Testing common habitat-based surrogates of invertebrate diversity in a semi-arid rangeland
Habitat-based surrogates are a low cost alternative to intensive biodiversity surveys, though they have been poorly investigated in semi-arid ecosystem compared to others such as temperate woodlands. In this study we tested potential habitat-based surrogates of invertebrate richness in a semi-arid rangeland in northwest Australia. Potential surrogates were: distance from artificial watering-point; soil hardness; habitat complexity; and individual complexity components. Generalised additive models (GAMs) were used to relate abundance and richness of selected invertebrates with environmental factors and cluster analysis was used to examine similarity in species composition. The most frequently selected factor was soil hardness, but taxa varied as to whether biodiversity was higher in soft or hard soils. Where distance from watering-point was an important predictor, there were generally higher abundances and richness closer to watering-points than further away. Abundance and species richness could be partially explained using individual complexity components, but relationships were weak and there were no consistent trends among taxa. Therefore, although habitat complexity has been correlated with species richness under some circumstances, our results cast doubt on the generality of this relationship. There are also dangers in assuming that all taxa respond in a manner similar to indicator taxa, as we observed that different taxa had higher richness at opposite extremes of some environmental gradients. Grazing may have a negative impact on biodiversity in some environments, but in regions where water is limiting, the net effect may be positive due to the creation of waterholes.
KeywordsArthropods Complexity GAM Grazing Indicators Watering-point
This research was undertaken as part of the Australian Museum–Rio Tinto partnership and funded through the Rio Tinto WA Future Fund. We thank M. Elliott, L. Kampen and M. Bulbert for help with fieldwork. Thanks to D. Smith (ants), S. Ginn (wasps, flies) and G. Brown (beetles) for taxonomic sorting and/or identifications, and Dr C. Reid, Dr D. Bickel, Dr D. McAlpine, and Dr S. McEvey for their taxonomic advice. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on an earlier draft.
- Andersen AN (1997) Using ants as bioindicators, multiscale issues in ant community ecology. Conserv Ecol 1(1):8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss1/art8/. Cited 12 Dec 2007
- Crawford CS (1988) Surface-active arthropods in a desert landscape: influences of microclimate, vegetation, and soil texture on assemblage structure. Pedobiologia (Jena) 3:373–385Google Scholar
- di Castri F, Robertson J, Vernhes J, Younes T (1992) Inventorying and monitoring biodiversity. Biol Int 27:1–27Google Scholar
- Fisher A, Hunt L, James C et al (2004) Review of total grazing pressure management issues and priorities for biodiversity conservation in rangelands: a resource to aid NRM planning. Desert knowledge CRC and tropical savannas management. CRC, Alice SpringsGoogle Scholar
- Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Lal R (1991) Soil conservation and biodiversity. In: Hawkesworth DL (ed) The biodiversity of microorganisms and invertebrates: its role in sustainable agriculture. CAB International, University of Arizona Press, pp 89–103Google Scholar
- Osborn TG, Wood JG, Paltidge TB (1932) On the growth and reaction to grazing of the perennial saltbush (Atriplex vesicarium). An ecological study of the biotic factor. Proc Linn Soc N S W 57:377–402Google Scholar
- Perrings C, Walker BW (1995) Biodiversity loss and the economics of discontinuous change in semiarid rangelands. In: Perrings C, Mäler K, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson B (eds) Biodiversity loss economic and ecological issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 190–212Google Scholar
- Schell SP, Lockwood JA (1997) Spatial analysis of ecological factors related to rangeland grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) outbreaks in Wyoming. Environ Entomol 26(6):1343–1353Google Scholar
- Stoms DM, Comer PJ, Crist PJ, Grossman DH (2005) Choosing surrogates for biodiversity conservation in complex planning environments. J Conserv Plann 1:44–63Google Scholar
- Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V et al (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92Google Scholar