Standing or downed dead trees - Does it matter for saproxylic beetles in temperate oak-rich forest?

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 37, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 2494-2507

  Franc, Niklas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; INSECT CONTROL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; WOOD;

DEAD TREES; SAPROXYLIC BEETLES; SPECIES RICHNESS;

FORESTRY;

BEETLE; BIODIVERSITY; CONIFEROUS FOREST; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DEAD WOOD; DECIDUOUS FOREST; ENDANGERED SPECIES; LOGGING (TIMBER); SAPROXYLIC ORGANISM; SPECIES RICHNESS; STAND STRUCTURE; TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENT;

HARVESTING; INSECTS; QUERCUS;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

COLEOPTERA; CONIFEROPHYTA; QUERCUS; QUERCUS PETRAEA; QUERCUS ROBUR;

EID: 38849182849     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X07-096     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Ahnlund, H. 1996. Vedinsekter på en sörmländsk aspstubbe. [Saproxylic insects on a Swedish dead aspen.] Entomol. Tidskr. 117: 137-144.[In Swedish with English summary.]
2. Bernes, C. 1994. Biological diversity in Sweden: a country study. Ingvar Bingman, Solna, Sweden.
3. Bleckert, S., and Pettersson, R. 1997. Liv i skogen. SÖDRA, Växjö, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
4. Bouget, C. 2005. Short-term effect of windstorm disturbance on saproxylic beetles in broadleaved temperate forests Part II. Effects of gap size and gap isolation. For. Ecol. Manage. 216: 15-27. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05. 036.
5. Bouget, C., Brustel, H., and Nageleisen, L.-M. 2005. Nomenclature des groupes écologiques d'insectes liés au bois: synthèse et mise au point sémantique. C. R. Biol., 328: 936-948. [In French with English abstract.] doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2005.08.003.
6. Chao, A. 2006. Species estimators and applications. In Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Edited by S. Kotz, C. Read, N. Balakrishnan, and B. Vidakovic. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp. 7907-7916.
7. Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18: 117-143.
8. Colwell, R. K. 2005. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn.
9. Dahlberg, A., and Stokland, J.N. 2004. Vedlevande arters krav på substrat 7. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
10. Ehnström, B. 2001. Leaving dead wood for insects in boreal forests - suggestions for the future. Scand. J. For. Res. 16(Suppl. 3): 91-98. doi:10.1080/028275801300090681.
11. Ehnström, B. 2002. Insektsgnag I bark och ved. Artdatabanken, Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
12. Fridman, J., and Walheim, M. 2000. Amount, structure and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 131: 23-26. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00208-X.
13. Gärdenfors, U.R. 2000. Rödlistade arter i Sverige. Ardatabanken, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
14. Gotelli, N.J., and Colwell, R.K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4: 379-391. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x.
15. Götmark, F., Fridman, J., Kempe, G., and Nordén, B. 2005. Broad-leaved tree species in conifer-dominated forestry: regeneration and limitation of saplings in southern Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 214: 142-157.
16. Grove, S.J. 2002a. The influence of forest management history on the integrity of the saproxylic beetle fauna in an Australian low-land tropical rainforest. Biol. Conserv. 104: 149-171. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00140- 9.
17. Grove, S.J. 2002b. Tree basal area and dead wood as surrogate indicators of saproxylic insect faunal integrity: a case study from the Australian lowland topics. Ecol. Indicators, 1: 171-188. doi:10.1016/S1470-160X(01)00016-4.
18. Gustafsson, L., and Ahlén, I. 1996. Geography of plants and animals. SNA Publishers and Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.
19. Hammond, H.E.J., Langor, D.W., and Spence, J.R. 2001. Early colonization of Populus wood by saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera). Can. J. For. Res. 31: 1175-1183. doi:10.1139/cjfr-31-7-1175.
20. Hammond, H.E.J., Langor, D.W., and Spence, J.R. 2004. Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) using Populus in boreal aspen stands of western Canada: spatiotemporal variation and conservation of assemblages. Can. J. For. Res. 34: 1-19. doi:10.1139/x03-192.
21. Hannah, L., Carr, J.L., and Landerani, A. 1995. Human disturbance and natural habitat - a biome level analysis of a global dataset. Biodivers. Conserv. 4: 128-155. doi:10.1007/BF00137781.
22. Hilszczański, J., Gibb, H., Hjältén, J., Atlegrim, O., Johansson, T., Pettersson, R.B., Ball, J.P., and Danell, K. 2005. Parasitoids (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonoidea) of saproxylic beetles are affected by forest successional stage and dead wood characteristics in boreal spruce forest. Biol. Conserv. 126: 456-464. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.026.
23. Hughes, J.B., Hellmann, J.J., Ricketts, T.H., and Bohannan, B.J.M. 2001. Counting the uncountable: statistical approaches to estimating microbial diversity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 4399-4406. doi:10.1128/AEM.67. 10.4399-4406.2001.
24. Jonsell, M., and Weslien, J. 2003. Felled or standing retained wood - it makes a difference for saproxylic beetles. For. Ecol. Manage. 175: 425-435. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00143-3.
25. Jonsell, M., Weslien, J., and Ehnstrom, B. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers. Conserv. 7: 749-764.
26. Jonsson, B.G., Kruys, N., and Ranius, T. 2005. Ecology of species living on dead wood - lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn. 39: 289-309.
27. Kaila, L. 1993. A new method for collecting quantitativesamples of insects associated with decaying wood or wood fungi. Entomol. Fenn. 4: 21-23.
28. Koch, K.C. 1989a. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas: Ökologie. Bd 1. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, Germany. [In German.]
29. Koch, K.C. 1989b. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas: Ökologie. Bd 2. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, Germany. [In German.]
30. Koch, K.C. 1992. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas: Ökologie. Bd 3. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, Germany. [In German.]
31. Kruskal, J.B. 1964. Non-metric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrica, 29: 115-129. doi:10.1007/BF02289565.
32. Löf, M. 2001. Uthå lligt skogsbruk i ädellövskog. Institutionen för Sydsvensk Skogsvetenskap, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Alnarp, Sweden. Rep. 19. [In Swedish with English summary.]
33. Lundberg, S. 1995. Catalogous Coleopterorum Suecciae. Naturhistoriska riksmuseet & Entomologiska föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm. [In Swedish.]
34. Magurran, A.E. 2004. Meausuring biological diversity. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK.
35. Martin, O. 1989. Click beetles (Coleoptera, Elateridae) from old deciduous forest in Denmark. Entomol. Medd. 57: 1-107. [In Danish with English summary.]
36. McComb, W., and Lindenmayer, J. 1999. Dying, dead, and down trees. In Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Edited by M.L. Hunter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 335-372.
37. McCune, B., and Mefford, M.J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Ore.
38. Minchin, P.R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio, 69: 89-107. doi:10.1007/BF00038690.
39. Nilsson, S.G. 1997a. Forests in the temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecol. Bull. 46: 61-70.
40. Nilsson, S.G. 1997b. Biologisk mångfald under tusen år i det sydsvenska kulturlandskapet. [Biodiversity over the last one thousand years in the cultural landscape of southernmost Sweden.] Sven. Bot. Tidskr. 91: 85-101. [In Swedish with English summary.]
41. Nilsson, S.G., Hedin, J., and Niklasson, M. 2001. Biodiversity and its assessment in boreal and nemoral forests. Scand. J. For. Res. 16(Suppl. 3): 10-26. doi:10.1080/028275801300090546.
42. Nilsson, S.G., Niklasson, M., Hedin, J., Aronsson, G., Gutowski, J.M., Linder, P., Ljungberg, H., Mikusinski, G., and Ranius, T. 2002. Densities of large living and dead trees in old-growth temperate and boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 161: 189-204. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00480-7.
43. Nordén, B., Götmark, F., Tönnberg, M., and Ryberg, M. 2004. Dead wood in semi-natural temperate broadleaved woodland: contribution of coarse and fine dead wood, attached dead wood and stumps. For. Ecol. Manage. 194: 235-248. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.02.043.
44. Økland, B. 1996. A comparison of three methods of trapping saproxylic beetles. Eur. J. Entomol. 93: 195-209.
45. Økland, B., Bakke, A., Hagvar, S., and Kvamme, T. 1996. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multi-scaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers. Conserv. 5: 75-100. doi:10.1007/BF00056293.
46. Palm, T. 1951. Die holz- und rindenkäfer der nordschwedische laubbäume. Medd. Statens skogsforskninginst. 40.
47. Palm, T. 1959. Die Holz- und Rinden-käfer der Sud- und Mittelschwedishen Laubbäume. Oposcula Entomol. Suppl. 16. [In German with English abstract.]
48. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). 2006. Technical document, English. Available from http://www.pefc.se. [Accessed 1 April 2006.]
49. Saint-Germain, M., Buddle, C.M., and Drapeau, P. 2005. Sampling saproxylic insects: scale issues and the importance of behavior. In Abstracts of the Ecological Society of America 90th Annual Meeting: Ecology at Multiple Scales [CD], 7-12 August 2005, Montreal, Que. [Abstr.]
50. Samuelsson, J., and Ingelög, T. 1996. Den levande döda veden - bevarande och nyskapande i naturen. Artdatabanken, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
51. Schiegg, K. 2001. Saproxylic insect diversity of beech: limbs are richer than trunks. For. Ecol. Manage. 149: 295-304. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00) 00563-6.
52. Siegal, S., and Castellan, N.J.J. 1988. Nonparametric systems for the behavioral sciences. International edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Singapore.
53. Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms - Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull. 49: 11-41.
54. Siitonen, J., and Martikainen, P. 1994. Occurrence of rare and threatened insects living on decaying Populus tremula - a comparison between Finnish and Russian Karelia. Scand. J. For. Res. 9: 185-191.
55. Siitonen, J., Martikainen, P., Punttila, P., and Rauh, J. 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. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00148-6.
56. Skogsstyrelsen. 2003. Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2003 [Statistical yearbook of forestry 2003.] Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
57. Sonesson, K. 1999. Oak decline in southern Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 14: 368-375.
58. Speight, M.C.D. 1989. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Council of Europe, Publications and Documents Division, Strasbourg, France.
59. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., and Ims, R.A. 2002. The effect of forest clearcutting in Norway on the community of saproxylic beetles on aspen. Biol. Conserv. 106: 347-357. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00261-0.
60. Swedish Forest Stewardship Council (SFSC). 2000. Swedish FSC-standard for certification of Swedish forestry. 2nd ed. Swedish Forest Stewardship Council, Uppsala, Sweden.
61. Uliczka, H. 2003. Nature conservation efforts by forest owners - intentions and practice in a Swedish case study. Silva Fenn. 37: 459-475.
62. Vera, F.W.M. 2000. Grazing ecology and forest history. CABI Publishing, Oxford, UK.
63. Wikars, L.O., Sahlin, E., and Ranius, T. 2005. A comparison of three methods to estimate species richness of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in logs and high stumps of Norway spruce. Can. Entomol. 137: 304-324.