Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1089–1104 | Cite as

Diversity and composition of fruit-feeding butterflies in tropical Eucalyptus plantations

  • Jos BarlowEmail author
  • Ivanei S. Araujo
  • William L. Overal
  • Toby A. Gardner
  • Fernanda da Silva Mendes
  • Iain R. Lake
  • Carlos A. Peres
Original Paper

Abstract

Production landscapes are rarely considered as priority areas for biodiversity conservation in the tropics. Tree plantations have the potential to provide a conservation service in much of the humid tropics since they are rapidly increasing in extent and present less of a structural contrast with native vegetation than many more intensive agricultural land-uses. We used hierarchical partitioning to examine the factors that influence the value of large-scale Eucalyptus plantations for tropical fruit-feeding butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the Brazilian Amazon. We focused on evaluating the importance of landscape versus stand-level factors in determining the diversity and composition of butterfly assemblages, and how butterfly-environment relationships vary within and between subfamilies of Nymphalidae. Native understorey vegetation richness had the strongest independent effect on the richness, abundance and composition of all fruit-feeding butterflies, as well as a subset of species that had been recorded in nearby primary forests. However, overall patterns were strongly influenced by the most abundant subfamily (Satyrinae), and vegetation richness was not related to the abundance of any other subfamily, or non-Satyrinae species, highlighting the importance of disaggregating the fruit-feeding Nymphalidae when examining butterfly-environment relationships. Our results suggest that plantations can help conserve a limited number of forest species, and serve to highlight the research that is necessary to understand better the relationship between fruit-feeding butterflies and environmental variables that are amenable to management.

Keywords

Amazon Biodiversity Brazil Conservation Hierarchical partitioning Species-environment relationships 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Brazilian Ministério de Ciências e Tecnologia (CNPq) and Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA-IBAMA) for permissions to conduct this research. We are very grateful to Grupo Orsa and the staff of Orsa Florestal and Jari Celulose S.A. in Monte Dourado, Brazil, for permission to work in their landholding, as well as logistical support throughout the duration of the project and for making the plantation dominant height data available to us. The project was funded by the UK Government Darwin Initiative, National Geographic Society, Conservation Food and Health Foundation and Conservation International. This is publication number 11 of the Land-Use Change and Amazonian Biodiversity project.

