Landscape Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 199–212 | Cite as

The influence of habitat availability and landscape structure on the distribution of wood cricket (Nemobius sylvestris) on the Isle of Wight, UK

Research Article

Abstract

Little information is available regarding the landscape ecology of woodland invertebrate species with limited dispersal ability. An investigation was therefore conducted within woodland fragments in an agricultural landscape for the flightless wood cricket (Nemobius sylvestris) on the Isle of Wight, UK. The current pattern of distribution of the species, established during a field survey, was related to measures of habitat availability and habitat isolation/fragmentation. Results revealed that wood cricket populations were patchily distributed and mainly found in relatively large mature woodland fragments situated closely (<50 m) to another occupied site. Although the occurrence of wood cricket was related to fragment area, isolation, habitat availability and woodland age, a logistic regression model revealed that presence of the species was most accurately predicted by fragment isolation and area alone. These results highlight the vulnerability of relatively immobile woodland invertebrate species, such as wood cricket, to the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation.

Keywords

Woodland Forest Habitat availability Fragmentation Landscape scale Invertebrate Insect Wood cricket Nemobius sylvestris Isle of Wight 

References

  1. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71(3):355–366. doi:10.2307/3545823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey S (2007) Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. For Ecol Manage 238(1–3):7–23. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbaro L, Pontcharraud L, Vetillard F et al (2005) Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12(1):110–121. doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-12-1-110.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellamy PE, Hinsley SA, Newton I (1996) Local extinctions and recolonisations of Passerine bird populations in small woods. Oecologia 108(1):64–71. doi:10.1007/BF00333215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett AF (1999, 2003) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp xiv + 254Google Scholar
  6. Buse J, Schroder B, Assmann T (2007) Modelling habitat and spatial distribution of an endangered longhorn beetle: a case study for saproxylic insect conservation. Biol Conserv 137(3):372–381. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.02.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2(10):529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chardon J, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol 18(6):561–573. doi:10.1023/A:1026062530600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Debuse V, King J, House A (2007) Effect of fragmentation, habitat loss and within-patch habitat characteristics on ant assemblages in semi-arid woodlands of eastern Australia. Landscape Ecol 22(5):731–745. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9068-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drechsler M, Frank K, Hanski I et al (2003) Ranking metapopulation extinction risk: from patterns in data to conservation management decisions. Ecol Appl 13(4):990–998. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13[990:RMERFP]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driscoll DA (2005) Is the matrix a sea? Habitat specificity in a naturally fragmented landscape. Ecol Entomol 30(1):8–16. doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00666.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 81:117–142. doi:10.1017/S1464793105006949 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34(1):487–515. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L, Jonsen I (1998) Effect of habitat patch characteristics on abundance and diversity of insects in an agricultural landscape. Ecosystems 1(2):197–205. doi:10.1007/s100219900015 N Y, PrintCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FitzGibbon S, Putland D, Goldizen A (2007) The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling mammal in an urban Australian landscape. Landscape Ecol 22(10):1513–1525. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9139-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Gabbutt PD (1959) The bionomics of the wood cricket, Nemobius sylvestris (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J Anim Ecol 28(1):15–42. doi:10.2307/2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396(6706):41–49. doi:10.1038/23876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski I (2004) Metapopulation theory, its use and misuse. Basic Appl Ecol 5:225–229. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2004.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (eds) (1997) Metapopulation biology. Ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison S (1994) Metapopulations and conservation. In: Edwards PJ et al (eds) Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK, pp 111–128Google Scholar
  24. Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp 27–42Google Scholar
  25. Herrando S, Brotons L (2002) Forest bird diversity in Mediterranean areas affected by wildfires: a multi-scale approach. Ecography 25(2):161–172. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250204.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kindvall O, Ahlén I (1992) Geometrical factors and metapopulation dynamics of the bush cricket, Metrioptera bicolor Philippi (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Conserv Biol 6(4):520–529. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06040520.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lövei GL, Magura T, Tothmeresz B et al (2006) The influence of matrix and edges on species richness patterns of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in habitat islands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15(3):283–289Google Scholar
  28. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evol Int J Org Evol 17(4):373–387. doi:10.2307/2407089 Google Scholar
  29. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Magura T, Kodobocz V, Tothmeresz B (2001) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. J Biogeogr 28(1):129–138. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00534.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall JA, Haes ECM (1988) Grasshoppers and allied insects of Great Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, Essex, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Matern A, Drees C, Kleinwachter M et al (2007) Habitat modelling for the conservation of the rare ground beetle species Carabus variolosus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the riparian zones of headwaters. Biol Conserv 136(4):618–627. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazerolle MJ, Villard M-A (1999) Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: a review. Ecoscience 6(1):117–124Google Scholar
  34. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC et al (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA. Available from www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (accessed June 2006)
  35. NBN Gateway (2007) National Biodiversity Network developed by CEH and JNCC, 2004. Available from http://www.searchnbn.net/. Accessed November 2007
  36. Newton AC (ed) (2007) Biodiversity loss and conservation in fragmented forest landscapes. The forests of montane Mexico and temperate South America. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterken GF (2000) Rebuilding networks of forest habitats in lowland England. Landscape Res 25(3):291–303. doi:10.1080/713684681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petit S, Burel F (1998) Connectivity in fragmented populations: Abax parallelepipedus in a hedgerow network landscape. C R Acad Sci III 321(1):55–61. doi:10.1016/S0764-4469(97)89626-6 Google Scholar
  40. Proess R, Baden R (2000) Survey of the orthopteran species Barbitistes serricauda (Fabricius, 1798), Leptophyes punctatissima (Bosc, 1972), Meconema thalassinum (De Geer, 1773) and Nemobius sylvestris (Bosc, 1792) in Luxembourg (Insecta, Saltatoria). Bulletin de la Societe des Naturalistes Luxembourgeois 100:159–170Google Scholar
  41. Ranius T (2000) Minimum viable metapopulation size of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Anim Conserv 3(1):37–43. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00085.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ranius T (2002) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103(1):85–91. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00124-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richards TJ (1952) Nemobius sylvestris in S.E. Devon. Entomologist 85:83–87; 108–111; 136–141; 161–166Google Scholar
  44. Rukke BA (2000) Effects of habitat fragmentation: increased isolation and reduced habitat size reduces the incidence of dead wood fungi beetles in a fragmented forest landscape. Ecography 23(4):492–502. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.230411.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rukke BA, Midtgaard F (1998) The importance of scale and spatial variables for the fungivorous beetle Bolitophagus reticulatus (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) in a fragmented forest landscape. Ecography 21(6):561–572. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00548.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith S, Gilbert J (2003) National inventory of woodland and trees – Great Britain. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK, pp 1–55Google Scholar
  47. Spencer JW, Kirby KJ (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales. Biol Conserv 62:77–93. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)90929-H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Vos CC, Stumpel AHP (1995) Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landscape Ecol 11(4):203–214. doi:10.1007/BF02071811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walker RS, Novaro AJ, Branch LC (2003) Effects of patch attributes, barriers, and distance between patches on the distribution of a rock-dwelling rodent (Lagidium viscacia). Landscape Ecol 18:185–192. doi:10.1023/A:1024408400263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Conservation SciencesBournemouth UniversityPoole, DorsetUK

Personalised recommendations