Are Heteroptera communities able to be bioindicators of urban environments?


Keywords: Homoptera; biodiversity; ecological groups; metropolis; phytoindicatory assessment; bioindicators

Abstract

The Heteroptera is a group of animals associated with the vegetation cover. The conducted analysis indicates that groups of heteropterans in the urban environment have a pattern of reaction to the environmental factors, determined using the phytoindication method. In the study, we considered the following hypotheses: 1) phytoindicational assessments of ecological factors may explain the patterns of variation of the groups of heteropterans; 2) among Heteroptera species, comparatively homogenous ecological groups could be distinguished which are characterized by similar character of response to the effect of certain environmental factors; 3) these groups could be used for bioindication of the conditions of environment in urban ecosystems. Stationary collection of heteropterans was performed during three years from May to October of 2017–2019 on six plots in Kharkiv. The article describes factors which affect the structure of groups of Heteroptera within the ecosystem of the large city and assess the bioindication possibilities. The data presented in the article, as well as the conclusions drawn, are to a large extent associated with stenotopic species, most of which could be used as bioindicators of the condition of one or another biocenosis. According to the results of a taxonomical survey in the territory of Kharkiv, 180 species of Heteroptera were found, belonging to 120 genera and 17 families. The highest species diversity was seen for the family Miridae, accounting for 50 species (27.0% of the total number of counted species). Fewer species were identified as the representatives of families Lygaeidae – 46 species (24.9%) and Pentatomidae – 23 (12.4%). Family Rhopalidae was represented by 11 species (5.9%). Nabidae and Tingidae – 10 species each (5.4%). Families Coreidae – 8 (4.3%), Cydnidae and Scutelleridae – 4 species each (2.2%), Anthocoridae – 3 (1.6%). The families Berytidae, Piesmatidae, Pyrrhocoridae and Reduviidae were represented by only 2 species each (1.1%). Families Acanthosomatidae, Alydidae and Aradidae were represented by 1 species each, in total accounting for 1.5%. The reasonably high level of species and ecological diversities of Heteroptera in the territory of the city allows them to be used in bioindication studies. We determined comparatively homogenous ecological groups of heteropterans which have a similar pattern of response to the impact of certain environmental factors. The study demonstrates that phytoindicatory assessments of the ecological factors can explain the patterns of variation in groups of heteropterans, We determined the factors which have effects on the structure of the group of heteropterans within the metropolitan ecosystem. The level of their effect on groups of heteropterans within the city is different. The most influential were light and humidity. Comparison of potential and realized projections of ecological space allows us, to a certain extent, to generate hypotheses about the orientations of transformation of the group heteropterans.

References

Belgard, A. L. (1950). Lesnaja rastitel’nost’ jugo-vostoka USSR [Forest vegetation of South-East part of the Ukraine]. Kiev University Press, Kiev (in Russian).


Borcard, D., & Legendre, P. (1994). Environmental control and spatial structure in ecological communities: An example using oribatid mites (Acari, Oribatei). Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 1(1), 37–61.


Brygadyrenko, V. V. (2015). Influence of tree crown density and density of the herbaceous layer on the structure of litter macrofauna of deciduous forests of Ukraine’s steppe zone. Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University, Biology, Ecology, 23(2), 134–148.


Brygadyrenko, V. V. (2016). Influence of litter thickness on the structure of litter macrofauna of deciduous forests of Ukraine’s steppe zone. Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University, Biology, Ecology, 24(1), 240–248.


Chambers, J. M., William, C. S., Beat, K., & Tukey, P. A. (1983). Graphical methods for data analysis (Statistics). Wadsworth International Group, Duxbury Press, Belmont, Boston. Vol. 14. P. 395.


Chessel, D., Lebreton, J. D., & Prodon, R. (1982). Mesures syme’triques d’amplitude d’habitat et de diversite’ intrae chantillon dans un tableau espe’ces-releve’s: Cas d’un gradient simple. Compte Rendu de l’Acade’mie des Sciences de Paris D, 295, 83–88.


Chytry, M., Tichy, L., Drevojan, P., Sádlo, J., & Zeleny, D. (2018). Ellenbergovské indikacní hodnoty pro ceskou flóru [Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora]. Preslia, 90(2), 83–103 (in Czech).


Clifford, N. J., Harmar, O. P., Harvey, G., & Petts, G. E. (2006). Physical habitat, eco-hydraulics and river design: A review and re-evaluation of some popular concepts and methods. Aquatic conservation: Marine and freshwater ecosystems, 16(4), 389–408.


Dahl, F. (1908). Grundsaetze und Grundbegriffe der biozönotischen Forschung. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 33, 349–353.


De Cauwer, B., Reheul, D., De Laethauwer, S., Nijs, I., & Milbau, A. (2006). Effect of light and botanical species richness on insect diversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 26(1), 35–43.


Didukh, Y. P. (2011). The ecological scales for the species of Ukrainian flora and their use in synphytoindication. Phytosociocentre, Kyiv.


Fedyay, I. A., & Markina, T. Y. (2020). Ecological and faunistic review of the true bugs of infraorder Cimicomorpha (Heteroptera) of urbocenoses of Kharkiv city (Ukraine). Zoodiversity, 54(2), 133–146.


Gossner, M. M. (2009). Light intensity affects spatial distribution of Heteroptera in deciduous forests. European Journal of Entomology, 106(2), 241–252.


Hill, M. O. (1973). Reciprocal averaging: An eigenvectormethod of ordination. Journal of Ecology, 61, 237–249.


Hill, M. O. (1974). Correspondence analysis: A neglected multivariate method. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (London), 23, 340–354.


Hubbell, S. P. (2005). Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Functional Ecology, 19(1), 166–172.


Hutchinson, G. E. (1965). The niche: An abstractly inhabited hypervolume. The ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Yale University Press, New Haven.


Jongman, R. H. G., Ter Braak, C. J. F., & Van Tongeren, O. F. R. (1995). Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Jowett, I. G. (1993). A method for objectively identifying pool, run, and riffle habitats from physical measurements. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 27(2), 241–248.


Kunah, O. N. (2016). Functional and spatial structure of the urbotechnozem mesopedobiont community. Visnyk of Dnipropetrovsk University, Biology, Ecology, 24(2), 473–483.


Markina, T. Y., Putchkov, A. V., & Fedyay, I. A. (2018). Novi ta malovidomi vydy klopiv (Insecta: Hemiptera, Heteroptera) dlia fauny Ukrajiny [New and little known species Hemiptera for the fauna of Ukraine]. Biology and Valeology, 20, 43–48 (in Ukrainian).


Matějka, K. (1992). Some aspects of the theory of the ecosystem spatial structure. Ústav Krajinnej Ekológie SAV, Ekológia (CSFR), 11(4), 369–377.


Möbius, K. (2000). The Oyster bank is a biocönose, or a social community. In: Keller, D. R., & Golley, F. B. (Eds.). The phylosophy of ecology (From science to synthesis). University of Georgia Press, Athens. Pp. 111–114.


Mölder, A., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., & Schmidt, W. (2008). Herb-layer diversity in deciduous forests: Raised by tree richness or beaten by beech? Forest Ecology and Management, 256(3), 272–281.


Naveh, Z., & Lieberman, A. S. (1994). Landscape ecology: Theory and application (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag, New York.


Newson, M. D., & Newson, C. L. (2000). Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: Mesoscale approaches to basin-scale challenges. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 24(2), 195–217.


Padmore, C. (1998). The role of physical biotopes in determining the conservation status and flow requirements of British rivers. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 1(1), 25–35.


Palmer, M. (1993). Putting things in even better order: The advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology, 74, 2215–2230.


Panikov, N. S. (2010). Microbial ecology. In: Environmental biotechnology. Humana Press, Totowa. Pp. 121–191.


Ramenskiy, L. G., Tsatsenkin, I. A., Chizhikov, O. N., & Antipin, N. A. (1956). Ecological evaluation of the fodder lands by vegetation cover. Sel’khozgiz, Moscow.


Ricklefs, R. E. (2006). The unified neutral theory of biodiversity: Do the numbers add up? Ecology, 87(6), 1424–1431.


Sørensen, T. (1936). Some ecosystemtical characteristics determined by Raunkiær’s circling method. In: To designate the fundamental unit of ecological plant sociology I propose the term ecotope, viz. the field delimited as an object of investigation within a given ecosystem (Tansley). Nordiska (19. Skandinaviska) Naturforskarmöteti, Helsingfors. Pp. 474–475.


Sukachov, V. N. (1964). Osnovnye poniatija lesnoj bigeocenologii [The main concepts of the forest biogeoceonology]. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).


Tansley, A. G. (1939). The British Isles and their vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


ter Braak, C. J. F. (1985). Correspondence analysis of incidence and abundance data: Properties in terms of a unimodal response model. Biometrics, 41(4), 859.


ter Braak, C. J. F., & Looman, C. W. N. (1986). Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian response model. Vegetatio, 65(1), 3–11.


Thioulouse, J., & Chessel, D. (1992). A method for reciprocal scaling of species tolerance and sample diversity. Ecology, 73, 670–680.


Townsend, C. R., & Hildrew, A. G. (1994). Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology, 31(3), 265–275.


Vysotsky, G. N. (1925). Pokrovovedenie [Cover science]. Main Botanical Garden, Minsk, Leningrad (in Russian).


Zhirkov, I. A. (2017). Bio-geography, general and specialty. KMK Pres, Moscow.


Zhou, S., & Zhang, D. (2008). Neutral theory in community ecology. Frontiers of Biology in China, 3(1), 1–8.


Zhukov, A. V., Kunah, O. N., Novikova, V. A., & Ganzha, D. S. (2016). Phytoindication estimation of soil mesopedobionts communities catena and their ecomorphic organization. Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6(3), 91–117.


Zhukov, O. V. (2018). Interpretation of the plants ceonomorphes from the South-East of Ukraine in terms of phyto-indicative scales. Acta Biologica Sibirica, 2, 57–69.


Zhukov, O., Kunah, O., Dubinina, Y., Ganga, D., & Zadorozhnaya, G. (2017). Phylogenetic diversity of plant metacommunity of the Dnieper River arena terrace within the ’Dnieper-Orilskiy’ Nature Reserve. Ekologia Bratislava, 36(4), 352–365.


Zhuravel, N., Polchaninova, N., Lezhenina, I., Drogvalenko, O., Putchkov, A. (2016). Preliminary survey of the ground-dwelling arthropods of the floodplain meadows in the southeast of Poltava region (Ukraine). Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6(3), 5–17.

Published
2020-05-08
Section
Articles