4.7 Article

Effects of Two Invasive Weeds on Arthropod Community Structure on the Central Plateau of New Zealand

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants9070919

关键词

exotic weeds; invasion ecology; invasive species; plant community composition; arthropod diversity; arthropod community composition

资金

  1. Massey University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heather (Calluna vulgaris) and broom (Cytisus scoparius), originally from Europe, are the main invasive plants on New Zealand's North Island Central Plateau, where they threaten native flora and fauna. Given the strong link between arthropod communities and plants, we explored the impact of these invasive weeds on the diversity and composition of associated arthropod assemblages in this area. The arthropods in heather-invaded areas, broom-invaded areas, and areas dominated by the native species manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) andDracohyllum(Dracophyllum subulatum) were collected and identified to order. During summer and autumn, arthropods were collected using beating trays, flight intercept traps and pitfall traps. Diversity indices (Richness, Shannon's index and Simpson's index) were calculated at the order level, and permutational multivariate analysis (PERMANOVA) was used to explore differences in order-level community composition. Our results show a significant variation in community composition for all trapping methods in both seasons, whereas invasive plants did not profoundly impact arthropod order richness. The presence of broom increased arthropod abundance, while heather was linked to a reduction. Under all possible plant pairings between heather, broom, manuka, andDracophylum, the impact of neighbouring plant identity on arthropod community composition was further explored for the samples collected using beating trays. The results suggest that during plant invasion, arthropod communities are affected by neighbouring plant identity and that impacts vary between arthropod sampling methods and seasons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据