Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of cerambycid beetle species composition in relation to geographic features, climate and/or silvicultural treatments on different scales

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Characterising geographic patterns of biodiversity generated by intrinsic distributions of organisms is essential for designing effective biodiversity conservation plans on both the project and sub-national to national scales. Species composition is generally similar within the same types of ecosystems located close to one another, but similarity also depends on the focal organism(s) as well as the scale of the analysis. To facilitate decision-making for environmental compensation projects such as “biodiversity offsets”, we examined whether Japanese ecoregions based on vegetation are correlated with the distribution of cerambycid beetles, using existing cerambycid data collected from Hokkaido to the Nansei Islands in both natural and plantation forests over 1 year in each area. At the national level, the species compositions of beetles were quite distinct in Hokkaido and the Nansei Islands but less so in other areas. The overall pattern of the observed sampling data fit that obtained by previously accumulated local inventories. At the area level (including plantation forests under different management regimes/successional stages and in some cases naturally regenerated mature to old growth forests), no consistent beetle composition patterns were observed, although compositions in natural forests and closed canopy/thinned/old growth plantation forests were sometimes distinct. Therefore, we conclude that when ecoregions are considered during decision-making for “no net-loss or net-gain” biodiversity conservation measures, it is important to examine multiple organisms on various scales using scientific approaches from several perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke R (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend M, Inouye BD, Freestone AL, Sanders NJ, Cornell HV, Comita LS, Davies KF, Harrison SP, Kraft NJB, Stegen JC, Swenson NG (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of βdiversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Astorga A, Oksanen J, Luoto M, Soininen J, Virtanen R, Muotka T (2012) Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro- and microorganisms follow the same rules? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offset Programme) (2012) Glossary. 2nd edn. BBOP, Washington, D.C.. Available from http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Updated_Glossary. Accessed 31 March 2017

  • Bennett AF (2003) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D et al (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45:141–150

  • Biodiversity Center of Japan (2016) Natural environmental survey. Available at http://www.biodic.go.jp/ne_research_e.html#id01. Accessed 31 March 2017

  • Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • DSE (Department of Sustainability and environment) (2004) Vegetation quality assessment manual–guidelines for applying the habitat hectares scoring method. ver 1.3. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J (2010) Moving beyond static species distribution models in support of conservation biogeography. Biodivers Distrib 16:321–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Von Hase A, Brownlie S, Ekstrom JMM, Pilgrim JD, Savy CE, Stephens RTT, Treweek J, Ussher GT, Ward G, Kate KT (2012) Biodiversity offsets and the challenges of achieving no net loss. Conserv Biol 27:1254–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert B, Lechowicz MJ (2004) Neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. PNAS 101:7651–7656

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grimbacher PS, Catterall CP (2007) How much do site age, habitat structure and spatial isolation influence the restoration of rainforest beetle species assemblages? Biol Conserv 135:107–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford KH, Shaffer MH, Scott JM, Baumgartner JM, Higgins JV, Beck MW, Anderson MG (2002) Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice: a seven-step framework for developing regional plans to conserve biological diversity, based upon principles of conservation biology and ecology, is being used extensively by the nature conservancy to identify priority areas for conservation. Bioscience 52:499–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irei H, Miyagi K (2003) A survey for assessment and management methods of Satoyama broadleaved forests using insect indicators. The annual report of the Okinawa Forestry Experiment Station 14: 11–12 (in Japanese)

  • Irei H, Miyagi K (2004) A survey for assessment and management methods of Satoyama broadleaved forests using insect indicators. The annual report of the Okinawa Forestry Exp St 15: 9–10 (in Japanese)

  • Irei H, Machida S, Miyagi K (2003) A study of the forest management for biodiversity. The annual report of the Okinawa Forestry Experiment Station 14: 9–10 (in Japanese)

  • Japan Meteorological Agency (2016) Meteorological Statistics. Available at http://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/index.php. Accessed 31 March 2017

