Premium
Arboreal arthropod biodiversity in woodlands. II. The pattern of recovery of diversity on Melaleuca linariifolia following defaunation
Author(s) -
Azarbayjani Fathollah F.,
Burgin Shelley,
Richardson Barry J.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
australian journal of ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1442-9993
pISSN - 0307-692X
DOI - 10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.00996.x
Subject(s) - species evenness , arboreal locomotion , biology , fauna , defaunation , melaleuca , ecology , biodiversity , arthropod , species richness , habitat , food science , fermentation , rumen
This study examines the level of isolation of arthropod faunas present on specimens of the endemic woodland tree Melaleuca linariifolia by investigating the recovery of faunas after defaunation using insecticide. One tree from each of 21 pairs of trees was sprayed at the beginning of the project (early April 1994). After predetermined periods, three test trees were resprayed along with matched control trees. A total of 95 154 arthropods were collected and sorted during the project. The number of species present on the trees recovered within 16 weeks of spraying, with common species recolonizing within a fortnight. The rarer species both of mobile (Diptera) and relatively sedentary (Araneae) taxa reappeared at similar rates. Complete recovery of numbers occurred by week 8 after spraying. Evenness (as Simpson’s D ) recovered over the first 2 months; however, both the number of individuals and the evenness continued to diverge from the pattern seen on the control trees until the end of the study. While the rate of movement of individuals and species was such as to provide an apparently complete set of replacement species within several months of perturbation, the structure of the community found on the trees was still seriously disrupted after 1 year. Comparison of the suites of species originally found on the trees with those found in the respray samples and the control samples showed that the set of colonizing species was no more similar to the original fauna of the tree than it was to those on the control tree. The relatively rapid colonization of the trees by a suite of rare species – not necessarily those that were on particular trees before perturbation – indicates that rarity was due neither to inability of the species to colonize the trees nor to the suitability of the trees for these species. Recovery of rare species was to a level similar to that found on the control trees. That the divergences from the controls continued (in number of individuals and in evenness), implies a definite connection between the different faunas of a tree and their partial isolation from fauna communities on other trees. Whatever the forces that maintain suites of species on each tree, it is not the ability of the species to reach and colonize trees, nor certain attributes of a tree, that make it suitable only for a particular subset of the species available. Trees are not isolated entities but neither are they part of a fully integrated community, either chronologically or spacially, and issues of scale are also likely to be important in understanding and estimating the dynamics and factors regulating biodiversity levels.