Developing a Monitoring Program for Invertebrates: Guidelines and a Case Study

Abstract:  Invertebrates provide the majority of ecosystem services; thus, it is important that they be inventoried, monitored, and protected. Nevertheless, inventories, monitoring, and management generally focus on vertebrates and flowering plants. Consequently, there are few guidelines or case studies for invertebrates. We present a procedure for developing a monitoring program for species‐rich invertebrates that entails (1) characterizing the community; (2) identifying surrogates for biodiversity; and (3) establishing efficient methods to monitor surrogates and any ecologically important or sensitive taxa. We used these procedures, biodiversity‐based statistical advances, and a survey of arthropods to develop a monitoring plan for the forests of Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (U.S.A.). Our case study revealed that mixed hardwood and hemlock forests had significantly different compositions of arthropods in their soil and understory strata. Of the 10 orders tested Coleoptera and Hymenoptera were the only two to pass most of the five surrogate tests, and their combination improved predictions of overall arthropod diversity. Because arthropods represent the majority of macroscopic species in most ecosystems, the ability of this assemblage to predict overall arthropod diversity makes it a powerful surrogate. Of the 11 collecting methods used, the beat‐sheet method was the most efficient for monitoring this surrogate assemblage. To complement this coarse‐filter approach to monitoring at‐risk, invasive, or other important taxa (fine filter), we used ordination analyses to match 66 taxa with the methods that most effectively sampled them. Our methods serve as a model for developing an invertebrate monitoring plan and should facilitate linking such monitoring with ecosystem functions and management.

[1]  Broome,et al.  Literature cited , 1924, A Guide to the Carnivores of Central America.

[2]  R. L. Pressey,et al.  Representing biodiversity: Data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation , 2002, Journal of Biosciences.

[3]  David S. Wilcove,et al.  How many endangered species are there in the United States , 2005 .

[4]  Robert R. Dunn,et al.  Modern Insect Extinctions, the Neglected Majority , 2005 .

[5]  P. Crumrine,et al.  EFFECTS OF AN HERBICIDE AND AN INSECTICIDE ON POND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND PROCESSES , 2005 .

[6]  E. Etten Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using canoco , 2005 .

[7]  J. H. Frank Insect Diversity Conservation , 2005 .

[8]  C. Kremen Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? , 2005, Ecology letters.

[9]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  A Framework for Improved Monitoring of Biodiversity: Responses to the World Summit on Sustainable Development , 2005 .

[11]  Rk Colwell EstimateS : Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, v. 8.0. User's guide and application , 2005 .

[12]  Michael J. Samways,et al.  Insect Diversity Conservation , 2005 .

[13]  Daesik Park,et al.  Operational sex ratio in newts: field responses and characterization of a constituent chemical cue , 2005 .

[14]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Conservation Planning and Biodiversity: Assembling the Best Data for the Job , 2004 .

[15]  Jonathan Majer,et al.  Ants show the way Down Under: invertebrates as bioindicators in land management , 2004 .

[16]  S. Nee More than meets the eye , 2004, Nature.

[17]  P. Goldstein Systematic collection data in North American invertebrate conservation and monitoring programmes , 2004 .

[18]  Ke Chung Kim Biodiversity, conservation and inventory: why insects matter , 1993, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[19]  D. Madison,et al.  ON TEMPORAL VARIATION AND CONFLICTING SELECTION PRESSURES: A TEST OF THEORY USING NEWTS , 2003 .

[20]  Jan Lepš,et al.  Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO , 2003 .

[21]  D. Madison,et al.  Sex differences and seasonal trade-offs in response to injured and non-injured conspecifics in red-spotted newts, Notophthalmus viridescens , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[22]  B. McCune,et al.  Analysis of Ecological Communities , 2002 .

[23]  H. Godfray Challenges for taxonomy , 2002, Nature.

[24]  Ter Braak,et al.  Canoco reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user''s guide: software for canonical community ord , 2002 .

[25]  CHALLENGES FOR TAXONOMY- THE DISCIPLINE WILL HAVE TO REINVENT ITSELF IF IT IS TO SURVIVE AND FLOURISH , 2002 .

[26]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time , 2001 .

[27]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness , 2001 .

[28]  A. Balmford,et al.  Testing the higher-taxon approach to conservation planning in a megadiverse group: the macrofungi. , 2000 .

[29]  K. Gaston Biodiversity: higher taxon richness , 2000 .

[30]  Jari Niemelä,et al.  Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making , 2000 .

[31]  J. Lawton,et al.  The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves , 1999 .

[32]  B. Fisher IMPROVING INVENTORY EFFICIENCY: A CASE STUDY OF LEAF‐LITTER ANT DIVERSITY IN MADAGASCAR , 1999 .

[33]  Reed F. Noss,et al.  Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators , 1999 .

[34]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Why biodiversity surveys are good value , 1999, Nature.

[35]  James P. Gibbs,et al.  Monitoring populations of plants and animals , 1998 .

[36]  M. du Plessis,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots in the developing world. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  N. Mawdsley,et al.  Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest , 1998, Nature.

[38]  Katherine J. LaJeunesse Connette,et al.  Conservation Biology , 2009, The Quarterly review of biology.

[39]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT USING STRUCTURED INVENTORY: CAPTURING THE ANT FAUNA OF A TROPICAL RAIN FOREST , 1997 .

[40]  A. Balmford,et al.  Using higher-taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: II. Local applications , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  A. Balmford,et al.  Using higher-taxon richness as a surrogate for species richness: I. Regional tests , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[42]  R. Noss,et al.  Ecosystems as conservation targets. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[43]  Ian Oliver,et al.  Designing a Cost‐Effective Invertebrate Survey: A Test of Methods for Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity , 1996 .

[44]  N. Stork,et al.  Inventorying and monitoring biodiversity. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[45]  Claire Kremen,et al.  Biological Inventory Using Target Taxa: A Case Study of the Butterflies of Madagascar , 1994 .

[46]  D. Pearson,et al.  Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[47]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[48]  P. Hammond,et al.  Practical Approaches to the Estimation of the Extent of Biodiversity in Speciose Groups , 1994 .

[49]  S. Kellert Values and Perceptions of Invertebrates , 1993 .

[50]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages: Their Use in Conservation Planning , 1993 .

[51]  Jorge SoberónM.,et al.  The Use of Species Accumulation Functions for the Prediction of Species Richness , 1993 .

[52]  Claire Kremen,et al.  Assessing the Indicator Properties of Species Assemblages for Natural Areas Monitoring. , 1992, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[53]  B. Groombridge Global biodiversity: status of the earth's living resources. , 1992 .

[54]  R. Noss Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach , 1990 .

[55]  C. Margules,et al.  Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis , 1990 .

[56]  D.SC. PH.D. F.R.S. T. R. E. Southwood Kt Ecological Methods , 1978, Springer Netherlands.