| Literature DB >> 24376582 |
Yi Zou1, Weiguo Sang2, Fan Bai3, Jan Christoph Axmacher1.
Abstract
A positive relationship between plant diversity and both abundance and diversity of predatory arthropods is postulated by the Enemies Hypothesis, a central ecological top-down control hypothesis. It has been supported by experimental studies and investigations of agricultural and grassland ecosystems, while evidence from more complex mature forest ecosystems is limited. Our study was conducted on Changbai Mountain in one of the last remaining large pristine temperate forest environments in China. We used predatory ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as target taxon to establish the relationship between phytodiversity and their activity abundance and diversity. Results showed that elevation was the only variable included in both models predicting carabid activity abundance and α-diversity. Shrub diversity was negatively and herb diversity positively correlated with beetle abundance, while shrub diversity was positively correlated with beetle α-diversity. Within the different forest types, a negative relationship between plant diversity and carabid activity abundance was observed, which stands in direct contrast to the Enemies Hypothesis. Furthermore, plant species density did not predict carabid α-diversity. In addition, the density of herbs, which is commonly believed to influence carabid movement, had little impact on the beetle activity abundance recorded on Changbai Mountain. Our study indicates that in a relatively large and heterogeneous mature forest area, relationships between plant and carabid diversity are driven by variations in environmental factors linked with altitudinal change. In addition, traditional top-down control theories that are suitable in explaining diversity patterns in ecosystems of low diversity appear to play a much less pronounced role in highly complex forest ecosystems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24376582 PMCID: PMC3869730 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082792
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Stepwise linear regression models using activity abundance and Fisher’s α-diversity of carabids as dependent variables, respectively, only using vegetation parameters as independent variables (Model 1, 2 and 4) and including elevation as additional independent variable (Model 3 and 5).
| Dependent variable | ModelNo. | Adjusted R2 | F | ModelP-value | Model AIC | Selected independent variable(s) | β | Std. Error of β | t | P-value |
| Activity abundance | 1 | 0.43 | 24.63 | <0.001 | 79.35 | SH | −0.925 | 0.186 | −4.96 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 0.51 | 17.29 | <0.001 | 75.34 | SH | −0.897 | 0.173 | −5.17 | <0.001 | |
| HH | 0.427 | 0.174 | 2.45 | 0.02 | ||||||
| 3 | 0.54 | 39.13 | <0.001 | 71.71 | ASL(km) | 1.753 | 0.280 | 6.26 | <0.001 | |
| Fisher’s α-diversity | 4 | 0.1 | 4.65 | 0.039 | 102.54 | SH | 0.571 | 0.265 | 2.16 | 0.039 |
| 5 | 0.26 | 12.11 | 0.002 | 96.27 | ASL(km) | −1.415 | 0.530 | −3.48 | 0.002 |
TH: Shannon diversity for trees; SH: Shannon diversity for shurbs: TD: the abundance density for trees; SD: the abundance density for shrubs; Low: low elevation zone of less than 1000 m; Middle: intermediate elevation zone of 1000–1500 m; High: high elevation zone of 1500–2000 m.
Figure 1PCA ordination plot based on vegetation composition showing three distinct clusters (proportion variance explained for PC1 = 24% and for PC2 = 11%; eigenvalues for PC1 = 4.83 and PC2 = 2.12).
Results of stepwise linear regressions for the three elevational zones using activity abundance and Fisher’s α-diversity of carabids as dependent variables and vegetation parameters as independent variables.
| Dependent variable | Elevation zone | Model No. | Adjusted R2 | F | ModelP-value | Model AIC | Selected independent variable(s) | β | Std. Error of β | t | P-value |
| Activity abundance | Low | 6 | 0.62 | 17.37 | 0.002 | 5.37 | TH | −1.670 | 0.401 | −4.17 | 0.002 |
| 7 | 0.82 | 23.07 | <0.001 | −1.79 | TH | −1.236 | 0.310 | −3.99 | 0.004 | ||
| SD | 0.012 | 0.004 | 3.24 | 0.012 | |||||||
| Middle | 8 | 0.57 | 11.65 | 0.011 | 14.12 | TD | 0.012 | 0.003 | 3.41 | 0.011 | |
| High | 9 | 0.73 | 32.65 | <0.001 | 21.13 | SH | −1.435 | 0.251 | −5.71 | <0.001 | |
| Fisher’s α-diversity | Low | 10 | 0.40 | 7.74 | 0.021 | 21.79 | SD | −0.058 | 0.021 | −2.78 | 0.021 |
| High | 11 | 0.27 | 5.37 | 0.041 | 22.41 | TD | −0.004 | 0.157 | −2.32 | 0.041 |
TH: Shannon diversity for trees; SH: Shannon diversity for shurbs: TD: the abundance density for trees; SD: the abundance density for shrubs; Low: low elevation zone of less than 1000 m; Middle: intermediate elevation zone of 1000–1500 m; High: high elevation zone of 1500–2000 m.