Beetle species richness along the forest productivity gradient in northern Finland

Ecography

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 42-52

  Similä, Maarit ^a   Kouki, Jari ^a   Mönkkönen, Mikko ^c   Sippola, Anna Liisa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAPLAND   (Finland)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTION; BOREAL FOREST; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT; SPECIES RICHNESS;

FINLAND;

ANIMALIA; COLEOPTERA; INVERTEBRATA; PICEA;

EID: 0036488461     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250106.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anon. 1994. Suomen metsäluonnon monimuotoisuuden turvaaminen. - Min. of Environ., Land Use Dept.
2. Anon. 2000. Forest protection in southern Finland and Ostrobothnia. - The Finnish Environ. 437, Min. of Environ., Land Use Dept, in Finnish with English summary.
3. Briggs, J. C. 1994. Species diversity: land and sea compared. - Syst. Biol. 43: 130-135.
4. Cajander, A. K. 1949. Forest types and their significance. - Acta For. Fenn. 56.
5. Esseen, P.-A. et al. 1997. Boreal forests. - Ecol. Bull. 46: 16-47.
6. Faith, D. P. and Walker, P. A. 1996. How do indicator groups provide information about the relative biodiversity of different sets of areas?: on hotspots, complementarity and pattern-based approaches. - Biodiv. Lett. 3: 18-25.
7. Gaston, K. J. 1996. Species richness: measure and measurement. - In: Gaston, K. J. (ed.), Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell, pp. 77-113.
8. Granström, A. 2001. Fire management for biodiversity in the European boreal forest. - Scand. J. For. Res. Suppl. 3: 62-69.
9. Haila, Y. 1994. Preserving ecological diversity in boreal forests: ecological background, research and management. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 203-217.
10. Hanski, I. and Hammond, P. 1995. Biodiversity in boreal forests. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 5-6.
11. Heliövaara, K. and Väisänen, R. 1984. Effects of modern forestry on northwestern European forest invertebrates: a synthesis. - Acta For. Fenn. 189: 1-29.
12. Hörnberg, G. et al. 1998. Boreal swamp forests: biodiversity "hotspots" in an impoverished forest landscape. - BioScience 48: 795-802.
13. Jonson, B. and Jonsell, M. 1999. Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. - Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 1417-1433.
14. Kalliola, R. 1973. Suomen kasvimaantiede. - WSOY, Porvoo, Finland.
15. Kerr, J. T. 1997. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. - Conserv. Biol. 11: 1094-1100.
16. Kirk, D. A. et al. 1996. Breeding bird communities of the western and northern Canadian boreal forest: relationship to forest type. - Can. J. Zool. 74: 1749-1770.
17. Kouki, J. 1999. Latitudinal gradients in species richness in northern areas: some exceptional patterns. - Ecol. Bull. 47: 30-37.
18. Kouki, J. and Niemelä, P. 1997. The biological heritage of Finnish forests. - In: Opas, L. L. (ed.), Finnish forests. Univ. of Joensuu, Finland, pp. 13-33.
19. Kouki, J. et al. 2001. Spatio-temporal patterns in the Fennoscandian forest fragmentation and habitat requirements of wood-associated threatened species. - Scand. J. For. Res. Suppl. 3: 27-37.
20. Kovach, W. L. 1998. MVSP - A MultiVariate Statistical Package for Windows, ver. 3.0. - Kovach Computing Serv., Penetraeth, Wales, U.K.
21. Kuusipalo, J. 1996. Suomen metsätyypit. - Kirjayhtymä Oy.
22. Launer, A. E. and Murphy, D. D. 1994. Umbrella species and the conservation of habitat fragments: a case of a threatened butterfly and a vanishing grassland ecosystem. - Biol. Conserv. 69: 145-153.
23. Martikainen, P., Kaila, L. and Haila, Y. 1998. Threatened beetles in white-backed woodpecker habitats. - Conserv. Biol. 12: 293-301.
24. Martikainen, P. et al. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. - Biol. Conserv. 94: 199-209.
25. McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, ver. 4. - MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.
26. Mönkkönen, M. and Welsh, D. A. 1994. A biogeographical hypothesis on the effects of human caused landscape changes on the forest bird communities of Europe and North America. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 61-70.
27. Nieppola, J. 1986. Cajander's theory of forest site types. Literature review. - Folia For. 654: 1-42, in Finnish with English summary.
28. Nieppola, J. and Carleton, T. J. 1991. Relations between undestorey vegetation, site productivity and environmental factors in Pinus sylvestris L. stands in southern Finland. - Vegetatio 93: 57-72.
29. Økland, B. et al. 1996. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. - Biodiv. Conserv. 5: 75-100.
30. Palm, E. 1996. Nordeuropas snudebiller: 1. De kortsnudede arter (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) - med særligt henblik på den danske fauna. - Danmarks dyreliv, Bind 7, Apollo Books, Denmark.
31. Pielou, E. C. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data. - Wiley-Interscience.
32. Pimm, S. L. et al. 1995. The future of biodiversity. - Science 269: 347-350.
33. Prendergast, J. R. et al. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. - Nature 365: 335-337.
34. Rassi, P. (ed.) 1993. Frequency score of Coleoptera in Finland 1.1.1960-1.1.1990. - Rep. no. 6, WWF Finland, Helsinki.
35. Rassi, P. et al. (eds) 1992. Uhanalaisten eläinten ja kasvien seurantatoimikunnan mietintö. - Rep. of the committee 1991:30, Helsinki.
36. Rassi, P., Kanerva, T. and Mannerkoski, I. (eds) 2000. Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Uhanalaisten lajien II seurantatyöryhmä. - Draft of the Report of Working Party. Min. of Environ., Helsinki.
37. Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. - Evolution 43: 223-225.
38. Rohde, K. 1992. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: the search for the primary cause. - Oikos: 514-527.
39. Rohde, K. 1999. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity and Rapoport's rule revisited: a review of recent work and what can parasites teach us about the causes of the gradients? - Ecography 22: 593-613.
40. Rosenzweig, M. L. and Abramsky, Z. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? - In: Ricklefs, R. E. and Schluter, D. (eds), Species diversity in ecological communities. Historical and geographical perspectives. Univ. Chicago Press, pp. 52-65.
41. Saalas, U. 1949. Suomen metsähyönteiset sekä muut metsälle vahingolliset ja hyödylliset eläimet. - WSOY, Helsinki.
42. Siitonen, J. 1994. Decaying wood and saproxylic Coleoptera in two old spruce forests: a comparison based on two sampling methods. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 89-95.
43. Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. - Ecol. Bull. 49: 11-41.
44. Siitonen, J. et al. 2000. Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. - For. Ecol. Manage. 128: 211-225.
45. Silfverberg, H. 1992. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae, Daniae et Baltiae. - Helsinki.
46. Speight, M. C. D. 1989. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. - Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
47. Usher, M. B. 1980. Assessment of conservation values within a large site of special scientific interest in North Yorkshire. - Field Stud. 5: 323-348.
48. Virkkala, R. et al. 2000. Protected forests and mires in forest and mire vegetation zones in Finland based on the 8th National Forest Inventory. - The Finnish Environ. 395, Finnish Environ. Inst., Min. of Environ., in Finnish with English summary.
49. Waide, R. B. et al. 1999. The relationship between productivity and species richness. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 257-300.
50. Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. - Taxon 21: 213-251.