Ábrahám Levente (szerk.): Válogatott tanulmányok VIII. - Natura Somogyiensis 23. (Kaposvár, 2013)

Horváth B.: Diversity comparison of nocturnal macrolepidoptera communities (Lepidoptera: Macroheterocera) in different forest stands

Horváth, B: Diversity comparison of nocturnal macrolepidoptera 231

Fig. 1: Sampling sites in the Sopron Mountains. I. Mixed forest stand; II. Beech forest stand; III. Oak forest stand

Data analysis

Communal and ecological parameters of Lepidoptera communities were examined in each of the sampling sites, which were calculated by Past software (Paleontological Statistics Software) (Hammer et al. 2001). There were some species for which identification was not possible by macro-morphological features (Eupithecia spp. and Mesapamea secalis agg.). The total numbers of specimens in these genera were used for the data analyses.

The number of species and sampling occasions were displayed with species accumulation curves, using the sample rarefaction by Colwell et al. (2004) (Fig. 2).

The measure of diversity was determined by the Shannon and Simpson indices. These indices are composed of species richness and evenness components (Jost 2010), which were also calculated (J=H’/lnS - where S is species richness). The equitability was established using the Pielou (1966) formula. The proportion of abundance in each sampling sites was displayed using a rank-abundance plot. Logarithmical models were selected for the rank-abundance investigation using a fitting test.

To compare Shannon’s diversity values, a t-test was calculated (p=0.01) (Hutcheson 1970).

To rank the collected macromoth communities, Rényi ’s diversity ordering (Tóthmérész 1997) was used. Diversity profiles are a graphical display of a family of diversity indices; values are calculated from the frequencies of each component species and an alpha scale parameter, which ranks from zero to infinity. An assemblage of higher diversity has a diversity profile that is above the profiles of other assemblages (Tóthmérész 1995).