| Literature DB >> 36135479 |
Sylvain Delabye1,2,3, David Storch1,4, Ondřej Sedláček1, Tomáš Albrecht1,5, David Hořák1, Vincent Maicher1,2,6, Anna Tószögyová1,4, Robert Tropek1,2.
Abstract
Environmental productivity, i.e., the amount of biomass produced by primary producers, belongs among the key factors for the biodiversity patterns. Although the relationship of diversity to environmental productivity differs among studied taxa, detailed data are largely missing for most groups, including insects. Here, we present a study of moth diversity patterns at local and regional scales along a continent-wide gradient of environmental productivity in southern African savannah ecosystems. We sampled diversity of moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) at 120 local plots along a gradient of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from the Namib Desert to woodland savannahs along the Zambezi River. By standardized light trapping, we collected 12,372 specimens belonging to 487 moth species. The relationship between species richness for most analyzed moth groups and environmental productivity was significantly positively linear at the local and regional scales. The absence of a significant relationship of most moth groups' abundance to environmental productivity did not support the role of the number of individuals in the diversity-productivity relationship for south African moths. We hypothesize the effects of water availability, habitat complexity, and plant diversity drive the observed moth diversity patterns.Entities:
Keywords: Afrotropics; Heterocera; NDVI; abundance; diversity patterns; insect; lepidoptera; light trapping; primary productivity; savannah ecosystems
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135479 PMCID: PMC9500993 DOI: 10.3390/insects13090778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 3.139
Figure 1Regions in southern Africa sampled for moth communities along the gradient of environmental productivity. Mean NDVI in the beginning of vegetation season (October to December) is visualized. Region codes are listed in Table 1.
Summary and characteristics of the regions (with their codes used in Figure 1) sampled for moth diversity along the environmental productivity gradient in southern Africa. The NDVI values and vegetation layer coverages were averaged from the 10 plots for each region.
| Region (Code) | Elevation (m a.s.l.) | Latitude/ | Habitat Type | Max./ | Vegetation Cover (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 30 cm | 2 m | 5 m | >5 m | |||||
|
| 760 | S 24.543° | Namib Desert with very scarce vegetation | 0.1119 | 14.6 | 9.9 | 4.1 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
|
| 1790 | S 23.643° | Namib Escarpment Woodland: dry savannahs and shrubby areas with scattered trees | 0.1448 | 16.8 | 6.8 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 0.0 |
|
| 1040 | S 20.440° | Angolian Mopane Woodland: mosaic of | 0.1864 | 45.7 | 2.8 | 22.3 | 17.7 | 2.9 |
|
| 1800 | S 22.608° | Namib Escarpment Woodland: dry savannahs and shrubby areas with scattered trees | 0.2276 | 46.9 | 26.0 | 16.2 | 4.7 | 0.0 |
|
| 1120 | S 19.051° | Angolian Mopane Woodland: mosaics of | 0.2837 | 93.7 | 39.4 | 32.7 | 21.6 | 0.0 |
|
| 1120 | S 21.867° | Kalahari Xeric Savannah: dry open savannahs, with scattered trees | 0.2979 | 106.0 | 35.5 | 49.5 | 20.5 | 0.5 |
|
| 980 | S 21.288° | Kalahari | 0.3487 | 87.7 | 26.0 | 33.5 | 23.5 | 4.7 |
|
| 1220 | S 19.346° | Kalahari Acacia Woodland: mosaics of | 0.3554 | 133.2 | 55.0 | 45.0 | 27.5 | 5.7 |
|
| 1030 | S 18.092° | Zambezian | 0.4459 | 114.6 | 39.5 | 40.3 | 12.5 | 22.3 |
|
| 1020 | S 18.699° | Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands: mosaic of miombo and mopane woodlands, and shrubby savannahs | 0.5468 | 106.1 | 42.3 | 35.5 | 18.0 | 10.3 |
|
| 920 | S 17.872° | Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands: mosaic of mopane and | 0.5431 | 123.8 | 49.0 | 41.5 | 25.2 | 8.1 |
|
| 1010 | S 17.701° | Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands: mosaic of mopane and | 0.5692 | 124.2 | 45.2 | 27.2 | 32.0 | 15.1 |
Diversity of the focal moth groups at individual regions: gamma diversity (γ: regional species richness), alpha diversity (α: mean local species richness), abundance (Ab.: regional number of specimens).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Soussusvlei | 10 | 1.9 | 47 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 9 | 1.8 | 46 | 3 | 0.8 | 23 | 6 | 1.0 | 23 | 50 | 3 | ||||
| Namibgrens | 45 | 9.7 | 1331 | 2 | 0.3 | 5 | 41 | 9.2 | 1324 | 13 | 3.1 | 57 | 28 | 6.1 | 1267 | 1532 | 201 | ||||
