Saproxylic and non-saproxylic beetle assemblages in boreal spruce forests of different age and forestry intensity

Ecological Applications

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 2310-2321

  Stenbacka, Fredrik ^a   Hjältén, Joakim ^a   Hilszczański, Jacek ^a,b   Dynesius, Mats ^a,c  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Poland)

^c UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Clear cutting; Coleoptera; Conservation; Dead wood; Forest management; Oldgrowth reserves; Red listed; Saproxylic beetles; Thinning

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; BOREAL FOREST; CLEARCUTTING; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DEAD WOOD; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FOREST MANAGEMENT; OLD-GROWTH FOREST; RED LIST;

ANIMAL; ARCTIC; ARTICLE; BEETLE; CLASSIFICATION; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FORESTRY; PHYSIOLOGY; TIME; TREE;

ANIMALS; ARCTIC REGIONS; BEETLES; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FORESTRY; TIME FACTORS; TREES;

COLEOPTERA; PICEA;

EID: 78649856676     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/09-0815.1     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Ahti, T., L. Hamet-Ahti, and J. Jalas. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5:169-211.
2. Alinvi, O., J. P. Ball, K. Danell, J. Hjalten, and R. B. Pettersson. 2007. Sampling saproxylic beetle assemblages in dead wood logs: comparing window and eclector traps to traditional bark sieving and a refinement. Journal of Insect Conservation 11:99-112.
3. Anderson, M. J. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis ofvariance. Australian Ecology 26:32-46.
4. Anderson, M. J. 2003. PERMANOVA 2-factor: a FORTRAN computer program for permutational multivariate analysis of variance (for any 2-factor multivariate ANOVA design) using permutation tests. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Aukland, New Zealand.
5. Berg, A., B. Ehnstrom, L. Gustafsson, T. Hallingback, M. Jonsell, and J. Weslien. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology 8:718-731.
6. Berg, A., B. Ehnstrom, L. Gustafsson, T. Hallingback, M. Jonsell, and J. Weslien. 1995. Threat levels and threats to red-listed species in Swedish forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1629-1633.
7. Buddle, C. M., D. W. Langor, G. R. Pohl, and J. R. Spence. 2006. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: implications for emulation of natural disturbance in forest management. Biological Conservation 128:346-357.
8. Caruso, A., J. Rudolphi, and G. Thor. 2008. Lichen species diversity and substrate amounts in young planted boreal forests: a comparison between slash and stumps of Picea abies. Biological Conservation 141:47-55.
9. Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117-143.
10. Clarke, K. R., and R. N. Gorley. 2006. Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. Primer-E, Plymouth, UK.
11. Clarke, K. R., P. J. Somerfield, and M. G. Chapman. 2006. On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray-Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330:55-80.
12. Clarke, K. R., and R. M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and inter-pretation. Primer-E, Plymouth, UK.
13. Collins, M. D., and D. Simberloff. 2009. Rarefaction and nonrandom spatial dispersion patterns. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 16:89-103.
14. Dahlberg, A., and J. N. Stokland. 2004. Vedlevande arters krav pa substrat-sammanstallning och analys av 3600 arter. Skogsstyrelsen Rapport 7, Jonkoping, Sweden. [In Swedish with English summary.]
15. Dynesius, M., and K. Hylander. 2007. Resilience ofbryophyte communities to clear-cutting of boreal stream-side forests. Biological Conservation 135:423-434.
16. Dynesius, M., K. Hylander, and C. Nilsson. 2009. High resilience of bryophyte assemblages in stream-side compared to upland forests. Ecology 90:1042-1054.
17. Ebeling, F. 1978. Nordsvenska skogstyper. Sveriges Skogs-vardsforbund, Djursholm, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
18. Ehnstrom, B. 2001. Leaving dead wood for insects in boreal forests: suggestions for the future. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement 3:91-98.
19. Esseen, P.-A., B. Ehnstrom, L. Ericson, and K. Sjoberg. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins 46:16-47.
20. Field, J. G., K. R. Clarke, and R. M. Warwick. 1982. A practical strategy for analyzing multispecies distribution patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:37-52.
21. Fridman, J., and M. Walheim. 2000. Amount, structure and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 131:23-36.
22. Gardenfors, U. 2005. Rodlistade arter i Sverige 2005 [The 2005 red list of Swedish species]. ArtDatabanken, Swedish Species Information Centre, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
23. Gaston, K. J. 1991. The magnitude of global insect species richness. Conservation Biology 5:283-296.
24. Gibb, H., J. P. Ball, T. Johansson, O. Atlegrim, J. Hjalten, and K. Danell. 2005. Effects of management on coarse woody debris volume and composition in boreal forests in northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 20:213-222.
