Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 2883–2901 | Cite as

Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural forests of Azores

  • Pedro CardosoEmail author
  • Paulo A. V. Borges
  • Clara Gaspar
Original Paper


The loss of biotic integrity in ecosystems due to human pressure has been receiving much attention from the scientific community. The primary aim of this study is to understand how the increasing human pressure on natural forests in the Azorean archipelago (North Atlantic) is affecting their epigean arthropod communities and which biological parameters it affects most. An expert team did fieldwork covering most of the natural forests (mainly inside nature reserves) of the archipelago using standardized pitfall trapping. To build a multimetric index we tested a number of taxonomic and ecological parameters that can potentially be influenced by disturbance. Sixteen of these were found to be significantly influenced by disturbance in forests. We retained seven metrics due to both, desirable scalability properties and relatively low correlation between them. These included the percentages of endemic and predator species richness and also predator abundance, which are inversely related to disturbance; and the percentages of native and saprophagous species richness and introduced and herbivore abundance, which are positively related to disturbance. All seven metrics were combined in an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) value. We then proceeded to understand which potential disturbance factors are influencing the biotic integrity of communities and how such influence is felt. Five disturbance factors were found to influence the IBI, although in different ways: the size and fragmentation of reserves, the distance of sites to the reserve borders, the invasion by alien plants and the density of human paths at the sites. Given that only percentages of taxonomical or ecological characteristics were chosen as metrics, we tested and found the scalability of the IBI to be possible, allowing the comparison of sites with different collecting effort or even the comparison of reserves with different areas and numbers of collecting sites in each. Finally, we propose a novel graphical representation for multimetric indices like the IBI, one which allows retaining much of the information that is usually lost in multimetric indices.


Disturbance Endemic species IBI Invasive species Island ecosystems Macaronesia Metrics Multimetric index Naturalness Scalability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We are indebted to Joaquín Hortal for his suggestions which much improved previous drafts of the manuscript. We also acknowledge Regina Meneses for the English editing of the manuscript. We should also thank all the persons committed in collecting and identifying an enormous number of arthropods, namely: C. Aguiar, J. Amaral, G. André, A. Arraiol, A. Baz, H. Enghoff, F. Ilharco, V. Mahnert, C. Melo, F. Pereira, J.A. Quartau, S. Ribeiro, J. Ribes, A.R.M. Serrano, A.B. Sousa, R.Z. Strassen, L. Vieira, V. Vieira, A. Vitorino and J. Wunderlich. PC was supported by CITAA under the Project “Critérios de escolha de áreas-padrão em estudos de Integridade Biótica e sua influência na prioritização de áreas naturais para conservação”. CG was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia BD/11049/2002. This paper is part of the BALA project (Biodiversity of Arthropods in the Laurisilva of the Azores), which is supported by the Azorean Government (PROJ. 17.01-080203).


