The Little Things that Run the City - Insect ecology, biodiversity and conservation in the City of Melbourne - Clean Air and Urban
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Little Things that Run the City Insect ecology, biodiversity and conservation in the City of Melbourne Luis Mata, Christopher D. Ives, Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez, Georgia E. Garrard, Ascelin Gordon, Kate Cranney, Tessa R. Smith, Anna Backstrom, Daniel J. Bickel, Amy K. Hahs, Mallik Malipatil, Melinda L Moir, Michaela Plein, Nick Porch, Linda Semeraro, Ken Walker, Peter A. Vesk, Kirsten Parris and Sarah A. Bekessy
The Little Things that Run the City – Insect ecology, biodiversity and
conservation in the City of Melbourne
Report prepared for the City of Melbourne, August 2016
Coordinating authors
Luis Mata1
Christopher D. Ives2
Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez3
Georgia E. Garrard1
Ascelin Gordon1
Sarah Bekessy1
1
Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group, RMIT University
2
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University
3
Forest Sciences Centre of Catalonia
Contributing authors
Kate Cranney, Tessa R. Smith, Anna Backstrom, Daniel J. Bickel, Amy K. Hahs,
Mallik Malipatil, Melinda L. Moir, Michaela Plein, Nick Porch, Linda Semeraro,
Ken Walker, Peter A. Vesk and Kirsten M. Parris.
Cover artwork by Kate Cranney ‘Ant and lerps’ (Ink and paper on paper, 2016) Beetle stacked macro-photographs by Nick Porch. Dryinidid wasp stacked macro-photograph by Ken Walker. All other photographs by Luis Mata unless otherwise stated. The version of the report was finished in Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) the 15th of September 2016. Please cite as: The Little Things that Run the City – Insect ecology, biodiversity and conservation in the City of Melbourne (2016) Mata L, Ives CD, Morán-Ordóñez A, Garrard GE, Gordon A, Cranney K, Smith TR, Backstrom A, Bickel DJ, Hahs AK, Malipatil M, Moir ML, Plein M, Porch N, Semeraro L, Walker K, Vesk PA, Parris KM, Bekessy SA. Report prepared for the City of Melbourne.
Coordinating and contributing authors
Anna Backstrom Interdisciplinary Conservation Kate Cranney Interdisciplinary Conservation
Science Research Group, Centre for Urban Science Research Group, Centre for Urban
Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Research, School of Global, Urban and Social
Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000, Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000,
Victoria, Australia. Victoria, Australia.
anna.backstrom@rmit.edu.au kcranney@student.unimelb.edu.au
Sarah A. Bekessy Interdisciplinary Conservation Georgia E. Garrard Interdisciplinary Conservation
Science Research Group, Centre for Urban Science Research Group, Centre for Urban
Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Research, School of Global, Urban and Social
Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000, Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000,
Victoria, Australia. Victoria, Australia.
sarah.bekessy@rmit.edu.au georgia.garrard@rmit.edu.au
Daniel J. Bickel Entomology, Australian Museum, Ascelin Gordon Interdisciplinary Conservation
Sydney 2010, New South Wales, Australia. Science Research Group, Centre for Urban
danb@austmus.gov.au Research, School of Global, Urban and Social
Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000,
Victoria, Australia.
ascelin.gordon@rmit.edu.au
Amy K. Hahs Australian Research Centre Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez Forest Sciences Centre
for Urban Ecology (ARCUE), Royal Botanic of Catalonia, Solsona 25280, Catalonia, Spain.
Gardens Victoria, c/o School of BioSciences, The alejandra.moran@ctfc.es
University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria,
Kirsten M. Parris School of Ecosystem and Forest
Australia.
Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville
hahsa@unimelb.edu.au
3110, Victoria, Australia.
Christopher D. Ives Faculty of Sustainability, k.parris@unimelb.edu.au
Leuphana University, Lüneburg 21335, Germany.
Michaela Plein School of BioSciences, The
ives@leuphana.de
University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria,
Mallik Malipatil Department of Economic Australia.
Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources michaela.plein@gmx.de
AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience, La Trobe
Nick Porch School of Life and Environmental
University, Bundoora 3083, Victoria, Australia.
Sciences, Melbourne Burwood Campus, Deakin
mallik.malipatil@ecodev.vic.gov.au
University, Burwood 3125, Victoria, Australia.
Luis Mata Interdisciplinary Conservation Science nicholas.porch@deakin.edu.au
Research Group, Centre for Urban Research,
Linda Semeraro Department of Economic
School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT
Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources,
University, Melbourne 3000, Victoria, Australia.
Biosciences Research Division, La Trobe
luis.mata@rmit.edu.au
University, Bundoora 3083, Victoria, Australia.
Melinda L. Moir School of Plant Biology, linda.semeraro@dpi.vic.gov.au
University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009,
Western Australia, Australia.
melinda.moir@uwa.edu.au
Tessa R. Smith Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne 3000, Victoria, Australia. smith.tessa.r@gmail.com Peter A. Vesk School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Victoria, Australia. pvesk@unimelb.edu.au Ken Walker Science Department, Museum Victoria, Carlton 3053, Victoria, Australia. kwalker@museum.vic.gov.au
Acknowledgements We are very grateful to the City of Melbourne for co-funding this project. We’d especially like to thank Ian Shears, Yvonne Lynch, Amy Rogers and Lingna Zhang from the Urban Sustainability Branch for their ongoing support and enthusiasm. We would also like to acknowledge the support of funding from RMIT University’s Strategic Projects in Urban Research (SPUR) Fund, the National Environmental Science Programme - Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub (NESP - CAUL) and the Australian Research Council - Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED). Thanks to Esti Palma, Michelle Freeman, Dave Duncan, Xavier Francoeur and Laura Stark for their invaluable help with fieldwork, insect sorting and data analysis. We are grateful to Dayanthi Nugegoda, Jeff Shimeta, David Heathcote and Shannon Fernandes from RMIT University’s Applied Sciences Lab for providing the laboratory workspace and equipment necessary to undertake the insect sorting and identification phase of this project. We are also grateful to Alan Andersen and Rolf Oberprieler for generously providing help with ant and weevil species identifications and advice on species biology and ecology. Also thanks to Steve Sinclair, who identified the black-anther flax-lily Dianella admixta in which we observed the blue-banded bee in Royal Park, and Tony Daley and Martin Lagerwey, who contributed species identifications through the BowerBird platform.
Contents 1 The Little Things that Run the City project, 1 2 Methodology, 9 3 Findings, 15 4 Management and practice recommendations, 61 References, 71
1 The Little Things that Run the City project
How did The Little Things that Run the City get its since, and it is just now beginning to encompass
name? the invertebrates. For reasons that have to do with
almost every facet of human welfare, we should
The Little Things that Run the City has been inspired welcome this new development.”
by Edward O. Wilson’s famous quote:
In this research collaboration with the City of
“…let me say a word on behalf of these little Melbourne we aim to expand the circle further to
things that run the world” also encompass the conservation of insects and
The quote was part of an address given by Wilson on other invertebrates in urban environments. We are
occasion of the opening of the invertebrate exhibit inspired to ‘say a word on behalf of the little things
of the National Zoological Park (Washington D.C., that run the city’.
