PDF
FLIP
Publication Date: 2010-07-01
How to Cite
Ascuntar Osnas, O., Armbrecht, I., & Call, Z. (2010). Mariposas y vegetación en cárcavas restauradas de diferentes edades en los andes occidentales de Colombia . Boletín Científico. Centro De Museos, 14(2), 169–186. Retrieved from https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/boletincientifico/article/view/5267
More Citation Formats
Authors
Abstract
Erosion control structures made with green bamboo Guadua angustifolia and high density plantings have been combined efficiently for restoring gullies in the Andean hillsides of Colombia. However, the effects of these practices on the native fauna have not been evaluated. Richness and abundance of diurnal lepidopterans were studied between 2006-2007 in five 10 m2 transects within each of eight gullies. Four gullies restored using the method mentioned above (6, 9, 12 and 23 months following intervention), each with its corresponding control (unrestored gully) were sampled four times with a standardized method. A vegetation inventory was done at each gully. More individuals and species (971, 84 respectively) were found in the restored gullies than in the control ones (501, 66). The number of butterfly species tended to increase with rehabilitation time. Ten plant species, out of 59, were important sources of nectar for lepidopterans. Larval parasitoids were also found indicating the presence of trophic chains in the study area. This paper describes the rapid and positive response of diurnal adult butterflies to habitat changes associated with ecological rehabilitation of gullies through erosion control structures and high density planting. Introducing and maintaining a high biomass and diversity of plants may help to reestablish the food chain and ecological processes in degraded Andean landscapes.
Keywords:
References
BAZ, A., 2002. Nectar plant sources for the threatened apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo l. 1758) in populations of central Spain. Biol Conserv., 103: 277-282.
BLAIR, R.B., 1999. Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity. Ecol. Appl., 9: 194-170.
BLAIR, R.B. & LAUNER, A.E., 1997. Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol. Conserv., 80: 113-125.
BURYLO, M.; REY, F. & DELCROS, P., 2007. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing the early stages of vegetation colonization in restored marly gullies (Southern Alps, France). Ecol. Engin., 30: 231-239.
COLLINGE, S.K.; PRUDIC, K.L. & OLIVER, J.C., 2003. Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv. Biol., 17: 178-187.
DAUBENMIRE, R., 1959. A canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Nort. Scie., 33: 43-64.
DEVRIES, P.J.; WALLA, T.R. & GREENEY, H.F., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of fruit-feeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 68: 333-353.
DIDHAM, R.K. & LAWTON, J.H., 1999. Edge structure determines the magnitude of changes in microclimate and vegetation structure in tropical forest fragments. Biotrópica, 31: 17-30.
DUMBRELL, A.J. & HILL, J.K., 2005. Impacts of selective logging on canopy and ground assemblages of tropical forest butterflies: Implications for sampling. Biol. Conserv., 125: 123-131.
ESPINAL, L. S., 1998. Visión ecológica del departamento del Valle del Cauca. Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
ETTER, A. & VAN WYNGAARDEN, W., 2000. Patterns of landscape transformation in Colombia, with emphasis in the Andean region. Ambio, 29: 432-439.
FAGUA, G., 1996. Comunidad de mariposas y artropofauna asociada con el suelo de tres tipos de vegetación de la serranía de Taraira (Vaupés, Colombia), una prueba del uso de mariposas como bioindicadores. Rev. Colom. Entomol., 22: 143-151.
FAGUA, G.; AMARILLO, A. & ANDRADE, G., 1999. Mariposas (lepidóptera) como bioindicadores del grado de intervención en la cuenca del río Pato (Caquetá): 284-315 (in) AMAT-ANDRADE G.; Fernández-F. (eds.) Insectos de Colombia, volumen II. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Colección Jorge Álvarez Lleras. Bogotá, Colombia.
GIRALDO, C.; DOMÍNGUEZ, Y.; RIVERA, L.; CALLE, Z.; PIEDRAHITA, L. & SINISTERRA, J.A., 2008. Diversidad de insectos y plantas en cárcavas restauradas con bioingeniería: 137-147 (in) BARRERA-CATAÑO J.L., AGUILAR-GARAVITO M.; RONDÓN-CAMACHO D.C. (eds.) Experiencias de restauración ecológica en Colombia. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, D.C. 274p.
HAMER, K.C.; HILL, J.K.; BENEDICK, S.; MUSTAFFA, N.; SHERRATT, T.N.; MARYATI, M. & CHEY, V.K., 2003. Ecology of butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of northern Borneo: the importance of habitat heterogeneity. J. Appl. Ecol., 40: 150-162.
HARDY, P.B. & DENNIS, R.L., 1999. The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodiver. Conserv., 8: 1261-1279.
HOLL, K.D., 1996. The effect of coal surface mine reclamation on diurnal lepidopteran conservation. J. Appl. Ecol., 33: 225-236.
KLEINTJES, P.K.; JACOBS, B.F. & FETTIG, S.M., 2004. Initial response of butterflies to an overstorey reduction and slash mulching treatment of a degraded pinon-juniper woodland. Restor. Ecol., 12: 231-238.
KREMEN, C.; COLWELL, R.K.; ERWIN, T.L.; MURPHY, D.D.; NOSS, R.F. & SANJAYAN, M.A., 1993. Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol., 7: 796-809.
LAMAS, G., 2004. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, Check list: Part 4A, Hesperoidea-Papilionoidea. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera, Gainesville. 439p. In Tropical Andean Butterfly Diversity Project (TABDP). 2007. Darwin Database of Andean Butterflies. http://www.andeanbutterflies.org/database.html. Consulted on June 2008.
LOMOV, B.; KEITH, D.; BRITTON, D. & HOCHULI, D., 2006. Are butterflies and moths useful indicators for Restoration monitoring? A pilot study in Sydney’s Cumberland Plain Woodland. Ecol. Manag. Restor., 7: 204-210.
MACCHERINI, S., BACARO, G., FAVILLI, L., PIAZZINIA, S., SANTI, E. & MARIGNANI, M., 2009. Congruence among vascular plants and butterflies in the evaluation of grassland restoration success. Acta. Oecol. 35: 11-17.
MESQUITA, R.C.G.; DELAMONICA, P. & LAURANCE, W.F., 1999. Effect of surrounding vegetation on edgerelated tree mortality in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol. Conserv., 91: 129-134.
POYRY, J.; LINDGREN, S.; SALMINEN, J. & KUUSSAARI, M., 2004. Restoration of butterfly and moth communities in semi-natural grasslands by cattle grazing. Ecol. Appl., 14: 1656-1670.
PRIETO, C. & DAHNERS, H., 2006. Eumaeini (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) del cerro de San Antonio: Dinámica de la riqueza y comportamiento de “Hilltopping”. Rev. Colomb. Entomol., 32: 179-190.
RIES, L.; DEBINSKY, D.M. & WIELAND, M., 2001. Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration butterfly communities. Conserv. Biol., 15: 401-411.
RIVERA, H., 1998. Control de cárcavas remontantes en zonas de ladera mediante tratamientos biológicos. Avances técnicos Cenicafé, 256: 8.
RIVERA, H. & SINISTERRA, J.A., 2006. Uso social de la bioingeniería, para el control de la erosión severa. CIPAV, Cali, Colombia.
ROSENBERG, D.M.; DANKS, H.V. & LUHMKUHL, D.M., 1986. Importance of insects in environmental impact assessment. Enviro. Manag., 10: 773-783.
RUIZ-JAÉN, M.C. & AIDE, M., 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor. Ecol., 13: 569-577.
SUMMERVILLE, K.S.; STEICHEN, R.M. & LEWIS, M.N., 2005. Restoring lepidopteran communities to oak savannas: contrasting influences of habitat quantity and quality. Restor. Ecol., 13: 120-128.
WALTZ, A. & COVINGTON, W., 2004. Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly richness and abundance: mechanisms of response. Restor. Ecol., 12: 85-96.
WEATHERS, K.C.; CADENASSO, M.L. & PICKETT, T.A., 2001. Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies, and the atmosphere. Conserv. Biol., 15: 1506-1514.
ZAR, J.H., 1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
BLAIR, R.B., 1999. Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity. Ecol. Appl., 9: 194-170.
BLAIR, R.B. & LAUNER, A.E., 1997. Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol. Conserv., 80: 113-125.
BURYLO, M.; REY, F. & DELCROS, P., 2007. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing the early stages of vegetation colonization in restored marly gullies (Southern Alps, France). Ecol. Engin., 30: 231-239.
COLLINGE, S.K.; PRUDIC, K.L. & OLIVER, J.C., 2003. Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv. Biol., 17: 178-187.
DAUBENMIRE, R., 1959. A canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Nort. Scie., 33: 43-64.
DEVRIES, P.J.; WALLA, T.R. & GREENEY, H.F., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of fruit-feeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 68: 333-353.
DIDHAM, R.K. & LAWTON, J.H., 1999. Edge structure determines the magnitude of changes in microclimate and vegetation structure in tropical forest fragments. Biotrópica, 31: 17-30.
DUMBRELL, A.J. & HILL, J.K., 2005. Impacts of selective logging on canopy and ground assemblages of tropical forest butterflies: Implications for sampling. Biol. Conserv., 125: 123-131.
ESPINAL, L. S., 1998. Visión ecológica del departamento del Valle del Cauca. Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
ETTER, A. & VAN WYNGAARDEN, W., 2000. Patterns of landscape transformation in Colombia, with emphasis in the Andean region. Ambio, 29: 432-439.
FAGUA, G., 1996. Comunidad de mariposas y artropofauna asociada con el suelo de tres tipos de vegetación de la serranía de Taraira (Vaupés, Colombia), una prueba del uso de mariposas como bioindicadores. Rev. Colom. Entomol., 22: 143-151.
FAGUA, G.; AMARILLO, A. & ANDRADE, G., 1999. Mariposas (lepidóptera) como bioindicadores del grado de intervención en la cuenca del río Pato (Caquetá): 284-315 (in) AMAT-ANDRADE G.; Fernández-F. (eds.) Insectos de Colombia, volumen II. Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Colección Jorge Álvarez Lleras. Bogotá, Colombia.
GIRALDO, C.; DOMÍNGUEZ, Y.; RIVERA, L.; CALLE, Z.; PIEDRAHITA, L. & SINISTERRA, J.A., 2008. Diversidad de insectos y plantas en cárcavas restauradas con bioingeniería: 137-147 (in) BARRERA-CATAÑO J.L., AGUILAR-GARAVITO M.; RONDÓN-CAMACHO D.C. (eds.) Experiencias de restauración ecológica en Colombia. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, D.C. 274p.
HAMER, K.C.; HILL, J.K.; BENEDICK, S.; MUSTAFFA, N.; SHERRATT, T.N.; MARYATI, M. & CHEY, V.K., 2003. Ecology of butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of northern Borneo: the importance of habitat heterogeneity. J. Appl. Ecol., 40: 150-162.
HARDY, P.B. & DENNIS, R.L., 1999. The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodiver. Conserv., 8: 1261-1279.
HOLL, K.D., 1996. The effect of coal surface mine reclamation on diurnal lepidopteran conservation. J. Appl. Ecol., 33: 225-236.
KLEINTJES, P.K.; JACOBS, B.F. & FETTIG, S.M., 2004. Initial response of butterflies to an overstorey reduction and slash mulching treatment of a degraded pinon-juniper woodland. Restor. Ecol., 12: 231-238.
KREMEN, C.; COLWELL, R.K.; ERWIN, T.L.; MURPHY, D.D.; NOSS, R.F. & SANJAYAN, M.A., 1993. Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol., 7: 796-809.
LAMAS, G., 2004. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, Check list: Part 4A, Hesperoidea-Papilionoidea. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera, Gainesville. 439p. In Tropical Andean Butterfly Diversity Project (TABDP). 2007. Darwin Database of Andean Butterflies. http://www.andeanbutterflies.org/database.html. Consulted on June 2008.
LOMOV, B.; KEITH, D.; BRITTON, D. & HOCHULI, D., 2006. Are butterflies and moths useful indicators for Restoration monitoring? A pilot study in Sydney’s Cumberland Plain Woodland. Ecol. Manag. Restor., 7: 204-210.
MACCHERINI, S., BACARO, G., FAVILLI, L., PIAZZINIA, S., SANTI, E. & MARIGNANI, M., 2009. Congruence among vascular plants and butterflies in the evaluation of grassland restoration success. Acta. Oecol. 35: 11-17.
MESQUITA, R.C.G.; DELAMONICA, P. & LAURANCE, W.F., 1999. Effect of surrounding vegetation on edgerelated tree mortality in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol. Conserv., 91: 129-134.
POYRY, J.; LINDGREN, S.; SALMINEN, J. & KUUSSAARI, M., 2004. Restoration of butterfly and moth communities in semi-natural grasslands by cattle grazing. Ecol. Appl., 14: 1656-1670.
PRIETO, C. & DAHNERS, H., 2006. Eumaeini (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) del cerro de San Antonio: Dinámica de la riqueza y comportamiento de “Hilltopping”. Rev. Colomb. Entomol., 32: 179-190.
RIES, L.; DEBINSKY, D.M. & WIELAND, M., 2001. Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration butterfly communities. Conserv. Biol., 15: 401-411.
RIVERA, H., 1998. Control de cárcavas remontantes en zonas de ladera mediante tratamientos biológicos. Avances técnicos Cenicafé, 256: 8.
RIVERA, H. & SINISTERRA, J.A., 2006. Uso social de la bioingeniería, para el control de la erosión severa. CIPAV, Cali, Colombia.
ROSENBERG, D.M.; DANKS, H.V. & LUHMKUHL, D.M., 1986. Importance of insects in environmental impact assessment. Enviro. Manag., 10: 773-783.
RUIZ-JAÉN, M.C. & AIDE, M., 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor. Ecol., 13: 569-577.
SUMMERVILLE, K.S.; STEICHEN, R.M. & LEWIS, M.N., 2005. Restoring lepidopteran communities to oak savannas: contrasting influences of habitat quantity and quality. Restor. Ecol., 13: 120-128.
WALTZ, A. & COVINGTON, W., 2004. Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly richness and abundance: mechanisms of response. Restor. Ecol., 12: 85-96.
WEATHERS, K.C.; CADENASSO, M.L. & PICKETT, T.A., 2001. Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies, and the atmosphere. Conserv. Biol., 15: 1506-1514.
ZAR, J.H., 1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
