Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, 17:2979 | Cite as

The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a national park: from pest to keystone species

  • Jörg MüllerEmail author
  • Heinz Bußler
  • Martin Goßner
  • Thomas Rettelbach
  • Peter Duelli
Original Paper

Abstract

The influence of natural disturbance on biodiversity is poorly known in the intensively cultivated landscape of Europe. As an example of insect disturbance we studied effects of gaps generated by outbreaks of the spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) on biodiversity in the area of the National Park “Bavarian Forest” and compared them with openings (e.g. meadows) created by humans in these forests. Insects were sampled using flight interception traps across twelve ecotones between edges of closed forest, six bark beetle gaps and six meadows. The diversity and species density of true bugs and of bees/wasps increased significantly from the closed stand to the edge, and continued to increase inside the openings at interior and exterior edges. Species density in saproxylic beetles also increased significantly from closed forest to opening, but only across ecotones including bark beetle gaps. Similarly, the number of critically endangered saproxylic beetles increased significantly in bark beetle gaps. Using indicator species analysis a total of 60 species were identified as possessing a statistically significant value indicating preference for one of the habitat types along the ecotones: 29 of them preferred gaps, 24 preferred meadows, three were characteristic for edges of meadows, three for edges of bark beetle gaps, but only one was typical of closed forest. Most of our results support the thesis that I. typographus fulfils the majority of criteria for a keystone species, particularly that of maintenance of biodiversity in forests. Our results emphasize the value for the study and conservation of insect diversity of the policy of non-interference with natural processes pursued in some protected areas. As a recommendation to forest management for increasing insect diversity even in commercial forest, we suggest that logging in recent gaps in medium aged mixed montane stands should aim at retention of a part of the dead wood. Planting should be avoided, to lengthen the important phase of sunlit conditions.

Keywords

Bark beetles Forest edge Gaps Saproxylic beetles True bugs Bees and wasps Insect outbreak 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the following persons and institutions: M. Preis and G. Sellmayer for assistance in the fieldwork, M. Preis for sorting the material, A. Liston for revising the language, Jens Esser for verification of determinations of some beetle specimens, two anonymous referees for their valuable comments, and the administration of the National Park “Bavarian Forest” for providing financial support.

References

  1. Angelstam P (1997) Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:140–170Google Scholar
  2. Bächli G, Flückinger PF, Obrist M, Duelli P (2006) On the microdistribution of species of Drosophilidae and some other Diptera across a forest edge. Mitt Schweiz Entomol Ges 79:117–126Google Scholar
  3. Barbalat S (1998) Importance of forest structures on four beetle families (Col.: Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Lucanidae and phytophagous Scarabaeidae) in the Areuse Gorges (Neuchâtel, Switzerland). Rev Suisse Zool 105:569–580Google Scholar
  4. Basset Y, Springate ND, Aberlenc HP, Delvare G (1997) A review of methods for sampling arthropods in tree canopies. In: Stork NE, Adis J, Didham RK (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 27–52Google Scholar
  5. Bedford SE, Usher MB (1994) Distribution of arthropod species across the margins of farm woodlands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 48:295–305. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(94)90111-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bense U (1995) Longhorn beetles. Illustrated key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of Europe. Markgraf Verlag, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouget C, Duelli P (2004) The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biol Conserv 118:281–299. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bußler H, Müller J (2004) Borkenkäfer in wärmegetönten Eichenmischwäldern Nordbayerns. Forst u Holz 59:175–178Google Scholar
  9. Casas-Crivillé A, Valera F (2005) The European bee-eater (Merops apiaster) as an ecosystem engineer in arid environments. J Arid Environ 60:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford EP, Ódor P, Standóvar T, Rozenbergar D et al (2005) Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For Ecol Manage 210:267–282. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christianou M, Ebenmann B (2005) Keystone species and vulnerable species in ecological communities: strong or weak interactors? J Theor Biol 235:95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.12.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeMaynadier P, Hunter M (1994) Keystone support. Bioscience 44:2. doi: 10.2307/1312396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duelli P (2006) Bewertung der Biodiversität in mitteleuropäischen Wäldern. AFZ/Der Wald, p 166Google Scholar
  14. Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003) Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl Ecol 4:129–138. doi: 10.1078/1439-1791-00140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duelli P, Obrist MK, Fluckiger PF (2002a) Forest edges are biodiversity hotspots: also for Neuroptera. Acta Zool Hung 48:75–87Google Scholar
  16. Duelli P, Obrist MK, Wermelinger B (2002b) Windthrow-induced changes in faunistic biodiversity in alpine spruce forest. For Snow Landsc Res 77:117–131Google Scholar
  17. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  18. Dziock F, Henle K, Foekler F, Follner K, Scholz M (2006) Biological indicator systems in floodplains—a review. Int Rev Hydrobiol 91:292–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elling W, Bauer E, Klemm G, Koch H (1987) Klima und Böden, 2nd edn. Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald, GrafenauGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksson M, Lilja S, Roininen H (2006) Dead wood creation and restoration burning: implications for bark beetles and beetle induced tree deaths. For Ecol Manage 231:205–213. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fayt P, Dufrêne M, Branquart E, Hastir P, Pontégnie C, Henin J-M et al (2006) Contrasting responses of saproxylic insects to focal habitat resources: the example of longhorn beetles and hoverflies in Belgian deciduous forests. J Insect Conserv 10:129–150. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-6289-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Floren A, Schmidl J (1999) Faunistisch-ökologische Ergebnisse eines Baumkronen-Beneblungsprojektes in einem Eichenhochwald des Steigerwaldes. Beitr bayer Entomofaunistik 3:179–195Google Scholar
  23. Flückiger PF, Bienz H, Glünkin R, Iseli K, Duelli P (2002) Vom Krautsaum bis ins Kronendach - Erforschung und Aufwertung der Waldränder im Kanton Solothurn. Mitt Natf Ges Solothurn 39:9–39Google Scholar
  24. Flückinger PF (1999) Der Beitrag von Waldrandstrukturen zur regionalen Biodiversität. PhD thesis, Phil.-Naturwiss. Fakultät Univ., BaselGoogle Scholar
  25. Freude H, Harde K, Lohse GA (1964–1983) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotelli N, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimbacher PS, Catterall CP, Kitching RL (2006) Beetle species’ responses suggest that microclimate mediates fragmentation effects in tropical Australian rainforest. Austral Ecol 31:458–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2006.01606.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grodzki W, McManus M, Knížek M, Meshkova V, Mihalciuc V, Novotny J et al (2004) Occurrence of spruce bark beetles in forest stands at different levels of air pollution stress. Environ Pollut 130:73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.10.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grove S (2000) Trunk window trapping: an effective technique for sampling tropical saproxylic insects. Mem Queensland Mus 46:149–160Google Scholar
  30. Grove S (2002) Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grove S, Yaxley B (2005) Wildlife habitat strips and native forest ground-active beetle assemblages in plantation nodes in northeast Tasmania. Aust J Entomol 44:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gruppe A, Müller J (2006) Distribution of Neuropterida in beech dominated forests in southern Germany. Ann Mus Civ St Nat Ferrara 5:145–152Google Scholar
  33. Gruppe A, Goßner M, Engel K, Simon U (2007) Vertical stratification of arthropods in temperate forests. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe. Bioform, HeroldsbergsGoogle Scholar
  34. Hacker H, Müller J (2007) Stratification of Macrolepidoptera in different forest types and tree species. In: Floren A, Schmidl J (eds) Canopy arthropod research in Central Europe. Bioform, NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  35. Hammond P, Harding PT (1991) Saproxylic invertebrate assamblages in British woodlands: their conservation significance and its evaluation. In: Read HJ (ed) Pollard and veteran tree management. Corporation of London, Burnham Beeches, pp 30–37Google Scholar
  36. Hedgren PO, Schroeder LM (2004) Reproductive success of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) and occurrence of associated species: a comparison between standing beetle-killed trees and cut trees. For Ecol Manage 203:241–250. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hennevogel FvE (1905) Zur Käferfauna des Böhmerwaldes. Verlag der Gesellschaft für Physiokratie in Böhmen, PragGoogle Scholar
  38. Hothorn T, Hornik K (2005) The coin package—conditional inference procedure in a permutation test-framework. In: 0.4-1 edn. http://cran.r-project.org
  39. Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Wiel MA, Zeilis A (2006) A lego-system for conditional infernence. Am Stat 60:257–263. doi: 10.1198/000313006X118430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hyvärinen E, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2006) Fire and green-tree retention in conservation of red-listed and rare deadwood-dependent beetles in Finnish boreal forests. Conserv Biol 20:1711–1719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jackson DR, Milstrey ER (1989) The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. In: Diemer JE, Jackson DR, Landers JN, Layne JN, Wood DA (eds) Proceedings of the Gopher tortoise relocating symposium, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL, pp 86–98Google Scholar
  42. Jonášová M, Pracha K (2004) Central-European mountain spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forests: regeneration of tree species after a bark beetle outbreak. Ecol Eng 23:15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jonsell M, Nordlander G, Jonsson M (1999) Colonization patterns of insects breeding in wood-decaying fungi. J Insect Conserv 3:145–161. doi: 10.1023/A:1009665513184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jönsson AM, Harding S, Bärring L, Ravn HP (2007) Impact of climate change on the population dynamics of Ips typographus in southern Sweden. Agr Forest Meteorol 146:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jordán F, Liu W-C, Davis AJ (2006) Topological keystone species: measures of positional importance in food webs. Oikos 112:535–546. doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.13724.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaila L, Martikainen P, Punttila P, Yakolev E (1994) Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) on dead birch trunks decayed by different polypore species. Ann Zool Fenn 31:97–107Google Scholar
  47. Koprowski JL, Alanen MI, Lynch AM (2005) Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: response of endemic Mt. Graham red squirrels to catastrophic forest damage. Biol Conserv 126:491–498. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kotliar NB (2000) Application of the new keystone-species concept to prairie dogs: how well does it work? Conserv Biol 14:1715–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuhlmann M (2000) Zur Besiedlung von Windwürfen und abgestorbenen Waldflächen im Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald durch Wildbienen und aculeate Wespen (Hymenoptera, Aculeata). Ber Naturf Ges Bamberg 73:65–94Google Scholar
  50. Lawton JH, Jones CG (1995) Linking species and ecosystems: organisms as ecosystem engineers. In: Jones CG, Lawton JH (eds) Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  51. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  52. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Kaila L, Punttila P, Rauh J (1999) Bark beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and associated beetle species in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manage 116:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P, Kaila L, Rauh J (2000) Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 94:199–209. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00175-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martikainen P, Kouki J, Heikkala O (2006) The effects of green tree retention and subsequent prescribed burning on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in boreal pine-dominated forests. Ecography 29:659–670. doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04562.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) Multivariate analysis of ecological data. In: 4.10 edn. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. Menge BA, Berlow E, Balchette CA, Navarrete SA, Yamada SB (1994) The keystone species concept: variation in interaction strength in a rocky intertidal habitat. Ecol Monogr 64:249–286. doi: 10.2307/2937163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mills LS, Soule ME, Doak DF (1993) The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. Bioscience 43:219–224. doi: 10.2307/1312122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Müller J, Bußler H, Bense U, Brustel H, Flechtner G, Fowles A, Kahlen M, Möller G, Mühle H, Schmidl J, Zabransky P (2005a) Urwald relict species—saproxylic beetles indicating structural qualities and habitat tradition. Waldökologie Online 2:106–113Google Scholar
  59. Müller J, Gruppe A, Goßner M, Bußler H, Simon U, Gauderer M, Zöbel M, Gerstmeier R (2005b) Die Weißtanne (Abies alba), eine ökologische Alternative zur Fichte (Picea abies)? Forst u Holz 60:492–497Google Scholar
  60. Müller J, Bußler H, Goßner M, Gruppe A, Jarzabek-Müller A, Preis M, Rettelbach T (2007a) Forest edges in the mixed-montane zone of the Bavarian Forest Nationalpark—hot spots of biodiversity. Silva Gabreta 13:1–27Google Scholar
  61. Müller J, Bussler H, Kneib T (2007b) Saproxylic beetle assemblages related to silvicultural management intensity and stand structures in a beech forest in Southern Germany. J Insect Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-9065-2
  62. Naiman RL, Melillo JM, Hobbie JE (1986) Alteration of North American streams by beavers (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67:1254–1289. doi: 10.2307/1938681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nilsson SG, Arup U, Baranowski R, Ekman S (1995) Tree-dependent lichens and beetles as indicators in conservation forests. Conserv Biol 9:1208–1215. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.9051208.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nilsson SG, Hedin J, Niklasson M (2001) Biodiversity and its assessment in boreal and nemoral forests. Scand J For Res Suppl 3:10–26. doi: 10.1080/028275801300090546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ódor P, Heilmann-Clausen J, Christensen M, Aude E, Dort vKW, Piltaver A, Siller I, Veerkamp MT, Standovár T, Hees vAFM, Kosec J, Matocec N, Kraigher H, Grebenc T (2006) Diversity of dead wood inhabiting fungi and bryophytes in semi-natural beech forests in Europe. Biol Conserv 131:58–71. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Osten T (2000) Die Scoliiden des Mittelmeer-Gebietes und angrenzender Regionen (Hymenoptera). Ein Bestimmungsschlüssel. Linzer Biologische Beitraege 32:537–593Google Scholar
  67. Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat 103:91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Péricart J (1972) Hémiptères Anthocoridae, Cimicidae et Microphysidae de l’Ouest Paléarctique. Faune de Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen, ParisGoogle Scholar
  69. Péricart J (1983) Hémipteres Tingidae Euro-Méditerranéens. Fedération Francaise des Societés de Science Naturelles, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Péricart J (1987) Hémipteres Nabidae d’Europe occidentale et du Maghreb. Fedération Francaise des Societés de Science Naturelles, ParisGoogle Scholar
  71. Péricart J (1998) Hémipteres Lygaeidae Euro-Méditerranéens. Fedération Francaise des Societés de Science Naturelles, ParisGoogle Scholar
  72. Reeve JD (1997) Predation and bark beetle dynamics. Oecologia 112:48–54. doi: 10.1007/s004420050282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rohde M, Waldmann R, Lunderstaedt J (1996) Induced defence reaction in the phloem of spruce (Picea abies) and larch (Larix decidua) after attack by Ips typographus and Ips cembrae. For Ecol Manage 86:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Saetersdal M, Gjerde I, Blom HH, Ihlen PG, Myrseth EW, Pommeresche R et al (2004) Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biol Conserv 115:21–31. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00090-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs GJ, Schuck A (2003) Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob Chang Biol 9:1620–1633. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scherzinger W (2007) Reaktionen der Vogelwelt auf den großflächigen Bestandeszusammenbruch des montanen Nadelwaldes im Inneren Bayerischen Wald. Vogelwelt 127:209–263Google Scholar
  77. Schmid-Egger C, Wolf H (1992) Die Wegwespen Baden-Württembergs (Hymenoptera, Pompilidae). Veröff Natursch LandschPfl Bad Württ 67:267–370Google Scholar
  78. Schmidl J, Bußler H (2004) Ökologische Gilden xylobionter Käfer Deutschlands. NUL 36:202–218Google Scholar
  79. Schmidl J, Bußler H, Lorenz W (2003) Die Rote Liste gefährdeter Käfer Bayerns im Überblick. In: BLfU (ed) Schriftenreihe Bayer. Landesamt für Umweltschutz, vol 166, Augsburg, p 384Google Scholar
  80. Schowalter TD (1985) Adaptions of insects to disturbance. In: Pickett S, White P (eds) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 235–252Google Scholar
  81. Schubert H, Gruppe A (1999) Netzflügler der Kronenregion - Bemerkenswerte Funde und Habitatpräferenzen. NachrBl bayer Ent 48:91–96Google Scholar
  82. Simberloff D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol Conserv 83:247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Similä M, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2003) Saproxylic beetles in managed and seminatural Scots pine forests: quality of dead wood matters. For Ecol Manage 174:365–381. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00061-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Speight MCD (1989) Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Council of Europe, Nature and environment series 42:1–79Google Scholar
  85. Stork NE, Hammond PM, Russell BL, Hadwen WL (2001) The spatial distribution of beetles within the canopies of oak trees in Richmond Park, U.K. Ecol Entomol 26:302–311. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2311.2001.00323.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strobl R, Haug M (1993) Eine Landschaft wird Nationalpark. Schriftenreihe des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten 11:3–180Google Scholar
  87. Sutherland WJ, Armstrong-Brown S, Armstrong PR, Brereton T, Brickland J, Campell CD, Chamberlain DE, Cooke AI, Dulvy NK, Dusic NR, Fitton M, Freckleton RP, Godfray HCJ, Grout N, Harvey HJ, Hedley C, Hopkins JJ, Kift NB, Kirby KJ, Kunin WE, MacDonald DW, Marker B, Naura M, Neale AR, Oliver T, Osborn D, Pullin AS, Shardlow MEA, Showler DA, Smith PL, Smithers RJ, Solandt J-L, Spencer J, Spray CJ, Thomas CD, Thompson J, Webb SE, Yalden DW, Watkinson AR (2006) The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J Appl Ecol 43:617–627. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01188.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Walker BH (1995) Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. Conserv Biol 9:747–752. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040747.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Warren MS, Key RS (1991) Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitats. Academic Press, London, pp 155–212Google Scholar
  90. Wermelinger B (2004) Ecology and management of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus—a review of recent research. For Ecol Manage 202:67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wermelinger B, Duelli P, Obrist M, Odermatt O, Seifert M (1995) Faunistic development on windthrow areas with and without timber harvest. Schweiz Z Forstwes 146:913–928Google Scholar
  92. Wermelinger B, Flückinger PF, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2007) Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Co., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytidae) across sections of forest edges. J Appl Entomol 131:104–114Google Scholar
  93. Weslien J (1992) The arthropod complex associated with Ips typographus (L.) (Coleoptera, Scolytidae): species composition, phenology and impact on bark beetle producitvity. Entomol Fenn 3:205–213Google Scholar
  94. Westfall PH, Young SS (1993) On adjusting P-values for multiplicity. Biometrics 49:941–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Westrich P (1989) Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs. Ulmer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Müller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heinz Bußler
    • 2
  • Martin Goßner
    • 3
  • Thomas Rettelbach
    • 4
  • Peter Duelli
    • 5
  1. 1.National Park “Bavarian Forest”GrafenauGermany
  2. 2.Bavarian State Institute for ForestryFreisingGermany
  3. 3.Loricula – Agency for Canopy Research, Ecological Studies and DeterminationFronreuteGermany
  4. 4.SurbergGermany
  5. 5.Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations