Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Temporal effects on biodiversity and composition of arthropod communities along an urban–rural gradient

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Global urbanization is rapidly increasing, yet the prevalence of single order and time point studies likely miss important temporal effects of urbanization on entire communities. We studied three sites along a rural–urban gradient in the Seattle metropolitan area with three sampling periods from 2009–2011 to examine how arthropod communities respond to increasing levels of urbanization in a similar habitat type through time. Consistent with previous studies, urban areas contained altered environmental conditions relevant for litter arthropods, and arthropod biodiversity decreased with urbanization. However, urban arthropod biodiversity was not influenced by environmental measures, supporting the idea of an “urban-filter”. Urbanization was not a factor influencing how communities responded to the effect of time, suggesting that other factors (e.g. disturbance) may ultimately be more important for determining patterns of biodiversity through time in urban areas. Finally, our study illustrates urbanization forces can structuring entire arthropod communities similarly through time, having important consequences for our understanding of urbanization’s temporal effects and indirect influence on community interactions and ecosystem processes. As the effects of urbanization will inevitably vary through time, we suggest that multiple time point studies are required to increase our ability to accurately describe arthropod community responses to increasing urbanization.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  • Acorn J, Sheldon I (2002) Bugs of Washington and Oregon. Lone Pine Publishing, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 53:1169–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberti M (2005) The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. Int Reg Sci Rev 28:168–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alden P, Paulson D, Gregoret A, Mathews D, Keen R, Oches E.A, et al. (1998). National Audobon Society Field Guide to the Pacific Northwest. Alfred A. Knopf Inc, New York pp 187–219

  • Alvey AA (2006) Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban For Urban Green 5:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang C, Faeth S (2011) Variation in arthropod communities in response to urbanization: Seven years of arthropod monitoring in a desert city. Landsc Urban Plan 103:383–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland A (2012) Long-term urbanization effects on tree canopy cover along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 15:721–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 App 10:1230–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreiro MM, Howe K, Parkhurst DF, Pouyat RV (1999) Variations in quality and decomposability of red oak litter along an urban–rural land use gradient. Biol Fert Soils 30:258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassey P, Blackburn TM, Lockwood JL, Sax DF (2006) A stochastic model for integrating changes in species richness and community similarity across spatial scales. Oikos 115:207–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Changnon S, Huff F (1986) The urban-related nocturnal rainfall anomaly at St. Louis J Appl Meterol Clim 25:1985–1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark TE, Samways MJ (1997) Sampling arthropod diversity for urban ecological landscaping in a species-rich southern hemisphere botanic garden. J. Insect Conserv 1:221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JE (2003) Human population: The next half century. Science 302:1172–1175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins JP, Kinzig A, Grimm NB, Fagan WF, Hope D, Wu J, Borer ET (2000) A new urban ecology. Am Sci 88:416–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer JF, Nowak DJ, Noble MH, Sisinni SM (2000) Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: An assessment of our nation’s urban forests. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton ER, Kaufman K (2007) Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht B, Herz H (2001) Evaluation of different methods to estimate understorey light conditions in tropical forests. J Trop Ecol 17:207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin TL (1982) Tropical forests: Their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Coleopts Bull 36:74–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Faeth SH, Warren PS, Shochat E, Marussich WA (2005) Trophic dynamics in urban communities. Bioscience 55:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faeth SH, Bang C, Saari S (2011) Urban biodiversity: patterns and mechanisms. Ann NY Acad Sci 1223:69–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (2008) Urban regions: Ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Dyrness CT (1988) Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerht SD, Chelsvig JE (2004) Species-specific patterns of bat activity in an urban landscape. Ecol App 14:625–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: Large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggard P, Haggard J (2006) Insects of the Pacific Northwest. Timber Press Inc, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:158–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff ML, Lawrence WT, Tucker CJ, Stutzer D (2001) A satellite survey of the impact of urban sprawl on agriculture and primary productivity in the United States: Is our style of development sustainable? T N M Wildl Nat Res 66:392–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Jouquet P, Dauber J, Lagerlöf LP, Lepage M (2006) Soil invertebrates as ecosystems engineers: Intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Appl Soil Ecol 32:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Colwell RK, Erwin TL, Murphy DD, Noss RF, Sanjayan MA (1993) Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: Their use in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 7:796–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin MD (1983) Value of bee pollination to US agriculture. Bull Entomol Soc Am 29:50–51

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular biogeography. Evolution 17:373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Lövei G, Bela T (2008) Time-consistent rearrangement of carabid beetle assemblages by an urbanisation gradient in Hungary. Acta Oecol 34:233–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff J (2005) Island biogeography for an urbanizing world: how extinction and colonization may determine biological diversity in human-dominated landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 8:157–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:21–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre NE (2000) Ecology of urban arthropods: A review and a call to action. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:825–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre NE, Rango J, Fagan WF, Faeth SH (2001) Ground arthropod community structure in a heterogeneous urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 52:257–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melles S, Glenn S, Martin K (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: Species-environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conserv Ecol 7: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art5/

  • Meyer JL, Paul MJ, Taulbee WK (2005) Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:602–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne L, Milne M (1980) National Audobon Society Field Guide to Insects & Spiders (North America). Alfred A. Knopf Inc, New York

  • Miyashita T, Shinkai A, Chida T (1998) The effects of forest fragmentation on web spider communities in urban areas. Biodiv Conserv 86:357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi JB (2007) Life in the Soil: A Guide for Naturalists & Gardeners. The University of Chicago Press, Illinois pp 22–197

  • Niemelä J (1999) Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosyst 3:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J, Kotze J, Venn S, Penev L, Stoyanov I, Spence J, Hartley D, Montes de Oca H (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban–rural gradients: An international comparison. Landscape Ecol 17:387–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ (2010) Evaluating the National Land Cover Database tree canopy and impervious cover estimates across the conterminous United States: A comparison with photo-interpreted estimates. Environ Manage 46:378–390

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pachecho R, Vasconcelos HL (2007) Invertebrate conservation in urban areas: Ants in the Brazilian Cerrado. Landsc Urban Plan 81:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyle R, Bentzien M, Opler P (1981) Insect conservation. Annu Rev Entomol 26:233–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD, Shustack DP (2008) Consumer resource matching in urbanizing landscapes: Are synanthropic species over-matching? Ecology 89:515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sabu TK, Shiju RT (2009) Efficacy of pitfall trapping, Winkler, and Berlese extraction methods for measuring ground-dwelling arthropods in moist-deciduous forests in the Western Ghats. J Insect Sci 10:98 available online: insectscience.org/10.98

  • Seastedt TR, Crossley DA Jr (1984) The influence of arthropods on ecosystems. Bioscience 34:157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH (2004) Urbanization and spider diversity: Influences of human modification of habitat structure and productivity. Ecol App 14:268–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM, Warren PS, Faeth SH, Nilon CH (2010) Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. Bioscience 60:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terjung W, Louie S (1973) Solar radiation and urban heat islands. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 63:181–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson B, McLachlan S (2007) The effects of urbanization on ant communities and myrmecochory in Manitoba, Canada. Urban Ecosyst 10:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.N. Secretariat. Office of Legal Affairs, Population Division (2004) World population to 2300. New York

  • Uno S, Cotton J, Philpott SM (2010) Diversity, abundance, and species composition of ants in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosyst 13:425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban MC, Skelly DK, Burchsted D, Price W, Lowry S (2006) Stream communities across a rural–urban landscape gradient. Diversity Distrib 12:337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venn SJ, Kotze DJ, Niemelä J (2003) Urbanization effects on carabid diversity in boreal forests. Eur J Entomol 100:73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, RE (1983). A Field Guide to the Beetles of North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. New York, New York

  • Wiwatwitaya D, Takeda H (2005) Seasonal changes in soil arthropod abundance in the dry evergreen forest of northeast Thailand, with special reference to collembolan communities. Ecol Re 20:59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojcik VA, Mcbride JR (2012) Common factors influence bee foraging in urban and wildland landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 15:581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yow DM (2007) Urban heat islands: Observations, impacts, and adaptation. Geography Compass 1:1227–1251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang CL, Chen F, Miao SG, Li QC, Xia XA, Xuan CY (2009) Impacts of urban expansion and future green planting on summer precipitation in the Beijing metropolitan area. J Geophys Res 114, D02116

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipperer WC, Sisinni SM, Pouyat RV (1997) Urban tree cover: An ecological perspective. Urban Ecosyst 1:229–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust and Seattle University College of Science and Engineering for funding support, and King County Parks Department, Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, and Seattle University Grounds Department for permission to study Cougar Mountain, Seward Park, and the Seattle University campus. We also thank our colleagues in the SUCCOTASH lab, especially John Vincent, Lindsey Youngquist, and Ann Frost for technical and field assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Michael E. Van Nuland

  2. Department of Biology, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA

    W. Lindsay Whitlow

Authors
  1. Michael E. Van Nuland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. Lindsay Whitlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. Van Nuland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Nuland, M.E., Whitlow, W.L. Temporal effects on biodiversity and composition of arthropod communities along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 17, 1047–1060 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0358-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0358-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation