Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 15–21

Does forest loss affect the communities of trap-nesting wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) in forests? Landscape vs. local habitat conditions

  • Hisatomo Taki
  • Blandina F. Viana
  • Peter G. Kevan
  • Fabiana O. Silva
  • Matthias Buck
Original Paper


We investigated changes in the communities of trap-nesting Hymenoptera in forests in relation to forest loss on a landscape scale and understory conditions on a local habitat scale. Two specific questions were addressed. (1) Do the communities change with degrees of forest loss? (2) Do the communities change with varying local environmental conditions of understory habitats? The study was made in a landscape characterized by distributed forest patches within intensively managed agricultural surroundings. We deployed trap-nests at eight randomly selected sites in forests in summer. To quantify forest loss, the amount of forest coverage was calculated using GIS. To indicate local habitat conditions, the species richness of understory flowering plants was used. All together, 12 species of wasps and no bees were captured. Regression analyses showed that both abundance and species richness of the wasps were not significantly related to forest coverage. However, abundance of trap-nesting wasps was significantly related to species richness of understory plants, but species richness of the wasps was not significantly related to the plants. These results suggest that communities of trap-nesting wasps in forests are influenced more by the local habitat conditions than by forest loss.


Carolinian zone Cavity-nesting Fragmentation Habitat loss Local characteristics 


  1. Allen GM, Eagles PFJ, Price SD (eds) (1990) Conserving Carolinian Canada. University of Waterloo Press, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MC (1964) Studies of the woodland light climate II. Seasonal variation in the light climate. J Ecol 52:643–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argus GW (1992) The phytogeography of rare vascular plants in Ontario and its bearing on plant conservation. Can J Bot 70:469–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach CE, Kelly D, Hazlett BA (2005) Forest edges benefit adults, but not seedlings, of the mistletoe Alepis flavida (Loranthaceae). J Ecol 93:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes BV, Zak DR, Denton SR, Spurr SH (1998) Forest ecology, 4th edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowley SR (1999) A hitchhiker’s guide to statistics in plant biology. Any old subject books. A division of plant et al. Inc., GuelphGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgess VJ, Kelly D, Robertson AW, Ladley JJ (2006) Positive effects of forest edges on plant reproduction: literature review and a case study of bee visitation to flowers of Peraxilla tetrapetala (Loranthaceae). New Zealand J Ecol 30:179–190Google Scholar
  8. Buschini MLT (2006) Species diversity and community structure in trap-nesting bees in Southern Brazil. Apidologie 37:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camillo E, Brescovit AD (1999) Spiders (Araneae) captured by Trypoxylon (Trypargilum) lactitarse (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae) in Southeastern Brazil. Rev Biol Trop 47:151–162Google Scholar
  10. Chen JQ, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1992) Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 2:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collinge SK, Prudic KL, Oliver JC (2003) Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv Biol 17:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins JA, Jennings DT (1987) Spruce budwormand other lepidopterous prey of Eumenid wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae) in spruce-fir forests of Maine. Great Lakes Entomol 20:127–133Google Scholar
  13. Culin JD, Robertson MW (2003) Spider prey of Trypoxylon lactitarse Saussure (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). J Entomol Sci 38:321–333Google Scholar
  14. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donovan TM, Jones PW, Annand EM, Thompson FR (1997) Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driscoll MJL, Donovan TM (2004) Landscape context moderates edge effects: nesting success of wood thrushes in central New York. Conserv Biol 18:1330–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Findlay CS, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conserv Biol 11:1000–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frankie GW, Thorp RW, Newstrom-Lloyd LE et al (1998) Monitoring solitary bees in modified wildland habitats: implications for bee ecology and conservation. Environ Entomol 27:1137–1148Google Scholar
  21. Fye RE (1972) The effect of forest disturbances on populations of wasps and bees in northwestern Ontario (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Can Entomol 104:1623–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gathmann A, Greiler HJ, Tscharntke T (1994) Trap-nesting bees and wasps colonizing set-aside fields: succession and body size, management by cutting and sowing. Oecologia 98:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorham LE, King SL, Keeland BD et al (2002) Effects of canopy gaps and flooding on homopterans in a bottomland hardwood forest. Wetlands 22:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gurd DB, Nudds TD, Rivard DH (2001) Conservation of mammals in eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small?. Conserv Biol 15:1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hardtle W, von Oheimb G, Westphal C (2003) The effects of light and soil conditions on the species richness of the ground vegetation of deciduous forests in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein). For Ecol Manage 182:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horn S, Hanula JL, Ulyshen MD (2005) Abundance of green tree frogs and insects in artificial canopy gaps in a bottomland hardwood forest. Am Midland Nat 153:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeanneret P, Schupbach B, Luka H (2003) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jennings DT, Parker FD (1987) Habitats and spider prey of Dipogon sayi sayi (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae) in Washington County, Maine. Great Lakes Entomol 20:135–140Google Scholar
  30. Jules ES, Rathcke BJ (1999) Mechanisms of reduced Trillium recruitment along edges of old-growth forest fragments. Conserv Biol 13:784–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kevan PG, Baker HG (1983) Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Annu Rev Entomol 28:407–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kevan PG, Baker HG (1999) Insects on flowers: pollination and floral visitations. In: Huffaker CB, Rabb RC (eds) Insect ecology, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Buchori D et al (2002) Effects of land-use intensity in tropical agroforestry systems on coffee flower-visiting and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conserv Biol 16:1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kruess A (2003) Effects of landscape structure and habitat type on a plant-herbivore-parasitoid community. Ecography 26:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kruess A, Tscharntke T (2002) Grazing intensity and the diversity of grasshoppers, butterflies, and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conserv Biol 16:1570–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krombein KV (1967) Trap-nesting wasps and bees: life histories, nests and associates. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Krombein KV, Hurd PD, Smith DR, Birks BD (1979) Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Kurczewski F (1989) Observations on the nesting behavior of Auplopus caerulescens subcorticalis and other Auplopodini (Hymenoptera: Pompilidae). Great Lakes Entomol 22:71–74Google Scholar
  39. Kurczewski FE, Spofford MG (1986). Observations of the behaviors of some Scoliidae and Pompilidae (Hymenoptera) in Florida. Florida Entomol 69:636–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lund RE (1975) Tables for an approximate test for outliers in linear models. Technometrics 17:473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKenna DD, Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (2001) A native hymenopteran predator of Agonopterix alstroemeriana (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae) in east-central Illinois. Great Lakes Entomol 34:71–75Google Scholar
  42. O’Neill KM, O’Neill RP (2003) Sex allocation, nests, and prey in the grass-carrying wasp Isodontia mexicana (Saussure) (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc 76:447–454Google Scholar
  43. Paton PWC (1994) The effect of edge on avian nest success – how strong is the evidence. Conserv Biol 8:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape. Ants in coffee plantations in Southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potts SG, Kevan PG, Boone JW (2005) Conservation in pollination: collecting, surveying and monitoring. In: Dafni A, Kevan PG, Husband BC (eds) Practical pollination biology. Enviroquest, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR et al (2001) Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conserv Biol 15:378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sears ALW, Smiley JT, Hilker M, Muller F, Rank NE (2001) Nesting behavior and prey use in two geographically separated populations of the specialist wasp Symmorphus cristatus (Vespidae:Eumeninae). Am Midland Nat 145:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soderstrom B, Svensson B, Vessby K et al (2001) Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodiver Conserv 10:1839–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steffan-Dewenter I (2002) Landscape context affects trap-nesting bees, wasps, and their natural enemies. Ecol Entomol 27:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steffan-Dewenter I (2003) Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conserv Biol 17:1036–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Tscharntke T (2001) Pollination, seed set and seed predation on a landscape scale. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1685–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C et al (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432Google Scholar
  54. Stoner KJL, Joern A (2004) Landscape vs. local habitat scale influences to insect communities from tallgrass prairie remnants. Ecol Appl 14:1306–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2004) Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taki H, Boone JW, Viana BF et al (2004) Effect of shading on trap nest utilization by hole-nesting aculeate Hymenoptera. Can Entomol 136:889–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tomimatsu H, Ohara M (2004) Edge effects on recruitment of Trillium camschatcense in small forest fragments. Biol Conserv 117:509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tscharntke T, Gathmann A, Steffan-Dewenter I (1998) Bioindication using trap-nesting wasps and their natural enemies: community structure and interactions. J Appl Ecol 35:708–719Google Scholar
  59. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A et al (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tylianakis JM, Klein AM, Tscharntke T (2005) Spatiotemporal variation in the diversity of hymenoptera across a tropical habitat gradient. Ecology 86:3296–3302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Waldron G (2003) Trees of the Carolinian forest: a guide to species, their ecology and uses. Boston Mills Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hisatomo Taki
    • 1
  • Blandina F. Viana
    • 2
  • Peter G. Kevan
    • 1
  • Fabiana O. Silva
    • 3
    • 4
  • Matthias Buck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal da BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  3. 3.Licenciatura em Ciências BiológicasFaculdades Jorge AmadoSalvadorBrazil
  4. 4.Bacharelado em Ciências BiológicasFaculdade de Tecnologia e CiênciasSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations