Conservation of Heathland Ground Beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae): The Value of Lowland Coniferous Plantations

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The value of conifer-dominated plantation forestry for heathland carabids is examined, in Breckland, eastern England. Historically dominated by heathland habitats supporting scarce species of restricted distribution within the UK, approximately 47% of Breckland was afforested in the early 20th century. The carabid fauna of this forest, previously little known, was sampled by intensive pitfall trapping, and results compared to samples from heathland and arable. The results affirm that Breckland supports many range-restricted carabid beetles, including scarce species restricted to lowland heathland or sandy habitats. Approximately half of the heathland-associated species, and also half of the Nationally Scarce carabid species recorded in Breckland, were found within the forest landscape. Carabid species composition differed between closed-canopy forest, heathland and arable, while open forest habitats (clear-felled stands, young restocked stands, and track margins) contained a diverse fauna with elements from all habitats. The proportion of heathland-associated species was significantly greater in open forest habitats than in closed-canopy forest and was similar to that of heathland assemblages. Wing morphology did not differ between heathland species solely recorded from heathland and those also recorded in the forest. Nationally Scarce species from the forest had a wider UK distribution than those recorded only from heathland. Our study shows that, within conifer forest planted in lowland heathland areas, open habitats provided by trackway networks and clear-felling management can have significant value for the conservation of open-ground carabids, including species of conservation importance.

Keywords

Afforestation Dispersal limitation Forest management Habitat preference Psammophilous Stenotopic Thetford Forest 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. (2003). The energetic equivalence rule rejected because of a potentially common sampling error: evidence from carabid beetles. Oikos 101: 367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (1957). An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr. 27: 325–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (2001). The effect of a complex land use history on the restoration possibilities of heathland in central Belgium. Belg. J. Bot. 134: 29–40Google Scholar
  4. (1995). Carabid beetle communities as indicators of conservation potential in upland forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 79: 63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (2001). Primer v5. PRIMER-E Ltd., PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  6. (1937). Breckland Wilds. W. Heffer and Sons Ltd., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. (1995). The effectiveness of five land management regimes on the regeneration of grassland heath in the Norfolk Breck, as indicated by the carabid (ground beetle) fauna. Forest Enterprise, Brandon, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. (1973). Breckland Forest Soils, Special Soil Survey 7. The Soil Survey of England and Wales, HarpendenGoogle Scholar
  9. (1993). Associations between forest type and invertebrates – ground beetle community patterns in a natural oakwood and juxtaposed conifer plantations. Forestry 66: 37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (1998). Ground beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae) on set-aside fields in the Campine region and their importance for nature conservation in Flanders (Belgium). Biodivers. Conserv. 7: 1485–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (1997). A study of the ground beetles (Carabidae) of Corsican pine plantations in Thetford ForestEastern England. Entomologist 116: 15–23Google Scholar
  12. (1991). Historical clues to conservation. New Sci. 1751: 40–43Google Scholar
  13. (1992). The ecological changes of Breckland grass heaths and the consequences of management. J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 402–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (2003). The processes of species colonisation in wooded landscapes: a review of principles. In: (eds) The Restoration of Wooded Landscapes, pp 25–36. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  15. (2003). Invertebrate Site Register for Norfolk Breckland and South Norfolk. 94 Part 1. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  16. (2004). Breckland Forest SSSI Site Management Statement. English Nature, Bury St. EdmundsGoogle Scholar
  17. (1979). The Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC. European Community, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. (1992). The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. European Community, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. (1994). Conservation value of roadside verges for stenotopic heathland Carabidae – corridors or refugia. Biodivers. Conserv. 3: 538–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. (2005). Plant population and community dynamics in a forest landscape. University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  21. (1993). Lowland Heathland: The Extent of Habitat Change English Nature Series No. 12. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  22. (1998). The UK Forestry Standard: The Government′s Approach to Sustainable Forestry. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  23. (1992). A report on the beetles, woodliceharvestmen and spiders recorded from experimental plots at Weeting Heath NNR during the years 1989–1991. Nature Conservancy Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  24. (2000). A twenty-year comparison of epigeic spider communities (Araneae) of Danish coastal heath habitats. J. Arachnol. 28: 90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. (2005). Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biol. Conserv. 122: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. (1988). Seed banks at six open and afforested heathland sites in southern Sweden. J. Appl. Ecol. 25: 297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. (1994). Forestry and the boreal fauna – matching management with natural forest dynamics. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 187–202Google Scholar
  28. (1994). Variation in the distribution of carabid beetles in cereal field headlands. University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  29. (2001). Distribution of carabid beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae) across a boreal forest-clearcut ecotone. Conserv. Biol. 15: 370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. (2005). Population densities and habitat associations of introduced muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and native roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a lowland pine forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 215: 224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. (2002). Carabid beetles: their ecology, survival and use in agroecosystems. In: (eds) The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles, pp 1–40. Intercept, AndoverGoogle Scholar
  32. (1999). Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 113: 11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. (1992). A Review of the Scarce and Threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain, Part 1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  34. (2001). Carabid beetle communities associated with coniferous plantations in Britain: the influence of siteground vegetation and stand structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 148: 271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. (1993). Integrating biodiversity into forest management planning and decision-making. For. Ecol. Manage. 61: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. (2002a). Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae). For. Ecol. Manage. 167: 103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. (2002b). The forest road network – a landscape element affecting the distribution of boreal carabid beetles. In: (eds) How to Protect or What We Know about Carabid Beetles, pp 287–299. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  38. (2002). Boreal carabid-beetle (ColeopteraCarabidae) assemblages along the clear-cut originated succession gradient. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 1269–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. (1994). Ecological Change in Breckland. English Nature-Norfolk Team, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin Y.-C. 2004. Spatio-temporal dynamics of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a mosaic forested landscape. Ph.D. Thesis, University of East AngliaNorwich.Google Scholar
  41. (2005). Are pitfalls biased? A comparison of carabid composition from pitfall trapping and hand searching in forest habitats. Br. J. Entomol. Nat. Hist. 18: 17–25Google Scholar
  42. (1974). Handbooks for the Identification of British insects – ColeopteraCarabidae. Royal Entomological Society of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. (1998). Provisional Atlas of the Ground Beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae) of Britain. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
  44. Luff M.L. and Duff A. 2002. The Checklist of Carabidae in the Coleopterist. http://www. coleopterist.org.uk/. last update: 2-28-2002.Google Scholar
  45. (2003). Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle. Biodivers. Conserv. 12: 73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. (1997). Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv. Biol. 11: 601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. (1993). Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground-beetle assemblages (ColeopteraCarabidae) in western Canada. Conserv. Biol. 7: 551–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. (1976). Heathlands of Western Europe. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  49. (1905). Map heliozincographed from 2500 plans. Ordnance Survey Office, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  50. Pearce D. and Willis K. 2003. Economic analysis of forestry policy in England. Final report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and H.M. Treasury. CJC Consulting, Oxford.Google Scholar
  51. (2002). The potential for lowland heath regeneration following plantation removal. Biol. Conserv. 108: 247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. (1989). Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. (1991). British Plant Communities, Vol. 2. Mires and Heaths. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. (1992). British Plant Communities, Vol. 3. Grasslands and Montane Communities. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. (1986). The Asaphidion (Col.: Carabidae) species occurring in Great Britain and Ireland. Proc. Trans. Br. Entomol. Nat. Hist. Soc. 19: 17–21Google Scholar
  56. (1996). Standards for biodiversity: a proposal based on biodiversity standards for forest plantations. Biodivers. Conserv. 5: 447–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. (1994). Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps – the madness and the method. Can. Entomol. 126: 881–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. (1996). Northern forestry and carabids: The case for concern about old-growth species. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 33: 173–184Google Scholar
  59. (1991). Heathmoorland and mountains. In: (eds) Habitat Conservation for Insects – A Neglected Green Issue, pp 133–150. The Amateur Entomologists' Society, BrentwoodGoogle Scholar
  60. (1996). The Breckland Archaeological Survey: A Characterisation of the Archaeological and Historic Landscape of the Breckland Environmentally Sensitive Area. Suffolk County Council, Bury St. EdmundsGoogle Scholar
  61. (1995). Invertebrate recording on Suffolk Breckland Sites of Special Scientific Interest during 1993 and 1994. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
  62. (1996). Ecology and conservation of heathland Carabidae in eastern England. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 33: 133–138Google Scholar
  63. (2000). De Nederlandse Loopkevers, Verspreiding en Oecologie (Coleoptera: Carabidae) – Nederlande Fauna 3. National Natuurhistorisch MuseumNaturalis KNNV Uitgeverij and EIS-Nederland, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  64. (1994). Corridor function of a road verge for dispersal of stenotopic heathland ground beetles Carabidae. Biol. Conserv. 69: 339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. (1999). UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans – Volume VI: Terrestrial and Freshwater Species and Habitats. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  66. (2004). The importance of former land use in determining successful re-creation of lowland heath in southern England. Biol. Conserv. 116: 289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. (1940). Studies in the ecology of Breckland. IV. The grass-heath. J. Ecol. 28: 42–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. (1989). Studies on the invertebrate fauna of fragmented heathland in Dorset, UK and the implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 47: 153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. (1980). An ecological survey of heathlands in the Poole Basin, DorsetEngland in 1978. Biol. Conserv. 17: 281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. (1995). Breckland Coleoptera. In: (eds) Thetford Forest Park: the Ecology of a Pine Forest, pp 92–102. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (CEEC), School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.CEEC, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.Ying-Chi LinLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations