Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 225–239 | Cite as

Covariation between local and landscape factors influences the structure of ground-active arthropod communities in fragmented metropolitan woodlands

  • Matthew A. McCary
  • Emily Minor
  • David H. Wise
Research Article



The world is becoming increasingly urbanized, with more than half of the global population now living in cities. Understanding the factors impacting natural communities in fragmented landscapes is therefore crucial for predicting how the remaining ecosystems will respond to global change. Ground-active arthropods, which are important in nutrient cycling, are likely sensitive to habitat changes resulting from urbanization.


We addressed two questions: (1) What is the relative importance of local and landscape factors in shaping ground-active arthropod communities in urban woodlands? (2) How does body size (as a surrogate for dispersal ability) affect sensitivity to landscape-level factors?


In the summers of 2010 and 2011, we sampled ground-active arthropod communities in 19 woodlands in the Chicago metropolitan region using pitfall traps. We also assessed local plant and soil characteristics, as well as landscape-level variables using GIS.


Redundancy analyses and variation partitioning revealed that local factors, particularly invasive woody-plant cover and soil nitrate, had the most influence on arthropod communities, explaining 12% of the total variation. Of the landscape-level variables, landscape richness, which is one measure of landscape fragmentation, explained the most variation; however, the shared variance between landscape and local variables was responsible for half (16%) of the total explained variation (32%). Landscape factors alone explained only 4% of variation. No relationship between arthropod body size and landscape variables was observed, but several groups (e.g. ants and ground beetles) were correlated with landscape-level factors.


Our research shows that both local and landscape variables are important in influencing ground-active arthropods, but the majority of explained variance is attributed to the covariation between landscape richness, invasive woody-plant cover, and soil nitrate. We therefore conclude that landscape fragmentation is likely affecting the ground-active arthropods through its positive influence on invasive woody plants and soil nitrogen.


Arthropods Community structure Fragmentation Landscape-scale factors Local factors Urbanization 



We thank the Wise Lab (Nolan Bielinski, Monica Farfan, Amanda Henderson, Brook Herman, Susan Kirt Alterio, José-Cristian Martínez, and Robin Mores) at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) for their support and conceptual guidance. We also thank Ann Sabir and Raed Oswesi for their assistance in identifying arthropods. The research was funded by the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation—a major supporter of the Chicago Wilderness Land Management Research Program, and a UIC Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship awarded to MAM. Many thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their instructive and helpful comments, which improved the overall quality of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2017_593_MOESM1_ESM.docx (204 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 203 kb)
10980_2017_593_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 15 kb)


  1. Aber JD, Goodale CL, Ollinger SV, Smith M, Magill AH, Martin ME, Hallet RA, Stoddard JL (2003) Is nitrogen deposition altering the nitrogen status of northeastern forests? Bioscience 53:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberti M (2005) The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. Int. Regional Sci. Rev. 28:168–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: Guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardgett R (2005) The biology of soil: a community and ecosystem approach. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardgett RD, Wardle DA (2010) Aboveground-belowground linkages: biotic interactions, ecosystem processes, and global change. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton PS, Evans MJ, Foster CN, Cunningham SA, Manning AD (2017) Environmental and spatial drivers of spider diversity at contrasting microhabitats. Ecol, Austral. Google Scholar
  7. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD, Matthews TJ (2011) Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS ONE 6:e23459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergman KO, Ask L, Askling J, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2008) Importance of boreal grasslands in Sweden for butterfly diversity and effects of local and landscape habitat factors. Biodivers Conserv 17:139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bettez ND, Groffman PM (2013) Nitrogen deposition in and near an urban ecosystem. Environ Sci Technol 47:6047–6051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogyó D, Magura T, Simon E, Tóthmérész B (2015) Millipede (Diplopoda) assemblages alter drastically by urbanisation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 133:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolger DT, Suarez AV, Crooks KR, Morrison SA, Case TJ (2000) Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age, and edge effects. Ecol Appl 10:1230–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Numerical Ecology with R. Springer PublishingGoogle Scholar
  13. Braaker S, Ghazoul J, Obrist M, Moretti M (2014) Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the key role of green roofs. Ecology 95:1010–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke D, Goulet H (1998) Landscape and area effects on beetle assemblages in Ontario. Ecography 21:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carvalheiro LG, Buckley YM, Memmott J (2010) Diet breadth influences how the impact of invasive plants is propagated through food webs. Ecology 91:1063–1074CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clough Y, Kruess A, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2005) Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. J Biogeogr 32:2007–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman DC, Blair JM, Elliott ET, Wall DH (1999) Soil Invertebrates. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research. Oxford University Press Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Crawford RL, Sugg PM, Edwards JS (1995) Spider arrival and primary establishment on terrain depopulated by volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens. Washington. Am. Midl. Nat. 133:60–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dainese M, Luna DI, Sitzia T, Marini L (2015) Testing scale-dependent effects of seminatural habitats on farmland biodiversity. Ecol Appl 25:1681–1690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Dauber J, Purtauf T, Allspach A, Frisch J, Voigtländer K, Wolters V (2005) Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface-dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Development Core Team R (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Austria, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  23. Donovan TM, Jones PW, Annand EM, Thompson FR (1997) Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landsape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dukes JS, Mooney HA (1999) Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Trends Ecol. Evol. 14:135–139Google Scholar
  25. Fattorini S (2011) Insect rarity, extinction and conservation in urban Rome (Italy): a 120-year-long study of tenebrionid beetles. Insect Conservation and Diversity 4:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fickenscher JL, Litvaitis JA, Lee TD, Johnson PC (2014) Insect responses to invasive shrubs: implications to managing thicket habitats in the northeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 322:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frazer GW, Canham C, Lertzman K (1999) Gap Light Analyzer (GLA), Version 2.0: Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Fujita A, Maeto K, Kagawa Y, Ito N (2008) Effects of forest fragmentation on species richness and composition of ground beetles (Coleoptera: carabidae and Brachinidae) in urban landscapes. Entomol. Sci. 11:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gámez-Virués S, Perović DJ, Gossner MM, Börschig C, Blüthgen N, de Hong H, Simons NK, Klien A, Krauss J, Maier G, Scherber C, Steckel J, Rothenwöhrer C, Steffan-Dewenter IS, Weiner CN, Weisser W, Werner M, Tscharntke T, Westphal C (2015) Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nature communications 6:8568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Gardiner MM, Landis DA, Gratton C, DiFonzo CD, O'Neal M, Chacon JM, Wayo MT, Schmidt NP, Mueller EE, Heimpel GE (2009) Landscape diversity enhances biological control of an introduced crop pest in the north-central USA. Ecol Appl 19:143–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gonthier DJ, Ennis KK, Farinas S, Hsieh H, Iverson A, Batáry P, Rudolphi J, Tscharntke T, Cardinale B, Perfecto I (2014) Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach. Proc R Soc Lond Biol 281:20141358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. González E, Salvo A, Valladares G (2015) Sharing enemies: evidence of forest contribution to natural enemy communities in crops, at different spatial scales. Insect Conservation and Diversity 8:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gregg JW, Jones CG, Dawson TE (2003) Urbanization effects on tree growth in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424:183–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Heilig GK (2012) World urbanization prospects: the 2011 revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Hendrickx F, Maelfait JP, Van Wingerden W, Schweiger O, Speelmans M, Aviron S, Augenstein I, Billeter R, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, Diekötter T, Dirksen J, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M, Vandomme V, Bugter R (2007) How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 44:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heneghan L, Mulvaney C, Ross K, Umek L, Watkins C, Westphal L, Wise DH (2012) Lessons learned from Chicago wilderness—implementing and sustaining conservation management in an urban setting. Diversity 4:74–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoekstra H, Fagan W (1998) Body size, dispersal ability and compositional disharmony: the carnivore-dominated fauna of the Kuril Islands. Divers Distrib 4:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holland JD, Fahrig L, Cappuccino N (2005) Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat–beetle interactions. Oikos 110:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold N, Wickham J, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States-Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 81:345–354Google Scholar
  41. Hornung E, Tóthmérész B, Magura T, Vilisics F (2007) Changes of isopod assemblages along an urban–suburban–rural gradient in Hungary. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 43:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hutyra LR, Yoon B, Alberti M (2011) Terrestrial carbon stocks across a gradient of urbanization: a study of the Seattle, WA region. Glob Change Biol 17:783–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jenkins DG, Brescacin CR, Duxbury CV, Elliot JA, Evans JA, Grablow KR, Hillegass M, Lyon BN, Metzer GA, Olandese ML, Pepe D, Silvers GA, Suresch HN, Thompson TN, Trexler CM, Williams GE, Williams NC, Williams SE (2007) Does size matter for dispersal distance? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy CM, Lonsdorf E, Neel MC, Williams NM, Ricketts TH, Winfree R, Bommarco R, Brittain C, Burley AL, Cariveau D, Carvelheiro LG, Chacoff NP, Cunningham SA, Danforth BN, Dudenhöffer J, Elle E, Gaines HR, Garibaldi LA, Gratton C, Holzschuh A, Isaacs R, Javorek SK, Jha S, Klein AM, Krewenka K, Mandelik Y, Mayfield MM, Morandin L, Neame LA, Otieno M, Park M, Potts SG, Rundlöf M, Saez A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Taki H, Viana BF, Westphal C, Wilson JK, Greenleaf SS, Kremen C (2013) A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol Lett 16:584–599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kormann U, Rösch V, Batáry P, Tscharntke T, Orci K, Samu F, Scherber C (2015) Local and landscape management drive trait-mediated biodiversity of nine taxa on small grassland fragments. Divers Distrib 21:1204–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuebbing SE, Classen AT, Simberloff D (2014) Two co-occurring invasive woody shrubs alter soil properties and promote subdominant invasive species. J Appl Ecol 51:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuussaari M, Saarinen M, Korpela EL, Pöyry J, Hyvönen T (2014) Higher mobility of butterflies than moths connected to habitat suitability and body size in a release experiment. Ecol. Evol. 4:3800–3811CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2005) Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol Monogr 75:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lessard JP, Buddle CM (2005) The effects of urbanization on ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: formicidae) associated with the Molson Nature Reserve. Quebec. Can. Entomol. 137:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Loomis JD, Cameron GN (2014) Impact of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) on shrub-layer insects in a deciduous forest in the eastern United States. Biol Invasions 16:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Magura T, Horváth R, Tóthmérész B (2010a) Effects of urbanization on ground-dwelling spiders in forest patches, in Hungary. Landsc. Ecol. 25:621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Magura T, Lövei GL, Tóthmérész B (2010b) Does urbanization decrease diversity in ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Magura T, Nagy D, Tóthmérész B (2013) Rove beetles respond heterogeneously to urbanization. J Insect Conserv 17:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCary MA, Martínez JC, Umek L, Heneghan L, Wise DH (2015) Effects of woodland restoration and management on the community of surface-active arthropods in the metropolitan Chicago region. Biol Conserv 190:154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCary MA, Mores R, Farfan MA, Wise DH (2016) Invasive plants have different effects on trophic structure of green and brown food webs in terrestrial ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 19:328–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RT (2008) The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 141:1695–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McIntyre NE, Rango J, Fagan WF, Faeth SH (2001) Ground arthropod community structure in a heterogeneous urban environment. Landsc. Urban Plann. 52:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst. 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Medel RG (1995) Convergence and historical effects in harvester ant assemblages of Australia, North America, and South America. Biol J Linn Soc 55:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meyer B, Jauker F, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure. Basic Appl Ecol 10:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moore JC, Walter DE, Hunt HW (1988) Arthropod regulation of micro-and mesobiota in below-ground detrital food webs. Annu Rev Entomol 33:419–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Niemelä J, Haila Y, Punttila P (1996) The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19:352–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pauchard A, Aguayo M, Peña E, Urrutia R (2006) Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biol Conserv 127:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Philpott SM, Cotton J, Bichier P, Friedrich RL, Moorhead LC, Uno S, Valdez M (2014) Local and landscape drivers of arthropod abundance, richness, and trophic composition in urban habitats. Urban Ecosyst. 17:513–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pielke RA, Avissar R (1990) Influence of landscape structure on local and regional climate. Landsc. Ecol. 4:133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pimm SL, Raven P (2000) Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Purtauf T, Dauber J, Wolters V (2005) The response of carabids to landscape simplification differs between trophic groups. Oecologia 142:458–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanford MP, Manley PN, Murphy DD (2009) Effects of urban development on ant communities: implications for ecosystem services and management. Conserv Biol 23:131–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Santorufo L, Cortet J, Arena C, Goudon R, Rakota A, Morel JL, Maisto G (2014) An assessment of the influence of the urban environment on collembolan communities in soils using taxonomy-and trait-based approaches. Appl Soil Ecol 78:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sattler T, Borcard D, Arlettaz R, Bontadina F, Legendre P, Obrist MK, Moretti M (2010) Spider, bee, and bird communities in cities are shaped by environmental control and high stochasticity. Ecology 91:3343–3353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Schmidt MH, Roschewitz I, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. J Appl Ecol 42:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sekar S (2012) A meta-analysis of the traits affecting dispersal ability in butterflies: can wingspan be used as a proxy? J Anim Ecol 81:174–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Thompson B, McLachlan S (2007) The effects of urbanization on ant communities and myrmecochory in Manitoba. Canada. Urban Ecosyst. 10:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thornton DH, Fletcher RJ (2014) Body size and spatial scales in avian response to landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecography 37:454–463Google Scholar
  76. Tscharntke T, Bommarco R, Clough Y, Crist TO, Kleijn D, Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Nouhuys S, Vidal S (2007) Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol Control 43:294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batáry P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Fründ J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis DA, Laurance W, Lindenmayer D, Scherber C, Sodhi N, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, Putten W, Westphal C (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. van Hengstum T, Hooftman DAP, Oostermeijer JGB, van Tienderen PH, Mack R (2014) Impact of plant invasions on local arthropod communities: a meta-analysis. J Ecol 102:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vergnes A, Pellissier V, Lemperiere G, Rollard C, Clergeau P (2014) Urban densification causes the decline of ground-dwelling arthropods. Biodivers Conserv 23:1859–1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vilà M, Ibáñez I (2011) Plant invasions in the landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 26:461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Warzecha D, Diekötter T, Wolters V, Jauker F (2016) Intraspecific body size increases with habitat fragmentation in wild bee pollinators. Landsc. Ecol. 31:1449–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wright P, Cregger MA, Souza L, Sanders NJ, Classen AT (2014) The effects of insects, nutrients, and plant invasion on community structure and function above-and belowground. Ecol. Evol. 4:732–742CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Wright JP, Flecker AS, Jones CG (2003) Local vs. landscape controls on plant species richness in beaver meadows. Ecology 84:3162–3173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wu T, Hao S, Sun OJ, Kang L (2012) Specificity Responses of Grasshoppers in Temperate Grasslands to Diel Asymmetric Warming. PLoS ONE 7:e41764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Yates ED, Levia DF Jr, Williams CL (2004) Recruitment of three non-native invasive plants into a fragmented forest in southern Illinois. For. Ecol. Manag. 190:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zuckerberg B, Desrochers A, Hochachka WM, Fink D, Koenig WD, Dickinson JL (2012) Overlapping landscapes: a persistent, but misdirected concern when collecting and analyzing ecological data. J. Wildl. Manag. 76:1072–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew A. McCary
    • 1
    • 2
  • Emily Minor
    • 1
    • 3
  • David H. Wise
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations