Spatial Structure of Forest Lepidopteran Communities in Oak Hickory Forests of Indiana

Abstract

The response of forest insect communities to disturbances such as timber harvest will likely depend on the underlying spatial structure of species assemblages before the disturbance occurs. Unfortunately, many studies of forest management implicitly assume homogeneity of community structure before harvest; postlogging communities are inferred to be a direct product of the imposed management. The goal of this study is to examine variation in the community structure of forest Lepidoptera using the pretimber harvest data on Lepidoptera from 20 forest sites within three watersheds at Morgan Monroe State Forest, IN. A total of 14,537 individuals representing 324 species of Lepidoptera were sampled from Morgan-Monroe State Forest in 2007. Sampling efficiency was not a function of management unit, and, surprisingly, we found little evidence that management units differed in overall community composition. Diversity partitioning suggested that > 99% of Simpson diversity (species dominance) was determined at the local scale, and each site contained the same 10 dominant taxa in rank order. Variation in species richness seemed to be more a problem of sampling bias than underlying differences in habitat preference by moth feeding guilds. Finally, Mantel tests suggested that forest moth communities at Morgan-Monroe are not spatially autocorrelated. The results here are encouraging because they strongly suggest that shifts in lepidopteran community structure should reflect the community response to disturbance rather than inherent spatial heterogeneity of species composition.

Comparing the responses of larval and adult lepidopteran communities to timber harvest using long-term, landscape-scale studies in oak-hickory forests

“…These results suggest that widespread clearcutting of timber has a negative and long-lasting effect on species richness and abundance of forest-feeding Lepidoptera. Similar results were obtained from sampling forest stands in southern Ohio and Indiana (see Summerville and Crist, 2002;Summerville et al, 2008).…”

“…In early 2007, Summerville et al (2008) identified three large forested landscapes within Morgan-Monroe State Forest for lepidopteran sampling. These landscapes possessed a comparable legacy of timber harvest; most were clearcut % 60-70 y in the past (Haulton, 2012).…”

“…Finally, control treatments, in which 100% of the standing biomass was retained within the entire forest stand, were designated. To determine how contrasting levels of timber harvest affected lepidopteran community resilience, Summerville et al (2008) established moth sampling points in these management units. In total, four stands that were managed with patch-cuts, four stands that were unlogged controls, two stands that were clear cut, and three forest stands that were managed with shelterwood techniques were used for sampling adult Lepidoptera.…”

Drivers of species richness and abundance of butterflies in coffee–banana agroforests in Uganda

“…Similarly, in southeastern Sweden (Jonason et al 2010), butterfly species richness (not the abundance) was found to be positively related to increasing tree cover in the farm landscape. Apart from land use and farm management methods or farming practices (Weibull and Östman 2003), vegetation structure, quality of the matrix surrounding an agricultural habitat (Binzenhöfer et al 2008;Summerville et al 2008), diversity and types of habitats (Dessuy and de Morris 2007;Ngai et al 2008;Kumar et al 2009), landscape heterogeneity and habitat connectivity (Davis et al 2007) are important factors determining occurrence, movements, population dynamics, seasonality, persistence and longterm survival of Lepidoptera faunal communities in the agricultural landscapes (Dennis 2003;Greza et al 2004;Chay-Hernández et al 2006;Kivinen et al 2008;Öckinger and Smith 2008;Pickens and Root 2008;Stasek et al 2008;Dover and Settele 2009;Brückmann et al 2010). Generally, agricultural matrices that are more resembling a nearby forest patch maintain higher butterfly diversity than matrices with lesser shade cover (Summerville et al 2001;Kitahara and Watanabe 2003;Weibull and Östman 2003;Boriani et al 2005;Aviron et al 2007;Ohwaki et al 2007Ohwaki et al , 2008Barlow et al 2008;Bergman et al 2008;van Halder et al 2008;Marín et al 2009).…”

Forestry Best Management Practices Relationships with Aquatic and Riparian Fauna: A Review

“…For example, SMZs promote sediment and nutrient trapping by slowing and often preventing entry into aquatic systems [53,100]. Appropriately managed and designed SMZs moderate light infiltration, dampen or minimize aquatic and terrestrial temperature gradients, slow nutrient flow, maintain hypoheic and hydrologic function, and preserve riparian vegetative composition and structure [2,15,[101][102][103][104][105][106].…”