| Literature DB >> 31871668 |
Naoto Shinohara1, Kei Uchida2,3, Takehito Yoshida3,4.
Abstract
Land-use changes, one of the greatest threats to global biodiversity, can cause underappreciated effects on ecosystems by altering the structures of interspecific interaction networks. These effects have typically been explored by evaluating interaction networks composed of a single type of interaction. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the different types of interaction networks sharing the same species respond to the same land-use changes in a similar manner.To compare the responses of herbivory and pollination networks to land-use changes, we investigated both types of interaction networks in seminatural grasslands categorized into three types of agricultural land-use (abandoned, extensively managed, and intensively managed) in a Japanese agricultural landscape. We quantified the structures of the interaction networks using several indices (connectance, evenness, diversity, generality, network specialization, and robustness) and compared them among different land-use types. We conducted piecewise SEM to differentiate the direct and indirect effects of land-use changes on the network structures.Although both land-use changes (abandonment and intensification) led to reduced plant and insect species richness, the structures of herbivory and pollination networks showed different responses to the land-use changes. There was a marked contrast in network generality; while, herbivore species were less generalized (i.e., having fewer host plant species) in fields with land-use intensification, pollinator species were less generalized in abandoned fields.Furthermore, the mechanisms behind the changes in interaction networks were also different between pollination and herbivory networks. The change in herbivory network generality was induced by the decrease in plant species richness, whereas the change in pollination network generality was mainly induced by the effect independent of changes in species richness and composition, which possibly reflect the less number of flowers in shaded environment.The present study demonstrates that agricultural land-use changes affect herbivory and pollination networks in contrasting ways and suggests the importance of assessing multiple types of interaction networks for biodiversity conservation in plant-insect systems. Our results also highlight the underappreciated importance of maintaining habitats with an intermediate intensity of land-use.Entities:
Keywords: agroecosystems; biodiversity; herbivore; interaction network; pollination; seminatural grassland
Year: 2019 PMID: 31871668 PMCID: PMC6912900 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5814
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Location of the study sites and plots in Wakasa Town, Fukui Prefecture, Japan. Dashed rectangles and circles represent the sampling sites (500 m × 500 m) and the sampling plots (white, abandoned; gray, extensively managed; and black, intensively managed), respectively. The background aerial photo was taken by WV02 of DigitalGlobe on 31 August 2012
Summary of the effects of land‐use changes (abandonment and intensification) on the network indices (connectance, evenness, diversity, generality, H2′, and robustness) of herbivory and pollination networks
| Network type | Network indices | LRT | Post‐hoc comparison (GLM) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment (Abandoned vs. extensively managed) | Intensification (Intensively vs. extensively managed) | |||||||||
|
|
|
| Coefficient |
|
| Coefficient |
|
| ||
| Pollination | Connectance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Evenness | 0.023 | 2 | .375 | 0.085 | 0.988 | .337 | 0.094 | 1.502 | .149 | |
| Diversity |
|
|
|
|
|
| −0.119 | −1.126 | .274 | |
| Generality |
|
|
|
|
|
| −0.218 | −1.431 | .168 | |
| H2′ |
|
|
| −0.941 | −1.750 | .101 | −0.371 | −0.906 | .376 | |
| Robustness | 0.015 | 2 | .411 | 0.073 | 1.097 | .288 | 0.070 | 1.622 | .121 | |
| Hebrivory | Connectance | 0.003 | 2 | .617 | 0.095 | 0.831 | .416 | 0.136 | 0.864 | .398 |
| Evenness | 0.01 | 2 | .369 | 0.046 | 0.824 | .420 | −0.032 | −0.539 | .596 | |
| Diversity | 1.089 | 2 | .102 | 0.059 | 0.521 | .608 | −0.185 | −1.513 | .146 | |
| Generality |
|
|
| −0.142 | −1.288 | .213 |
|
|
| |
| H2′ | 0.178 | 2 | .380 | −0.126 | −0.746 | .465 | −0.224 | −1.264 | .222 | |
| Robustness | 0.002 | 2 | .729 | 0.010 | 0.242 | .811 | −0.024 | −0.552 | .587 | |
Significant p < .1 difference was shown in bold.
The overall difference between land‐use types was tested by likelihood ratio test (LRT), and the statistics are shown. The post‐hoc pairwise comparison was performed using GLMs and their statistics (coefficients, t‐values, and p values) are shown.
Species richness of plants and insects (herbivores and pollinators) in different land‐use types
| Abandoned (A) | Extensively managed (E) | Intensively managed (I) | LRT | Post‐hoc comparison (GLM) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| A vs. E ( | I vs. E ( | ||||
| Plant species richness | ||||||||
| Total | 16.6 ± 5.7 | 28.4 ± 5.3 | 22.8 ± 4.9 | 90.0 | 2 |
|
|
|
| Flowering | 1.4 ± 1.2 | 5.8 ± 3.6 | 4.3 ± 2.5 | 34.6 | 2 |
|
| .101 |
| Insect species richness | ||||||||
| Total | 10.8 ± 2.7 | 14.3 ± 5.2 | 11.7 ± 3.5 | 6.00 | 2 |
|
|
|
| Herbivore | 7.2 ± 2.3 | 6.3 ± 2.5 | 5.7 ± 2.7 | 2.93 | 2 | .231 | .432 | .355 |
| Pollinator | 3.8 ± 3.1 | 8.1 ± 3.9 | 6.0 ± 2.7 | 17.4 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
| 12 | 12 | 12 | |||||
Significant p < .1 difference was shown in bold.
Values represent the means ± SD. The difference between land‐use types was tested by likelihood ratio test (LRT), and the statistics are shown. The post‐hoc pairwise comparison was conducted with GLMs and their significance levels are shown.
Figure 2Herbivory and pollination networks observed in different land‐use types. For each network, the upper bars represent insect species with their relative frequency of interactions shown by the bar width, whereas the lower bars represent plant species with their relative abundance. The interaction networks shown here are based on the pooled observation data for all sites and seasons. Species IDs are given in Table S1
Figure 3Contrasting effects of land‐use changes (abandonment and intensification) on the generality of (a) herbivory and (b) pollination networks. Boxes represent the median and 25th/75th percentiles and whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range. Comparisons were performed using GLMs and the significance levels of the differences (p values) are shown. NS, not significant
Figure 4The results of the piecewise structural equation modeling (piecewise SEM) for the effects of land‐use changes that were significant on the network structure (see Table 2). The effects of abandonment on pollination network (a) diversity, (b) connectance, (c) generality, and the effects of intensification on (d) pollination network connectance, and (e) herbivory network generality were examined. Illustrated models are the best models and all the paths are significant or marginally significant (p < .1). Black and gray arrows indicate positive and negative effects with their width representing the standardized path coefficients. For easy visualization, the effects of season as covariates are not shown. Model fits are shown as p values and AIC in the lower‐left corner, and all the models fitted the data well (p > .05)