maples and beech. These results are the first to demonstrate that modified disturbance regimes can influence multiple trophic levels both directly due to species-specific variation in susceptibility of plants to herbivory and indirectly through effects of plant associations. This result is concerning as modified disturbance regimes are influencing large-scale plant community composition among biomes worldwide.


Disturbance Diversity Trophic interactions Plant association Succession 



The authors would like to thank the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service for funding this project through USFS Agreement 13-CS-11090800-022. We would like to thank J. Suda, W. Holland, and others for laboratory assistance; and R. Richards for field assistance.

Author contribution statement

KS helped develop and design the study, collected and analyzed the data, helped interpret the results and drafted the original article; ME developed and designed the study, helped interpret the results, substantially edited the original draft and created the final draft.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4292_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. Andow DA (1991) Vegetational diversity and Arthropod population response. Ann Rev Entomol 36:561–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey SA, Horner-Devine MC, Luck G, Moore A, Carney KM, Anderson S, Betrus C, Fleishman E (2004) Primary productivity and species richness: relationships among functional guilds, residency groups and vagility classes at multiple spatial scales. Ecography 27:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baraloto C, He´rault B, Paine T, Massot H, Blanc L, Bonal D, Molino JF, Nicolini EA, Sabatier D (2012) Contrasting taxonomic and functional responses of a tropical tree community to selective logging. J Appl Ecol 49:861–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbosa P, Krischik VA (1987) Influence of Alkaloids on Feeding Preference of Eastern Deciduous Forest Trees by the Gypsy Moth Lymantria dispar. Am Nat 130:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I, Martinson H, Szczepaniec A, Szendrei Z (2009) Associational resistance and associational susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-9, Accessed Dec 2015
  7. Brändle M, Brandl R (2001) Species richness of insects and mites on trees: expanding Southwood. J Anim Ecol 70:491–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun EL (1950) Deciduous forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing Company, New York, p c1950Google Scholar
  9. Brown BJ, Ewel JJ (1987) Herbivory in complex and simple tropical successional ecosystems. Ecology 68:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkle LA, Myers JA, Belote RT (2015) Wildfire disturbance and productivity as drivers of plant species diversity across spatial scales. Ecosphere 6:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler L, Strazanac J (2000) Macrolepidopteran larvae sampled by tree bands in temperate mesic and xeric forests in eastern United States. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 102:188–197Google Scholar
  12. Cade BS (1997) Comparison of tree basal area and canopy cover in habitat models: subalpine forest. J Wildlife Manag 61:326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castagneyrol B, Giffard B, Christelle P, Jactel H (2013) Plant apparency, an overlooked driver of associational resistance to insect herbivory. J Ecol 101:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chudomelová M, Hédl R, Zouhard V, Szabóa P (2017) Open oakwoods facing modern threats: will they survive the next fifty years? Biol Cons 210:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clebsch EEC, Busing RT (1989) Secondary succession, gap dynamics, and community structure in a southern appalachian cove forest. Ecology 70:728–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donovan GH, Brown TC (2007) Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of Smokey Bear. Front Ecol Environ 5:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dulaurent AM, Porté AJ, van Halder I, Vétillard F, Menassieu P, Jactel H (2012) Hide and seek in forests: colonization by the pine processionary moth is impeded by the presence of nonhost trees. Agric For Entomol 14:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feeny P (1968) Effect of oak leaf tannins on larval growth of the winter moth Operophtera brumata. J Insect Physiol 14:805–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Recent advances in phytochemistry. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  21. Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S, Hansel F, Hemp A (2010) Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the biodiversity exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol 11:473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forkner RE, Hunter MD (2000) What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on oak herbivores. Ecology 81:1588–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fralish JS, McArdle TG (2009) Forest dynamics across three century-length disturbance regimes in the Illinois Ozark hills. Am Midl Nat 162:418–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Futuyma DJ, Gould F (1979) Associations of plants and insects in deciduous forest. Ecol Monogr 49:33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillen CA, Hellgren EC (2012) Effects of forest composition on trophic relationships among mast production and mammals in central hardwood forest. J Mammal 94:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plitzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:12942–12947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanberry B, Kabrick JM, He HS, Palik BJ (2012) Historical trajectories and restoration strategies for the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. For Ecol Manage 280:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heiermann J, Schütz S (2008) The effect of the tree species ratio of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) on polyphagous and monophagous pest species—Lymantria monacha L. and Calliteara pudibunda L. (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) as an example. For Ecol Manage 255:1161–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hessburg PF, Churchill DJ, Larson AJ, Haugo RD, Miller C, Spies TA, North MP, Povak NA, Belote RT, Singleton PH (2015) Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landscape Ecol 30:1805–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holl K (1996) The effect of coal surface mine reclamation on diurnal lepidopteran conservation. J Appl Ecol 33:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holmes RT, Robinson SK (1981) Tree species preferences of foraging insectivorous birds in a northern hardwoods forest. Oecologia 48:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem function: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hovind HJ, Rieck CE (1970) Basal area and point-sampling: interpretation and application. Technical bulletin. Number 23. R.L. Hine, editor. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Game Management Division, Wisconsin Conservation DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunter MD, Price PW (1992) Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732Google Scholar
