Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Maintaining high vegetation structural diversity in the landscape promotes arthropod diversity in dynamic production areas

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Species occurrence in transformed areas (or matrix) can be enhanced by reducing the contrast in vegetation structure between the matrix and remnant natural patches. Contrast depends on both structural features of remnants and that of the matrix, which can be dynamic and determined by harvesting practices.

Objectives

We assess whether structurally equivalent vegetation, as determined by structural features of the matrix relative to that of remnants in the landscape, promotes species diversity and abundance in the matrix. Furthermore, we assess the relative importance of structurally equivalent vegetation compared to features of the immediate adjacent remnant patch.

Methods

Arthropods were sampled from 34 sites situated in alien forestry plantation blocks of different ages, dissected by corridors of natural grassland and/or closed canopy woody habitats. We analysed how arthropod assemblages within plantations were influenced by structural features of remnant vegetation in the landscape, and that of remnant patches directly adjacent.

Results

The amount of structurally equivalent vegetation at the landscape level promoted arthropod abundance and diversity within plantations and was more important than either the structural contrast or biotope type of the immediate adjacent patch for promoting diversity in the forestry blocks.

Conclusions

Landscapes composed of a mosaic of structurally distinct vegetation best contribute to promoting diversity within dynamic production areas. Harvesting practices that radically change the structural features of the entire plantation should be avoided. We recommend use of rotational harvesting, so creating a variety of plantation tree ages for improved arthropod spillover from both natural grassland and woody habitats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Amiot C, Santos CC, Arvor D, Bellón B, Fritz H, Harmange C, Holland JD, Melo I, Metzger JP, Renaud PC, Roque FO, Souza FL, Pays O (2021) The scale of effect depends on operational definition of forest cover—evidence from terrestrial mammals of the Brazilian savanna. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01196-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135:212–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Barros FM, Martello F, Peres CA, Pizo MA, Ribeiro MC (2019a) Matrix type and landscape attributes modulate avian taxonomic and functional spillover across habitat boundaries in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Oikos 128:1600–1612

    Google Scholar 

  • Barros FM, Peres CA, Pizo MA, Ribeiro MC (2019b) Divergent flows of avian-mediated ecosystem services across forest-matrix interfaces in human-modified landscapes. Landsc Ecol 34:879–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton K (2019) MuMIn: multi-model inference

  • Baschak LA, Brown RD (1995) An ecological framework for the planning, design and management of urban river greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:211–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:134–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A (2012) The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:1223–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A, Orme D, Villeger S, De Bortoli J, Leprieur F (2018) Betapart: partitioning beta diversity into turnover and nestedness components

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjornstad ON (2020) ncf: Spatial Covariance Functions. R package version 1.2-9

  • Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brudvig LA, Damschen EI, Tewksbury JJ, Haddad NM, Levey DJ (2009) Landscape connectivity promotes plant biodiversity spillover into non-target habitats. PNAS 106

  • Brudvig LA (2011) The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go? Am J Bot 98:549–558

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler AH (1994) Nested biotas and biological conservation: metrics, mechanisms, and meaning of nestedness. Landsc Urban Plan 28:73–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Girard J, Duro D, Pasher J, Smith A, Javorek S, King D, Lindsay KF, Mitchell S, Tischendorf L (2015) Farmlands with smaller crop fields have higher within-field biodiversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 200:219–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzén M, Larsson M, Nilsson SG (2009) Small local population sizes and high habitat patch fidelity in a specialised solitary bee. J Insect Conserv 13:89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston K, Blackburn T (2006) Pattern and Process in Macroecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable. Landsc Ecol 18:687–699

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray CL, Simmons BI, Fayle TM, Mann DJ, Slade EM (2016) Are riparian forest reserves sources of invertebrate biodiversity spillover and associated ecosystem functions in oil palm landscapes? Biol Conserv 194:176–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen G, Johannesen E, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2001) Source-sink dynamics: how sinks affect demography of sources. Ecol Lett 4:14–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2003) Matrix composition affects the spatial ecology of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:2856–2866

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Inclán DJ, Cerretti P, Marini L (2015) Landscape composition affects parasitoid spillover. Agric Ecosyst Environ 208:48–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Inclán DJ, Dainese M, Cerretti P, Paniccia D, Marini L (2016) Spillover of tachinids and hoverflies from different field margins. Basic Appl Ecol 17:33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2012) What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol 27:929–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotze DJ, Samways MJ (1999) Invertebrate conservation at the interface between the grassland matrix and natural Afromontane forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 8:1339–1363

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacasella F, Gratton C, De Felici S, Isaia M, Zapparoli M, Marta S, Sbordoni V (2015) Asymmetrical responses of forest and “beyond edge” arthropod communities across a forest–grassland ecotone. Biodivers Conserv 24:447–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucey JM, Tawatao N, Senior MJM, Chey VK, Benedick S, Hamer KC, Woodcock P, Newton RJ, Bottrell SH, Hill JK (2014) Tropical forest fragments contribute to species richness in adjacent oil palm plantations. Biol Conserv 169:268–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukacs PM, Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2009) Model selection bias and Freedman’s paradox. Ann Inst Stat Math 62:117–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Elek Z (2003) Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle. Biodivers Conserv 12:73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Martensen AC, Ribeiro MC, Banks-Leite C, Prado PI, Metzger JP (2012) Associations of forest cover, fragment area, and connectivity with neotropical understory bird species richness and abundance. Conserv Biol 26:1100–1111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mucina L, Rutherford MC (eds) (2006) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Naimi B, Hamm N, Groen TA, Skidmore AK, Toxopeus AG (2014) Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling. Ecography 37:191–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson SM (2006) Effects of landscape heterogeneity and clearfell harvest size on beetle (Coleoptera) biodiversity in plantation forests. PhD thesis. University of Canterbury

  • Pawson SM, Brockerhoff EG, Meenken ED, Didham RK (2008) Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape. In: Brockerhoff EG, Jactel H, Parrotta JA, Quine CP, Sayer J, Hawksworth DL (eds) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Topics in biodiversity and conservation, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 203–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Percel G, Laroche F, Bouget C (2019) The scale of saproxylic beetles response to landscape structure depends on their habitat stability. Landsc Ecol 34:1905–1918

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyras M, Vespa NI, Bellocq MI, Zurita GA (2013) Quantifying edge effects: the role of habitat contrast and species specialization. J Insect Conserv 17:807–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke SR, Samways MJ (2001) Width of grassland linkages for the conservation of butterflies in South African afforested areas. Biol Conserv 101:85–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2012a) Conservation management of complex natural forest and plantation edge effects. Landsc Ecol 27:73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2012b) Ecological networks act as extensions of protected areas for arthropod biodiversity conservation. J Appl Ecol 49:591–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Roets F, Samways MJ (2013) Importance of habitat heterogeneity in remnant patches for conserving dung beetles. Biodivers Conserv 22:2857–2873

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2015) Conserving natural heterogeneity is crucial for designing effective ecological networks. Landsc Ecol 30:595–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2007) Implementing ecological networks for conserving insect and other biodiversity. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect Conservation Biology. Springer Netherlands, pp 127–143

  • San-José M, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Jordano P, Meave JA, Martínez-Ramos M (2019) The scale of landscape effect on seed dispersal depends on both response variables and landscape predictor. Landsc Ecol 34:1069–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • SANBI (2013) Grasslands Ecosystem Guidelines: landscape interpretation for planners and managers. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shmida A, Wilson MV (1985) Biological determinants of species diversity. J Biogeogr 12:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasek DJ, Bean C, Crist TO (2008) Butterfly abundance and movements among prairie patches: the roles of habitat quality, edge, and forest matrix permeability. Environ Entomol 37:897–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasevic JA, Estades CF (2008) Effects of the structure of pine plantations on their “softness” as barriers for ground-dwelling forest birds in south-central Chile. For Ecol Manage 255:810–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Bommarco R, Clough Y, Crist TO, Kleijn D, Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, van Nouhuys S, Vidal S (2007) Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol Control 43:294–309

    Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2017) Wide corridors with much environmental heterogeneity best conserve high dung beetle and ant diversity. Biodivers Conserv 26:1243–1256

    Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ, Gaigher R (2020a) Environmental filtering and spillover explain multi – species edge responses across agricultural boundaries in a biosphere reserve. Sci Rep 10:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ, Gaigher R (2020b) Corridor width determines strength of edge influence on arthropods in conservation corridors. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01008-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasseur C, Joannon A, Aviron S, Burel F, Meynard JM, Baudry J (2013) The cropping systems mosaic: How does the hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations? Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner HH, Fortin MJ (2005) Spatial analysis of landscapes: concepts and statistics. Ecology 86:1975–1987

    Google Scholar 

  • Yekwayo I, Pryke JS, Roets F, Samways MJ (2016) Surrounding vegetation matters for arthropods of small, natural patches of indigenous forest. Insect Conserv Divers 9:224–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Yekwayo I, Pryke JS, Roets F, Samways MJ (2017) Responses of ground living arthropods to landscape contrast and context in a forest-grassland mosaic. Biodivers Conserv 26:631–651

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Aclnowledgments

The research was financially supported by Mondi Group, and conducted on Mondi plantation holdings in South Africa. The funders had no role in the design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    J. van Schalkwyk, J. S. Pryke, M. J. Samways & R. Gaigher

Authors
  1. J. van Schalkwyk
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. S. Pryke
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. Samways
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Gaigher
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. van Schalkwyk.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Schalkwyk, J., Pryke, J.S., Samways, M.J. et al. Maintaining high vegetation structural diversity in the landscape promotes arthropod diversity in dynamic production areas. Landscape Ecol 36, 1773–1785 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01253-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01253-3

Keywords