| Literature DB >> 23300846 |
Edith Villa-Galaviz1, Karina Boege, Ek del-Val.
Abstract
Extensive land-use change in the tropics has produced a mosaic of successional forests within an agricultural and cattle-pasture matrix. Post-disturbance biodiversity assessments have found that regeneration speed depends upon propagule availability and the intensity and duration of disturbance. However, reestablishment of species interactions is still poorly understood and this limits our understanding of the anthropogenic impacts upon ecosystem resilience. This is the first investigation that evaluates plant-herbivore interaction networks during secondary succession. In particular we investigated succession in a Mexican tropical dry forest using data of caterpillar associations with plants during 2007-2010. Plant-herbivore networks showed high resilience. We found no differences in most network descriptors between secondary and mature forest and only recently abandoned fields were found to be different. No significant nestedness or modularity network structure was found. Plant-herbivore network properties appear to quickly reestablish after perturbation, despite differences in species richness and composition. This study provides some valuable guidelines for the implement of restoration efforts that can enhance ecological processes such as the interaction between plants and their herbivores.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23300846 PMCID: PMC3531414 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Plant-herbivore networks in different successional stages.
Each network represents all the interactions observed in all the sampling times and in all replicates of the same successional stage. Species bar size represents the number of interactions it has. Plants are represented in green: 1) Acacia farnesiana, 2) Acacia macracantha, 3) Lonchocarpus sp. L, 4) Apoplanesia paniculata, 5) Ayenia micrantha, 6) Coccoloba liebmannii, 7) Caesalpinia caladenia, 8) Casearia nitida, 9) Colubrina triflora, 10) Coursetia caribaea, 11) Croton pseudoniveus, 12) Dalbergia congestiflora, 13) Guapira macrocarpa, 14) Gyrocarpus jatrophifolius, 15) Heliocarpus pallidus, 16) Hintonia latiflora, 17) Justicia candicans, 18) Leucaena lanceolata, 19) Lonchocarpus sp. 2, 20) Lonchocarpus eriocarinalis, 21) Lonchocarpus sp. F, 22) Lonchocarpus sp. A, 23) Lonchocarpus sp. K, 24) Mimosa arenosa, 25) Mimosa pigra, 26) Phyllanthus mocinianus, 27) Piptadenia constricta, 28) Rauvolfia tetraphylla, 29) Spondias purpurea, 30) Stemmadenia donnell-smithii, 31) Thouinia paucidentata, 32) Trichilia trifolia. Lepidopterans are represented in blue: 1) Agraulis vanillae incarnate, 2) Anomis editrix, 3)Apatelodes pudefacta, 4) Automeris io, 5)Dasylophia eminens, 6) Eutelia auratrix, 7) Geometridae sp. 10, 8) Geometridae sp. 12, 9) Geometridae sp. 7, 10) Geometridae sp. 9, 11) Gonodonta pyrgo, 12) Norape tenera, 13) Orgya sp., 14) Polygonus manueli manueli, 15) Syllepsis hortalis, 16) Wockia chewbacca, 17) Arctiidae sp. 1, 18) O114, 19)O14, 20) O18, 21)O190, 22 Geometridae sp. 34, 23)O3, 24)O32, 25) Geometridae sp. 59, 26)O67, 27)O80.
Network measurements in four successional stages (Mean ± SD) of the tropical dry forest in the Chamela region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18±3.61 | 45.9±7.16 | 41.34±3.37 | 51±4.96 | F3, 37 = 19.71 |
|
|
| 0.22±0.02 | 0.085±0.009 | 0.09±0.009 | 0.08±0.004 | F3, 36 = 51.47 |
|
|
| 0.575 0.0344 | 0.364±0.08 | 0.329±0.058 | 0.33±0.052 | -------- | ns |
|
| 0.044±0.09 | 0.18±0.056 | 0.31±0.12 | 0.15±0.032 | ------- | ns |
|
| 4.125±0.24 | 8.166±0.75 | 8.08±1.32 | 7.58±0.64 | F3, 36 = 5.573 |
|
|
| 1.2±0.20 | 1.44±0.043 | 1.52±0.05 | 1.57±0.12 | F3, 36 = 2.066 | 0.13 |
|
| 0.53±0.04 | 0.6±0.02 | 0.6±0.009 | 0.56±0.043 | F3, 36 = 3.666 |
|
|
| 0.81±0.02 | 0.74±0.06 | 0.792±0.05 | 0.735±0.061 | F3 = 0.55 | 0.648 |
|
| 12.25±3.04 | 29.75±5.9 | 26.25±2.44 | 33.58±4.13 | F(3,8) = 6.07 | 0.02 |
|
| 5.75±0 .63 | 16.17±1.5 | 15.08±0.956 | 17.41±0.88 | F(3,8) = 27.29 | 0.0001 |
Significant a posteriori contrasts.
| Descriptor | Model | Contrast |
|
|
|
|
| Mature forest-pasture | t7 = 5.40 | p = 0.001 |
| Late-pasture | t7 = 4.33 | p = 0.0034 | ||
| Early-pasture | t7 = 4.841 | p = 0.0019 | ||
|
|
| Mature forest-pasture | t7 = −5.068 | p = 0.0015 |
| Late-pasture | t7 = −6.036 | p = 0.0005 | ||
| Early-pasture | t7 = −8.19 | p = 0.0001 | ||
|
|
| Mature forest-pasture | t7 = −3.28 | p = 0.0135 |
| Late-pasture | t7 = −5.8 | p = 0.0008 | ||
| Early-pasture | t7 = −5.6 | p = 0.0006 | ||
|
|
| Mature forest-pasture | t7 = −4.84 | p = 0.0019 |
| Late-pasture | t7 = −4.75 | p = 0.0021 | ||
| Early-pasture | t7 = −4.279 | p = 0.0037 |