USA). It later appeared in writing format in the first
volume of the journal Conservation Biology (Wilson Why are insects so important?
1997). The key objective of Wilson’s address was to
With more than one million described extant
stress the urgent need to recognise the importance
species, insects (Figures 1.1 and 1.2) are the most
of insects and other invertebrates for humanity.
diversified animal taxa on planet Earth (Stork 2007,
Almost 30 years ago he was keen to see that
Adler and Foottit 2009). Not unexpectedly, insect
efforts aimed at the conservation of biodiversity
species account for as much as 66% of all known
were beginning to also include non-vertebrate
animals (Zhang 2011). The core importance of
animals. In his words: “A hundred years ago few
insects to humanity, however, does not reside alone
people thought of saving any kind of animal or
in their diversity, but in the roles that they play in
plant. The circle of concern has expanded steadily
1structuring networks of ecological interactions in ecosystems is hindering progress in ecology and
almost all terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems conservation science at the national, continental
throughout the biosphere (Waldbauer 2003, and planetary scales (Stork 2007, Cranston 2010,
Bascompte and Jordano 2007, Ings et al. 2009, New and Yen 2012, New and Samways 2014).
Scudder 2009). Moreover, through their capacity There is therefore a great need for research into the
to pollinate flowers, transform biomass, regulate insect biodiversity of urban environments for both
pest populations, recycle nutrients, disperse seeds, scientific advancement and urban sustainability
and provide food, insects are arguably planet practice.
Earth’s most important contributors of biodiversity-
delivered ecosystem services (Kremen and Is the City of Melbourne interested in conserving
Chaplin-Kremer 2007, Straub et al. 2008, Prather insect biodiversity?
et al. 2013).
The City of Melbourne’s (Figure 1.3) commitment
Why should we strive to conserve insects in urban to sustainability and biological conservation
environments? is reflected in its Urban Forest and Open Space
strategies (City of Melbourne 2012a, 2012b) and
Insects are a critical component of urban biodiversity the goals set in its latest four-year Council Plan (City
(Sattler et al. 2011, Mata 2013, Threlfall et al. 2015). of Melbourne 2013). The council’s interest and
The ecological functions they perform within concern for the insect biodiversity occurring within
and beyond the boundaries of cities translate its boundaries is distinctly reflected in its soon to be
into a plethora of ecosystem services (Losey and released ‘Urban ecology and biodiversity strategy’.
Vaughan 2006, Kremen and Chaplin-Kremer 2007, Insect biodiversity was also a central theme and
Straub et al. 2008, Prather et al. 2013, Benett and focus of its two most recent ‘BioBlitz’ events (Ives
Lovell 2014, Baldock et al. 2015) and disservices et al. 2015), as well as of the recent ‘Target species
(Dunn 2010, Rust and Su 2012) that are delivered for rewilding, monitoring and public engagement
constantly to city-dwellers. in the City of Melbourne’ workshop (Mata et al.
Presently, however, the paucity of data on the
diversity and ecological roles of insects in urban Figure 1.1 (Opposite page) Diversity of insect life I.
23
2016). Arguably however, the most compelling What were the project’s key research questions?
evidence of the municipality’s commitment to
the understanding of insects and their associated We applied the approach described above to
benefits is the support of the present study ‘The formulate the following research questions:
Little Things that Run the City’. 1. Which are the key insect groups living in the
City of Melbourne?
Was the research in The Little Things that Run the
City a purely academic (or consultancy) endeavor? 2. Which are the most frequently occurring insect
species in the City of Melbourne?
No On the contrary, the research was developed 3. How is the insect biodiversity of the City of
following the collaborative partnership model Melbourne distributed amongst its public green
of science-government partnerships (Ives and spaces?
Lynch 2014). Not unlike mutualistic plant-insect 4. How is the insect biodiversity of the City of
ecological interactions in nature, this approach Melbourne distributed amongst the different
advocates for government professionals and habitat types in these green spaces?
academic researchers to work in close association
to generate mutually beneficial outcomes. To 5. What are the most frequent ecological
guarantee that both theoretically interesting and interactions between plants and insects in the City
practically important questions are identified, Ives of Melbourne?
and Lynch (2014) propose that the key research 6. What are the ecological functions performed by
questions ought to be developed collaboratively insects in the City of Melbourne?
between researchers and practitioners. The project
was further envisioned as an outreach tool, and 7. What are the ecosystem services delivered by
aimed to rise awareness of insects and ecosystem the City of Melbourne’s insect biodiversity that
processes in the general public. benefit people?
Figure 1.2 (Opposite page) Diversity of insect life II.
45
How will the project’s findings inform the City of the Australian Research Council Linkage Project
Melbourne’s biodiversity management guidelines ‘Designing green spaces for biodiversity and
and policy? human well-being’ (Bekessy et al. 2016).
The Little Things that Run the City project will Who funded The Little Things that Run the City?
illustrate the importance of insect biodiversity
conservation to the City of Melbourne. Further, The Little Things that Run the City was funded by
results stemming from this research will identify the City of Melbourne, RMIT University’s Strategic
particular insects with key functional roles that Projects in Urban Research (SPUR) Fund, the
benefit humans. This knowledge could be then be Australian Research Council - Centre of Excellence
used to identify where to prioritise conservation for Environmental Decisions (CEED), and the
activities, guide the design and maintenance of National Environmental Science Programme
green spaces, and assist decision-makers consider - Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub (NESP -
insects in broader biodiversity plans and strategies. CAUL).
The study’s findings will also provide valuable
baseline data that can be integrated into the How is this report different from Mata et al.’s
council’s planned research agendas, for example in 2015 report entitled ‘The Little Things that Run the
future iterations of the City of Melbourne’s BioBlitz City – How do Melbourne’s green spaces support
and in the future development of monitoring insect biodiversity and ecosystem health’?
programs.
The report presented by Mata et al. (2015) was
Will the project’s findings also inform other intended as a preliminary version of the final
research agendas? report we present here. The key difference is that
the 2015 report was based on a partial dataset,
The study‘s findings will provide key baseline data as only a fraction of the insect material had been
to ‘The shared urban habitat’ research project of sorted by the time the report was developed. It is
the National Environmental Science Programme also important to mention that after the completion
– Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub (Clean
Figure 1.3 The City of Melbourne Central Business District as viewed
Air and Urban Landscapes Hub 2016) and to from one the project’s grassland plots in Royal Park.
67
of the 2015 report the project team decided drop the emphasis on insect orders and to concentrate instead in the key insect groups that are presented in this final report. Has all the collected data been integrated now into the project’s dataset? Not quite! The project’s systematic survey also included the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne and the University of Melbourne’s System Garden. We also conducted a one-time survey of the Birrarung Marr’s flowering meadow. Finally, in addition to insects we also collected spiders. The data derived from these will be the subject of future work. 8
2 Methodology
Where did the study take place? Gardens, Princes Park, Royal Park, the State Library
of Victoria, University Square, Westgate Park and
The study was conducted in the City of Melbourne Women’s Peace Gardens (Table 2.1; Figure 2.1)
(Figure 1.3), a 37.7 km2 Local Government Area
(i.e. municipality) in Victoria, Australia with a How many plots were established within the study
residential population of approximately 122,000 sites?
people (City of Melbourne 2015).
When did the insect survey take place? 132
The study took place in the Austral Spring of 2015, How many habitat types were surveyed?
from January 6th to March 10th.
How many study sites were included in the study?
4 We classified habitat types as tree, mid-storey,
grassland or lawn. A detailed description of these
is given in Mata et al. (2015).
15 Argyle Square, Canning/Neill Street Reserve,
the area of Carlton Gardens south of the Royal How was the number and size of plots decided?
Exhibition Building (henceforth Carlton Gardens
South), the combined areas of Fitzroy Gardens We calculated the total area to be surveyed for
and Treasury Gardens (henceforth Fitzroy-Treasury each habitat type in each green space site using a
Gardens), Gardiner Reserve, Garrard Street Reserve, logarithmic function closely related to the species-
Lincoln Square, Murchison Square, Pleasance area relationship:
9Ph = 100 · 2(log10 S) - 3 How many times was each plot surveyed?
where Ph equals the total area to be surveyed of
habitat type h and S is the area of the green space
3
The time between one survey period and the
next was approximately 30 days.
site. This formula satisfies the condition that the
total area to be surveyed of a given habitat type How many plant species were surveyed?
in a 1,000 m2 site is 100 m2 (10%), whilst yielding
proportionally smaller survey areas as site size
increases. 108
These species belonged in 89 genera and
51 families of flowering plants. Lawns, which
We determined the size of each plot (Ps) with:
were dominated by the non-native couch grass
Cynodon dactylon and kikuyu grass Pennisetum
Ps = S/Pn
clandestinum (Mata et al. 2015), were treated as
where Pn (number of plots per site) was defined as: a single ‘lawn complex’ species. Likewise, two
grassland plots in Royal Park were treated a single
‘grassland mix’ species. Plants were identified by
Pn = Integer (S/10)
Anna Backstrom.
This specification allowed plot size to vary between
Which insect survey methods were used?
75 m2 and 150 m2, and the number of plots of each
habitat type to be established in each site to vary Direct observations and sweep-netting (Figure
between 1 and 9. Values for S, Ph, Ps and Pn are 2.2). These are explained in full detail in Mata et
given in Table 2.1. al. (2015).
Figure 2.1 (Opposite page) Geographical location of the fifteen study sites within the City of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia).
10Garrard Street Reserve Royal Park Princes Park
Canning/Neill Street
Women’s Peace
Reserve
Garden
University Square
Lincoln Square
Pleasance Gardens
Murchison Square
Gardiner Reserve
Argyle Square
Carlton Gardens South
Fitzroy-Treasury Gardens
State Library of Victoria
Westgate Park
Surveyed green spaces
Other green spaces
11Table 2.1 Information on study sites. Habitat types refer to tree (T), mid-storey (MS), grassland (G) and lawn (L). The formulas by which Ph, Ps, and Pn were
calculated are given in the text.
Park area Total Plot
Number Habitat
Total park area (- impervious surveyed size Total plots
Park name of plots types
(m2) surfaces) (m2) area (m2) (m2) established
[Pn] surveyed
[S] [Ph] [Ps]
Royal Park 1,517,840 1,261,946 858 95 9 All 36
Princes Park 395,620 329,280 573 95 6 All 17
Westgate Park 284,847 239,791 520 104 5 All 20
Fitzroy-Treasury Gardens 321,274 175,776 474 95 5 T, MS, L 15
Carlton Gardens South 88,122 47,244 319 106 3 T, MS, L 9
University Square 16,435 12,768 215 108 2 T, L 3
Lincoln Square 13,264 9,865 199 100 2 T, MS, G, L 6
Argyle Square 12,892 8,335 189 95 2 T, MS, L 6
Women's Peace Garden 6,675 5,684 169 84 2 T, MS, L 6
Gardiner Reserve 5,286 3,655 148 148 1 T, MS, L 3
Pleasance Gardens 3,711 3,404 145 145 1 T, L 2
Murchison Square 3,767 3,294 143 143 1 T, L 2
State Library of Victoria 3,000 2,400 130 130 1 T, MS, L 3
Canning/Neill Street Reserve 1,898 1,601 115 115 1 T, L 2
Garrard Street Reserve 1,159 1,081 102 102 1 T, L 2
132
12How many insect groups were included in the Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)
study?
Beetles (Coleoptera)
Cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadoidea)
12 These were (common name followed by
scientific name of taxa in brackets): Flies (Diptera: Brachycera)
Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Heteropteran bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera)
Figure 2.2 One of the authors sweep-netting a grassland plot in Royal Park.
13Jumping plant lice (Hemiptera: Psylloidea) with help from Rolf Oberprieler, Adam Slipinski and
Chris Reid for selected unknown weevils, ladybirds
Leafhopper/Treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracoidea)
and leaf beetles, respectively, Linda Semeraro
Parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Parasitica) (leafhopper, treehoppers and planthoppers) and
Ken Walker (bees and wasps).
Planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea)
Sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)
Stinging wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata).
How was the insect reference collection built?
Each sample (i.e. a vial containing insect specimens
from a given plant/plot/site) was sorted under a
binocular microscope (mostly by Kate Cranney
and Tessa Smith, but also by Laura Stark and Luis
Mata) to order and then to morphospecies. One
or more representatives of each morphospecies
were placed into the project’s reference collection.
Duplicate material was stored in 70% ethanol.
Morphospecies were assigned a unique code
starting with the first three letters of the order that
they belonged to (e.g. hem001).
Who identified the insects?
Alan Andersen (ants), Daniel Bickel (flies),
Mali Malipatil (heteropteran bugs), Luis Mata
(heteropteran bugs), Melinda Moir (heteropteran
bugs and jumping plant lice), Nick Porch (beetles)
143 Findings
How many insect species were recorded in the was collected in all fifteen sites, in as much as 83%
study? of all plots, in the four studied habitat types and in
association with 102 different plant species (that
560 These belonged in 104 families (Table is 94% of all surveyed plant species!). Both adults
3.1). and immature stages are scavengers and fungivores
(Andrews 2002).
Which insect group had the highest diversity of
species? Which was the most common fly species?
Beetles (Figures 3.1 and 3.2), followed by The lawn fly Hydrellia tritici was the most frequently
parasitoid wasps and flies (Table 3.1; Figure 3.3). recorded fly, accounting for over 6% of all records
(Figure 3.4). The lawn fly (Figure 3.6) is one of the
Was the most common species in the study also a most common flies in Australia (Marshall 2012).
beetle?
Which was the most common ant species?
Yes It was a ‘Minute brown scavenger beetle’ in
Iridomyrmex sp. 1 was the most frequently recorded
genus Cortinicara. It accounted for almost 12% of
ant, accounting for almost 5% of all records (Figure
all records (Figure 3.4). This species was reported
3.4). Our Iridomyrmex sp. 1 is in fact a complex of
in Mata et al. (2015) as Corticaria sp. 1. Minute
species (Alan Andersen personal communication),
brown scavenger beetles are tiny and dark, and
including Iridomyrmex septentrionalis, Iridomyrmex
measure about 2 mm in length (Figure 3.5). Truly
suchieri, Iridomyrmex sp. (splendens group) and
ubiquitous in the City of Melbourne, the species
Iridomyrmex sp. (bicknelli group). Iridomyrmex
15Table 3.1 Number of insect species and families recorded in each insect group.
Species Families
Beetles Coleoptera 127 30
Parasitoid wasps Parasitica 124 10
Flies Brachycera 107 24
Heteropteran bugs Heteroptera 61 14
Leafhoppers/Treehoppers Membracoidea 40 2
Jumping plant lice Psylloidea 31 3
Stinging wasps Aculeata 23 9
Ants Formicidae 17 1
Bees Apoidea 16 5
Planthoppers Fulgoroidea 11 4
Sawflies Symphyta 2 1
Cicadas Cicadoidea 1 1
560 104
16species (Figure 3.7) are generalist predators and scavengers Which was the most frequently recorded planthopper
that supplement their diets with honeydew and nectar. They species?
are also known to consume ‘elaiosomes’ (fleshy nutritious
structures attached to seeds). By moving the elaiosome- The grey planthopper Anzora unicolor (Figure 3.10) was
bearing seeds into the nest to feed larvae, Iridomyrmex the most frequently recorded planthopper, accounting for
species contribute to seed dispersal. approximately 1% of all records (Figure 3.4).
Which was the most common leafhopper species? Which was the most common parasitoid wasp species?
An erythroneurinid leafhopper [Erythroneurini 1] was A diapriid wasp [Diapriidae 4] was the most frequently
the most frequently recorded leafhopper, accounting for recorded parasitoid wasp in the study (Figure 3.4). As with
approximately 4% of all records (Figure 3.4). This species many other parasitoid wasps (Figure 3.11), the immature
was reported in Mata et al. (2015) as an empoascine stages of diapriid wasps develop inside insect hosts, for
leafhopper [Typhlocybinae 2]. Erythroneurini 1 is example a fly’s larva or pupa, which they eventually
very likely a species in genus Anzygina (Figure 3.8). consume as food (Masner 1993). This capacity to regulate
Erythroneurinid leafhoppers are herbivores specialised in insect populations means that diapriids, as well as all other
parenchyma feeding (Fletcher 2009). parasitoid wasps, are important providers of biological
pest control.
Which was the most common heteropteran bug species?
Which was the most common bee species?
The Rutherglen bug Nysius vinitor was the most frequently
recorded heteropteran bug, accounting for about 2% of The European honey bee Apis mellifera was the most
all records (Figure 3.4). The Rutherglen bug (Figure 3.9) is frequently recorded bee in the study (Figure 3.4). The
a generalist herbivore (Malipatil 2007). European honey bee (Figure 3.12) is a specialised
pollinator that is non-native to Australia.
17Figure 3.1 Beetle diversity I. Top row (left to right): Melobasis
sp. 1 (Buprestidae); Conoderus sp. 1 (Elateridae); Anthrenus
verbasci (Dermestidae ); Dicranolaius bellulus (Melyridae);
Leucohimatium arundinaceum (Erotylidae) and Idaethina
sp. 1 (Nitidulidae). Middle row (left to right): Diomus sp. 1,
Diomus sp. 3 and Serangium maculigenum (Coccinellidae);
Anthicus obliquifasciatus (Anthicidae); Syzeton sp. 1
(Aderidae) and Eboo sp. 1 (Chrysomelidae). Bottom row (left
to right): Psylliodes sp. 1, Chaetocnema sp.1, Eurispa sp. 1
and Hispellinus multispinosus (Chrysomelidae).
18Figure 3.2 Beetle diversity II. Top row (left to right): Euciodes
sp. 1 (Anthribidae); Apion sp. 1 (Brentidae) and Metopum
sp. 1 (Attelabidae). Middle row (left to right): Misophrice sp.
1, Orthorhinus klugii and Melanterius sp. 1 (Curculionidae).
Bottom row (left to right): Epamoebus sp. 1 and Leptopius sp.
1 (Curculionidae).
19How many native bee species were recorded in Dasypsylla, Eucalyptolyma , Glycaspis, Mycopsylla,
the study? Phellopsylla, Phyllolyma and Platyobria. As much
as 90% of all jumping plant louse species recorded
13 They were: a species in genus Hylaeus, in the study were found living in association with
Lasioglossum clelandi, Homalictus sphecodoides, native plant species. While in their immature
Hyphesma atromicans, Homalictus punctatus, stages, some jumping plant louse species produce
Homalictus bisbanensis, a species in genus lerps - protective crystallised structures made out of
Euryglossina, a species in genus Callohesma, the insect’s sugary honeydew (Carver et al. 1991).
Lasioglossum hemichalceum, Lasioglossum Some jumping plant louse species are tended by
cognatum, Lasioglossum quadratum, Lipotriches ants (Cover image and Figure 3.15).
flavoviridis, and a species in family Colletidae
awaiting genus/species identification. How many sawfly species were recorded?
How common were stinging wasps? 2 Both species belonged in family Pergidae. The
caterpillar-like larvae of sawflies are herbivores,
Stinging wasps represented approximately 2% feeding on the plant species in which they were
off all records. They included native species of born (Figure 3.16).
bethylidid wasps, cuckoo wasps, dryinidid wasps
(Figure 3.13), velvet ants, spider wasps, scoliid How many cicada species were found?
wasps, tiphiid wasps, as well as the non-native
European wasps Vespula germanica (Figure 3.14) 1 It was found in Royal Park living in association
with Melaleuca viminalis.
How common were jumping plant lice?
How many insect species were observed only
Jumping plant lice represented over 2% of all once throughout the entire study?
records. They included species in the genera
Aacanthocnema, Acanthocasuarina, Acizzia, 219 That is approximately 40% of all species
Anoeconessa, Blastopsylla, Boreioglycaspis, recorded in the study. This aligns well with many
Cardiaspina, Creiis, Cryptoneossa, Ctenarytaina, other insect surveys in which 30-40% of all
20Number of species (%)
Beetl
es
Paras
i toid
wasp
s
Flies
Hete
ropte
ran b
u gs
Leafh
oppe
r s/Tre
ehop
pers
Jump
ing p
lant l
i ce
Sting
ing w
asps
Ants
Bees
Plant
hopp
the total number of species recored in the study.
ers
Sawfl
ies
Cicad
as
Figure 3.3 Number of insect species in each insect group as a percentage of
2122
Number of records (%)
Bt - C
ortin
icara
Fl - H sp.1
ydrelli
An - a trit
Irido ici
myrm
ex sp
Le - E .1
rythr
*An oneu
- Line rini 1
pithe
ma h
umile
Fl - M
uscid
He - ae 1
Nysiu
s vin
itor
Fl - L
auxa
niida
e2
Fl - L
auxa
niida
Bt - C e1
haeto
cnem
a sp.
Bt - D 1
iomu
s sp.
Le - N 1
esoc
Bt - S lutha
erang sp. 1
ium m
aculi
He - genu
Taylo m
rilygu
s sp.
Pl - A 1
nzor
a uni
An - color
Prola
sius s
p. 1
Pa - D
iaprii
dae 4
Fl - L
auxa
niida
*Be - e7
Apis
melli
fera
Bt - D
iomu
s sp.
3
Fl - M
An - uscid
Nyla ae 3
nder
ia ros
ae
Fl - R
ivelli
He - a sp.
Corid 1
and Pl: Planthoppers. Non-native species are indicated with an *.
romi
us sp
Pl - S .1
groups are indicated by An: Ants; Be: Bees; Bt: Beetles; Fl: Flies; He:
Figure 3.4 The 25 most frequently recorded species in the study. Insect
Heteropteran bugs; Le: Leafhoppers/Treehoppers; Pa: Parasitoid wasps
colyp
opa a
ustra
lisFigure 3.5 Minute brown scavenger beetle Cortinicara sp. 1.
2324The lawn fly Hydrellia tritici. Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7 A rainbow ant Iridomyrmex sp. 25 Photo by: Steve Shattuck.
documented species are recorded only once. specimen that was surveyed by direct observation
is shown in Figure 3.18. Finally, we found two new
Did the survey yield any particularly interesting species of jumping plant lice: Mycopsylla sp. nov.
uncommon species? (tuberculata group) living on Moreton Bay fig Ficus
macrophylla (Carlton Gardens South, Fitzroy-
Yes Dryinidid wasps (Figure 3.13), which have Treasury Gardens Lincoln Square and Princess
been recorded very few times in Victoria. Other Park); and Acanthocasuarina sp. nov. (muellerianae
interesting examples were the seed bug Eurynysius group) living on tussock-grass Poa labillardierei,
meschioides and the chinch bug Heinsius sp. 1 fragrant Saltbush Chenopodium parabolicum and
(both heteropteran bugs), which were discussed in
detail in Mata et al. (2015).
Did the survey yielded any new species for
science?
Yes Four new species to science have been
found thus far in our study. We found a new
species of ant belonging in genus Turneria (Alan
Andersen personal communication) living on
ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon in Princess Park.
A mounted specimen of this new species is shown
in Figure 3.17. We also found a new species of
lacebug – a heteropteran bug in family Tingidae
– living on brush box Lophostemon confertus
and bracelet honey myrtle Melaleuca armillaris Figure 3.8 (above) An erythroneurinid leafhopper en genus Anzygina.
(Fitzroy-Treasury Gardens, Princes Park and Royal Photo by Tony Daley.
Park). The Fitzroy-Treasury Gardens’ brush box Figure 3.9 (opposite page) The Rutherglen bug Nysius vinitor.
2627
28 The grey planthopper Anzara unicolor. Figure 3.10 Photo by Patrick Calmels.
29 Figure 3.11 A parasitoid wasp. Photo by James Dorey.
30 The European honey bee Apis mellifera visiting the flower Figure 3.12 of a spotted gum (Corymbia maculata) in Royal Park.
Figure 3.13 A dryinidid wasp found in Royal Park on the common 31 boobialla Myoporum insulare.
drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata (all in a blue-banded fly in genus Trigonospila (Figure
Royal Park). 3.19C), the cowboy beetle Chondropyga dorsalis
(Figure 3.19D), the long-tailed sawfly Pterygophorus
Did you observe any interesting species from the facielongus (Figure 3.16), and the blue-banded
insect groups you were studying outside of the bee Amegilla asserta - buzzing around the black-
targeted survey? anther flax-lily Dianella admixta (Figure 3.20). In
Yes In Royal Park we saw the chequered cuckoo Figure 3.14 (below) The European wasp Vespula germanica. Photo by
Jon Sullivan.
bee Thyreus caeruleopunctatus (Figure 3.19A), a Figure 3.15 (opposite page) An ant tending a jumping plant louse’s
hunchback fly in genus Ogcodes (Figure 3.19B), lerp.
3233
34 Figure 3.16 Larvae of the long-tailed sawfly Pterygophorus facielongus
skeletonising a leaf in Royal Park.Figure 3.17 A stacked macro-photograph of Turneria sp. nov. 35 Photo courtesy of Alan Andersen.
36 The lacebug Tingis sp. nov. on brush box Figure 3.18 Lophostemon confertus.
A B
C D
Figure 3.19 A Chequered cuckoo bee Thyreus caeruleopunctatus. B Hunchback fly in genus Ogcodes. C Blue-banded fly in genus Trigonospila.
D Cowboy beetle Chondropyga dorsalis. All photos from Royal Park.
3738 Figure 3.20 A blue-banded bee Amegilla asserta buzzing around
the black-anther flax-lily Dianella admixta in Royal Park.Royal Park and Westgate Park we further observed amber ladybird Hippodamia variegata (Figure
leafcutter bees in genus Megachile (Figure 3.21). 3.23), the black lawn beetle Heteronychus arator,
the lizard beetle Leucohimatium arundinaceum, an
How many of the insect species found were native archaeocrypticid beetle Archaeocrypticus topali,
to Australia? the European honey bee Apis mellifera (Figure
3.12) and the European wasp Vespula germanica
541 That is about 97% of all recorded species (Figure 3.14).
in the study.
Which green space site had the highest number of
Which was the most common non-native species? insect species?
The Argentine ant Linepithema humile (Figure
3.22) represented approximately 3% of all records
Royal Park A total of 354 insect species
were recorded in Royal Park, which means that
and as much as quarter of all insect records. over 60% of all documented species occur in
This is an aggressive invasive species that may this green space (Figure 3.24). With 186 species,
displace native ant species (e.g. species in genus Westgate Park was the green space with the second
Iridomyrmex), and therefore capable of disrupting highest species richness, followed by Princes Park,
ant-mediated seed dispersal interactions (Rowles in which 176 species were recorded. The number
and O’Dowd 2009). It was one of 19 non-native of species per insect group in each study site is
species recorded in the study, the other species given in Table 3.2.
being: a sap beetle [Meligethes sp. 1], the elm
leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola, the bronze Which habitat type had the highest insect species
leaf beetle Diachus auratus, the small striped richness?
flea beetle Phyllotreta undulata, eight weevils
(Naupactus cervinus, Naupactus leucoloma, Mid-storey A total of 337 insect species
Listronotus sp. 1 (bonariensis group), Apinocis were recorded in mid-storey plots, which means
variipennis, Phlyctinus callosus, Sitona discoideus, that as much as 60% of all documented species
the Flores weevil Atrichonotus sordidus and a occurred in this type of habitat (Figure 3.25). The
derelominid weevil [Derelomini 1]), the spotted second most diverse habitat type was tree (over
3940 Figure 3.21 A leafcutter bee in genus Megachile.
Photo from Westgate Park.Figure 3.22 The Argentine ant Linepithema humile. 41 Photo by Juan Carlos Bernal.
42 Figure 3.23 The amber spotted ladybird Hippodamia variegata.
Number of species (%)
Roya
l Park
West
gat e Par
k
Princ
es Pa
rk
Fitzro
y -Trea
sury
Gard
ens
Carlt
on G
arden
s Sou
th
Wom
en ’s Pea
ce G
a rden
s
State
Libra
ry of
Victo
ria
Argy
le Sq
u are
Pleas
ance
Gard
ens
Linco
ln Sq
uare
Garr
ard S
treet
Rese
rve
Univ
ersity
Squa
r e
Gard
iner R
eserv
e
Cann
Stree ing/Neil
t Res
erve
Murc
hinso
n Squ
Figure 3.24 Number of insect species recorded in each green space site as a
are
percentage of the total number of species recored in the study. Bold numbers in
top of each bar indicate the total number of insect species recorded in each site.
4350% of all records), followed by grassland (38%). Which plant species had the highest number of
The habitat type with the least number of associated associated insect species?
insect species was lawn, in which only 19% of all
insect species were found. The tussock-grass A total of 103
insect species were associated with tussock-grass
Which habitat type had the highest number of Poa labillardierei, or in other words as much as 18%
unique insect species? of all recorded insect species occurred in this one
plant species (Figure 3.28). The tussock-grass Poa
Mid-storey As many as 127 species were labillardierei (Figure 3.29) is a perennial tussock
recorded exclusively in mid-storey plots (Figure grass native to southern and eastern Australia (Sharp
3.26). The tree and grassland habitat types had 111 and Simon 2002). The native wallaby (Rytidosperma
and 63 unique species, respectively. The habitat sp.) and kangaroo (Themeda triandra) grasses also
type with the least number of unique species was had large number of associated insect species (71
lawn (15 species). and 62, respectively; Figure 3.28).
How many insect species were recorded in all Which shrub species had the highest number of
four habitat types? associated insect species?
41 These included amongst others the minute The shrub with the highest number of associated
brown scavenger beetle Cortinicara sp. 1 (Figure insect species (103; Figure 3.28) was the fragrant
3.5), the spotted amber ladybird Hippodamia saltbush Chenopodium parabolicum (formerly
variegata (Figure 3.23), the Rutherglen bug Nysius known as Rhagodia parabolica). The native shrubs
vinitor (Figure 3.9), ants in the Iridomyrmex complex sweet bursaria Bursaria spinosa, gold-dust wattle
(Figure 3.7), the Argentine ant Linepithema humile Acacia acinacea and hop goodenia Goodenia
(Figure 3.22), the lawn fly Hydrellia tritici (Figure ovata also had large number of associated insect
3.6) and the Pacific damsel bug Nabis kinbergii species (56, 54 and 45; Figure 3.28).
(Figure 3.27).
44Table 3.2 Number of insect species per insect group recorded in each green space.
e
eserv
s
s
rden
arden
th
a
e
reet R
ri
eserv
s Sou
Victo
are
ry Ga
ens
ce G
re
e
n Squ
Gard
eserv
R
eil St
arden
Squa
uare
ry of
uare
treet
su
rk
’s Pea
rk
te Pa
-Trea
ing/N
iner R
hinso
ln Sq
ance
Libra
l Park
es Pa
ersity
on G
le Sq
ard S
en
ga
y
Fitzro
Pleas
Linco
Wom
Murc
Cann
Princ
Gard
Roya
Carlt
State
Argy
West
Univ
Garr
Beetles Coleoptera 78 49 42 33 25 6 6 8 5 3 8 4 3 2 3
Parasitoid wasps Parasitica 67 33 37 32 11 5 6 2 9 4 7 3 4 2 0
Flies Brachycera 78 49 33 47 34 19 20 15 15 16 3 6 7 4 5
Heteropteran bugs Heteroptera 31 22 20 13 14 6 5 8 4 5 3 2 2 2 2
Leafhoppers/Treehoppers Membracoidea 25 11 12 2 4 6 5 2 3 2 1 4 2 1 2
Jumping plant lice Psylloidea 20 5 9 5 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
Stinging wasps Aculeata 18 4 8 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0
Ants Formicidae 16 5 10 10 5 5 4 5 4 4 1 3 4 2 2
Bees Apoidea 11 5 1 2 4 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Planthoppers Fulgoroidea 9 2 12 3 1 2 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Sawflies Symphyta 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cicadas Cicadoidea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
354 186 176 152 101 53 46 43 42 37 26 26 24 14 14
45Number of species (%)
Mid-storey Tree Grassland Lawn
Figure 3.25 Number of insect species recorded in each habitat type as a percentage of the total number of species recored in the
study. Bold numbers in top of each bar indicate the total number of insect species recorded in habitat type.
46Grassland Lawn
63 15
9
Mid-storey 33 3 Tree
12 1
127 111
41
16 21
9 35
64
Figure 3.26 A Venn diagram showing the distribution of insect species amongst mid-storey, grassland, lawn and tree habitat types. The
non-intersecting areas indicate the number of unique species. The intersecting areas indicate the number of shared species. The white
area in the centre of the diagram indicates the number of species that were common to all four habitat types.
4748 Figure 3.27 The Pacific damsel bug Nabis kinbergii.
Number of records (%)
Poa l
Chen abillar
diere
opod
ium p i
arabo
licum
Rytid
ospe
rma
sp.
Them
eda t
riand
Cory
mbia ra
macu
lata
*Sch
inus
molle
Bursa
ria sp
inosa
Acac
ia me
arnsi
Acac i
ia ac
inace
Good a
enia
Loma ovata
ndra
longi
Euca folia
lyptu
s side
roxyl
Mela on
leuca
vimin
*Ulm alis
us pr
Ench ocera
ylaen
a tom
entos
*Nan
dina a
dom
estica
Acac
ia ve
rnicifl
Ficus ua
macr
ophy
*Ner lla
ium o
leand
Loph
ostem er
on co
nfert
Alloc
asua us
rina v
ertici
llata
*Bux
Euca us sp
lyptu .
s cam
each plant species. Non-native plant species are indicated with an *.
aldul
Mela ensis
leuca
armil
laris
*Vibu
rnum
sp.
numbers in top of each bar indicate the total number of insect species associated with
Figure 3.28 The top 25 plant species associated with the highest number of insect
species as a percentage of the total number of insect species recored in the study. Bold
4950 Figure 3.29 The tussock-grass Poa labillardierei.
Photo by Nathan Johnson.Which tree species had the highest number of
associated insect species?
The tree species with the highest number of
associated insect species (57; Figure 3.28) were
the native spotted gum Corymbia maculata
(Figures 3.12 and 3.30) and the non-native pepper
tree Schinus molle (an evergreen tree native to
the American Andes). The native trees black
wattle Acacia mearnsii and ironbark Eucalyptus
sideroxylon also had large number of associated
insect species (55 and 43, respectively; Figure
3.28).
Taken together, were there more insect species in
native or non-native tree species?
On average, there were over 60% more insect
species in native than non-native tree species.
How many associations between insect and plant
species were documented?
2191 Given that the total number of all possible
associations between insect and plant species in
our study was 60,480 (560 insect species times
Figure 3.30 A spotted gum Corymbia maculata in Royal Park.
51Figure 3.31 Hypothetical metanetwork of plant-insect
ecological interactions. Red dots represent insect species
and green dots represent plant species. Each line represent a
52 documented plant-insect association.Figure 3.32 The top 25 insect species associated with the highest number of plant
species as a percentage of the total number of plant species surveyed in the study. Bold
numbers in top of each bar indicate the total number of plant species associated with
each insect species. Insect groups are indicated by An: Ants; Be: Bees; Bt: Beetles; Fl:
Flies; He: Heteropteran bugs; Le: Leafhoppers/Treehoppers; Pa: Parasitoid wasps and Pl:
Planthoppers. Non-native insect species are indicated with an *.
Number of records (%)
sp.1
tici
ini 1
.1
ae 1
e2
umile
itor
e1
m
1
1
ae 3
1
p. 1
3
dae 4
fera
color
sp. 1
e7
lis
ae 1
1
8
a sp.
genu
s sp.
s sp.
s sp.
a sp.
pidae
ustra
ex sp
lia tri
niida
niida
niida
s vin
melli
sius s
uscid
horid
uscid
neur
icara
a uni
lutha
ma h
iaprii
cnem
iomu
iomu
rilygu
ivelli
opa a
aculi
hloro
myrm
Nysiu
ydrel
auxa
auxa
auxa
ythro
Prola
Apis
Fl - M
Fl - P
Fl - M
ortin
nzor
esoc
pithe
Pa - D
Fl - R
Bt - D
Bt - D
haeto
ium m
Taylo
colyp
Fl - L
Fl - L
Fl - L
Fl - C
Fl - H
Irido
*Be -
r
Bt - C
He -
Pl - A
Le - E
An -
Le - N
- Line
Bt - C
He -
Pl - S
erang
An -
*An
53
Bt - S108 plant species), the ‘connectance’ of the City of species – that is more than 50% of all surveyed
Melbourne’s metanetwork of plant-insect ecological plant species (Figure 3.32). This species is the
interactions (Figure 3.31) was approximately 4%. most generalist herbivore recorded in the study –
On average, each insect species was associated assuming of course that it actually feeds on every
with 3.28 plant species. plant species that we found it on.
Which insect species was associated with the Which ant species was associated with the highest
highest number of plants? number of plants?
The minute brown scavenger beetle Cortinicara Iridomyrmex sp. 1. The ant complex Iridomyrmex
sp. 1. Minute brown scavenger beetles (Figure sp. 1 (Figure 3.7) was recorded in association with
3.5) were recorded in association with as much as 55 plant species (Figure 3.32).
102 plant species – that is almost 94% of all plant
species surveyed in the study (Figure 3.32). Which heteropteran bug species was associated
with the highest number of plants?
Which fly species was associated with the highest
number of plants? The Rutherglen bug Nysius vinitor. Rutherglen bugs
(Figure 3.9) were recorded in association with 37
The lawn fly Hydrellia tritici. Lawn flies (Figure plant species (Figure 3.32).
3.6) were recorded in association with 64 plant
species – that is almost 60% of all surveyed plant Which bee species was associated with the highest
species (Figure 3.32). number of plants?
Which leafhopper species was associated with the The European honey bee Apis mellifera. Honey
highest number of plants? bees (Figure 3.12) were recorded visiting the
flowers of 16 non-native plants: glossy abelia
An erythroneurinid leafhopper [Erythroneurini 1]. Abelia grandiflora, common agapanthus
This species of erythroneurinid leafhopper (Figure Agapanthus praecox, boxwood Buxus sp., cape
3.8) was recorded in association with 57 plant chestnut Calodentrum capense, canna lilies Canna
54generalis and Canna indica, rockrose Cistus sp., non-native plant species (Asparagus aethiopicus,
pride of Madeira Echium candicans, lavander Calodentrum capense, Dietes sp., ‘Lawn complex’,
Lavandula sp., white clover Trifolium repens Schinus molle and Strelitzia reginae).
(part of the ‘lawn complex’), pennyroyal Mentha
pulegium, spurflower Plectranthus sp., rosemary Which planthopper species was associated with
Rosmarinus officinalis, bush sage Salvia leucantha, the highest number of plants?
lamb’s ear Stachys byzantina and star jasmine
Trachelospermum jasminoides. Interestingly, we The grey planthopper Anzora unicolor. Grey
also documented the European honey bee visiting planthoppers (Figure 3.10) were recorded in
the flowers of three native plant species: spotted association with 18 plant species (Figure 3.32).
gum Corymbia maculata, burgan Kunzea ericoides
Were jumping plant louse species generalists or
and brush box Lophostemon confertus.
specialists?
With how many plant species were native bee
species associated?
Specialists Most jumping plant louse
species were recorded in association with less
17 Amongst these, eight are native insect- than three plant species. For example, all five
records of Acizzia jucunda were on black wattle
pollinated shrubs or trees: gold-dust wattle Acacia
acinacea, varnish wattle Acacia verniciflua, fragant Acacia mearnsii, and all ten records of species in
saltbush Chenopodium parabolicum, rock correa genus Mycopsylla (Mycopsylla sp. 1 (fici group)
Correa glabra, common correa Correa reflexa, and Mycopsylla sp. nov. (tuberculata group) were
spotted gum Corymbia maculata (Figure 3.30), hop on Moreton Bay fig Ficus macrophylla. Likewise,
goodenia Goodenia ovata (Figure 4.1); four are all six records of Glycaspis sp. 1 (brimblecombei
native graminoid or grass species which provide group) were on Myrtaceae species (river red
non-floral resources: spiny-headed mat-rush gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis and spotted gum
Lomandra longifolia, tussock-grass Poa labillardierei Corymbia maculata).
(Figure 3.29), wallaby grass Rytidosperma sp. and
kangaroo grass Themeda triandra; and six were
55Table 3.3 Number of insect species by feeding strategy recorded in each insect group. A: Adult stage; IS: Immature stage.
sm
g
toidi
engin
ivory
ivory
ation
i
Paras
Herb
Fung
Scav
Pred
A IS A IS A IS A IS A IS
Beetles Coleoptera 79 64 20 20 38 35 0 0 29 36
Parasitoid wasps Parasitica 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 0
Flies Brachycera 7 13 0 0 17 20 0 10 58 57
Heteropteran bugs Heteroptera 56 56 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0
Leafhoppers/Treehoppers Membracoidea 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jumping plant lice Psylloidea 31 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stinging wasps Aculeata 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 22 1 0
Ants Formicidae 8 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 17 0
Bees Apoidea 16 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
Planthoppers Fulgoroidea 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sawflies Symphyta 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cicadas Cicadoidea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
277 219 20 20 80 62 0 155 105 93
56Table 3.4 Number of insect species by herbivorous guild recorded in each insect group. A: Adult stage; IS: Immature stage.
ew)
neyd
ctar)
ss)
od)
n)
s)
a
polle
aves)
seed
ry (gr
o
e
y (wo
ry (h
ry (n
(
(
ry (le
inivo
ivory
ivory
ativo
arivo
phag
o
Gram
Gran
Exud
Palin
Nect
Foliv
Xylo
A IS A IS A IS A IS A IS A IS A IS
Beetles Coleoptera 0 0 58 56 0 0 3 0 45 31 1 1 0 3
Parasitoid wasps Parasitica 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 15 1 0 0 0 0
Flies Brachycera 0 0 4 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heteropteran bugs Heteroptera 0 0 42 42 5 5 0 0 3 3 9 9 0 0
Leafhoppers/Treehoppers Membracoidea 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jumping plant lice Psylloidea 0 0 31 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stinging wasps Aculeata 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Ants Formicidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Bees Apoidea 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0
Planthoppers Fulgoroidea 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sawflies Symphyta 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cicadas Cicadoidea 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 187 196 5 5 49 0 80 35 13 10 0 3
57Table 3.5 Number of insect species by regulating ecosystem service recorded in each insect group.
r
ansfe
rsal
l
ty
ontro
ation
dispe
ass tr
ertili
Pollin
c
Biom
Soil f
Seed
Pest
Beetles Coleoptera 17 87 38 38 0
Parasitoid wasps Parasitica 60 15 123 0 0
Flies Brachycera 35 16 30 58 0
Heteropteran bugs Heteroptera 3 56 5 0 0
Leafhoppers/Treehoppers Membracoidea 0 40 0 0 0
Jumping plant lice Psylloidea 0 31 0 0 0
Stinging wasps Aculeata 15 13 23 1 0
Ants Formicidae 2 8 17 17 3
Bees Apoidea 16 16 2 0 0
Planthoppers Fulgoroidea 0 11 0 0 0
Sawflies Symphyta 0 2 0 0 0
Cicadas Cicadoidea 0 1 0 0 0
148 296 238 114 3
58How many adult insect species were herbivores? How many species were pollinators?
277 Approximately half of all adult insect species We don’t know! What we do know is
recorded in the study were herbivores, and about that as much as 25% of all recorded insect species
18% and 14% were scavengers and predators, are known to visit flowers to collect nectar and/
respectively (Table 3.3). Approximately 40% of the or pollen – that is almost 150 species of beetles,
insect species’ immature stages were herbivores, parasitoid wasps, flies, heteropteran bugs, stinging
and about 27% and 17% were parasitoids and wasps, ants and, of course, bees (Table 3.5). In
scavengers, respectively (Table 3.3.). many instances however flower visitation does not
translate directly into pollination.
What parts of the plants are the herbivorous
insects specialised to eat? How many species transfer biomass from plants
and fungi into higher trophic levels?
As much as 68% of all adult herbivorous insect
species recorded in the study were folivores (Table 296 Over 50% of all recorded insect species
3.4), a herbivorous guild in which species specialise were herbivores and/or fungivores, and therefore
to eat leaves. This percentage was even higher for capable of transferring organic material from
immature stages (90%). Other herbivorous guilds plants and fungi into higher trophic levels (Table
with numerous species were palinivores and 3.5). By consuming plants and fungi, herbivorous
nectarivores, with 80 (29%) and 49 (18%) adult and fungivorous insects are in essence becoming a
species, respectively (Table 3.4). nutritious food source not only for insect predators
and parasitoids but also for spiders, centipedes,
What regulating ecosystem services could the frogs, lizards, birds, bats and many other animal
recorded insect species potentially provide? groups.
Biotic pollination, biomass transfer from plants How many species are providing pest control?
and fungi to higher trophic levels, control of insect
pests, improved soil fertility and seed dispersal 238 Over 40% of all recorded insect species
(Table 3.5). were predators or parasitoids, and therefore
59capable of regulating the populations of potential bee, namely the non-native European honey bee
insect pests (Table 3.5). Apis mellifera (Figure 3.12). Lerps are crystallised
protective structures made out of the sugar-rich
How many species are improving soil fertility? liquid honeydew exudated by the immature stages
of jumping plant lice (Cover illustration). Lerps are
114 As much as 20% of all recorded species one of the main types of sweet foods gathered and
were scavengers and/or detritivores, and therefore consumed by Aboriginal Australians (Turner 1984).
capable of recycling nutrients from dead or
decomposing organic material back into the soil Are there any ecosystem disservices provided by
(Table 3.5). the studied insect groups?
How many species are providing seed dispersal? Yes A few of the insect species recorded in
the study may potentially cause one or more
3 (6) These were Rhytidoponera metallica, of the following ecosystem disservices: human
Rhytidoponera victoriae and Iridomyrmex sp. 1, discomfort, for example a skin rash produced by
which in fact is a complex of species that includes a fly’s bite; allergic reactions, which may follow
Iridomyrmex septentrionalis, Iridomyrmex suchieri, after the injection of venom from a wasp’s sting;
Iridomyrmex sp. (splendens group) and Iridomyrmex or plant damage, as may be caused for example
sp. (bicknelli group). Foraging workers from all to the English elm leaf by the leaf elm beetle
six species are known to carry elaiosome-bearing Xanthogaleruca luteola.
seeds back to their colonies to feed their larvae,
effectively turning them into seed dispersers.
What provisioning ecosystem services are
provided by the studied insect groups?
The insects recorded in the study may supply
at least two types of food: honey and lerps. We
documented only one species of honey-producing
604 Management and practice recommendations
Which management action could be prioritised Which other habitat type could be promoted to
with the objective to increase insect biodiversity? increase insect biodiversity?
Increase the amount mid- surveyed Grassland Although over 38% of the
storey habitat Over 60% of the surveyed association insect species were recorded in
with grassland plots and over 10%
insect species were recorded in association with of all insect species occurred exclusively in this
mid-storey plots and over 20% of all insect species habitat type, grassland-type vegetation is currently
occurred exclusively in this habitat type. Yet, mid- absent from as much as 70% of the studied green
storey habitat is not a predominant feature of most spaces. Increasing the extent of grassland habitat
of our city’s urban green spaces. In fact, mid-storey in green spaces where this habitat type is already
habitat is currently absent from up to one third of present (e.g. Royal Park, Westgate Park and Princes
the green space sites we surveyed. Undoubtedly, Park) and adding new grassland-type vegetation
these green spaces (University Square, Pleasance to green spaces where this habitat type is absent
Gardens, Murchison Square, Canning/Neill Street could potentially increase insect biodiversity in
Reserve and Garrard Street Reserve), as well as our city.
many other similarly sized and structured green
spaces across the municipality, could benefit from
the addition of mid-storey habitat.
61You can also read
