Moth Communities Correspond with Plant Communities in Midwestern (Indiana, USA) Sand Prairies and Oak Barrens and Their Degradation Endpoints

Shuey, John A.; Metzler, Eric H.; Tungesvick, Kevin

doi:10.1674/0003-0031-167.2.273

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) diagrams graphically illustrate correlations between each plant functional group and species for each of the two insect taxa ( Supplementary Figures 1 & 2). Others have found correlations between plant species composition and butterflies (Su et al 2004, Maccherini et al 2009, Santi et al 2010 as well as moths (Shuey et al 2012). To our knowledge no one has previously studied the correlation between leaf beetle and plant composition.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…These results were surprising. We expected stronger correlations when comparing insect species composition because a number of studies have found improved correlations when comparing measures of insect species composition with insect species richness (Su et al 2004, Bilton et al 2006, Shuey et al 2012.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have demonstrated superior patterns of cross-taxon congruence when investigating compositional relationships as compared to univariate measures of species richness (Su et al 2004, Bilton et al 2006, Shuey et al 2012. However, others have found less than encouraging results for both species richness and composition (Oertli et al 2005, Heino et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plant composition has been found to be a particularly good predictor of composition for various insect groups (Su et al 2004, Schaffers et al 2008, Maccherini et al 2009, Gioria et al 2010, Shuey et al 2012. For instance, Schaffers et al (2008) showed that composition was the best predictor for the seven arthropod groups (six of which were insect taxa) they investigated, outperforming environmental conditions, surrounding landscape, and physical vegetation structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of ongoing human alterations of the natural landscape, understanding how crosstaxon congruence relationships hold up in fragmented and altered landscapes is essential (Lund and Rahbek 2002, Oertli et al 2005, Bennett et al 2009, Keith et al 2012, Shuey et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Utilizing novel grasslands for the conservation and restoration of butterflies and other pollinators in agricultural ecosystems

Delaney

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Utilizing novel grasslands for the conservation and restoration of butterflies and other pollinators in agricultural ecosystems

Delaney

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Moths versus Bees: Contrasts in Habitat Preferences Across Barrens of the Northeastern USA

Barton,

Poulos,

Crisfield

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees and moths are globally important pollinators. Xeric barrens in the largely mesic northeastern USA support high levels of pollinator diversity, including rare bees and moths. We investigated the response of bee vs. moth communities to abiotic and vegetation drivers in barrens across the region. We sampled local environmental conditions, vegetation, bees, and moths for 2–4 years in 19 preserves. Employing random forest analysis, we tested the role of 29 abiotic and vegetation predictors of bee vs. moth abundance, species richness, Shannon‐Wiener Index, evenness, and species composition. Variables related to climate, canopy cover, and soils were the most important predictors of abundance, diversity, and species composition for both bees and moths. Vegetation variables, such as species richness of shrubs and hostplants, were also important for bees. The direction of these relationships contrasted sharply between bees and moths: bees were more abundant and species rich in more open, sandy sites and moths the opposite. Habitat preferences for a subset of moth xeric specialists were much more similar to bees than to other moths, with a preference for open, sandy conditions. Contrasts between bees and moths in habitat preferences likely stemmed from differences in their life histories: bees rely on flowers for feeding and porous substrates for nesting, whereas most moth adults feed on flowers, but many moth caterpillars use woody plants as hosts. In sharp contrast to the results for abundance and richness, bees and moths responded similarly for the Shannon‐Wiener Index, which raises important general questions about the conservation value of these two metrics. Our results suggest that, because of differences in habitat preferences among pollinators, barrens management for both open and more closed habitats is likely to promote the highest abundance and diversity of local bee and moth pollinator communities jointly.

show abstract

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

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moth Communities Correspond with Plant Communities in Midwestern (Indiana, USA) Sand Prairies and Oak Barrens and Their Degradation Endpoints

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Utilizing novel grasslands for the conservation and restoration of butterflies and other pollinators in agricultural ecosystems

Utilizing novel grasslands for the conservation and restoration of butterflies and other pollinators in agricultural ecosystems

Moths versus Bees: Contrasts in Habitat Preferences Across Barrens of the Northeastern USA

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About