Search for: All records

Abstract Habitat loss is rarely truly random and often occurs selectively with respect to the plant species comprising the habitat. Such selective habitat removal that decreases plant species diversity, that is, habitat simplification or homogenization, may have two negative effects on other species. First, the reduction in plant community size (number of individuals) represents habitat loss for species at higher trophic levels who use plants as habitat. Second, when plants are removed selectively, the resulting habitat simplification decreases the diversity of resources available to species at higher trophic levels. It follows that habitat loss combined with simplification will reduce biodiversity more than habitat loss without simplification. To test this, we experimentally implemented two types of habitat loss at the plant community level and compared biodiversity of resident arthropods between habitat loss types. In the first type of habitat loss, we reduced habitats by 50% nonselectively, maintaining original relative abundance and diversity of plant species and therefore habitat and resource diversity for arthropods. In the second type of habitat loss, we reduced habitats by 50% selectively, removing all but one common plant species, dramatically simplifying habitat and resources for arthropods. We replicated this experiment across three common plant species:Asclepias tuberosa,Solidago altissima, andBaptisia alba. While habitat loss with simplification reduced arthropod species richness compared with habitat loss without simplification, neither type of habitat loss affected diversity, measured as effective number of species (ENS), or species evenness as compared with controls. Instead, differences in ENS and evenness were explained by the identity of the common plant species. Our results indicate that the quality of remaining habitat, in our case plant species identity, may be more important for multi‐trophic diversity than habitat diversity per se. 

Abstract Land‐use change is a significant cause of anthropogenic extinctions, which are likely to continue and accelerate as habitat conversion proceeds in most biomes. One way to understand the effects of habitat loss on biodiversity is through improved tools for predicting the number and identity of species losses in response to habitat loss. There are relatively few methods for predicting extinctions and even fewer opportunities for rigorously assessing the quality of these predictions. In this paper, we address these issues by applying a new method based on rarefaction to predict species losses after random, but aggregated, habitat loss. We compare predictions from three rarefaction models, individual‐based, sample‐based, and spatially clustered, to those derived from a commonly used extinction estimation method, the species–area relationship (SAR). We apply each method to a mesocosm experiment, in which we aim to predict species richness and extinctions of arthropods immediately following 50% habitat loss. While each model produced strikingly accurate predictions of species richness immediately after the habitat loss disturbance, each model significantly underestimated the number of extinctions occurring at both the local (within‐mesocosm) and regional (treatment‐wide) scales. Despite the stochastic nature of our small‐scale, short‐term, and randomly applied habitat loss experiment, we found surprisingly clear evidence for extinction selectivity, for example, when abundant species with low extinction probabilities were extirpated following habitat loss. The important role played by selective extinction even in this contrived experimental system suggests that ecologically driven, trait‐based extinctions play an equally important role to stochastic extinction, even when the disturbance itself has no clear selectivity. As a result, neutrally stochastic null models such as the SAR and rarefaction are likely to underestimate extinctions caused by habitat loss. Nevertheless, given the difficulty of predicting extinctions, null models provide useful benchmarks for conservation planning by providing minimum estimates and probabilities of species extinctions. 

Abstract A key challenge in conservation biology is that not all species are equally likely to go extinct when faced with a disturbance, but there are multiple overlapping reasons for such differences in extinction probability. Differences in species extinction risk may represent extinction selectivity, a non‐random process by which species’ risks of extinction are caused by differences in fitness based on traits. Additionally, rare species with low abundances and/or occupancies are more likely to go extinct than common species for reasons of random chance alone, that is, bad luck. Unless ecologists and conservation biologists can disentangle random and selective extinction processes, then the prediction and prevention of future extinctions will continue to be an elusive challenge.We suggest that a modified version of a common null model procedure, rarefaction, can be used to disentangle the influence of stochastic species loss from selective non‐random processes. To this end we applied a rarefaction‐based null model to three published data sets to characterize the influence of species rarity in driving biodiversity loss following three biodiversity loss events: (a) disease‐associated bat declines; (b) disease‐associated amphibian declines; and (c) habitat loss and invasive species‐associated gastropod declines. For each case study, we used rarefaction to generate null expectations of biodiversity loss and species‐specific extinction probabilities.In each of our case studies, we find evidence for both random and non‐random (selective) extinctions. Our findings highlight the importance of explicitly considering that some species extinctions are the result of stochastic processes. In other words, we find significant evidence for bad luck in the extinction process.Policy implications. Our results suggest that rarefaction can be used to disentangle random and non‐random extinctions and guide management decisions. For example, rarefaction can be used retrospectively to identify when declines of at‐risk species are likely to result from selectivity, versus random chance. Rarefaction can also be used prospectively to formulate minimum predictions of species loss in response to hypothetical disturbances. Given its minimal data requirements and familiarity among ecologists, rarefaction may be an efficient and versatile tool for identifying and protecting species that are most vulnerable to global extinction. 

Abstract Fire is a powerful ecological and evolutionary force that regulates organismal traits, population sizes, species interactions, community composition, carbon and nutrient cycling and ecosystem function. It also presents a rapidly growing societal challenge, due to both increasingly destructive wildfires and fire exclusion in fire‐dependent ecosystems. As an ecological process, fire integrates complex feedbacks among biological, social and geophysical processes, requiring coordination across several fields and scales of study.Here, we describe the diversity of ways in which fire operates as a fundamental ecological and evolutionary process on Earth. We explore research priorities in six categories of fire ecology: (a) characteristics of fire regimes, (b) changing fire regimes, (c) fire effects on above‐ground ecology, (d) fire effects on below‐ground ecology, (e) fire behaviour and (f) fire ecology modelling.We identify three emergent themes: the need to study fire across temporal scales, to assess the mechanisms underlying a variety of ecological feedbacks involving fire and to improve representation of fire in a range of modelling contexts.Synthesis: As fire regimes and our relationships with fire continue to change, prioritizing these research areas will facilitate understanding of the ecological causes and consequences of future fires and rethinking fire management alternatives. 

Multiple species of ticks, including Ixodes scapularis (Say, Ixodida:Ixodidae), Amblyomma americanum (L., Ixodida:Ixodidae), and Dermacentor variabilis (Say, Ixodida:Ixodidae), occur in high and increasing abundance in both the northeast and southeast United States. North Carolina is at the nexus of spread of these species, with high occurrence and abundance of I. scapularis to the north and A. americanum to the south. Despite this, there are few records of these species in the Piedmont of North Carolina, including the greater Charlotte metropolitan area. Here, we update the known occurrence and abundance of these species in the North Carolina Piedmont. We surveyed for ticks using cloth drags, CO2 traps, and leaf litter samples at a total of 79 sites within five locations: Mecklenburg County, South Mountains State Park, Stone Mountain State Park, Duke Forest, and Morrow Mountain State Park, all in North Carolina, during the late spring, summer, and fall seasons of 2019. From these surveys, we had only 20 tick captures, illuminating the surprisingly low abundance of ticks in this region of North Carolina. Our results indicate the possibility of underlying habitat and host factors limiting tick distribution and abundance in the North Carolina Piedmont.