Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 889–895 | Cite as

Habitat richness and tree species richness of roundabouts: effects on site selection and the prevalence of arboreal caterpillars

Article

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between the habitat and tree species richness of roundabouts and the abundance and species richness of tree-dwelling caterpillars, and thus the potential of urban roundabouts to support breeding populations. Total tree species number on sites was related to an increase in caterpillar abundance and a greater number of habitats was associated with a higher number of caterpillar species. An increase in the total number of trees was not correlated with a greater abundance of tree-feeding Lepidoptera; nor were native trees found to support proportionally more caterpillar species than all tree species, including introduced. This could be due to differences in species accumulation, the prevalence of generalist species or a statistical sampling effect. The occupancy and average abundance of caterpillar species was generally low, which does not support the theory that Lepidoptera in urban areas tend towards mono-dominance. It may, however, represent the presence of ‘accidental’ species on roundabouts. Habitat management and planting to increase tree species diversity and density on roundabouts has the potential to increase the species diversity and abundance of arboreal Lepidoptera, and increase abundance of butterfly and moth urban populations.

Keywords

Lepidoptera Roundabouts Habitat diversity Arboreal caterpillars Management Tree density 

References

  1. Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Smal E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R, Thompson K (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Sci Total Environ 360:196–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Anim Ecol 9:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity. Ecol Appl 9:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol Conserv 8:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonebrake TC, Cooper DS (2014) A Hollywood drama of butterfly extirpation and persistence over a century of urbanization. J Insect Conserv 18:683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown KS, Freitas AVL (2002) Butterfly communities of urban forest fragments in Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil: structure, instability, environmental correlates, and conservation. J Inst Conserv 6:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter DJ, Hargreaves B (1986) Field guide for caterpillars of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinery M (1976) A field guide to the insects of Britain and northern Europe. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Denys C, Schmidt H (1998) Insect communities on experimental mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) plots along an urban gradient. Oecologia 113:269–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Mauro D, Dietz T, Rockwood L (2007) Determining the effect of urbanization on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban Ecosyst 10:427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eremeeva NI, Sushchev DV (2005) Stuctural changes in the fauna of pollinating insects in urban landscape. Russ J Ecol 36:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans K, Newson SE, Gaston KJ (2009) Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faeth SH, Kane TC (1978) Urban Biogeography – city parks as Islands for Diptera and Coleoptera. Oecologia 32:127–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller RM, Smith GM, Sanderson JM, Hill RA, Thomson AG, Cox R, Brown NJ, Clarke RT, Rothery P, Gerard FF (2000) Countryside Survey 2000 Module 7. Land Cover Map 2000. Final Report CSLCM/Final. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Monks WoodGoogle Scholar
  15. Giuliano WM, Accamando WK, McAdams EJ (2004) Lepidoptera-habitat relationships in urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 7:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2009) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardy PB, Dennis RLH (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodivers Conserv 8:1261–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Helden AJ, Leather SR (2004) Biodiversity on urban roundabouts – Hemiptera, management and the species-area relationship. Basic Appl Ecol 5:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helden AJ, Leather SR (2005) The Hemiptera of Bracknell as an example of biodiversity within an urban environment. Br J Entomol Nat Hist 18:233–252Google Scholar
  20. Helden AJ, Stamp GC, Leather SR (2012) Urban biodiversity: comparison of insect assembalges on native and non-native trees. Urban Ecosyst 15:611–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314Google Scholar
  22. Jones EL, Leather SR (2012) Invertebrates in urban areas: a review. Eur J Entomol 109:463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaiser A, Merckx T, Van Dyck H (2016) The Urban Heat Island and its spatial scale dependente impact on survival and development in butterflies of different thermal sensitivity. Ecol Evol 6:4129–4140CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly CK, Southwood TRE (1984) Species richness and resource availability: a phylogenetic analysis of insects associated with trees. PNAS 96:8013–8016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy CEJ, Southwood TRE (1984) The number of species of insects associated with British trees: a re-analysis. J Anim Ecol 53:455–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawton JH (1983) Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 28:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leather SR (1991) Feeding specialisation and host distribution of British and Finnish Prunus feeding macrolepidoptera. Oikos 60:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leather SR, Helden AJ (2005) Roundabouts: our neglected nature reserves? Biologist 52:102–106Google Scholar
  29. Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, Brown P, Leger LST (2005) Healthy nature healthy people: “contact with nature” as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot Int 21:45–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell A, Wilkinson J (1988) Trees of Britain and Northern Europe. HarperCollins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Niemela J (1999) Ecology and urban planning. Biodivers Conserv 8:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ockinger E, Dannestam A, Smitth HG (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc Urban Plan 93:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter J (1997) The colour identification guide to caterpillars of the British Isles. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Restrepo LR, Halffter G (2013) Butterfly diversity in a regional urbanization mosaic in two Mexican cities. Landsc Urban Plan 115:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rickman JK, Connor EF (2003) The effect of urbanization on the quality of remnant habitats for leaf-mining Lepidoptera on Quercus agrifolia. Ecography 26:777–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ries L, Debinski DM, Wieland ML (2001) Conservation value of Roadside Prairie restoration to butterfly communities. Conserv Biol 15:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saarinen K, Valtonen A, Jantunen J, Saarnio S (2005) Butterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: doess road type affect diversity and abundance? Biol Conserv 123:503–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheffers BR, Edwards DP, Diesmos A, Williams SE, Evans TA (2014) Microhabitats reduce animal’s exposure to climate extremes. Glob Chang Biol 20:495–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt BC, Roland J (2006) Moth diversity in a fragmented habitat: importance of functional groups and landscape scale in the boreal forest. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:1110–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sing K-W, Juosh WFA, Hashim NR, Wilson J-J (2016) Urban parks: refuges for tropical butterflies in Southeast Asia? Urban Ecosyst 19:1131–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skinner (2000) Colour Identification Guide to Moths of the British Isles (Macrolepidoptera). Viking Books, Middlesex, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Southwood TRE (1961) The number of species of insect associated with various trees. J Anim Ecol 30:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Takami Y, Koshio C, Ishii M, Fujii H, Hidaka T, Shimizu I (2004) Genetic diversity and structure of urban populations of Pieris butterflies assessed using amplified fragment length polymorphism. Mol Ecol 13:245–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Tam CT, Bonebrake TC (2016) Butterfly diversity, habitat and vegetation usage in Hong Kong urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 19:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tolman T, Lewington R (2004) Field guide for butterflies of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Tremblay I, Thomas D, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrecht MM (2005) The effect of habitat quality and forgaing patterns on provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican Blue Tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis 147:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UN (2008) World urbanization prospects: the 2007 revision. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Sway CAM (2009) Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv Biol 23:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Whitmore C, Crouch TE, Slotow RH (2002) Conservation of biodiversity in urban environments: Invertebrates on structurally enhanced road islands. Afr Entomol 10:113–126Google Scholar
  50. Wolda H, Marek J, Spitzer K, Noval I (1994) Diversity and variability of Lepidoptera populations in urban Brno, Czech Republic. J Eur Entomol 91:213–226Google Scholar
  51. Wood BC, Pullin AS (2002) Persistence of species in a fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 11:1451–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zapparoli M (1997) Urban development and insect biodiversity of the Rome area, Italy. Landsc Urban Plan 38:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecily Goodwin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruce Keep
    • 1
  • Simon R. Leather
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesImperial College LondonAscotUK
  2. 2.Environment & Sustainability UnityUniversity of ExeterPenryn, CornwallUK
  3. 3.Crop & Environment SciencesHarper Adams UniversityNewportUK

Personalised recommendations