How much and at what scale? Multiscale analyses as decision support for conservation of saproxylic oak beetles

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 265, Issue , 2012, Pages 133-141

  Bergman, Karl Olof ^a   Jansson, Nicklas ^a   Claesson, Kenneth ^b   Palmer, Michael W ^c   Milberg, Per ^a,d  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b County Administration Board of östergötland ^*  (Sweden)

^c OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Characteristic scale; Forest fragmentation; Metapopulation; Quercus robur; Saproxylic beetles; Spatiotemporal processes

Indexed keywords

CHARACTERISTIC SCALE; FOREST FRAGMENTATIONS; METAPOPULATIONS; QUERCUS ROBUR; SAPROXYLIC BEETLES; SPATIOTEMPORAL PROCESS;

DYNAMICS; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; INSTRUMENT SCALES;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

BEETLE; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DATA SET; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DICOTYLEDON; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT LOSS; HABITAT RESTORATION; MAPPING; METAPOPULATION; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; SAPROXYLIC ORGANISM; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; SPECIALIST; SPECIES RICHNESS; SUBSTRATE;

COLEOPTERA; QUERCUS; QUERCUS ROBUR;

EID: 81255179824     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.030     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bergman K.-O., Askling J., Ekberg O., Ignell H., Wahlman H., Milberg P. Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 2004, 27:619-628.
2. Bergman K.-O., Ask L., Askling J., Ignell H., Wahlman H., Milberg P. Importance of boreal grasslands in Sweden for butterfly diversity and effects of local and landscape habitat factors. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:139-153.
3. Cushman S.A., McGarigal K. Patterns in the species-environment relationship depend on both scale and choice of response variables. Oikos 2004, 105:117-124.
4. Dahlberg A., Stokland J.N. Vedlevande arters krav på substrat - en sammanställning och analys av 3600 arter. Rapport 7 2004, Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping (in Swedish).
5. Davies Z.G., Tyler C., Stewart G.B., Pullin A.S. Are current management recommendations for saproxylic invertebrates effective? A systematic review. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:209-234.
6. Restoration of deadwood as a critical microhabitat in forest landscapes. Forest restoration in landscapes: beyond planting trees 2005, 203-207. Springer, New York. N. Dudley, D. Vallauri (Eds.).
7. ESRI. 2009. ArcGIS 9.2, Spatial Analyse, Kernel Density. Redlands, CA.
8. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B., Cowling A. The challenge of managing multiple species at multiple scales: reptiles in an Australian grazing landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41:32-44.
9. Franc N., Götmark F., Økland B., Nordén B., Paltto H. Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135:86-98.
10. Fuhlendorf S.D., Woodward A.J.W., Leslie D.M., Shackford J.S. Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the US Southern Great Plains. Landscape Ecol. 2002, 17:617-628.
11. Gehring T.M., Swihart R.K. Body size, niche breadth, and ecologically scaled responses to habitat fragmentation: mammalian predators in an agricultural landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 109:283-295.
12. Gorresen P.M., Willig M.R., Strauss R.E. Multivariate analysis of scale-dependent association between bats and landscape structure. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15:2126-2136.
13. Graf R.F., Bollmann K., Suter W., Bugmann H. The importance of spatial scale in habitat models: capercaillie in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Ecol. 2005, 20:703-717.
14. Grove S.J. Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2002, 33:1-23.
15. Hedin J., Ranius T., Nilsson S.G., Smith H.G. Restricted dispersal in a flying beetle assessed by telemetry. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:675-684.
16. Holland J.D., Bert D.G., Fahrig L. Determining the spatial scale of species' response to habitat. Bioscience 2004, 54:229-235.
17. Holland J.D., Fahrig L., Cappuccino N. Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat-beetle interactions. Oikos 2005, 110:101-108.
18. Irmler U., Arp H., Nötzold R. Species richness of saproxylic beetles in woodlands is affected by dispersion ability of species, age and stand size. J. Insect Conserv. 2010, 14:227-235.
19. Jansson N., Lundberg S. Beetles in hollow broadleaved deciduous trees - Two species new to Sweden and the staphylinid beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Hypnogyra glabra and Meliceria tragardhi found again in Sweden. Entomologisk Tidskrift 2000, 121:93-97.
20. Jansson N., Bergman K.-O., Jonsell M., Milberg P. An indicator system for identification of sites of high conservation value for saproxylic oak (Quercus spp.) beetles in southern Sweden. J. Insect Conserv. 2009, 13:399-412.
21. Jansson N., Ranius T., Larsson A., Milberg P. Boxes mimicking tree hollows can help conservation of saproxylic beetles. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18:3891-3908.
22. Levin S.A. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 1992, 73:1943-1967.
23. Lindenmayer D.B. Factors at multiple scales affecting distribution patterns and their implications for animal conservation: Leadbeater's possum as a case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 2000, 9:15-35.
24. McLean, I.F.G., Speight, M.C.D., 1993. Saproxylic invertebrates - the European context, In: Kirby, K.J., Drake C.M. (Eds.), Dead wood matters: the ecology and conservation of saproxylic invertebrates in Britain. English Nature Science No. 7, pp. 21-32.
25. Menèndez R., Thomas C.D. Metapopulation structure depends on spatial scale in the host-specific moth Wheeleria spilodactylus (Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae). J. Anim. Ecol. 2000, 69:935-951.
26. Nilsson S.G., Baranowski R. Habitat predictability and the occurrence of wood beetles in old-growth beech forests. Ecography 1997, 20:491-498.
27. Palm T. Die Holz-und Rindenkäfer der Süd-und Mittelschwedishen Laubbäume (The wood and bark living coleoptera of deciduous trees in southern and central Sweden). Opuscula Entomologica Supplements 1959, 16:1-374. (In German with English Summary).
28. Paltto H., Thomasson I., Nordén B. Multispecies and multiscale conservation planning: setting quantitative targets for red-listed lichens on ancient oaks. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:758-768.
29. Ranius T. Minimum viable metapopulation size of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Anim. Conserv. 2000, 3:37-43.
30. Ranius T. Extinction risks in metapopulations of a beetle inhabiting hollow trees predicted from time series. Ecography 2007, 30:716-726.
31. Ranius T., Hedin J. The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 2001, 126:363-370.
32. Ricketts T.H., Daily G.C., Ehrlich P.R., Fay J.P. Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15:378-388.
33. Roland J., Taylor P.D. Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 1997, 386:710-713.
34. Rolstad J., Sætersdal M., Gjerde I., Storauneta K.O. Wood-decaying fungi in boreal forest: are species richness and abundances influenced by small-scale spatiotemporal distribution of dead wood?. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 117:539-555.
35. Southwood T.R.E. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies. J. Anim. Ecol. 1977, 46:337-365.
36. Speight M.C.D. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Publications and Documents Division. Nature and Environment Series 1989, 42:1-79.
37. StatSoft, Inc., 2007. STATISTICA, version 8.0. http://www.statsoft.com.
38. Steffan-Dewenter I., Münzenberg U., Bürger C., Thies C., Tscharntke T. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 2002, 83:1421-1432.
39. Thomas C.D., Hanski I. Butterfly metapopulations. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution 1997, 359-386. Academic Press, San Diego, USA. I.A. Hanski, M.E. Gilpin (Eds.).
40. Thompson C.M., McGarigal K. The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landscape Ecol. 2002, 17:569-586.
41. Van Dyck H., Baguette M. Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Routine or special movements?. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2005, 6:535-545.
42. Warren M.S., Key R.S. Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. The conservation of insects and their habitats 1989, 155-211. Academic Press, London, UK. N.M. Collins, J.A. Thomas (Eds.).
43. Westphal C., Steffan-Dewenter I., Tscharntke T. Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence. Oecologia 2006, 149:289-300.