Assessing the success of mine restoration using Hemiptera as indicators
Gamal Orabi A B D , Melinda L. Moir A C and Jonathan D. Majer AA Department of Environment and Agriculture, Curtin University of Technology, PO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia.
B Present address: Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University, Ismalia, Egypt.
C School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: gamalorabi@hotmail.com
Australian Journal of Zoology 58(4) 243-249 https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO10033
Submitted: 9 May 2010 Accepted: 10 September 2010 Published: 13 October 2010
Abstract
Understanding trends in assemblage composition of key invertebrate groups can provide important insight into the ‘condition’ of, or changes in, the environment. Species density, abundance and composition of Hemiptera (true bugs) were assessed in jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) forest and a chronosequence of restored bauxite mine pits near Boddington, Western Australia, in order to evaluate how restoration was progressing. A significant difference was uncovered for hemipteran species density between the youngest restored treatment and forest. In contrast, hemipteran composition was distinct between the forest and all restored treatments. Hemipteran composition was associated with the presence of the plant species Conostylis setigera and Trichocline spathulata, and plant structure between 160–180 cm and 260–280, plus soil pH. Restoration was successful in returning Hemiptera with respect to species density, but restoration was yet to attain a similar composition of Hemiptera to that of unmined forest, despite some of the restored sites being almost 20 years old. These results are similar to those of other studies that have assessed the response of Hemiptera to disturbance, and highlight the need to wait for considerable periods in order to achieve restoration goals. This study also confirms the utility of Hemiptera as bioindicators of environmental ‘condition’ and change.
Additional keywords: Indicator species, bioindicators, insects, rehabilitation, bauxite.
Acknowledgements
We thank Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd for project funding, Lubomir Bisevac for field assistance, Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd and Ninox Wildlife Consulting for participating in survey work. We are also grateful for the constructive comments provided by two anonymous reviewers and the Editor.
Andersen, A. N. (1999). My bioindicator or yours? Making the selection. Journal of Insect Conservation 3, 61–64.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cherril, A. J. , and Rushton, S. P. (1993). The Auchenorhyncha of an unimproved moorland in northern England. Ecological Entomology 18, 95–103.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gibb, H. , and Cunningham, S. A. (2009). Does the availability of arboreal honeydew determine the prevalence of ecologically dominant ants in restored habitats? Insectes Sociaux 56, 405–412.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petersen, H. , and Luxton, M. (1982). A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes. Oikos 39, 288–388.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Samways, M. J. , Caldwell, P. M. , and Osborn, R. (1996). Ground-living invertebrate assemblages in native, planted and invasive vegetation in South Africa. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 59, 19–32.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Southwood, T. R. E. , Brown, V. K. , and Reader, P. M. (1979). The relationships of plant and insect diversities in succession. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London 12, 327–348.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