| Khorixas | 45 | 9.0 | 382 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 43 | 8.8 | 380 | 11 | 1.6 | 20 | 32 | 7.2 | 360 | 438 | 56 | ||||
| Windhoek | 32 | 7.0 | 399 | 3 | 0.4 | 4 | 28 | 6.5 | 394 | 11 | 3.2 | 195 | 17 | 3.3 | 199 | 436 | 37 | ||||
| Etosha | 39 | 9.2 | 710 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 39 | 9.2 | 710 | 13 | 2.8 | 50 | 25 | 5.4 | 312 | 876 | 166 | ||||
| Thakadu | 50 | 10.1 | 350 | 6 | 1.5 | 27 | 44 | 8.6 | 323 | 11 | 3.1 | 64 | 32 | 5.3 | 254 | 404 | 54 | ||||
| Central Kalahari | 74 | 18.4 | 569 | 8 | 2.5 | 54 | 66 | 15.9 | 515 | 19 | 4.3 | 69 | 47 | 11.6 | 446 | 612 | 43 | ||||
| Grootfontein | 85 | 21.3 | 1337 | 15 | 4.9 | 161 | 70 | 16.4 | 1176 | 16 | 4.4 | 696 | 50 | 10.8 | 325 | 3078 | 1741 | ||||
| Bwabwata | 92 | 23.0 | 762 | 19 | 4.8 | 149 | 71 | 17.9 | 610 | 30 | 8.0 | 399 | 39 | 9.7 | 209 | 982 | 220 | ||||
| Hwange | 145 | 36.0 | 994 | 9 | 3.3 | 124 | 125 | 27.8 | 669 | 49 | 9.6 | 249 | 73 | 17.4 | 406 | 1232 | 238 | ||||
| Victoria Falls | 179 | 44.8 | 1757 | 15 | 4.1 | 63 | 152 | 36.5 | 1574 | 71 | 16.1 | 340 | 72 | 17.6 | 1121 | 2182 | 425 | ||||
| Chizarira | 99 | 19.2 | 410 | 11 | 3.7 | 98 | 80 | 13.4 | 203 | 35 | 6.2 | 102 | 35 | 4.7 | 62 | 550 | 140 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Soussusvlei | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Namibgrens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.3 | 5 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khorixas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Windhoek | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 |
| Etosha | 1 | 1.0 | 348 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Thakadu | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.9 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.2 | 5 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 2 | 0.3 | 4 | 1 | 0.2 | 4 |
| Central Kalahari | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.5 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 3 | 0.9 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grootfontein | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 6 | 2.1 | 94 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.1 | 154 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 8 | 2.6 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bwabwata | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 7 | 1.5 | 47 | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 4 | 1.0 | 26 | 7 | 1.9 | 67 | 1 | 0.4 | 9 |
| Hwange | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 11 | 4.9 | 201 | 3 | 0.8 | 14 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 4 | 1.3 | 44 | 2 | 1.5 | 75 |
| Victoria Falls | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.1 | 11 | 12 | 4.2 | 120 | 9 | 2.8 | 113 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 | 5 | 1.9 | 35 | 3 | 0.9 | 15 |
| Chizarira | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1.6 | 60 | 8 | 2.1 | 109 | 10 | 2.5 | 39 | 1 | 0.4 | 5 | 2 | 0.4 | 4 | 3 | 1.3 | 29 |
Results of linear and unimodal models for relationship of moth diversity indexes (alpha diversity, gamma diversity, and abundance) to mean NDVI for each focal moth group. Coefficients of determination (R2) are indicated, with the model p-values (n.s. p ≥ 0.05, * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).
| Alpha Diversity | Gamma Diversity | Abundance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | Unimodal | Linear | Unimodal | Linear | Unimodal | |
| All moths exc. Geometroidea | 0.68 *** | 0.76 n.s. | 0.75 *** | 0.77 n.s. | 0.19 n.s. | 0.26 n.s. |
| All moths incl. Geometroidea | - | - | - | - | 0.20 n.s. | 0.29 n.s. |
| Geometroidea | - | - | - | - | 0.28 * | 0.34 n.s. |
| Bombycoidea | 0.63 ** | 0.66 n.s. | 0.51 ** | 0.47 n.s. | 0.57 ** | 0.56 n.s. |
| Noctuoidea | 0.60 ** | 0.69 n.s. | 0.71 *** | 0.73 n.s. | 0.03 n.s. | 0.15 n.s. |
| Erebidae | 0.63 ** | 0.77 n.s. | 0.82 *** | 0.80 n.s. | 0.37 * | 0.40 n.s. |
| Noctuidae | 0.39 * | 0.45 n.s. | 0.51 ** | 0.60 n.s. | −0.08 n.s. | −0.05 n.s. |
Figure 2Effects of environmental productivity (mean NDVI) on (a) alpha diversity (i.e., mean local species richness), (b) gamma diversity (i.e., regional species richness), and (c) numbers of individuals (i.e., abundance) in individual moth groups in southern Africa. Only the significant relationships are visualized; see Table 3 for all models results. Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals for the main models with all target moth groups pooled.