Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Context
1.2. Rationale and Related Research
1.3. Objectives and Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site Selection
2.2. Lepidoptera Sampling
2.3. Vegetation Sampling
2.4. Response Variables and Environmental Factors
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Multivariate Analyses of Plant and Lepidoptera Communities
3.1.1. Plant Communities
3.1.2. Lepidoptera Communities
3.1.3. Combined Plant and Lepidoptera Communities
3.2. Relationships among Key Habitat and Community Attributes
3.3. Plant Community Univariate Analyses
3.4. Lepidoptera Community Univariate Analyses
3.5. Resource-Based Relationships between Plants and Lepidoptera
4. Discussion
4.1. Importance of Human Alterations and Biotic Disturbance
4.2. Habitat Class
4.3. Patch Size and Fragmentation
4.4. Biotic Disturbance
4.5. Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- DeFries, R.; Karanth, K.K.; Pareeth, S. Interactions between Protected Areas and Their Surroundings in Human-Dominated Tropical Landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2870–2880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Blair, R.B.; Launer, A.E. Butterfly Diversity and Human Land Use: Species Assemblages along an Urban Gradient. Biol. Conserv. 1997, 80, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonebrake, T.C.; Sorto, R. Butterfly (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) Rapid Assessment of a Coastal Countryside in El Salvador. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2009, 2, 34–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudnick, D.; Ryan, S.J.; Beier, P.; Cushman, S.A.; Dieffenbach, F.; Epps, C.; Gerber, L.R.; Hartter, J.N.; Jenness, J.S.; Kintsch, J.; et al. The Role of Landscape Connectivity in Planning and Implementing Conservation and Restoration Priorities. Issues in Ecology; Issues in Ecology; Ecological Society of America: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Crooks, K.R.; Sanjayan, M. Connectivity conservation: Maintaining connections for nature. In Connectivity Conservation; Crooks, K.R., Sanjayan, M., Eds.; Conservation Biology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 1–20. ISBN 978-0-521-67381-5. [Google Scholar]
- Franklin, J.F.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Importance of Matrix Habitats in Maintaining Biological Diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 349–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jew, E.K.K.; Loos, J.; Dougill, A.J.; Sallu, S.M.; Benton, T.G. Butterfly Communities in Miombo Woodland: Biodiversity Declines with Increasing Woodland Utilisation. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 192, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kremen, C.; Colwell, R.; Erwin, T.; Murphy, D.; Noss, R.; Sanjayan, M. Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages—Their Use in Conservation Planning. Conserv. Biol. 1993, 7, 796–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerr, J.T.; Sugar, A.; Packer, L. Indicator Taxa, Rapid Biodiversity Assessment, and Nestedness in an Endangered Ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 1726–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, L.P.; Sodhi, N.S. Importance of Reserves, Fragments, and Parks for Butterfly Conservation in a Tropical Urban Landscape. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14, 1695–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, J.R.; Snyder, S.A.; Skibbe, A.M.; Haight, R.G. Prioritizing Conservation Targets in a Rapidly Urbanizing Landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takacs, D. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1996; ISBN 0-8018-5400-8. [Google Scholar]
- Fuller, T.; Munguía, M.; Mayfield, M.; Sánchez-Cordero, V.; Sarkar, S. Incorporating Connectivity into Conservation Planning: A Multi-Criteria Case Study from Central Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 133, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhere, G.F. The How-Much-Is-Enough Myth. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 514–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellet, J.; Bried, J.T.; Parietti, D.; Gander, A.; Heer, P.O.; Cherix, D.; Arlettaz, R. Monitoring Butterfly Abundance: Beyond Pollard Walks. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tansley, A.G. The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology 1935, 16, 284–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, S.; Andersen, D. An Assessment of Riparian Environmental-Quality by Using Butterflies and Disturbance Susceptibility Scores. Southw. Nat. 1994, 39, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medeiros, M.J.; Eiben, J.A.; Haines, W.P.; Kaholoaa, R.L.; King, C.B.A.; Krushelnycky, P.D.; Magnacca, K.N.; Rubinoff, D.; Starr, F.; Starr, K. The Importance of Insect Monitoring to Conservation Actions in Hawaii. Proc. Hawaii. Entomol. Soc. 2013, 46, 149–166. [Google Scholar]
- Kadlec, T.; Tropek, R.; Konvicka, M. Timed Surveys and Transect Walks as Comparable Methods for Monitoring Butterflies in Small Plots. J. Insect Conserv. 2012, 16, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ries, L.; Debinski, D.M.; Wieland, M.L. Conservation Value of Roadside Prairie Restoration to Butterfly Communities. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparrow, H.R.; Sisk, T.D.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Murphy, D.D. Techniques and Guidelines for Monitoring Neotropical Butterflies. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8, 800–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonson, S.E.; Opler, P.A.; Stohlgren, T.J.; Chong, G.W. Rapid Assessment of Butterfly Diversity in a Montane Landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 1369–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tettey, C.N.D.; Anderson, R.S.; Kyerematen, R. Rapid Assessment of Butterfly Diversity of Two Proposed Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) in the Western North Region of Ghana: Implication for Conservation. Biodiversitas 2020, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricketts, T.; Imhoff, M. Biodiversity, Urban Areas, and Agriculture: Locating Priority Ecoregions for Conservation. Conserv. Ecol. 2003, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991, 11th ed.; U.S. Bureau of the Census: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; p. 201. [Google Scholar]
- Wauer, R.H. Butterflies of the Lower Rio Grande Valley; Bower House: Boulder, CO, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-1-55566-347-6. [Google Scholar]
- Glassberg, J. A Swift Guide to Butterflies of North America; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-0-691-17650-5. [Google Scholar]
- Glassberg, J. A Swift Guide to Butterflies of Mexico and Central America; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-691-17648-2. [Google Scholar]
- Leckie, S.; Beadle, D. Peterson Field Guide to Moths of Southeastern North America; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co.: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-544-25211-0. [Google Scholar]
- Showler, A.T. Mexican Rice Borer Control Tactics in United States Sugarcane. Insects 2019, 10, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Showler, A.T.; Reagan, T.E. Mexican Rice Borer, Eoreuma Loftini (Dyar) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae): Range Expansion, Biology, Ecology, Control Tactics, and New Resistance Factors in United States Sugarcane. Am. Entomol. 2017, 63, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, B.E.; Vanweelden, M.T.; Beuzelin, J.M.; Reagan, T.E.; Way, M.O.; White, W.H.; Wilson, L.T.; Showler, A.T. A Relative Resistance Ratio for Evaluation of Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Susceptibility Among Sugarcane Cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 1363–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Showler, A.T.; Wilson, B.E.; Reagan, T.E. Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Injury to Corn Greater Than to Sorghum and Sugarcane Under Field Conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1597–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- He, X.D.; Chen, W.; Liu, T.X. Attraction of Diamondback Moth to Three Commercial Sex Pheromone Lures under Laboratory and Field Conditions. Southw. Entomol. 2003, 28, 105–114. [Google Scholar]
- Greenberg, S.M.; Adamczyk, J.J. Effectiveness of Transgenic Bt Cottons against Noctuids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Southw. Entomol. 2010, 35, 539–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, D.L.; Fox, R.; Salcido, D.M.; Dyer, L.A. A Window to the World of Global Insect Declines: Moth Biodiversity Trends Are Complex and Heterogeneous. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2002549117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uhl, B.; Woelfling, M.; Fiedler, K. Qualitative and Quantitative Loss of Habitat at Different Spatial Scales Affects Functional Moth Diversity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 09, 637371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clem, C.S.; Held, D.W. Species Richness of Eruciform Larvae Associated with Native and Alien Plants in the Southeastern United States. J. Insect Conserv. 2015, 19, 987–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stireman, J.O.; Devlin, H.; Doyle, A.L. Habitat Fragmentation, Tree Diversity, and Plant Invasion Interact to Structure Forest Caterpillar Communities. Oecologia 2014, 176, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jahrsdoerfer, S.E.; Leslie, D.M., Jr. Tamaulipan Brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South. Texas: Description, Human Impacts, and Management Options; Biological Report; U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 1988; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- Mathis, M.; Matisoff, D.; Pritchett, T. The Economic Value of Water for Ecosystem Preservation: Ecotourism in the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley; Texas Coastal Management Program; Houston Advanced Research Center: The Woodlands, TX, USA, 2004; p. 139. [Google Scholar]
- Woosnam, K.M.; Dudensing, R.M.; Hanselka, D.; An, S. An Initial Examination of the Economic Impact of Nature Tourism on the Rio Grande Valley. Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences and Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cariveau, A.B.; Anderson, E.; Baum, K.A.; Hopwood, J.; Lonsdorf, E.; Nootenboom, C.; Tuerk, K.; Oberhauser, K.; Snell-Rood, E. Rapid Assessment of Roadsides as Potential Habitat for Monarchs and Other Pollinators. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leslie, D.M., Jr. An International Borderland of Concern: Conservation of Biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley; Scientific Investigations Report; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2016; Volume 2016–5078, p. 136. [Google Scholar]
- Best, C. Fighting weeds with weeds: Battling invasive grasses in the Rio Grande Delta of Texas. In Invasive Plants on the Move: Controlling Them in North America; Based on Presentations from Weeds Across Borders 2006 Conference; Van Devender, T.R., Espinosa-Garcia, F.J., Harper-Lore, B.L., Hubbard, T., Eds.; Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2006; pp. 307–318. [Google Scholar]
- Wied, J.P.; Perotto-Baldivieso, H.L.; Conkey, A.A.T.; Brennan, L.A.; Mata, J.M. Invasive Grasses in South Texas Rangelands: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions. Invasive Plant. Sci. Manag. 2020, 13, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harveson, P.M.; Tewes, M.E.; Anderson, G.L.; Laack, L.L. Habitat Use by Ocelots in South Texas: Implications for Restoration. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2004, 32, 948–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, V.L.; Laack, L.L.; Zimmerman, E.G. Landscape Metrics Associated with Habitat Use by Ocelots in South Texas. J. Wildl. Manag. 2005, 69, 733–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, J.V.; Tewes, M.E.; Perotto-Baldivieso, H.L.; Mata, J.M.; Campbell, T.A. Spatial Structure of Woody Cover Affects Habitat Use Patterns of Ocelots in Texas. Mammal. Res. 2020, 65, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuéllar-Rodríguez, G.; Jurado, E.; Flores, J. Beetle Diversity in Fragmented Thornscrub and Isolated Trees. Braz. J. Biol. 2017, 77, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ockinger, E.; Schweiger, O.; Crist, T.O.; Debinski, D.M.; Krauss, J.; Kuussaari, M.; Petersen, J.D.; Poyry, J.; Settele, J.; Summerville, K.S.; et al. Life-History Traits Predict Species Responses to Habitat Area and Isolation: A Cross-Continental Synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewers, R.M.; Didham, R.K. Confounding Factors in the Detection of Species Responses to Habitat Fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81, 117–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, L.F.; Diamond, D.D.; True, C.D.; Blodgett, C.F.; Pursell, D.; German, D.; Treuer-Kuehn, A. Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas: Summary Report; Texas Parks & Wildlife Department: Austin, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Elliot, L. Descriptions of Systems, Mapping Subsystems, and Vegetation Types for Texas; Texas Parks & Wildlife Department: Austin, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Horne, J.S.; Haines, A.M.; Tewes, M.E.; Laack, L.L. Habitat Partitioning by Sympatric Ocelots and Bobcats: Implications for Recovery of Ocelots in Southern Texas. Southw. Nat. 2009, 54, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollard, E.; Yates, T.J. Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation: The British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme; Conservation Biology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; ISBN 978-0-412-40220-3. [Google Scholar]
- Skorka, P.; Settele, J.; Woyciechowski, M. Effects of Management Cessation on Grassland Butterflies in Southern Poland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 121, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haddad, N.M. Corridor and Distance Effects on Interpatch Movements: A Landscape Experiment with Butterflies. Ecol. Appl. 1999, 9, 612–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kariyat, R.R.; University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Department of Biology, Edinburg, TX, USA. Personal Communication, 2018.
- Gehlhausen, S.M.; Schwartz, M.W.; Augspurger, C.K. Vegetation and Microclimatic Edge Effects in Two Mixed-Mesophytic Forest Fragments. Plant. Ecol. 2000, 147, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhm, J.L. Effect of Sample Size on Shannon’s Formula. Southwest. Nat. 1970, 14, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soetaert, K.; Heip, C. Sample-Size Dependence of Diversity Indices and the Determination of Sufficient Sample Size in a High-Diversity Deep-Sea Environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1990, 59, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gotelli, N.J.; Colwell, R.K.; Magurran, A.E.; McGill, B.J. Estimating Species Richness. In Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 39–54. [Google Scholar]
- Mack, R.N.; Simberloff, D.; Lonsdale, W.M.; Evans, H.; Clout, M.; Bazzaz, F.A. Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and Control. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 689–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USDA. NRCS The PLANTS Database. Available online: Http://Plants.Usda.Gov (accessed on 1 May 2021).
- Habel, J.C.; Trusch, R.; Schmitt, T.; Ochse, M.; Ulrich, W. Long-Term Large-Scale Decline in Relative Abundances of Butterfly and Burnet Moth Species across South-Western Germany. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dirzo, R.; Young, H.S.; Galetti, M.; Ceballos, G.; Isaac, N.J.B.; Collen, B. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 2014, 345, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, R.J.; Arico, S.; Aronson, J.; Baron, J.S.; Bridgewater, P.; Cramer, V.A.; Epstein, P.R.; Ewel, J.J.; Klink, C.A.; Lugo, A.E.; et al. Novel Ecosystems: Theoretical and Management Aspects of the New Ecological World Order. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2006, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. Novel Ecosystems: Implications for Conservation and Restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gilbert, L.E. Ecological factors which influence migratory behavior in two butterflies of the semi-arid shrublands of South Texas. In Migration: Mechanisms and Adaptive Significance; Rankin, M.A., Ed.; Contributions in Marine Science Supplement; University of Texas Marine Science Institute: Port Aransas, TX, USA, 1985; Volume 27, pp. 724–747. [Google Scholar]
- Dantas de Miranda, M.; Pereira, H.M.; Corley, M.F.V.; Merckx, T. Beta Diversity Patterns Reveal Positive Effects of Farmland Abandonment on Moth Communities. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacDonald, Z.G.; Anderson, I.D.; Acorn, J.H.; Nielsen, S.E. Decoupling Habitat Fragmentation from Habitat Loss: Butterfly Species Mobility Obscures Fragmentation Effects in a Naturally Fragmented Landscape of Lake Islands. Oecologia 2018, 186, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rank | S TX Disturb. Grassland | Tamaulipan Lomas | Tamaulipan Shrubland | TX Coastal Prairie | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species | Status | Enc./Plot | Species | Status | Enc./Plot | Species | Status | Enc./Plot | Species | Status | Enc./Plot | |
1 | Sor.bic | E | 0.63 | Par.hys | P | 0.57 | Uro.max | I | 0.79 | Bor.fru | 0.73 | |
2 | Rhy.lat | 0.21 | Ric.bra | E | 0.35 | Pro.gla | P | 0.30 | Mon.lit | 0.46 | ||
3 | Cyn.dac | I | 0.20 | Pen.cil | I | 0.33 | Ric.bra | E | 0.27 | Bat.mar | 0.26 | |
4 | Par.hys | P | 0.20 | Bor.fru | 0.24 | Oxa.str | 0.24 | Sal.dep | 0.22 | |||
5 | Unk.dic | 0.15 | Cyn.dac | I | 0.20 | Cyn.dac | I | 0.12 | Pro.rep | 0.19 | ||
6 | Ric.bra | E | 0.11 | Teu.cub | 0.20 | Cyp.art | 0.10 | Sua.lin | 0.18 | |||
7 | Ipo.hed | E | 0.10 | Cel.pal | 0.18 | Aca.tet | 0.08 | Cyn.bar | 0.17 | |||
8 | Sid.acu | 0.09 | Uro.max | I | 0.18 | Bot.isc | I | 0.08 | Pen.cil | I | 0.16 | |
9 | Cyc.lep | E | 0.07 | Opu.eng | 0.18 | Cyc.lep | E | 0.08 | Par.hys | P | 0.15 | |
10 | Cyp.era | 0.07 | Pro.rep | 0.16 | Pen.cil | I | 0.08 | Spa.spa | 0.13 | |||
11 | Dig.san | I | 0.07 | Bat.mar | 0.10 | Ana.arv | E | 0.07 | Unknown | 0.13 | ||
12 | Unknown | 0.06 | Cha.hum | 0.10 | Par.acu | 0.07 | Eup.mac | 0.11 | ||||
13 | Cor.spp. | 0.05 | Gla.bip | 0.10 | Con.hoo | 0.06 | Nep.pub | 0.11 | ||||
14 | Pen.cil | I | 0.05 | Lan.urt | 0.10 | Lan.urt | 0.06 | Ric.bra | E | 0.10 | ||
15 | Pro.rep | 0.05 | Leu.fru | 0.10 | Tar.off | I | 0.06 | Men.het | 0.09 | |||
Others | 0.62 | Others | 1.86 | Others | 0.99 | Others | 1.54 | |||||
All plants | 2.72 | All plants | 4.98 | All plants | 3.45 | All plants | 4.72 |
Rank | S TX Disturb. Grassland | Tamaulipan Lomas | Tamaulipan Shrubland | TX Coastal Prairie | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species | Enc./100 m | Species | Enc./100 m | Species | Enc./100 m | Species | Enc./100 m | |
1 | Spo.rec | 0.61 | Lib.car | 1.54 | Lib.car | 0.44 | Asc.mon | 1.19 |
2 | Hem.cer | 0.52 | Pyr.lis | 0.85 | Moc.lat | 0.39 | Lib.car | 0.94 |
3 | Unknown | 0.17 | Zer.ces | 0.54 | Pyr.lis | 0.29 | Dan.gil | 0.47 |
4 | Moc.lat | 0.14 | Dan.gil | 0.46 | Moc.mar | 0.24 | Pyr.lis | 0.47 |
5 | Moc.mar | 0.14 | Dan.ple | 0.15 | Unknown | 0.24 | Pan.pan | 0.22 |
6 | Dan.gil | 0.12 | Hem.cer | 0.15 | Ana.jat | 0.20 | Unknown | 0.19 |
7 | Pyr.lis | 0.12 | Kri.lys | 0.15 | Hym.per | 0.20 | Zer.ces | 0.13 |
8 | Lib.car | 0.12 | Pap.pol | 0.15 | Pan.pan | 0.20 | Eup.ves | 0.09 |
9 | Rin.cyd | 0.12 | Pho.sen | 0.15 | Ach.thr | 0.15 | Moc.lat | 0.09 |
10 | Bag.rep | 0.09 | Pyr.alb | 0.15 | Ela.fus | 0.15 | Cal.eth | 0.06 |
11 | Her.bip | 0.09 | Agr.van | 0.08 | Ere.spp. | 0.15 | Cen.pet | 0.06 |
12 | Amy.bul | 0.06 | Ana.jat | 0.08 | Rin.cyd | 0.15 | Cym.odi | 0.06 |
13 | Hel.lav | 0.06 | Ani.ill | 0.08 | Mel.ind | 0.10 | Ech.iso | 0.06 |
14 | Hem.iso | 0.06 | Ani.sim | 0.08 | Phy.pha | 0.10 | Hel.lav | 0.06 |
15 | Hem.sco | 0.06 | Cis.plu | 0.08 | Zer.ces | 0.10 | Moc.dis | 0.06 |
Other spp. | 1.10 | Other spp. | 1.15 | Other spp. | 1.61 | Other spp. | 0.66 | |
All Leps. | 3.57 | All Leps. | 5.85 | All Leps. | 4.68 | All Leps. | 4.81 |
Habitat Metric | S TX Disturbed Grasslands | Tamaulipan Lomas | Tamaulipan Shrublands | TX Coastal Prairies |
---|---|---|---|---|
Patch size (ha) | 206.4 | 20.1 | 31.9 | 812.2 |
ln(Patch size (ha)) | 3.31 | 2.54 | 2.22 | 4.65 |
Edge:Interior ratio (km/ha × 100) | 4.06 | 2.68 | 3.54 | 2.59 |
Total plant cover (%) | 28.3 | 53.5 | 77.9 | 50.0 |
Plant richness (spp./site) | 13.0 | 27.3 | 15.3 | 19.4 |
Plant richness (spp./plot) | 1.15 | 1.57 | 1.10 | 1.32 |
Plant diversity (H′) | 0.94 | 1.92 | 0.77 | 1.44 |
Lep. abundance (encounters/100m) | 3.57 | 5.85 | 4.68 | 4.81 |
Lep. richness (spp./site) | 10.1 | 13.3 | 10.2 | 7.9 |
Lep. richness (spp./100 m) | 2.31 | 3.65 | 2.66 | 2.42 |
Lep. Diversity (H′) | 0.75 | 1.55 | 1.13 | 0.96 |
Woody plant encounters/plot | 0.04 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.35 |
Blooming plant cover (%) | 0.3 | 10.5 | 9.0 | 0.6 |
Blooming plant encounters/plot | 0.39 | 1.04 | 0.13 | 0.36 |
Invasive (I) plant cover (%) | 26.1 | 14.8 | 51.0 | 10.6 |
Exotic (E) plant cover (%) | 0.1 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.1 |
Pest (P) plant cover (%) | 0.3 | 7.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
I+E+P plant cover (%) | 26.6 | 24.1 | 53.3 | 11.3 |
Invasive plant encounters/plot | 0.69 | 0.64 | 1.14 | 0.47 |
Exotic plant encounters/plot | 0.78 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.21 |
Pest plant encounters/plot | 0.28 | 0.56 | 0.48 | 0.29 |
I+E+P plant encounters/plot | 1.75 | 1.62 | 1.98 | 0.98 |
Native:I+E+P plant cover ratio | 0.97 | 13.96 | 5.19 | 27.82 |
ln(Native:I+E+P plant cover ratio) | −0.94 | 0.99 | −1.58 | 1.83 |
Native:I+E+P plant enc./plot ratio | 1.09 | 2.50 | 1.10 | 3.68 |
ln(Native:I+E+P plant enc./plot ratio) | −0.15 | 0.53 | −0.34 | 0.98 |
Factor | d.f. | F9,20 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Habitat class | 3 | 2.98 | <0.0001 | *** |
ln(Patch size) | 1 | 2.14 | 0.0060 | ** |
Edge:Interior ratio | 1 | 1.18 | 0.2547 | |
Woody plant enc. Rate | 1 | 1.74 | 0.0279 | * |
ln(Native:IEP encounters) | 1 | 1.98 | 0.0086 | ** |
IEP plant enc. Rate | 1 | 2.75 | <0.0001 | *** |
IEP plant cover | 1 | 0.83 | 0.6851 | |
Model | 9 |
Factor | d.f. | F11,17 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Habitat class | 3 | 1.37 | 0.0404 | * |
ln(Native:IEP encounters) | 1 | 1.23 | 0.1766 | |
Wind speed | 1 | 1.57 | 0.0362 | * |
Edge to interior ratio | 1 | 1.62 | 0.0223 | * |
Woody plant enc. rate | 1 | 1.19 | 0.2178 | |
Blooming plant enc. rate | 1 | 1.04 | 0.4003 | |
Plant diversity | 1 | 1.57 | 0.0374 | * |
ln(Patch size) | 1 | 0.97 | 0.5539 | |
Temperature | 1 | 1.47 | 0.0579 | . |
Model | 11 |
Factor | d.f. | F10,17 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Habitat class | 3 | 3.11 | 0.0001 | *** |
IEP plant enc. rate | 1 | 3.24 | 0.0001 | *** |
ln(Native:IEP encounters) | 1 | 1.72 | 0.0293 | * |
Edge to interior ratio | 1 | 1.84 | 0.0179 | * |
Blooming plant enc. rate | 1 | 1.38 | 0.1149 | |
Woody plant enc. rate | 1 | 1.68 | 0.0373 | * |
IEP plant cover | 1 | 1.15 | 0.2806 | |
Blooming plant cover | 1 | 1.51 | 0.0501 | . |
Model | 10 |
Factor | d.f. | F7,20 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Edge to interior ratio | 1 | 35.92 | 0.0000 | *** |
Wind speed | 1 | 10.93 | 0.0057 | ** |
IEP plant enc. rate | 1 | 6.47 | 0.0245 | * |
Temperature | 1 | 5.96 | 0.0297 | * |
Plant diversity | 1 | 6.07 | 0.0285 | * |
Plant richness | 1 | 2.48 | 0.1392 | |
ln(Native:IEP plant enc. rate) | 1 | 1.34 | 0.2683 | |
Model | 7 | 5.68 | 0.0036 | ** |
Factor | d.f. | F4,20 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
IEP plant enc. rate | 1 | 0.06 | 0.8151 | |
IEP plant cover | 1 | 0.80 | 0.3835 | |
Blooming plant enc. rate | 1 | 4.91 | 0.0415 | * |
Wind speed | 1 | 3.76 | 0.0705 | . |
Model | 4 | 2.38 | 0.0950 | . |
Lep. Species | Enc. | Migrant in LRGV | Habitat Attributes | Host Plant(s) | Blooming Species | Obs. Lep.-plant Interactions | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Var(s). | r or R2 | p | Host Taxa (Observed Taxa) | r | p | r | p | Plant spp. | r | p | |||
Libytheana carinenta | 18 | Yes | Patch size | −0.30 | 0.19 | Celtis spp. (Cel.pal) | −0.07 | 0.77 | −0.05 | 0.82 | Sid.cel, Pro.gla | −0.05 | 0.85 |
Pyrisitia lisa | 18 | Yes | Patch size | −0.25 | 0.28 | Chamaecrista spp. (Pro.rep) | 0.53 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.66 | Mal.ame, Ric.bra, May.phy, Uro.max | −0.11 | 0.62 |
Danaus gilippus | 13 | Yes | EIR | 0.27 | 0.24 | Asclepias spp. (none obs.) | NA | NA | −0.08 | 0.73 | Sid.cel | 0.01 | 0.98 |
Mocis latipes | 12 | No | EIR | 0.68 | <0.01 | Various row crops (Sor.bic) | −0.19 | 0.41 | −0.14 | 0.55 | Pen.cil, Uro.max | 0.05 | 0.82 |
Mocis marcida | 12 | No | IEP cover | 0.57 | 0.01 | Poaceae (all Poaceae) | 0.00 | 0.99 | −0.40 | 0.70 | Uro.max | 0.26 | 0.26 |
Zerene cesonia | 7 | Yes | Habitat class | 0.64 | 0.03 | Fabaceae (all Fabaceae) | 0.34 | 0.14 | 0.50 | 0.02 | Ray.ann | −0.08 | 0.74 |
Ascia monuste | 6 | Yes | IEP enc. | −0.32 | 0.16 | Brassica spp. (none obs.) | NA | NA | −0.15 | 0.53 | Lyc.car, Mon.lit, Bat.mar | 0.68 | <0.01 |
Spoladea recurvalis | 6 | No | EIR, patch size | 0.64 | <0.01 | Beta spp. (all Amaranthaceae) | −0.08 | 0.74 | −0.01 | 0.96 | Uro.max | −0.10 | 0.67 |
Hemiargus ceraunus | 5 | No | IEP enc., IEP cover | 0.26 | 0.06 | woody Fabaceae (Rhynchosia spp.) | 0.93 | <0.01 | 0.19 | 0.40 | Lan.urt, Cyn.bar, Rhy.lat | 0.65 | <0.01 |
Hymenia perspectalis | 5 | Yes | Patch size | −0.35 | 0.12 | Amaranthaceae (all Amaranthaceae) | −0.10 | 0.67 | −0.12 | 0.60 | Dic.ann, Cel.pal, Zan.fag | −0.03 | 0.91 |
Panoquina panoquinoides | 5 | No | IEP cover | 0.25 | 0.27 | Several exotic grasses (Cyn.dac) | −0.05 | 0.85 | −0.07 | 0.78 | Lyc.car, Pen.cil, Dic.ann, Phy.str | −0.15 | 0.51 |
Phyciodes phaon | 5 | No | IEP enc. | 0.35 | 0.12 | Verbenaceae (all Verbenaceae) | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.40 | 0.07 | Leu.fru | 0.35 | 0.13 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stilley, J.A.; Gabler, C.A. Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas. Insects 2021, 12, 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090777
Stilley JA, Gabler CA. Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas. Insects. 2021; 12(9):777. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090777
Chicago/Turabian StyleStilley, James A., and Christopher A. Gabler. 2021. "Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas" Insects 12, no. 9: 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090777