Impact of taxonomic resolution on the indicatory information: studies on carabid beetles in Poland

• Autorzy: Schwerk A. , Dymitryszyn I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The informative power of species surrogacy with respect to ecological processes and anthropogenic influences has been rarely studied. Thus, five datasets on carabid beetles collected using pitfall traps were analysed in order to study the impact of changing the taxonomic resolution from species to genus level on their indicatory information: a dataset of eight study sites in differently managed habitats sampled in 2013, a dataset tracing successional changes from 2004 to 2013 in a naturally regenerated pine forest, a dataset of three sites on a heap of power plant ashes and a dataset of four sites on a colliery spoil heap, both sampled from 2004 to 2011, and a dataset of six sites along the roadside of a highway being renovated in 2009, sampled in 2008 and from 2010 to 2012. The datasets were analysed by studying correlations of species numbers with genus numbers and species based Shannon diversity with genus based Shannon diversity, testing compliance between species based and genera based similarity matrices, and comparing the information provided by ordination diagrams based on species information or genus information respectively. The results indicate that at least in our study a substantial amount of information provided by species data is still contained in the genus data, but information about fine graded differences between study sites gets lost. We conclude that, even if carabid genus information might be useful in some cases (e.g. preliminary biodiversity assessment), the limitation to higher taxonomic levels like the genus level has to be done with caution.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

carabid beetle; Carabidae; Poland; trap; pitfall; pine forest; power plant ash; succession; biodiversity

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 64
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.255-267,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Schwerk A.

• Laboratory of Evaluation and Assessment of Natural Resources, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Nowoursynowska Street 166, 00−240 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Dymitryszyn I.

• Laboratory of Evaluation and Assessment of Natural Resources, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Nowoursynowska Street 166, 00−240 Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• Barber H.S. 1931 — Traps for cave inhabiting insects — J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 46: 259–266.
• Cotes B., Ruano F., García P.A., Pascual F., Campos M. 2009 — Coccinellid morphospecies as an alternative method for differentiating management regimes in olive orchards — Ecol. Indic. 9: 548–555.
• Dehghan-Madiseh S., Nabavi S.M.B., Ghofleh- Marammazi J., Jahani N., Koochaknejad E. 2012 — Application of abundance biomass curve in ecological health assessment of Khure-Mussa (Northwest of the Persian Gulf) — Journal of the Persian Gulf, 3: 1–10.
• Den Boer P.J. 1979 — The individual behaviour and population dynamics of some carabid beetles in forests — Miscell. Papers L. H. Wageningen, 18: 151–166.
• Dymitryszyn I. 2014 — The effect of the construction and renovation of a highway bypass in Central Poland on the carabid beetle fauna (Coleoptera: Carabidae) — Eur. J. Entomol. 111: 655–662.
• Dymitryszyn I., Szyszko J., Rylke J. 2013 — [Field methods of evaluation and assessment of natural resources] — Wydawnictwo SGGW, Warszawa, 264 pp. (in Polish).
• Freude H., Harde K.-W., Lohse G.A., Klausnitzer B. 2004 — Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Bd. 2, Adephaga 1, Carabidae (Laufkäfer) — 2. (erweiterte) Aufl., Spektrum, Heidelberg/Berlin, 521 pp.
• Goehring D.M., Daily G.C., Şekerçioğlu Ç.H. 2002 — Distribution of ground-dwelling arthropods in tropical countryside habitats — J. Insect Conserv. 6: 83–91.
• Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T., Ryan P.D. 2001 — PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis — Palaeontol. Electron. 4: 9 p.
• Heino J., Soininen J. 2007 — Are higher taxa adequate surrogates for species-level assemblage patterns and species richness in stream organisms? — Biol. Conserv. 137: 78–89.
• Holland J.M., Luff M.L. 2000 — The effects of agricultural practices on Carabidae in temperate agroecosystems — Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 5: 109–129.
• Hurka K. 1996 — Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics — Kabourek, Zlín, 565 pp.
• Jurzenski J., Albrecht M., Hoback W.W. 2012 — Distribution and diversity of ant genera from selected ecoregions across Nebraska — The Prairie Naturalist, 44: 17–29.
• Kerr J.T., Sugar A., Packer L. 2000 — Indicator taxa, rapid biodiversity assessment, and nestedness in an endangered ecosystem — Conserv. Biol. 14: 1726–1734.
• Koivula M.J. 2011 — Useful model organisms, indicators, or both? Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) reflecting environmental conditions — ZooKeys, 100: 287–317.
• Kosewska A., Skalski T., Nietupski M. 2014 — Effect of conventional and non-inversion tillage systems on the abundance and some life history traits of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in winter triticale fields — Eur. J. Entomol. 111: 669–676.
• Krell F.-T. 2004 — Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies — pitfalls and applicability of ‘morphospecies’ sorting — Biodivers. Conserv. 13: 795–812.
• Langor D.W., Spence J.R. 2006 — Arthropods as ecological indicators of sustainability in Canadian forests — The Forestry Chronicle, 82: 344–350.
• Liu J.L., Zhao W.Z., Li F.R. 2015 — Shrub presence and shrub species effects on ground beetle assemblages (Carabidae, Curculionidae and Tenebrionidae) in a sandy desert, northwestern China — J. Arid Land, 7: 110–121.
• Magurran E.A. 1988 — Ecological Diversity and its Measurement — Chapman and Hall, London, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras, 179 pp.
• Marshall J.C., Steward A.L., Harch B.D. 2006 — Taxonomic resolution and quantification of freshwater macroinvertebrate samples from an Australian dryland river: the benefits and costs of using species abundance data — Hydrobiologia, 572: 171–194.
• Maveety S.A., Browne R.A., Erwin T.L. 2011 — Carabidae diversity along an altitudinal gradient in a Peruvian cloud forest (Coleoptera) — ZooKeys, 147: 651–666.
• Morrison III W.R., Waller J.T., Brayshaw A.C., Hyman D.A., Johnson M.R., Fraser A.M. 2012 — Evaluating multiple arthropod taxa as indicators of invertebrate diversity in old fields — The Great Lakes Entomologist, 45: 56–67.
• Nahmani J., Lavelle P., Rossi J.-P. 2006 — Does changing the taxonomical resolution alter the value of soil macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of metal pollution? — Soil Biol. Biochem. 38: 385–396.
• Oliver I., Beattie A.J. 1996a — Designing a Cost-Effective Invertebrate Survey: A Test of Methods for Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity — Ecol. Appl. 6: 594–607.
• Oliver I., Beattie A.J. 1996b — Invertebrate morphospecies as surrogates for species: a case study — Conserv. Biol. 10: 99–109.
• Pizzolotto R., Gobbi M., Brandmayr P. 2014 — Changes in ground beetle assemblages above and below the treeline of the Dolomites after almost 30 years (1980/2009) — Ecol. Evol. 4: 1284–1294.
• Sachs L. 1984 — Angewandte Statistik: Anwendung statistischer Methoden — 6th ed. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo, 552 pp.
• Schwerk A. 2008 — Model of the rate of succession of epigeic carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on degraded areas — Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa, Sękocin Stary, 71 pp.
• Schwerk A. 2014 — Changes in carabid beetle fauna (Coleoptera: Carabidae) along successional gradients in post-industrial areas in Central Poland — Eur. J. Entomol. 111: 677–685.
• Skłodowski J.J.W. 2006 — Anthropogenic transformation of ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Białowieża Forest, Poland: from primeval forests to managed woodlands of various ages — Entomol. Fenn. 17: 296–314.
• Strauss B., Biedermann R. 2006 — Urban brownfields as temporary habitats: driving forces for the diversity of phytophagous insects — Ecography, 29: 928–940.
• Szyszko J. 1983 — Methods of macrofauna investigations (In: The process of forest soil macrofauna formation after afforestation of farmland, Eds: A. Szujecki, J. Szyszko, S. Mazur, S. Perliński) — Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, pp. 10–16.
• Szyszko J. 1990 — Planning of prophylaxis in threatened pine forest biocoenoses based on an analysis of the fauna of epigeic Carabidae — Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 96 pp.
• Szyszko J., Vermeulen H.J.W., Klimaszewski K., Abs M., Schwerk A. 2000 — Mean individual biomass (MIB) of ground beetles (Carabidae) as an indicator of the state of the environment (In: Natural History and Applied Ecology of Carabid Beetles, Eds: P. Brandmayr, G. Lövei, T. Zetto Brandmayr, A. Casale, A. Vigna Taglianti A.) — Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Moscow, pp. 289–294.
• ter Braak C.J.F. 1987 — CANOCO — A FORTRAN Program for Canonical Community Ordination by (partial) (detrended) (canonical) Correspondence Analysis, Principal Components Analysis and Redundancy Analysis (version 2.1) — DLO-Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen, 95 pp.
• ter Braak C.J.F, Prentice I.C. 1988 — A theory of gradient analysis — Adv. Ecol. Res. 18: 271–317.
• ter Braak C.J.F., Šmilauer P. 2002 — CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5) — Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, 499 pp.
• Thiele H.-U. 1977 — Carabid beetles in their environments — Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 369 pp.
• Tropek R., Kadlec T., Karesova P., Spitzer L., Kocarek P., Malenovsky I., Banar P., Tuf I. H., Hejda M., Konvicka M. 2010 — Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants — J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 139–147.
• Ulrich W., Buszko J., Czarnecki A. 2004 — The contribution of poplar plantations to regional diversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in agricultural landscapes — Ann. Zool. Fennici, 41: 501–512.
• Ward D.F., Larivière M.-C. 2004 — Terrestrial invertebrate surveys and rapid biodiversity assessment in New Zealand: lessons from Australia — New Zeal. J. Ecol. 28: 151–159.
• Ward D.F., Stanley M.C. 2004 — The value of RTUs and parataxonomy versus taxonomic species — NZ Entomol. 27: 3–9.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3161/15052249PJE2016.64.2.009