Author:
Ulyshen Michael D.,Horn Scott,Aubrey Doug,Hoebeke E. Richard,Coyle David R.
Abstract
AbstractAlthough Eucalyptus is widely planted outside its native range for timber and pulp production, the effects of these exotic plantations on biodiversity relative to native semi-natural forests or plantations of native tree species remain incompletely understood. Here, we compare the diversity of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) and true bugs (Hemiptera) between non-native Eucalyptus benthamii Maiden and Cambage (Camden white gum) and native Pinus taeda L. (loblolly pine) stands on the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina, U.S.A. We sampled insects emerging from logs of both species placed in both stand types after 1, 2, 6, and 12 months in the field. Beetle and true bug richness and diversity were both significantly lower from eucalypt than from pine wood. Moreover, the two communities were compositionally distinct. Whereas pine supported many species of host-specific phloeoxylophagous beetles, most species collected from eucalypts were mycophagous or predatory taxa capable of utilizing a wide range of hosts. Species richness did not differ between logs placed in eucalypt vs. pine stands but Shannon’s diversity was significantly higher in the eucalypt stands, possibly due to greater sun exposure in the latter. Contrary to a previous study, we found no support for the idea that eucalypt litter reduces the diversity of saproxylic insects. Our findings add to the growing body of evidence that non-native plantations are less favorable to biodiversity than those consisting of native tree species.
Funder
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
Department of Energy to the University of Georgia Research Foundation
U.S. Forest Service Savannah River
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020—Key findings (FAO, 2020).
2. Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., Quine, C. P. & Sayer, J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 925–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x (2008).
3. Bremer, L. L. & Farley, K. A. Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 3893–3915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9936-4 (2010).
4. Ulyshen, M. D. (ed.) Saproxylic Insects: Diversity, Ecology and Conservation 904 (Springer, 2018).
5. Fierro, A., Grez, A. A., Vergara, P. M., Ramírez-Hernández, A. & Micó, E. How does the replacement of native forest by exotic forest plantations affect the diversity, abundance and trophic structure of saproxylic beetle assemblages? For. Ecol. Manag. 405, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.026 (2017).