The species-area relationship in the hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) communities of forest fragments in southern France

The effect of forest fragmentation was studied in hoverfly communities of 54 isolated forests (0.14–171 ha) in south west France. The positive relationship between species richness and wood patch area was investigated by testing the three hypotheses usually put forward to explain it: 1) the sampling effect hypothesis, 2) the patch heterogeneity hypothesis, 3) the hypothesis of equilibrium between distance from other patch (colonisation) and surface area of the patch (extinction). The syrphid species were divided into 3 ecological groups, based on larval biology as summarized in the “Syrph the Net” database: non forest species, facultative forest species and forest species. A total of 3317 adults belonging to 100 species, were captured in the 86 Malaise traps. Eight species were non forest (N=16), 65 facultative forest (N=2803) and 27 forest species (N=498). Comparison of the slopes of the species-area curves for species richness and species density per forest patch showed a strong sampling effect in the species-area relationship. Wood patch heterogeneity increased with wood patch area and positively influenced hoverflies richness. Less isolated wood patches presented high richness of forest species and low richness of non forest species. Only forest species richness seemed to respond to the equilibrium between surface area and isolation. Depending on which hypothesis explained best the species-area relationship, management recommendations to mitigate fragmentation effects were formulated at various spatial scales and for different stakeholders.

[1]  G. Luck,et al.  Primary productivity and species richness: relationships among functional guilds, residency groups and vagility classes at multiple spatial scales , 2004 .

[2]  P. J. Darlington,et al.  Carabidae of Mountains and Islands: Data on the Evolution of Isolated Faunas, and on Atrophy of Wings , 1943 .

[3]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats , 2000 .

[4]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[5]  H. Gleason,et al.  On the Relation Between Species and Area , 1922 .

[6]  R. Cowling,et al.  Using the Species-Area Relationship to Set Baseline Targets for Conservation , 2004 .

[7]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  A. Baz,et al.  The effects of forest fragmentation on butterfly communities in central Spain , 1995 .

[9]  F. W. Preston.  The Canonical Distribution of Commonness and Rarity: Part I , 1962 .

[10]  Gérard Balent,et al.  Modelling bird communities/landscape patterns relationships in a rural area of South-Western France , 1992, Landscape Ecology.

[11]  R. Holt,et al.  A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation Experiments , 2000 .

[12]  Marc Deconchat,et al.  Simple Neural Network Reveals Unexpected Patterns of Bird Species Richness in Forest Fragments , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: A spatially explicit model applied to butterflies , 1994 .

[14]  E. Castella,et al.  An Approach to Interpretation of Lists of Insects Using Digitised Biological Information about The Species , 2001, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[15]  Andrew P. Dobson,et al.  Conservation and Biodiversity , 1996 .

[16]  Jen-Yu Wang,et al.  A Critique of the Heat Unit Approach to Plant Response Studies , 1960 .

[17]  Thomas M. Smith,et al.  Plant functional types : their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change , 1998 .

[18]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Species richness and parasitism in a fragmented landscape: experiments and field studies with insects on Vicia sepium , 2000, Oecologia.

[19]  M. Kitahara,et al.  Patterns in the structure of grassland butterfly communities along a gradient of human disturbance: further analysis based on the generalist/specialist concept , 2000, Population Ecology.

[20]  D. Simberloff.  What do we really know about habitat fragmentation , 2000 .

[21]  J. Nichols,et al.  DISENTANGLING SAMPLING AND ECOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS UNDERLYING SPECIES-AREA RELATIONSHIPS , 2002 .

[22]  A. Magurran,et al.  Biological diversity : the coexistence of species on changing landscapes , 1994 .

[23]  F. W. Preston.  Time and Space and the Variation of Species , 1960 .

[24]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Early succession of butterfly and plant communities on set-aside fields , 1997, Oecologia.

[25]  J. Itämies,et al.  Distribution of arthropods in relation to forest patch size, edge, and stand characteristics , 1998 .

[26]  Mark V. Lomolino,et al.  Island biogeography and landscape ecology of mammals inhabiting fragmented, temperate rain forests , 2001 .

[27]  James R. Miller,et al.  BEHAVIORAL MECHANISMS AND HABITAT USE BY BIRDS IN A FRAGMENTED AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE , 2000 .

[28]  Paul Opdam,et al.  Bird communities in small woods in an agricultural landscape: Effects of area and isolation , 1984 .

[29]  C. Thomas,et al.  Dispersal, distribution, patch network and metapopulation dynamics of the dingy skipper butterfly (Erynnis tages) , 1999, Oecologia.

[30]  R. Dennis,et al.  Diversity of butterflies on British islands: ecological influences underlying the roles of area, isolation and the size of the faunal source , 1997 .

[31]  D. M. Newbery,et al.  M. A. Huston, Biological Diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-36930-4 (pbk). 681 + xix. pages. £24.95. , 1995, Journal of Tropical Ecology.

[32]  D. Wilcove,et al.  QUANTIFYING THREATS TO IMPERILED SPECIES IN THE UNITED STATES , 1998 .

[33]  O. Arrhenius,et al.  Species and Area , 1921 .

[34]  D. Sommaggio.  Syrphidae: can they be used as environmental bioindicators? , 1999 .

[35]  Earl D. McCoy,et al.  The Statistics and Biology of the Species-Area Relationship , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[36]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Species Diversity in Space and Time , 1995 .

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