  1. Andreasen JK, O’Neill RV, Noss R, Slosser NC (2001) Considerations for the development of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecol Indicators 1:21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angermeier PL (1994) Does biodiversity include artificial diversity? Conserv Biol 8:600–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angermeier PL, Davideanu G (2004) Using fish communities to assess streams in Romania: initial development of an index of biotic integrity. Hydrobiologia 511:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1994) Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience 44:690–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blocksom KA, Kurtenbach JP, Klemm DJ, Fulk FA, Cormier SM (2002) Development and evaluation of the lake macroinvertebrate integrity index (LMII) for New Jersey lakes and reservoirs. Environ Monit Assess 77:311–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Borges PAV, Serrano ARM, Quartau JA (2000) Ranking the Azorean Natural Forest Reserves for conservation using their endemic arthropods. J Insect Conserv 4:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borges PAV, Aguiar C, Amaral J, Amorim IR, André G, Arraiol A, Baz A, Dinis F, Enghoff H, Gaspar C, Ilharco F, Mahnert V, Melo C, Pereira F, Quartau JA, Ribeiro S, Ribes J, Serrano ARM, Sousa AB, Strassen RZ, Vieira L, Vieira V, Vitorino A, Wunderlich J (2005a) Ranking protected areas in the Azores using standardized sampling of soil epigean arthropods. Biod Conserv 14:2029–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borges PAV, Cunha R, Gabriel R, Martins AF, Silva L, Vieira V (2005b) A list of the terrestrial fauna (Mollusca and Arthropoda) and flora (Bryophyta, Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta) from the Azores. Universidade dos Açores and Secretaria Regional do Ambiente dos Açores, Angra do Heroísmo, Horta, AçoresGoogle Scholar
  9. Borges PAV, Lobo JM, Azevedo EB, Gaspar C, Melo C, Nunes LV (2006) Invasibility and species richness of island endemic arthropods: a general model of endemic vs. exotic species. J Biogeogr 33:169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borges PAV, Azevedo EB, Borba A (in press) Biodiversidade e conservação da natureza em ilhas oceânicas: o caso dos Açores. In: Pereira HM (ed) Portugal Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Celta Editora, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradford DF, Franson SE, Neale AC, Heggem DT, Miller GR, Canterbury GE (1998) Bird species assemblages as indicators of biological integrity in Great Basin rangeland. Environ Monit Assess 49:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browder SF, Johnson DH, Ball IJ (2002) Assemblages of breeding birds as indicators of grassland condition. Ecol Indicators 2:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown KS (1997) Diversity, disturbance, and sustainable use of Neotropical forests: insects as indicators for conservation monitoring. J Insect Conserv 1:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chown SL, Rodrigues ASL, Gremmen NJM, Gaston KJ (2001) World heritage status and conservation of Southern Ocean islands. Conserv Biol 15:550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies KF, Margules CR, Lawrence JF (2000) Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81:1450–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Didham RK, Lawton JH, Hammond PM, Eggleton P (1998) Trophic structure stability and extinction dynamics of beetles (Coleoptera) in tropical forest fragments. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B 353:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Failing L, Gregory R (2003) Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. J Environ Manage 68:121–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferreira MT, Rodríguez-González PM, Aguiar FC, Albuquerque A (2005) Assessing biotic integrity in Iberian rivers: development of a multimetric plant index. Ecol Indicators 5:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert F, Gonzalez A, Evans-Freke I (1997) Corridors maintain species richness in the fragmented landscape of microecosystem. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B 265:577–582Google Scholar
  20. Griffith MB, Hill BH, McCormick FH, Kaufmann PR, Herlihy AT, Selle AR (2005) Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecol Indicators 5:117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henderson PA, Seaby RMH (2002) Species diversity and Richness-Projecto Mamirauá, Version 3.0. Pisces Conservation LtdGoogle Scholar
  22. Human KG, Gordon DM (1997) Effects of argentine ants on invertebrate biodiversity in Northern California. Conserv Biol 11:1242–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huston MA (1994) Biological diversity—the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Karr JR (1990) Biological integrity and the goal of environmental legislation: lessons for conservation biology. Conserv Biol 4:244–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karr JR, Chu EW (2000) Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karr JR, Dudley DR (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality. Environ Manage 5:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kesminas V, Virbickas T (2000) Application of an adapted index of biotic integrity to rivers of Lithuania. Hydrobiologia 422/423:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kier G, Barthlott W (2001) Measuring and mapping endemism and species richness: a new methodological approach and its application on the flora of Africa. Biod Conserv 10:1513–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kimberling DN, Karr JR, Fore LS (2001) Measuring human disturbance using terrestrial invertebrates in the shrub-steppe of eastern Washington (USA). Ecol Indicators 1:63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirkpatrick JB, Gilfedder L (1995) Maintaining integrity compared with maintaining rare and threatened taxa in remnant bushland in subhumid Tasmania. Biol Conserv 74:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kremen C, Colwell RK, Erwin TL, Murphy DD, Noss RF, Sanjayan MA (1993) Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 7:796–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B, Bloemers GF, Eggleton P, Hammond PM, Hodda M, Holt RD, Larsen TB, Mawdsley NA, Stork NE, Srivastava DS., Watt AD (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyons J, Navarro-Pérez S, Cochran PA, Santana E, Guzmán-Arroyo M (1995) Index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages for the conservation of streams and rivers in west-central Mexico. Conserv Biol 9:569–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mackey RL, Currie DJ (2001) The diversity-disturbance relationship: is it generally strong and peaked? Ecology 82:3479–3492Google Scholar
  35. Margules CR, Milkovits GA, Smith GT (1994) Contrasting effects of habitat fragmentation on the scorpion Cercophonius squama and amphipod Arcitalitrus sylvaticus. Ecology 75:2033–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McIntyre S, Lavorel S (1994) Predicting richness of native, rare, and exotic plants in response to habitat and disturbance variables across a variegated landscape. Conserv Biol 8:521–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Machado A (2004) An index of naturalness. J Nature Conserv 12:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Majer JD, Beeston G (1996) The Biodiversity Integrity Index: an illustration using ants in western Australia. Conserv Biol 10:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Margules CR, Usher MB (1981) Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biol Conserv 21:79–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer AL, Thurston HW, Pawlowski CW (2004) The multidisciplinary influence of common sustainability indices. Front Ecol Environ 8:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connell TJ, Jackson LE, Brooks RP (1998) A bird community index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic highlands. Environ Monit Assess 51:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ribeiro SP, Borges PAV, Gaspar C, Melo C, Serrano ARM, Amaral J, Aguiar C, Andre G, Quartau JA (2005) Canopy insect herbivores in the Azorean Laurisilva forests: key host plant species in a highly generalist insect community. Ecography 28:315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwartz MW (1999) Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30:83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva L, Smith CW (2004) A characterization of the non-indigenous flora of the Azores Archipelago. Biol Invasions 6:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. StatSoft Inc. (2001) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6Google Scholar
  46. Trombulak SC, Omland KS, Robinson JA, Lusk JL, Fleischner TL, Brown G, Domroese M (2004) Principles of conservation biology: recommended guidelines for conservation literacy from the education committee of the Society for Conservation Biology. Conserv Biol 18:1180–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turquin MJ (1973) Une biocenose cavernicole originale pour le Bugey: Le puits de Rappe. Commptes Rendus 96e Congresse Naturel Sociétès Savantes, Toulouse 1971, Sciences 3:235–256Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Cardoso
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paulo A. V. Borges
    • 2
  • Clara Gaspar
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Zoological Museum and Centre for MacroecologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen ØDenmark
  2. 2.Departamento de Ciências Agrárias - CITAAUniversidade dos AçoresTerceiraPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Animal and Plant SciencesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations