SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2018 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 4

Habitat structure and host plant specialization drive taxonomic andfunctional composition of Heteroptera in postfire successional habitats

Eduardo MATEOS
Marta GOULA
Teresa SAURAS
Xavier SANTOS
Pages
449–463
Publication Date
2018-07-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our results suggest that plant?bug trophic interactions shape the response of Heteroptera to fire, and this response seems to be mediated by the degree of feeding specialization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Changes in habitat structure are the main driving forces for responses of animal assemblages to fire.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We compared the responses of true bug (Heteroptera) assemblages in stable (unburnt) versus unstable (postfire successional) environments as this group shows a high diversity of feeding strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our results suggest that plant?bug trophic interactions shape the response of Heteroptera to fire, and this response seems to be mediated by the degree of feeding specialization.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bipartite network · multivariate ordination · disturbance theory

Abstract

Changes in habitat structure are the main driving forces for responses of animal assemblages to fire. According to the disturbance theory, generalist species are expected to outperform specialists in variable environments. Thus, we hypothesized that omnivorous and polyphagous species will become more abundant in unstable postfire successional vegetation, whereas monophagous (specialists), due to their strong dependence on host plants, are expected to respond according to the responses of plant hosts. We compared the responses of true bug (Heteroptera) assemblages in stable (unburnt) versus unstable (postfire successional) environments as this group shows a high diversity of feeding strategies. Redundancy analysis fitted our hypothesis as omnivorous and polyphagous bugs responded positively to fire whereas oligophagous bugs did not. Thus, the most generalized bugs in terms of diet were found in disturbed (burnt) habitats whereas specialized bugs were found in undisturbed (unburnt) habitats. Moreover, the most specialized bugs (monophagous species) responded to fire in accordance to the responses of their specific host plants. Although based on small bipartite networks, the lower modularity in burnt sites corresponded to a scenario of lower segregation of plant resources and fits the higher presence of generalist bugs in these sites. Our results suggest that plant?bug trophic interactions shape the response of Heteroptera to fire, and this response seems to be mediated by the degree of feeding specialization.

🔖

Cite This Article

MATEOS, E., GOULA, M., SAURAS, T., SANTOS, X. (2018). Habitat structure and host plant specialization drive taxonomic andfunctional composition of Heteroptera in postfire successional habitats. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 4, 449–463. https://ajindex.com/articles/176724

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Anderson MJ (2001). A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26: 32-46.
  2. Arnan X, Cerdá X, Rodrigo A, Retana J (2013). Response of ant functional composition to fire. Ecography 36: 1182-1192.
  3. Bascompte J, Jordano P (2006). The structure of plant–animal mutualistic networks. In: Pascual M, Dunne JA, editors. Food Webs as Complex Adaptive Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 143-159.
  4. Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ, Olesen JM (2003). The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 9383-9387.
  5. Bergman E (1988). Foraging abilities and niche breadths of two percids, Perca fluviatilis and Gymnocephalus cernua, under different environmental conditions. J Anim Ecol 57: 443-453.
  6. Bond WJ, Woodward FI, Midgley GF (2005). The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New Phytol 165: 525-538.
  7. Borcard D, Legendre P, Avois-Jacquet C, Tuomisto H (2004). Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple scales. Ecology 85: 1826-1832.
  8. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992). Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73: 1045-1055.
  9. Briani DC, Palma ART, Vieira EM, Henriques RPB (2004). Pos t-fire succession of small mammals in the Cerrado of central Brazil. Biodiv Conserv 13: 1023-1037.
  10. Bröring U, Wiegleb G (2005). Soil zoology II: Colonization, distribution, and abundance of terrestrial Heteroptera in open landscapes of former brown coal mining areas. Ecol Eng 24:135-147.
  11. Bros V, Moreno-Rueda G, Santos X (2011). Does postfire management affect the recovery of Mediterranean communities? The case study of terrestrial gastropods. For Ecol Manag 261: 611-619.
  12. Brotons L, Herrando S, Pons, P (2008). Wildfires and the expansion of threatened farmland birds: the ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana in Mediterranean landscapes. J Appl Ecol 45: 1059- 1066. Carver M, Gross GF, Woodward, TT (1991). Hemiptera. In: Naumann ID, Carne PB, Lawrence JF, Nielsen ES, Spradbery JP, Taylor RW, Whitten MJ, Littlejohn MJ, editors. The Insects of Australia. 2nd ed. Carlton, Australia: Melbourne University Press, pp 429-509.
  13. Chergui B, Fahd S, Santos X, Pausas JG (2017). Socioeconomic factors drive fire-regime variability in the Mediterranean Basin. Ecosystems (in press). Clarke KR (1993). Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Austr J Ecol 18: 117-143. Deák B, Valkó O, Török P, Végvári Z, Ha