Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:41:38.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population dynamics of two sympatric isopod species in a pine forest in central Java, Indonesia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

K. Vink  and
E. Sri Purwanti
K. Vink
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E. Sri Purwanti
Affiliation:
Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Jl. Diponegoro 52–60, Salatiga 50711, Indonesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The populations of two dominant isopod species in a Pinus merkusii forest on the southern slope of mount Ungaran in central Java, Indonesia, were periodically sampled during one year using Tullgren extractions from soil cores. The aim of the research was to collect more information about the life-cycles of tropical isopods by analysing size-class distributions of two sympatric isopod species, belonging to the genus Burmoniscus. Biomass of the populations was estimated from length-weight conversions established for each species in the laboratory. The efficiency of the Tullgren extraction method was estimated by comparison to hand sorting; no difference was found between these methods.

The abundance of the two species differed significantly with time. Burmoniscus Sp. A was more abundant during the wet season, whereas the population fluctuations of Burmoniscus Sp. B were more spread over the year. Reproduction of both species took place in the wet season. Burmoniscus Sp. A had one generation per year, while for Burmoniscus Sp. B the situation was unclear due to extensive overlap of size classes. Comparisons were made with isopod abundance in other tropical and temperate forests. The mean density of the two species found in this study was 258 m-2 for Burmoniscus Sp. A and 272 m-2 for Burmoniscus Sp. B, while biomass was 80.4 mg m-2 and 37.6 mg m-2, respectively. The data suggest that densities of isopods in tropical pine forests may be considerably higher than in comparable temperate ecosystems.

Keywords

IndonesiaIsopodapopulation dynamicspine forestsize classbiomassBurmoniscuslife-cyclephenology
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , August 1994 , pp. 417 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Adis, J., de Morais, J. W., & Ribeiro, E. F. 1987a. Vertical distribution and abundance of arthropods in the soil of a neotropical secondary forest during the dry season. Tropical Ecology 28:174–181.Google Scholar
Adis, J., de Morais, J. W., & Guimaraes de Mesquita, H. 1987b. Vertical distribution and abundance of arthropods in the soil of a neotropical secondary forest during the rainy season. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 22:189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adis, J., Ribeiro, E. F., de Morais, J. W., & Cavalcante, E. T. S. 1989a. Vertical distribution and abundance of arthropods from white sand soil of a neotropical campinarana forest during the dry season. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 24:201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adis, J., de Morais, J. W., Ribeiro, E. F., & Ribeiro, J. C. 1989b. Vertical distribution and abundance of arthropods from white sand soil of a neotropical campinarana forest during the rainy season. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 24:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burghouts, T., Ernsting, G., Korthals, G., & de Vries, T. 1992. Litterfall, leaf litter decomposition and litter invertebrates in primary and selectively logged dipterocarp forest in Sabah, Malaysia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 335:405–416.Google Scholar
Collins, N. M. 1980. The distribution of soil macrofauna on the west ridge of Gunung (mount) Mulu, Sarawak. Oecologia 44:263–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dangerfield & J. M., Telford, S. R. 1990. Breeding phenology, variation in reproductive effort and offspring size in a tropical population of the woodlouse Porcellionides pruinosus. Oecologia 82:251–258.Google Scholar
Dollfus, A. 1907. Isopodes terrestres des Indes Neerlandaises. In Weber M. (ed.). Zoologische Ergebnisse einer Reise in Niederlandisch Ostindien Vol. 4.Google Scholar
Faber, J. H. 1991. Functional classification of soil fauna: a new approach. Oikos 62:110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunadi, B. 1993. Decomposition and nutrient flow in a pine forest plantation in Central Java. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hassall, M. & Rushton, S. P. 1984. Feeding behaviour of terrestrial isopods in relation to plant defence and microbial activity. Symposium Zoological Society London 53:487–505.Google Scholar
Herold, W. 1931. Land Isopoden von den Sunda Inseln. Archives für Hydrobiologie Suppl. Band IX Tropische Binnengewasser. Vol. 11:306–393.Google Scholar
Lam, P. K. S., Dudgeon, D. & Ma, H. H. T. 1991. Ecological energetics of populations of four sympatric isopods in a Hong Kong forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7:475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavelle, P. & Kohlmann, B. 1984. Étude quantitative de la macrofauna du sol dans une foret tropicale humide du Mexique (Bonampak, Chiapas). Pedobiologia 27:377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, H. H. T., Dudgeon, D. & Lam, P. K. S. 1991. Seasonal changes in populations of three sympatric isopods in a Hong Kong forest. Journal of Zoology, London 224:347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, H. & Luxton, M. 1982. A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role in decomposition processes. Oikos 39:288–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, J. 1983. Life cycle, numbers, biomass and respiratory metabolism of Trichoniscus pusillus (Crustacea, Isopoda) in a beech woodland – Wytham woods, Oxford. Oecologia 53:339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soejono Sastrodihardjo, F. X. & Soemardi, A. W. 1991. Fauna tanah hutan pinus di Ungaran daerah Gintungan, Bandungan kabupaten Semarang Jawa tengah. Internal report of the Faculty of Biology, UKSW, Salatiga.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry (2nd edition). W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Souty-Grosset, C., Chentoufi, A., Mocquard, J. P., & Juchault, P. 1988. Seasonal reproduction in the terrestrial isopod Armadillidium vulgare (Latreille): Geographical variability and genetic control of the response to photoperiod and temperature. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 14:131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standen, V. 1973. The life cycle and annual production of Trichoniseus pusillus pusillus (Crustacea: Isopoda) in a Cheshire wood. Pedobiologia 13:273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, K. D., Hassall, M. & Sutton, S. L. 1976. The population dynamics of Philoscia muscorum (Crustacea, Oniscidae) in a dune grassland ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 45:487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, S. L. 1972. Woodlice. Ginn & Company, London.Google Scholar
Sutton, S. L., Hassall, M., Willows, R., Davis, R. C., Grundy, A. & Sunderland, K. D. 1984. Life histories of terrestrial isopods: A study of intra- and interspecific variation. Symposium Zoological Society London 53:269–294.Google Scholar
Swift, M. J., Heal, O. W. & Anderson, J. M. 1979. Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Studies in Ecology, volume 5. Blackwell Scientific Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Straalen, N. M. & Rijninks, P. C. 1982. The efficiency of Tullgren apparatus with respect to interpreting seasonal changes in age structure of soil arthropod populations. Pedobiologia 24:197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieser, W. 1978. Consumer strategies of terrestrial gastropods and isopods. Oecologia 36:191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed