Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scale dependency of insect assemblages in response to landscape pattern

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patches and their boundaries are sensitive to the scale at which they are viewed. The response of species to patchiness may depend on the resolution and on the extent by which the spatial pattern is perceived. The goal of this paper is to identify the scale at which forest spatial pattern causes changes in species richness and abundances of Dipteran and Homopteran species as a whole, and further on their distinctive ecological functional groups. Using remotely-sensed optical imagery, we described the landscape structure surrounding sampling sites. We used two approaches to deal with the problem of the scale of observation: 1) variation of extent using a multiscale analysis, and 2) comparison of two satellite sensors with different spatial resolutions (SPOT: 20 × 20 m, and Landsat TM: 30 × 30 m). The relationship between entomological data and landscape descriptors at different spatial scales was tested with the Mantel test, redundancy analysis and stepwise multiple linear regression. Relative abundances of Homopteran species were affected by landscape patterns at finer scales than in Diptera. The strength of response to landscape was different for each Dipteran functional group. The multiscale analysis also enabled the optimal scale (6.25 ha) of landscape pattern, accounting for 62% of the variation in Homopteran richness, to be identified. As a practical application, Homopteran richness was mapped by extrapolation of the regression function to the pixels of the image. Multiscale analysis provides an alternative view of fragmentation effects, which are traditionally studied through the patch-based approach, and highlights the importance of scale in ecological processes. The detection of optimal scales and the use of satellite images enable maps of important biotic indicators to be drawn up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bawa K., Rose J., Ganeshaiah K.N., Barve N., Kiran M.C. and Umashaanker R. 2002. Assessing biodiversity from space: an example from the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Ecology 6(2): 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergin T.M., Best L.B., Freemark K.E. and Koehler K.J. 2000. Effects of landscape structure on nest predation in roadsides of a midwestern agroecosystem: a multiscale analysis. Landscape Ecology 15: 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolòs O. de, Molinier R. and Montserrat P. 1970. Observations phytosociologiques dans l’île de Minorque. Acta Geobotanica Barcinonensia 5: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardillo M., Macdonald D.W. and Rushton S. 1999. Predicting mammal species richness and distributions: testing the effectiveness of satellite-derived land cover data. Landscape Ecology 14: 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casgrain P. and Legendre P. 2000. The R Package for Multivariate and Spatial Analysis. Version 4.0, User’s manual. Montreal, Canada, 93 pp.

  • Casucci F., Caporali E., Lebboroni M. and Profeti G. 1998. Use of Remote Sensing in ecological research: preliminary results. In: Engman E.T. (ed.), Remote sensing for agriculture, ecosystems, and hydrology. Proceedings of SPIE, EUROPTO series, Barcelona, Spain. Vol. 3499, pp. 332–339.

  • Chust G. 2002. Satellite-derived landscape descriptors and its use in biodiversity mapping. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 298 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chust G., Lek S., Deharveng L., Ventura D., Ducrot D. and Pretus J. 2000. The effects of the landscape pattern on arthropod assemblages: an analysis of scale-dependence using satellite data. Belgian Journal of Entomology 2: 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chust G., Pretus J.L., Ducrot D., Bedòs A. and Deharveng L. 2003. Identification of landscape units from an insect perspective. Ecography 26: 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinge S.K. and Palmer T.M. 2002. The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landscape Ecology 17: 647–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell H.V. and Lawton J.H. 1992. Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming G.S. 2000. Using habitat models to map diversity: pan-African species richness of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae). Journal of Biogeography 27: 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies K.F., Melbourne B.A. and Margules C.R. 2001. Effects of within-and between-patch processes on community dynamics in a fragmentation experiment. Ecology 82: 1830–1846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Didham R., Ghazoul J., Stork N. and Davis A. 1996. Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 255–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott N.C., Kieckhefer R.W., Lee J.H. and French B.W. 1998. Influence of within-field and landscape factors on aphid predator populations in wheat. Landscape Ecology 14: 239–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrar P. 1987. A guide to the breeding habits and immature stages of Diptera Cyclorrhapha. Entomonograph 8, (part 1 and part 2), E.J. Brill/Scandinavian Science Press, Leiden-Copenhagen, 907 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gering J.C., Crist T.O., Veech J.A. 2003. Additive Partitioning of Species Diversity across Multiple Spatial Scales: Implications for Regional Conservation of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 17: 488–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulinck H., Dufourmont H., Coppin P. and Hermy M. 2000. Landscape research, landscape policy and Earth observation. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21: 2541–2554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralick R.M., Shanmugan K.S. and Dinstein I. 1973. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3: 610–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings M.D. 2000. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results. Landscape Ecology 15: 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen I.D. and Fahrig L. 1997. Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landscape Ecology 12: 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen A.F. and Nøhr H. 1996. The use of satellite images for mapping of landscape and biological diversity in the Sahel. International Journal of Remote Sensing 17: 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolasa J. and Waltho N. 1998. A hierarchical view of habitat and its relationship to species abundance. In: Peterson D.L. and Parker V.T. (eds), Ecological Scale, theory and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA, 615 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauga J. and Joachim J. 1992. Modelling the effects of forest fragmentation on certain species of forest-breeding birds. Landscape Ecology 6: 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurance W.F., Lovejoy T.E., Vasconcelos H.L., Bruna E.M., Didham R.K., Stouffer P.C., Gascon C., Bierregaard R.O., Laurance S.G. and Sampaio E. 2002. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 16: 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P. and Legendre L. 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 853 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillesand T.M. and Kiefer R.W. 2000. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA, 724 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luoto M., Toivonen T. and Heikkinen R.K. 2002. Prediction of total and rare plant species richness in agricultural landscapes from satellite images and topographic data. Landscape Ecology 17: 195–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magura T., Ködöböcz V. and Tóthmérész B. 2001. Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. Journal of Biogeography 28: 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Médail F. and Quézel P. 1997. Hot-spot analysis for conservation of plant biodiversity in the Mediterranean basin. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 84: 112–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., da Fonseca G.A.B. and Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ormsby J.P. and Lunetta R.S. 1987. Whitetail deer food availability maps from Thematic Mapper data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 53: 1081–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozanne C.M.P., Hambler C., Foggo A. and Speight M.R. 1997. The significance of edge effects in the management of forests for invertebrate biodiversity. In: Stork N.E., Adis J. and Didham R.K. (eds), Canopy Arthropods, pp. 534–549. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papp L. and Darvas B. (eds), 1997. Contribution to a Manual of Palaearctic Diptera. Volume 2: Nematocera and Lower Brachycera. Science Herald, Budapest, Hungary, 592 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papp L. and Darvas B. (eds), 1998. Contribution to a Manual of Palaearctic Diptera. Volume 3: Higher Brachycera. Science Herald, Budapest, Hungary, 880 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papp L. and Darvas B. (eds), 2000. Contribution to a Manual of Palaearctic Diptera. Appendix. Science Herald, Budapest, Hungary, 604 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearman P.B. 2002. The scale of community structure: Habitat variation and avian guilds in tropical forest understory. Ecological Monographs 72: 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira J.M.C. and Itami R.M. 1991. GIS-based habitat modeling using logistic multiple regression: a study of the Mt. Graham red squirrel. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 57: 1475–1486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roland J. and Taylor P. 1997. Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386: 710–714.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rusek J. 1992. Distribution and dynamics of soil organisms across ecotones. In: Hansen A.J. and di Castri F. (eds), Landscape boundaries, consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, 452 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saveraid H.E., Debinski D.M., Kindscher K., Jakubauskas M.E. 2001. A comparison of satellite data and landscape variables in predicting bird species occurrences in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I. and Tscharntke T. 2002. Insect communities and biotic interactions on fragmented calcareous grasslands — a mini review. Biological Conservation 104: 275–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoms D.M. and Estes J. E. 1993. A remote sensing research agenda for mapping and monitoring biodiversity. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14: 1839–1860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoms D.M. 2000. GAP management status and regional indicators of threats of biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 15: 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak C.J.F. and Smilauer P. 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power Ithaca, New York, USA, 352 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner W., Sterling E.J. and Janetos A.C. 2001. Introduction to the special section ‘Contributions of remote sensing to biodiversity conservation: a NASA approach’. Conservation Biology 15: 832–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker R.H., Willis K.J. and Field R. 2001. Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography 28: 453–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1992. Ecological flows across landscape boundaries: a conceptual overview. In: Hansen A.J. and di Castri F. (eds), Landscape Boundaries. Ecological Studies, Springer-Verlag. New York, USA. 454 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. and Milne B.T. 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall International Editions, USA, 662 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zschokke S., Dolt C., Rusterholz H.P., Oggier P., Braschler B., Thommen G.H., Ludin E., Erhardt A. and Baur B. 2000. Short-term responses of plants and invertebrates to experimental small-scale grassland fragmentation. Oecologia 125: 559–572.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, Faculty of Biology (, University of Barcelona, Diagonal 645, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

    Guillem Chust & Joan Ll. Pretus

  2. Centre of Space Studies of Biosphere (CNES-CNRS-IRD-UPS), 18, Avenue Edouard Belin, 31055, Toulouse Cedex, France

    Guillem Chust & Danielle Ducrot

  3. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Biology (, University of Barcelona, Diagonal 645, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

    Daniel Ventura

Authors
  1. Guillem Chust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joan Ll. Pretus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danielle Ducrot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Ventura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chust, G., Pretus, J.L., Ducrot, D. et al. Scale dependency of insect assemblages in response to landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 19, 41–57 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000018368.99833.f2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000018368.99833.f2

Search

Navigation