Effects of alternative harvesting methods on boreal forest spider assemblages

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 782-794

  Matveinen Huju, Katja ^a   Koivula, Matti ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; HARVESTING;

COLONIZATION; FOREST SPIDERS; LOGGING METHODS;

FORESTRY;

ABUNDANCE; BOREAL FOREST; CLEARCUTTING; COLONIZATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FOREST FLOOR; HARVESTING; LOGGING (TIMBER); MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PITFALL TRAP; POPULATION DECLINE; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPIDER;

BIODIVERSITY; FORESTS; LOGGING;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

ARANEAE;

EID: 43549113571     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X07-169     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Angelstam, P. 1997. Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecol. Bull. 46: 140-170.
2. Borg, I., and Groenen, P. 1997. Modern multidimensional scaling: theory and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York.
3. Bradshaw, R., Gemmel, P., and Björkman, L. 1994. Development of nature-based silvicultural models in Southern Sweden: the scientific background. For. Landscape Res. 1: 95-110.
4. Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., and Stone, C.G. 1998. Classification and regression trees. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
5. Buddle, C.M., Langor, D.W., Pohl, G.R., and Spence, J.R. 2006. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: implications for emulation of natural disturbances in forest management. Biol. Conserv. 128: 346-357. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.002.
6. Cajander, A.K. 1949. Forest types and their significance. Acta For. Fenn. 56: 1-71.
7. Churchill, T.B. 1997. Spiders as ecological indicators: an overview for Australia. Mem. Natl. Mus. Vic. 56: 331-337.
8. De'ath, G. 2002. Multivariate regression trees: a new technique for modelling species-environment relationships. Ecology, 83: 1105-1117. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1105:MRTANT]2.0.CO;2.
9. Dufrêne, M., and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67: 345-366. doi:10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0345:SAAIST]2.0.CO;2.
10. Esseen, P.-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L., and Sjöberg, K. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecol. Bull. 46: 16-47.
11. Franklin, J.F., Rae Berg, D., Thornburgh, D.A., and Tappeiner, J.C. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvesting systems. In Creating forestry for the 21st century. Edited by K. Kohm and J.F. Franklin. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 111-139.
12. Hallman, E., Hokkanen, M., Juntunen, H., Korhonen, K.-M., Raivio, S., Savela, O., Siitonen, P., Tolonen, A., and Vainio, M. 1996. Alue-ekologinen suunnittelu. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 3/1996, Vantaa, Finland.
13. Hänggi, A., Stöckli, E., and Nentwig, W. 1995. Habitats of Central European spiders - Characterisation of the habitats of the most abundant spider species of Central Europe and associated species. Misc. Faun. Helv. 4: 1-459.
14. Huber, C., Schulze, C., and Baumgarten, M. 2007. The effect of femel- and small-scale clear-cutting on ground dwelling spider communities in a Norway spruce forest in Southern Germany. Biodivers. Conserv. 16: 3653-3680. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9004-2.
15. Huhta, V. 1965. Ecology of spiders in the soil and litter of Finnish forests. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2: 260-308.
16. Huhta, V. 1971. Succession in the spider communities of the forest floor after clear-cutting and prescribed burning. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 8: 483-542.
17. Jalonen, J., and Vanha-Majamaa, I. 2001. Immediate effects of four different felling methods on mature boreal spruce forest under-storey vegetation in southern Finland. For. Ecol. Manage. 146: 25-34. doi:10.1016/S0378- 1127(00)00446-1.
18. Jennings, D.T., Houseweart, M.W., Dondale, C.D., and Redner, J.H. 1988. Spiders (Araneae) associated with strip-clearcut and dense spruce-fir forests of Maine. J. Arachnol. 16: 55-70.
19. Koivula, M. 2002a. Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). For. Ecol. Manage. 167: 103-121. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00717-4.
20. Koivula, M. 2002b. Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages in thinned uneven-aged and clear-cut spruce stands. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 39: 131-149.
21. Koivula, M., and Niemelä, J. 2002. Boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in managed spruce forests - A summary of Finnish case studies. Silva Fenn. 36: 423-436.
22. Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological methodology. 2nd ed. Benjamin/Cummings, Addison-Welsey Educational Publishers, Menlo Park, California.
23. Kuenzler, E.J. 1958. Niche relations of three species of lycosid spiders. Ecology, 39: 494-500. doi:10.2307/1931759.
24. Kuuluvainen, T., Syrjänen, K., and Kalliola, R. 1998. Structure of a pristine Picea abies forest in northeastern Europe. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 563-574. doi:10.2307/3237272.
25. Larrivée, M., Fahrig, L., and Drapeau, P. 2005. Effects of a recent wildfire and clearcuts on ground-dwelling boreal forest spider assemblages. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 2575-2588. doi:10.1139/x05-169.
26. Mader, H.-J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol. Conserv. 29: 81-96. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(84)90015-6.
27. Matlack, G.R. 1993. Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States. Biol. Conserv. 66: 185-194. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(93)90004-K.
28. Matveinen-Huju, K. 2004. Habitat affinities of 228 boreal Finnish spiders: a literature review. Entomol. Fenn. 15: 149-192.
29. Matveinen-Huju, K., Niemelä, J., Rita, H., and O'Hara, R.B. 2006. Retention-tree groups in clear-cuts: do they constitute "lifeboats" for spiders and carabids? For. Ecol. Manage. 230: 119-135. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.025.
30. McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J.A. 1989. Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. Chapman Hall, London.
31. McCune, B., and Mefford, M.J. 1999. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 4.14. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
32. McIver, J.D., Parsons, G.L., and Moldenke, A.R. 1992. Litter spider succession after clear-cutting in a western coniferous forest. Can. J. For. Res. 22: 984-992. doi:10.1139/x92-132.
33. Miyashita, T., Shikai, A., and Chida, T. 1998. The effects of forest fragmentation on web spider communities in urban areas. Biol. Conserv. 86: 357-364. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00025-1.
34. Mönkkönen, M. 1999. Managing Nordic boreal forest landscapes for biodiversity: ecological and economic perspectives. Biodivers. Conserv. 8: 85-99. doi:10.1023/A:1008813225086.
35. Niemelä, J., Pajunen, T., Haila, Y., Punttila, P., and Halme, E. 1994. Seasonal activity of boreal forest-floor spiders (Araneae). J. Arachnol. 22: 23-31.
36. Niemelä, J., Larsson, S., and Simberloff, D. 2001. Concluding remarks - Finding ways to integrate timber production and biodiversity in Fennoscandian forestry. Scand. J. For. Res. 16(Suppl. 3): 119-123. doi:10.1080/028275801300090744.
37. Östlund, L., Zackrisson, O., and Axelsson, A.-L. 1997. The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 1198-1206. doi:10.1139/x97-070.
38. Platnick, N.I. 2006. The world spider catalog [online]. Version 7.0. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Available from research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html.
39. Raivio, S., Normark, E., Pettersson, B., and Salpakivi-Salomaa, P. 2001. Science and the management of boreal forest biodiversity - forest industries' views. Scand. J. For. Res. 16(Suppl. 3): 99-104. doi:10.1080/ 028275801300090708.
40. Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T., and Mannerkoski, I. (Editors). 2001. Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Ministry of the Environment and Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. [In Finnish with English summary.]
41. R Development Core Team. 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available from www.R-project.org.
42. Schowalter, T.D., Zhang, Y.L., and Rykken, J.J. 2003. Litter invertebrate responses to variable density thinning in Western Washington forest. Ecol. Appl. 13: 1204-1211. doi:10.1890/02-5187.
43. Shure, D.J., and Phillips, D.L. 1991. Patch size of forest openings and arthropod populations. Oecologia, 86: 325-334. doi:10.1007/BF00317597.
44. Siira-Pietikäinen, A., Haimi, J., and Siitonen, J. 2003. Short-term responses of soil macroarthropod community to clear felling and alternative forest regeneration methods. For. Ecol. Manage. 172: 339-353. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00811-8.
45. Spence, J.R., and Niemelä, J.K. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Can. Entomol. 126: 881-894.
46. Uetz, G.W. 1977. Coexistence in a guild of wandering spiders. J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 531-541. doi:10.2307/3828.
47. Uetz, G.W. 1991. Habitat structure and spider foraging. In Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Edited by S.S. Bell, E.D. McCoy, and H.R. Mushinsky. Chapman and Hall, London.
48. Uetz, G.W., Halaj, J., and Cady, A.B. 1999. Guild structure of spiders in major crops. J. Arachnol. 27: 270-280.
49. Underwood, A.J. 1991. Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 42: 569-587. doi:10.1071/MF9910569.
50. White, G.C., and Bennetts, R.E. 1996. Analysis of frequency count data using the negative binomial distribution. Ecology, 77: 2549-2557. doi:10.2307/2265753.
51. Willett, T.R. 2001. Spiders and other arthropods as indicators in old-growth versus logged Redwood stands. Restor. Ecol. 9: 410-420. doi:10.1046/j.1526-100X.2001.94010.x.
52. Zimmerman, G.M., Goetz, H., and Mielke, P.W., Jr. 1985. Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology, 66: 606-611. doi:10.2307/1940409.