Advertisement

Restoration of beech forest for saproxylic beetles—effects of habitat fragmentation and substrate density on species diversity and distribution

  • Jörg BrunetEmail author
  • Gunnar Isacsson
Original Paper

Abstract

The influence of spatial location and density of beech snags on species diversity and distribution patterns of saproxylic beetles was studied in a 2,400 ha forest landscape in southern Sweden. Complete snag surveys were combined with a beetle survey using small window traps directly attached to the beech snags. The density of beech snags ≥30 cm dbh varied between one and seven snags per ha within the study area, corresponding to 1.1–5.1 m3/ha. A total of 2,610 specimens of 180 saproxylic beetles species were trapped, of which 19 species were red-listed. Within the study area, the number of red-listed and formerly red-listed species was highest around traps in old-growth stands, intermediate in managed stands contiguous with old-growth and lowest in managed stands isolated from old-growth by a two km-wide zone without beech forest. Logistic regressions revealed negative relationships between distance to old-growth forest and occurrence of eleven species, among them six red-listed or formerly red-listed species. The number of non red-listed species was not correlated with isolation from old-growth forest. The number of red-listed species also increased with snag density within 200–300 m around the traps. Our results suggest that red-listed species generally have a lower dispersal capacity than other saproxylic beetles. We conclude that retention of dead wood close to existing populations is more beneficial for red-listed species than an even distribution of snags across the forest landscape.

Keywords

Beech snags Coarse woody debris Dispersal limitation Red-listed species Southern Sweden Window traps 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Emma Holmström and Prisca Schäffer for help with field work and GIS-analyses, and to Rickard Andersson for determination of the saproxylic beetles. We would also like to thank Oddvar Fiskesjö, Carina Zätterström, Anders Ekstrand and Bo Edlund for providing information and access to the study area, and Eric Agestam and Jogeir Stokland for providing data files. Valuable comments from two reviewers helped to improve the paper. Many thanks to Vikki Bengtsson for language revision. The project was financed by the research program Sustainable Management of Broadleaved Forest at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Species determination was financed by the Regional Council of Skåne.

References

  1. Alinvi O, Ball JP, Danell K, Hjältén J, Pettersson RB (2007) Sampling saproxylic beetle assemblages in dead wood logs: comparing window and eclector traps to traditional bark sieving and a refinement. J Insect Conserv 11:99–112. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-9012-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunet J, Isacsson, G (2009) Influence of snag characteristics on saproxylic beetle assemblages in a south Swedish beech forest. J Insect Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10841-008-9200-3
  3. Brunet J, Isacsson G, Holmström E, Schäffer P (2008) Högstubbar och vedskalbaggar i Söderåsens bokskogar - mönster på landskapsnivå och rekommendationer för naturhänsyn i brukad ädellövskog. Arbetsrapport nr 37. Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU, AlnarpGoogle Scholar
  4. Bußler H, Müller J, Simon U (2004) Erfassung xylobionter Käfer in Waldökosystemen. Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung 36:197–201Google Scholar
  5. Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford EP, Odor P, Standovar T, Rozenbergar D, Diaci J, Wijdeven S, Meyer P, Winter S, Vrska T (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
  6. Colwell RK (2006) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8. User’s Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
  7. Dahlberg A, Stokland JN (2004) Vedlevande arters krav på substrat: sammanställning och analys av 3600 arter. Rapport 2004:7. Skogsstyrelsen, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  8. Diekmann M (1999) Southern deciduous forests. In: Rydin H, Snoeijs P and Diekmann M (red.) Swedish plant geography. Acta Phytogeogr Suec 84:33–53. UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehnström B, Axelsson R (2002) Insektsgnag i bark och ved. ArtDatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  10. Franc N (2007) Standing or downed dead trees–does it matter for saproxylic beetles in temperate oak-rich forest. Can J For Res 37:2494–2507. doi: 10.1139/X07-096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franc N, Götmark F, Økland B, Nordén B, Paltto H (2007) Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol Conserv 135:86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors U (ed) (2000) The 2000 red list of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gärdenfors U (ed) (2005) The 2005 red list of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibb H, Hjältén J, Ball JP, Atlegrim O, Pettersson RB, Hilszczanski J, Johansson T, Danell K (2006) Effects of landscape composition and substrate availability on saproxylic beetles in boreal forests: a study using experimental logs for monitoring assemblages. Ecography 29:191–204. doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04372.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grove SJ (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
  16. Hagberg E, Matérn B (1975) Volume tables for oak and beech. Research notes 14. Department of forest biometry, Royal College of Forestry, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  17. Hjältén J, Johansson T, Alinvi O, Danell K, Ball JP, Pettersson R, Gibb H, Hilszczanski J (2007) The importance of substrate type, shading and scorching for the attractiveness of dead wood to saproxylic beetles. Basic Appl Ecol 8:364–376. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2006.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonsell M, Nordlander G (2002) Insects in polypore fungi as indicator species: a comparison between forest sites differing in amounts and continuity of dead wood. For Ecol Manage 157:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Jonsson M (2003) Colonisation ability of the threatened tenebrionid beetle Oplocephala haemorrhoidalis and its common relative Bolitophagus reticulatus. Ecol Entomol 28:159–167. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2311.2003.00499.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonsson M, Nordlander G (2006) Insect colonisation of fruiting bodies of the wood-decaying fungus Fomitopsis pinicola at different distances from an old-growth forest. Biodivers Conserv 15:295–309. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-1536-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonsson M, Ranius T, Ekvall H, Bostedt G, Dahlberg A, Ehnström B, Nordén B, Stokland JN (2006) Cost-effectiveness of silvicultural measures to increase substrate availability for red-listed wood-living organisms in Norway spruce forests. Biol Conserv 127:443–462. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korpel S (1995) Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Gustav Fischer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindbladh M, Abrahamson M, Seedre M, Jonsell M (2007) Saproxylic beetles in artificially created high-stumps of spruce and birch within and outside hotspot areas. Biodivers Conserv 16:3213–3226. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9173-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lundberg S, Gustafsson B (1995) Catalogus Coleopterorum Sueciae. Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  26. Malmqvist A, Weibull H (2007) Inventering av skogliga värdekärnor, lavar och mossor i Söderåsens nationalpark. Dokumentation av de svenska nationalparkerna nr 23. Naturvårdsverket, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  27. Martikainen P, Kouki J (2003) Sampling the rarest: threatened beetles in boreal forest inventories. Biodivers Conserv 12:1815–1831. doi: 10.1023/A:1024132829581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller J (2005) Waldstrukturen als Steuergrösse für Artengemeinschaften in kollinen bis submontanen Buchenwäldern. Dissertation, Technische Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller J, Hothorn T, Pretzsch H (2007) Long-term effects of logging intensity on structures, birds, saproxylic beetles and wood-inhabiting fungi in stands of European beech Fagus sylvatica L. For Ecol Manage 242:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller J, Bußler H, Kneib T (2008) Saproxylic beetle assemblages related to silvicultural management intensity and stand structures in a beech forest in southern Germany. J Insect Conserv 12:107–124. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-9065-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nilsson SG, Baranowski R (1997) Habitat predictability and the occurrence of wood beetles in old-growth beech forests. Ecography 20:491–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00417.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nilsson SG, Niklasson M, Hedin J, Aronsson G, Gutowski JM, Linder P, Ljungberg H, Mikusinski G, Ranius T (2002) Densities of large living and dead trees in oldgrowth temperate and boreal forests. For Ecol Manage 161:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Økland B (1996) A comparison of three methods of trapping saproxylic beetles. Eur J Entomol 93:195–209Google Scholar
  34. Økland B, Bakke A, Hågvar S, Kvamme T (1996) What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 5:75–100. doi: 10.1007/BF00056293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ranius T (2006) Measuring the dispersal of saproxylic insects: a key characteristic for their conservation. Popul Ecol 48:177–188. doi: 10.1007/s10144-006-0262-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ranius T, Hedin J (2001) The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 126:363–370. doi: 10.1007/s004420000529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ranius T, Ekvall H, Jonsson M, Bostedt G (2005) Costefficiency of measures to increase the amount of coarse woody debris in managed Norway spruce forests. For Ecol Manage 206:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schiegg K (2000a) Are there saproxylic beetle species characteristic of high dead wood connectivity? Ecography 23:579–587. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.230509.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schiegg K (2000b) Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 7:290–298Google Scholar
  40. Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Birkemoe T (2009) What window traps can tell us: effect of placement, forest openness and beetle reproduction in retention trees. J Insect Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10841-008-9141-x
  41. von Oheimb G, Westphal C, Tempel H, Härdtle W (2005) Structural pattern of a near-natural beech forest (Fagus sylvatica) (Serrahn, North-east Germany). For Ecol Manage 212:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Oheimb G, Westphal C, Härdtle W (2007) Diversity and spatio-temporal dynamics of dead wood in a temperate near-natural beech forest (Fagus sylvatica). Eur J For Res 126:359–370. doi: 10.1007/s10342-006-0152-4 Google Scholar
  43. Wikars L-O, Sahlin E, Ranius T (2005) A comparison of three methods to estimate species richness of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in logs and high stumps of Norway spruce. Can Entomol 137:304–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Forest AgencyHässleholmSweden

Personalised recommendations