the ezemvelo thesis - tutvital.tut.ac.za:8080

THE DIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF

BUPRESTID AND CERAMBYCID BEETLES ON EZEMVELO

NATURE RESERVE, GAUTENG PROVINCE

by

DUNCAN NEIL MACFADYEN

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MAGISTER TECHNOLOGIAE: NATURE CONSERVATION

Department of Nature Conservation

TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Supervisor: Prof. B.K. Reilly

Co Supervisor: Dr C.L. Bellamy

February 2005

DECLARATION

The compilation of this thesis and the work reported on is the result of the author’s

original work, unless specifically acknowledged, or stated to the contrary, in the text.

_________________________

2

D.N. MacFadyen September 2004

ABSTRACT

Understanding the extent and cause of insect diversity on a nature reserve is often

seen as a challenge to reserve management. Recent calculations that there may be

more than 20 million species of insects on earth have focused attention on their

magnitude and stimulated several new lines of research (although the true figure is

now widely thought to be between five and ten million species). This study discusses

work based on light trapping, beating and sweeping surveys, plant association,

seasonal change and community dynamics of Cerambycidae and Buprestidae, families

of the Order Coleoptera. It is argued that progress in estimating insect diversity in

understanding insect community dynamics will be enhanced by building local

inventories of species diversity, and in descriptive and experimental studies of the

structure of communities.

As can be seen from their diaries and notebooks, contemplation of how such

wonderful abundance and variety might arise was instrumental in pointing Darwin

and especially Wallace to the theory of natural selection (Godfray et al. 1999).

This study was undertaken to investigate the community structure of two families of

wood-boring beetles, providing a more systematic and quantitative approach to

cataloguing insect diversity in a protected area context.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following persons and organisations for their input to this

study:

The Tshwane University of Technology and E Oppenheimer & Son for financial

assistance.

Morgan Hauptfleish (reserve manager) for providing background information

regarding the management practices of Ezemvelo Nature Reserve. He is also thanked

for logistical support.

Dr C.L. Bellamy and Ruth Müller for taking the time and effort to aid in identification

of the numerous beetle specimens. Prof. George Bredenkamp is also thanked for

assistance with categorizing the plant features. The following people assisted me in

various capacities: Marion Burger, Tersia Perregil, Patrick Wood, Stuart Smith,

Nelius Uys, Willem van der Merwe and Tracey MacFadyen.

My parents, especially my father, Neil MacFadyen, for his support, motivation and

faith in me during the course of this study.

Prof. B.K. Reilly for his valued guidance, support and encouragement throughout the

course of this study. His tolerance, assistance and patience during the compilation of

this thesis was also sincerely appreciated.

Finally, I would like to thank Strilli Oppenheimer, whose great love for insects led to

this project being conceived.

4

INDEX

5

Declaration ...……………………………………………………………………………

Abstract ….………………………….…………………………………………………..

Acknowledgements ...……………………………………………………………….......

Index …………………………………………………………………………………….

Chapter One

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………

1.1 Views of the insect community ……………………………………....................

1.2 Rationale for this study …………………………………………………………

1.3 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………….

1.4 Hypotheses …………………………………………………..………………….

Chapter Two

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………………

2.1 STUDY AREA…………………………………………………………………..

2.1.1 Phytosociology……………………………………………………………….......

2.1.2 Geology…………………………………………………………………………..

2.1.3 Soil……………………………………………………………………………….

2.1.4 Climate……………………………………………………………………….......

2.1.5 Hydrology………………………………………………………………………..

PAGE

1

2

3

4

32

35

36

37

37

38

38

39

40

40

40

40

PAGE

6

2.1.6 Vegetation………………………………………………………………………..

2.2 METHODS……………………………………………………………………..

2.2.1 Preparatory Work………………………………………………………………...

2.2.2 Reconnaissance…………………………………………………………………..

2.2.3 Stand and quadrant dimensions…………………………………………………..

2.2.4 Positioning of quadrats……………………………………………………….......

2.2.5 Field location of quadrats………………………………………………………...

2.2.6 Layout and orientation of quadrats………..……………………………………..

2.3 Field data collection……………………………………………………………..

2.3.1 Abiotic factors……………………………………………………………….......

2.3.2 Biotic factors…………………………………………………………………….

2.3.2.1 Plants…………………………………………………………………………….

2.3.2.2 Beetle families…………………………………………………………………..

2.3.3 Collection methods………………………………………………………………

2.3.3.1 Beating method………………………………………………………………….

2.3.3.2 Sweeping method………………………………………………………………..

2.3.3.3 Sheet trap method………………………………………………………………..

2.3.4 Identification of beetles…………………………………………………………..

2.3.5 Data preparation………………………………………………………………….

2.3.6 Statistical analysis………………………………………………………………..

2.3.6.1 Chi Square analysis………..……………………………………………………..

2.3.6.2 Cramér’s V analysis………………………………………………………….......

6

2.3.6.2 Cramér’s V analysis………………………………………………………….......

Chapter Three

3. RESULTS………………………………………………………………………

3.1 Cerambycidae data…..………………………………..………………………….

3.1.1 Total Cerambycidae data……………….………………………………..............

3.1.2 Quadrat A……………………………………………………..…………….......

3.1.3 Quadrat B………………………………………………………………….........

3.1.4 Quadrat C……………………………………………………………………….

3.2 Buprestidae data……………………...………………………………………….

3.2.1 Total Buprestidae data……………………………………………………….....

3.2.2 Quadrat A……..…………………………………………………………….....

3.2.3 Quadrat B…………………………………………………………………….....

3.2.4 Quadrat C…………………………………………………………………….....

3.3 Ecological processes affecting Cerambycidae and Bupresridae on ENR………..

3.4 Cerambycidae/Plant correlation………..……………………………………….

3.4.1 Plant order correlation………………………………………………………….

3.4.2 Plant family correlation…...……………………………………………….......

3.4.3 Plant species correlation…………………...…………………………………...

3.4.4 Plant flower size correlation……………………………………………………

7

3.4.5 Plant phenology correlation…………………………………………………...

3.4.6 Plant pollination………………………………………………………………...

3.4.7 Plant climate………………………………………………………………….....

3.5 Buprestidae/Plant correlation…………………………………………………….

3.5.1 Plant order correlation……………………………………………………….......

3.5.2 Plant family correlation………………………………………………………….

3.5.3 Plant species correlation…………...…………………………………………….

3.5.4 Plant flower size correlation…….………………………..………………….......

3.5.5 Plant phenology correlation……….………………..……………………………

3.5.6 Plant pollination………………………………………………………………….

3.5.7 Plant climate………………………………………………………………….......

3.6 Discussion………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Four

4. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………

4.1 Classification of Buprestoidea…………………………………………………...

4.2 Classification of Cerambycidae………………………………………………….

4.3 Factors influencing the abundance and diversity on ENR………………...……..

4.3.1 Cerambycidae abundance and diversity on ENR…………………………….......

4.3.2 Buprestidae abundance and diversity of ENR………...…………………………

4.4 Overview…………………………………………………………………………

8

Chapter Five

4 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF

CERAMBYCIDAE AND BUPRESTIDAE ON EZEMVELO NATURE

RESERVE…………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Six

5 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Seven

6 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of South Africa showing Ezemvelo Nature Reserves positioning on the

border of Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces……………………………….

Figure 2: The greater Telperion Nature Reserve with Ezemvelo Nature Reserve on the

western boundary divided by the Wilge River………………………………...

Figure 3: The Wilge river on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve is dominated by rocky

outcrops and woody vegetation………………………………………………

9

Figure 4.1: Ezemvelo Nature Reserve and quadrats (A, B & C) with

overlaying slope classes…………………………………………………….

Figure 4.2: Ezemvelo Nature Reserve and quadrats (A, B & C)

with overlaying altitude categories………………………………………....

Figure 4.3: Ezemvelo Nature Reserve and quadrats (A, B & C) with

overlaying aspect classes…………………………………………………...

Figure 4.4: Broad vegetation zones of Ezemvelo Nature Reserve

showing placement of quadrats A,B & C…………………………………..

Figure 5.1.1: Transect line A1 within quadrat A in September 2001

on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………………………………





Figure 5.2.1: Transect line B1 within quadrat B in September 2001

10


on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………….................................................


on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………..



Figure 5.3.1: Transect line C1 within quadrat C in September 2001





on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………...

Figure 6.1.1: The beating method being used on Protea caffra in

quadrat C on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve…………………………………..

Figure 6.1.2: The beating method being used on Acacia caffra in

quadrat A on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve…………………………………..

Figure 6.2: The sweeping method being used on Acacia caffra

in quadrat A on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………………..

Figure 6.3: The sheet trap method being used in quadrat B

on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve in October 2001…………………………….

Figure 7.1: Anubis clavicornis………………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.2: Anubis mellyi………………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.3: Anthracocentrus capensis…………………………………………………………

Figure 7.4: Ceroplesis thunbergi……………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.5: Coptoeme krantzi…………………………………………………………………...

Figure 7.6: Crossotus lacunosus………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.7: Crossotus plumicornis……………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.8: Crossotus stypticus…………………………………………………………………

11

Figure 7.9: Hecyra terrea……………………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.10: Hypoeschrus ferreirae……………………………………………………………

Figure 7.11: Jonthodina sculptilis……………………………………………………………...

Figure 7.12: Lasiopezus longimanus…………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.13: Macrotoma natala………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.14: Macrotoma palmate………………………………………………………………

Figure 7.15: Mycerinicus brevis………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.16: Nemotragus helvolus……………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.17: Olenecamptus albidus…………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.18: Ossibia fuscata…………………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.19: Pacydissus sp………………………………………………………………………

12

Figure 7.20: Phantasis giganteus………………………………………………………………

Figure 7.21: Philematium natalense…………………………………………………………...

Figure 7.22: Phryneta spinator…………………………………………………………………

Figure 7.23: Phyllocnema latipes……………………………………………………………...

Figure 7.24: Plocaederus denticornis………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.25: Dalterus degeeri…………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.26: Dalterus dejeani…………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.27: Prosopocera lactator……………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.28: Alphitopola octomaculata………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.29: Taurotagus klugi…………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.30: Tithoes maculates…………………………………………………………………

Figure 7.31: Tragiscoschema bertolinii……………………………………………………….

13

Figure 7.32: Xystrocera erosa…………………………………………………………………..

Figure 7.33: Xystrocera dispar…………………………………………………………………

Figure 7.34: Zamium bimaculatum…………………………………………………………….

Figure 7.35: Zamium incultum………………………………………………………………….

Figure 8: Monthly sampling frequencies for the total Cerambycidae collected for 2001

on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………

Figure 9.1: Total Cerambycidae count trend versus average minimum temperature for

the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve for January 2001 to

December 2001…………………………………………………………

Figure 9.2: Total Cerambycidae count trend versus average maximum

temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve

for January 2001 to December 2001………………………………………

Figure 9.3: Total Cerambycidae count trend versus average monthly

rainfall for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve

for January 2001 to December 2001………………………………………

14

Figure 10: Monthly sampling frequencies for Cerambycidae collected

in quadrat A for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………

Figure 11.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat A versus average minimum


between January 2001 to December 2001………………………………...

Figure 11.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat A versus average maximum


between January 2001 to December 2001………………………………...

Figure 11.3: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat A versus average monthly

rainfall for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between

January 2001 to December 2001…………………………………………..

Figure 12: Monthly sampling frequencies for Cerambycidae collected

in quadrat B for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………

Figure 13.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average minimum


between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………...

Figure 13.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum


between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………….

Figure 13.3: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average monthly rainfall

for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January

2001 and December 2001…………………………………………………

Figure 14: Monthly sampling frequencies for Cerambycidae collected in quadrat C for

2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………

Figure 15.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average minimum



Figure 15.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average maximum



Figure 15.3: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average monthly rainfall

for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January

2001 and December 2001…………………………………………………

15

Figure 16: Monthly sampling frequencies of Cerambycidae between three quadrats on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve…………………………………………………

Figure 17.1: Acmaeodera aenea………………………………………………………………

Figure 17.2: Acmaeodera albivillosa…………………………...……………………………

…

Figure 17.3: Agrilus guerryi………………………..………………………………………….

Figure 17.4: Sphenoptera sinuosa………………………..…………………………………….

Figure 17.5: Acmaeodera punctatissima………………….…………………………………..

Figure 17.6: Acmaeodera inscripta…………..………………………………………………...

Figure 17.7: Acmaeodera ruficaudis……..…………………………………………………….

Figure 17.8: Agrilus sexguttatus………………..……………………..………………………

Figure 17.9: Acmaeodera stellata………………….……….…………………………………..

Figure 17.10: Acmaeodera viridiaenea………………………………………………………

16

Figure 17.11: Anthaxia sp. 1…………………………………..………………………………...

Figure 17.12: Chrysobothris algoensis………………………………….…………………….

Figure 17.13: Chrysobothris boschismanni………………………………………………….

Figure 17.14: Chrysobothris dorsata…………………………………………………………

Figure 17.15: Evides pubiventris…..…………………...………………………………..

Figure 17.16: Lampetis gregaria……………………..……………………………………….

Figure 17.17: Phlocteis exasperata…………………………………………………………...

Figure 17.18: Pseudagrilus beryllinus………………………………………………………..

Figure 17.19: Lampetis conturbata…..……………………………………………………….

Figure 17.20: Sphenoptera arrowi……………………………………………………………

Figure 17.21: Sternocera orissa……………….……………………………….……………..

17

Figure18: Monthly sampling frequencies for total Buprestidae collected for 2001 on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………………

Figure19.1: Total Buprestidae count versus average minimum temperature for the

months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001

and December 2001……………………………………………………….

Figure 19.2: Total Buprestidae count versus average maximum temperature for the


and December 2001……………………………………………………….

Figure 19.3: Total Buprestidae count versus average monthly rainfall for the months of

the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and

December 2001……………………………………………………………

Figure 20: Monthly sampling frequencies for Buprestidae collected in quadrat A for

2001 at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve...............................................................

Figure 21.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average minimum



Figure 21.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average maximum


18


Figure 21.3: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average monthly rainfall for

the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January

2001and December 2001………………………………………………….

Figure 22: Monthly sampling frequencies for Buprestidae collected in quadrat B for

2001 at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………………………….

Figure 23.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat B versus average minimum


between January 2001 to December 2001………………………………….

Figure 23.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum


between January 2001 to December 2001………………………………….

Figure 23.3: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average monthly rainfall for

the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001

to December 2001………..............................................................................19

Figure 24: Monthly sampling frequencies for Buprestidae collected in quadrat C for

2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve…………………………………………

Figure 25.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average minimum


between January 2001 and December 2001………………………………...

Figure 25.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average maximum



Figure 25.3: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average monthly rainfall for

the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between

January 2001 and December 2001………………………………………...

Figure 26: Monthly sampling frequencies of Buprestidae between the three quadrats


Figure 27: Monthly sample comparison between Buprestidae and Cerambycidae on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve…………………………………………………..

Figure 28.1: Relationship between Tree Orders and Cerambycidae species collected on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001…

……………………………………………………………………..

Figure 28.2: Relationship between Tree Family and Cerambycidae species collected

on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001and December

2001……………………………………………………………………….

Figure 28.3: Relationship between plant species and Cerambycidae species collected

on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December

2001………………………………………………………………………

Figure 28.4: Relationship between flower size and Cerambycidae species collected on


…………………………………………………………………….

Figure 28.5: Relationship between plant phenology and Cerambycidae species

collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and

December 2001…………………………………………………………..

20

Figure 28.6: Relationship between plant pollination and Cerambycidae species


December 2001……………………………………………………………

Figure 28.7: Relationship between plant climate and Cerambycidae species collected


2001………………………………………………………………………..

Figure 29.1: Relationship between Tree Orders and Buprestidae species collected on


……………………………………………………..........................

Figure 29.2: Relationship between plant family and Buprestidae species collected on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December

2001…..........................................................................................................

Figure 29.3: Relationship between plant species and Buprestidae species collected on


……………………………………………………………………..

Figure 29.4: Relationship between flower size and Buprestidae species collected on


……………......................................................................................

21

Figure 29.5: Relationship between plant phenology and Buprestidae species


December 2001……….............................................................................

Figure 29.6: Relationship between plant pollination and Buprestidae species collected


2001……………………………………………………………………….

Figure 29.7: Relationship between plant climate and Buprestidae species collected on


……………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of species not identified to species level…………………………………...

Table 2: The analysis of the regression indicates a significant linear trend or

insignificant linear trend of the following parameters for Cerambycidae on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………………..

Table 3: The analysis of the regression indicates the degree of linear trend for the first

six months of the year for Cerambycidae on Ezemvelo Nature

Reserve...............................................................................................................

22

Table 4: The analysis of the regression indicates the degree of linear trend for the last

six months of the year for Cerambycidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………

………………………………………………………………...

Table 5: The analysis of the regression indicates a significant linear trend or

insignificant linear trend of the following parameters for Buprestidae on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………..........................................................

Table 6: The analysis of the regression indicates the degree of linear trend for the first

six months of the year for Buprestidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………..

Table 7: The analysis of the regression indicates the degree of linear trend for the last

six months of the year for Buprestidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve...............

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix A Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of

the year in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………………...

Appendix B Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month of the year in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………

23

Appendix C Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of

the year in quadrat A on ENR………..........................................................

Appendix D Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month of the year in quadrat A on ENR…………………………………..

Appendix E Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of

the year in quadrat B on ENR…..................................................................

Appendix F Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month of the year in quadrat B on ENR………….......................................

Appendix G Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of

the year in quadrat C on ENR…………………..........................................

Appendix H Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month of the year in quadrat C on ENR……………...................................

Appendix I Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the

year in all quadrats on ENR……………………………………………….

Appendix J Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month

of the year in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………………

Appendix K Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the

year in quadrat A on ENR…………………………………………………

Appendix L Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month

of the year in quadrat A on ENR…………………………………...

Appendix M Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the

year in quadrat B on ENR…………………………………………………

Appendix N Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month

of the year in quadrat B on ENR………….....................................

Appendix O Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the

year in quadrat C on ENR…………………………………………………

Appendix P Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month

of the year in quadrat C on ENR……….......................................................

Appendix Q Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and

associated plant Orders in all quadrats on ENR…………………………...

Appendix R Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

24

Appendix R Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month and associated plant Orders in all quadrats on ENR……………...

Appendix S Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

families in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………………...

Appendix T Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for and

associated plant families in all quadrats on ENR………………………….

Appendix U Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and

associated plant species in all quadrats on ENR…………………………..

Appendix V Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month and associated plant species in all quadrats on ENR………………

Appendix W Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and

associated decideous or non-deciduous plants in all quadrats on ENR……

…………………………………………………………………..

Appendix X Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month and associated deciduous or non-deciduous plants in all quadrats

on ENR…………………………………………………………………..

25

Appendix Y Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and

associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR………………………

Appendix Z Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month and associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR……..........

Appendix AA Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month

and associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR….............................

Appendix AB Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each

month and associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR…...............

Appendix AC Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month

and associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR………………………

Appendix AD Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for

associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR…………………………...

Appendix AE Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

Orders in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………………...

Appendix AF Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for

associated plant Orders in all quadrats on ENR…….................................

26

Appendix AG Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

families in all quadrats on ENR………….................................................

Appendix AH Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for

associated plant families in all quadrats on ENR………………………...

Appendix AI Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

species in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………………..

Appendix AJ Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated

plant species in all quadrats on ENR…………………………

Appendix AK Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

phenology in all quadrats on ENR……………………………………….

Appendix AL Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for

associated deciduous or non-deciduous plants in all quadrats on ENR…

………………………………………………………………….

Appendix AM Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

pollination in all quadrats on ENR……………………………………...

Appendix AN Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for

27

associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR……………………

Appendix AO Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant

climate in all quadrats on ENR…………………………………………

Appendix AP Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for

associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR………………………..

Appendix AQ Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated flower

size in all quadrats on ENR……………………………………...............

Appendix AR Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for

associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR…………………………...

Appendix AS Cerambycidae light trap results for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve…

……………………………………………………………….

Appendix AT Buprestidae light trap results for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……

……………………………………………………………...

Chapter One

1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to quantify the species diversity and abundance of two

families of Coleoptera (beetles), the Cerambycidae and Buprestidae on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve with reference to seasonality, vegetation and climate.

Invertebrates comprise the bulk of global species richness, and the loss of invertebrate

species will constitute much of the loss of biodiversity (New 1993; Samways 1994;

New & Yen 1995; Scholtz & Chown 1995). The importance of these two families of

wood boring beetles to various ecological processes and the aforementioned

biodiversity should not be underestimated. In addition, invertebrates may be used as

effective bio-indicators of environmental change (Jansen 1987; Kremen et al. 1993;

New 1993; Kremen 1994; New & Yen 1995; Weaver 1995). Most invertebrate

studies have focused mainly on soil-dwelling insects and those considered pests to

crops and timber. According to Hull et al. (1998), no studies have examined the

7

distribution of phytophagous insects and the identification of priority areas that would

be required to conserve them, although phytophages represent the highest proportion

of terrestrial insect species (Lawton & Strong 1981).

Information pertaining to host plants and the association of different species is vital to

conservation of the biodiversity of these beetles. It is necessary to calculate the

abundance and diversity of beetles on various plants species.

According to Holm & Bellamy (1985), very little is known of the biology of most

buprestid taxa, except that they are among the most thermophilic insects known, and

the larval stages are often prolonged compared to those of the adult.

In southern Africa, only three studies have sought to investigate areas for conservation

of insect taxa (Freitag & Mansell 1997; Muller et al 1997; Hull et al. 1998). Selection

of priority conservation areas based on species richness has been shown to be highly

insufficient in southern Africa (Kershaw et al. 1994; Freitag & Van Jaarsveld, 1995;

Williams et al. 1996). This study therefore provides an important component to

conservation of these two families, especially within the Bankenveld (61) veld type.

According to Noss (1990), Pickett et al. (1992) and Walker (1992), information on

phytophagous insects is of importance if priority areas are to be selected on the basis

of maintaining ecosystem functioning and not simply species richness.

8

Many populations of insect species have declined markedly over recent years,

primarily as a result of agricultural intensification (Aebischer 1991; Feber et al. 1997;

Benton et al. 2002). There are few large animals and plants left to be discovered in

the world (Godfray et al. 1999), yet our ignorance about the number of insects on

earth (and, more generally, the total number of all species on earth) is largely due to

lack of knowledge regarding certain groups. We know from well studied groups that

fewer species are described from smaller insects and not a result of insufficient

sampling of the smaller species (Dial & Marzluff 1988).

Classifying species into functional groups that are ecologically relevant (Simberloff &

Dayan 1991; Peeters et al. 2001), allows comparisons and generalizations to be made

about insects that are not possible using taxonomic groupings alone. Plant functional

groups have been used extensively to determine responses to climate change based on

their photosynthetic pathways, plant lifespan, above-ground biomass and geographical

location (Bazzaz 1990; Cammell & Knight 1992; Landsberg & Stafford Smith 1992;

Paruelo & Lauenroth 1995; Condit et al. 1996; Diaz & Cabido 1997; Cornelissen et

al. 2001; Dormann & Woodin 2002; Epstein et al. 2002; Richardson et al. 2002).

As bemoaned by May (1988, 1990) and others, a century and a half later we have only

a rough idea of the actual dimensions of insect species diversity, and an even poorer

understanding of the processes through which it is generated and maintained. The

sheer weight of the number of species oppresses the whole subject matter (Godfray et

al. 1999), and with the exception of a few taxonomic groups, of which butterflies are

the most prominent, field identification is impossible or very difficult. But a hundred

9

years ago the situation was not that different for botanists confronted with forests,

which might contain several hundred tree species per square kilometre (Godfray et al.

1999). This study suggests that insect ecologists can learn from the success plant

ecologists have had in understanding diversity, even if like a puzzle, families of

insects can be studied individually and through time a similar situation will prevail as

with plants. As suggested by Godfray et al. (1999), entomologists should follow the

example of plant ecologists.

The floral inventories are more than just species lists, but include the various

characteristics of the plant. They provide a baseline that allows other more poorly

known sites to be assessed for species diversity, structure and abundance. This is the

massive task insect ecologists have to tackle. This study provides the fundamental

answers to diversity and ecological requirements of two families of wood boring

beetles on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

1.1 Views of the insect community

The populations of plants and phytophagous insects living together in a given

environment and interacting with one another to form a distinct living system

constitute a biotic community (Storer et al. 1979). Communities are often named for

some dominant feature, biotic or physical; e.g., Acacia woodland, Riverine thicket.

The species composition of a community depends on climate and historical

(evolutionary) factors.

10

Some communities have rather sharp boundaries where ranges of some of the more

conspicuous species stop, but other communities grade into one another in varying

degrees (Storer et al. 1979). Sudden changes often occur when environmental

gradients (in temperature, moisture, soil conditions) are steep or change abruptly. The

extent of interaction between community members varies. In general, diversity tends

to increase in communities with time by the addition of species differing in niche and

habitat (Storer et al. 1979). In most communities a few species are dominant over

others in numbers or physical characteristics or both. A natural community has been

compared by analogy to an organism.

Each species is a separate entity with its own hereditary mechanism responding to

natural selection in its own way, although influenced in the community context

(Storer et al. 1979). A community of organisms and their nonliving environment at

any one place together constitute an ecosystem (Storer et al. 1979).

1.2 Rationale for this study

A study conducted in 1999 under the auspices of the University of Pretoria provided

an overview of the broad vegetation types on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve (ENR),

followed by a brief one week of invertebrate study conducted by the Transvaal

Museum in 2004. Unfortunately these studies were very superficial and no connection

was made between the two from an ecological point of view. The need for a

comprehensive inventory of wood boring beetles and their associated host plants was

necessary. Large mammals have had numerous studies undertaken on them, yet the

most abundant of all species on the reserve, the invertebrates, were practically

11

untouched from a research perspective. This document will serve as the foundation

for future studies in the field of entomology on ENR that has been lacking to date.

The present study investigates species richness, abundance and plant preference of

Cerambycidae and Buprestidae between January 2001 and December 2001. This

study provides an estimate of the species richness of these two families in a

Bakenveld (Acocks veldtype 61) reserve. Ezemvelo Nature Reserve has extreme

variations in temperature, which is associated with seasonal change. This study also

aims to identify plants species that are key to absence or presence of species of

beetles.

1.3 Objectives

To quantify species diversity and abundance of beetles of the families

Cerambycidae and Buprestidae on ENR,

To establish correlations between Cerambycidae and Buprestidae and woody plant

species on ENR,

To determine seasonal variation in abundance of Cerambycidae and Buprestidae

on ENR,

To endeavour to predict those factors likely to affect the population densities of

species within these families on ENR,

To determine criteria from which the conservation of these two families can be

incorporated into the reserves management plan.

12

1.4 Hypotheses

The null hypothesis is cerambycid and buprestid beetle species occur

independently of vegetation and time on ENR.

The alternative hypothesis is Cerambycid and Buprestid beetle species occur

dependently of vegetation and time on ENR.

Chapter Two

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 STUDY AREA

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve is situated on the border between Gauteng and

Mpumalanga, 25 km North-East of Bronkhorstspruit (Figure 1.).

13

Figure 1: Map of South Africa showing Ezemvelo Nature Reserves positioning

on the border of Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces.

ENR lies on the farm Elandsfontein 493 JR, between the 25 38` S and 28 53` E. ENR

is situated in what is referred to as the Rocky Highveld Grassland or Bankenveld

(Veldtype 61) (Acock’s 1988), in a Grassland Biome. ENR forms the western section

of the Telperion Nature Reserve (Figure 2).

N

Figure 2: The greater Telperion Nature Reserve with Ezemvelo Nature

Reserve on the western boundary divided by the Wilge River.

14

2.1.1 Phytosociology

The landscape and topography are dominated by grassy plains, interspersed with

rocky outcrops dominated by woody species. The lower lying, more steeply sloped

areas tend to be dominated by rocky woodlands (Grobler 1999).

2.1.2 Geology

The area lies on the Wilge River, Ecca and Dwyka formations of the Waterberg and

Karoo groups, which were formed during the Mokolian and Palaeozoic eras

respectively (Grobler 1999).

2.1.3 Soil

The lithology is dominated by Arenite-Conglomerate, which produces dystrophic or

mesotrophic soils with some red soils, as well as rocky areas with miscellaneous soil.

The Tilite-Arenite produces some rocky areas with miscellaneous soils, as do shale

based soils (Grobler 1999).

2.1.4 Climate

The area receives summer rainfall averaging between 650 mm and 700 mm per year.

The temperature reaches a maximum of 39 ˚C and lows of –12 ˚C (Louw & Rebelo

1988). The average minimum and maximum temperatures are 3 ˚C and 28 ˚C. The

highest average rainfall is recorded in January. Frost occurs readily in winter from

May to August (Bornman 1995).

15

2.1.5 Hydrology

ENR is bounded by the perennial Wilge river (Figure 3.) and contains three streams

that originate from higher lying wetlands and sponge areas (Grobler 1999).

Figure 3: The Wilge River on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve is dominated by rocky

outcrops and woody vegetation.

2.1.6 Vegetation

The grass layer is thought to be maintained by frequent fires, usually not including

rocky outcrops. The protection in the rocky areas against frost in winter, also plays an

16

important role in the distribution of the woody plant species (Louw & Rebelo 1988).

Rocky hills and ridges carry bushveld vegetation dominated by Protea caffra, Acacia

caffra, A. karoo and Celtis africana.

2.2 METHODS

Cerambycidae and Buprestidae were sampled monthly for one year, from January

2001 (summer) to December 2001 (summer), a total of twelve collections. The basic

procedure of the beating method (Holm 1984) was employed on all trees and shrubs

within the three pre-selected quadrats. The object of a beating sheet is to capture

invertebrates which do not fly readily at low temperatures. The sweeping method

(Holm 1984) is used at high temperatures where insect activity is great. The method

of light trapping (Holm 1984) is utilized in the evenings when collecting species

attracted to light.

2.2.1 Preparatory Work

2.2.2 Reconnaissance

A reconnaissance is the preliminary inspection or familiarization of the study area

prior to sampling which has the object of estimating floristic and environmental

variation, familiarization with the flora and to obtain permission from authorities for

later work and accommodation possibilities (Westfall 1992; Westfall et al. 1996).

17

This exercise was completed in January 2001 during which time three quadrats were

placed randomly in different major vegetation types.

2.2.3 Stand and quadrat dimensions

The concept of stand and sampling plot or quadrat, which are fundamental elements

of the Braun-Blauquet approach (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974; Westhoff &

Van der Maarel 1980) were placed at each stand of vegetation. A stand is defined as a

portion of vegetation that is relatively homogenous in all layers (species composition,

growth form and density) and differs from the contiguous types by either quantitative

or qualitative characteristics (Daubenmire 1969, In: Panagos 1995). The plot or

quadrant refers to a unit that has a measurable area (Panagos 1995) which is placed

within the stand from which data is collected (Westhoff & Van der Maarel 1980).

2.2.4 Positioning of quadrats

Grunow (1996), Westfall (1992) and Westfall et al. (1997) have emphasized the need

for the reduction in or elimination of observer bias with regard to sampling and

classification. For this study, due to the reserve being primarily grassland, the three

quadrats were confined to wooded areas along the rocky outcrops and riverine areas.

Three transects were placed in each quadrat to incorporate different plant

communities, where host plants representing different species were studied. This

included different slope classes (Figure 4.1), altitude (Figure 4.2) and aspect (Figure

4.3) to ensure the entire spectrum was incorporated.

18

Figure 4.1: Ezemvelo Nature Reserve and quadrats (A, B & C) with overlaying

slope classes.

19

Figure 4.2: Ezemvelo Nature Reserve and quadrats (A, B & C) with overlaying

altitude categories.

Figure 4.3: Ezemvelo Nature Reserve and quadrats (A, B & C) with overlaying aspect

classes.

20

KEY

Acacia caffradominated

Acacia karoo/Gymnosporiabuxifolia dominated

Protea caffradominated

Figure 4.4: Broad vegetation zones of Ezemvelo Nature Reserve showing placement of

quadrats A, B & C.

2.2.5 Field location of quadrats

Location of predetermined stands was uncomplicated due to the nature of the terrain

as areas sampled were islands of wooded vegetation surrounded by grassland (Figure

4.4).

2.2.6 Layout and orientation of quadrats

Three quadrats with nine transect lines were positioned resulting in approximately one

kilometre of vegetation being surveyed for beetle activity per quadrat. The three

quadrats were randomly placed within each selected stand of vegetation. Each quadrat

21

measured 200 m in length and 100 m in width. In this study, the quadrats were

designated A, B and C. Chevron tape was used to mark the positioning of the three

transect lines within each quadrat. The three lines were spaced 30 m apart and placed

through the quadrat. The transect lines in this study were designated A1, A2, A3, B1,

B2, B3 and C1, C2, C3 respectively (Figure 5.1.1; Figure 5.1.2; Figure 5.1.3; Figure

5.2.1; Figure 5.2.2; Figure 5.2.3; Figure 5.3.1; Figure 5.3.2; Figure 5.3.3). These

quadrats were examined both separately and in combination to determine whether the

efficiency and identity of area selection for each site changed with changing

topography. Because the number of quadrats that can ultimately be selected for

surveys is likely to be limited by economic and other considerations, a primary aim in

quadrat selection must be to represent all attributes in as small an area as possible

(Kershaw et al. 1994). Monthly calculations of beetles collected within each quadrat

were calculated, as was the total number within all quadrats.

Figure 5.1.1: Transect line A1 within quadrat A in September 2001 on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve.

22


Nature Reserve.


Nature Reserve.

23

Figure 5.2.1: Transect line B1 within quadrat B in September 2001 on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve.


Nature Reserve.

24


Nature Reserve.

Figure 5.3.1: Transect line C1 within quadrat C in September 2001 on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve.

25


Nature Reserve.


Nature Reserve.

2.3 Field data collection

2.3.1 Abiotic factors

26

At each quadrat the following data were recorded:

• Topography (crest, mid-slope, foot-slope, riverine);

• Slope in degrees (estimated);

• Aspect (estimated);

• Disturbances (i.e. management road, game path, fire);

• Climate (i.e. rainfall, temperature).

2.3.2. Biotic factors

2.3.2.1 Plants

All trees and shrubs within the quadrats were identified and categorized according to

Order, Family, Species, flower size, phenology, climate and pollination.

Plants that could not be positively identified were forwarded to the National Botanical

Institute in Pretoria for identification. The three quadrats were examined both

separately and in combination to determine whether observed differences occurred.

2.3.2.2 Beetle families

2.3.2.2.1 Cerambycidae

The very large family Cerambycidae, generally known as longhorn beetles, contains

numerous wood-boring species, but also a fair number that mine the stems and roots

of herbaceous and semi woody plants (Skaife 1979). Cerambycids are small to large

(3-100 mm), elongate, cylindrical, sub-cylindrical or flattened beetles with long

filiform antennae (Cox 1985). Many species are brightly coloured and hairy. The

antennae are usually at least half as long as the body and are often much longer

(especially in males) and are capable of being directed backwards, above and parallel

27

to the body (Cox 1985). Those species occurring on the ground, bark or dead wood

are cryptically marked with mottled grey-brown patterns (Cox 1985). Nearly all

Cerambycidae attack trees that are dead or dying, and rarely attack healthy plants.

Savanna ecosystems are often deficient in minerals due to the slow rate of

mineralization in the detritus layer due to lack of water (low rainfall) and microbe

resistance of leave defence compounds. Wood detritivores, such as beetles, play a

vital role in this mineralization process, particularly in the release of phosphorus

(Cowling et al. 1997) This serves in hastening the breakdown of dead wood and the

return of nutrients to the soil (Skaife 1979). This family of beetle therefore has a very

important role in the functioning of a healthy ecosystem.

2.3.2.2.2 Buprestidae

The Buprestidae, known as jewel beetles, are nearly always metallic or bronzed in

colour, some being so beautiful that they are incorporated in jewellery (Skaife 1979).

Buprestids are small to large (1,5-50 mm) torpedo- or wedge-shaped beetles (Holm &

Bellamy 1985). These beetles are very active at the hottest times of the day, but

extremely difficult to catch. They often occur on flowers, where some species feed on

pollen. Others are found feeding on leaves or bark. These borers gnaw wide galleries

between the bark and the sapwood, and often the noise of them chewing is actually

audible. Most buprestids attack moribund rather than dead wood, and do not infest

seasoned wood (Holm & Bellamy 1985). Usually each species attacks only one or a

few genera of plants (Skaife 1979). This family is extremely important from an

ecological point of view, as they aid in the process of decomposition in ecosystem

functioning.

28

2.3.3 Collection methods

Different sampling methods are required for wood borers due to the variety and habits

of the various species. Because all insect capture methods are biased towards catching

prey of a certain size, mass, or flight behaviour (Muirhead-Thompson 1991;

Sutherland 1998), a combination of different methods was used.

2.3.3.1 Beating Method (Figure 6.1.1; Figure 6.1.2)

Beetles are collected employing various methods on each quadrat line. The beating

method (Holm 1984) is used in the morning and late afternoon, when the insects body

temperature is low. This method involves beating the vegetation and capturing insects

that are dislodged from foliage (Holm 1984). The beating sheet is made from strong

white cloth, square, about 100 cm x 60 cm, with pockets at the corners into which the

ends of two diagonal bracing poles were fitted (Fourie 1993). With the poles

removed, the beating sheet can be rolled into a neat parcel for easy transport.

29

Figure 6.1.1: The beating method being used on Protea caffra in quadrat C on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve.

Figure 6.1.2: The beating method being used on Acacia caffra in quadrat A on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve.

The vegetation was beaten in a random fashion along the marked transect lines. The

individual plants must be identified prior to being beaten and preparation for the

capture was taken. A killing bottle (Fourie 1993) was prepared with a label stating

information pertaining to the survey. The killing bottle consisted of cotton wool and

ethyl acetate to ensure the insects are euthanized quickly and are relaxed (Fourie

1993). Only one or two drops of ethyl acetate were used as excessive amounts could

result in condensation on the inner walls of the bottles causing discolouration of

specimens (Fourie 1993). The foliage was beaten extensively and inactive insects

collected by hand, forceps and an aspirator. The aspirator bottle is a device for

collecting small delicate insects individually (Fourie 1993). It can be used to collect

insects directly from the beating sheet. An aspirator bottle consists of a bottle (7 cm x

2,5 cm) fitted with a rubber stopper (Fourie 1993). Two holes are drilled through the

30

stopper to take two pieces of hard plastic tubing, each about 7 cm long and about 5

mm in diameter (Fourie 1993). One piece of tubing is pushed through each hole in the

stopper, with at least 2 cm showing below and above the stopper. The end of one of

the pieces, which is inside the bottle when the stopper is inserted, is covered with a

piece of mosquito netting to prevent the insects being sucked into the mouth (Fourie

1993). The air is drawn through the apparatus by sucking on the rubber tube with the

mosquito netting and the insects are sucked into the chamber through the other tube,

which is pointed towards the insect (Fourie 1993).

2.3.3.2. Sweeping Method (Figure 6.2)

The sweeping method (Holm 1984) should be employed during periods of high

temperature. General collecting can be done by sweeping the net back and forth

through the foliage (Holm 1984). The insect net is the basic tool of an insect collector

(Fourie 1993). The collecting net used was light and the handle made from a broom

handle. The net bag was about 90 cm deep tapered at the bottom as suggested by

Fourie (1993).

31

Figure 6.2: The sweeping method being used on Acacia caffra in quadrat A on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve.

The vegetation is swept in a random fashion along the marked transect lines when

insects are active as a result of increased body temperature. The plant to be swept

must be identified and a killing bottle prepared with information pertaining to the

capture (Fourie 1993). The foliage is then swept from different angles of the plant and

the net checked for insect activity. Insects are collected by hand, forceps or an

aspirator (Fourie 1993). The best forceps to use are those with prongs that are rounded

and with inside surfaces milled (Fourie 1993). The prongs should make contact at the

tips only, so that an insect is gripped firmly. The insects in the net are then placed in

the labelled killing bottle.

2.3.3.3 Sheet Trap Method (Figure 6.3)

This trap consisted of a light source and a large white sheet placed over the vehicle at

night. The sheet was also spread on the ground to catch insects that fall (Fourie 1993).

The light was connected to the vehicle’s battery and a portable generator, where there

was no access to electricity.

32

Figure 6.3: The sheet trap method being used in quadrat B on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve in

October 2001.

The sheet trap (Holm 1984) is placed at the site just before dark. Insects are attracted

to the lamp and settle on the sheet. Insects are collected by hand, forceps or aspirator.

The insects collected from the sheet are placed in a labelled killing bottle (Fourie

1993).

2.3.4 Identification of collected beetles

Beetles are removed from the killing bottles and placed in labelled envelopes with

information pertaining to their capture. The specimens collected were pinned before

being identified from reference collections and available literature. Most insects are

easy to preserve by air drying. Their external skeletons remain intact while their soft

internal tissue desiccates (Fourie 1993). Specimens are pinned on a pinning block,

which allows insects to be positioned at standard heights on the pin (Fourie 1993). A

pinning block can either be a solid block with holes drilled to different depths or a set

33

of steps with a hole drilled through each level (Fourie 1993). It is always advisable to

mount insects within twenty four hours of killing, or use a relaxing jar (Fourie 1993).

A relaxing jar is a dampened airtight jar with a drop of ethyl acetate to prevent fungal

infection (Fourie 1993).

Specimens which are medium to large in size are pinned with no. 3 or no. 5 pins

(Fourie 1993). The killing jar is emptied onto a piece of white paper, and individually

insects are held between the forefinger and the thumb to be pinned. The label

containing the capture details was written on white stiff carding and the data printed

in Indian ink, using a drafting pen (Fourie 1993).

2.3.5 Data preparation

The identified specimens were cross referenced to the raw data and tabulated

monthly, according to relevant quadrat and plant species. These characteristics were

then tabulated with corresponding beetle species collected.

2.3.6 Statistical Analysis

2.3.6.1 Chi-square test

Once the data has been tabulated, statistical techniques are required to analyze the

data to determine trends and species associations. The most common method of

34

analyzing frequencies is the chi-square test (Fowler et al. 1998). This involves

computing a test statistic which is compared with the chi-square (χ²) distribution of a

sample variance, s², unlike that of a sample mean in that it is distributed

asymmetrically about the population parameter (Fowler et al. 1998). The left-hand

side of the distribution is truncated at the minimum value of zero when all

observations in a sample by chance have identical values but the right-hand side may

in theory extend to infinity (Fowler et al. 1998). This introduces a positive skew to the

distribution. The shape of the distribution of a variance depends on the sample size or,

more precisely, the degrees of freedom (Fowler et al. 1998). The larger the size of the

replicate samples, the more symmetrical becomes the distribution and for very large

samples the distribution converges towards normality (Fowler et al. 1998). If we

standardize the horizontal axis by multiplying the variance by the degrees of freedom

(df), thus converting it to a sum in squares and then dividing it by the population

variance, we generate densities of probability distributions. There is a separate

distribution for each possible number of degrees of freedom (Fowler et al. 1998). The

required value for a particular number of degrees of freedom is found in tables. This

table showing the distribution of χ² is restricted to critical values at the significance

levels we are interested in (Fowler et al. 1998).

Chi-square tests are variously referred to as tests for homogeneity, randomness,

association, independence and goodness of fit (Fowler et al. 1998). This application

involves the underlying principle of comparing the frequencies we observe and the

frequencies we expect on the basis of the Null Hypothesis. If the discrepancy between

the observed and expected frequencies is great, then the value of calculated test

statistic will exceed the critical value at the appropriate degrees of freedom (Fowler et

al. 1998). All versions of chi-square test assume that samples are random and

35

observations are independent. The simplest arithmetical comparison that can be made

between an observed frequency and an expected frequency is the difference between

them (Fowler et al. 1998). In the test, the difference is squared and divided by the

expected frequency. The formula:

χ² = ( 0 – E ) ²

E

where 0 is an observed frequency and E is an expected frequency. A series of

observed frequencies are compared with corresponding expected frequencies resulting

in several components of χ² all of which have to be summed (Fowler et al. 1998).

The limitation with the chi-square test is that the sample size, that is the grand total of

observed frequencies (n), should be such that all expected frequencies exceed 5

(Fowler et al. 1998). In marginal cases this can sometimes be achieved by collapsing

cells and aggregating the respective observed frequencies and expected frequencies

(Fowler et al. 1998). Most statisticians would not object to some of the expected

frequencies being below 5, provided that no more than one-fifth of the total number

of expected frequencies is below 5, and none are below 1 (Fowler et al. 1998).

2.3.6.2 Cramér’s V analysis

Failing the assumptions of the χ² test, the Phi (coefficient) and Cramér's V,

Contingency coefficient, Lambda (symmetric and asymmetric lambdas and Goodman

and Kruskal's tau), and Uncertainty coefficient are the indicated statistical options

36

(Everitt 1993). Contingency coefficient is a measure of association based on chi-

square. The value ranges between zero and 1, with zero indicating no association

between the row and column variables and values close to 1 indicating a high degree

of association between the variables (Everitt 1993). The maximum value possible

depends on the number of rows and columns in a table.

Phi is a chi-square based measure of association that involves dividing the chi-square

statistic by the sample size and taking the square root of the result. Cramer's V is a

measure of association based on chi-square (Everitt 1993), but is less sensitive to the

underlying assumptions. Lambda is a measure of association which reflects the

proportional reduction in error when values of the independent variable are used to

predict values of the outcome. A value of 1 means that the independent variable

perfectly predicts the dependent variable. A value of 0 means that the independent

variable is no help in predicting the dependent variable (Everitt 1993).

An uncertainty coefficient is a measure of association that indicates the proportional

reduction in error when values of one variable are used to predict values of the other

variable (Everitt 1993). For example, a value of 0.83 indicates that knowledge of one

variable reduces error in predicting values of the other variable by 83%. All analyses

were computed using SPSS ¹.

¹ SPSS Inc., 233 S.Wacker Drive, 11th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606

Chapter Three

3. RESULTS

37

Data for 35 species of Cerambycidae (Figures 7.1-7.35), in three subfamilies in three

localities on ENR were used in the analysis.

Cerambycidae

Fig. 7.1: Anubis clavicornis Fig. 7.2: Anubis mellyi Fig. 7.3: Anthracocentrus capensis

Fig. 7.4: Ceroplesis thunbergi Fig. 7.5: Coptoeme krantzi Fig. 7.6: Crossotus lacunosus

38

Fig. 7.7: Crossotus plumicornis Fig. 7.8: Crossotus stypticus Fig. 7.9: Hecyra terrea

Fig. 7.10: Hypoeschrus ferreirae Fig. 7.11: Jonthodina sculptilis Fig. 7.12: Lasiopezus longimanus

Fig. 7.13: Macrotoma natala Fig. 7.14: Macrotoma palmate Fig. 7.15: Mycerinicus brevis

39

Fig. 7.16: Nemotragus helvolus Fig. 7.17: Olenecamptus albidus Fig. 7.18: Ossibia fuscata

Fig. 7.19: Pacydissus sp. Fig. 7.20: Phantasis giganteus Fig. 7.21: Philematium natalense

Fig. 7.22: Phryneta spinator Fig. 7.23: Phyllocnema latipes Fig. 7.24: Plocaederus denticornis

40

Fig. 7.25: Dalterus degeeri Fig. 7.26: Dalterus dejeani Fig. 7.27: Prosopocera lactator

Fig. 7.28: Alphitopola octomaculata Fig. 7.29: Taurotagus klugi Fig. 7.30: Tithoes maculates

Fig. 7.31: Tragiscoschema bertolinii Fig. 7.32: Xystrocera erosa Fig. 7.33: Xystrocera dispar

41

Fig.7.34: Zamium bimaculatum Fig. 7.35: Zamium incultum

There are four species of buprestid and one species of cerambycid that could not be

identified to species level and have been sent to the United States of America for

identification purposes (Table 1.1).

Table 1: List of species collected at Ezemvelo Nature

Reserve not identified to species level.

SpeciesTota

lAnthaxia sp. 1 89Anthaxia sp. 2 102Anthaxia sp. 3 64Anthaxia sp. 4 3Pacydissus sp. 12Total 270

Both the density of beetle species (the number of species per area) and species

richness (the number of species present per number of individuals) (Hurlbert 1971;

Gotelli & Colwell 2001; Magurran 2004) were assessed for samples from the plants.

Estimates of the total number of species for Cerambycidae and Buprestidae were

made from sampling.

42

Identification were obtained from specimens in the *Transvaal Museum, South Africa

TMSA².

3.1 Cerambycidae Data

3.1.1 Total Cerambycidae Data

The total number and species diversity of Cerambycidae collected in all three quadrats

for the year 2001 totalled 518 specimens and 35 species respectively. Three

subfamilies were recorded during this study, namely Cerambycinae (15 species);

Prioninae (4 species) and Lamiinae (6 species). A total of 28 genera were recorded

throughout the year, namely Zamium (2 species), Captoeme (1 species), Taurotagus

(1 species), Jonthodina (1 species), Anubis (2 species), Macrotoma (2 species),

Tithoes (1 species), Phantasis (1 species), Dalterus (2 species), Crossotus (3 species),

Olenecamptus (1 species), Anthracocentrus (1 species), Hypoeschrus (1 species),

Plocaederus (1 species), Nemotragus (1 species), Hecyra (1 species), Ceroplesis (1

species), Lasiopezus (1 species), Philematium (1 species), Alphitopola (1 species),

Mycerinicus (1 species), Phryneta (1 species), Tragiscoschema (1 species),

Phyllocnema (1 species), Pacydissus (1 species), Ossibia (1 species), Xystrocera (2

species) and Prosopocera (1 species) (Appendix A).

Cerambycidae were collected at monthly intervals throughout the year. October,

November, December and January were months with the highest activity and species

diversity (Fig. 8).

43

* TMSA² Transvaal Museum Coleoptera Department, P.O. Box, Pretoria,

0010

0

5

10

15

20

25

JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV

TOTALCERAMBYCIDAE

Figure 8: Monthly sampling frequencies for the total Cerambycidae collected for

2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

There is a stronger correlation (r² = 0.60) between total cerambycid numbers and

minimum temperature, than the correlation (r² = 0.37) between total cerambycid

numbers and maximum temperature (Table 2).

Table 2: Analysis of regression indicating the degree of linear trend parameters for

Cerambycidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

SitesMinimum

TemperatureMaximum

TemperatureAverageRainfall

Cerambycidae QA r² = 0.67 r² = 0.47 r² = 0.63Cerambycidae QB r² = 0.47 r² = 0.20 r² = 0.61Cerambycidae QC r² = 0.56 r² = 0.37 r² = 0.48

Total Quadrats r² = 0.60 r² = 0.37 r² = 0.37

44

There is a stronger correlation (r² = 0.98) between total cerambycid numbers and

summer months January and February, than the correlation (r² = 0.69) between total

cerambycid numbers and the winter month of June (Table 3).

Table 3: Analysis of regression indicating the degree of linear trend for the first six months

of the year for Cerambycidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Months Jan Feb Mar Apri May JunCerambycidae QA r² = 0.95 r² = 0.96 r² = 0.86 r² =0.81 r² = 0.49 r² = 1Cerambycidae QB r² = 0.88 r² = 0.86 r² = 0.85 r² = 1 r² = 0.78 r² = 1Cerambycidae QC r² = 0.95 r² = 0.90 r² = 0.91 r² = 0.84 r² = 0.76 r² = 0.68

Total Quadrats r² = 0.98 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.96 r² = 0.92 r² = 0.89 r² = 0.69

There is a correlation (r² = 0.99) between total cerambycid numbers and summer

months November and December. However the correlation (r² = 1) between total

cerambycid numbers and the winter month of July is an exact correlation (Table 4).

Table 4: Analysis of regression indicating the degree of linear trend for the last six months

of the year for Cerambycidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Months Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecCerambycidae QA r² = 1 r² = 0.81 r² = 0.93 r² = 0.97 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.98Cerambycidae QB r² = 1 r² = 0.67 r² = 0.84 r² = 0.90 r² = 0.96 r² = 0.97Cerambycidae QC r² = 1 r² = 0.47 r² = 0.93 r² = 0.93 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.98

Total Quadrats r² = 1 r² =0.87 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99

45

Collection results for months June and July indicate almost no cerambycid activity

during this period.

The results indicate that environmental conditions associated with seasonality control

the abundance and diversity of cerambycids (Fig. 9.1, Fig. 9.2, Fig. 9.3). The greater

percentage of cerambycids were collected in the summer months, December (23%),

November (22%), October (14%), January (13%) and February (10%) (Appendix B).

(Fig. 9.1).

Figure 9.1: Total Cerambycidae count trend versus average minimum


for January 2001 to December 2001.

There is a correlation (r² = 0.60) between the numbers of cerambycids collected and

average minimum temperature. This indicates that due to temperatures dropping

46

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers Average Minimim

Temperature

Beetle Numbers

exceptionally low in winter, these conditions directly affect cerambycid populations

and the adult population dies off during this period.

Figure 9.2: Total Cerambycidae count trend versus average maximum

temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve for

January 2001 to December 2001.

Figure 9.2 indicates that cerambycid numbers and the average maximum temperatures

do not correlate (r² = 37), other but not to the same extent as with average minimum

temperature.

This would indicate that low temperatures have a greater affect on the cerambycid

population dynamics on ENR than high temperatures.

47

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tlN

umbe

rs

AverageMaximumTemperatureBeetle Numbers

Figure 9.3: Total Cerambycidae count trend versus average monthly rainfall for

the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve for January 2001 to

December 2001.

Cerambycid numbers indicate a small correlation (r² = 0.37) with average rainfall,

numbers decreasing with a decrease in rainfall, while increasing with spring rains

(Fig. 9.3). This relationship does not appear as defined as with temperature.

3.1.2 Quadrat A

The total number and species diversity of Cerambycidae collected in quadrat A for

2001 equalled 203 specimens and 22 species respectively. All three subfamilies were

collected in quadrat A, Cerambycinae (8 species), Prioninae (3 species) and Lamiinae

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l

Average Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

(11 species). 19 Genera were recorded in quadrat A, Zamium (1 species), Captoeme

(1 species), Taurotagus (1 species), Jonthodina (1 species), Anubis (1 species),

Macrotoma (1 species), Tithoes (1 species), Phantasis (1 species), Dalterus (2

species), Crossotus (3 species), Olenecamptus (1 species), Anthracocentrus (1

species), Hypoeschrus (1 species), Plocaederus (1 species), Nemotragus (1 species),

Hecyra (1 species), Ceroplesis (1 species), Lasiopezus (1 species) and Philematium (1

species). 13 species were not recorded in quadrat A, Zamium bimaculatum, Anubis

mellyi, Alphitopola octomaculata, Mycerinicus brevis, Phryneta spinator,

Tragiscoschema bertolinii, Phyllocnema latipes, Pacydissus sp., Macrotoma natala,

Ossibia fuscata, Xystrocera erosa, Prosopocera lactator and Xystrocera dispar

(Appendix C).

Cerambycids collected in quadrat A follow the same general trend with high beetle

numbers being recorded during the summer months with gradual decline towards the

winter months (Fig 10). The greatest percentages of cerambycids collected in quadrat

A were collected in the summer months, December & November (20%), October

(17%), January and February (13%) and March and September (6%) (Appendix D).

49

0

5

10

15

20


QUADRAT A

Figure 10: Monthly sampling frequencies for Cerambycidae collected in

quadrat A for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Cerambycid numbers decreased drastically in quadrat A during the winter period.

When average minimum temperatures dropped below 5 degrees, Cerambycid

numbers reached zero (Fig. 11.1). This indicates a strong correlation ((r² = 0.67) to

minimum temperature.

Figure 11.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat A versus average minimum


between January 2001 and December 2001.

Cerambycid numbers correlate moderately (r² = 0.47) to average maximum

temperature in quadrat A, with numbers increasing with increases in temperature and

decreasing with lower average maximum temperatures (Fig. 11.2).

50

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers Average Minimum

Temperature

Beetle Numbers

Figure 11.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat A versus average maximum

temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between

January 2001 and December 2001.

Minimum temperature fluctuations appear to be a greater limiting factor than

maximum temperature fluctuations in quadrat A.

Results indicate that there is a gradual increase in cerambycid numbers with an

increase in rainfall in quadrat A (Fig. 11.3). There was, however, very little rainfall in

December, yet cerambycid numbers were not affected negatively. Overall there is,

however, a correlation (r² = 0.63) with average rainfall in quadrat A.

51

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers Average Maximum

Temperature

Beetle Numbers

Figure 11.3: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat A versus average monthly rainfall

for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between

January 2001and December 2001.

3.1.3 Quadrat B

The total number and species diversity of Cerambycidae collected in quadrat B for

2001 equalled 116 specimens and 20 species respectively. Three subfamilies were

recorded in quadrat B, i.e. Cerambycinae (9 species), Prioninae (3 species) and

Lamiinae (8 species). 17 genera were recorded within these Subfamilies, Zamium (1

species), Jonthodina (1 species), Anubis (2 species), Macrotoma (2 species), Tithoes

(1 species), Alphitopola (1 species), Crossotus (2 species), Mycerinicus (1 species),

Phryneta (1 species), Dalterus (1 species), Ceroplesis (1 species), Tragiscoschema (1

species), Phyllocnema (1 species), Pacydissus (1 species), Coptoeme (1 species),

Taurotagus (1 species) and Philematium (1 species). 15 species were absent from

52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l/Bee

tle N

umbe

rsAverage Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

quadrat B, Zamium incultum, Phantasis giganteus, Olenecamptus albidus,

Anthracocentrus capensis, Hypoeschrus ferreirae, Plocaederus denticornis,

Crossotus stypticus, Nemotragus helvolus, Hecyra terrea, Lasiopezus longimanus,

Dalterus degeeri, Ossibia fuscata, Xystrocera erosa, Prosopocera lactator, and

Xystrocera dispar (Appendix E).

Cerambycid numbers in quadrat B indicate an increase in Cerambycid numbers at the

beginning of November into December (Fig. 12). The greatest percentage of

cerambycids collected in quadrat B were collected in the summer months, i.e.

November (29%), December (26%), January and October (10%) and February (9%)

(Appendix F).

Cerambycid abundance and diversity in quadrat B appears to decline earlier than in

quadrat A, with numbers starting to decline in January.

53

Figure 12: Monthly sampling frequencies for Cerambycidae collected in quadrat B

for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Cerambycid numbers are directly correlated (r² = 0.47) with average minimum

temperature in quadrat B, showing a gradual decrease in numbers and diversity with

low minimum temperatures (Fig 13.1). Cerambycid populations appear to follow the

trend, and even temporary increases in temperature do affect the cerambycid

population. The population starts increasing when temperatures are more stable.

54

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


QUADRAT B

Figure 13.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average minimum



Cerambycid numbers show little correlatation (r² = 0.20) with average maximum

temperatures in quadrat B, and not as clear a trend as average minimum temperatures

(Fig. 13.2). Cerambycid populations decrease slowly after the decrease in

temperature. Figure 13.2 indicates a decrease in temperature in November, resulting

in a decrease in beetle numbers in December. Cerambycidae count in quadrat B

versus average monthly rainfall for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature

Reserve fluctuated considerable and indicated a delayed response to rainfall (Fig.

13.3).

55

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/ Bee

tle

Num


Temperature

Beetle Numbers

Figure 13.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum



Figure 13.3: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average monthly rainfall



56

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num


Temperature

Beetle Numbers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l/Bee

tle N

umbe

rs

Average Rainfall

Months

3.1.4 Quadrat C

The total number and species diversity of Cerambycidae collected in quadrat C for

2001 equalled 199 specimens and 26 species respectively. Three subfamilies were

represented in quadrat C, Cerambycinae (13 species), Prioninae (4 species) and

Lamiinae (9 species). 20 genera were recorded within these subfamilies in quadrat C,

Nemotragus (1 species), Crossotus (3 species), Tragiscoschema (1 species),

Anthracocentrus (1 species), Anubis (2 species), Taurotagus (1 species), Coptoeme (1

species), Zamium (2 species), Xystrocera (2 species), Pacydissus (1 species),

Philematium (1 species), Jonthodina (1 species), Macrotoma (1 species), Tithoes (1

species), Phantasis (1 species), Ceroplesis (1 species), Olenecamptus (1 species) and

Prosopocera (1 species). Nine species were not collected in quadrat C, Dalterus

dejeani, Hypoeschrus ferreirae, Plocaederus denticornis, Hecyra terrea, Lasiopezus

longimanus, Dalterus degeeri, Alphitopola octomaculata, Mycerinicus brevis and

Phryneta spinator (Appendix G).

Cerambycid samples recorded in quadrat C indicate a clear decline from January to

July, with an gradual increase in numbers from August to December (Fig. 14).

November and December clearly are the most environmentally suitable months for

adult cerambycid activity. The greatest percentage of cerambycids collected in quadrat

C was in the summer months, December (25%), November (21%), January (14%) and

October (13%) (Appendix H).

57

0

5

10

15

20

25


QUADRAT C

Figure 14: Monthly sampling frequencies for Cerambycidae collected in

quadrat C for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Cerambycid numbers correlate positively with average minimum temperatures in

quadrat C (Fig. 15.1). The population appears to decline gradually until temperatures

fall below 5 degrees, where there is almost zero activity. The population starts

increasing rapidly from September through to December.

Figure 15.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average minimum


between January 2001and December 2001.

58

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

Average MinimumTemperature

Beetle Numbers

Cerambycid numbers correlate moderately to average maximum temperature in

quadrat C (Fig. 15.2). The population is controlled to a greater extent by average

minimum temperatures.

Figure 15.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average maximum



Cerambycid numbers are moderately affected by average rainfall, however, this

population fluctuation appears to be delayed with an increase or decrease in average

rainfall (Fig. 15.3).

59

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

Average MaximumTemperature

Beetle Numbers

Figure 15.3: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average monthly

rainfall for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve


Cerambycid samples appear similar between the three quadrats, even though the

vegetation in each quadrat differs quite significantly (Fig. 16). Quadrat A had equal

numbers collected in November and December. Quadrat B had the highest number of

beetles collected in November. Quadrat C had highest sample size recorded in

December. Cerambycid numbers within all quadrats declined to zero between June

and July, except for a few records in quadrat C

60

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


QUADRAT AQUADRAT BQUADRAT C

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l

Average Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

Figure 16: Monthly sampling frequencies of Cerambycidae between the

three quadrats on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

3.2 Buprestidae data

3.2.1 Total Buprestidae data

Data for 32 species of Buprestidae (Figures 17.1-17.21) in eight subfamilies, 43

genera and three localities on ENR were used in the analysis.

The following buprestid species were not photographed Anthaxia bergrothi; Anthaxia

sp. 2; Anthaxia sp. 3; Anthaxia sp. 4; Trachys ziziphusii; Brachelytrium transvalense;

Kamosia tenebricosa; Agrilomorpha venosa; Agrilus falcatus; Kamosiella

dermestoides; Anthaxia obtectans

Fig. 17.1: Acmaeodera aenea Fig. 17.2: Acmaeodera albivillosa Fig. 17.3: Agrilus guerryi

61

Fig. 17.4: Sphenoptera sinuosa Fig. 17.5: Acmaeodera punctatissima Fig. 17.6: Acmaeoderainscripta

Fig. 17.7: Acmaeodera ruficaudis Fig. 17.8: Agrilus sexguttatus Fig. 17.9: Acmaeodera stellata

Fig. 17.10: Acmaeodera viridiaenea Fig. 17.11: Anthaxia. sp. 1 Fig. 17.12: Chrysobothris algoensis

62

Fig.17.13:Chrysobothris boschismanni Fig 17.14:Chrysobothris dorsata Fig.17.15:Evides pubiventris

Fig. 17.16: Lampetis gregaris Fig. 17.17: Phlocteis exasperata Fig. 17.18: Pseudagrilus beryllinus

Fig. 17.19: Lampetis conturbata Fig. 17.20: Sphenoptera arrowi Fig. 17.21: Sternocera orissa

63

The total number and species of Buprestidae collected in all quadrats for 2001

equalled 805 specimens and 32 species respectively. Five subfamilies were recorded

in this study, Polycestinae (12 species), Buprestinae (7 species), Julodinae (1 species),

Agrilinae (9 species) and Chalcophorinae (3 species). 15 genera within these

subfamilies were recorded, Acmaeodera (7 species), Sternocera (1 species), Anthaxia

(6 species), Agrilus (3 species), Lampetis (2 species), Chrysobothris (3 species),

Trachys (1 species), Pseudagrilus (1 species), Brachelytrium (1 species), Kamosia (1

species), Sphenoptera (2 species), Agrilomorpha (1 species), Kamosiella (1 species),

Phlocteis (1 species) and Evides (1 species) (Appendix I).

There is a stronger correlation (r² = 0.73) between total buprestid numbers and

minimum temperature, than the correlation (r² = 0.52) between total buprestid

numbers and maximum temperature (Table 5).

Table 5: Analysis of regression indicating the degree of linear trend of parameters for

Buprestidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

SitesMinimum

TemperatureMaximum

TemperatureAverageRainfall

Buprestidae QA r² = 0.77 r² = 0.55 r² = 0.35Buprestidae QB r² = 0.59 r² = 0.40 r² = 0.24Buprestidae QC r² = 0.70 r² = 0.51 r² = 0.36Total Quadrats r² = 0.73 r² = 0.52 r² = 0.34

64


summer months January, February, March than the correlation (r² = 0.95) between

total buprestid numbers and Autumn months April and May (Table 6).

Table 6: Analysis of regression indicating the degree of linear trend for the first six months

of the year for Buprestidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Months Jan Feb Mar Apri May Jun

Buprestidae QA r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.94 r² = 0.87 r² = 0.71Buprestidae QB r² = 0.98 r² = 0.95 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.79 r² = 0.81 r² = 1Buprestidae QC r² = 0.98 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.97 r² = 0.86 r² = 0.75 r² = 1Total Quadrats r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.95 r² = 0.95 r² = 0.69


summer months October, November, December, than the correlation (r² = 0.47)

between total buprestid numbers and winter month of July (Table 7).

Table 7: Analysis of regression indicating the degree of linear trend for the last six months

of the year for Buprestidae on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Months Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Buprestidae QA r² = 0.49 r² = 0.78 r² = 0.96 r² =0.97 r² = 0.98 r² = 0.99Buprestidae QB r² = 1 r² = 1 r² = 0.65 r² = 0.95 r² = 0.97 r² = 0.98Buprestidae QC r² = 1 r² = 1 r² = 0.75 r² = 0.97 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99Total Quadrats r² = 0.47 r² = 0.75 r² = 0.96 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99 r² = 0.99

65

Buprestidae were collected at monthly intervals throughout the year. November,

December and January were months with the highest activity and species diversity

(Fig. 18). The greater percentage of buprestids were collected in the summer months,

December (24%), January (19%), November (16%) and February (13%) (Appendix

J). Collection results for months June and July indicates no buprestid activity during

this period.

Figure 18: Monthly sampling frequencies for the total Buprestidae

collected for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

The results indicate that environmental conditions associated with seasonality control

the abundance and diversity of buprestids. This is shown in Fig.19.1, Fig.19.2; Fig.

19.3.

66

0

5

10

15

20

25


TOTALBUPRESTIDAE

There appear to be a direct relationship between the number of buprestids collected

and average minimum temperature (Fig. 19.1). This indicates that due to temperatures

dropping exceptionally low in winter, these conditions directly affect buprestid

population dynamics and adult populations die off during this period

Figure 19.1: Total Buprestidae count versus average minimum temperature for the


and December 2001.

Figure 19.2 indicates that buprestidae numbers and the average maximum

temperatures correlate with each other, but not to the same extent as with average

minimum temperatures.

This would indicate that low temperatures have a greater affect on buprestid

abundance on ENR than high temperatures.

67

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers


Beetle Numbers

Figure 19.2: Total Buprestidae count versus average maximum temperature for the


and December 2001.

Buprestids numbers indicate a slight correlation with average rainfall, with numbers

decreasing with a decrease in rainfall, while increasing with spring rains (Fig. 19.3).

This relationship does not appear as defined as with temperature.

68

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers


Beetle Numbers

Figure 19.3: Total Buprestidae count versus average monthly rainfall for the months

of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and

December 2001.

3.2.2 Quadrat A

The total number and species of Buprestidae collected in quadrat A for 2001 equalled

379 specimens and 24 species respectively. Five subfamilies were recorded in quadrat

A, Polycestinae (6 species), Julodinae (1 species), Buprestinae (9 species), Agrilinae

(7 species) and Chalcophorinae (1 species). 12 genera were recorded within these

subfamilies in quadrat A, Acmaeodera (6 species); Sternocera (1 species); Anthaxia

(4 species), Agrilus (3 species), Chrysobothris (3 species), Sphenoptera (1 species),

Trachys (1 species), Kamosia (1 species), Agrilomorpha (1 species), Lampetis (1

species), Pseudogrilus (1 species) and Brachelytrium (1 species) (Appendix K). Eight

species were absent from quadrat A, Kamosiella dermestoides, Acmaeodera stellata;

Phlocteis exasperata, Psiloptera conturbata, Evides pubiventrus, Sphenoptera

sinuosa, Anthaxia obtectans and Anthaxia sp. 4.

Buprestids collected in quadrat A follow a similar trend with high overall beetle

numbers being recorded during the summer months, December (21%), January

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l/Bee

tle N

umbe

rsAverage Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

(18%), November (15%) and February (14%) (Appendix L), with gradual decline

towards the winter months (Fig 20).

Figure 20: Monthly sampling frequencies for Buprestidae collected in

quadrat A for 2001 at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Buprestid numbers decreased drastically in quadrat A during the winter period and

where average minimum temperatures dropped below 5 degrees, buprestid numbers

reached zero (Fig. 21.1).

70

0

5

10

15

20

25


QUADRAT A

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num


Temperature

Beetle Numbers

Figure 21.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average minimum



Buprestid numbers correlate moderately to average maximum temperature in quadrat

A, numbers increasing with increases in temperature and decreasing with lower

average maximum temperatures (Fig. 21.2). Minimum temperature fluctuations

appear to be a greater limiting factor than maximum temperature fluctuations in

quadrat A.

Figure 21.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average maximum



71

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num


Temperature

Beetle Numbers

Results indicate that there is a gradual increase in buprestid numbers with an increase

in rainfall in quadrat A (Fig. 21.3). There was however very little rainfall in

December, yet buprestid numbers were not affected negatively.

Figure 21.3: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average monthly rainfall



3.2.3 Quadrat B

The total number and species of Buprestidae collected in quadrat B for 2001 equalled

153 specimens and 11 species respectively. Four subfamilies were recorded in quadrat

B, Polycestinae (4 species), Buprestinae (5 species), Julodinae (1 species) and

Agrilinae (1 species). Five genera were represented within these subfamilies,

Acmaeodera (4 species), Anthaxia (3 species), Chrysobothris (2 species), Sternocera

(1 species) and Pseudogrilus (1 species) (Appendix M). 21 species were not recorded

in quadrat B, Acmaeodera viridiaenea, Anthaxia bergrothi, Agrilus guerryi, Lampetis

gregaris, Agrilus sexguttatus, Trachys ziziphusii, Brachelytrium transvalense,

72

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l/Bee

tle N

umbe

rs

Average Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

Chrysobothris dorsata, Acmaeodera punctatissima, Kamosia tenebricosa,

Agrilomorpha venosa, Agrilus falcatus, Sphenoptera arrowi, Kamosiella

dermestoides, Acmaeodera stellata, Phlocteis exasperata, Lampetis conturbata,

Evides pubiventris, Sphenoptera sinuosa, Anthaxia obtectans and Anthaxia sp. 4.

Buprestidae samples from quadrat B indicate a drastic increase in buprestid numbers

at the beginning of December (Fig. 22). Buprestid abundance and diversity in quadrat

B appears to decline gradually from March, with no samples collected during June,

July or August. The greater percentage of buprestids collected in quadrat B were

collected in summer, December (32%), January (17%), November (14%) and

February (12%) (Appendix N).

Figure 22: Monthly sampling frequencies for Buprestidae collected

in quadrat B for 2001 at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

73

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


QUADRAT B

Buprestid numbers indicate a correlation (r² = 0.59) with average minimum

temperature in quadrat B, showing a gradual decrease in numbers and diversity with

low minimum temperatures (Fig 23.1). Buprestid populations appear to follow the

trend, and even temporary fluctuations in temperature do not affect the population

numbers. The population starts increasing when temperatures increases are more

stable.

Figure 23.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat B versus average minimum



Buprestidae numbers do not correlate (r² = 0.40) with average maximum temperatures

in quadrat B, where as average minimum temperatures (Fig. 23.1) had a greater

influence. Buprestid populations decrease gradually after the decrease in temperature.

Figure 23.2 indicates a decrease in temperature in November, resulting in no decrease

in beetle numbers in December.

74

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers


Beetle Numbers

Figure 23.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum



Buprestidae numbers correlate negatively (r² = 0.24) with average rainfall in quadrat

B, however this population fluctuation appears to be delayed with an increase or

decrease in average rainfall (Fig. 23.3).

75

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num


Temperature

Beetle Numbers

Figure 23.3: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average monthly rainfall



3.2.4 Quadrat C

The total number and species of Buprestidae collected in quadrat C for 2001 equalled

273 specimens and 19 species respectively. Five subfamilies were recorded in quadrat

C, Polycestinae (3 species), Buprestinae (9 species), Julodinae (1 species), Agrilinae

(3 species) and Chalcophorinae (3 species). Ten genera were represented within these

subfamilies, Acmaeodera (3 species), Chrysobothris (2 species), Anthaxia (5 species),

Sphenoptera (2 species), Lampetis (2 species), Sternocera (1 species), Pseudagrilus

(1 species), Phlocteis (1 species), Evides (1 species) and Kamosiella (1 species)

(Appendix 0). 13 species were absent from quadrat C, Acmaeodera albivillosa,

Acmaeodera viridiaenea, Acmaeodera ruficaudis, Agrilus guerryi, Agrilus

sexguttatus, Anthaxia sp. 3, Trachys ziziphusii, Brachelytrium transvalense,

Chrysobothris dorsata, Acmaeodera punctatissima, Kamosia tenebricosa,

Agrilomorpha venosa and Agrilus falcatus.

76

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l/Bee

tle N

umbe

rsAverage Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

Buprestid samples recorded in quadrat C indicate a drastic decline from March to

April, with a rapid increase in numbers from September to December (Fig. 24).

November, December and January clearly are the most environmentally suitable

months for buprestid activity. The greater percentage of buprestids collected in

quadrat C were collected in the summer months, December (25%), January (19%),

November (18%), March (13%) and February (12%) (Appendix P).

Figure 24: Monthly sampling frequensies for Buprestidae collected in

quadrat C for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

Buprestid numbers correlate (r² = 0.70) positively with average minimum

temperatures in quadrat C (Fig. 25.1). The population appears to decline gradually

until temperatures fall below 5, degrees where there is almost zero activity (Fig. 25.1).

The population starts increasing rapidly from September through to December.

77

0

5

10

15

20

25


QUADRAT C

Figure 25.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average minimum



Buprestid numbers correlate (r² = 0.51) moderately to average maximum temperature

in quadrat C (Fig. 25.2). It is expected that the population is controlled to a greater

extent by average minimum temperatures.

Figure 25.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average maximum



78

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num


Temperature

Beetle Numbers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

/Bee

tle

Num

bers


Beetle Numbers

Buprestid numbers do not correlate (r² = 0.36) with average rainfall, however this

population fluctuation appears delayed with an increase or decrease in average rainfall

(Fig. 25.3).

Figure 25.3: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average monthly rainfall



Buprestid samples appear similar between the three quadrats, even though the

vegetation in each quadrat differs quite significantly (Fig. 26). Quadrat A, Quadrat B

and Quadrat C had highest sample size recorded in December. Buprestid numbers

within all quadrats declined to zero between June, July and August, except for a few

records in quadrat A.

79

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months

Ave

rage

Rai

nfal

l/Bee

tle N

umbe

rs

Average Rainfall

Beetle Numbers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


QUADRAT AQUADRAT BQUADRAT C

Figure 26: Monthly sampling frequencies of Buprestidae between the three

quadrats on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve.

3.3 Ecological processes affecting Cerambycidae and Bupresridae on ENR

Clearly the ecological processes that determine the population structure of both

Cerambycidae and Buprestidae on ENR have a similar affect on both families (Fig.

27). Buprestidae appear to decline later as winter approaches, yet increase slower as

summer approaches.

Figure 27: Monthly sample comparison between Buprestidae and Cerambycidae on

Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001.

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

Betle Numbers


Months

Monthly Differences between Buprestidae and Cerambycidae

Buprestidae

Cerambycidae

3.4 Cerambycidae/Plant correlations

The plants surveyed were further categorized according to order, family, species,

phenology, pollination type, flower size and climate. Corresponding beetle diversity

and abundance was calculated respectively. One method of assessing community

structure involves grouping species based on feeding perference (Root 1973).

In addition, some groups are thought to have a very close association with plant taxa

on which they oviposit and feed (Gussmann 1994).

3.4.1 Plant order correlation

Statistically there is a relationship between tree order and cerambycid species on ENR

(Cramér’s V = 0.560; p < 0.05; N = 253). The majority of specimens collected were

found on trees of the Order Fabales (Appendix Q) (Fig. 28.1).

Figure 28.1: Relationship between tree orders and Cerambycidae species

collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001

and December 2001.

81

0 20 40 60 80Fabales

Rosales

Ericales

Celastrales

Cerambycidae

The breakdown of the percentage of cerambycids were collected on Fabales (74%),

Rosales (11%) and Sapindales (5%) (Appendix R) (Fig. 28.1).

3.4.2 Plant family correlation

In all quadrats, cerambycid abundance and diversity was greatest on Mimosaceae,

which include Acacia caffra and Acacia karoo. Certain plant families had zero

species recorded (Appendix S). The greater percentage of cerambycids were collected

on Mimosaceae (65%), Rhamnaceae (8%) and Papilionaceae (7%) (Appendix T) (Fig.

28.2).

Figure 28.2: Relationship between Tree Family and Cerambycidae species


and December 2001.

82

0 20 40 60 80Mimosaceae

Papilionaceae

Rhamnaceae

Poaceae

Olacaceae

Cerambycidae

3.4.3 Plant species correlation

Statistically there is a relationship between plant species and cerambycid species on

ENR (Cramér’s V = 0.477; p < 0.05; N=243). The majority of specimens collected

were found on Acacia species (Appendix U). The greater percentage of cerambycids

were collected on Acacia karoo (42%), Acacia caffra (23%), Combretum molle (8%),

and Burkea africana (7%) (Appendix V) (Fig. 28.3).

Figure 28.3: Relationship between plant species and Cerambycidae species


and December 2001.

Plants certainly do have some importance as hosts to certain species, with certain

plants appearing to have a high attraction to a broad range of species. Certain other

species of plants possibly due to high concentrations of browse resistant chemicals,

are very unattractive to cerambycids.

83

0 10 20 30 40 50Acacia caffra

Ziziphusmucronata

Crotongrattismus

Cerambycidae

3.4.4 Plant flower size correlation

Statistically there is a slight relationship between flower size and cerambycid species

on ENR (Cramér’s V = 0.267; p < 0.05; N= 506). The majority of specimens

collected were found on small flowers (Appendix AC).

The greater percentage of cerambycids were collected on plants with small flowers

(87%), with plants with medium-large flowers representing (13%) (Appendix AD)

(Fig. 28.4).

Figure 28.4: Relationship between flower size and Cerambycidae species


and December 2001.

3.4.5 Plant Phenology

Statistically there is no relationship between plant phenology and cerambycid species

on ENR [Cramér’s V = 0.483; 0.002 < 0.05); (p > 0.05)]. The majority of specimens

84

0 20 40 60 80 100

Small

Medium Large Cerambycidae

collected were found on deciduous plants (Appendix W). The greater percentage of

cerambycids were collected on deciduous plants (83%), with fewer specimens being

collected on non-deciduous plants (17%) (Appendix X). The reason for this is the

majority of plants on ENR are deciduous plants (Fig. 28.5).

Figure 28.5: Relationship between plant phenology and Cerambycidae

species collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between


3.4.6 Plant Pollination

Statistically there is a small relationship between plant pollination and cerambycid

species on ENR [(Cramér’s V = 0.436; p < 0.05); (N= 253)]. The majority of

specimens collected were found on plants pollinated by insects (Appendix Y). The

greater percentage of cerambycids were collected on plants pollinated by insects

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

YES

NO

Cerambycidae

(79%), with fewer specimens being collected on plants pollinated by insects/wind

(17%) and wind only (3%) (Appendix Z) (Fig. 28.6).

Figure 28.6: Relationship between plant pollination and

Cerambycidae species collected on Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve between January 2001 and

December 2001.

3.4.7 Plant Climate

Statistically there is no relationship between plant climate and cerambycid species on

ENR [(Cramér’s V = 0.235; p > 0.05); (N=506)]. The majority of specimens

collected were found on temperate plants (Appendix AA). The greater percentage of

cerambycids were collected on temperate plants (63%), significantly fewer on sub-

86

0 20 40 60 80

Insects

Wind

Cerambycidae

tropical plants (33%) and medium-temperature plants (4%) (Appendix AB) (Fig.

28.7).

Figure 28.7: Relationship between plant climate and Cerambycidae species


and December 2001.

3.5 Buprestidae/Plant correlations

3.5.1 Plant order correlation

Statistically there is a relationship between plant order and buprestid species on ENR

[(Cramér’s V = 0.648; p < 0.05); (N=805)]. The majority of specimens collected were

found on plants belonging to the order Fabales (Appendix AE). The greater

87

0 20 40 60 80

Sub-Tropical

Temperate

Cerambycidae

percentage of buprestids were collected on Fabales (79%), Rosales (6%), Sapindales

(4%) and Proteales (4%) (Appendix AF) (Fig. 29.1).

Figure 29.1: Relationship between tree orders and Buprestidae species

collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January

2001 and December 2001.

3.5.2 Plant family correlation

Statistically there is a relationship between plant family and buprestid species on ENR

[(Cramér’s V = 0.636; p < 0.05); (N=794)]. The majority of specimens collected were

found on plants belonging to the Family Mimosaceae (Appendix AG). The greater

88

0 20 40 60 80Fabales

Rosales

Ericales

Celastrales

Buprestidae

percentage of buprestids were collected on Mimosaceae (78%), Rhamnaceae (5%),

Celastraceae (4%), Anacardiaceae (3%) and Ebenaceae (3%) (Appendix AH) (Fig.

29.2).

Figure 29.2: Relationship between plant family and Buprestidae species


and December 2001.

3.5.3 Plant species correlation

Statistically there is a relationship between plant species and buprestid species on

ENR[(Cramér’s V = 0.561; p < 0.05); (N = 805)]. The majority of specimens

89

0 20 40 60 80Mimosaceae

Papilionaceae

Rhamnaceae

Poaceae

Olacaceae

Buprestidae

collected were found on plants belonging to the genus Acacia (Appendix AI). The

greater percentage of buprestids were collected on Acacia karoo (50%), Acacia caffra

(28%), Ziziphus mucronata (5%), Protea caffra (4%), Uclea crispa (3%), Rhus

lancea (3%) (Appendix AJ) (Fig. 29.3).

90

Figure 29.3: Relationship between plant species and Buprestidae species



3.5.4 Plant flower size correlation

Statistically there is a relationship between flower size and buprestid species on ENR

[(Cramér’s V = 0.399; p < 0.05); (N = 805)]. The majority of specimens collected

were found on plants with small flowers (Appendix AQ). The greater percentage of

buprestids were collected on plants with small flowers (94%), with significantly fewer

specimens collected on plants with medium-large flowers (Appendix AR) (Fig. 29.4).

91

0 20 40 60Acacia caffra

Celtisafricana

Protea caffra

Rhuspyroides

Ximeniacaffra

Buprestidae

Figure 29.4: Relationship between flower size and Buprestidae species



3.5.5 Plant Phenology

Statistically there is a relationship between plant phenolgy and buprestid species on

ENR [(Cramér’s V = 0.764; p < 0.05); (N =805)]. The majority of specimens

collected were found on deciduous plants (Appendix AK). The greater percentage of

buprestids were collected on deciduous plants (86%), with significantly fewer

specimens collected on non-deciduous plants (14%) (Appendix AL). The reason for

this being the majority of the plants on ENR are deciduous plants (Fig. 29.5).

92

0 20 40 60 80 100

Small

Medium Large Buprestidae

Figure 29.5: Relationship between plant phenology and Buprestidae



3.5.6 Plant Pollination

Statistically there is a relationship between plant pollination and buprestid species on

ENR [(Cramér’s V = 0.769; p < 0.05); (N = 805)]. The majority of specimens

collected were found on plants pollinated by insects (Appendix AM).

The greater percentage of buprestids were collected on plants pollinated by insects

(92%), with significantly fewer specimens being collected on plants pollinated by

insects/wind (7%) and only wind (1%) (Appendix AN) (Fig. 29.6).

93

0 20 40 60 80 100

YES

NOBuprestidae

Figure 29.6: Relationship between plant pollination and Buprestidae



3.5.7 Plant Climate

Buprestids were found to occur predominantly on temperate plants (Appendix AO),

however significantly more buprestids were found on sub-tropical plants than

cerambycids. The greater percentage of buprestids were collected on temperate plants

(69%), with fewer specimens collected on sub-tropical plants (30%) and medium-

temperate plants (1%) (Appendix AP) (Fig. 29.7).

94

0 20 40 60 80 100

Insects

Insects/wind

Wind

Buprestidae

Figure 29.7: Relationship between plant climate and Buprestidae species



3.6 Discussion

The total number of Buprestidae collected for 2001 was 805, of which 631 sampled

on either A. caffra or A. karoo, leaving 174 being collected on other plant species.

The total number of Cerambycidae collected for 2001 was 253, of which 165 sampled

either on Acacia caffra or Acacia karoo, leaving 88 collected on other plant species.

The genus Acacia is clearly very important to these two families from an ecological

perspective. During the winter months both cerambycids and buprestid numbers

dropped drastically, in some cases to zero abundance. The greatest total species

diversity and abundance were in the summer months, peaking in November and

December. Insects abundance significantly different between quadrats. There were

significant correlations between species richness and plant characteristics.

95

0 20 40 60 80

Sub-Tropical

Medium Temperate

Temperate

Buprestidae

Buprestids did not appear to be attracted to light sheet, and only one species,

Acmaeodera albivillosa, was collected on ENR using this method (Appendix AT).

Cerambycids were more readily attracted to the light sheet, with the majority of the

specimens collected belonging to the sub-family Lamiinae. The following species

were collected at the light trap, Phantasis giganteus, Dalterus dejeani, Crossotus

lacunosus, Crossotus plumicornis, Olenecamptus albidus, Alphitopola octomaculata,

Mycerinicus brevis, Phryneta spinator, Tragiscoschema bertolinii, Xystrocera erosa

and Prosopocera lactator (Appendix AS).

To assess the relative importance of host plant on beetle species’ distribution, species

on more that one host- plant species were classified as cosmopolitan (Nigel et al.

2004), while specialists, e.g. Evides pubiventris, were found only on Lannea discolor.

The number of beetle species collected at each quadrat varied (Figure 26), being

highest in quadrat A and C and lower in quadrat B.

Average number of beetles collected per site did not differ as vary in terms of species

density. There were no single species occurrences, yet certain species were more

common than others. The most scarce cerambycid species were Xystrocera erosa (3

specimens); Prosopocera lactator (3 specimens) and Xystrocera dispar (2

specimens). The most abundant cerambycids species included Jonthodina sculptillis

(41 specimens); Philematium natalense (22 specimens) and Taurotagus klugi (30

specimens). The following buprestids were not collected in large numbers,

Chrysobothris dorsata (2 specimens); Brachelytrium transvalense (3 specimens) and

Anthaxia sp. 4 (2 specimens).

96

Species collected regularly included Pseudagrilus beryllinus (60 specimens) and

Anthaxia sp. 1(89 specimens); Anthaxia sp. 2 (102 specimens) and Anthaxia sp. 3 (64

specimens).

The total number of Cerambycidae and Buprestidae collected was 35 species and 32

species respectively. Common species showed a difference in terms of species

richness. Species accumulation and estimated number of species among the different

quadrats indicates the common species dataset having lower diversity than quadrat B.

However, there was no significant difference in key species between the different

quadrats.

97

Chapter Four

4. DISCUSSION

According to Hull et al. (1998), the South African region may have a greater number

of endemic, or range restricted, buprestid fauna compared to Namibia. However, this

apparent range restriction is impossible to ascertain from the data collected for most

of these beetles, and may be a false signal generated by the lack of data for many

species. Hull et al. (1998) emphasized the need for additional invetebrate surveys,

particularly in undersampled regions of southern Africa (Kremen et al. 1993;

Drinkrow & Cherry 1995). South Africa, high human population densities, greatest

extent of land transformation, and often political land claims debate (Khan 1990;

Scholtz & Chown 1993), is in desperate need of information regarding species

richness.

In the past, data on insect species richness of particular sites has been collected in two

contrasting manners (Coddington et al. 1991; Longino 1994). Systematists collect

samples in ways that maximize the number of species collected (Longino 1994), but

the unsystematic nature of the sampling means that the ecological generalizations and

extrapolations are difficult to make from the resulting inventories. On the other hand,

samples collected to answer ecological questions may be more amendable to analysis

and extrapolation (Longino 1994), but are often poor representations of the total fauna

at a site (Godfray et al. 1999). This project has attempted to combine these two

approaches, providing an inventory with sound ecological components included.

98

A number of programmes world-wide with the goal of making structured inventories

are now either up and running or in an advanced stage of development (Gamez 1991;

di Castri et al. 1992; & Longino 1994). Previous studies aimed at mandatory sites had

either, 25 %, 50 %, 75 %, or 100 % of their total area included in conservation areas

(Hull et al. 1998), but excluded private reserves. This project has included the private

sector, but excluded government conservation areas.

A number of other issues have been addressed in the design of sampling protocols for

species inventories. First, the seasonal component of diversity was measured, since

diversity and abundance may or may not be represented at certain times of the year

(DeVries et al. 1997; Richardson et al. 1997). Secondly, care was taken to ensure

sampling effort was appropriate in relation to species diversity, since constant

sampling effort can generate misleading patterns (Colwell & Coddington 1994;

Colwell & Hurtt 1994). Although it was difficult to estimate species diversity before

the start of the inventory, increasingly accurate estimates of total species diversity

were obtained as sampling proceeded using a variety of extrapolation techniques

(Codwell & Coddington 1994).

On ENR, this inventory was valuable in determining the magnitude, distribution and

taxonomic composition of the biodiversity of these two families, but alone says little

about the maintenance and dynamics. To address these questions, we need not only

information about numbers and identities of species, but also their interactions.

99

4.1 Classification of Buprestoidea

Only one family, Buprestidae, was classified in this group (Holm & Bellamy 1985).

A new higher classification of the family was proposed in a key by Cobos (1980) in

which the tribes of Lacordaire (1857) and the “groups” of Kerremans (1892, 1893a,

1903) are elevated to subfamilies. The monographs of Kerremans (1904-1914)

remain the basis for current buprestid taxonomy. Obenberger (1931b,c) studied

various African genera and species. The most recent classification by Bellamy (2003)

included two families: Buprestidae and Schizopodidae.

The following 6 subfamilies are represented in South Africa, with 5 subfamilies

sampled on ENR:

Julodines are medium-sized to large (10-15 mm), torpedo-shaped beetles (Bellamy

2004). The subfamily is represented by six genera and 41 species (Holm & Bellamy

1985). Ferreira and Ferreira (1958a & b) reviewed the southern African species of

Sternocera occurring on ENR. Sternocera orissa was the only species representing

this genus collected on ENR.

Polycestinae are medium-sized (9-25 mm) buprestids (Holm & Bellamy 1985).

The subfamily is represented by 78 genera and hundreds of species

(Bellamy 2004). Holm (1982) revised the African species of Acmaeodera. Seven

species representing this subfamily were collected on ENR on a variety of plants.

These species included Acmaeodera albivillosa; Acmaeodera viridiaenea;

Acmaeodera aenea; Acmaeodera ruficaudis; Acmaeodera inscripta; Acmaeodera

punctatissima; & Acmaeodera stellata.

100

Members of this subfamily Chalcophorinae are medium to large (15-45 mm) (Holm

& Bellamy 1985). Most are strikingly coloured in metallic shades. The genus

Psiloptera, accounts for the majority of the southern African chalcophorine species

(Holm & Bellamy 1985). The latest revision of southern African species was by

Ferreira and Ferreira (1958b), and Ferreira (1959). The subfamily is well represented

in southern Africa with 74 genera and with a large number of species (Bellamy

2003).

Three species were collected on ENR, Lampetis conturbata; Lampetis gregaris &

Evides pubiventris. The later were collected on patches of stunted Lannea discolor in

localized locations on a few ridges.

Buprestinae are small to medium-sized (5-16 mm) beetles (Holm & Bellamy 1985).

Most are a dark bronze in colour, but many species of Anthaxia have bright metallic

colours (Holm & Bellamy 1985). The subfamily is well represented in southern

Africa with 110 genera and a large number of species (Bellamy 2003). Three species

were collected on ENR, however due to their cryptic colouration 4 species could not

be identified to species level., these included Anthaxia sp. 1; A. sp. 2; A. sp 3 & A. spp

4. The further 8 species include, A. bergrothi; A.obtectans, Brachelytrium

transvalense, Chrysobothris boschismanni; Chrysobothris algoensis & Chrysobothris

dorsata. 2 species were collected on ENR, primarily on Protea caffra. These species

include Sphenoptera sinuosa & Sphenoptera arrowi. These species are characterized

101

by a waxy coating on the body, forming a colourful pattern which is easily removed

when handled.

Agrilinae are small to medium-sized (3-20 mm) cylindrical beetles (Holm & Bellamy

1985). No one has attempted to revise the African Agrilinae, although some major

studies such as those by Obenberger (1931a, 1935) and Thery (1929a) have appeared.

There are at least 128 genera and many species, of which 150 species belong to

the large genus Agrilus (Bellamy 2004). 9 species were collected on ENR

in this study, representing 6 genera. These include Agrilus guerryi; Agrilus falcatus;

Pseudagrilus beryllinus; Kamosia tenebricosa; Agrilomorpha venosa; Kamosiella

dermestoides; & Phlocteis exasperata. This subfamily is also represented by

Trachys ziziphusii collected on Ziziphus mucronata on the reserve.

4.2 Classification of Cerambycidae

Cerambycidae are within the superfamily Chrysomeloidea (Cox 1985).

General studies of the southern African cerambycid fauna have been undertaken by

Ferreira and Ferreira (1959 a,b,c) and Tippmann (1959). According to Cox (1985), a

comprehensive account of cerambycid biology was given by Duffy (1953) and the

larvae and pupae of many of the economically important cerambycids of southern

Africa were described by Duffy (1957).

There are 6 subfamilies of Cerambycidae known to occur in southern Africa, 3 of

102

these subfamilies were represented on ENR.

Parandrinae are regarded as the most primitive group of cerambycids and are poorly

represented in southern Africa (only one genus, three species) (Cox 1985). These are

medium-sized beetles that are usually found on their hosts or attracted to lights

(Cox 1985). This subfamily was not collected on ENR due to the reserve falling

outside

the distribution of their host plants.

The Aseminae has been studied by Ferreira (1955), and are not represented on ENR.

Prioninae are medium to large-sized (25-100 mm) beetles and are mostly nocturnal

(Cox 1985). These beetles are usually encountered on the trunks or branches of their

hosts or are attracted to artificial light (Cox 1985). Acanthophorus capensis, which

was collected at ENR, is one of the largest beetles in southern Africa (Cox 1985).

The Prioninae is represented by a modest number of 13 genera and 22 species (Cox

1985). Southern African prionines have been revised and lists of species given by

Ferreira (1958), Ferreira and Ferreira (1952a,b, 1956, and 1959a,b,c) and Gilmour

(1956). Three genera are represented on ENR, comprising of four species. These

included Macrotoma palmata; Macrotoma natala; Anthracocentrus capensis; &

Tithoes maculates. All four species were collected using the beating method.

103

Most Lepturinae are distributed in the northern hemisphere and only a few species are

recorded from Africa, and only one species, Otteissa sericea, is known to occur in

South Africa (Cox 1985). This subfamily was not represented on ENR as a result of

specific habitat requirements and extremely localized distribution.

The subfamily Cerambycinae is a very large group, which is well distributed in all

major faunal areas (Cox 1985). Many species are diurnal and show

several interesting mimicry adaptations, species with shortened elyra probably mimic

species of Hymenoptera (Cox 1985). The Cerambycinae are well

represented in southern Africa, 75 genera and 150 species (Cox 1985). The

group was revised by Ferreira (1964). Twelve genera and fifteen species

in Cerambycinae were collected on ENR using the beating method (Holm 1985), and

were not attracted to light to the same degree as the other subfamilies.

These include Zamium incultum; Zamium. bimaculatum; Anubis clavicornis; Anubis

mellyi; Xystrocera erosa; Xystrocera dispar; Captoeme krantzi; Taurotagus klugi;

Jonthodina sculptilis; Hypoeschrus ferreirae; Plocaederus denticornis; Philematium

natalense; Phyllocnema latipes; Pacydissus sp. & Ossibia fuscata.

Lamiinae are by far the most successful group of cerambycids and the fauna of

southern Africa is no exception (Cox 1985). The diurnal species are often

very brightly coloured, with nocturnal species mostly of more sombre colours

(Cox 1985). Certain species cause their host plants to produce galls

(Cox 1985). The subfamily is well represented in southern Africa, 124

genera and 475 species (Cox 1985). Ferreira and Ferreira (1959a & b),

Hunt and Breuning (1956) and Ferreira (1966) compiled lists of the lamiine species.

104

This subfamily is well represented on ENR, with thirteen genera and sixteen species.

These include Crossotus lacunosus; Crossotus plumicornis; Crossotus stypticus;

Dalterus degeeri; Dalterus dejeani; Phantasis giganteus; Olenecamptus albidus;

Nemotragus helvolus; Hecyra terrea; Ceroplesis thunbergi; Lasiopezus longimanus;

Alphitopola octomaculata; Mycerinicus brevis; Phryneta spinator; Tragiscoschema

bertolinii & Prosopocera lactator.

4.3 Factors influencing abundance and diversity on ENR

Phytophagous species that are cosmopolitan (in this study, defined as those found in

all three quadrats), may be more resilient to local climate changes and changes in the

distribution of hosts, and will survive in situ and/or could move with the host plant

and potentially expand their range (Nigel et al. 2004). Specialists (defined as species

found only on one host species in a single quadrat) would be affected more with

changing climate and survival of the host species (Nigel et al. 2004). On ENR, results

indicate that many species may be displaced by extreme fluctuations in temperature.

However, the overall community structure of these two phytophagous beetle

communities may be resilient. In addition to the clear differences in total number of

insects between the quadrats, there was also clearly a difference in species diversity.

When all samples within the various quadrats were pooled, total species richness

increased, as expected. According to Nigel et al. (2004) total phytophagous species

richness appears to be consistently higher in the tropics than in more temperate zones.

In a comparison of beetle species richness on different host-plant genera, families –

see Acacia’s compared to Heteropyxis natalensis and Croton gratissimus.

The majority of the host plants on ENR already extend their range and are pre-adapted

to cope with temperature change. However, associated beetles may not be as resilient

105

to the drastic fluctuations in temperature. Environmental gradients are a useful tool

for understanding the role of climate in structuring insect communities (Harrison

1993; Hodkinson et al. 1999). May (1990), suggested that the study of food webs

might help understand insect richness. Some patterns emerged involving the number

of beetle species with different characteristics of different plants.

4.3.1 Cerambycidae abundance and diversity

• Total Cerambycidae collected

Cerambycidae were collected at monthly intervals throughout the year. October,

November, December and January were months with the highest activity and species

diversity. Collection results for months June and July, indicate almost no cerambycid

activity during this period. The results indicate that environmental conditions

associated with seasonality control the abundance and diversity of cerambycids

• Cerambycidae collected in grid A

Cerambycids collected in quadrat A follow the same general trend with high beetle

numbers being recorded during the summer months with gradual decline towards the

winter months.

• Cerambycidae collected in grid B

Cerambycid numbers in quadrat B indicate an increase in cerambycid numbers at the

beginning of November into December. Cerambycid abundance and diversity in

quadrat B appears to decline earlier than in quadrat A, with numbers starting to

decline in January.

• Cerambycidae collected in grid C

Cerambycid samples recorded in quadrat C indicate a clear decline from January to

July, with a gradual increase in numbers from August to December. November and

106

December clearly are the most environmentally suitable months for cerambycid

activity.

• Reserve Climate

There is a direct relationship between the number of cerambycids collected and

average minimum temperature. This indicates that due to temperatures dropping

exceptionally low in winter, these conditions directly affect cerambycid populations

and the adult population dies off during this period, leaving eggs and larvae to

continue when spring returns. Cerambycid numbers and the average maximum

temperatures correlate with each other but not to the same extent as with average

minimum temperature. Cerambycid numbers indicate a slight correlation with average

rainfall, numbers decreasing with a decrease in rainfall, while increasing with spring

rains. This relationship does not appear as defined as with temperature.

• Plant correlations

Statistically there is a relationship between tree order and cerambycid species on

ENR. The majority of specimens collected were found on trees of the family Fabales.

In all quadrats, cerambycid abundance and diversity was greatest on Mimosaceae,

which include Acacia caffra and Acacia karoo. Certain plant families had zero

species recorded. Statistically there is a relationship between plant species and

cerambycid species on ENR. The majority of specimens collected were found on

Acacia species. Plant species certainly do have some importance as host plants to

certain species, however certain plants appear to have a high attraction to a broad

range of species. Other species, possibly due to high amounts of chemicals to deter

browsers, are very unattractive to cerambycids. Statistically there is a small

relationship between flower size and cerambycid species on ENR. The majority of

107

specimens collected were found on small flowers. Statistically there is a significant

relationship between plant phenology and cerambycid species on ENR. The majority

of specimens collected were found on deciduous plants. Statistically there is no

relationship between plant pollination and cerambycid species on ENR. The majority

of specimens collected were found on plants pollinated by insects. Statistically there

is no relationship between plant climate and cerambycid species on ENR. The

majority of specimens collected were found on temperate plants.

4.3.2 Buprestidae abundance and diversity

• Total Buprestidae collected

Buprestidae were collected at monthly intervals throughout the year. November,

December and January were months with the highest activity and species diversity

Collection results for months June and July, indicate almost no buprestid activity

during this period.

• Buprestidae collected in grid A

Buprestids collected in quadrat A follow a similar trend with high beetle numbers

being recorded during the summer months with gradual decline towards the winter

months.

• Buprestidae collected in grid B

Buprestidae samples from quadrat B indicate a drastic increase in buprestid numbers

at the beginning of December. Buprestid abundance and diversity in quadrat B

appears to decline gradually from March, with no samples collected during June, July

or August.

• Buprestidae collected in grid C

108

Buprestidae samples recorded in quadrat C indicate a drastic decline from March to

April, with a rapid increase in numbers from September to December. November,

December and January clearly are the most environmentally suitable months for

buprestid activity.

• Reserve Climate

Analysis of regression indicates a significant linear trend (r² =0.73) for minimum

temperature parameters and total buprestids collected during 2001 on ENR.

Minimum temperature therefore is expected to have an affect on the total number of

buprestids collected in 2001 on ENR. This indicates that due to temperatures

dropping exceptionally low in winter, these conditions directly affect buprestid

populations and adult populations die off during this period, leaving eggs and larvae

to behind. Analysis of regression indicates a significant linear trend (r² = 0.52) for the

following parameters, maximum temperature and total buprestids collected during

2001 on ENR. Maximum temperature therefore is expected to have an affect on the

number of buprestids collected in 2001 on ENR. Analysis of regression indicates an

insignificant linear trend (r² = 0.34) for the following parameters, average rainfall and

total buprestids collected during 2001 on ENR Average rainfall is not expected to

have an affect on the number of buprestids collected during 2001 on ENR.

• Plant correlations

Statistically there is a relationship between plant order and buprestid species on ENR.

The majority of specimens collected were found on Fabales. Statistically there is also

a significant relationship between plant family and buprestid species on ENR. The

majority of specimens collected were found on Mimosacease. Statistically there is a

109

relationship between plant species and buprestid species on ENR. The majority of

specimens collected were found on plants belonging to the genus Acacia. Statistically

there is a relationship between flower size and buprestid species on ENR.

The majority of specimens collected were found on plants with small flowers.

Statistically there is a relationship between plant phenolgy and buprestid species on

ENR. The majority of specimens collected were found on deciduous plants.

Statistically there is a relationship between pollination and buprestid species on ENR.

The majority of specimens collected were found on plants pollinated by insects.

Buprestids were found to occur predominantly on temperate plants, however more

buprestids were found on sub-tropical plants than cerambycids.

4.4 Overview

In spite of problems with specifically defining what a rare species is (Gaston 1994),

many diversity studies have found that rare species make up a high proportion of the

overall species richness (Basset 1993; Fensham 1994; Bürki & Nentwig 1997;

Sárospataki 1999; Novotny & Basset 2000; Magurran & Henderson 2003). On ENR,

this does not appear to be the case, and common species seem to make up the highest

proportion of overall species richness. According to Coddington et al. (1996) thus

indicating that rare species are thought to contribute more to diversity at tropical

latitudes than at temperate latitudes. This study indicates that rare species do not

appear to have a large role in determining changes in community structure in all

quadrats. Changes in species diversity along environmental gradients, such as aspect,

110

slope and altitude, such gradients are in part associated with change in resource

availability (Rotenberry 1978; Shmida & Wilson 1985; Stevens & Willig 2002).

The concept of landscapes as complex mosaics of habitats varying in quality with

respect to different groups of organisms, has been the subject of a number of recent

studies (Wien 1995; Gacon et al. 1999; Ricketts et al. 2001). On ENR, patches of

habitat with varying quality are likely to underlie the differences we found in insect

abundance and diversity between quadrats.

According to Godfray et al. (1999), sufficient data exists to point to global patterns in

insect diversity. More species tend to be found in the canopies of tropical American

trees than those in Africa. More data is required, as this does not seem to suggest a

correlation between plant and insect diversity. This study proved that host plant

specificity can be addressed by studying the diet of what different beetle species. But

as a single tree can produce many thousands of individuals of hundreds of species,

processing this data would create huge logistical difficulties (Godfray et al. 1999).

Studies of host-specificity and the number of species per tree, are interesting in their

own right (e.g. Strong et al. 1984. Futuyma & Moreno 1988). A number of reasons

have been put forward to explain both higher and lower host specificity of herbivores

(Janzen 1973; Price 1991). The resource fragmentation hypothesis states that higher

diversity lead to lower population densities for individual species and hence less host

specificity, as the most specialized species are unable to maintain themselves on the

111

most fragmented resources (Godfray et al. 1999). Fiedler (1998) found no difference

in host-plant range (measured by the number of families) between tropical and

temperate species. Very little work has been done on the host-plant relationship in

phytophagous beetles. No other group of insects matches the butterflies in host-plant

data available for a complete fauna (Godfray et al. 1999).

Interestingly, the more widespread host plants, A. caffra and A. karoo, the higher the

diversity of insect herbivore species, a pattern also found in temperate tree-feeding

herbivores (Southwood 1961). Eggs and immature of the two families were not

studied due to time and logistical implication, although predation by birds and other

insects would probably have been relevant. Eggs, larval and adults are thought not to

have high levels of chemical defense, although there are many exceptions (Brower

1989). It has been suggested that the fractal nature of the world may lead to a greater

number of niches at smaller spatial scales (Lawton 1984; Morse et al. 1985, although

Fenchel (1993) and it has been pointed out that if the environment is truly fractal then

heterogeneity of resources will be similar at all spatial scales.

It has long been known that insect richness correlates with plant species richness, both

at local (e.g. Southwood et al. 1979; Siemann et al. 1998) and regional levels

(Prendergast et al. 1993). Equally interesting at ENR was the variation in numbers,

especially within the quadrat B, with low plant diversity. Of course, if the ratio is

approximately constant, then the total number of insects follows from the number of

plant species (Godfray et al. 1999). Employing this logic gives estimates in the range

of three to eight million speices of insects (Gaston 1992).

Hull et al. (1998) recognized the inefficiency of the present southern African

conservation network in representing Buprestidae. Some species are represented many

112

times in some reserves while some reserves do not include any known Buprestidae

records at all, although this may be due to survey bias (Hull et al. 1998).

It is acknowledged that areas identified as having high or low concentrations

(hotspots and coldspots) may merely reflect biased collection efforts (Gentry 1992).

Examples of such areas are hotspots in close proximity to major towns, cities or

research institutions (Gelderblom & Bronner 1995), and/or cold spots in regions of

poor sampling (Drinkrow & Cherry 1995).

In this context, the results of this study add to the “bigger picture” of invertebrate

conservation on a pristine reserve, reconfirming that the poor management practices

of farmers and developers are likely to have a detrimental impact on insects and,

particularly, buprestid faunas (Hull et al. 1998).

113

Chapter Five

5. ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF

CERAMBYCIDAE AND BUPRESTIDAE ON EZEMVELO NATURE

RESERVE

Cerambycidae and Buprestidae are very important phytophagous insect families from

an ecological perspective, due to their role in the breakdown of wood and role in the

nutrient cycle.

Fire plays an important role in maintaining and creating suitable conditions for flora

and fauna on a reserve (Friend & Williams 1993). Natural and accidental burns occur

on the reserve, but it is however difficult to quantify the effect of fire on species

diversity and abundance of species on a reserve (Friend & Williams 1993). A study of

the amount of activity in the past and present after an area is burnt would give an

indication of the effect of the impact. According to Friend & Williams (1993), fire

varies in frequency, intensity, extent, season and interactions with other disturbance

processes, therefore different fires may have different effects.

Dead or dying wood is high in both Cerambycidae and Buprestidae activity, usually

harbouring large numbers of larvae and eggs at varying times of the year. It would

therefore be important to note these times, reducing fires to periods when activity may

be low, thus minimizing the effect on these insects.

114

Low intensity fires are expected to cause less damage to eggs and larvae as the fires

burn faster over an area (Friend & Williams 1993).

According the Holm & Bellamy (1995), life cycles of buprestids can be extremely

long, with a case over 35 years on record. According to Friend & Williams (1993),

eggs are more susceptible to fire as they are near the surface of the wood, larvae only

drill deep into the wood after hatching. Implications are that beetle diversity and

abundance would be affected to greater extent with regular burns of high intensity

during times when these beetles are laying eggs, namely summer months. ENR is

predominantly grassland, with rocky outcrops and fire rarely spreads to these

outcrops.

High quantities of wood debris are recognized as an important component of a healthy

ecosystem linked to biodiversity and ecosystem processes. According to Friend &

Williams (1993), these areas are high centres of biological interaction and energy

exchange symbolizing in many ways the complexity of the ecosystem. Care should be

taken when collecting fire wood, such over utilization of dead wood in a non-

sustainable manner could lead to decreases in certain species.

Many wood boring beetles only appear particularly damaging to new growth and

plants weakened by various causes such as drought, frost damage and defoliation by

other leaf feeding insects. According to Holm & Bellamy (1985), most buprestids

attack moribund rather than dead wood. Certain cerambycids, however, may oviposit

on freshly cut, slightly injured, or decaying wood (Cox 1985).

115

Chapter Six

6. CONCLUSION

Darwin (1889), recently quoted by Longino (1994) wrote: “The number of minute and

obscurely coloured beetles is exceedingly great. The cabinets of Europe can, as yet,

boast only of the larger species from tropical climates. It is enough to disturb the

composure of an entomologist’s mind, to look forward to the dimensions of the

complete catalogue”. In the light of this, extrapolation from local inventories to

broader geographical areas may provide a way of accurately estimating global species

richness (May 1988; Colwell & Codington 1994).

This project was primarily concerned with defining and assessing ecosystem health

and providing ecological indicators for ecosystem management. Temperature and

seasonal changes in the ecosystem, had a profound impact on the diversity and

abundance of both families. Certain species from both families appeared more host-

specific to other species from the same genera. Acacia species are the most important

host plant, harbouring the highest diversity and abundance of both families. Transects

at the three sites significantly differed in the diversity and abundance of cerambycid

and buprestid assemblages, with lower diversity and abundance near the Wilge river.

These families showed a gradient in species richness similar to the plants. In transects

richer in plant species, there is greater diversity and abundance of buprestids and

cerambycids.

116

Inventories are valuable for aiding in conservation related decisions, since land

owner’s decisions are often made at local scales and here wood borers and other

insects can provide a rich source of data on environmental change (Kremen et al.

1993). According to Godfray et al. (1999), phytophagous insect inventories and their

associated host plants reveal the structure and patterning of communities, and

generate hypotheses about how component species interact.

The project has acted as an entomological indicator, taking in to consideration two

taxonomic groups that reflect the diversity of other insects across a set of

environments, thus acting as surrogates for the “wholesale” biodiversity (Gaston

1996a; McGeoch 1998). The conservation value of an area is typically judged using a

measure of species richness, or some variant of it (Gaston 1996b; Angermeier &

Winston 1997).

This data suggests that managing reserves to maximize insect abundance, especially

these key beetle families, by maintaining diverse and structurally varied habitats, is

important in maintaining a healthy ecosystem.

117

Chapter Seven

7. REFERENCES

ACOCKS, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the

Botanical Survey of South Africa 61: 112-114.

AEBISCHER, N.J. 1991. Twenty years of monitoring invertebrates and weeds in

cereal fields in Sussex. pp. 305-331 in L.G. Firbank, N. Carter, J.E.

Darbyshire, and G.R. Potts, editors. The ecology of temperate cereal

fields. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.

ANGERMEIER, P.L. & WINSTON, M.R. 1997. Assessing conservation value of

strem communities: a comparison of approaches based on centers of

density and species richness. Freshwater Biology. 37: 699-710.

BASSET, Y. 1993. Arthropod species-diversity and component communities in

rainforest canopy: lessons from the study of an Australian tree. Tropical

Zoology, Special Issue 1: 19-30.

BAZZAZ, F. 1990. The response of natural ecosystems to the rising CO² levels.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 21:167-196.

BELLAMY, C.L. 2003. An illustrated summary of the higher classification of the

superfamily Buprestoidea (Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana

Supplementum 10, 197 pp., 44 plates.

118

BENTON, T.T., BRYANT, D.M., COLE, L.,CRICK, H.Q.P. 2002. Linking

agricultural practice to insect and bird populations: a historical study over

three decades. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 673-687.

BORNMAN, J. 1995. Fitososiologiese evaluering van die plantegroei en die bepaling

van habitat voorkeur van wildspesies met ekologiese

bestuursaanbevelings op Rhenosterpoort Natuurreservaat en Prozesky

voëlpark. B.Sc.hons. Skripsie. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

BROWER, L.P. 1989. Chemical defense in butterflies. In The biology of butterflies

(ed. R.I. Vane-Wright & P.R. Ackery), pp. 109-134. Princeton University

Press.

BURKI, C. & NENTWIG, W. 1997. Comparison of herbivore insect communities

of Heracleum sphondylium, and H. mantegazziauum in Switzerland

(Spermatophyta, Apiaceae). Entomologia Generalis, 22: 147-155.

CAMMELL, M.E. & KNIGHT, J.D. 1992. Effects of climate change on the

population dynamics of crop pests. Advances in Ecological Research, 22:

117-162.

COBOS, A. 1960. Estudio sobre los Cylindromorphini Postevin y descripciones de

especies nuevas. Eos, 36: 245-276.

COBOS, A. 1979. Revision de la subfamilia Trachyinae a niveles supra-especificos

(Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemslovaka, 76: 414-

430.

COBOS, A. 1980. Ensayo sobre los géneros de la subfamilia Polycestinae

(Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Parte 1. Eos, 54 (1978): 15-94.

119

COODINGTON, J.A., GRISWOLD, C.E., SILVA DÁVILLA, D.,

PEÑARANDA, E. & LARCHER, S.F. 1991. Designing and testing

sampling protocols to estimate biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. In The

unity of evolutionary biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International

Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ed. E.C. Dudley), pp.