References

  1. Barlow J, Overal WL, Araujo IS, Gardner TA, Peres CA (2007) The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for fruit-feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Amazon. J Appl Ecol 44(5):1001–1012 Google Scholar
  2. Brown C (2000) The Global Outlook for Present and Future Wood Supply from Forest Plantation. Working Paper No GFPOS/WP/03, FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown KS Jr. (1997) Diversity, disturbance, and sustainable use of Neotropical forests: insects as indicators for conservation monitoring. J Insect Conserv 1:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown KS Jr., Freitas AVL (2000) Atlantic forest butterflies: Indicators for landscape conservation. Biotropica 32:934–956Google Scholar
  5. Carnus JM, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E, Arbez M, Jactel H, KremerA, Lamb D, O’Hara K, Walters B (2006) Planted forests and biodiversity. J Forestry 104:65–77Google Scholar
  6. Chai P, Srygley RB (1990) Predation and the flight, morphology, and temperature of Neotropical rain-forest butterflies. Am Nat 135:748–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chey VK, Holloway JD, Speight MR (1997) Diversity of moths in forest plantations and natural forests in Sabah. Bull Entomol Res 87:371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell RK (2004) Estimates: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7. User’s guide and application published at: http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates (accessed in February 2007)
  9. Curry GN (1991) The influence of proximity to plantation of diversity and abundance of bird species in an exotic pine plantation in north-eastern New South Wales. Wildl Res 18:299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Abrera BL (1988) Butterflies of the neotropical region, part V. Nymphalidae (conc) & Satyridae. Hill House, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  11. Daily GC (2001) Ecological forecasts. Nature 411:245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. DeVries PJ, Murray D, Lande R (1997) Species diversity in vertical, horizontal, and temporal dimensions of a fruit-feeding butterfly community in an Ecuadorian rainforest. Biol J Linn Soc 62:343–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans J, Turnbull J (2004) Plantation forestry in the tropics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Eycott AE, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM (2006) Ecological patterns of plant diversity in a plantation forest managed by clearfelling. J Appl Ecol 43:1160–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2005) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at http://www.fao.org/forestry (accessed January 2007)
  16. Fearnside PM (1998) Plantation forestry in Brazil: Projections to 2050. Biomass & Bioenergy 15:437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert LE, Smiley JT (1978) Determinants of local diversity in phytophagous insects: host specialists in tropical environments. In: Diversity of Insect Faunas. Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London 9:89–104Google Scholar
  19. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamer KC, Hill JK (2000) Scale-dependent effects of habitat disturbance on species richness in tropical forests. Conserv Biol 14:1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartley M (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 155:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawkins BA, Porter EE (2003) Does herbivore diversity depend on plant diversity? The case of California butterflies. Am Nat 161:40–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Humphrey JW, Hawes C, Peace AJ, Ferris-Kaan R, Jukes MR (1999) Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 113:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanowski J, Catterall CP, Wardell-Johnson GW (2005) Consequences of broadscale timber plantations for biodiversity in cleared rainforest landscapes of tropical and subtropical Australia. For Ecol Manage 208:359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerr JT (2001) Butterfly species richness patterns in Canada: Energy, heterogeneity, and the potential consequences of climate change. Conservation Ecology 5(1): 10. Available at: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art10/
  26. Koh LP (2007) Impacts of land use change on South-east Asian forest butterflies: a review. J Appl Ecol 44(4):703–713Google Scholar
  27. Lamas G (2004) Checklist: Part 4 A. Hesperioidea-Papilionoidea. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera. Scientific publishers, Gainsville, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, Fischer J (2005) Vegetation cover thresholds and species responses. Biol Conserv 124:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ (2004) Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests-a review. Biol Conserv 119:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: The distinction between and reconciliation of ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and Umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molleman F, Kop A, Brakefield PM, DeVries PJ, Zwaan BS (2006) Vertical and temporal patterns of biodiversity of fruit-feeding butterflies in a tropical forest in Uganda. Biodivers Conserv 15:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neild AFE (1996) The butterflies of Venezuala. Part 1: Nymphalidae I (Limentidinae, Apaturinae, Charaxinae). Meridian Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Hara RB (2005) Species richness estimators: how many species can dance on the head of a pin. J Anim Ecol 74:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Petit LJ, Petit DR (2003) Evaluating the importance of human-modified lands for Neotropical bird conservation. Conserv Biol 17:687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramos FA (2000) Nymphalid butterfly communities in an Amazonian forest fragment. J Res Lepidoptera 35:29–41Google Scholar
  41. Rydon A (1964) Notes on the use of butterfly traps in East Africa. J Lepidopterists’ Soc 18:51–58Google Scholar
  42. Schulze CH, Waltert M, Kessler PJA, Pitopang R, Shahabuddin, D. Veddeler, M. Muhlenberg, S. R. Gradstein, C. Leuschner, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. (2004) Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical land-use systems: comparing plants, birds, and insects. Ecol Appl 14:1321–1333Google Scholar
  43. Shahabuddin G, Ponte CA (2005) Frugivorous butterfly species in tropical forest fragments: correlates of vulnerability to extinction. Biodiv Conserv 14:1137–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singer MC, PR Ehrlich (1991) Host specialization of satyrine butterflies, and their responses to habitat fragmentation in Trinidad. J Res Lepidoptera 30:248–256Google Scholar
  45. Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000) Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol Lett 3:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stork NE, Srivastava DS, Watt AD, Larsen TB (2003) Butterfly diversity and silvicultural practice in lowland rainforests of Cameroon. Biodiv Conserv 12:387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas CD, Mallorie HC (1985) Rarity, species richness and conservation - butterflies of the Atlas Mountains in Morocco. Biol Conserv 33:95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uehara-Prado M, Brown KS, Freitas AVL (2007) Species richness, composition and abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: omparison between a fragmented and a continuous landscape. Glob Ecol Biogr 16:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veddeler D, Schulze CH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Buchori D, Tscharntke T (2005) The contribution of tropical secondary forest fragments to the conservation of fruit-feeding butterflies: effects of isolation and age. Biodiv Conserv 14:3577–3592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yu CM (2004) Seqüestro florestal de carbono no Brasil: dimensões políticas, socioeconômicas e ecológicas. Annablume, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jos Barlow
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ivanei S. Araujo
    • 1
  • William L. Overal
    • 1
  • Toby A. Gardner
    • 3
  • Fernanda da Silva Mendes
    • 4
  • Iain R. Lake
    • 3
  • Carlos A. Peres
    • 3
  1. 1.Museu Paraense Emílio GoeldiBelemBrazil
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  4. 4.Universidade Federal Rural da AmazôniaBelemBrazil

Personalised recommendations