Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 761–774 | Cite as

Determinants of nocturnal Lepidopteran diversity and community structure in a conifer-dominated forest

  • Holly K. OberEmail author
  • John P. Hayes
Original Paper

Abstract

Prediction of community response of fauna to anthropogenic or environmental disturbance requires knowledge of faunal distribution and abundance as well as an understanding of the mechanisms underlying community organization. We investigated linkages between Lepidoptera, one of the most influential insect taxa in forested ecosystems, and vegetation in riparian areas of conifer-dominated forests of western Oregon, USA. Using model selection techniques, we found that canopy cover explained variability in patterns of moth species dominance and diversity better than all other factors investigated, whereas elevation best explained patterns of moth species richness. Using canonical correspondence analysis, we determined that gradients in shrub species richness, elevation, and understory species richness accounted for the most variation in regional moth community structure. Results suggest that reductions of riparian forest canopy are likely to have the greatest impact on the variety and relative abundance of moths. Due to the relative rarity and patchy distribution of the majority of individual species, we predict that lower intensity vegetation manipulations distributed across larger spatial scales are likely to be less damaging to regional moth biodiversity than more intensive alterations at smaller scales. Finally, if global warming trends continue, upward elevational shifts in moth species distributions will make forested regions at higher elevation worthy of concerted protection.

Keywords

Biodiversity Canopy Elevation Moth Species composition Species diversity Species richness Understory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Baker, J. Boland, N. Duncum, A. Fedoruk, T. Fox, A. Hendrickson, J. Jones, F. Nogash, and A. Sjollema for assistance with data collection and D. Ross for moth identification. We also thank anonymous reviewers for providing comments that improved the document. This research was supported by the Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) program with funding from the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC), the US Forest Service, Simpson Timber Company, and Weyerhaeuser Company.

References

  1. Axmacher JC, Brehm G, Hemp A, Tunte H, Lyaruu HVM, Muller-Hohenstein K, Fiedler K (2009) Determinants of diversity in afrotropical herbivorous insects (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): plant diversity, vegetation structure or abiotic factors? J Biogeogr 36:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck J, Schulze CH, Linsenmair KE, Fiedler K (2002) From forests to farmland: diversity of Geometrid moths along two habitat gradients in Borneo. J Trop Ecol 18:33–51Google Scholar
  3. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey AB, Curtis RO (1996) Conservation of biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildl Soc Bull 24:610–620Google Scholar
  5. Chao A (1984) Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Stat 11:265–270Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Choi S (2008) Diversity and composition of larger moths in three different forest types of Southern Korea. Ecol Res 23:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Carpenter S, D’Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell RK (2000) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species richness from samples. Version 6Google Scholar
  10. Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 345:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devries PJ, Walla TR (2001) Species diversity and community structure in neotropical fruit-feeding butterflies. Biol J Linn Soc 74:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich PR, Wilson EO (1991) Biodiversity studies: science and policy. Science 253:758–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin JF, Dyrness CT (1973) Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8. Pacific Northwest Experimental Station. Portland, OR, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Gadgil PD, Bain J (1999) Vulnerability of planted forests to biotic and abiotic disturbances. New For 17:227–238Google Scholar
  16. Garrison GA (1949) Uses and modifications for the “moosehorn” crown closure estimator. J For 47:733–735Google Scholar
  17. Haddad NM, Tilman D, Haarstad J, Ritchie M, Knops JMH (2001) Contrasting effects of plant richness and composition on insect communities: a field experiment. Am Nat 158:17–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammond PC, Miller JC (1998) Comparison of the biodiversity of Lepidoptera within three forested ecosystems. Ann Entomol Soc Am 91:323–328Google Scholar
  19. Holloway JD (1984) Moths as indicator organisms for categorizing rain-forest and monitoring changes and regeneration processes. In: Chadwick AC, Sutton SL (eds) Tropical rain-forest: the Leeds symposium. Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Leeds, pp 235–242Google Scholar
  20. Hunter ML Jr (1999) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Intachat J, Holloway JD, Speight MR (1997) The effect of different forest management practices on Geometrid moth populations and their diversity in Peninsular Malaysia. J Trop For Sci 9:411–430Google Scholar
  22. Kelty MJ (2006) The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For Ecol Manage 233:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennedy RSH, Spies TA (2004) Forest cover changes in the Oregon Coast Range from 1939 to 1993. For Ecol Manage 200:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitching RL, Orr AG, Thalib L, Mitchell H, Hopkins MS, Graham AW (2000) Moth assemblages as indicators of environmental quality in remnants of upland Australian rain forest. J Appl Ecol 37:284–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knops JMH, Tilman D, Haddad NM, Naeem S, Mitchell CE, Haarstad J, Ritchie ME, Howe KM, Reich PB, Siemann E, Groth J (1999) Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecol Lett 2:286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langor DW, Spence JR (2006) Arthropods as ecological indicators of sustainability in Canadian forests. For Chron 82:344–350Google Scholar
  27. Lewinsohn TM, Novotny V, Basset Y (2005) Insects on plants: diversity of herbivore assemblages revisited. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:597–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichtenstein ME, Montgomery CA (2003) Biodiversity and timber in the Coast Range of Oregon: inside the production possibility frontier. Land Econ 79:56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luff ML, Woiwood IP (1995) Insects as indicators of land-use change: a European perspective, focusing on moths and ground beetles. In: Harrington R, Stork NE (eds) Insects in a changing environment. 17th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Academic Press, London, pp 399–422Google Scholar
  30. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  31. Marques ESA, Price PW, Cobb NS (2000) Resource abundance and insect diversity in fabaceous desert plants. Environ Entomol 29:696–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM software design. Gleneden Beach, OR, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller JC (1993) Insect natural history, multispecies interactions and biodiversity in ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 2:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller JC, Hammond PC (2000) Macromoths of northwest forests and woodlands. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV. FHTET-98-18, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, 133 pp. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/insects/macronw/index.htm
  35. Murdoch WW, Evans FC, Peterson CH (1972) Diversity and pattern in plants and insects. Ecology 53:819–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muzika RM, Liebold AM (2000) A critique of silvicultural approaches to managing defoliating insects in North America. Agric For Entomol 2:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polansky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niemela J (1997) Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv Biol 11:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nieminen M (1996) Risk of population extinction in moths: effect of host plant characteristics. Oikos 76:475–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ober HK (2007) Functional relationships among riparian vegetation, nocturnal insects, and bats in riparian areas of the Oregon Coast Range. Dissertation, Oregon State University, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Pabst RJ, Spies TA (1999) Structure and composition of unmanaged riparian forest of the coastal mountains of Oregon, USA. Can J For 29:1557–1573Google Scholar
  42. Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Panzer R, Schwartz MW (1998) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv Biol 12:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polasky S, Camm JD, Garber-Yonts B (2001) Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Econ 77:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polis GA, Hurd SD, Jackson CT, Pinero FS (1997) El Nino effects on the dynamics and control of an island ecosystem in the Gulf of California. Ecology 78:1884–1897Google Scholar
  46. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2002) Does butterfly diversity predict moth diversity? Testing a popular indicator taxon at local scales. Biol Conserv 103:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson GS, Ackerly PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernandez LM (2000) Host plants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of America north of Mexico, vol 69. American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, FLGoogle Scholar
  48. Schowalter T, Crossley D Jr, Hargrove W (1986) Herbivory in forest ecosystems. Ann Rev Entomol 31:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simberloff D (1999) The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. For Ecol Manage 115:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith HR, Remington CL (1996) Food specificity in interspecies competition: comparisons between terrestrial vertebrates and arthropods. Bioscience 46:436–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spies TA, Martin JR (2006) Monitoring late-successional forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest, USA. For Chron 82:364–367Google Scholar
  52. Spies TA, Hibbs DE, Ohmann JL, Reeves GH, Pabst RJ, Swanson FJ, Whitlock C, Jones JA, Wemple BC, Parendes LA, Schrader BA (2002) The ecological basis of forest ecosystem management in the Oregon Coast Range. In: Hobbs SD, Hayes JP, Johnson RL, Reeves GH, Spies TA, Tappeiner JC, Wells GE (eds) Forest and stream management in the Oregon Coast Range. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, pp 31–67Google Scholar
  53. Spitzer K, Novotny V, Tonner M, Leps J (1993) Habitat preferences, distribution and seasonality of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a montane tropical forest, Vietnam. J Biogeogr 20:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2003) Determinants of Lepidopteran community composition and species diversity in eastern hardwood forests: roles of season, eco-region, and patch size. Oikos 100:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2005) Temporal patterns of species accumulation in a survey of Lepidoptera in a beech-maple forest. Biodivers Conserv 14:3393–3406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2008) Structure and conservation of Lepidopteran communities in managed forests of northeastern North America: a review. Can Entomol 140:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Summerville KS, Crist TO, Kahn JK, Gering JC (2003) Community structure of arboreal caterpillars within and among four tree species of the eastern deciduous forest. Ecol Entomol 28:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ter Braak CJF (1987) The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 69:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF (2005) Borror and DeLong’s introduction to the study of insects, 7th edn. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  60. Usher MB, Keiller SWJ (1998) The macrolepidoptera of farm woodlands: determinants of diversity and community structure. Biodivers Conserv 7:725–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson RJ, Gutierrez D, Gutierrez J, Monserrat VJ (2007) An elevational shift in butterfly species richness and composition accompanying recent climate change. Glob Chang Biol 13:1873–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationNorth Florida Research and Education CenterQuincyUSA

Personalised recommendations