Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 1841–1862 | Cite as

Influence of forest development phase on centipede diversity in managed beech forests in Slovenia

  • Tanja Grgič
  • Ivan Kos
Article

Abstract

Biodiversity in managed forests depends on management practices that determine the forest structure. The influence of stand structure on centipede diversity was investigated by comparing centipede communities from different forest development phases. Using the quadrat counts method, soil samples were taken thrice during 2000 (in spring, summer and autumn) from a deforested area and three evenly aged beech stands (juvenile, pole and timber phases) in managed beech forests in Slovenia. The characteristics of centipede communities and the similarities among them were estimated. The collection comprised 1150 centipedes representing 32 species. At a single site, 10–24 species were found. The average density was between 22 and 808 individuals per m2. Differences among communities from different sites were found. The highest species number and abundance were found in the juvenile phase and the lowest in the deforested area. The occurrence of species differed among phases, but none of the species found with a high incidence in one development phase was restricted to that phase. The composition of the centipede community was more sensitive to the successional status of the forest than to the season. A comparison with differently structured forest was made, which suggests that homogenisation leads to reduced centipede diversity. To preserve biodiversity and healthy forest functioning, the maintenance of heterogeneity within a forest stand should be an important focus of management operations.

Keywords

Biodiversity Chilopoda Ecology Forest development phases Forest management Soil fauna Stand structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, A.M. 1979Chilopoda as part of the Predatory Macroartropod Fauna in Forests: AbundanceLife- cycleBiomass, and MetabolismCamatini, M. eds. Myriapod BiologyAcademic PressLondon215231Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert, A.M. 1982Species spectrum and dispersion patterns of Chilopods in Solling habitatsPedobiologia23337347Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert, A.M. 1983Life cycle of Lithobiidae with a discussion of r- and K-selection theoryOecologia56272279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anonymous. 2002a. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy of Slovenia. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, LjubljanaSlovenia.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anonymous 2002b. Gozdnogospodarski načrt GE Vrbovec 2001–2010. Zavod za gozdove SlovenijeObmočna enota KočevjeKočevjeSlovenija.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bončina, A. 2000aThe principle of sustainability in forestry planningZbornik gozdarstva in lesarstva63279312Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bončina, A. 2000bA comparison of stand structure and plant species composition between virgin forest remains and managed forests, and result consideration with regard to forestry planningZbornik gozdarstva in lesarstva63153181Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewer, R. 1994The Science of EcologyW.B. Saunders CompanyLondon, PhiladelphiaTorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caldwell, M.M., Pearcy, R.W. 1994Exploitation of Environmental Heterogenity by PlantsAcademic Press, Inc.LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carey, A.B., Johnson, M.L. 1995Small mammals in managednaturally young, and old-growth forestsEcological Applications5336352Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Craston, P.S., Trueman, J.W.H. 1997‘Indicatorȁ9 taxa in invertebrate biodiversity assessmentMem. Museum Victoria56267274Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunger, W., Voigtländer, K. 1990Succession of Myriapoda in primary colonization of reclaimed landMinelli, A. eds. Proceedings of 7th International Congress of Myriapodology, Vittorio VenetoItaly, July 1987Brill Academic PublishersIncorporatedLeiden, The Netherlands219227Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Favila, M.E., Halffter, G. 1997The use of indicator groups for measuring biodiversity as related to community structure and functionActa Zoologica Mexicana72125Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felsenstein, J. 2002PHYLIP, Phylogeny Inference Package Version 3.6 (alpha3)Department of Genome Sciences, University of WashingtonSeattleGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franklin, J.F. 1993Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes?Ecological Applications3202205Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fründ H.C. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Koexistenz verschiedener Chilopodenarten im Walboden. Ph.D. Thesis, Julius-Maximilianus UniversitätWürzgurg.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fründ, H.C. 1987Räumliche Verteilung und Koexistenz der Chilopoden in einem Buchen-AltbestandPedobiologia301929Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fründ, H.C., Balkenhol, B., Ruszkowski, B. 1997Chilopoda in forest habitat-islands in North-West WestphaliaGermanyEntomologica Scandinavica51107114Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grgič, T. 2002The influence of forest stand structure on centipede (Chilopoda) diversity in beech forests of southern SloveniaBiotechnical Faculty, Department of BiologyLjubljanaM.Sc. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grgič, T., Kos, I. 2001Temperature preference in some centipede species of the genus Lithobius LEACH, 1814 (Chilopoda : Lithobiidae)Acta Biologica Slovenica44312Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grgič, T., Kos, I. 2003Centipede diversity of different development phases in an unevenly-aged beech forest stand in SloveniaHamer, M. eds. Myriapodology in the New Millenium (African Invertebrates 44)Natal MuseumSouth Africa237252Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hafernik, J.E.,Jr. 1992Threats to invertebrate biodiversity: implications for conservation strategiesFiedler, P.L.Jain, S.K. eds. Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and ManagementChapman and HallNew York171195Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanski, I.A. 1998Metapopulation dynamicsNature3964149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kordiš F. 1993. Dinarski jelovo bukovi gozdovi v Sloveniji. Strokovna in znanstvena dela 112. Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kos, I. 1988Problemi kvalitativnega in kvantitativnega vzorenja skupine strig (Chilopoda)Biotechnical Faculty, Department of BiologyLjubljanaM.Sc. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kos, I. 1992The red list of endangered Chilopoda in SloveniaVarstvo Narave17137146Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kos, I. 1995The role of centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) in the biocenosis of a xerophilic meadowBiotechnical Faculty, Department of BiologyLjubljanaPh.D. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kos, I. 1996Centipedes (Chilopoda) of some forest communities in SloveniaGeoffroy, J.-J.Mauriès, J.-P.NguyenDuy- Jacquemin, M. eds. Acta Myriapodologica (Mémoires du Muséum National dȁ9Histoire Naturelle 169)Muséum National dȁ9Histoire NaturelleParis635646Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kos, I. 2000Some characteristics of animal biodiversity of Slovene forestsZbornik gozdarstva in lesarstva6395117Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kos, I., Grgič, T. 2001Soil fauna in Slovene forests – its characteristics, importancethreat and biodiversity in the Alpine regionGozdarski Vestnik59304313Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kos, I., Praprotnik, L. 2000Forest soil fauna on different ground rock near Kočevska RekaKraigher, H.Smolej, I. eds. Rizosfera (Strokovna in znanstvena dela 118)Gozdarski intitut SlovenijeLjubljana206220Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krebs, C.J. 2000Programs for Ecological Methodology, 2nd edExeter SoftwareNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leśniewska, M. 2000Centipede (Chilopoda) communities of three beech forests in PolandFragmenta Faunistica43343349Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loksa, I. 1968Quantitative Makrofauna – Untersuchungen in den Waldboden des Bukkgebirges (Ungarn)Annales universitatis scientiarum Budapestinensis9–10265289Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Martikainen, P., Siitonen, J., Kaila, L., Punttila, P., Rauh, J. 1999Bark beetles (ColeopteraScolytidae) and associated beetle species in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern FinlandForest Ecology and Management116233245Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mokrzycki, T. 1995Effect of pine forest stand age on bark beetle communities (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Puszcza BialowieskaFragmenta Faunistica38411417Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Niemelä, J., Baur, B. 1998Threatened species and invertebrates in calcareous grasslands in the Swiss Jura mountainsBiodiversity and Conservation714071416Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Niemelä, J., Haila, Y., Punttila, P. 1996The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradientEcography19352368Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noss, R.F. 1993Sustainable Forestry or Sustainable Forests?Aplet, G.H.Johnson, N.Olson, J.T.Sample, V.A. eds. Defining sustainable forestryIsland PressWashington1743Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Økland, B. 1994Mycetophilidae (Diptera), an insect group vulnerable to forestry practices? A comparison of clearcutmanaged and semi-natural spruce forests in southern NorwayBiodiversity and Conservation36885Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roberts, H. 1957An ecological study of arthropods of a mixed woodland with particular reference to the LithobiidaeUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonPh.D. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schaefer, M. 1991Fauna of the European temperate deciduous forestsRöhring, E.Ulrich, B. eds. Ecosystems of the World 7 (Temperate Deciduoud Forests)ElsevierAmsterdamLondon, New York, Tokyo503527Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schlyter, F., Lundgren, U. 1993Distribution of a bark beetle and its predator within and outside old-growth forest reserves: no increase of hazard near reservesScand. J. Forest Res.8246256Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Setälä, H., Marshall, V.G. 1994Stumps as a habitat for Collembola during succession from clear-cuts to old-growth Douglas-fir forestsPedobiologia38307326Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tarman, K. 1992Osnove ekologije in ekologija živaliDržavna založba SlovenijeLjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tuf, I.H. 2000Communities of centipedes (Chilopoda) in the tree floodplain forests of various age in Litovelské Pomoraví (Chech Republic)Fragmenta Faunistica43327332Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wigley, T.B., Roberts, T.H. 1994Forest management and wildlife in forested wetlands of the southern AppalachiansWater Air and Soil Pollution77445456Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wilson, E.O. 1987The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates)Conservation Biology1344346Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wytwer, J. 2000Centipede (Chilopoda) communities of some forest habitats of Puszcza Bialowieska in PolandFragmenta Faunistica43333342Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biotechnical Faculty, Department of BiologyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations