Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 363–371 | Cite as

Movement patterns of selected insect groups between natural forest, open land and rubber plantation in a tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, SW China)

  • Ling-Zeng Meng
  • Xiao-Dong Yang
  • Konrad Martin
  • Jian-Min Gan
  • Yan-Hong Liu
  • Wei-Chang Gong
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

In many regions of tropical Asia, the expansion of rubber monoculture plantations is conducted by replacement of natural forest areas and strongly affects biodiversity and movement patterns of wild species, including insects. Against this background, we conducted a study on selected insect groups (longhorn beetles, bark beetles, wild bees and hoverflies) along transects between rainforest patches, open uncultivated land and rubber plantation habitats in a region of Xishuangbanna (southern Yunnan, China), with the objectives to identify (a) movement directions and patterns of selected insect groups based on their abundances in modified Malaise traps in the different habitats, and (b) the role of remaining natural rainforest patches and rubber plantations, respectively, for insect diversity maintenance and conservation. The highest total numbers of species and individuals of bark beetles, longhorn beetles and wild bees were recorded from the natural forest edge compared to open land and rubber plantation edge. This result clearly indicates that the natural forest plays an important role in maintenance of these three insect groups. However, the highest number of hoverfly species and individuals was recorded from the open land sites, indicating the most relevant habitat type for this group of species. Overall, the lowest species and individual numbers were recorded from the rubber plantation edge, indicating the unsuitability of this habitat type for all insect groups considered. The distribution of species and individuals in the opposite trap sides along the transect indicates that longhorn beetles, bark beetles and wild bees show not only movements from the forest to the surrounding habitats, but also return back after encountering the unsuitable rubber plantation habitat. Bark beetle composition showed the relatively highest similarity between all trap sites and opposite trap sides among the insect groups considered, indicating a higher movement activity than the other groups. The four insect groups considered in this study show different movement modes between the forest, open land and rubber plantation, which are not the same for all taxa. Except for hoverflies, the natural forest was found to be the most important habitat for the maintenance of species diversity in the different land use types of the study area.

Keywords

Insect movement Natural forest Rubber plantation Malaise trap Tropical rainforest 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mr. Gong Ai from the local Dai people for the numerous contributions in field work. Dr. Mei-Ying Lin at the National Zoological Museum of China, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing provided some help for species identification. The authors thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This study was supported by the funds from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. NSFC-31200322), the CAS 135 program (XTBG-T03) and West Light Foundation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The work of the third author (K. Martin) was supported by the project SURUMER (Sustainable Rubber Cultivation in the Mekong Region), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) program “Sustainable Land Management”.

References

  1. Batáry P, Báldi A, Sárospataki M, Kohler F, Verhulst J, Knop E, Herzog F, Kleijn D (2010) Effect of conservation management on bees and insect-pollinated grassland plant communities in three European countries. Agr Ecosyst Environ 136:35–39. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bos M, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2007) The contribution of cacao agroforests to the conservation of lower canopy ant and beetle diversity in Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 16:2429–2444. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9196-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brosi BJ, Daily GC, Shih TM, Oviedo F, Durán G (2008) The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside. J Appl Ecol 45:773–783. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01412.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao M, Zou XM, Warren M, Zhu H (2006) Tropical forests of Xishuangbanna, China. Biotropica 38:306–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00146.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dall’oglio OT, Zanuncio TV, Tavares WDS, Serrão JE, Wilcken CF, Zanuncio JC (2013) Atlantic rainforest remnant harbors greater biotic diversity but reduced Lepidopteran populations compared to a Eucalyptus plantation. Fla Entomol 96:887–896. doi: 10.1653/024.096.0324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Araújo W, Do Espírito-Santo Filho K, Bergamini L, Gomes R, Morato S (2014) Habitat conversion and galling insect richness in tropical rainforests under mining effect. J Insect Conserv 18:1147–1152. doi: 10.1007/s10841-014-9725-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duelli P, Studer M, Marchand I, Jakob S (1990) Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol Conserv 54:193–207. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(90)90051-P CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01559.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. FAOSTAT (2013) FAO Statistical Databases. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/
  10. Haenke S, Scheid B, Schaefer M, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2009) Increasing syrphid fly diversity and density in sown flower strips within simple vs. complex landscapes. J Appl Ecol 46:1106–1114. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01685.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1), 9. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm
  12. Hoehn P, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2010) Relative contribution of agroforestry, rainforest and openland to local and regional bee diversity. Biodivers Conserv 19:2189–2200. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9831-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hogg BN, Daane KM (2010) The role of dispersal from natural habitat in determining spider abundance and diversity in California vineyards. Agr Ecosyst Environ 135:260–267. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu H, Liu W, Cao M (2008) Impact of land use and land cover changes on ecosystem services in Menglun, Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Environ Monit Assess 146:147–156. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-0067-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulcr J, Novotny V, A Maurer B, I Cognato A (2008) Low beta diversity of ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae) in lowland rainforests of Papua New Guinea. Oikos 117:214–222. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. James FC, Mcculloch CE (1990) Multivariate-analysis in ecology and systematics—panacea or pandora box. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:129–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.21.1.129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jauker F, Diekotter T, Schwarzbach F, Wolters V (2009) Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat. Landsc Ecol 24:547–555. doi: 10.1007/s10980-009-9331-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleijn D, Van Langevelde F (2006) Interacting effects of landscape context and habitat quality on flower visiting insects in agricultural landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol 7:201–214. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2005.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2002) Predator–prey ratios on cocoa along a land-use gradient in Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 11:683–693. doi: 10.1023/a:1015548426672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Aide TM, Ma Y, Liu W, Cao M (2007) Demand for rubber is causing the loss of high diversity rain forest in SW China. Biodivers Conserv 16:1731–1745. doi: 10.1007/s10531-006-9052-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lue XT, Yin JX, Tang JW (2010) Structure, tree species diversity and composition of tropical seasonal rainforests in Xishuangbanna, south-west China. J Trop For Sci 22:260–270Google Scholar
  22. Marín L, León-Cortés J, Stefanescu C (2009) The effect of an agro-pasture landscape on diversity and migration patterns of frugivorous butterflies in Chiapas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 18:919–934. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9540-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meng LZ, Martin K, Weigel A, Liu JX (2012a) Impact of rubber plantation on carabid beetle communities and species distribution in a changing tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, China). J Insect Conserv 16:423–432. doi: 10.1007/s10841-011-9428-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meng LZ, Martin K, Liu JX, Burger F, Chen J (2012b) Contrasting responses of hoverflies and wild bees to habitat structure and land use change in a tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, SW China). Insect Sci 19:666–676. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7917.2011.01481.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meng LZ, Martin K, Weigel A, Yang XD (2013) Tree diversity mediates the distribution of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in a changing tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, SW China). PLoS One 8:e75481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075481 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer B, Jauker F, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure. Basic Appl Ecol 10:178–186. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2008.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Millán De La Peña N, Butet A, Delettre Y, Morant P, Burel F (2003) Landscape context and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) communities of hedgerows in western France. Agr Ecosyst Environ 94:59–72. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00012-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moguel P, Toledo VM (1999) Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv Biol 13:11–21. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97153.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/suppinfo/403853a0_S1.html
  30. Novotny V, Miller SE (2014) Mapping and understanding the diversity of insects in the tropics: past achievements and future directions. Aust J Entomol 53:259–267. doi: 10.1111/aen.12111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perfecto I, Rice RA, Greenberg R, Voort MEVD (1996) Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46:598–608. doi: 10.2307/1312989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perović DJ, Gurr GM, Raman A, Nicol HI (2010) Effect of landscape composition and arrangement on biological control agents in a simplified agricultural system: a cost–distance approach. Biol Control 52:263–270. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Power AG (1987) Plant community diversity, herbivore movement, and an insect-transmitted disease of maize. Ecology 68:1658–1669. doi: 10.2307/1939858 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rice RA, Greenberg R (2000) Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological diversity. AMBIO: J Hum Environ 29:167–173. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-29.3.167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Fay JP (2001) Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conserv Biol 15:378–388. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002378.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruiz-Guerra B, Hanson P, Guevara R, Dirzo R (2013) Richness and abundance of Ichneumonidae in a fragmented tropical rain forest. Neotrop Entomol 42:458–465. doi: 10.1007/s13744-013-0143-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shahabuddin G, Ponte C (2005) Frugivorous butterfly species in tropical forest fragments: correlates of vulnerability to extinction. Biodivers Conserv 14:1137–1152. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-7842-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2001) Succession of bee communities on fallows. Ecography 24:83–93. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2001.240110.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szinicz G, Martin K, Sauerborn J (2005) Abundance of selected insect species in natural and agricultural habitats of a tropical upland (Leyte, Philippines). Agr Ecosyst Environ 111:104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Townes H (1962) Design for a malaise trap. P Entomo Soc Wash 64:253–262Google Scholar
  41. Veddeler D, Schulze C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Buchori D, Tscharntke T (2005) The contribution of tropical secondary forest fragments to the conservation of fruit-feeding butterflies: effects of isolation and age. Biodivers Conserv 14:3577–3592. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-0829-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wermelinger B, Fluckiger PF, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2007) Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Col., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytinae) across sections of forest edges. J Appl Entomol 131:104–114. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2006.01128.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams KJ, Ford A, Rosauer DF, Silva N, Mittermeier R, Bruce C, Larsen FW, Margules C (2011) Forests of East Australia: the 35th biodiversity hotspot in biodiversity hotspots. In: Zachos EF, Habel CJ (eds) Distribution and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolda H (1981) Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia 50:296–302. doi: 10.1007/bf00344966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu JC, Grumbine RE, Beckschäfer P (2014) Landscape transformation through the use of ecological and socioeconomic indicators in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China, Mekong Region. Ecol Indic 36:749–756. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zar JH (1998) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ling-Zeng Meng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiao-Dong Yang
    • 2
  • Konrad Martin
    • 3
  • Jian-Min Gan
    • 2
  • Yan-Hong Liu
    • 1
  • Wei-Chang Gong
    • 1
  1. 1.Key laboratory of crops with high quality and efficient cultivation and security controlYunnan higher education institutions, Honghe UniversityMengziChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical GardenChinese Academy of SciencesMenglunChina
  3. 3.Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics (490f)University of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations