Forest gaps increase true bug diversity by recruiting open land species

Achury, Rafael; Staab, Michael; Blüthgen, Nico; Weisser, Wolfgang W.

doi:10.1007/s00442-023-05392-z

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We further observed a weak negative relationship between canopy openness and herbivore diversity. This finding contrasts previous studies reporting positive effects of canopy gaps on the abundance and diversity of herbivorous arthropods (e.g., Achury et al, 2023; Ulyshen et al, 2005; see Zeller et al, 2023 for review). In our study, however, this was clearly linked to tree‐species identity effects, as non‐native Douglas fir stands have a conspicuously more open canopy than native beech stands (Matevski et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Wildermuth,

Seifert,

Husemann

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Averting climate change‐induced forest diebacks increasingly relies on tree species planted outside of their natural range and on the addition of non‐native tree species to mixed‐species forests. However, the consequences of such changes for associated biodiversity remain poorly understood, especially for the forest canopy as a largely understudied forest stratum. Here, we used flight interception traps and a metabarcoding approach to study the taxonomic and functional (trophic guilds) composition and taxon richness of canopy arthropods. We sampled 15 monospecific and mixed stands of native European beech, native Norway spruce—planted outside its natural range—and non‐native Douglas fir in North‐West Germany. We found that diversity of arthropods was lower in non‐native Douglas fir compared to native beech stands. Taxon richness of herbivores was reduced by both conifer species. Other functional guilds, however, were not affected by stand type. Arthropod composition differed strongly between native broadleaved beech and monospecific coniferous (native spruce or non‐native Douglas fir) stands, with less pronounced differences between the native and non‐native conifers. Beech‐conifer mixtures consistently hosted intermediate arthropod diversity and community composition compared to the respective monospecific stands. Moreover, arthropod diversity had a positive relationship with the number of canopy microhabitats. Our study shows that considering arthropod taxa of multiple functional groups reveals the multifaceted impact of non‐native tree species on forest canopy arthropod communities. Contrasting to previous studies that primarily focused on the forest floor, we found that native beech hosts a rich diversity of arthropods, compared to lower diversity and distinct communities in economically attractive, and especially in non‐native, conifers with few canopy microhabitats. Broadleaf‐conifer mixtures did not perform better than native beech stands, but mitigated negative effects of conifers—making such mixtures a compromise to foster both forest‐associated diversity and economic yield.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Wildermuth,

Seifert,

Husemann

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The creation of canopy gaps (e.g., by tree felling) can diversify light conditions and, thus, the communities of photophilic bees and wasps in forests. The resulting increase in host abundance (see also Achury et al, 2023) and thus parasitoid species richness could improve functional resilience of parasitism networks to environmental changes (Evans et al, 2016;Gladstone-Gallagher et al, 2019;Laliberté & Tylianakis, 2010;Standish et al, 2014) such as those resulting in unfavourable microclimates (Bernaschini et al, 2021) via redundancy.…”

Section: Parasitoid Reliance On Hostsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest structure and heterogeneity increase diversity and alter composition of host–parasitoid networks

Rappa,

Staab,

Ruppert

et al. 2024

Ecological Entomology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antagonistic host–parasitoid interactions can be quantified using bipartite and metanetworks, which have the potential to reveal how habitat structural elements relate to this important ecosystem function. Here, we analysed the host–parasitoid interactions of cavity‐nesting bees and wasps, as well as their abundance, diversity and species richness with forest structural elements from 127 forest research plots in southwestern Germany. We found that parasitoid abundance, diversity and species richness all increase with host abundance, a potential mediator between parasitoids and forest structure. Both parasitoid abundance and diversity increased with stand structural complexity, possibly mediated by the abundance of hosts. In addition, parasitoid abundance increased with increasing standing deadwood and herb cover. The bipartite networks of host–parasitoid interactions showed higher connectance with increasing standing deadwood, herb cover and host abundance. Analyses of interactions within the host–parasitoid metanetwork revealed that increasing host abundance and decreasing canopy cover diversify the suites of interactions present at the plot level. These results demonstrate that forest structural elements can improve the stability and resilience of host–parasitoid networks by promoting parasitoids and diversifying interactions in ecological networks.

show abstract

“…inundation patterns, deadwood availability, and habitat heterogeneity (Thompson et al, 2016;Bush et al, 2019;Kivinen et al, 2020;Åhleń et al, 2023). Beaver wetlands are dynamic habitats with high heterogeneity and many sub-habitats (Bush & Wissinger, 2016) which should provide niches for many species that would otherwise perish (Donkor & Fryxell, 1999;Johnston, 2017;Åhleń et al, 2023;Achury et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can beavers help improve terrestrial invertebrate diversity?

Andersen,

Nummi,

Bahrndorff

2024

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On a global scale, species biodiversity is declining rapidly, including that of terrestrial invertebrates. Environmental heterogeneity is viewed as a key factor promoting biodiversity, and previous studies have shown how beavers can have a profound effect on both habitat heterogeneity and abundance and diversity of a plethora of water-related and terrestrial organisms. However, less is known about the effects of beavers and successional stages on the terrestrial invertebrate community. Here, we review existing knowledge and outline research trajectories to improve our understanding of how beavers affect the terrestrial invertebrate community with special focus on the importance of each successional stage that beavers provide on terrestrial invertebrates. Although beavers can have a large impact on the terrestrial invertebrate community, more studies are needed that take into consideration successional stages and with standardized sampling designs. A better understanding of how beaver activity affects the terrestrial invertebrate community can help in conservation of endangered species and restoration of biodiversity in terrestrial habitats.

show abstract

Forest gaps increase true bug diversity by recruiting open land species

Cited by 7 publications

References 75 publications

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Forest structure and heterogeneity increase diversity and alter composition of host–parasitoid networks

Can beavers help improve terrestrial invertebrate diversity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About