| Literature DB >> 35886748 |
Fran Rebrina1, Klaus Reinhold2, Nikola Tvrtković3, Vesna Gulin1, Andreja Brigić1.
Abstract
Exhibiting manifold ecological impacts on terrestrial biota, roads have become a major driver of environmental change nowadays. However, many insect groups with high indication potential, such as grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera), have been largely neglected in road ecology research from a functional perspective. Using two complementary sampling methods, we have investigated the spatial dynamics of functional diversity and six functional traits in orthopteran assemblages, with respect to motorway proximity and the associated environmental factors, in a grassland habitat in the Lika region, Croatia. This research shows, for the first time, that road proximity can facilitate an increase in the functional diversity of orthopteran assemblages, with shifts in functional traits related to mobility, feeding habits and lifestyle being primarily driven by changes in vegetation height. Our findings also suggest that our ability to detect road-related patterns depends on the choice of a diversity measure and sampling method, since different components of orthopteran assemblages (plant-dwelling vs. ground-dwelling) exhibit different functional responses to road proximity.Entities:
Keywords: anthropogenic disturbance; cricket; environmental factor; functional diversity; grasshopper; road ecology; spatial dynamics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886748 PMCID: PMC9317414 DOI: 10.3390/insects13070572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 3.139
Figure 1Map of the study area (Ličko polje karst field, Lika-Senj County, Croatia) with the sampling locations marked by black circles.
Functional traits of orthopteran species sampled along the A1 motorway in Lika, Croatia.
| No. | Taxon | Body Size (mm) | Femur Length: Body Size | Flight Capacity | Feeding Guild | Lifestyle | Moisture Preference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acrididae MacLeay, 1821 | |||||||
| 1 | 20.86 | 0.59 | full | herbivorous | chortobiont | hygrophilous | |
| 2 | 28.25 | 0.63 | none | herbivorous | geo-chortobiont | xerophilous | |
| 3 | 21.49 | 0.60 | full | omnivorous | geo-chortobiont | xerophilous | |
| 4 | 17.29 | 0.60 | full | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 5 |
| 17.29 | 0.60 | full | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous |
| 6 | 17.32 | 0.62 | full | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 7 | 17.15 | 0.63 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 8 | 16.91 | 0.60 | full | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 9 | 20.49 | 0.61 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | hygrophilous | |
| 10 | 19.44 | 0.59 | none | herbivorous | chortobiont | xerophilous | |
| 11 | 17.55 | 0.65 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 12 | 18.03 | 0.56 | none | herbivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 13 | 19.42 | 0.57 | full | herbivorous | geobiont | xerophilous | |
| 14 | 14.83 | 0.61 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 15 | 14.83 | 0.71 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 16 | 13.67 | 0.55 | none | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 17 | 16.91 | 0.67 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 18 | 21.82 | 0.58 | full | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 19 | 19.44 | 0.64 | reduced | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| Gryllidae Laicharting, 1781 | |||||||
| 20 | 22.05 | 0.46 | none | omnivorous | geobiont | mesophilous | |
| 21 | 11.83 | 0.67 | full | omnivorous | thamnobiont | xerophilous | |
| Rhaphidophoridae Walker, 1869 | |||||||
| 22 | 19.36 | 0.92 | none | omnivorous | geobiont | hygrophilous | |
| Tetrigidae Rambur, 1838 | |||||||
| 23 | 12.25 | 0.47 | reduced | herbivorous | geobiont | hygrophilous | |
| 24 | 9.54 | 0.62 | reduced | herbivorous | geobiont | hygrophilous | |
| Tettigoniidae Krauss, 1902 | |||||||
| 25 | 24.08 | 0.80 | none | herbivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 26 | 15.87 | 1.07 | reduced | omnivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 27 | 14.70 | 0.78 | full | omnivorous | chortobiont | hygrophilous | |
| 28 | 33.05 | 0.91 | reduced | carnivorous | geo-chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 29 | 26.08 | 0.73 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | xerophilous | |
| 30 | 24.49 | 0.65 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 31 | 25.38 | 0.98 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 32 | 12.65 | 1.00 | none | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 33 | 16.12 | 1.05 | none | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 34 | 17.89 | 1.09 | none | omnivorous | geo-chortobiont | xerophilous | |
| 35 | 16.73 | 1.06 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 36 | 21.02 | 1.06 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 37 | 14.70 | 1.39 | full | herbivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 38 | 25.69 | 0.98 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 39 | 17.32 | 1.05 | none | omnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous | |
| 40 | 16.73 | 0.91 | none | herbivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 41 | 17.32 | 0.88 | reduced | omnivorous | chortobiont | mesophilous | |
| 42 | 32.62 | 0.78 | full | carnivorous | thamnobiont | mesophilous |
Figure 2Differences in functional diversity and community weighted mean values of functional traits (mean + standard error) in orthopteran assemblages sampled by sweep-net at different distances from the motorway: (a) functional dispersion; (b) Rao’s quadratic diversity; (c) body size; (d) hind femur length/body size ratio; (e) flight capacity; (f) feeding guild; (g) lifestyle; (h) moisture preference. Functional trait categories that exhibit significant spatial patterns are marked by asterisks (*). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among estimated means within each trait category (generalised linear mixed model, least significant difference post hoc test, p < 0.05).