  35. Hurlbert AH, Haskell JP (2003) The effect of energy and seasonality on avian species richness and community composition. Am Nat 161:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jactel H, Brockerhoff EG (2007) Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecol Lett 10:835–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson MD (2000) Evaluation of an arthropod sampling technique for measuring food availability for forest insectivorous birds. J Field Ornithol 71:88–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Livingston AC, Morgan Varner J, Jules ES, Kane JM, Arguello LA (2016) Prescribed fire and conifer removal promote positive understory vegetation responses in oak woodlands. J Appl Ecol 53:1604–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lunt ID, Byrne M, Hellmann JJ, Mitchell NJ, Garnett SP, Hayward MW, Martin TG, McDonald-Maddden E, Williams SE, Zander KK (2013) Using assisted colonisation to conserve biodiversity and restore ecosystem function under climate change. Biol Cons 157:172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manuwoto S, Scriber JM, Hsia MT, Sunarjo P (1985) Antibiosis/antixenosis in tulip tree and quaking aspen leaves against the polyphagous southern armyworm. Spodoptera eridania Oecologia 67:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marquis RJ, Whelan CJ (1994) Insectivorous birds increase growth of white oak through consumption of leaf-chewing insects. Ecology 75:2007–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mittlebach GG, Steiner CF, Scheiner SM, Gross KL, Reynolds HL, Waide RB, Willig MR, Dodson SI, Gough L (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mori AS, Furukawa T, Sasaki T (2013) Response diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change. Biological Review 88:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morris RJ (2010) Anthropogenic impacts on tropical forest biodiversity: a network structure and ecosystem functioning perspective. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:3709–3718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naeem S, Emmett Duffy J, Zavaleta E (2012) The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 336:1401–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD (2008) The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perring MP, Standish RJ, Price NJ, Craig MD, Erickson TE, Ruthrof KX, Whiteley AS, Valentine LE, Hobbs RJ (2015) Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere 6:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  49. Root RB (1973) Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol Monogr 43:95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scherber C, Eisenhauer N, Weisser WW, Schmid B, Voigt W, Fischer M (2010) Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468:553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schowalter T, Crossley DA Jr, Hargrove W (1986) Herbivory in forest ecosystems. Annu Rev Entomol 31:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schowalter TD, Willig MR, Presley SJ (2017) Post-hurricane successional dynamics in abundance and diversity of canopy arthropods in a tropical rainforest. Environ Entomol 46(1):11–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Schuman MC, Baldwin IT (2016) The layers of plant Responses to insect herbivores. Annu Rev Entomol 61:373–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwegman J (1975) The natural divisions of Illinois. In: Mohlenbrock RH (ed) Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp 1–47Google Scholar
  56. Sierzega KP (2016) Factors Influencing avian habitat selection between oak-hickory and mesic forests in Southern Illinois M.S. Thesis Southern Illinois University CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  57. Sobek S, Scherber C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2009) Sapling herbivory, invertebrate herbivores and predators across a natural tree diversity gradient in Germany’s largest connected deciduous forest. Oecologia 160:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stambaugh MC, Creacy G, Sparks J, Rooney M (2017) Three centuries of fire and forest vegetation transitions preceding Texas’ most destructive wildfire: Lost Pines or lost oaks? For Ecol Manag 396:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78:23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strong AM, Sherry TW, Holmes RT (2000) Bird predation on herbivorous insects: indirect effects on sugar maple saplings. Oecologia 125:370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Summervile KS, Crist TO, Kahn JK, Gering JC (2003) Community structure of arboreal caterpillars within and among four tree species of eastern deciduous forest. Ecol Entomol 28:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2002) Effects of timber harvest on Lepidoptera: community, guild, and species responses. Ecol Appl 12:820–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2008) Structure and conservation of lepidopteran communities in managed forests of northeastern North America: a review. Can Entomol 140:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Summerville KS, Boulware MJ, Veech JA, Crist TO (2003) Spatial variation in species diversity and composition of forest Lepidoptera: patterns and implications for conservation. Conserv Biol 17:1045–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Summerville KS, Courard-Hauri D, Dupont MM (2009) The legacy of timber harvest: do patterns of species dominance suggest recovery of lepidopteran communities in managed hardwood stands? For Ecol Manage 259:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thompson FR (2004) The hoosier-shawnee ecological assessment 3rd edition. general technical report. NC-244. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. St. Paul, Minnesota, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM (2014) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wallace LL, Dunn EL (1980) Comparative photosynthesis of three gap phase successional tree species. Oecologia 45:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. White JA, Whitham TG (2000) Associational susceptibility of cottonwood to a box elder herbivore. Ecology 81:1795–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Whitfeld TJS, Lasky JR, Damas K, Sosanika G, Molem K, Montgomery RA (2014) Species richness, forest structure, and functional diversity during succession in the new guinea lowlands. Biotropica 46:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zehnder CB, Stodola KW, Cooper RJ, Hunter MD (2010) Spatial heterogeneity in the relative impacts of foliar quality and predation pressure on red oak, Quercus rubra, arthropod communities. Oecologia 164:1017–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zuur A, Ien EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Center for EcologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations