Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 2049–2059 | Cite as

Impact of Red Deer Cervus elaphus Grazing on Bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus and Composition of Ground Beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) Assemblage

  • Claudia MelisEmail author
  • Astrid Buset
  • Per Arild Aarrestad
  • Oddvar Hanssen
  • Erling L. Meisingset
  • Reidar Andersen
  • Arne Moksnes
  • Eivin Røskaft
Article

Abstract.

We studied the role of red deer Cervus elaphus L. as ecosystem modifier in boreal forest (Tingvoll municipality, 62°52′ N, 8°20′ E, Norway), during early summer of 2001. The effect of grazing by red deer on ground beetles (Carabidae) abundance and diversity was investigated across a gradient of grazing pressures. We trapped ground beetles by pit-fall traps from three homogeneous winter grazing areas (ungrazed, medium grazed, heavily grazed). Bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus (the main winter food for red deer) was sampled and its dry weight was measured for the three locations. Gradient analyses showed that grazing by red deer affects carabid species composition. Grazing significantly affected the amount of bilberry, which correlated with species variation. According to our predictions, we found a higher abundance of carabids in the heavily grazed location, but the species richness and the diversity indices were similar for the three areas. This study shows that overall species composition is altered along a gradient as consequence of red deer winter grazing and that red deer act as ecosystem engineer, by reducing the bilberry heather which dominates the field layer in early summer.

Keywords

Boreal forest Carabidae Ecosystem engineer Grazing Norway Red deer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, J. 1995A comparison of pit-fall trapping and quadrat sampling of Carabidae (Coleoptera) on river banksEntomol. Fenn.66575Google Scholar
  2. Baines, D., Sage, R.B., Baines, M.M. 1994The implications of red deer grazing to ground vegetation and invertebrate communities of Scottish native pinewoodsJ. Appl. Ecol.31776783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crawley, M. J. 2002Statistical Computing. An Introduction to Data Analysis Using S-PlusJohn Wiley and SonsChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. Dennis, P., Young, M.R., Howard, C.L., Gordon, I.J. 1997The response of epigeal beetles (Col: CarabidaeStaphylinidae) to varied grazing regimes on upland Nardus stricta grasslandsJ. Appl. Ecol.34433443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fuller, R.J., Gill, R.M.A. 2001Ecological impacts of increasing numbers of deer in British woodlandForestry74193199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner, S.M., Hartley, S.E., Davies, A., Palmer, S.C.F. 1997Carabid communities on heather moorlands in northeast Scotland: the consequences of grazing pressure for community diversityBiol. Conserv.81275286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gauch, H.G., Whittaker, R.H., Wentworth, T.R. 1977Comparative-study of reciprocal averaging and other ordination techniquesJ. Ecol.65157174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. González-Megías, A., Gómez, J.M., Sánchez-Piñero, F. 2004Effects of ungulates on epigeal arthropods in Sierra Nevada National Park (southeast Spain)Biodiv. Conserv.13733752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heliölä, J., Koivula, M., Niemelä, J. 2001Distribution of carabid beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae) across a forest-clearcut ecotoneConserv. Biol.15370377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill, M.O. 1973Reciprocal averaging-eigenvector method of ordinationJ. Ecol.61237244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill, M.O. 1974Correspondence analysis – Neglected multivariate methodJ. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. C App. Stat.23340354Google Scholar
  12. Hill, M.O., Gauch, H.G. 1980Detrended correspondence-analysis – an improved ordination techniqueVegetatio424758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmes, P.R., Boyce, D.C., Reed, D.K. 1993The ground beetle (ColeopteraCarabidae) fauna of Welsh peatland biotopes – factors influencing the distribution of ground beetles and conservation implicationsBiol. Conserv.63153161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M. 1994Organisms as ecosystem engineersOikos69373386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M. 1997Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineersEcology7819461957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jongman R.H.G., ter Braak C.J.F. and van Tongeren O.F.R. 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kendall D.G. 1971. Seriation from abundance matrices. In: Hodson F.R., Kendall D.G. and Tauto P. (eds), Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences. University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kielland, K., Bryant, J.P. 1998Moose herbivory in taiga: effects on biogeochemistry and vegetation dynamics in primary successionOikos82377383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lövei, G.L., Sunderland, K.D. 1996Ecology and behaviour of ground beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae)Ann. Rev. Entomol.41231256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McFerran, D.M., Montgomery, W.I., McAdam, J.H. 1994The impact of grazing on communities of ground-dwelling spiders (Araneae) in upland vegetation typesProc. R. Irish Acad.94119126Google Scholar
  21. Meisingset, E.L. 2003Hjort og hjortejakt i Norge (in Norwegian)NaturforlagetOsloISBN 82-7643-282-4.Google Scholar
  22. Naiman, R.J. 1988Animal influences on ecosystem dynamicsBioscience38750752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olff, H., Ritchie, M.E. 1998Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversityTrends Ecol. Evol.13261265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pastor, J., Dewey, B., Naiman, R.J., McInnes, P.F., Cohen, Y. 1993Moose browsing and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle-Royale-National-ParkEcology74467480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team2004R: A Language and Environment for Statistical ComputingR Foundation for Statistical ComputingVienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  26. Rambo, J.L., Faeth, S.H. 1999Effect of vertebrate grazing on plant and insect community structureConserv. Biol.1310471054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stewart, A.J.A. 2001The impact of deer on lowland woodland invertebrates: a review of the evidence and priorities for future researchForestry74259270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suominen, O. 1999Impact of cervid browsing and grazing on the terrestrial gastropod fauna in the boreal forests of FennoscandiaEcography22651658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suominen, O., Danell, K., Bergstrom, R. 1999aMoosetrees, and ground-living invertebrates: indirect interactions in Swedish pine forestsOikos84215226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suominen, O., Danell, K., Bryant, J.P. 1999bIndirect effects of mammalian browsers on vegetation and ground-dwelling insects in an Alaskan floodplainEcoscience6505510Google Scholar
  31. Suominen, O., Niemela, J., Martikainen, P., Niemela, P., Kojola, I. 2003Impact of reindeer grazing on ground-dwelling Carabidae and Curculionidae assemblages in LaplandEcography26503513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ter Braak C.J.F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67.Google Scholar
  33. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987The analysis of vegetation–environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysisVegetatio696777Google Scholar
  34. ter Braak, C.J.F., Prentice, I.C. 1988A theory of gradient analysisAdv. Ecol. Res.18271317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ter Braak C.J.F. and Smilauer P. 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and User Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power.Google Scholar
  36. Thiele H.U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Melis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Astrid Buset
    • 1
  • Per Arild Aarrestad
    • 2
  • Oddvar Hanssen
    • 2
  • Erling L. Meisingset
    • 3
  • Reidar Andersen
    • 1
  • Arne Moksnes
    • 1
  • Eivin Røskaft
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Norwegian Centre for Ecological Agriculture, Tingvoll gardTingvollNorway

Personalised recommendations