Do landscape health indices reflect arthropod biodiversity status in the eucalypt woodlands of eastern Australia?

Abstract

Ecosystem or landscape health indices are important tools for land managers. While strong predictable relationships between these indices and biotic diversity are often generalized, they are seldom validated. Here we use data from a semi-arid eastern Australian woodland to examine the relationships between arthropod community structure and two sets of landscape health indicators: landscape function analysis (LFA), and a terrestrial index of ecological integrity based on common vegetation metrics (structure, composition and function; SCF). Hierarchical partitioning revealed that the ability of LFA or SCF to account for variation in arthropod richness was low, with the variable of importance taxon-dependent. Similarly, multivariate analyses indicated relatively weak and inconsistent relationships between LFA and SCF indices and arthropod assemblage structure. Results obtained for additional habitat attributes commonly used in terrestrial vegetation monitoring were similar. Our study indicates that strong predictable relationships are rarely apparent, particularly for arthropods. This indicates that these indices have limited use as surrogates of arthropod biodiversity. These results are contrary to the past literature, highlighting the need for additional research and the development of a conceptual and empirical framework linking health indices and arthropod biodiversity. This is necessary to further the theoretical and practical application of these measurements in environmental management.

Effectiveness of vegetation‐based biodiversity offset metrics as surrogates for ants

“…Furthermore, models for rates of myrmecochory and the abundance of different ant functional groups included many vegetation attributes, implying that ant fauna and associated ecological functions are not closely associated with just 1 vegetation feature but rather exhibit complex responses to a number of environmental features, which concurs with previous studies (Lassau & Hochuli ; Kwok et al. ; Oliver et al. ).…”

“…However, multimetrics have been criticized for their potential to inaccurately reflect variation in their individual components, which may mask differences between sites and result in a significant loss of information through the reduction of multiple measurements into a simple score (Kwok et al. ). Furthermore, the effectiveness of vegetation multimetrics as surrogates underpinning trading currencies within biodiversity offset schemes is rarely validated prior to implementation (Kwok et al.…”

“…Furthermore, the effectiveness of vegetation multimetrics as surrogates underpinning trading currencies within biodiversity offset schemes is rarely validated prior to implementation (Kwok et al. ; Oliver et al. ), and the assumption that they provide a representative and comparable quantification of a site's total biodiversity value remains widely contested (McCarthy et al.…”

“…Although there have been many studies on the use of 1 taxon as a surrogate for others (e.g., Pearman & Weber ; Rodrigues & Brooks ), applied evaluations of vegetation multimetrics as surrogates for a site's total biodiversity value are few and have occurred in relatively remote areas (e.g., Kwok et al. ; Oliver et al. ) rather than in urban fringes under extreme pressure from development.…”

A Novel and Cost-Effective Monitoring Approach for Outcomes in an Australian Biodiversity Conservation Incentive Program

“…This was because changes in vegetation condition can influence changes in faunal assemblages [39], [40]. Moreover, the Program’s Strategic Framework includes “ improved habitat ” and “ improvement in…function of ecological communities ” as desired outcomes (see Supporting Information S2).…”