Advertisement

Diversity and trait patterns of moths at the edge of an Amazonian rainforest

  • Luisa Maria Jaimes NinoEmail author
  • Rolf Mörtter
  • Gunnar Brehm
ORIGINAL PAPER
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

From the forest edge to the forest interior, a small-scale gradient in the microclimate exists. Little is known about its influence on the abundance, diversity and morphological traits of insects in Amazonian forests, a major component of global terrestrial diversity. Our study investigates these traits in Arctiinae and Geometridae moths at the interior and the edge of a Peruvian lowland rainforest (Panguana field station, Puerto Inca Province). A total of 1286 Arctiinae and 2012 Geometridae specimens were collected, sorted according to DNA barcodes and identified using relevant type material. Moths’ assemblages at the forest edge differed significantly in their composition. At the forest edge, small-sized taxa (Lithosiini, Sterrhinae, Geometrinae) were less abundant whereas larger-sized Arctiini were more abundant. Moths were significantly larger at the forest edge than inside the forest, and these differences hold at subfamily and tribal level, possibly reflecting moth mobility, and abiotic conditions of habitats: larger moths might better tolerate desiccating conditions than smaller moths. A larger proportion of females was found at the forest edge, probably due to differences in the dispersal activity among sexes and/or in the tolerance to desiccation due to size. Our results revealed the edge effect on two rich herbivorous taxa in the Amazon basin. We provide a fully illustrated catalogue of all species as a baseline for further study and conservation purposes.

Keywords

Arctiinae Body size Geometridae Lepidoptera Species diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments and Rolf G. Beutel for continuous support. We cordially thank Juliane Diller and Erich Diller (Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Germany) for permission to work in the Panguana Research Station and for providing logistic support, Dariusz Gwiazdowicz for assistance in the field and Michel Laguerre for advice in the determination of Arctiinae moths. The DNA barcoding was financially supported by the Ernst-Abbe-Stiftung (Jena) and the research at the station was made possible by SERFOR (Peru) through a collection (No. 007-2014-SERFOR-DGGSPFFS) and export permit (No. 003107-SERFOR).

Funding

The study was funded by the Ernst-Abbe-Stiftung (Jena).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The authors declare that they have complied with ethical standards.

Supplementary material

10841_2019_168_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (366 kb)
Online Resource 1 (XLSX 365 kb)
10841_2019_168_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (762 kb)
Online Resources 2 and 3 (PDF 761 kb)
10841_2019_168_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (20.6 mb)
Online Resource 4 (PDF 21126 kb)
10841_2019_168_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (56.6 mb)
Online Resource 5 (PDF 57958 kb)
10841_2019_168_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Online Resources 6–10 (PDF 1220 kb)

References

  1. Aguiar WMD, Sofia SH, Melo GAR, Gaglianone MC (2015) Changes in orchid bee communities across forest-agroecosystem boundaries in Brazilian Atlantic Forest landscapes changes in orchid bee communities across forest. Environ Entomol 44:1465–1471.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altermatt F, Baumeyer A, Ebert D (2009) Experimental evidence for male biased flight-to-light behavior in two moth species. Entomol Exp Appl 130:259–265.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00817.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altshuler DL, Dickson WB, Vance JT et al (2005) Short-amplitude high-frequency wing strokes determine the aerodynamics of honeybee flight. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18213–18218.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506590102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck J, Linsenmair KE (2006) Feasibility of light-trapping in community research on moths : attraction radius of light, completeness of samples, nightly flight times and seasonality of Southeast-Asian hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). J Res Lepid 2000:18–36Google Scholar
  5. Beck J, McCain CM, Axmacher JC et al (2017) Elevational species richness gradients in a hyperdiverse insect taxon: a global meta-study on geometrid moths. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 26:412–424.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berwaerts K, Van Dyck H, Aerts P (2002) Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the Pararge aegeria butterfly. Funct Ecol 16:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodner F, Brehm G, Fiedler K (2015) Many caterpillars in a montane rain forest in Ecuador are not classical herbivores. J Trop Ecol 31:473–476.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467415000243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brehm G (2002) Diversity of geometrid moths in a montane rainforest in Ecuador. Dissertation, University of Bayreuth. https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/1012/
  9. Brehm G (2007) Contrasting patterns of vertical stratification in two moth families in a Costa Rican lowland rain forest. Basic Appl Ecol 8:44–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2006.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brehm G (2008) Patterns of arctiid diversity. In: Tiger moths and woolly bears: behavior, ecology, and evolution of the Arctiidae. Oxford University, pp 223–232Google Scholar
  11. Brehm G (2017) A new LED lamp for the collection of nocturnal Lepidoptera and a spectral comparison of light-trapping lamps. Nota Lepidopterol 40:87–108.  https://doi.org/10.3897/nl.40.11887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brehm G, Fiedler K (2004) Bergmann’s rule does not apply to geometrid moths along an elevational gradient in an Andean montane rain forest. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-882X.2004.00069.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brehm G, Fiedler K (2005) Diversity and community structure of geometrid moths of disturbed habitat in a montane area in the Ecuadorian Andes. J Res Lepid 1999:1–14Google Scholar
  14. Brehm G, Süssenbach D, Fiedler K (2003) Unique elevational diversity patterns of geometrid moths in an Andean montane rainforest. Ecography (Cop) 26:456–466.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03498.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brehm G, Pitkin LM, Hilt N, Fiedler K (2005) Montane Andean rain forests are a global diversity hotspot of geometrid moths. J Biogeogr 32:1621–1627.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01304.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brehm G, Colwell RK, Kluge J (2007) The role of environment and mid-domain effect on moth species richness along a tropical elevational gradient. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:205–219.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00281.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brehm G, Hebert PDN, Colwell RK et al (2016) Turning up the heat on a hotspot: DNA barcodes reveal 80% more species of geometrid moths along an Andean elevational gradient. PLoS ONE 11:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brehm G, Zeuss D, Brehm G, Colwell R (2018) Moth body size increases with elevation along a complete tropical elevational gradient for two hyperdiverse clades. Ecography (Cop).  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03917 Google Scholar
  19. Cardoso D, Särkinen T, Alexander S et al (2017) Amazon plant diversity revealed by a taxonomically verified species list. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:10695–10700.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706756114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chao A, Jost L (2012) Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology 93:2533–2547.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41739612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh TC et al (2017) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol Monogr 84:45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chown SL, Gaston KJ (2010) Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective. Biol Rev 85:139–169.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00097.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ et al (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J Plant Ecol 5:3–21.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Covell CV (1983) The state of our knowledge of the Neotropical Sterrhinae (Geometridae). In: Second symposium on Neotropical Lepidoptera, Arequipa, Peru, Vol. 1, pp 17–23Google Scholar
