Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation, and the ecology of insects

My office doesn't have a window. If it did, and I could look across campus, my view would be a mosaic of buildings, grass, trees, parking areas, a couple of small streams, and even a lake. There are oak trees with diverse Cynipid assemblages, a myriad of arthropods in the litter beneath the ornamental plantings, and abundant pollinators on the Hypericum that lines the path from my office to the library. There are also diesel-belching buses and some insane planner's nightmare of one-way roads and dead-end footpaths. As a microcosm of the world at large, our campus is a study in fragmentation. Areas of natural, semi-natural, and grossly artificial vegetation are divided and subdivided into patches of various sizes in various degrees of isolation. Boundaries abound. A demented four-year-old with Lego® could not create a three-dimensional architecture this complex. Yet within this fragmented landscape, insects persist in some abundance and diversity. As insect ecologists, we're obligated to understand the processes that influence the abundance, richness and diversity of insects in fragmented landscapes. As pest managers, we need to know how the architecture of landscapes influences pest population dynamics and their interactions with natural enemies and agents of control. As conservation biologists, we must develop strategies to maintain focal insect species, faunal diversity and the trophic interactions that drive key ecosystem processes. Whatever our entomological interests, landscape structure and habitat fragmentation have an influence on the ecology of the insects that we study. If space is the final frontier of ecological theory (Kareiva, 1994), then fragmentation of space is the warp engine that drives research in spatial ecology. Critical issues such as local extinction of bird populations (Renjifo, 2001; Robinson et al., 2001; Sekercioglu et al., 2002), declining densities of small mammals and herpetofauna (Maisonneuve & Rioux, 2001), declines in pollinator bees due to deforestation (Brown & Albrecht, 2001; Cane, 2001) and the management of landscapes for insect biodiversity (Ehrlich & Murphy, 1987; Samways, 1992; Thomas, 1995; Di Giulio et al., 2001) catch the imaginations of scientists and the public alike. There is a growing sense of urgency and awareness that understanding the role of habitat fragmentation in ecological processes is a prerequisite for sound science, policy and management. Whether the goal is to predict the presence and abundance of species in fragmented landscapes (Cowley et al., 2000), or to conserve species interactions and trophic structure (Fisher, 1998), the behavioural and dynamical responses of insects to landscape structure are key. The features of landscapes that influence the population and community ecology of species, including insects, are well known. The ratio of habitat edge to interior (Chen et al., 1995; Radeloff et al., 2000), the isolation of habitat fragments (Collinge, 2000), patch area (Kruess & Tscharntke, 2000), patch quality (Hunter et al., 1996; Kuussaari et al., 2000; Hanski & Singer, 2001), patch diversity (Gathmann et al., 1994; Varchola & Dunn, 2001) and microclimate (Braman et al., 2000) all contribute to determining the abundance and richness of insects on landscapes. More recently, ecologists have incorporated temporal changes in landscape structure (Solbreck, 1995; Onstad et al., 2001), genetic change in insect populations (Singer & Thomas, 1996; Ronce & Kirkpatrick, 2001), and differential responses of predators and prey (Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994; With et al., 2002) into their understanding of the spatial ecology of insects. Even with a growing awareness of the features of landscapes that contribute to variation in insect populations and communities, there remain clear gaps in our understanding of the links between landscape change and insect dynamics. Below, I describe some of the recent work that has explored these links and suggest some approaches for future work. Much can be learned about the impacts of fragmentation on insect populations by studying the movement of predators and prey among patch types in complex landscapes (Holland & Luff, 2000; Martin et al., 2001; With et al., 2002). Simple models assume that rates of movement are independent of landscape structure, typically assume constant movement rates whatever the landscape mosaic in question (Goodwin & Fahrig, 2002), and generally assume that dispersal is random (Conradt et al., 2001). In reality, movement rates can vary markedly among features of the landscape such as edges and boundaries, and simple diffusion models are unlikely to capture the movement of insects in fragmented habitats. For example, movement rates of the specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis, depend in part upon the patch structure of the environment within and among goldenrod fields (Goodwin & Fahrig, 2002). Similarly, the movement of carabid beetles within and among barley fields is reduced by the presence of hedgerows (Mauremooto et al., 1995). Although it is well established that field boundaries can act as reservoirs of predator populations, particularly those of carabid and staphylinid beetles (Andersen, 1997), the opposing effects of hedgerows on increasing predator densities and decreasing rates of movement may have complex effects upon prey densities. The apparent permeability of some habitat boundaries (Duelli et al., 1990) may be increased when beetles are hungry (Mauremooto et al., 1995), suggesting that the physiological state of individuals will influence their movement among landscape features. Of course, landscape features themselves can influence the physiological condition of insects, including carabid beetles (Oestman et al., 2001). It may be some time before we are able to incorporate ‘insect health’ into our understanding of landscape processes, but it is clear that the physiological condition of insects is both a product of landscape structure and a factor that influences responses to fragmentation. We need more studies that link insect physiology, landscape structure and rates of movement. Of course, nothing is simple and not all boundaries are created equal in time or space (Varchola & Dunn, 1999). Particularly in agricultural systems, boundaries can vary from complex strips of woodland, through hedgerows, to roads and simple grassy edges. Varchola & Dunn (2001) report that the relative effects of woody and grassy boundaries around agricultural fields on predatory beetle richness and activity vary depending upon the time of year. Woody edges appear to be important for over-wintering beetle populations, whereas later in the growing season grassy and woody edges are about equally important. However, corridors and boundaries around agricultural fields can actually increase the densities of pest species and cause reductions in yield. In soybean agroecosystems, fields surrounded by uncultivated corridors have been shown to support higher pest densities, to suffer higher levels of defoliation and to produce lower yields (Kemp & Barrett, 1989). Similarly, the diversity of herbivorous insects within alfalfa fields is positively related to the length of woody border surrounding fields (Holland & Fahrig, 2000). In other words, measuring the activity and richness of predator populations in field boundaries may not provide an adequate prediction of their impacts upon herbivores and the subsequent crop losses that fields may suffer. Boundary effects upon insect herbivores may be variable at least in part because edges may actually be more suitable habitat for some herbivores. For example, forest tent caterpillars feeding within stands of sugar maple perform better in habitat edges than in habitat interior (Fortin & Mauffette, 2001). Trees on the edge of forests appear to produce foliage with higher concentrations of nitrogen and soluble sugars, both of which are positively correlated with insect performance. As forest fragmentation proceeds, and the ratio of edge to interior rises, it is likely that the performance of forest tent caterpillars will improve. If conservation, rather than pest management, is the focus of your research, then there seems little doubt that complex boundaries among habitat types can act to increase insect diversity. For example, riparian buffer strips at the side of lakes and streams seem to concentrate flying insects. In comparison to intact forest, Whitaker et al. (2000) reported higher densities of flying insects in riparian buffer strips, possibly because the strips collect airborne insects by acting as windbreaks. Higher concentrations of flying insects are associated with higher densities of insectivorous birds. The matrix of unsuitable habitat between suitable habitat patches may have a profound influence on insect movement. In their studies of flea beetles, Aphthona, on leafy spurge, Jonsen et al. (2001) report that the quality of matrix habitat (grass vs. shrub) influences the ability of A. nigriscutis to colonize patches of host plant. Given that leafy spurge is a weed pest, colonization by its biological control agents is of significant economic concern. Movement patterns varied between beetle sexes and between congeneric beetles, suggesting that there may be no simple relationship between matrix quality and the effectiveness of the biological control agents (Jonsen et al., 2001). Variation among species in their responses to landscape structure and management practices seems to be a common feature of such studies (Banks, 1998; Zabel & Tscharntke, 1998; Braman et al., 2000; Collinge, 2000; Di Giulio et al., 2001). Studying the movement of particular species among isolated patches is important, but a critical question remains; can fine-scale movement behaviours be used to predict broad scale patterns of distribution on heterogeneous landscapes? According to Jonsen & Taylor (2000), the answer may be yes. In their studies of damselflies in the genus Calopteryx, they have developed simulation models in which fine-scale movement behaviours were useful in predicting landscape-level distributions. It is true that the models required incorporating information on the architecture of the landscape, but it is nonetheless reassuring that measurements of specific behaviours can lead to accurate predictions of distribution patterns. Specifically, the probability of crossing patch boundaries and the rates of movement within given habitat patches were important determinants of damselfly distributions. Within the genus Calopteryx, movement rates are related to the realized connectivity of different landscape features but differ among species within the genus (Pither & Taylor, 1998), demonstrating that connectivity is as much a feature of the biology of species as it is the structure of landscapes. This last point has also been made by Haslett (2001) in a study of Dipteran diversity at landscape scales. From the ‘fly point of view’ borders that we perceive may be neutral to some Diptera, and border complexity may be a more relevant metric. Given the importance of movement to the spatial ecology of insects, it should be no surprise that the size and physical arrangement of habitat patches on landscapes plays a fundamental role in determining the abundance and diversity of insect faunas. As in classic island biogeography theory (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967), patch area and patch isolation have often been associated with the richness of insect faunas (Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994; Steffan-Dewenter & Tscharntke, 2002). For example, Kruess & Tscharntke (2000) report that the species richness of seed-feeding insects on bush vetch (Vicia sepium) increase with the area of meadows that contain the host plant, and decrease with isolation of the patch. The real contribution of Tscharntke's group, however, has been to highlight the different spatial scales at which insect herbivores and natural enemies respond to patch structure. On bush vetch, the parasitoids of the seed-feeders suffered more from habitat loss and isolation than did their hosts. This suggests that the maintenance of higher trophic structure requires less fragmentation and isolation than does the maintenance of simple plant–insect assemblages (Kruess & Tscharntke, 2000). Similarly, in a study of herbivores and predators in patches of nettle plants, herbivore populations were affected primarily by patch area, whereas predator populations were affected primarily by patch isolation (Zabel & Tscharntke, 1998). The authors argue that maintaining connectivity is important to the maintenance of predator–prey interactions (Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994). In their study of Eucalyptus remnants in grazed landscapes, Abensperg-Traun & Smith (1999) reported that predatory species of arthropod generally required larger habitat patches than did arthropods at lower trophic levels. Their data generally support the view of Tscharntke's research group that predators are more vulnerable to fragmentation than are their prey. Ultimately, habitat fragmentation may lead to the truncation of and the of trophic structure. In forests in for example, fragmentation the richness of insect species associated with Specifically, fragments have a length of the whereas of typically support with trophic levels et al., 2000). In my the that length and trophic structure are vulnerable to fragmentation is the important that we have learned from studying insects on complex landscapes. It has profound for fields of biology and management. responses of predators and prey to landscape structure appear to when studies scale to much larger In a study of landscape structure and predator et al. (1999) the effects of landscape on the abundance and richness of predators of in fields in they were able to that in uncultivated and in surrounding fields were both associated with increasing abundance and richness in the predator within by decreasing the effectiveness of natural may be associated with in the probability of insect For example, the of forest tent in in to forest fragmentation of fragmentation on both parasitoids & Taylor, and & have been in their dynamics landscape the of habitat fragments may also influence both the of herbivores and their probability of & Tscharntke, 1999). effects for the of temporal patch structure into our understanding of insect ecology in fragmented habitats. this is to the between patch area, patch isolation and species For example, populations of bees seem much more to the quality of patches than to their area or isolation (Gathmann et al., 1994; Tscharntke et al., 1998). In for management that focus upon diversity appear to have a than those related to the arrangement of patches on the landscape, and the of insect pollinators may less to fragmentation than some other insect 2001). remain that fragmentation may particular species of In forest, for example, fragmentation by bees but by bees & 1994). The of fragmentation effects depend upon the focus is on conservation of species or on the ecosystem of small and habitat fragments are to increase diversity across some landscapes. Tscharntke et al. the importance of small habitat fragments for insect species and point at least for some small fragments support more species than in For conservation they a of patches with small fragments to diversity. Given the effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on predator–prey we that landscape structure should a role in the effectiveness of biological control. However, recent studies of interactions between landscape features and pest management have upon habitat rather than area or isolation For example, rates of of are higher in complex agricultural landscapes than in simple landscapes & Similarly, of beetles declines with from field et al., 2002). landscapes may provide a diversity of that populations of This to in the of to the and maintain populations of predators that et al., Similarly, of agricultural fields in has been shown to increase the densities of beetles et al., 2001). However, between pest and landscape structure are not In some there appear to be changes in species richness of agricultural et al., in at least the richness of the insect community in agricultural fields actually increased with patch isolation & 1998). appear to for agricultural habitat habitat et al., 2000) and the of of both predators and is likely to influence their to changes in landscape structure (Jonsen & Fahrig, The is that complex landscapes complex interactions and it will some to the often effects of matrix patch area and patch isolation on the biological control of insect It has a that habitat corridors that isolated habitat patches will increase the abundance and diversity of species within those patches through in rates of that there studies in which both patch isolation and the presence of corridors have been to their relative effects upon insect In such study (Collinge, 2000), the presence of corridors effects upon species loss and colonization of isolated patches by insects in effects of corridors on species richness were in but there were no effects upon rates of of patches by species by the presence or of Variation in effects among species and among suggests that there effects of habitat corridors in this in the of corridors seems to be a feature of the studies that have been For example, in of movement by the (2000) reported that corridors colonization of patches when were at from suitable however, corridors were not at movement of among patches by the presence of corridors and population densities were higher in patches than in isolated patches of area & 1999). simulation models suggest that the movement of at boundaries can be used to predict the effects of corridors on movement among be there are studies of effects on insects to at The that I can is that we need to of its focus upon the dynamics of species patches of the of dynamics has much to in studies of habitat fragmentation. in fragmented landscapes often as in which local populations but the population of to persist & Murphy, 1987; 1999). The of population is generally related to such as population size and However, patch quality may also be an important of patch colonization and & Singer, 2001). For example, the in in habitat patches that contain species, and et al., 2000). The probability of an patch in part upon the quality of that patch by rates increase when surrounding patches contain that have suggesting that the of local influences their of habitat quality and their probability of a patch & Singer, 2001). quality can also influence For example, of the from in has been to the of suitable species et al., 2000). The of patch quality and into studies of a significant in the field and a of to dynamics that in studies (Hunter et al., 2000). Of course, issues of patch quality are to of insect population dynamics in fragmented landscapes, such as of dynamics dynamics are upon quality patches populations in quality patches the distribution of in As (1999) has changes in patch quality and in rates of movement can in in the of and In other words, by upon the quality of patches and the movement of theory is to incorporate the temporal changes in landscape structure that our or pest may be able to patch structure in time and space to influence the dynamics of pest species & Given their in conservation it is that models were developed for pest management rather than species conservation of theory in the arrangement of crop patches and in the of crop have to their in pest management, because of the of in the and of there between strategies that to pest populations and those that to increase predator populations & The and of habitat patches in complex landscapes can vary time (Solbreck, 1995), we know little about the effects of temporal changes in spatial structure on insect Much of we know about temporal effects of landscape change from studies of insect and predators crop has been in the by insect to particular However, Onstad et al. (2001) have shown that may for behavioural changes that the impacts of landscape change on insect dynamics. upon the diversity of the landscape and the of may act to change patterns of movement or feeding that the effects of landscape There is little doubt that is a to landscape features (Singer & Thomas, As Ronce & (2001) point even small changes in connectivity between can in a which population sizes and on a Their models of the of habitat and habitat suggest that and are critical to change in heterogeneous landscapes & Kirkpatrick, 2001) and may some patterns of genetic variation among insect populations in space et al., 2000; et al., 2001). of movement and increasing in local habitat patches has been as a cause of in some et al., 2001). There is even that fragmentation can for variation in dispersal within For example, and of the forest damselfly vary between populations streams and those streams through & 1995). to have increased ability within populations in fragmented habitats. In for dispersal whatever its is likely to the of fragmentation upon the dynamics of insect The dynamics of some insects, for example, are by the of and their dispersal the of that vary markedly in space and As a their populations appear to be less affected by habitat fragmentation that those of some other herbivores et al., 1998). I have a of research that would from including an accurate of effects on insects (Collinge, 2000; 2000), and the of links among insect physiology, rates of movement and landscape structure. There are it would be to develop some and of both the processes of landscape change and the that The of landscape is actually more than the simple processes of fragmentation or change in & suggest that there are at least processes that contribute to the of landscape fragmentation and mosaic in this & were able to in in a in insect species whereas fragmentation actually species Whatever of landscape structure that we a common and would in among studies (Duelli et al., 1999). we need to a between and are for studying patterns of movement and other critical population rates at local scales. are for understanding the of mosaic and among landscape (Banks, 1998; & 1998; & 2000). However, we also need more on research at larger spatial scales & Tscharntke, 2002), which will in part on and both approaches at local scales and approaches across larger it may be to some of the that in the For example, populations of are positively correlated with the of habitat edge population but correlated with the landscape feature population decrease et al., 2000). This will be by studies of at the local we need to much more of the data that are to and have a of on the distribution and abundance of species of In with of such data should provide with into how landscape change has our insect and how future change may it insect we can even and the changes in insect in the For example, in the beetle to by a diverse of and and the has been by weed and crop and by beetles, with of the The changes in changes in the insect faunas were affected by the of natural landscapes to we need to in much the effects of landscape change and habitat fragmentation on ecological We have learned a by studying landscape effects on the abundance of species and the richness of However, the profound effects of habitat fragmentation may from changes in interactions among For example, the loss of species in may in effects through trophic that influence ecosystem processes 1992; et al., 1996; 1998; et al., 2000; & 2001). We need to know the effects that losses in insect have on higher trophic levels such as insectivorous et al., 2001). We need to the effects of changes such as et al., or species et al., 2001) with habitat fragmentation. by the weed into fragmented forests in has a in and beetle diversity in the forest et al., 2001), because of of the natural forest This is a clear of fragmentation and the of trophic dynamics within within complex and with other and the The true effects of landscape change and fragmentation upon the ecology of insects will be by the ecological complexity that the world within which insects I the for our work on habitat and the population dynamics of insect herbivores.