Ants and plants as indicators of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and conservation value in constructed grasslands

被引:17
|
作者
Peters, Valerie E. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Campbell, Kaitlin U. [1 ]
Dienno, Garrett [1 ]
Garcia, Mayrolin [1 ,3 ]
Leak, Emaly [1 ,4 ]
Loyke, Christina [1 ]
Ogle, Megan [2 ]
Steinly, Bruce [1 ]
Crist, Thomas O. [1 ]
机构
[1] Miami Univ, Dept Biol, Oxford, OH 45056 USA
[2] Miami Univ, Inst Environm & Sustainabil, Oxford, OH 45056 USA
[3] Auburn Univ, Dept Entomol & Plant Pathol, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
[4] Michigan State Univ, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[5] Eastern Kentucky Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Richmond, KY 40475 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Ants; Bees; Beetles; Butterflies; Birds; Floristic quality; Rapid assessment; Simpson diversity; GROUND BEETLES COLEOPTERA; AUCHENORRHYNCHA INSECTA HEMIPTERA; AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES; HYMENOPTERA-FORMICIDAE; UNITED-STATES; PRAIRIE; DIVERSITY; CARABIDAE; COMMUNITIES; RICHNESS;
D O I
10.1007/s10531-016-1120-z
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Grasslands are constructed for soil and wildlife conservation in agricultural landscapes across Europe and North America. Constructed grasslands may mitigate habitat loss for grassland-dependent animals and enhance ecosystem services that are important to agriculture. The responses of animal species richness and abundance to grassland habitat quality are often highly variable, however, and monitoring of multiple taxa is often not feasible. We evaluated whether multiple animal taxa responded to variation in constructed grassland habitats of southwest Ohio, USA, in ways that could be predicted from indicators based on quality assessment indices, Simpson diversity, and the species richness of ants and plants. The quality assessment indices included a widely used Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) index, and a new Ant Quality Assessment (AntQA) index, both based on habitat specificity and species traits. The ant and plant indicators were used as predictor variables in separate general linear models of four target taxa-bees, beetles, butterflies and birds-with response variables of overall species richness and abundance, and subsets of taxa that included the abundance of ecosystem-service providers and grassland-associated species. Plant Simpson diversity was the best-fitting predictor variable in models of overall bee and beetle abundance, and the abundance of bees classified as ecosystem-service (ES) providers. FQA and plant richness were the best predictors of overall butterfly species richness and abundance. Ant species richness was the best predictor of overall bird species richness and abundance as well as the abundance of ES birds, while the AntQA index was the best predictor for the abundance of grassland bird and butterfly species. Thus, plant Simpson diversity and ant species richness were the most effective indicators for complementary components of grassland animal communities, whereas quality assessment indices were less robust as indicators and require more knowledge on the habitat specificity of individual ant and plant species.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:1481 / 1501
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Ants and plants as indicators of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and conservation value in constructed grasslands
    Valerie E. Peters
    Kaitlin U. Campbell
    Garrett Dienno
    Mayrolin García
    Emaly Leak
    Christina Loyke
    Megan Ogle
    Bruce Steinly
    Thomas O. Crist
    Biodiversity and Conservation, 2016, 25 : 1481 - 1501
  • [2] Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
    Perrings, Charles
    Naeem, Shahid
    Ahrestani, Farshid S.
    Bunker, Daniel E.
    Burkill, Peter
    Canziani, Graciela
    Elmqvist, Thomas
    Fuhrman, Jed A.
    Jaksic, Fabian M.
    Kawabata, Zen'ichiro
    Kinzig, Ann
    Mace, Georgina M.
    Mooney, Harold
    Prieur-Richard, Anne-Helene
    Tschirhart, John
    Weisser, Wolfgang
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2011, 9 (09) : 512 - 520
  • [3] Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services
    Martinez-Jauregui, Maria
    White, Piran C. L.
    Touza, Julia
    Solino, Mario
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2019, 38
  • [4] Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services
    Turner, Will R.
    Brandon, Katrina
    Brooks, Thomas M.
    Costanza, Robert
    da Fonseca, Gustavo A. B.
    Portela, Rosimeiry
    BIOSCIENCE, 2007, 57 (10) : 868 - 873
  • [5] On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services
    Pascual, Unai
    Termansen, Mette
    Hedlund, Katarina
    Brussaard, Lijbert
    Faber, Jack H.
    Foudi, Sebastien
    Lemanceau, Philippe
    Jorgensen, Sisse Liv
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2015, 15 : 11 - 18
  • [6] A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands
    Richter, Franziska
    Jan, Pierrick
    El Benni, Nadja
    Luescher, Andreas
    Buchmann, Nina
    Klaus, Valentin H.
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2021, 52
  • [7] Beyond ecosystem services as justification for biodiversity conservation
    Prendergast, Kit S.
    AUSTRAL ECOLOGY, 2020, 45 (02) : 141 - 143
  • [8] Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation
    Ridder, Ben
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2008, 17 (04) : 781 - 790
  • [9] Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary
    Harrington, Richard
    Anton, Christian
    Dawson, Terence P.
    de Bello, Francesco
    Feld, Christian K.
    Haslett, John R.
    Kluvankova-Oravska, Tatiana
    Kontogianni, Areti
    Lavorel, Sandra
    Luck, Gary W.
    Rounsevell, Mark D. A.
    Samways, Michael J.
    Settele, Josef
    Skourtos, Michalis
    Spangenberg, Joachim H.
    Vandewalle, Marie
    Zobel, Martin
    Harrison, Paula A.
    BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2010, 19 (10) : 2773 - 2790
  • [10] Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation
    Ben Ridder
    Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, 17 : 781 - 790