Restoration of Insect Communities in an Urban Landcape: Criteria for Success - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Restoration of Insect Communities in an Urban Landcape: Criteria for Success PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 122d34-OWQ0M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Restoration of Insect Communities in an Urban Landcape: Criteria for Success

Description:

Restoration of Insect Communities in an Urban Landcape: Criteria for Success ... A goal of ecological restoration projects is to enhance biodiversity in urban areas ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:55
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 31
Provided by: richardt58
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Restoration of Insect Communities in an Urban Landcape: Criteria for Success


1
Restoration of Insect Communities in an Urban
Landcape Criteria for Success
  • Richard Toft1, Colin Meurk2, Richard Harris1,
    John Dugdale1
  • 1Landcare Research, Nelson, New Zealand
  • 2Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

2
Invertebrates and Urban Restoration
  • A goal of ecological restoration projects is to
    enhance biodiversity in urban areas
  • Invertebrates are a major component of
    biodiversity
  • A monitoring tool for restoration projects
  • But what criteria should we use to measure
    restoration success?

3
Measuring success . . .
  • Cant set criteria for urban restoration success
    without reference to surrounding communities
  • We need to know the good and bad features of
    urban invertebrate communities?
  • How do urban communities differ from those that
    might occur in native habitats? .

4
A case study in Christchurch. . .
  • Insect communities sampled with Malaise traps in
    January/February 2003
  • Inside Riccarton Bush (native remnant in the
    city)
  • On the edge of Riccarton Bush
  • In 7 backyard gardens from 150 m to 3.5 km out
  • In an area of restoration planting at 3.5 km

5
12 sites Riccarton Bush (2) Edge 150 m 250 m 1.3
km 2 km 3 km 3.3 km 3.5 km Restoration area (2)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
What did we do. . .
  • Identified Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, and fungus
    gnats (Diptera Sciaroidea)
  • Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) of log
    abundance of species
  • Looked at the similarity of trap catches between
    habitats
  • Looked at the prevalence of introduced species

15
DCA Lepidoptera
16
DCA Coleoptera
17
DCA Fungus gnats
18
DCA All Groups
19
Lepidoptera similarity of fauna
20
Coleoptera similarity of fauna
21
Fungus gnats similarity of fauna
22

Lepidoptera species status
23
Lepidoptera proportion introduced
24
Coleoptera species status
25
Coleoptera proportion introduced
26
Fungus gnats species status
27
Summary
  • Riccarton Bush well differentiated
  • Edge community a rich mix of adjacent
    communities and uniques
  • Urban communities characterised by abundance of
    introduced species
  • Many natives still use suburbia, especially the
    more mobile taxa
  • Denser restoration planting is more native

28
Some success criteria
  • Selected native taxa missing from urban
    communities are found in restoration areas
  • Introduced species largely replaced by natives
    in restoration areas

29
Improving the odds
  • May be possible to improve success by
    manipulation of habitat e.g. adding large woody
    debris
  • Less mobile natives may require direct transfer
    in order to colonise

30
Acknowledgements
  • Many thanks to the following
  • Jo Rees for sample sorting
  • John Moore for access to Riccarton Bush
  • Lisa Smith for tending the traps
  • All the people who kindly allowed us to install
    Malaise traps in their gardens
  • This project was conducted with funding from FRST
About PowerShow.com