44-60. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press.

CODDINGTON, J.A., YOUNG, L.H. & COYLE, F.A. 1996. Estimating spider

species richness in southern Appalachian cover hardwood forest. Journal

of Arachnology, 24:111-128.

COLWELL, R.K. & CODDINGTON, J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity

through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London Series. B345: 101-118.

COLWELL, R.K. & HURTT, G.C. 1994. Nonbiological gradients in species

richness and a spurious Rapoport effect. American Naturalist. 144: 570-

595.

CONDIT, R., HUBBELL, S.P. & FOSTER, R.B. 1996. Assessing the response of

plant functional types to climate change in tropical forests. Journal of

Vegetation Science, 7: 405-416.

CORNELISSEN, J.H.C., CALLAGHAN, T.V., ALATALO, J.M.,

MICHELSEN, A., GRAGLIA, E., & HARTLEY, A.E. 2001. Global

change and artic ecosystems: is lichen decline a fraction of increases in

vascular plant biomass? Journal of Ecology, 89: 984-994.

COWLING, R.M., RICHARDSON, D.M. & PIERCE, S.M. 1997. Vegetation of

Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press.

COX, M.L. 1985. Buprestoidea. In: Scholtz, C.H. & Holm, E. (Eds) Insects of

Southern Africa. pp. 263-267. Butterworths, Pretoria.

120

DARWIN, C. 1889. Journal of researchers into the natural history and geology of

the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle’ round the

world. London: John Murray.

DEVRIES, P.J., MURRAY, D., & LANDE, R. 1997. Species diversity in vertical,

horizontal, and temporal dimensions of a fruit-feeding butterfly

community in Ecuadorian rainforest. Biological Journal of the Linnean

Society, 62: 343-364.

DIAL, K.P. & MARZLUFF, J.M. 1988. Are the smallest organisms the most

diverse? Ecology, 69: 1620-1624.

DIAZ, S. & CABIDO, M. 1997. Plant functional types and ecosystem function in

relation to global change. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8: 463-474.

DI CASTRI, F., VERNHES, J.R., & YOUNÉS, T. 1992. Inventorying and

monitoring of biodiversity. A proposal for an international network.

Biological Institution, 27 (special issue), pp. 1-27.

DORMANN, C.F. & WOODIN, S.J. 2002. Climate Change in the Arctic: using

plant functional types in a meta-analysis of field experiments. Functional

Ecology, 16: 4-17.

DRINKROW, D.R. & CHERRY,M.I. 1995. Anuran distribution, diversity and

conservation in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South Africa

Journal of Zoology, 30: 82-89.

DUFFY, E.A.J. 1953. A monograph of the immature stages of British imported

timber beetles (Cerambycidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural

History) London, pp. 1-350.

121

DUFFY, E.A.J. 1957. A monograph of the immature stages of African timber beetles

(Cerambycidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History)

London, pp. 1-338.

EPSTEIN, H.E., GILL, R.A., PARUELO, J.M., LAUENROTH, W.K., JIA, G.J.

& BURKE, I.C. 2002. The relative abundance of three plant functional

types in temperate grasslands and shrublands of North and South

America: Effects projected climate change. Journal of Biogeography, 29:

875-888.

EVERITT, B.S. 1993.The analysis of contingency tables, 2nd edition. Edward

Arnold, London.

FEBER, R.E., FIRBANK, L.G., JOHNSON, P.J., & MACDONALD, D.W. 1997.

The effect of organic farming on pest and non-pest butterfly abundance.

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 64: 133-139.

FENCHEL, T. 1993. Are there more larger than small species? Oikos 68: 375-378.

FENSHAM, R.J. 1994. Phytophagous insect-woody sprout interactions in tropical

eucalypt forest. II. Insect community structure. Australian Journal of

Ecology, 19: 189-196.

FERREIRA, G. da V. 1959. Revisao das espécies sul-Africanas da subtribo

Psilopterina. Revista de Entomologia de Mozambique, 2(2): 357-546.

FERREIRA, G. da V. 1964. Longicórnios de Mozambique I. Revista de

Entomologia de Mozambique, 7(2)451-801. FERREIRA, G. da V. 1966.

Longicórnios de Mozambique II. Subfamília Lamiinae. Revista de

Entomologia de Mozambique, 9(1&2) 3 -728.

FERREIRA, M.C. 1955. Contribution to the study of the Cerambycidae of South

Africa. 11. Aseminae. Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 22: 367-373.

122

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1952a. Contribuição para o estudo dos

prioníeos da África do Sul. Revista da Faculdade de Ciências,

Universidade de Lisboa, 2nd Serie C. 11: 275-292.

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1952b. Revision of South African

Prioninae. Entomologia Florestal de Mozambique, 1952: 1-117.

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1958a. Contribuição para o

Buprestidos da sub-região natural da África do Sul, I. Revista de

Entomologia de Mozambique, 1(1): 1-116.

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1958b. Contribuição para o

Buprestidos da sub-região natural da África do Sul, II. Revista de

Entomologia de Mozambique, 1(2): 137-232.

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1959a. Contribuição para o estudo dos

lamídeos da sub-região natural da África do Sul, I. Revista de

Entomologia de Mozambique, 2: 1-184.

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1959b. Contribuição para o estudo dos

lamídeos da sub-região natural da África do Sul, II. Revista de

Entomologia de Mozambique, 2: 185-228.

FERREIRA, M.C. & FERREIRA, G. da V. 1959c. Catálogo dos carambicídeos da

Região Etiópica, 1. Parte Supertribos Parandrina & Prionina. Memórias

do Insituto de Investigaqão Cientifica de Mozambique, 1: 1-76.

FIEDLER, K. 1998. Diet breadth and host plant diversity of tropical- vs. temperate-

zone herbivores: South-East Asian and West Palaearctic butterflies as a

case study. Ecological Entomology. 23: 285-297.

FOURIE, I. 1993. Collecting and preserving insects. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

123

FOWLER, J., COHEN, L., & JARVIS, P. 1998. Practical statistics for field

biology. John Wiley & Son (Pty) Ltd. 13: 110-129.

FRIEND, G.R. & WILLIAMS, M.R. 1993. Fire and invertebrate conservation in

mallee-heath remnants. Final Report, Project P144, World Wide Fund

for Nature, Australia.

FREITAG, S. & VAN JAASVELD, A.S. 1995. Towards conserving regional

mammalian species diversity: a case study and data critique. South

African Journal of Zoology 30: 136-143.

FREITAG, S. & MANSELL, M.W. 1997. The distribution and protection of

selected antlion species (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) in South Africa.

African Entomology 5: 205-216.

FUTUYMA, D.J. & MORENO, G. 1988. The evolution of ecological

specialization. Progress in Physical Geography 19: 207-233.

GAMEZ, R. 1991. Biodiversity conservation through facilitation of its sustainable

use: Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute. Trends Ecological

Evolution. 6: 377-378.

GASCON,C.,LOVEJOY, T.E., BIERREGAARD, R.O., MALCOLM, J.R.,

STOUFFER, P.C., VASCONCELOS, H.L., LAURANCE, W.F.,

ZIMMERMAN, B., TOCHER, M., & BORGES, S. 1999. .Matrix

habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biological

Conservation 91: 223-229.

GASTON, K.J. 1992. Regional numbers of insects and plant species. Functional

Ecology, 6: 243-247.

124

GASTON, K.J. 1994. Rarity. Chapman & Hall, London.

GASTON, K.J. 1996a. Biodiversity-congruence. Program of Phyical Geography.

20: 105-112.

GASTON, K.J. 1996b. Species richness: measure and measurement. In Biodiversity.

A biology of numbers and difference. Edited by K.J. Gaston. Blackwell

Science, Oxford. pp. 77-113.

GELDERBLOM, C.M.& BRONNER,G.N. 1995. Patterns of distribution and

protection status of the endemic mammals in South Africa. South African

Journal of Zoology 30: 127-135.

GENTRY, A.H. 1992. Tropical forest biodiversity: distributional patterns and their

conservation significance. Oikos 63: 19-28.

GILMOUR, E.F. 1956. Revision of the Prioninae of Tropical and South Africa.

Longicornia, 3: 1-252.

GODFRAY, H.C.J., LEWIS, O.T., & MEMMOTT, J. 1999. Studying insect

diversity in the tropics. The Royal Society. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London, Series B. 354: 1811-1824.

GOTELLI, N.J. & COLWELL, R.K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures

and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness.

Ecology Letters, 4: 379-391.

GROBLER, A. 1999. Phytosociology & Veld Condition Assessment of Ezemvelo

Nature Reserve. B.Sc.Hons. thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

125

GRUNOW, J.O. 1996. Objectivity in plant community classification. Proceedings of

the Grassland Society of southern Africa 1: 49-55.

GUSSMANN, S.M.V. 1994. Revision of the genus Julodis Eschscholtz (Coleoptera:

Buprestidae) of southern Africa. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pretoria,

Pretoria.

HARRINGTON, R., WOIWOD, I. & SPARKS, T. 1999. Climate change and

trophic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 146-150.

HARRISON, S. 1993. Species diversity, spatial scale, and global change. Biotic

Interactions and Global Change (ed. by P.M. Kareiva, J.G. Kingsolver

and R.B. Huey), pp. 388-401. Sinauer Associated, Massachusetts.

HOLM, E. 1978. Monograph of the genus Acmaeodera Eschscholtz (Coleoptera:

Buprestidae) of Africa south of the Sahara. Republic of South Africa,

Department of Agricultural and Technical Services, Entomology

Memoirs, 47: 1-210.

HOLM, E. 1982. Revision of the Polycestini (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) of Africa.

Republic of South Africa, Department of Agricultural Technical Services,

Entomology Memoirs, 56: 1-28.

HOLM, E. 1983. Monitering en bewaring van insekte. Spectrum 213: 36-42.

HOLM, E. 1984. Die versameling van insekte. Spectrum 223: 36-46.

HOLM, E. & BELLAMY, C.L. 1985. Buprestoidea. In: Scholtz, C.H. & Holm, E.

(Eds) Insects of Southern Africa. pp. 224-228. Butterworths, Pretoria.

HULL, H.E., FREITAG, S., CHOWN, S.L., & BELLAMY, C.L. 1998.

Identification and evaluation of priority conservation areas for

126

Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland and

Namibia. African Entomology 6: 265-274.

HUNT, J.W. & BREUNING, S. 1956. A check list of South African Lamiinae.

Durban Museum Novitates, 4: 329-371.

HURLBERT, S.H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and

alternative parameters. Ecology, 52: 577-586.

JAKOWLEFF, B.E. 1903. Révision des Sphenoptera de la région ethiopienne

(Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Supplément. Horae Societatis Entomologicae

Rossicae, 36(3-4): 231-139.

JANSEN, D.H. 1973. Comments on host-specificity of tropical herbivores and its

relevance to species richness. In Taxonomy and ecology (ed. V. H.

Heywood), pp. 201-211. New York: Academic Press.

JANSEN, D.H. 1987. Insect diversity of a Costa Rican dry forest: why keep it, and

how? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 30: 343-356.

KERREMANS, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des Buprestides décrits de 1758 &

1890. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304.

KERREMANS, C. 1893a. Essai de groupement des Buprestides. Annales de la

Société Entomologique de Belgique, 37: 94 –122.

KERREMANS, C. 1893b. Les Chrysobothrines d’Afrique …Annales de la Société

Entomologique de Belgique, 37: 232-260.

KERREMANS, C. 1903. Coleoptera, fam. Buprestidae. Genera Insectorum, Fascicle

12.

127

KERREMANS, C. 1904-1914. Monographie des Buprestides, vol. 1-7. Bruxelles:

Janssens & Breurer.

KERSHAW, M., WILLIAMS, P.H. & MACE, G.M. 1994. Conservation of

Afrotropical antelopes: consequences and efficiency of using different

site selection methods and diversity criteria. Biodiversity and

Conservation 3: 354-372.

KHAN, F. 1990. Beyond the white rhino: confronting the South African land

question. African Wildlife 44: 321-324.

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. Conservation Biology 7: 768-808.

KREMEN, C. 1994. Biological inventory using target taxa: a case study of the

butterflies of Madagascar. Ecological Applications 4: 401-422.

LACORDAIRE, Th. 1857. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Genera des Coleopteres.

Paris: Librairie encyclopédique de Roret.

LANDSBERG, J. & STAFFORD-SMITH, M. 1992. A functional scheme for

predicting the outbreak potential of herbivorous insects under global

atmospheric change. Australian Journal of Botany, 40: 565-577.

LAWTON, J.H. 1984. Surface availability and insect community structure: the

effects of architecture and the fractal dimensions of plants. In Insects and

the plant surface (ed. B.E. Juniper & T,R.E. Southwood), pp. 317-331.

London: Arnold.

LAWTON, J.H. & STRONG, D.R. 1981. Community patterns and competition in

folivorous insects. American Naturalist 118: 317-338.

128

LONGINO, J.T. 1994. How to measure arthropod diversity in a tropical rainforest.

Biological Institution 28: 3-13.

LOUW, A.B. & REBELO, T.G. 1988. (Ed.s).Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho

and Swaziland. Department of Environmental, Water Affairs & Tourism.

Pretoria.

MAGURRAN, A.E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing,

Oxford.

MAGURRAN, A.E. & HENDERSON, P.A. 2003. Explaining the excess of rare

species in natural species abundance distributions. Nature, 422: 714-716.

MAY, R.M. 1988. How many species are there on earth? Science 241: 1441-1449.

MAY, R.M. 1990. How many species? Phil. Trans. R. Soc.Lond. B330: 293-304.

McGEOGH, M.A. 1998. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects

as bioindicators. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical

Society 73: 181-201.

MORSE, D.R., LAWTON, J.H., DOBSON, M.M. & WILLIAMSON, M.H. 1985.

Fractal dimensions of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body

lengths. Nature 314: 731-732.

MUIRHEAD-THOMPSON, R.C. 1991. Trap responses of flying insects: the

influence of trap design on capture efficiency. Academic Press, London.

MUELLER-DOMBOIS, D. & ELLENBERG, H. 1974. Aims and methods of

vegetation ecology. Wiley, London.

MULLER, C., FREITAG, S., SCHOLTZ, C.H., & VAN JAASVELD, A.S. 1997.

An assessment of termite distributions, endemism, species richness and

129

priority conservation areas in South Africa. African Entomology 5: 261-

271.

NEW, T.R. & YEN, A.L. 1995. Ecological importance and invertebrate

conservation. Oryx 29: 187-191.

NIGEL, R., HUGHES, A., & HUGHES, L. 2004. Species diversity and structure of

phytophagous beetle assemblages along a longitudinal gradient:

predicting the potential impacts of climate change. Ecological

Entomology, 29: 527-542.

NOSS, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach.

Conservation biology 4: 355-364.

NOVOTNY, V. & BASSET, Y. 2000. Rare species in communities of tropical insect

herbivores: pondering the mystery of singletons. Oikos, 89: 564-572.

OBENBERGER, J. 1931b,c. Studien über die aetiopischen Buprestiden, I & II.

Folia Zoologica et Hydrobiologica, 1931b I, 2:175-201; 1931c II, 3: 84-

127.

OBENBERGER, J. 1931a. Agrilenstudien I. Entomologische Nachrichtenblatt, 5(3):

54-71.

OBENBERGER, J. 1935. [Nine articles on agrilines.] Acta Entomologica

Bohemoslovaca, 32: 12-277.

OBENBERGER, J. 1938. Révision des especes exotiques du genre Trachys F. du

continent Africaine, Sbornik Entomologického Oddĕleni Narodniho

Musea v. Praze, 2(15): 5-57.

130

PANAGOS, M.D. 1995. A comparative classification of the Sourish-Mixed

Bushveld on the farm Roodeplaat (293) using quadrat and point methods.

M.Sc. thesis. University of Natal, Petermaritzburg.

PARUELO, J.M. & LAUENROTH, W.K. 1995. Effect of climate change on the

distribution of plant functional types (PFTs) in grasslands and

shrublands. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 76: 207.

PEETERS, P.J., READ, J., SANSON, G.D. 2001. Variation in the guild

composition of herbivorous insect assemblages among co-occurring plant

species. Austral Ecology, 26: 385-399.

PICKETT, S.T.A., PARKER, V.T. & FIEDLER, P.L. 1992. The new paradigm in

ecology: implications for conservation above the species level. In:

Fiedler, P.L. & Jain, S.K. (Eds) Conservation biology. pp. 66-87.

Chapman & Hall, London.

PRENDERGAST, J.R., QUINN, R.M., LAWTON, J.H., EVERSHAM, B.C. &

GIBBONS, D.W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity

hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335-337.

PRINCE, P.W. 1991. Patterns in communities along latitudinal gradients. In Plant-

animal interactions: evolutionary ecology in tropical and temperate

regions (ed. P.W. Price, T.M. Lewinsohn, G.W. Fernandes & W.W.

Benson). New York: Wiley.

RENEW, T.R. 1993. Angels on a pin: dimensions of the crisis in invertebrate

conservation. American Zoologist 33: 623-630.

RICHARDSON, S.J., PRESS, M.C., PARSONS, A.N. & HARTLEY, S.E. 2002.

How do nutrients and warming impact on plant communities and their

insect herbivores? A 9-year study from a sub-Arctic heath. Journal of

Ecology, 90: 544-556.

131

RICHARDSON, B.J., BURGIN, S., AZARBAYJANI, F.F. & LUTUBULA, S.

1997. Distinguishing the wood from the trees. In Canopy arthropods (ed.

N.E. Stork, J. Adis & R.K. Didham), pp. 497-509. London: Chapman &

Hall.

RICKETTS, T.H., DAILY, G.C., EHRLICH, P.R. & FAY, J.P. 2001. Countryside

biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native

and agricultural habitats. Conservation Biology 15: 278-388.

ROOT, R.B. 1973. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and

diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecological

Monographs, 43: 95-124.

ROTENBERRY, J.T. 1978. Components of avian diversity along multifactoral

climate gradient. Ecology, 59: 693-699.

SÁROSPATAKI, M. 1999. Phytophagous insects associated with Hieeracium

pilosella (Asteraceae) in Hungary, Central Europe. Environmental

Entomology, 28: 1-8.

SAMWAYS, M.J. 1994. Insect Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall, London.

SCHOLTZ, C.H. & CHOWN, S.L. 1993. Insect conservation and extensive

agriculture: the savanna of southern Africa. In: Gaston, K.J., New, T.R.

& Samways, M.J. (Eds) Perspectives on Insect Conservation. pp. 75-95.

Intercept, Andover.

SCHOLTZ, C.H. & CHOWN, S.L. 1995. Insects in southern Africa: how many

species are there? South African Journal of Science 91: 124-126.

SHMIDA, A. & WILSON, M.V. 1985. Biological determinants of species diversity.

Journal of Biogeography, 12: 1-20.

132

SIEMANN, E., TILMAN, D., HAARSTAD, J. & RITCHIE, M. 1998.

Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant

diversity. American Naturalist. 152: 738-750.

SIMBERLOFF, D. & DAYAN, T. 1991. The guild concept and the structure of

ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 22:

115-143.

SKAIFE, S.H. 1979. African Insect Life. Ed. J Ledger. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd.

14: 110-135.

SOUTHWOOD, T.R.E. 1961. The number of species associated with various trees.

Journal of Animal Ecology. 30: 1-8.

STEVENS, R.D. & WILLIG, M.R. 2002. Geographic ecology at the community

level: perspectives on the diversity of new world bats. Ecology, 83: 545-

560.

STORER, T.I., USINGER, R.L., STEBBINS, R.C., NYBAKKEN, J.W. 1979.

General Zoology. (sixth edition). McGraw-Hill, Inc. 12: 242-245.

STRONG, D.R., LAWTON, J.H. & SOUTHWOOD, T.R.E. 1984. Insects on

plants: community patterns and mechanisms. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Science.

SUTHERLAND, W.J. 1998. Ecological census techniques, a handbook. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

THÉRY, A. 1929a. Essai de classement du genre Pseudagrilus. Bulletin de la Société

des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 9(7-8): 122-138.

133

TIPPMAN, F.F. 1959. Coleoptera: Cerambycidae. In Hanström, Brinck & Rudebeck

(q.v.), 6: 152-193.

WEAVER, I.C. 1995. Indicator species and scale of observation. Conservation

Biology 9: 939-942.

WESTFALL, R.H. 1992. Objectivity in stratification, sampling and classification of

vegetation. PhD thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

WESTFALL, R.H., VAN STADEN, J.M., PANAGOS, M.D., BREYTENBACH,

P.J.J. & GREEF, A. 1996. Scale-related vegetation sampling. ARC-

Range and Forage Institute. Private Bag X05, East Lynn 0039.

WESTFALL, R.H., THERON, G.K. & VAN ROOYEN, N. 1997. Objective

classification and analysis of vegetation data. Plant Ecology 132: 137-

154.

WESTHOFF, V. & VAN DER MAAREL, E. 1980. The Braun-Blanquet Approach.

In: WHITTAKER, R.H. (ed.). Classification of Plant Communities. Dr

W. Junk bv Publishers, London.

WIENS, J.A. 1995. Habitat fragmentation: island v. landscape perspective on bird

conservation. Ibis 137: s97-s101.

WILLIAMS, P.H., GIBBONS, D., MARGULES, C., REBELO, A.,

HUMPHRIES, C. & PRESSEY, R. 1996. A comparison of richness

hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complimentary areas for conserving

diversity of British birds. Conservation Biology. 10: 155-174.