  • Kate Ten K, Bishop J, Bayon R (2004) Biodiversity offsets: views, experience, and the business case. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleidon A, Mooney HA (2000) A global distribution of biodiversity inferred from climatic constraints: results from a process-based modelling study. Glob Change Biol 6:507–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linsley EG (1959) Ecology of Cerambycidae. Ann Rev Entomol 4:99–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maeto K, Sato S, Miyata H (2002) Species diversity of longicorn beetles in humid warm temperate forests: the impact of forest management practices on old-growth forest species in southwestern Japan. Biodivers Conserv 11:1919–1937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makino S, Goto H, Hasegawa M, Okabe K, Tanaka H, Inoue T, Okochi I (2007) Degradation of longicorn beetle (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Disteniidae) fauna caused by conversion from broad-leaved to man-made conifer stands of Cryptomeria japonica (Taxodiaceae) in central Japan. Ecol Res 22:372–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maleque MA, Ishii HT, Maeto K, Taniguchi S (2006) Management of insect biodiversity by line thinning in Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) plantations, central Japan. Eurasian J For Res 9:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Maron M, Rhodes JR, Gibbons P (2013) Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conserv Lett 6:359–367

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manag 45:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOE (2001) Press release: about important regional information for the classification for conservation of biodiversity. Available at http://www.env.go.jp/press/press.php?serial=2908. Accessed 31 March 2017. (in Japanese)

  • Morlon H, Chuyong G, Condit R, Hubbell S, Kenfack D, Thomas D, Valencia R, Green JL (2008) A general framework for the distance-decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecol Lett 11:904–917

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Munakata K, Matsubara Y, Fukuda H (2013) Development and test of indicators for states of forest biodiversity. Forestry Agency, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nekola JC, White PS (1999) The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. J Biogeogr 867–878

  • Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004) Application of ecological indicators. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohbayashi N, Satô M, Kojima K (eds) (1992) An illustrated guide to identification of longicorn beetles of Japan. Tokai Univ Press, Tokyo, (in Japanese with English title)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohsawa M (2004) Species richness of Cerambycidae in larch plantations and natural broad-leaved forests of the central mountainous region of Japan. For Ecol Manag 189:375–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51:933–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osawa N, Terai A, Hirata K, Nakanishi A, Makino A, Sakai S, Sibata S (2005) Logging impacts on forest carabid assemblages in Japan. Can J For Res 35:2698–2708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxbrough AG, Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Giller PS, Smith GF (2005) Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For Ecol Manag 212:171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM (2007) Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:713–737

  • Sasse J (1998) The forests of Japan. Japan Forest Technical Association, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Soininen J, McDonald R, Hillebra H (2007) The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography 30:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbauer MJ, Dolos K, Reineking B, Beierkuhnlein C (2012) Current measures for distance decay in similarity of species composition are influenced by study extent and grain size. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:1203–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadauchi O (2016) Mokuroku. Available at http://konchudb.agr.agr.kyushu-u.ac.jp/mokuroku/. Accessed 31 March 2017

  • Taki H, Inoue T, Tanaka H, Makihara H, Sueyoshi M, Isono M, Okabe K (2010) Responses of community structure, diversity, and abundance of understory plants and insect assemblages to thinning in plantations. For Ecol Manag 259:607–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torras O, Saura S (2008) Effects of silvicultural treatments on forest biodiversity indicators in the Mediterranean. For Ecol Manag 255:3322–3330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K, Yli-Halla M (2003) Dispersal, environment, and floristic variation of western Amazonian forests. Science 299:241–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willig MR, Kaufman DM, Stevens RD (2003) Latitudinal gradients of biodiversity: pattern, process, scale, and synthesis. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:273–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasumura S (2010) Nansei Islands biological diversity evaluation project report. WWF Japan, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshioka K (1973) Phytogeography. Kyoritsu Shuppan, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, 1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8687, Japan

    Kimiko Okabe & Hiroshi Makihara

  2. Shikoku Research Center, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, 2-915 Asakuranishi, Kochi, 780-8077, Japan

    Motohiro Hasegawa

Authors
  1. Kimiko Okabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Motohiro Hasegawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Makihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimiko Okabe.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okabe, K., Hasegawa, M. & Makihara, H. Patterns of cerambycid beetle species composition in relation to geographic features, climate and/or silvicultural treatments on different scales. J Insect Conserv 21, 771–779 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-017-0020-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-017-0020-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation