Corresponding author: Paulo A. V. Borges (
Academic editor: Luís Silva
This study explores the composition and structure of species communities associated with the native Azorean tree species
Ninety-four arthropod species totalling 10,313 specimens were collected on
Arthropod species were richer than bryophytes, lichens and vascular plants species. We found that
The present study shows that most islands present particular species distribution patterns without geographical correlation and that conservation programmes should be adapted to each Island. The study, therefore, calls for a specialisation of conservation programmes for each of the Islands.
NT and MTF are currently funded by the project from Direcção Regional do Ambiente—LIFE IP AZORES NATURA (LIFE17 IPE/PT/000010) (2019). PAVB, RE and RG are funded by the project AZORESBIOPORTAL–PORBIOTA (ACORES-01-0145-FEDER-000072) (2019).
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since it did not involve vertebrates.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Forest canopy represents the space between the soil and the atmosphere.
The difficulties in reaching forest canopy for sampling have long restricted the number of studies investigating biodiversity in this habitat (
Several studies showed the exceptional richness of arthropod communities in Azorean native forests (
It is in that context that we decided to fill the gap in Azores. We planned to investigate arthropod and plant communities associated with six main endemic tree species. We organised our investigation in a series of six studies. A first publication explored species communities associated with the Azorean cedar
The present study focuses on the Azorean endemic tree species
Endemic to the Azores, this species is common in submontane laurel forests and
Before Portuguese occupation and the process of forest cut for wood consumption and agriculture development,
Data related to arthropods were obtained within the scope of the BALA project (Biodiversity of Arthropods in the Laurisilva of the Azores) that started in 1999 (
Arthropods were sampled using a beating tray. We used a modified beating tray, which consisted of an inverted cloth funnel pyramid of 1 m wide and 60 cm deep. A plastic bag was placed at the tip where arthropods, leaves and small branches were collected (
Two kinds of data were assessed for this inventory: literature records (Suppl. material
More details on lichen and plants species sampling can be found in our previous work (
We described and compared the structure and the composition of species communities of
Therefore, for species composition, we compared Islands for their species richness, abundance, functional groups and feeding modes and, for species community structure, we investigated patterns of rarity with species abundance distribution models and with species community similarity analyses.
For all analysis, we used the complete dataset including juveniles and adult specimens identified at the species and morphospecies level (Suppl. material
Each species was assigned to a functional group (predator, herbivore, saprophyte and fungivore) and a feeding mode (external digestion and sucking, chewing and cutting, piercing and sucking, siphoning, not feeding) (see
We compared the different islands for their species abundances and richness. Islands were also compared for species abundance and richness within the different trophic functional groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test and a pairwise Dunn test.
We explored rarity patterns of communities using Preston octaves and alpha-gambin values.
We used unimodal gambin models to fit the species abundance distribution at the Archipelago level and in each Island separately. We compared gambin models shapes and the value of the parameter α change between Island communities.
We used Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) to examine the similarity between the different island communities with the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity metric. Bootstrapping approaches were used to analyse the significance of NMDS ordination. First, a Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance was performed using the function
In order to identify species that contributed the most to the dissimilarity observed between Islands, pairwise comparisons were performed using the function
All analyses were run using the R programme (
Vegetation data were analysed using a descriptive approach because datasets were not large enough to allow comparison between Islands (see Suppl. materials
We collected a total of 10,313 specimens, corresponding to 94 species and morphospecies, 50 families, 13 orders and three classes (Table
Considering species richness of the different islands and in the Archipelago as a whole, we found that endemic, native and introduced species were evenly distributed and no difference was observed amongst the three groups regarding their number of species (Fig.
At Island level, we found that over 94 species observed at the Archipelago level and 71 species were collected in Terceira (Table
Species collected belong to thirteen orders. We found that most species were spiders (
Considering the Archipelago as a whole, most specimens were from native species (about 50%), endemic species accounted for 44% of collected individuals, whereas introduced species account for only 6% of the collected individuals (Fig.
The six most abundant species have 50% of the total abundance: the native
Faial Island shows the highest number of specimens and Flores the lowest (Suppl. material
Considering the Archipelago as a whole (Fig.
At Island level,
Herbivores and predators represent about 80% of total species abundance and richness at the Archipelago level, as well as at the Island level. Herbivores were represented by 41 species (6159 specimens) and predators by 37 species (3225 specimens) (Fig.
A comparison between Islands showed that abundance of herbivores per unit sample was higher in FAI and the difference was significant between FAI and FLO (Suppl. material
Crossing functional and colonising groups, we found that most herbivores were endemics and native species, while most predators were introduced species. The distribution pattern was observed both for abundance and species richness (Suppl. materials
Species fall into four different feeding modes: external digestion and sucking; chewing and cutting; piercing and sucking; and siphoning. Very few species, 5% of the total species abundance (six species and 570 individuals), were siphoning species amongst them, five species were endemic species and one introduced species. Most individuals exhibited piercing and sucking feeding mode representing about 50% of the overall species abundance (5075 individuals). However, the chewing and cutting group was the most diverse group represented by 35 species (37% and 1581 individuals) (Fig.
Crossing analysis between feeding mode and colonising groups revealed a pattern similar to the functional group. Most endemic and native species were herbivores with piercing and sucking feeding mode and most introduced species were predators with external digestion and sucking (Suppl. materials
In this study, we considered rare species as those represented by seven individuals or less (see
Overall, 13% of species were represented by only one individual (singleton). At the Archipelago level, about 29% of introduced species and 10% of native species were represented by only one individual, whereas only 3% of endemic species were singletons. The proportions of singletons species were variable between the different Islands and the higher proportions were found within introduced species ranging from 25% in FLO Island to 80% in FAI Island (Suppl. material
Preston’s abundances frequency distribution, also called octaves (
The overall assemblage at the Archipelago level, showed a poisson log-normal distribution shape (PLN) (A) with abundances distributed into 12 octaves and 45% of species falling in the first three octaves 0, 1, 2 and, therefore, considered rare species (
Considering the three colonising groups, native species assemblage also showed the PLN shape Fig.
Analysis of gambin α-values are consistent with the shapes of the different models. Considering the Archipelago level, endemic species group showed the highest α-value (7.55) followed by native (2.32) and introduced (1.15) species. The same pattern was observed in the different Islands, except in FLO, where the introduced species group has the highest α-value (7.08), followed by native (3.52) and endemic (2.33) species (Fig.
We found high similarity between communities of Terceira (TER) and Pico (PIC) in one hand and, on the other hand, high dissimilarity between FLO and FAI (lowest (PIC-TER) and highest (FLO-FAI) Bray-Curtis index values) (Table
NMDS ordination also revealed that the different Islands were closer or more distant depending on whether we considered all species or species separated in different colonising statuses (Fig.
Considering all species: NMDS ordination (Fig.
Within endemic species, NMDS ordination (Fig.
ANOSIM sustained the structure observed in the different groups. Dissimilarities between the different Islands were all significant (P < 0.001) and R2 values indicated the highest dissimilarity within endemic species (R2 = 0.80), intermediate dissimilarity when considering all species (R2 = 0.66) or native species (R2 = 0.42) and very low dissimilarity within introduced species (R2 = 0.36).
There are only four vascular plants, epiphytes of
We found that
The 35 moss species belong to five orders (
The lichen community was composed of 32 species sorted into four classes (
A crucial point in a conservation programme is to accrue fine knowledge of species communities living in a particular system. In most ecosystems, the task is difficult, but thanks to their limited size and isolation, the probability to meet this fine grain knowledge in islands is high.
In the present study, carried out in Azores Islands, we explored arthropods and plant canopy species communities. We focused on species communities living on the endemic tree species
Arthropods species communities on
These results support those of a recent study in Azorean native forest, but whose samples were obtained with SLAM traps. Considering four dominant orders (
Amongst the thirteen orders collected in this study,
Our results support previous findings (
Our results revealed the dominance of herbivores and predators species representing up to 80% of both number of species and number of specimens. The proportion of functional groups is consistent with the taxonomic composition that we previously developed. In fact, most of
We found that this general pattern (dominance of herbivores tailed by predators and few saprophytes) was a common pattern observed in the different Islands. Moreover, the distribution of functional groups within the colonising groups was similar with some exceptions for the introduced taxa. The two fungivores species belong to the introduced taxa. We observed a dominance of saprophytes specimens in Flores (FLO) (> 50% of abundance).
Regarding species feeding mode, species communities found on
Investigations on rarity and similarity patterns show that community structure at the Archipelago level contrast most of Islands communities’ structures. Some Islands, like Terceira (TER) and Santa Maria (SMR), showed high similarity with the study at the Archipelago level. However, for the other Islands, similarities with Archipelago level seem to depend on the colonising status of the species.
At the Archipelago level as well as for all Islands, a gambin model log-series (LS) shape fitted introduced species distribution, indicating that most of the introduced species were rare. LS-shape models are characteristic of simple species communities with dominance of rare species and very few represented by high number of individuals (
On the other side, gambin models fitting endemic and native species distributions fitted log-normal (LN) and poisson log-normal (PLN) shapes. LN distributions are generally considered describing stable communities (
The present study suggests that introduced species communities are not yet well established on the
Patterns of similarity between different Islands mainly rely on the colonising status, whether species were endemic, native or introduced species. Considering all species, no clear pattern emerged, communities of the six Islands overlapped, showing high similarities in species assemblages.
Contrary to communities collected on
All species of vascular plants collected on
It is worth stressing that
About a fifth of the bryophytes, found associated with
Our study identifies the contribution of the endemic tree
At the Azorean scale, the study warns again generalisations, suggesting that most Islands present a particular species distribution pattern without geographical correlation and that conservation programmes should be adapted to each Island.
The authors of this manuscript would like to thank Sociedade de Gestão Ambiental e Conservação da Natureza – Azorina S.A. for the permission to use the scientific illustration of
Conceptualisation, NT, RG, RBE, and PAVB; data curation, RG, RBE and PAVB; formal analysis, NT; funding acquisition, RG, RBE, MTF and PAVB; investigation, NT, RG, RBE, MB; MTF and PAVB; methodology, NT, RG, RBE and PAVB; project administration, RG, RBE, MB; MTF and PAVB software, NT, supervision, RG, RBE and PAVB; validation, NT, RG, RBE, MB; MTF and PAVB; writing—original draft NT, RG, RBE and PAVB writing—review and editing, NT, RG, RBE, MB; MTF and PAVB. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Twig of
Proportion of overall arthropods species associated with
Proportion of arthropods species associated with
Specimens proportion of arthropods associated with
Abundance proportion of arthropods associated with
Abundance (
Abundance (
Species abundance distribution histograms for arthropods species communities associated with
Alpha values of Gambin models for species distributions for arthropods species communities associated with
Non-metric Dimensional Scaling (NMDS) with Bray-Curtis dissimilarities for arthropod species communities, associated with
Summary of arthropod taxa associated with
Families | Species | Specimens | |
|
|||
|
|||
|
7 | 11 | 1783 |
|
|||
|
2 | 2 | 44 |
|
4 | 9 | 1639 |
|
3 | 6 | 915 |
|
1 | 1 | 29 |
|
1 | 1 | 106 |
|
2 | 4 | 58 |
|
1 | 1 | 3 |
|
|||
|
|||
|
6 | 7 | 902 |
|
1 | 1 | 12 |
|
|||
|
1 | 1 | 379 |
|
2 | 2 | 35 |
|
7 | 10 | 3316 |
|
2 | 3 | 88 |
|
1 | 1 | 15 |
|
3 | 5 | 362 |
|
1 | 1 | 1 |
|
|||
|
|||
|
8 | 11 | 402 |
|
1 | 1 | 2 |
|
|||
|
1 | 1 | 38 |
|
|||
|
2 | 2 | 5 |
|
3 | 3 | 3 |
|
1 | 4 | 87 |
|
2 | 2 | 79 |
|
2 | 4 | 10 |
Total of number morphospecies and abundances for endemic (END), native non-endemic (NAT) and non-native introduced (INT) arthropods species associated with
|
|
|||||||||||
Total | END | NAT | INT | χ2 | p | Total | END | NAT | INT | χ2 | p | |
FAI | 577 | 112 | 456 | 9 | 569.8 | <0.0001 | 25 | 9 | 11 | 5 | 2.24 | 0.33 |
FLO | 313 | 181 | 111 | 21 | 123.3 | <0.0001 | 29 | 14 | 11 | 4 | 5.45 | 0.07 |
PIC | 954 | 432 | 454 | 68 | 295.6 | <0.0001 | 50 | 22 | 17 | 11 | 3.64 | 0.16 |
SMG | 1202 | 705 | 463 | 34 | 576.4 | <0.0001 | 52 | 21 | 19 | 12 | 2.58 | 0.28 |
SMR | 855 | 202 | 544 | 109 | 368.3 | <0.0001 | 38 | 15 | 13 | 10 | 1 | 0.61 |
TER | 6412 | 2945 | 3082 | 385 | 2159.4 | <0.0001 | 71 | 24 | 25 | 22 | 0.20 | 0.91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution of rare species. Sample coverage (SC) and the first seven frequency counts (f1 ... f7) for all endemic, native and introduced species in the six Islands (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira). The first seven frequencies indicate the numbers of species represented by only 1, 2, 3, ... 7 individuals (singletons, doubletons, tripletons etc.) and Propf1f7 indicates the proportion of the sum of the first seven frequencies (i.e. proportion of rare species) to the total number of species (see the total number of species in Table
SC | f1 | f2 | f3 | f4 | f5 | f6 | f7 | Propf1f7 | |
|
|||||||||
Total_total | 1 | 12 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 45 |
Total_Endemic | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
Total_Native | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 45 |
Total_Introduced | 0.99 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 79 |
|
|||||||||
Total_FAI | 0.98 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 80 |
Total_FLO | 0.98 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62 |
Total_PIC | 0.98 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 58 |
Total_SMG | 0.99 | 11 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 60 |
Total_SMR | 0.99 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 55 |
Total_TER | 1 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 46 |
|
|||||||||
Endemic_FAI | 0.96 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 |
Endemic_FLO | 0.97 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 |
Endemic_PIC | 0.99 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 |
Endemic_SMG | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 48 |
Endemic_SMR | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 47 |
Endemic_TER | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 21 |
|
|||||||||
Native_FAI | 0.99 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 73 |
Native_FLO | 0.99 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 |
Native_PIC | 0.99 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 53 |
Native_SMG | 0.99 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 53 |
Native_SMR | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 54 |
Native_TER | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 48 |
|
|||||||||
Introduced_FAI | 0.59 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Introduced_FLO | 0.96 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 |
Introduced_PIC | 0.93 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 |
Introduced_SMG | 0.83 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 92 |
Introduced_SMR | 0.96 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 |
Introduced_TER | 0.98 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 |
Alpha values and confidence intervals of species abundance distribution models for arthropods, collected on
α-value | CI95_low | CI95_high | |
|
|||
Total_total | 2.12 | 1.546 | 2.851 |
Total_Endemic | 7.55 | 4.444 | 12.455 |
Total_Native | 2.32 | 1.335 | 3.837 |
Total_Introduced | 1.15 | 0.582 | 2.097 |
|
|||
Total_FAI | 0.69 | 0.303 | 1.386 |
Total_FLO | 2.80 | 1.333 | 5.581 |
Total_PIC | 1.48 | 0.857 | 2.436 |
Total_SMG | 1.69 | 1.066 | 2.594 |
Total_SMR | 2.21 | 1.296 | 3.608 |
Total_TER | 2.19 | 1.497 | 3.136 |
|
|||
Endemic_FAI | 1.40 | 0.264 | 5.437 |
Endemic_FLO | 2.33 | 0.665 | 6.932 |
Endemic_PIC | 2.19 | 0.934 | 4.734 |
Endemic_SMG | 3.00 | 1.526 | 5.597 |
Endemic_SMR | 9.90 | 3.791 | 24.923 |
Endemic_TER | 11.84 | 5.973 | 22.764 |
|
|||
Native_FAI | 1.041 | 0.330 | 2.658 |
Native_FLO | 3.515 | 1.139 | 9.954 |
Native_PIC | 1.991 | 0.735 | 4.696 |
Native_SMG | 2.438 | 1.062 | 5.133 |
Native_SMR | 2.657 | 1.043 | 6.102 |
Native_TER | 2.779 | 1.471 | 4.947 |
|
|||
Introduced_FAI | 0.41 | 0.006 | 3.264 |
Introduced_FLO | 7.08 | 0.672 | 53.975 |
Introduced_PIC | 1.29 | 0.285 | 4.590 |
Introduced_SMG | 1.51 | 0.358 | 5.265 |
Introduced_SMR | 1.40 | 0.3186 | 4.787 |
Introduced_TER | 0.87 | 0.3583 | 1.846 |
Dissimilarity analysis between Islands for arthropod species communities, associated with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 | 19 | 21 | 23 | 13 |
|
0.84 |
|
25 | 22 | 17 | 24 |
|
0.8 | 0.67 |
|
40 | 29 | 41 |
|
0.87 | 0.78 | 0.66 |
|
26 | 46 |
|
0.78 | 0.7 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
|
33 |
|
0.78 | 0.62 | 0.5 | 0.61 | 0.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 8 |
|
0.77 | 14 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 10 |
|
0.78 | 0.71 | 22 | 18 | 13 | 18 |
|
0.91 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 21 | 12 | 17 |
|
0.76 | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.79 | 15 | 13 |
|
0.77 | 0.69 | 0.57 | 0.7 | 0.56 | 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 11 |
|
0.86 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 10 |
|
0.77 | 0.59 | 17 | 14 | 10 | 15 |
|
0.81 | 0.64 | 0.52 | 19 | 10 | 17 |
|
0.77 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 13 | 11 |
|
0.76 | 0.5 | 0.43 | 0.48 | 0.47 | 25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
|
0.96 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
|
0.75 | 0.84 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
|
0.88 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 12 | 4 | 8 |
|
0.83 | 0.88 | 0.76 | 0.86 | 10 | 9 |
|
0.79 | 0.88 | 0.6 | 0.66 | 0.79 | 22 |
List of references
Table
List of references used in the survey of mosses, liverworts (bryophytes) and lichens associated with
File: oo_629541.docx
Vascular plants - division
Table
List of vascular plants (Division
File: oo_629543.docx
Bryophytes- division
Table
List of liverworts (
File: oo_629544.xlsx
Bryophytes - division
Table
List of mosses (
File: oo_629545.xlsx
Lichens - division
Table
List of lichens (
File: oo_629546.xlsx
List of arthropod species associated with
Table
The classification system follows the general guidelines presented in Borges et al. (2010). The colonising status of each species is as follows: E – endemic; N – native; I – introduced. Islands coded as follows: FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira.
File: oo_626394.xlsx
Species richness in Islands
Figure
Comparison of standardised species richness values between the different Islands (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (A), endemic (B), native (C) and introduced (D) species. Different letters indicate significant differences between Islands, based on Dunn’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05).
File: oo_629370.docx
Standardised values of abundance in the different Islands
Table
Standardised values of abundance in the different Islands (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (Total), endemic (END), native (NAT) and introduced (INT) species.
File: oo_629374.docx
Abundance in Islands
Figure
Comparison of standardised abundance values between the different Islands (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (A), endemic (B), native (C) and introduced (D) species. Different letters indicate significant differences between Islands, based on Dunn’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05).
File: oo_629375.docx
Trophic groups in Islands
Figure
Comparison of standardised abundance values species according to their different trophic groups: herbivores (A), predator (B), aprophyte (S). Different letters indicate significant differences between Islands, based on Dunn’s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05). FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira. Fungivores are not represented as the group was represented by only two species and seven individuals present in three Islands (SMG, SMR, TER).
File: oo_629376.docx
Abundance proportion within functional groups for the different colonising status groups
Figure
Proportion of abundance per different functional groups at Archipelago (AZO) and Island level (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (A), endemic (B), native (C) and introduced (D) species. S - saprophyte; P - predator; H - herbivore; F – fungivore.
File: oo_658651.docx
Species richness within functional groups for the different colonising status groups
Figure
Proportion of species per different functional groups at Archipelago (AZO) and Island level (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (A), endemic (B), native (C) and introduced (D) species. S - saprophyte; P - predator; H - herbivore; F – fungivore.
File: oo_629378.docx
List of arthropod species associated with
Table
The classification system follows the general guidelines presented in Borges et al. (2010), with the higher taxa listed in a phylogenetic sequence, from the less derived to more derived groups. The families, genera and species are listed by alphabetical order. The colonisation status of each species is presented in the 5th column of the list as follows: E – endemic; N – native; I – introduced. The functional group is given in the 6th column as follows: P – predator; H – herbivore; S – saprophyte; F – fungivore; Ex – External digestion and sucking; Ch – Chewing and cutting; Pi - Piercing and sucking; Si - Siphoning; No – Not feeding. X indicates species occurrence in the different Islands FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira. Ten species identified only at the morphospecies level are not presented in the table.
File: oo_629379.docx
Proportion of abundance within feeding mode groups for the different colonising status groups
Figure
Proportion abundance per different feeding modes at Archipelago (AZO) and Island level (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (A), endemic (B), native (C) and introduced (D) species. S - saprophyte; P - predator; H - herbivore; F – fungivore and Ex - external digestion and sucking; Ch - chewing and cutting; Pi - piercing and sucking; Si - siphoning.
File: oo_629380.docx
Proportion of species within feeding mode groups for the different colonising status groups
Figure
Proportion of species per different feeding modes at Archipelago (AZO) and Island level (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) for all species (A), endemic (B), native (C) and introduced (D) species. S - saprophyte; P - predator; H - herbivore; F – fungivore and Ex - external digestion and sucking; Ch - chewing and cutting; Pi - piercing and sucking; Si - siphoning.
File: oo_629381.docx
Proportions of rare species
Table
Proportions of rare species (the first seven frequencies- Propf1f7), singleton species (represented by one individual Propf1), doubletons species (represented by two individuals-Propf2) and tripletons species (represented by three individual-Propf3). Proportions are calculated for all endemic, native and introduced species at the Archipelago level and in the six Islands (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira).
File: oo_629382.docx
Species abundance distribution histograms in Islands
Figure
Species abundance distribution histograms for arthropods collected in six Islands (FAI – Faial; FLO – Flores; PIC – Pico; SMG – São Miguel; SMR – Santa Maria; TER – Terceira) of Azores Archipelago with predicted values of the gambin model (black dots) all species (1st column.total), endemic (2nd column.End), native (3rd column.Nat) and introduced (4th column.Int) species. Graphs of the same column are scaled equally for the Y axis.
File: oo_629383.docx