THE EZEMVELO THESIS - tutvital.tut.ac.za:8080
Transcript of 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 5.1.2: Transect line A2 within quadrat A in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………………………………
Figure 5.1.3: Transect line A3 within quadrat A in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………………………………
Figure 5.2.1: Transect line B1 within quadrat B in September 2001
10
Figure 5.2.1: Transect line B1 within quadrat B in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………….................................................
Figure 5.2.2: Transect line B2 within quadrat B in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………..
Figure 5.2.3: Transect line B3 within quadrat B in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………..
Figure 5.3.1: Transect line C1 within quadrat C in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………..
Figure 5.3.2: Transect line C2 within quadrat C in September 2001
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve……………………………………………..
Figure 5.3.3: Transect line C3 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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 to December 2001………………………………...
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 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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………...
Figure 13.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………….
Figure 15.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat C versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………….
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
months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………….
Figure 21.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
18
between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………….
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 to December 2001………………………………….
Figure 23.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001………………………………...
Figure 25.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001……………………………….
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
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve………………………………………………
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
Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001…
…………………………………………………………………….
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and
December 2001……………………………………………………………
Figure 28.7: Relationship between plant climate and Cerambycidae species collected
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December
2001………………………………………………………………………..
Figure 29.1: Relationship between Tree Orders and Buprestidae species collected on
Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001…
……………………………………………………..........................
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
Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001…
……………………………………………………………………..
Figure 29.4: Relationship between flower size and Buprestidae species collected on
Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001…
……………......................................................................................
21
Figure 29.5: Relationship between plant phenology and Buprestidae species
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and
December 2001……….............................................................................
Figure 29.6: Relationship between plant pollination and Buprestidae species collected
on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December
2001……………………………………………………………………….
Figure 29.7: Relationship between plant climate and Buprestidae species collected on
Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001 and December 2001…
……………………………………………………………………..
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
Figure 5.1.2: Transect line A2 within quadrat A in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
Figure 5.1.3: Transect line A3 within quadrat A in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
23
Figure 5.2.1: Transect line B1 within quadrat B in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
Figure 5.2.2: Transect line B2 within quadrat B in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
24
Figure 5.2.3: Transect line B3 within quadrat B in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
Figure 5.3.1: Transect line C1 within quadrat C in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
25
Figure 5.3.2: Transect line C2 within quadrat C in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
Nature Reserve.
Figure 5.3.3: Transect line C3 within quadrat C in September 2001 on Ezemvelo
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
QUADRAT B
Figure 13.1: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average minimum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001.
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
bers Average Minimum
Temperature
Beetle Numbers
Figure 13.2: Cerambycidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
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.
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
bers Average Maximum
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001and December 2001.
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
between January 2001 and December 2001.
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
There is a stronger correlation (r² = 0.99) between total buprestid numbers and
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
There is a stronger correlation (r² = 0.99) between total buprestid numbers and
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
Average MinimumTemperature
Beetle Numbers
Figure 19.2: Total Buprestidae count versus average maximum temperature for the
months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
Average MaximumTemperature
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
bers Average Minimum
Temperature
Beetle Numbers
Figure 21.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat A versus average minimum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001.
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001and December 2001.
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
bers Average Maximum
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
for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between
January 2001 and December 2001.
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001and December 2001.
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
Average MinimumTemperature
Beetle Numbers
Figure 23.2: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat B versus average maximum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001.
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
bers Average Maximum
Temperature
Beetle Numbers
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 and December 2001.
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
QUADRAT C
Figure 25.1: Buprestidae count trend in quadrat C versus average minimum
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001.
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
temperature for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve
between January 2001 and December 2001.
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
bers Average Minimum
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
Average MaximumTemperature
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
for the months of the year at Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between
January 2001 and December 2001.
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
January 2001 and December 2001.
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January 2001
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January
2001 and December 2001.
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January
2001 and December 2001.
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
species collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between
January 2001 and December 2001.
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
species collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between
January 2001 and December 2001.
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
collected on Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between January
2001 and December 2001.
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
135
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
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
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
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 %
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
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 %
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
Species Sub-Tropical
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
Species Sub-Tropical
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
Species Small MediumLarge
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
Species Small MediumLarge
%
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
Species Small MediumLarge
%
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
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 %
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
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 %
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
Chrysobothris algoensis 3 0 0 3Agrilus sexguttatus 0 0 1 1Anthaxia sp. 1 11 0 0 11Anthaxia sp. 2 13 0 0 13Anthaxia sp. 3 8 0 0 8Trachys ziziphusii 0 2 0 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 7 0 0 7Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 0 0
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
Species Sub-Tropical
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
Chrysobothris algoensis 10 0 13 23Agrilus sexguttatus 2 0 10 12Anthaxia sp. 1 36 0 53 89Anthaxia sp. 2 20 0 82 102Anthaxia sp. 3 20 0 44 64Trachys ziziphusii 0 0 15 15Pseudagrilus beryllinus 2 0 58 60Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 3 3
Continued
Species Sub-Tropical
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
Species Sub-Tropical
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
Chrysobothris algoensis 1 0 2 3Agrilus sexguttatus 0 0 1 1Anthaxia sp. 1 4 0 7 11Anthaxia sp. 2 2 0 10 13Anthaxia sp. 3 2 0 5 8Trachys ziziphusii 0 0 2 2Pseudagrilus beryllinus 0 0 7 7Brachelytrium transvalense 0 0 0 0
Continued
Species Sub-Tropical
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
Species Small MediumLarge
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
Species Small MediumLarge
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
Species Small MediumLarge
%
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
Species Small MediumLarge
%
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
224
225