Applying abundance/biomass comparison curves to small mammals: a weak tool for detect urbanization-related stress in the assemblages?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/foecol-2020-0002Keywords:
abundance, biomass, dominance, disturbance, evenness, ItalyAbstract
Urbanization is a form of pervasive human-induced disturbance. We tested the effectiveness of Abundance/Biomass Comparisons (ABC) as an approach in detecting stress due to landscape urbanization in large small mammal assemblages obtained from pellets of Barn Owl (Tyto alba; Strigiformes). We compared three assemblages sampled in not urbanized contexts (agro-mosaic landscapes) with three assemblages preyed in highly urbanized contexts. In all assemblages, the role of strictly synanthropic species (in our case: rodents) emerged since almost all of total biomass was assigned to these species: indeed, everywhere (both in agro-mosaic and urbanized sites) species of low trophic level (i.e. omnivorous/herbivorous rodents) significantly prevail in biomass when compared to insectivorous species (i.e. shrews, Soricomorpha) linked to less anthropized habitats. This biomass dominance in rodent species is highlighted by the data on evenness, showing lower values in biomass when compared to abundance. This pattern did not match with the classic assumption expressed by the ABC model (i.e., species with higher biomass are typical of undisturbed assemblage) and could be wrongly interpreted. Our study evidenced as ABC approach is a not reliable tool to detect the effect of urbanization as landscape disturbance acting on small mammal assemblages. Therefore we suggest that the ABC assumptions are not universal but limited only to assemblages where high body mass species coincide to species of a higher trophic level.
References
Amori, G., Contoli, L., Nappi, A., 2008. Mammalia II: Erinaceomorpha, Soricomorpha, Lagomorpha, Rodentia. Vol. XLIV, Fauna d’Italia. Milano: Edizioni Calderini de Il Sole-24 Ore.736 p.
Avenant, N.L., 2005. Barn owl pellets: a useful tool for monitoring small mammal communities? Belgian Journal of Zoology, 135: 39–43.
Battisti, C. 2018. Synanthropic-dominated biomass in an insular landbird assemblage. Community Ecology, 19: 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2018.19.3.1
Battisti, C., Fanelli, G., Mariani, L., Capizzi, D., 2017. Assessing disturbance-sensitivity and generalism in mammals: corroborating a hump-shaped relationship using a hemerobiotic approach. Ecological Indicators, 76: 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.014
Campos-Vázquez, C., Carrera-Parra, L.E., González, N.E., Salazar-Vallejo, S.I., 1999. Criptofauna en rocas de Punta Nizuc, Caribe mexicano y su utilidad como biomonitor potencial [The potential of rock cryptofauna of Punta Nizuc, Mexican Caribbean as impact monitor]. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 47: 799–808. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v47i4.19257
Craeymeersch, J.A., 1991. Applicability of the abundance/biomass comparison method to detect pollution effects on intertidal macro-benthic communities. Hydrobiological Bulletin, 24: 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02260430
Dornelas, M., Soykan, C.U., Ugland K.I., 2011. Biodiversity and disturbance. Frontiers in measurements and assessments. In Magurran, A., McGill, B.J. (eds). Biological diversity. Oxford: University Press, p. 237–251.
Lambshead, P.J.D., Platt, H.M., Shaw, K.M., 1983. The detection of differences among assemblages of marine benthic species based on an assessment of dominance and diversity. Journal of Natural History, 17: 859–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222938300770671
Luiselli L., Capizzi, D., 1996. Composition of a small mammal community studied by three comparative methods. Acta Theriologica, 41: 425–432. https://doi.org/10.4098/AT.arch.96-41
Magurran, A.E., McGill, B.J., 2011. Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 345 p.
McDonald, R.I., Kareiva, R.I., Forman, R.T., 2008. The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 141: 1695–1703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025
Meire, P.M., Dereu, J., 1990. Use of the abundance/biomass comparison method for detecting environmental stress: some considerations based on intertidal macrozoobenthos and bird communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 27: 210–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403579
Prete, S., Battisti, C., Marini, F., Ciucci, P., 2012. Applying abundance/biomass comparisons on a small mammal assemblage from Barn owl (Tyto alba) pellets (Mount Soratte, central Italy): a cautionary note. Rendiconti Lincei, 23: 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-012-0183-3
Ruffo, S., Stoch, F. (eds), 2006. Checklist and distribution of the Italian fauna. Memoire del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Serie 2, Sezione Scienze della vita, 17. Verona: Museo Civico diStoria Naturale. 303 p.
Smith, W.H., Rissler, L.J., 2010. Quantifying disturbance in terrestrial communities: abundance–biomass comparisons of herpetofauna closely track forest succession. Restoration Ecology, 18: 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00600.x
Solyanko, K., Spiridonov, V., Naumov, A., 2011. Biomass, commonly occurring and dominant species of macrobenthos in Onega Bay (White Sea, Russia): data from three different decades. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 32: 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00438.x
Warwick, R.M. 1986. A new method for detecting pollution effects on marine macrobenthic communities. Marine Biology, 92: 557–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00392515
Warwick, R.M., Clarke, K.R., 1994. Relearning the ABC-taxonomic changes and abundance biomass relationships in disturbed benthic communities. Marine Biology, 118: 739–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00347523
Yemane, D., Field, J.G., Leslie, R.W., 2005. Exploring the effects of fishing on fish assemblages using Abundance Biomass Comparison (ABC) curves. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.009
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides immediate open access to its content under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights except for commercial rights (transfer of commercial rights) and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.