134

Appendix A

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in all quadrats on ENR

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalZamium incultum 6 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 21Coptoeme krantzi 3 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 21Taurotagus klugi 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 4 6 8 30Jonthodina sculptilis 1 5 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 11 8 9 41Anubis clavicornis 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 5 20Macrotoma palmata 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 7 3 18Tithoes maculates 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 8 27Phantasis giganteus 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 12Dalterus dejeani 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 11Crossotus lacunosus 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 7 16Crossotus plumicornis 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 9 21Olenecamptus albidus 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 15Anthracocentrus capensis 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 17Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 11Plocaederus denticornis 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 18Crossotus stypticus 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 16Nemotragus helvolus 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 14Hecyra terrea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 5Ceroplesis thunbergi 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 4 24Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 7Philematium natalense 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 6 22

136

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalDalterus degeeri 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 10Zamium bimaculatum 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 4 19Anubis mellyi 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 14Alphitopolaoctomaculata 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 8Mycerinicus brevis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4Phryneta spinator 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 5Tragiscoschemabertolinii 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 7 20Phyllocnema latipes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 9Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 12Macrotoma natala 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 11Ossibia fuscata 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 11Xystrocera erosa 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3Xystrocera dispar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Total 67 50 31 9 11 2 0 9 32 72 115 120 518

137

Appendix B

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in all quadrats on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Zamium incultum 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4Coptoeme krantzi 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4Taurotagus klugi 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 6Jonthodina sculptilis 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 8Anubis clavicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4Macrotoma palmata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Tithoes maculates 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5Phantasis giganteus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2Dalterus dejeani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2Crossotus lacunosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Crossotus plumicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4Olenecamptus albidus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Anthracocentruscapensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2Plocaederus denticornis 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Crossotus stypticus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3Nemotragus helvolus 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ceroplesis thunbergi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 5Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Philematium natalense 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

138

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Dalterus degeeri 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2Zamium bimaculatum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Anubis mellyi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3Alphitopolaoctomaculata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Phryneta spinator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Tragiscoschemabertolinii 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Phyllocnema latipes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Macrotoma natala 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Ossibia fuscata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 13 10 6 2 2 0 0 2 6 14 22 23 100

139

Appendix C

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat A on ENR

Species Jany Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalZamium incultum 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 13Coptoeme krantzi 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 9Taurotagus klugi 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 4 4 16Jonthodina sculptilis 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 2 16Anubis clavicornis 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6Macrotoma palmata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 9Tithoes maculates 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 14Phantasis giganteus 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4Dalterus dejeani 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5Crossotus lacunosus 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 7Crossotus plumicornis 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9Olenecamptus albidus 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6Anthracocentrus capensis 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 6Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 11Plocaederus denticornis 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 18Crossotus stypticus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 7Nemotragus helvolus 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

140

Continued

Species Jany Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalHecyra terrea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 5Ceroplesis thunbergi 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 11Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 7Philematium natalense 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 10Dalterus degeeri 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 10Total 27 26 12 4 1 0 0 5 13 34 40 41 203

141

Appendix D

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat A on ENR

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Zamium incultum 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6Coptoeme krantzi 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Taurotagus klugi 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 8Jonthodina sculptilis 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 8Anubis clavicornis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Macrotoma palmata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 4Tithoes maculates 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 7Phantasis giganteus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Dalterus dejeani 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Crossotus lacunosus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3Crossotus plumicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4Olenecamptus albidus 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Anthracocentrus capensis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5Plocaederus denticornis 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 9Crossotus stypticus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3Nemotragus helvolus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Hecyra terrea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

142

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Ceroplesis thunbergi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Philematium natalense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5Dalterus degeeri 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5% 13 13 6 2 0 0 0 2 6 17 20 20 100

143

Appendix E

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat B on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalZamium bimaculatum 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 12Jonthodina sculptilis 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 13Anubis mellyi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 6Macrotoma palmata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Tithoes maculates 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 5Alphitopolaoctomaculata 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 8Crossotus lacunosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 4Mycerinicus brevis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4Phryneta spinator 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 5Dalterus dejeani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6Ceroplesis thunbergi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4Tragiscoschemabertolinii 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5Anubis clavicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 6Phyllocnema latipes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

144

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalPacydissus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 8Coptoeme krantzi 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 8Taurotagus klugi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4Philematium natalense 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Macrotoma natala 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4Crossotus plumicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 5Total 12 11 6 0 3 0 0 3 5 12 34 30 116

145

Appendix F

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat B on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Zamium bimaculatum 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 10Jonthodina sculptilis 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 11Anubis mellyi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5Macrotoma palmata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Tithoes maculates 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4Alphitopolaoctomaculata 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 7Crossotus lacunosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3Mycerinicus brevis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3Phryneta spinator 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4Dalterus dejeani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5Ceroplesis thunbergi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3Tragiscoschemabertolinii 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4Anubis clavicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 5Phyllocnema latipes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 7Coptoeme krantzi 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 7

146

Taurotagus klugi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3Philematium natalense 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Macrotoma natala 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3Crossotus plumicornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 4% 10 9 5 0 3 0 0 3 4 10 29 26 100

147

Appendix G

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat C on ENR.

148

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalNemotragus helvolus 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10Crossotus stypticus 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 9Tragiscoschemabertolinii 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 15Anthracocentruscapensis 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 11Anubis clavicornis 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 8Anubis mellyi 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 8Phyllocnema latipes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 7Ossibia fuscata 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 11Taurotagus klugi 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 10Coptoeme krantzi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4Zamium incultum 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 8Zamium bimaculatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 7Xystrocera erosa 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4Philematium natalense 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 8Jonthodina sculptilis 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 5 1 2 12Macrotoma palmata 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 6Tithoes maculates 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8Crossotus lacunosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5

149

Appendix H

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat C on ENR

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalMacrotoma natala 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7Phantasis giganteus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 8Crossotus plumicornis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 7Ceroplesis thunbergi 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 9Olenecamptus albidus 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 9Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3Xystrocera dispar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Total 28 13 13 5 7 2 0 1 14 26 41 49 199

150

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Nemotragus helvolus 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5Crossotus stypticus 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5Tragiscoschemabertolinii 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 8Anthracocentrus capensis 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 6Anubis clavicornis 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4Anubis mellyi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4Phyllocnema latipes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 4Ossibia fuscata 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 6Taurotagus klugi 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 5Coptoeme krantzi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2Zamium incultum 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4Zamium bimaculatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 4Xystrocera erosa 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2Philematium natalense 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4Jonthodina sculptilis 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 6Macrotoma palmata 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

Continued

151

Appendix I

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in all quadrats on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Tithoes maculates 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Crossotus lacunosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3Macrotoma natala 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4Phantasis giganteus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4Crossotus plumicornis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 4Ceroplesis thunbergi 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 5Olenecamptus albidus 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 5Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2Xystrocera dispar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% 14 7 7 3 4 1 0 1 7 13 21 25 100

152

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalAcmaeodera albivillosa 7 3 3 1 3 1 0 2 1 3 5 7 36Acmaeodera viridiaenea 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 20Acmaeodera aenea 4 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 15Acmaeodera ruficaudis 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 13Acmaeodera inscripta 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 12Sternocera orisa 12 5 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 41Anthaxia bergrothi 6 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 8 9 38Agrilus guerryi 6 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 5 24Lampetis gregaris 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7Chrysobothrisboschismanni 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 8 25Chrysobothris algoensis 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 9 23Agrilus sexguttatus 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 12Anthaxia sp. 1 16 10 9 8 3 0 0 0 4 7 13 19 89Anthaxia sp. 2 11 19 17 4 4 0 0 0 1 9 16 21 102Anthaxia sp. 3 9 9 6 7 4 1 0 2 1 4 5 16 64Trachys ziziphusii 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 15Pseudagrilus beryllinus 5 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 14 23 60Brachelytrium transvalense 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Chrysobothris dorsata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Acmaeodera punctatissima 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5Kamosia tenebricosa 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 10Agrilomorpha venosa 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 11

Continued

153

Appendix J

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalAgrilus falcatus 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6Sphenoptera arrowi 8 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 6 13 45Kamosiella dermestoides 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 10Acmaeodera stellata 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 13Phlocteis exasperata 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 14Lampetis conturbata 7 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 27Evides pubiventrus 6 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 22Sphenoptera sinuosa 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 22Anthaxia obtectans 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 16Anthaxia sp. 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3Total 149 104 86 33 27 2 1 7 23 52 126 195 805

154

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in all quadrats on ENR.

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Acmaeodera albivillosa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Acmaeodera viridiaenea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acmaeodera aenea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acmaeodera ruficaudis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Acmaeodera inscripta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sternocera orisa 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5Anthaxia bergrothi 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5Agrilus guerryi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Psiloptera gregaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Chrysobothris boschismanni 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Chrysobothris algoensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Agrilus sexguttatus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Anthaxia sp. 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 11Anthaxia sp. 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 13Anthaxia sp. 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8Trachys ziziphusii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 7Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

155

Appendix K

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Acmaeodera punctatissima 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Kamosia tenebricosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agrilomorpha venosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agrilus falcatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6Kamosiella dermestoides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Acmaeodera stellata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Phlocteis exasperata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Lampetis conturbata 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Evides pubiventrus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Sphenoptera sinuosa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Anthaxia obtectans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 19 13 11 4 3 0 0 1 3 6 16 24 100

156

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat A on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalAcmaeodera albivillosa 5 2 2 1 3 1 0 2 1 2 5 4 28Acmaeodera viridiaenea 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 20Acmaeodera aenea 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 11Acmaeodera ruficaudis 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 8Acmaeodera inscripta 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 10Acmaeodera punctatissima 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5Sternocera orisa 5 4 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 28Anthaxia sp. 1 6 5 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 7 36Anthaxia sp. 2 4 6 5 3 2 0 0 0 1 3 4 7 35Anthaxia sp. 3 4 6 2 4 4 1 0 2 1 2 2 6 34Anthaxia bergrothi 3 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 7 23Agrilus guerryi 6 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 5 24Agrilus sexguttatus 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 12Agrilus falcatus 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6Chrysobothrisboschismanni 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 16Chrysobothris algoensis 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 14Chrysobothris dorsata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Sphenoptera arrowi 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 12Trachys ziziphusii 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 15

Continued

157

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalKamosia tenebricosa 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 10Agrilomorpha venosa 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 11Lampetis gregaria 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 6Pseudagrilus beryllinus 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 10Brachelytrium transvalense 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Total 70 53 34 23 15 2 1 7 15 23 57 79 379

158

Appendix L

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat A on ENR

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Acmaeodera albivillosa 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 7Acmaeodera viridiaenea 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 5Acmaeodera aenea 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Acmaeodera ruficaudis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2Acmaeodera inscripta 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Acmaeodera punctatissima 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Sternocera orissa 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7Anthaxia sp. 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 9Anthaxia sp. 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 9Anthaxia sp. 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 9Anthaxia bergrothi 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 6Agrilus guerryi 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 6Agrilus sexguttatus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3Agrilus falcatus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Chrysobothrisboschismanni 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Chrysobothris algoensis 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Trachys ziziphusii 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

159

Continued

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Kamosia tenebricosa 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Agrilomorpha venosa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Lampetis gregaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Brachelytriumtransvalense 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 18 14 9 6 4 1 0 2 4 6 15 21 100

160

Appendix M

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat B on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalAcmaeodera inscripta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Acmaeodera aenea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Acmaeodera albivillosa 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 8Acmaeodera ruficaudis 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5Anthaxia sp.1 6 3 5 3 3 0 0 0 1 3 5 7 36Anthaxia sp 2 4 7 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 8 35Anthaxia sp. 3 5 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 10 30Chrysobothris algoensis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 5Chrysobothrisboschismanni 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Sternocera orissa 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8Pseudagrilus beryllinus 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11 22Total 26 19 16 6 5 0 0 0 2 9 21 49 153

161

Appendix N

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat B on ENR

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec %Acmaeodera inscripta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Acmaeodera aenea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Acmaeodera albivillosa 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5Acmaeodera ruficaudis 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Anthaxia sp.1 4 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 24Anthaxia sp 2 3 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 23Anthaxia sp. 3 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 20Chrysobothris algoensis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3Chrysobothrisboschismanni 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Sternocera orissa 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5Pseudagrilus beryllinus 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 14% 17 12 10 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 14 32 100

162

Appendix O

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat C on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec TotalAcmaeodera stellata 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 13Acmaeodera inscripta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Acmaeodera aenea 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3Chrysobothris boschismanni 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 7Chrysobothris algoensis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4Anthaxia bergrothi 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 15Anthaxia sp. 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 17Anthaxia sp. 2 3 6 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 6 32Anthaxia obtectans 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 6 16Anthaxia sp. 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3Sphenoptera arrowi 5 4 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 5 8 33Sphenoptera sinuosa 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 22Lampetis conturbata 7 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 27Lampetis gregaria 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sternocera orisa 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5Pseudagrilus beryllinus 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 6 8 28Phlocteis exasperata 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 14Evides pubiventris 6 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 22Kamosiella dermestoides 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 10Total 53 32 36 4 7 0 0 0 6 20 48 67 273

163

Appendix P

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for each month of the year in quadrat C on ENR.

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec %Acmaeodera stellata 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5Acmaeodera inscripta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Acmaeodera aenea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Chrysobothrisboschismanni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3Chrysobothris algoensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Anthaxia bergrothi 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5Anthaxia sp. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 6Anthaxia sp. 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 12Anthaxia obtectans 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 6Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 12Sphenoptera sinuosa 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 8Lampetis conturbata 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 10Lampetis gregaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sternocera orisa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 10Phlocteis exasperata 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5Evides pubiventris 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8Kamosiella dermestoides 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4% 19 12 13 1 3 0 0 0 2 7 18 25 100

164

Apppendix Q

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant orders in all quadrats on ENR

165

Continued

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal Total

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal TotalZamium incultum 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Coptoeme krantzi 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Taurotagus klugi 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Jonthodina sculptilis 19 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21Anubis clavicornis 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Macrotoma palmata 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Tithoes maculates 12 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Phantasis giganteus 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Dalterus dejeani 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Crossotus lacunosus 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Crossotus plumicornis 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Olenecamptus albidus 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Anthracocentrus capensis 6 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Hypoeschrus ferreirae 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Plocaederus denticornis 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8Crossotus stypticus 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7Nemotragus helvolus 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Hecyra terrea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ceroplesis thunbergi 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Lasiopezus longimanus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Philematium natalense 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13Dalterus degeeri 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3Zamium bimaculatum 6 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 13Anubis mellyi 7 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

166

Alphitopolaoctomaculata 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Phryneta spinator 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Tragiscoschemabertolinii 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Phyllocnema latipes 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Pacydissus sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Macrotoma natala 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Ossibia fuscata 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 188 7 12 28 5 3 0 5 4 1 0 0 253

Fabales 188Myrtales 7Sapindales 12Rosales 28Gentialanes 5Santalales 3Ericales 0Malvales 5Proteales 4Celastrales 1Poales 0Malpighiales 0

Appendix R

167

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant orders in all quadrats on ENR

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal %Zamium incultum 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Coptoeme krantzi 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Taurotagus klugi 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Jonthodina sculptilis 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Anubis clavicornis 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Macrotoma palmata 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Tithoes maculates 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Phantasis giganteus 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Dalterus dejeani 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Crossotus lacunosus 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Crossotus plumicornis 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Olenecamptus albidus 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Anthracocentrus capensis 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Plocaederus denticornis 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Crossotus stypticus 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3Nemotragus helvolus 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ceroplesis thunbergi 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Continued

168

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal %Philematium natalense 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Dalterus degeeri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Zamium bimaculatum 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5Anubis mellyi 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Alphitopolaoctomaculata 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phryneta spinator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tragiscoschemabertolinii 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Phyllocnema latipes 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pacydissus sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Macrotoma natala 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Ossibia fuscata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 74 3 5 11 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 100

Appendix S

169

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant family in all quadrats on ENR

SpeciesMim

Com

Ana

Cae

Pap

Log

Ulm

Sap

Rha

Ste

Pro

Cel

Poa

Eup Ebe

Het Ola Total

Zamium incultum 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Coptoeme krantzi 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Taurotagus klugi 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Jonthodina sculptilis 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21Anubis clavicornis 10 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Macrotoma palmata 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Tithoes maculates 12 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Phantasis giganteus 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Dalterus dejeani 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Crossotus lacunosus 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6Crossotus plumicornis 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Olenecamptus albidus 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Anthracocentrus capensis 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Hypoeschrus ferreirae 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Plocaederus denticornis 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Crossotus stypticus 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Nemotragus helvolus 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Hecyra terrea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ceroplesis thunbergi 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

170

Continued

Species Mim Com

Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola Total

Lasiopezus longimanus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Philematium natalense 9 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Dalterus degeeri 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3Zamium bimaculatum 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Anubis mellyi 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Alphitopola octomaculata 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Phryneta spinator 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Tragiscoschema bertolinii 7 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Phyllocnema latipes 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Macrotoma natala 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Ossibia fuscata 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 165 7 6 18 5 5 8 6 20 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 253

171

Appendix T

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for and associated plant family in all quadrats on ENR

Species Mim Com Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola %Zamium incultum 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Coptoeme krantzi 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Taurotagus klugi 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Jonthodina sculptilis 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Anubis clavicornis 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Macrotoma palmata 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Tithoes maculates 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Phantasis giganteus 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Dalterus dejeani 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Crossotus lacunosus 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Crossotus plumicornis 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Olenecamptus albidus 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Anthracocentruscapensis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Plocaederus denticornis 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Crossotus stypticus 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Nemotragus helvolus 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ceroplesis thunbergi 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

172

Continued

Species Mim Com Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola %Lasiopezuslongimanus

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Philematiumnatalense

4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Dalterus degeeri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Zamiumbimaculatum

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Anubis mellyi 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Alphitopolaoctomaculata

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phryneta spinator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tragiscoschemabertolinii

3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Phyllocnema latipes 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pacydissus sp. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Macrotoma natala 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Ossibia fuscata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Prosopoceralactator

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 65 3 2 7 2 2 3 2 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 100

173

Appendix U

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant species in all quadrats on ENR

Species A caf A kar B afr M ser S pun C afr P cap Z muc C mol D rot P caf C ery Gbux

P aus Cgra

R pyr R lan Ucri

L dis H nat X caf Total

Zam inc 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Cop kra 1 7 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Tau klu 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Jon scu 0 15 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21Anu cla 2 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Mac pal 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Tit mac 6 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16Pha gig 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Dal dej 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Cro lac 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6Cro plu 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Ole alb 5 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Ant cap 2 3 1 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Hyp fer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2Plo den 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Cro sty 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Nem hel 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Hec ter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Cer thu 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Las lon 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

174

Continued


P aus Cgra

R pyr R lan Ucri

L dis H nat X caf Total

Phi nat 3 6 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Dal deg 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Zam bim 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Anu mel 5 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Alp oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2Myc bre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Phr spi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Tra ber 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12Phy lat 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Pac spp. 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Mac nat 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Oss fus 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Xys ero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Pro lac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Xys dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 58 107 18 5 5 8 6 20 6 5 4 1 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 3 253

Appendix V

175

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant species in all quadrats on ENR


P aus Cgra

R pyr R lan Ucri

L dis H nat X caf %

Zam inc 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Cop kra 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Tau klu 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Jon scu 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Anu cla 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Mac pal 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Tit mac 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Pha gig 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Dal dej 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Cro lac 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Cro plu 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Ole alb 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Ant cap 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Hyp fer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Plo den 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Cro sty 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Nem hel 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Hec ter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cer thu 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Las lon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Continued

176


P aus Cgra

R pyr R lan Ucri

L dis H nat X caf %

Phi nat 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Dal deg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Zam bim 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Anu mel 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Alp oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Myc bre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phr spi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Tra ber 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5Phy lat 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pac spp. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Mac nat 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Oss fus 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Xys ero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Pro lac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Xys dis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 23 42 7 2 2 3 2 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 100

Appendix W

177

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant phenology in all quadrats on ENR

Species Yes No TotalZamium incultum 8 2 10Coptoeme krantzi 9 2 11Taurotagus klugi 9 5 14Jonthodina sculptilis 19 2 21Anubis clavicornis 11 1 12Macrotoma palmata 7 0 7Tithoes maculates 15 1 16Phantasis giganteus 6 0 6Dalterus dejeani 3 1 4Crossotus lacunosus 3 3 6Crossotus plumicornis 8 0 8Olenecamptus albidus 12 0 12Anthracocentrus capensis 6 6 12Hypoeschrus ferreirae 2 0 2Plocaederus denticornis 7 1 8Crossotus stypticus 5 2 7Nemotragus helvolus 7 1 8Hecyra terrea 1 0 1Ceroplesis thunbergi 11 1 12Lasiopezus longimanus 1 0 1

Continued

178

Species Yes No TotalPhilematium natalense 13 0 13Dalterus degeeri 1 2 3Zamium bimaculatum 9 4 13Anubis mellyi 7 3 10Alphitopola octomaculata 0 2 2Mycerinicus brevis 0 1 1Phryneta spinator 1 0 1Tragiscoschema bertolinii 10 2 12Phyllocnema latipes 4 0 4Pacydissus sp. 4 0 4Macrotoma natala 3 2 5Ossibia fuscata 6 0 6Xystrocera erosa 1 0 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0Total 209 44 253

Appendix X

179

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated deciduous or non-deciduous plants in allquadrats on ENR

Species Yes No %Zamium incultum 3 1 4Coptoeme krantzi 4 1 4Taurotagus klugi 4 2 6Jonthodina sculptilis 8 1 8Anubis clavicornis 4 0 5Macrotoma palmata 3 0 3Tithoes maculates 6 0 6Phantasis giganteus 2 0 2Dalterus dejeani 1 0 2Crossotus lacunosus 1 1 2Crossotus plumicornis 3 0 3Olenecamptus albidus 5 0 5Anthracocentrus capensis 2 2 5Hypoeschrus ferreirae 1 0 1Plocaederus denticornis 3 0 3Crossotus stypticus 2 1 3Nemotragus helvolus 3 0 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0

Continued

180

Species Yes No %Ceroplesis thunbergi 4 0 5Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 0Philematium natalense 5 0 5Dalterus degeeri 0 1 1Zamium bimaculatum 4 2 5Anubis mellyi 3 1 4Alphitopola octomaculata 0 1 1Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0Phryneta spinator 0 0 0Tragiscoschema bertolinii 4 1 5Phyllocnema latipes 2 0 2Pacydissus sp. 2 0 2Macrotoma natala 1 1 2Ossibia fuscata 2 0 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0% 83 17 100

Appendix Y

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR

181

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind TotalZamium incultum 8 2 0 10Coptoeme krantzi 9 2 0 11Taurotagus klugi 9 5 0 14Jonthodina sculptilis 19 2 0 21Anubis clavicornis 11 1 0 12Macrotoma palmata 7 0 0 7Tithoes maculates 12 1 3 16Phantasis giganteus 6 0 0 6Dalterus dejeani 3 1 0 4Crossotus lacunosus 6 0 0 6Crossotus plumicornis 8 0 0 8Olenecamptus albidus 10 0 2 12Anthracocentrus capensis 6 6 0 12Hypoeschrus ferreirae 1 1 0 2Plocaederus denticornis 4 4 0 8Crossotus stypticus 7 0 0 7Nemotragus helvolus 6 1 1 8Hecyra terrea 0 1 0 1

Continued

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind Total

182

Ceroplesis thunbergi 10 2 0 12Lasiopezus longimanus 1 0 0 1Philematium natalense 11 0 2 13Dalterus degeeri 2 1 0 3Zamium bimaculatum 9 4 0 13Anubis mellyi 7 3 0 10Alphitopola octomaculata 0 2 0 2Mycerinicus brevis 1 0 0 1Phryneta spinator 0 1 0 1Tragiscoschema bertolinii 10 2 0 12Phyllocnema latipes 4 0 0 4Pacydissus sp. 4 0 0 4Macrotoma natala 3 2 0 5Ossibia fuscata 6 0 0 6Xystrocera erosa 1 0 0 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0Total 201 44 8 253

Appendix Z

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR

183

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind %Zamium incultum 3 1 0 4Coptoeme krantzi 4 1 0 4Taurotagus klugi 4 2 0 6Jonthodina sculptilis 8 1 0 8Anubis clavicornis 4 0 0 5Macrotoma palmata 3 0 0 3Tithoes maculates 5 0 1 6Phantasis giganteus 2 0 0 2Dalterus dejeani 1 0 0 2Crossotus lacunosus 2 0 0 2Crossotus plumicornis 3 0 0 3Olenecamptus albidus 4 0 1 5Anthracocentrus capensis 2 2 0 5Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 0 0 1Plocaederus denticornis 2 2 0 3Crossotus stypticus 3 0 0 3Nemotragus helvolus 2 0 0 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0 0Ceroplesis thunbergi 4 1 0 5

Continued

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind %Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 0 0Philematium natalense 4 0 1 5

184

Dalterus degeeri 1 0 0 1Zamium bimaculatum 4 2 0 5Anubis mellyi 3 1 0 4Alphitopola octomaculata 0 1 0 1Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0Phryneta spinator 0 0 0 0Tragiscoschema bertolinii 4 1 0 5Phyllocnema latipes 2 0 0 2Pacydissus sp. 2 0 0 2Macrotoma natala 1 1 0 2Ossibia fuscata 2 0 0 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0% 79 17 3 100

Appendix AA

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR

185

Species Sub-Tropical

MediumTemperate

Temperate

Total

Zamium incultum 3 0 7 10Coptoeme krantzi 2 2 7 11Taurotagus klugi 4 0 10 14Jonthodina sculptilis 4 1 16 21Anubis clavicornis 4 0 8 12Macrotoma palmata 0 0 7 7Tithoes maculates 6 0 10 16Phantasis giganteus 3 0 3 6Dalterus dejeani 0 0 4 4Crossotus lacunosus 6 0 0 6Crossotus plumicornis 2 0 6 8Olenecamptus albidus 5 0 7 12Anthracocentrus capensis 4 2 6 12Hypoeschrus ferreirae 1 0 1 2Plocaederus denticornis 4 1 3 8Crossotus stypticus 2 0 5 7Nemotragus helvolus 3 0 5 8Hecyra terrea 0 0 1 1

Continued


MediumTemperate

Temperate

Total

Ceroplesis thunbergi 3 1 8 12Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 1 1

186

Philematium natalense 4 1 8 13Dalterus degeeri 0 0 3 3Zamium bimaculatum 3 2 8 13Anubis mellyi 7 0 3 10Alphitopola octomaculata 0 0 2 2Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 1 1Phryneta spinator 0 0 1 1Tragiscoschema bertolinii 5 0 7 12Phyllocnema latipes 1 0 3 4Pacydissus sp. 2 0 2 4Macrotoma natala 2 0 3 5Ossibia fuscata 4 0 2 6Xystrocera erosa 0 1 0 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0Total 84 11 158 253

Appendix AB

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR


MediumTemperate

Temperate

%

187

Zamium incultum 1 0 3 4Coptoeme krantzi 1 1 3 4Taurotagus klugi 2 0 4 6Jonthodina sculptilis 2 0 6 8Anubis clavicornis 2 0 3 5Macrotoma palmata 0 0 3 3Tithoes maculates 2 0 4 6Phantasis giganteus 1 0 1 2Dalterus dejeani 0 0 2 2Crossotus lacunosus 2 0 0 2Crossotus plumicornis 1 0 2 3Olenecamptus albidus 2 0 3 5Anthracocentrus capensis 2 1 2 5Hypoeschrus ferreirae 0 0 0 1Plocaederus denticornis 2 0 1 3Crossotus stypticus 1 0 2 3Nemotragus helvolus 1 0 2 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0 0

Continued

SpeciesSub-

TropicalMedium

TemperateTemperat

e %Ceroplesis thunbergi 1 0 3 5Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 0 0Philematium natalense 2 0 3 5

188

Dalterus degeeri 0 0 1 1Zamium bimaculatum 1 1 3 5Anubis mellyi 3 0 1 4Alphitopola octomaculata 0 0 1 1Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0 0Phryneta spinator 0 0 0 0Tragiscoschemabertolinii 2 0 3 5Phyllocnema latipes 0 0 1 2Pacydissus sp. 1 0 1 2Macrotoma natala 1 0 1 2Ossibia fuscata 2 0 1 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0 0Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0 0% 33 4 63 100

Appendix AC

Total Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for each month and associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR

189

Species Small MediumLarge

Total

Zamium incultum 10 0 10Coptoeme krantzi 10 1 11Taurotagus klugi 14 0 14Jonthodina sculptilis 17 4 21Anubis clavicornis 11 1 12Macrotoma palmata 7 0 7Tithoes maculates 16 0 16Phantasis giganteus 4 2 6Dalterus dejeani 4 0 4Crossotus lacunosus 4 2 6Crossotus plumicornis 6 2 8Olenecamptus albidus 12 0 12Anthracocentrus capensis 11 1 12Hypoeschrus ferreirae 2 0 2Plocaederus denticornis 7 1 8Crossotus stypticus 5 2 7Nemotragus helvolus 8 0 8Hecyra terrea 1 0 1Ceroplesis thunbergi 12 0 12

Continued


Total

Lasiopezus longimanus 1 0 1

190

Philematium natalense 11 2 13Dalterus degeeri 3 0 3Zamium bimaculatum 9 4 13Anubis mellyi 10 0 10Alphitopola octomaculata 2 0 2Mycerinicus brevis 0 1 1Phryneta spinator 1 0 1Tragiscoschema bertolinii 9 3 12Phyllocnema latipes 4 0 4Pacydissus sp. 0 4 4Macrotoma natala 5 0 5Ossibia fuscata 5 1 6Xystrocera erosa 0 1 1Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0Total 221 32 253

Appendix AD

Percentage of Cerambycidae species diversity and abundance for associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR

191


%

Zamium incultum 4 0 4Coptoeme krantzi 4 0 4Taurotagus klugi 6 0 6Jonthodina sculptilis 7 2 8Anubis clavicornis 4 0 5Macrotoma palmata 3 0 3Tithoes maculates 6 0 6Phantasis giganteus 2 1 2Dalterus dejeani 2 0 2Crossotus lacunosus 2 1 2Crossotus plumicornis 2 1 3Olenecamptus albidus 5 0 5Anthracocentrus capensis 4 0 5Hypoeschrus ferreirae 1 0 1Plocaederus denticornis 3 0 3Crossotus stypticus 2 1 3Nemotragus helvolus 3 0 3Hecyra terrea 0 0 0Ceroplesis thunbergi 5 0 5

Continued


%

Lasiopezus longimanus 0 0 0Philematium natalense 4 1 5Dalterus degeeri 1 0 1

192

Zamium bimaculatum 4 2 5Anubis mellyi 4 0 4Alphitopola octomaculata 1 0 1Mycerinicus brevis 0 0 0Phryneta spinator 0 0 0Tragiscoschema bertolinii 4 1 5Phyllocnema latipes 2 0 2Pacydissus sp. 0 2 2Macrotoma natala 2 0 2Ossibia fuscata 2 0 2Xystrocera erosa 0 0 0Prosopocera lactator 0 0 0Xystrocera dispar 0 0 0Total 87 13 100

Appendix AE

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant orders in all quadrats on ENR

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal TotalAcmaeodera albivillosa 35 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36Acmaeodera viridiaenea 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20Acmaeodera aenea 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

193

Acmaeodera ruficaudis 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 13Acmaeodera inscripta 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Sternocera orissa 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41Anthaxia bergrothi 23 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38Agrilus guerryi 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 1 24Lampetis gregaria 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Chrysobothrisboschismanni

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

Chrysobothris algoensis 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23Agrilus sexguttatus 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Anthaxia sp. 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89Anthaxia sp. 2 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102Anthaxia sp. 3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64Trachys ziziphusii 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

Continued

194

Appendix AF

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant orders in all quadrats on ENR

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal TotalPseudagrilus beryllinus 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60Brachelytrium transvalense 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Chrysobothris dorsata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acmaeodera punctatissima 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Kamosia tenebricosa 6 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Agrilomorpha venosa 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Agrilus falcatus 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6Sphenoptera arrowi 8 1 5 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 1 45Kamosiella dermestoides 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Acmaeodera stellata 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Phlocteis exasperata 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Psiloptera conturbata 20 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27Evides pubiventris 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Sphenoptera sinuosa 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 1 22Anthaxia obtectans 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Anthaxia sp. 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Total 636 4 29 51 3 3 23 11 36 6 0 3 805

195

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal %Acmaeodera albivillosa 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Acmaeodera viridiaenea 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acmaeodera aenea 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acmaeodera ruficaudis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2Acmaeodera inscripta 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sternocera orissa 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Anthaxia bergrothi 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Agrilus guerryi 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3Lampetis gregaria 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Chrysobothris boschismanni 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Chrysobothris algoensis 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Agrilus sexguttatus 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Anthaxia sp. 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Anthaxia sp. 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Anthaxia sp. 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Trachys ziziphusii 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Continued

196

Appendix AG

Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant family in all quadrats on ENR

Species Mim Com Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola TotAcm alb 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 36

Species Fab Myr Sap Ros Gen Sant Eri Mal Pro Cel Poa Mal %Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Acmaeodera punctatissima 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Kamosia tenebricosa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agrilomorpha venosa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agrilus falcatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 6Kamosiella dermestoides 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Acmaeodera stellata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Phlocteis exasperata 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Lampetis conturbata 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Evides pubiventris 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Sphenoptera sinuosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3Anthaxia obtectans 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 79 1 4 6 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 99

197

Acm vir 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20Acm ae 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15Acm ruf 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 13Acm ins 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Ste ori 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41Ant ber 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38Agr gue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 0 0 24Lam greg 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Chr bos 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25Chr algo 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23Agr sex 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Ant sp. 1 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89Ant sp. 2 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102Ant sp. 3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64

Continued

Species Mim Com Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola TotTra ziz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15Pse ber 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60Bra tra 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

198

Chr dor 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm pun 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Kam ten 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10Agr ven 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11Agr fal 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6Sph arr 8 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 45Kam der 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Acm ste 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Phl exa 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Lam con 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27Evi pub 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Sph sin 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 22Ant obt 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Ant sp. 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Totals 631 4 28 3 2 3 12 1 39 11 36 6 0 3 23 0 3 805

Appendix AH

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant family in all quadrats on ENR

Species Mim Com Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola TotAcm alb 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Acm vir 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

199

Acm ae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm ruf 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm ins 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ste ori 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Ant ber 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Agr gue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3Lam greg 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Chr bos 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Chr algo 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Agr sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ant sp. 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Ant sp. 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Ant sp. 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Tra ziz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pse ber 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Continued

Species Mim Com Ana Cae Pap Log Ulm Sap Rha Ste Pro Cel Poa Eup Ebe Het Ola TotBra tra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Chr dor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Acm pun 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Kam ten 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agr ven 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agr fal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

200

Sph arr 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Kam der 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Acm ste 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Phl exa 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Lam con 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Evi pub 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Sph sin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Ant obt 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Ant sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Totals 78 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 96

Appendix AI

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant species in all quadrats on ENR

201

Continued

Species A caf A kar B afr M ser S pun Ce afr P cap Zmuc

C mol D rot Pcaf

Cery

Gbux

P aus Cgra

R pyr Rlan

U cri L dis Hnat

X caf Tot

Acm alb 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 36Acm vir 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20Acm ae 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15Acm ruf 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Acm ins 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Ste ori 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41Ant ber 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38Agr gue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 0 0 0 24Lam greg 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7Chr bos 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25Chr algo 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23Agr sex 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Ant sp. 1 36 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89Ant sp. 2 20 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102Ant sp. 3 20 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64Tra ziz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

202

Appendix AJ

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant species in all quadrats on ENR

Species A caf A kar B afr M ser S pun Ce afr P cap Z muc Cmol

Drot

P caf Cery

Gbux

Paus

Cgra

Rpyr

Rlan

U cri L dis H nat X caf Tot

Pse ber 2 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60Bra tra 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Chr dor 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm pun 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Kam ten 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10Agr ven 3 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11Agr fal 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Sph arr 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 45Kam der 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10Acm ste 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Phl exa 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Lam con 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27Evi pub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 22Sph sin 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Ant obt 4 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16Ant sp. 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3Totals 226 405 3 2 3 12 1 39 2 11 36 2 6 0 3 5 1 23 22 0 3 805

203


Drot

P caf Cery

Gbux

Paus

Cgra

Rpyr

Rlan

U cri L dis H nat X caf %

Acm alb 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Acm vir 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm ae 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm ruf 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Acm ins 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ste ori 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Ant ber 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5Agr gue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3Lam greg 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Chr bos 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Chr algo 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Agr sex 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ant sp. 1 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11Ant sp. 2 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13Ant sp. 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Tra ziz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Pse ber 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Continued


Drot

P caf Cery

Gbux

Paus

Cgra

Rpyr

Rlan

U cri L dis H nat X caf %

Bra tra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

204

Chr dor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Acm pun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Kam ten 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agr ven 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Agr fal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Sph arr 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6Kam der 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Acm ste 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Phl exa 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Lam con 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Evi pub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3Sph sin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Ant obt 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Ant sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 28 50 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 97

Appendix AK

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant phenology in all quadrats on ENR

Species Yes No Total

205

Acmaeodera albivillosa 35 1 36Acmaeodera viridiaenea 20 0 20Acmaeodera aenea 15 0 15Acmaeodera ruficaudis 8 5 13Acmaeodera inscripta 12 0 12Sternocera orissa 41 0 41Anthaxia bergrothi 23 15 38Agrilus guerryi 0 24 24Lampetis gregaria 7 0 7Chrysobothris boschismanni 25 0 25Chrysobothris algoensis 23 0 23Agrilus sexguttatus 12 0 12Anthaxia sp. 1 89 0 89Anthaxia sp. 2 102 0 102Anthaxia sp. 3 64 0 64Trachys ziziphusii 0 15 15Pseudagrilus beryllinus 60 0 60Brachelytrium transvalense 3 0 3

Continued

Species Yes No TotalChrysobothris dorsata 2 0 2Acmaeodera punctatissima 5 0 5Kamosia tenebricosa 6 4 10Agrilomorpha venosa 9 2 11

206

Agrilus falcatus 5 1 6Sphenoptera arrowi 24 21 45Kamosiella dermestoides 10 0 10Acmaeodera stellata 13 0 13Phlocteis exasperata 14 0 14Lampetis conturbata 20 7 27Evides pubiventris 22 0 22Sphenoptera sinuosa 5 17 22Anthaxia obtectans 14 2 16Anthaxia sp. 4 2 1 3Total 690 115 805

Appendix AL

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated deciduous or non-deciduous plants in all quadrats on ENR

Species Yes No %Acmaeodera albivillosa 4 0 4Acmaeodera viridiaenea 2 0 2

207

Acmaeodera aenea 2 0 2Acmaeodera ruficaudis 1 1 2Acmaeodera inscripta 1 0 1Sternocera orissa 5 0 5Anthaxia bergrothi 3 2 5Agrilus guerryi 0 3 3Lampetis gregaria 1 0 1Chrysobothris boschismanni 3 0 3Chrysobothris algoensis 3 0 3Agrilus sexguttatus 1 0 1Anthaxia sp. 1 11 0 11Anthaxia sp. 2 13 0 13Anthaxia sp. 3 8 0 8Trachys ziziphusii 0 2 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 7 0 7Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 0

Continued

Species Yes No %Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0Acmaeodera punctatissima 1 0 1Kamosia tenebricosa 1 0 1Agrilomorpha venosa 1 0 1Agrilus falcatus 1 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 3 3 6

208

Kamosiella dermestoides 1 0 1Acmaeodera stellata 2 0 2Phlocteis exasperata 2 0 2Lampetis conturbata 2 1 3Evides pubiventris 3 0 3Sphenoptera sinuosa 1 2 3Anthaxia obtectans 2 0 2Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0% 86 14 100

Appendix AM

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind TotalAcmaeodera albivillosa 36 0 0 36Acmaeodera viridiaenea 20 0 0 20

209

Acmaeodera aenea 15 0 0 15Acmaeodera ruficaudis 13 0 0 13Acmaeodera inscripta 12 0 0 12Sternocera orissa 41 0 0 41Anthaxia bergrothi 23 15 0 38Agrilus guerryi 24 0 0 24Lampetis gregaria 7 0 0 7Chrysobothrisboschismanni

25 0 0 25

Chrysobothris algoensis 23 0 0 23Agrilus sexguttatus 2 0 10 12Anthaxia sp. 1 89 0 0 89Anthaxia sp. 2 102 0 0 102Anthaxia sp. 3 64 0 0 64Trachys ziziphusii 0 15 0 15Pseudagrilus beryllinus 60 0 0 60Brachelytrium transvalense 3 0 0 3

Continued

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind TotalChrysobothris dorsata 2 0 0 2Acmaeodera punctatissima 5 0 0 5Kamosia tenebricosa 7 3 0 10Agrilomorpha venosa 10 1 0 11Agrilus falcatus 4 0 2 6Sphenoptera arrowi 39 6 0 45

210

Kamosiella dermestoides 10 0 0 10Acmaeodera stellata 13 0 0 13Phlocteis exasperata 14 0 0 14Lampetis conturbata 20 7 0 27Evides pubiventris 22 0 0 22Sphenoptera sinuosa 19 3 0 22Anthaxia obtectans 14 2 0 16Anthaxia sp. 4 2 1 0 3Total 740 53 12 805

Appendix AN

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant pollination in all quadrats on ENR

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind %Acmaeodera albivillosa 4 0 0 4Acmaeodera viridiaenea 2 0 0 2Acmaeodera aenea 2 0 0 2Acmaeodera ruficaudis 2 0 0 2Acmaeodera inscripta 1 0 0 1

211

Sternocera orissa 5 0 0 5Anthaxia bergrothi 3 2 0 5Agrilus guerryi 3 0 0 3Lampetis gregaria 1 0 0 1Chrysobothrisboschismanni

3 0 0 3


Continued

Species Insects Insects/wind Wind %Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0 0Acmaeodera punctatissima 1 0 0 1Kamosia tenebricosa 1 0 0 1Agrilomorpha venosa 1 0 0 1Agrilus falcatus 0 0 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 5 1 0 6Kamosiella dermestoides 1 0 0 1Acmaeodera stellata 2 0 0 2

212

Phlocteis exasperata 2 0 0 2Lampetis conturbata 2 1 0 3Evides pubiventris 3 0 0 3Sphenoptera sinuosa 2 0 0 3Anthaxia obtectans 2 0 0 2Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0 0% 92 7 1 100

Appendix AO

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR


MediumTemperate

Temperate

Total

Acmaeodera albivillosa 21 0 15 36Acmaeodera viridiaenea 15 0 5 20Acmaeodera aenea 5 0 10 15Acmaeodera ruficaudis 5 0 8 13Acmaeodera inscripta 7 0 5 12

213

Sternocera orissa 39 0 2 41Anthaxia bergrothi 15 0 23 38Agrilus guerryi 1 0 23 24Lampetis gregaria 0 0 7 7Chrysobothrisboschismanni

2 0 23 25


Continued


MediumTemperate

Temperate

Total

Chrysobothris dorsata 1 0 1 2Acmaeodera punctatissima 1 0 4 5Kamosia tenebricosa 4 0 6 10Agrilomorpha venosa 5 0 6 11Agrilus falcatus 0 0 6 6Sphenoptera arrowi 3 10 32 45Kamosiella dermestoides 4 0 6 10Acmaeodera stellata 2 0 11 13

214

Phlocteis exasperata 3 0 11 14Lampetis conturbata 8 0 19 27Evides pubiventris 0 0 22 22Sphenoptera sinuosa 1 1 20 22Anthaxia obtectans 4 1 11 16Anthaxia sp. 4 2 0 1 3Total 238 12 555 805

Appendix AP

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated plant climate in all quadrats on ENR


MediumTemperate

Temperate %

Acmaeodera albivillosa 3 0 2 4Acmaeodera viridiaenea 2 0 1 2Acmaeodera aenea 1 0 1 2Acmaeodera ruficaudis 1 0 1 2Acmaeodera inscripta 1 0 1 1Sternocera orissa 5 0 0 5

215

Anthaxia bergrothi 2 0 3 5Agrilus guerryi 0 0 3 3Lampetis gregaria 0 0 1 1Chrysobothrisboschismanni

0 0 3 3


Continued


MediumTemperate

Temperate

%

Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0 0Acmaeodera punctatissima 0 0 0 1Kamosia tenebricosa 0 0 1 1Agrilomorpha venosa 1 0 1 1Agrilus falcatus 0 0 1 1Sphenoptera arrowi 0 1 4 6Kamosiella dermestoides 0 0 1 1Acmaeodera stellata 0 0 1 2Phlocteis exasperata 0 0 1 2

216

Lampetis conturbata 1 0 2 3Evides pubiventris 0 0 3 3Sphenoptera sinuosa 0 0 2 3Anthaxia obtectans 0 0 1 2Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0 0% 30 1 69 100

Appendix AQ

Total Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR


Total

Acmaeodera albivillosa 36 0 36Acmaeodera viridiaenea 20 0 20Acmaeodera aenea 15 0 15Acmaeodera ruficaudis 13 0 13Acmaeodera inscripta 12 0 12Sternocera orissa 41 0 41

217

Anthaxia bergrothi 38 0 38Agrilus guerryi 24 0 24Lampetis gregaria 7 0 7Chrysobothrisboschismanni

25 0 25

Chrysobothris algoensis 23 0 23Agrilus sexguttatus 12 0 12Anthaxia sp. 1 89 0 89Anthaxia sp. 2 102 0 102Anthaxia sp. 3 64 0 64Trachys ziziphusii 15 0 15Pseudagrilus beryllinus 60 0 60Brachelytrium transvalense 3 0 3

Continued


Total

Chrysobothris dorsata 1 1 2Acmaeodera punctatissima 5 0 5Kamosia tenebricosa 10 0 10Agrilomorpha venosa 11 0 11Agrilus falcatus 4 2 6Sphenoptera arrowi 15 30 45Kamosiella dermestoides 10 0 10Acmaeodera stellata 13 0 13Phlocteis exasperata 14 0 14Lampetis conturbata 27 0 27

218

Evides pubiventris 22 0 22Sphenoptera sinuosa 5 17 22Anthaxia obtectans 16 0 16Anthaxia sp. 4 1 2 3

Total 753 52 805

Appendix AR

Percentage of Buprestidae species diversity and abundance for associated flower size in all quadrats on ENR


%

Acmaeodera albivillosa 4 0 4Acmaeodera viridiaenea 2 0 2Acmaeodera aenea 2 0 2Acmaeodera ruficaudis 2 0 2Acmaeodera inscripta 1 0 1Sternocera orissa 5 0 5

219

Anthaxia bergrothi 5 0 5Agrilus guerryi 3 0 3Lampetis gregaria 1 0 1Chrysobothrisboschismanni

3 0 3

Chrysobothris algoensis 3 0 3Agrilus sexguttatus 1 0 1Anthaxia sp. 1 11 0 11Anthaxia sp. 2 13 0 13Anthaxia sp. 3 8 0 8Trachys ziziphusii 2 0 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 7 0 7Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 0

Continued


%

Chrysobothris dorsata 0 0 0Acmaeodera punctatissima 1 0 1Kamosia tenebricosa 1 0 1Agrilomorpha venosa 1 0 1Agrilus falcatus 0 0 1Sphenoptera arrowi 2 4 6Kamosiella dermestoides 1 0 1Acmaeodera stellata 2 0 2Phlocteis exasperata 2 0 2Lampetis conturbata 3 0 3Evides pubiventris 3 0 3

220

Sphenoptera sinuosa 1 2 3Anthaxia obtectans 2 0 2Anthaxia sp. 4 0 0 0% 94 6 100

Appendix AS

Cerambycidae light trap results for 2001 on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve

SpeciesJan Feb Mar Apr May

Jun

Jul Aug

Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Phantasis giganteus 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 12Dalterus dejeani 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 7Crossotus lacunosus 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7Crossotus plumicornis 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 7Olenecamptus albidus 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6Alphitopolaoctomaculata 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 3 0 3 2 15

221

Mycerinicus brevis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Phryneta spinator 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 11Tragiscoschemabertolinii 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 10Xystrocera erosa 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 10Prosopocera lactator 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 12Total 9 10 9 4 5 1 1 3 6 12 23 16 99

Appendix AT

Buprestidae light trap results for 2001on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve

Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalAcmaeoderaalbivillosa 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

222

.

223

the ezemvelo thesis - tutvital.tut.ac.za:8080

Documents