Generalised linear mixed model output showing differences in functional diversity and community weighted mean values of functional traits (with location as a random effect) in orthopteran assemblages sampled by sweep-net at different distances from the motorway (fixed effect). Statistically significant fixed effects and pairwise contrasts obtained from the least significant difference post hoc test (p < 0.05) are reported in bold. Pairwise contrasts were performed only if the fixed effect was significant. Legend: F—F statistic; d.f.—degrees of freedom; 10, 25, 50, 100, 500—distance from the motorway (m).
| Functional Parameter | F |
| d.f. |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10–25 | 10–50 | 10–100 | 10–500 | 25–50 | |||||
| Functional dispersion (FDis) | 3.189 |
| 4 | 0.310 |
|
|
| 0.249 | |
| Functional diversity (RaoQ) | 1.109 | 0.368 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM body size | 0.805 | 0.530 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM femur length: body size | 0.594 | 0.669 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM flight capacity | full | 1.339 | 0.275 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| reduced | 2.357 | 0.073 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| none | 1.575 | 0.203 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM feeding guild | herbivorous | 1.750 | 0.161 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| omnivorous | 2.790 |
| 4 | 0.451 | 0.126 |
|
| 0.426 | |
| carnivorous | 0.965 | 0.439 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM lifestyle | chortobiont | 0.412 | 0.799 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| thamnobiont | 2.710 |
| 4 | 0.606 | 0.686 | 0.238 |
| 0.911 | |
| geobiont | 0.681 | 0.610 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| geo-chortobiont | 1.592 | 0.198 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM moisture preference | xerophilous | 2.409 | 0.068 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| mesophilous | 2.428 | 0.066 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| hygrophilous | 1.632 | 0.188 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Functional dispersion (FDis) | 3.189 |
| 4 | 0.250 | 0.030 | 0.998 | 0.280 | 0.279 | |
| Functional diversity (RaoQ) | 1.109 | 0.368 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM body size | 0.805 | 0.530 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM femur length: body size | 0.594 | 0.669 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM flight capacity | full | 1.339 | 0.275 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| reduced | 2.357 | 0.073 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| none | 1.575 | 0.203 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM feeding guild | herbivorous | 1.750 | 0.161 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| omnivorous | 2.790 |
| 4 | 0.182 |
| 0.583 | 0.148 | 0.361 | |
| carnivorous | 0.965 | 0.439 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM lifestyle | chortobiont | 0.412 | 0.799 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| thamnobiont | 2.710 |
| 4 | 0.501 |
| 0.433 |
| 0.089 | |
| geobiont | 0.681 | 0.610 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| geo-chortobiont | 1.592 | 0.198 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM moisture preference | xerophilous | 2.409 | 0.068 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| mesophilous | 2.428 | 0.066 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| hygrophilous | 1.632 | 0.188 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
Figure 3Differences in functional diversity and community weighted mean values of functional traits (mean and standard error) in orthopteran assemblages sampled by pitfall traps at different distances from the motorway: (a) functional dispersion; (b) Rao’s quadratic diversity; (c) body size; (d) hind femur length/body size ratio; (e) flight capacity; (f) feeding guild; (g) lifestyle; (h) moisture preference. Functional trait categories that exhibit significant spatial patterns are marked by asterisks (*). Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among estimated means within each trait category (generalised linear mixed model, least significant difference post hoc test, p < 0.05).
Generalised linear mixed model output showing differences in functional diversity and community weighted mean values of functional traits (with location as a random effect) in orthopteran assemblages sampled by pitfall traps at different distances from the motorway (fixed effect). Statistically significant fixed effects and pairwise contrasts obtained from the least significant difference post hoc test (p < 0.05) are reported in bold. Pairwise contrasts were performed only if the fixed effect was significant. Legend: F—F statistic; d.f.—degrees of freedom; 10, 25, 50, 100, 500—distance from the motorway (m).
| Functional Parameter | F |
| d.f. |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10–25 | 10–50 | 10–100 | 10–500 | 25–50 | |||||
| Functional dispersion (FDis) | 0.871 | 0.491 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| Functional diversity (RaoQ) | 0.866 | 0.494 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM body size | 2.908 |
| 4 | 0.208 | 0.537 | 0.404 | 0.084 | 0.514 | |
| CWM femur length: body size | 2.048 | 0.109 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM flight capacity | full | 0.495 | 0.740 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| reduced | 0.913 | 0.467 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| none | 0.486 | 0.746 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM feeding guild | herbivorous | 1.584 | 0.200 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| omnivorous | 0.725 | 0.581 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| carnivorous | 1.131 | 0.358 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM lifestyle | chortobiont | 2.323 | 0.076 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| thamnobiont | 0.974 | 0.434 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| geobiont | 0.954 | 0.445 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| geo-chortobiont | 2.511 | 0.059 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM moisture preference | xerophilous | 1.147 | 0.351 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| mesophilous | 1.177 | 0.338 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| hygrophilous | 1.126 | 0.360 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Functional dispersion (FDis) | 0.871 | 0.491 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| Functional diversity (RaoQ) | 0.866 | 0.494 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM body size | 2.908 |
| 4 |
|
| 0.151 |
| 0.355 | |
| CWM femur length: body size | 2.048 | 0.109 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM flight capacity | full | 0.495 | 0.740 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| reduced | 0.913 | 0.467 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| none | 0.486 | 0.746 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM feeding guild | herbivorous | 1.584 | 0.200 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| omnivorous | 0.725 | 0.581 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| carnivorous | 1.131 | 0.358 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM lifestyle | chortobiont | 2.323 | 0.076 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| thamnobiont | 0.974 | 0.434 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| geobiont | 0.954 | 0.445 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| geo-chortobiont | 2.511 | 0.059 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| CWM moisture preference | xerophilous | 1.147 | 0.351 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / |
| mesophilous | 1.177 | 0.338 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
| hygrophilous | 1.126 | 0.360 | 4 | / | / | / | / | / | |
Figure 4Redundancy analysis (RDA) biplot showing the relationships between functional traits (blue arrows) of orthopterans sampled by (a) sweep-net; (b) pitfall traps and road-influenced environmental factors (red arrows). Abbreviations: FC = flight capacity.