4.7 Article

Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110842

关键词

Pollinator monitoring; Bees; Hoverflies; Butterflies; Floral resources; Surrogate species

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monitoring pollinators is crucial for biodiversity evaluation, and simple species bioindicators like butterflies can represent the entire pollinator community. Butterfly diversity can predict diversity of bees and hoverflies spatially, but this relationship varies in different regions and over time. Including bees and hoverflies in monitoring schemes along with floral resources as indicators of habitat quality is important for effective pollinator conservation.
Monitoring pollinators is crucial for the evaluation of biodiversity and potential pollination services. Yet, efficiently monitoring multiple taxa over large areas can be costly. An alternative approach is using simple species bioindicators that represent the entire pollinator community. One of the requirements of a good bioindicator is that it can be easily identified to lower taxonomic levels and be sensitive to changes in habitat. This is the case for butterflies, a taxon for which many countries have a country-wide long-term monitoring scheme. We tested whether butterfly diversity can be used to predict diversity of bees and hoverflies both spatially and temporally. We surveyed 42 transects of the Dutch Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in 2020, to record species richness and abundance of butterflies, bees and hoverflies. We also recorded flower area and richness in the pollinator transects. To test whether pollinators with similar functional traits are more closely correlated than the entire pollinator community, we categorized bee and butterfly species according to their diet breadth (polyphagous vs. non-polyphagous), nitrogen-affinity (nitrophobous vs. nitrophilous larval resources) and body size. We used the same methods to test for temporal correlations over seven years for one site in Spain. Butterfly richness was not spatially correlated with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.13), nor were the two taxa temporally correlated (Pearson's r = 0.02). Interestingly, hoverfly richness was spatially correlated with butterfly richness (Pearson's r = 0.43) and with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.36) in the Netherlands and, hence, hoverflies might be slightly more suitable as a bioindicator of pollinator diversity in this area. Abundance of all three taxa showed no significant inter-correlation, except for correlations between diet specialist bees and butterflies (Pearson's r = 0.39). Importantly, all three taxa were strongly correlated with flower richness, but they varied in their preferences for host plant families. This is in line with 75% of the plant-pollinator studies finding significant positive relations. For monitoring schemes to be effective in informing better pollinator conservation, they should expand to include bees and hoverflies as well as simple indicators of habitat quality such as floral resources.

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