  25. Cushman JH, Lawton JH (1993) Latitudinal patterns in European ant assemblages: variation in species richness and body. Oecologia 95:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1996) Nocturnality and species survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:11709–11712.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.21.11709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis AK, Holden MT (2015) Measuring intraspecific variation in flight-related morphology of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus): which sex has the best flying gear? J Insects 2015:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/591705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Didham RK, Ewers RM (2014) Edge effects disrupt vertical stratification of microclimate in a temperate forest canopy. Pac Sci 68:493–508.  https://doi.org/10.2984/68.4.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eiserhardt WL, Couvreur TLP, Baker WJ (2017) Plant phylogeny as a window on the evolution of hyperdiversity in the tropical rainforest biome. New Phytol 214:1408–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fiedler K, Hilt N, Brehm G, Schulze CH (2007) Moths at tropical forest margins: how mega-diverse insect assemblages respond to forest disturbance and recovery. In: Tscharntke T, Leuschner C, Zeller M, Guhardja E, Bidin A (eds) Stability of tropical rainforest margins. Springer, Berlin, pp 39–60Google Scholar
  31. Fiedler KJ, Brehm G, Hilt N (2008) Variation of Diversity Patterns Across Moth Families Along a Tropical Altitudinal Gradient. In: Beck E, Bendix J, Kottke I, Makeschin F, Mosandl R (eds) Gradients in a tropical mountain ecosystem of Ecuador, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graça MB, Morais JW, Franklin E et al (2016) Combining taxonomic and functional approaches to unravel the spatial distribution of an amazonian butterfly community. Environ Entomol 45:301–309.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawes J, Motta S, Overal WL et al (2018) Diversity and composition of amazonian moths in primary, secondary and plantation forests. J Trop Ecol 25:281–300.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467409006038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Lewis OT (1998) Flight morphology in fragmented populations of a rare British butterfly, Hesperia comma. Biol Conserv 87:277–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00091-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hilt N (2005) Diversity and species composition of two different moth families (Lepidoptera : Arctiidae vs. Geometridae) along a successional gradient in the Ecuadorian Andes. Dissertation, University of Bayreuth. https://epub.uni-bayreuth.de/836/1/DISS_HILT.pdf
  36. Hilt N, Fiedler K (2005) Diversity and composition of Arctiidae moth ensembles along a successional gradient in the Ecuadorian Andes. Divers Distrib 11:387–398.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00167.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hilt N, Fiedler K (2006) Arctiid moth ensembles along a successional gradient in the Ecuadorian montane rain forest zone: how different are subfamilies and tribes? J Biogeogr 33:108–120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01360.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hilt N, Fiedler K (2008) Successional stages of faunal regeneration: a case study on megadiverse moths methods: data collection and processing. In: Gradients in a tropical mountain ecosystem of Ecuador. pp 443–449Google Scholar
  39. Holloway JD (1984) The larger moths of Gunung Mulu National Park; a preliminary assessment of their distribution, ecology and potential as environmental indicators. In: Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak, Part II, 30, pp 149–190Google Scholar
  40. Holloway JD (1998) The impact of traditional and modern cultivation practices, including forestry, on Lepidopteran diversity in Malaysia and Indonesia. In: Newbery DM, Prins HHT, Brown ND (eds) Dynamics of tropical ecosystems. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 567–597Google Scholar
  41. Hoorn C, Wesselingh FP, ter Steege H et al (2010) Amazonia through time: andean uplift, climate change, landscape evolution, and biodiversity. Science 330:927–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kitching RL, Orr AG, Thalib L et al (2000) Moth assemblages as indicators of environmental quality in remnants of upland Australian rain forest. J Appl Ecol 37:284–297.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00490.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laurance WF (2004) Forest–climate interactions in fragmented tropical landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc B 359:345–352.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laurance WF, Camargo JLC, Luizão RCC et al (2011) The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol Conserv 144:56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Laurance WF, Camargo JLC, Fearnside PM, Lovejoy TE, Williamson GB et al (2016) An Amazonian forest and its fragments as a laboratory of global change. In: Nagy L, Forsberg BR, Artaxo P (eds) Interactions between biosphere, atmosphere and human land use in the Amazon Basin. Springer, Berlin, pp 407–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Legrand D, Trochet A, Moulherat S, Calvez O, Stevens VM, Ducatez S, Clobert J, Baguette M (2015) Ranking the ecological causes of dispersal in a butterfly. Ecography 38:822–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Legrand D, Larranaga N, Bertrand R, Ducatez S, Calvez O, Stevens VM, Baguette M (2016) Evolution of a butterfly dispersal syndrome. Proc R Soc B 283:20161533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Merckx T, Slade EM (2014) Macro-moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light-trap monitoring programmes. Insect Conserv Divers 7:453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merckx T, Van Dyck H (2002) Interrelations among habitat use, behavior, and flight-related morphology in two cooccurring satyrine butterflies, Maniola jurtina and Pyronia tithonus. J Insect Behav 15:541–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merckx T, Van Dyck H, Karlsson B, Leimar O (2003) The evolution of movements and behaviour at boundaries in different landscapes: a common arena experiment with butterflies. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1815–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller SE, Hausmann A, Hallwachs W, Janzen DH (2016) Advancing taxonomy and bioinventories with DNA barcodes. Philos Trans R Soc B 371:20150339.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nöske NM, Hilt N, Werner FA et al (2008) Disturbance effects on diversity of epiphytes and moths in a montane forest in Ecuador. Basic Appl Ecol 9:4–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2007.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Novotny V, Miller SE, Baje L et al (2010) Guild-specific patterns of species richness and host specialization in plant-herbivore food webs from a tropical forest. J Anim Ecol 79:1193–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652656.2010.01728.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oksanen AJ, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, et al (2018) The vegan package. Community ecology packageGoogle Scholar
  56. Olalla-Tárraga MÁ, Bini LM, Diniz-Filho JAF, Rodríguez MÁ (2010) Cross-species and assemblage-based approaches to Bergmann’s rule and the biogeography of body size in Plethodon salamanders of eastern North America. Ecography 33:362–368.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06244.x Google Scholar
  57. Qian H, Wang X (2015) Global relationships between beta diversity and latitude after accounting for regional diversity. Ecol Inform 25:10–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rabl D, Gottsberger B, Brehm G, Hofhansl F, Fiedler K (in press) Tropical rainforest moth assemblages mirror small-scale topographic heterogeneity in southwestern Costa Rica. BiotropicaGoogle Scholar
  59. Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN (2013) A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the barcode index number (BIN) system. PLoS ONE 8:e66213.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rhainds M, Heard SB (2015) Sampling procedures and adult sex ratios in spruce budworm. Entomol Exp Appl 154:91–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Fay JP (2001) Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Soc Conserv Biol 15:378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scherrer S, Ferro VG, Ramos MN, Diniz IR (2013) Species composition and temporal activity of Arctiinae (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) in two cerrado vegetation types. Zoologia 30:200–210.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702013000200010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwartz NB, Uriarte M, Defries R et al (2017) Fragmentation increases wind disturbance impacts on forest structure and carbon stocks in a western Amazonian landscape. Ecol Appl 27:1901–1915.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scoble MJ, Gaston KJ, Crook A (1995) Using taxonomic data to estimate species richness in Geometridae. J Lepid Soc 49:136–147Google Scholar
  65. Sihvonen P, Mutanen M, Kaila L et al (2011) Comprehensive molecular sampling yields a robust phylogeny for geometrid moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). PLoS ONE 6:e20356.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Slade EM, Merckx T, Riutta T, Bebber DP, Redhead D, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2013) Life-history traits and landscape characteristics predict macro-moth responses to forest fragmentation. Ecology 94:1519–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. ter Steege H (2010) Contribution of current and historical processes to patterns of tree diversity and composition of the Amazon. In: Hoorn C, Wesselingh FP (eds) Amazonia, landscape and species evolution: a look into the past, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 347–359Google Scholar
  68. Truxa C, Fiedler K (2012) Attraction to light-from how far do moths (Lepidoptera) return to weak artificial sources of light? Eur J Entomol 109:77–84.  https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2012.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Valente DMP, Zenker MM, Teston JA (2018) Tiger-moths in savannas in eastern Amazon: first assessment of diversity and seasonal aspects. Neotrop Entomol 47:842–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zaspel JM, Weller SJ, Wardwell CT et al (2014) Phylogeny and evolution of pharmacophagy in tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae). PLoS ONE 9:e101975.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zenker MM, DeVries PJ, Penz CM et al (2015) Diversity and composition of Arctiinae moth assemblages along elevational and spatial dimensions in Brazilian Atlantic Forest. J Insect Conserv 19:129–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9753-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zenker MM, Wahlberg N, Brehm G, Teston JA, Przybylowicz L, Pie MR, Freitas AV (2017) Systematics and origin of moths in the subfamily Arctiinae (Lepidoptera, Erebidae) in the Neotropical region. Zool Scr 46:348–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, Phyletisches MuseumFriedrich-Schiller-UniversityJenaGermany
  2. 2.Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations