Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward
Monitoring pollinators is crucial for the evaluation of biodiversity and potential pollination services. Yet, efficiently monitoring multiple taxa over large areas can be costly. An alternative approach is using simple species bioindicators that represent the entire pollinator community. One of the requirements of a good bioindicator is that it can be easily identified to lower taxonomic levels and be sensitive to changes in habitat. This is the case for butterflies, a taxon for which many countries have a country-wide long-term monitoring scheme. We tested whether butterfly diversity can be used to predict diversity of bees and hoverflies both spatially and temporally. We surveyed 42 transects of the Dutch Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in 2020, to record species richness and abundance of butterflies, bees and hoverflies. We also recorded flower area and richness in the pollinator transects. To test whether pollinators with similar functional traits are more closely correlated than the entire pollinator community, we categorized bee and butterfly species according to their diet breadth (polyphagous vs. non-polyphagous), nitrogen-affinity (nitrophobous vs. nitrophilous larval resources) and body size. We used the same methods to test for temporal correlations over seven years for one site in Spain. Butterfly richness was not spatially correlated with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.13), nor were the two taxa temporally correlated (Pearson's r = 0.02). Interestingly, hoverfly richness was spatially correlated with butterfly richness (Pearson's r = 0.43) and with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.36) in the Netherlands and, hence, hoverflies might be slightly more suitable as a bioindicator of pollinator diversity in this area. Abundance of all three taxa showed no significant inter-correlation, except for correlations between diet specialist bees and butterflies (Pearson's r = 0.39). Importantly, all three taxa were strongly correlated with flower richness, but they varied in their preferences for host plant families. This is in line with 75% of the plant-pollinator studies finding significant positive relations. For monitoring schemes to be effective in informing better pollinator conservation, they should expand to include bees and hoverflies as well as simple indicators of habitat quality such as floral resources.
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article/Letter to editor biblioteca |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | Bees, Butterflies, Floral resources, Hoverflies, Pollinator monitoring, Surrogate species, |
Online Access: | https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/butterflies-are-not-a-robust-bioindicator-for-assessing-pollinato |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
id |
dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-619909 |
---|---|
record_format |
koha |
spelling |
dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-6199092024-10-30 Segre, Hila Kleijn, David Bartomeus, Ignasi WallisDeVries, Michiel F. de Jong, Mark Frank van der Schee, Maarten Román, Jacinto Fijen, Thijs P.M. Article/Letter to editor Ecological Indicators 154 (2023) ISSN: 1470-160X Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward 2023 Monitoring pollinators is crucial for the evaluation of biodiversity and potential pollination services. Yet, efficiently monitoring multiple taxa over large areas can be costly. An alternative approach is using simple species bioindicators that represent the entire pollinator community. One of the requirements of a good bioindicator is that it can be easily identified to lower taxonomic levels and be sensitive to changes in habitat. This is the case for butterflies, a taxon for which many countries have a country-wide long-term monitoring scheme. We tested whether butterfly diversity can be used to predict diversity of bees and hoverflies both spatially and temporally. We surveyed 42 transects of the Dutch Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in 2020, to record species richness and abundance of butterflies, bees and hoverflies. We also recorded flower area and richness in the pollinator transects. To test whether pollinators with similar functional traits are more closely correlated than the entire pollinator community, we categorized bee and butterfly species according to their diet breadth (polyphagous vs. non-polyphagous), nitrogen-affinity (nitrophobous vs. nitrophilous larval resources) and body size. We used the same methods to test for temporal correlations over seven years for one site in Spain. Butterfly richness was not spatially correlated with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.13), nor were the two taxa temporally correlated (Pearson's r = 0.02). Interestingly, hoverfly richness was spatially correlated with butterfly richness (Pearson's r = 0.43) and with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.36) in the Netherlands and, hence, hoverflies might be slightly more suitable as a bioindicator of pollinator diversity in this area. Abundance of all three taxa showed no significant inter-correlation, except for correlations between diet specialist bees and butterflies (Pearson's r = 0.39). Importantly, all three taxa were strongly correlated with flower richness, but they varied in their preferences for host plant families. This is in line with 75% of the plant-pollinator studies finding significant positive relations. For monitoring schemes to be effective in informing better pollinator conservation, they should expand to include bees and hoverflies as well as simple indicators of habitat quality such as floral resources. en application/pdf https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/butterflies-are-not-a-robust-bioindicator-for-assessing-pollinato 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110842 https://edepot.wur.nl/639811 Bees Butterflies Floral resources Hoverflies Pollinator monitoring Surrogate species https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Wageningen University & Research |
institution |
WUR NL |
collection |
DSpace |
country |
Países bajos |
countrycode |
NL |
component |
Bibliográfico |
access |
En linea |
databasecode |
dig-wur-nl |
tag |
biblioteca |
region |
Europa del Oeste |
libraryname |
WUR Library Netherlands |
language |
English |
topic |
Bees Butterflies Floral resources Hoverflies Pollinator monitoring Surrogate species Bees Butterflies Floral resources Hoverflies Pollinator monitoring Surrogate species |
spellingShingle |
Bees Butterflies Floral resources Hoverflies Pollinator monitoring Surrogate species Bees Butterflies Floral resources Hoverflies Pollinator monitoring Surrogate species Segre, Hila Kleijn, David Bartomeus, Ignasi WallisDeVries, Michiel F. de Jong, Mark Frank van der Schee, Maarten Román, Jacinto Fijen, Thijs P.M. Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
description |
Monitoring pollinators is crucial for the evaluation of biodiversity and potential pollination services. Yet, efficiently monitoring multiple taxa over large areas can be costly. An alternative approach is using simple species bioindicators that represent the entire pollinator community. One of the requirements of a good bioindicator is that it can be easily identified to lower taxonomic levels and be sensitive to changes in habitat. This is the case for butterflies, a taxon for which many countries have a country-wide long-term monitoring scheme. We tested whether butterfly diversity can be used to predict diversity of bees and hoverflies both spatially and temporally. We surveyed 42 transects of the Dutch Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in 2020, to record species richness and abundance of butterflies, bees and hoverflies. We also recorded flower area and richness in the pollinator transects. To test whether pollinators with similar functional traits are more closely correlated than the entire pollinator community, we categorized bee and butterfly species according to their diet breadth (polyphagous vs. non-polyphagous), nitrogen-affinity (nitrophobous vs. nitrophilous larval resources) and body size. We used the same methods to test for temporal correlations over seven years for one site in Spain. Butterfly richness was not spatially correlated with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.13), nor were the two taxa temporally correlated (Pearson's r = 0.02). Interestingly, hoverfly richness was spatially correlated with butterfly richness (Pearson's r = 0.43) and with bee richness (Pearson's r = 0.36) in the Netherlands and, hence, hoverflies might be slightly more suitable as a bioindicator of pollinator diversity in this area. Abundance of all three taxa showed no significant inter-correlation, except for correlations between diet specialist bees and butterflies (Pearson's r = 0.39). Importantly, all three taxa were strongly correlated with flower richness, but they varied in their preferences for host plant families. This is in line with 75% of the plant-pollinator studies finding significant positive relations. For monitoring schemes to be effective in informing better pollinator conservation, they should expand to include bees and hoverflies as well as simple indicators of habitat quality such as floral resources. |
format |
Article/Letter to editor |
topic_facet |
Bees Butterflies Floral resources Hoverflies Pollinator monitoring Surrogate species |
author |
Segre, Hila Kleijn, David Bartomeus, Ignasi WallisDeVries, Michiel F. de Jong, Mark Frank van der Schee, Maarten Román, Jacinto Fijen, Thijs P.M. |
author_facet |
Segre, Hila Kleijn, David Bartomeus, Ignasi WallisDeVries, Michiel F. de Jong, Mark Frank van der Schee, Maarten Román, Jacinto Fijen, Thijs P.M. |
author_sort |
Segre, Hila |
title |
Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
title_short |
Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
title_full |
Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
title_fullStr |
Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
title_full_unstemmed |
Butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
title_sort |
butterflies are not a robust bioindicator for assessing pollinator communities, but floral resources offer a promising way forward |
url |
https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/butterflies-are-not-a-robust-bioindicator-for-assessing-pollinato |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT segrehila butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT kleijndavid butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT bartomeusignasi butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT wallisdevriesmichielf butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT dejongmark butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT frankvanderscheemaarten butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT romanjacinto butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward AT fijenthijspm butterfliesarenotarobustbioindicatorforassessingpollinatorcommunitiesbutfloralresourcesofferapromisingwayforward |
_version_ |
1816151111367655424 |