Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38724571›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Effects of Eucalyptus wood and leaf litter on saproxylic insects in the southeastern United States.

Michael D Ulyshen, Scott Horn, Doug Aubrey, E Richard Hoebeke, David R Coyle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michael D UlyshenUSDA Forest Service, Athens, GA, USA. michael.d.ulyshen@usda.gov.
Scott HornUSDA Forest Service, Athens, GA, USA.
Doug AubreyWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E Green Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
E Richard HoebekeGeorgia Museum of Natural History and Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
David R CoyleDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA.

Funding

Department of Energy to the University of Georgia Research Foundation DE-EM0004391USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 2013-67009-21405USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 2013-67009-25148USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 2019-67019-29906U.S. Forest Service Savannah River DE-EM0003622
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although Eucalyptus is widely planted outside its native range for timber and pulp production, the effects of these exotic plantations on biodiversity relative to native semi-natural forests or plantations of native tree species remain incompletely understood. Here, we compare the diversity of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) and true bugs (Hemiptera) between non-native Eucalyptus benthamii Maiden and Cambage (Camden white gum) and native Pinus taeda L. (loblolly pine) stands on the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina, U.S.A. We sampled insects emerging from logs of both species placed in both stand types after 1, 2, 6, and 12 months in the field. Beetle and true bug richness and diversity were both significantly lower from eucalypt than from pine wood. Moreover, the two communities were compositionally distinct. Whereas pine supported many species of host-specific phloeoxylophagous beetles, most species collected from eucalypts were mycophagous or predatory taxa capable of utilizing a wide range of hosts. Species richness did not differ between logs placed in eucalypt vs. pine stands but Shannon's diversity was significantly higher in the eucalypt stands, possibly due to greater sun exposure in the latter. Contrary to a previous study, we found no support for the idea that eucalypt litter reduces the diversity of saproxylic insects. Our findings add to the growing body of evidence that non-native plantations are less favorable to biodiversity than those consisting of native tree species.

Indexed as

BiodiversityColeopteraEucalyptusPlant LeavesAnimalsForestsHemipteraSouth CarolinaSoutheastern United StatesWoodBiodiversityInvertebratesNovel ecosystemSuccession

Identifiers

PMID38724571
PMCPMC11082169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.