25. Gibb, H., J. Hjalten, J. P. Ball, O. Atlegrim, R. B. Pettersson, J. Hilszczanski, T. Johansson, and K. Danell. 2006a. Effects of landscape composition and substrate availability on sapro-xylic beetles in boreal forests: a study using experimental logs for monitoring assemblages. Ecography 29:191-204.
26. Gibb, H., J. Hjalten, J. P. Ball, R. B. Pettersson, J. Landin, O. Alvini, and K. Danell. 2006b. Wing loading and habitat selection in forest beetles: Are red-listed species poorer dispersers or more habitat-specific than common conge-nerics? Biological Conservation 132:250-260.
27. Gibb, H., R. B. Pettersson, J. Hjalten, J. Hilszczanski, J. P. Ball, T. Johansson, O. Atlegrim, and K. Danell. 2006c. Conservation-oriented forestry and early successional sap-roxylic beetles: responses of functional groups to manipulat-ed dead wood substrates. Biological Conservation 129:437-450.
28. Grove, S. J. 2002a. The influence offorest management history on the integrity of the saproxylic beetle fauna in an Australian lowland tropical rainforest. Biological Conservation 104:149-171.
29. Grove, S. J. 2002b. Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:1-23.
30. Gustafsson, L., L. Appelgren, F. Jonsson, U. Nordin, A. Persson, and J.-O. Weslien. 2004. High occurrence of red-listed bryophytes and lichens in mature managed forests in boreal Sweden. Basic and Applied Ecology 5:123-129.
31. Hilszczanski, J., H. Gibb, J. Hjalten, O. Atlegrim, T. Johansson, R. B. Pettersson, J. P. Ball, and K. Danell. 2005. Parasitoids (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonoidea) of sap-roxylic beetles are affected by forest successional stage and dead wood characteristics in boreal spruce forest. Biological Conservation 126:456-464.
32. Hjalten, J., T. Johansson, O. Alinvi, K. Danell, J. P. Ball, R. Pettersson, H. Gibb, and J. Hilszczanski. 2007. The importance of substrate type, shading and scorching for the attractiveness of dead wood to saproxylic beetles. Basic and Applied Ecology 8:364-376.
33. Hyvarinen, E., J. Kouki, and P. Martikainen. 2006. Fire and green-tree retention in conservation of red-listed and rare deadwood-dependent beetles in Finnish boreal forests. Conservation Biology 20:1711-1719.
34. Institutionen for skoglig resurshushallning. 2009. Skogsdata 2008. Aktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna fran Riksskogstaxeringen. Tema: Skogens roll for klimatet. Institutionen for skoglig resurshushallning, SLU, Umea, Sweden. [In Swedish.]
35. Jacobs, J. M., J. R. Spence, and D. W. Langor. 2007a. Influence of boreal forest succession and dead wood qualities on saproxylic beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 9:3-16.
36. Jacobs, J. M., J. R. Spence, and D. W. Langor. 2007b. Variable retention harvest ofwhite spruce stands and saproxylic beetle assemblages. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 37:1631-1642.
37. Johansson, T., H. Gibb, J. Hjalten, R. B. Pettersson, J. Hilszczanski, O. Alinvi, J. P. Ball, and K. Danell. 2007a. The effects of substrate manipulations and forest manage-ment on predators of saproxylic beetles. Forest Ecology and Management 242:518-529.
38. Johansson, T., J. Hjalten, H. Gibb, J. Hilszczanski, J. Stenlid, J. P. Ball, O. Alinvi, and K. Danell. 2007b. Variable response of different functional groups of saproxylic beetles to substrate manipulation and forest management: implications for conservation strategies. Forest Ecology and Management 242:496-510.
39. Jonsell, M., J. Hansson, and L. Wedmo. 2007. Diversity of saproxylic beetle species in logging residues in Sweden: comparisons between tree species and diameters. Biological Conservation 138:89-99.
40. Jonsell, M., and J. Weslien. 2003. Felled or standing retained wood: it makes a difference for saproxylic beetles. Forest Ecology and Management 175:425-435.
41. Jonsell, M., J. Weslien, and B. Ehnstrom. 1998. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:749-764.
42. Jonsson, B. G., N. Kruys, and T. Ranius. 2005. Ecology of species living on dead wood: lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fennica 39:289-309.
43. Kaila, L., P. Martikainen, and P. Punttila. 1997. Dead trees left in clearcuts benefit saproxylic Coleoptera adapted to natural disturbances in boreal forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1-18.
44. Koivula, M., J. Kukkonen, and J. Niemela. 2002. Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clearcut originated succession gradient. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1269-1288.
45. Larsson, S., and K. Danell. 2001. Science and the management of boreal forest biodiversity. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement 3:5-9.
46. Lindhe, A., A. Lindelow, and N. Asenblad. 2005. Saproxylic beetles in standing dead wood: density in relation to substrate sun-exposure and diameter. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:3033-3053.
47. Martikainen, P. 2001. Conservation of threatened saproxylic beetles: significance of retained aspen Populus tremula on clear-cut areas. Ecological Bulletins 49:205-218.
48. Martikainen, P., J. Siitonen, P. Punttila, L. Kaila, and J. Rauch. 2000. Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 94:199-209. (Pubitemid 30247260)
49. McArdle, B. H., and M. J. Anderson. 2001. Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290-297.
50. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA.
51. Niemela, J. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conservation Biology 11:601-610.
52. Niemela, J., D. W. Langor, and J. R. Spence. 1993. Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conservation Biology 7:551-561
53. Nordic saproxylic network. 2007. The saproxylic database: biodiversity in dead wood. Nordic saproxylic network. (www.saproxylic.org)
54. Noss, R., B. Csuti, and M. J. Groom. 2006. Habitat fragmentation. Pages 213-251 in M. J. Groom, G. K. Meffe, and C. R. Carroll, editors. Principles of conservation biology. Third edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachu-setts, USA.
55. Økland, B. 1996. A comparison of three methods of trapping saproxylic beetles. European Journal of Entomology 93:195-209
56. Økland, B., A. Bakke, S. Hagvar, and T. Kvamme. 1996. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:75-100.
57. Paquin, P. 2008. Carabid beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) diversity in the black spruce succession of eastern Canada. Biological Conservation 141:261-275.
58. Peltonen, M., K. Heliovaara, and R. Vaisanen. 1997. Forest insects and environmental variation in stand edges. Silva Fennica 31:129-141.
59. Penttila, R., J. Siitonen, and M. Kuusinen. 2004. Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland. Biological Conservation 117: 271-283.
60. Pettersson, R. B., F. Stenbacka, J. Hjalten, and J. Hilszczanski. 2007. Aterfynd av rodhalsad brunbagge (Phryganophilus ruficollis Fabr.) och Huggerts plattbrackstekel (Chartobracon huggerti C. Van Achterberg). Entomologisk Tidsskrift 128: 101-105. [In Swedish with English summary.]
61. PRIMER-E. 2007. PRIMER 6 and PERMANOVA + ß18. Plymouth, UK.
62. Ranius, T., and J. Hedin. 2001. The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 126: 363-370. (Pubitemid 32442706)
63. Ranius, T., O. Kindvall, N. Kruys, and B. G. Jonsson. 2003. Modelling dead wood in Norway spruce stands subject to different management regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 182:13-29.
64. Schiegg, K. 2000. Effects ofdead wood volume and connectiv-ity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 7:290-298.
65. Siitonen, J. 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49:11-41.
66. Silfverberg, H. 2004. Enumeratio nova coleopterorum fenno-scandiae daniae et baltiae. Sahlbergia 9:1-111. [In English.]
67. Simila, M., J. Kouki, and P. Martikainen. 2003. Saproxylic beetles in managed and seminatural Scots pine forests: quality of dead wood matters. Forest Ecology and Management 174:365-381.
68. Simila, M., J. Kouki, P. Martikainen, and A. Uotila. 2002. Conservation of beetles in boreal pine forests: the effects of forest age and naturalness on species assemblages. Biological Conservation 106:19-27.
69. Sippola, A.-L., J. Siitonen, and R. Kallio. 1998. The amount and quality of coarse woody debris in natural and managed forests near the timberline in Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian Journal ofForest Research 13:204-214.
70. Sippola, A.-L., J. Siitonen, and P. Punttila. 2002. Beetle diversity in timberline forests: a comparison between old-growth and regeneration areas in Finnish Lapland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 39:69-86.
71. Soderstrom, L. 1988. Sequence of bryophytes and lichens in relation to substrate variables of decaying coniferous woodin Northern Sweden. Nordic Journal ofBotany 8:89-97.
72. Speight, M. C. D. 1989. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and Environment Series 42. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.
73. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., and T. Birkemoe. 2009. What window traps can tell us: effect of placement, forest openness and beetle reproduction in retention trees. Journal of Insect Conservation 13:183-191.
74. Systat Software. 2007. SYSTAT 12. Chicago, USA.
75. Tikkanen, O.-P., P. Martikainen, E. Hyvarinen, K. Junninen, and J. Kouki. 2006. Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland: associations with forest structure, tree species and decaying wood. Annales Zoologici Fennici 43:373-383.
76. Toivanen, T., and J. S. Kotiaho. 2007. Burning oflogged sites to protect beetles in managed boreal forests. Conservation Biology 21:1562-1572.
77. Underwood, A. J. 1997. Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
78. Wikars, L.-O. 2002. Dependence on fire in wood-living insects: an experiment with burned and unburned spruce and birch logs. Journal ofInsect Conservation 6:1-12.
79. Wikars, L.-O., E. Sahlin, and T. Ranius. 2005. A comparison of three methods to estimate species richness of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in logs and high stumps of Norway spruce. Canadian Entomologist 137:304-324.