Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 837–852 | Cite as

Hollow oaks and beetle conservation: the significance of the surroundings

  • Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson
  • Olav Skarpaas
  • Frode Ødegaard
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study we investigated hollow oaks (Quercus robur, Q. petrea) situated in open landscapes and in forests in Norway in northern Europe, and compared their importance for rare and threatened beetles (Coleoptera). Old, hollow oak trees, both in parks and in forests, were extremely rich in red-listed beetles, and hosted a high proportion of threatened species. The proportion of oak associated species and the mean number of red-listed beetle species per tree was similar in the two site types, but rarefaction showed that for a certain number of individuals, oaks in forests had more threatened and near-threatened species than oaks in parks. The species composition also differed between site types: Park oaks had a higher proportion of species associated with hollows and animal nests, whereas in forests, there was a higher proportion of species depending on dead oak wood in general. Four factors were significant in explaining the richness of red-listed beetles in our study: Tree circumference, cavity decay stage, proportion of oak in the surroundings, and coarse woody debris (CWD) in the surroundings. Forest oaks were smaller, but they still trapped a species richness comparable to that of the larger park oaks—probably a result of high amounts of CWD in the surroundings. We show that oaks in open landscapes and oaks in forest have only partly overlapping beetle assemblages and, thus, cannot be substituted in conservation. Planning for conservation of red-listed beetles associated with this key habitat demands a large scale perspective, both in space and time, as the surroundings have important effects on associated threatened and near threatened species.

Keywords

Coleoptera Beetles Diversity Red-listed species Oak Quercus Cavity Surroundings Forest Park 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the government-initiated “National Program for Surveys and Monitoring of Biodiversity—Threatened species”, by the Norwegian Research Council through the project “Red Lists—from fundament to management” under the Strategic Institute Program “Research tools for management 2010”, and by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research NINA. The authors would like to thank Oddvar Hanssen and Knut Olav Fossestøl for field assistance.

References

  1. Antonsson K, Jansson N (2001) Ancient trees and their fauna and flora in the agricultural landscape in the County of Östergötland. In: Read H, Forfang AS, Marciau R et al (eds) Tools for preserving biodiversity. NACONEX Textbook 2. Töreboda Tryckeri AB, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  2. Birks HJB (2005) Mind the gap: how open were European primeval forests? Trends Ecol Evol 20:154–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buse J, Schroder B, Assmann T (2007) Modelling habitat and spatial distribution of an endangered longhorn beetle—a case study for saproxylic insect conservation. Biol Conserv 137:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buse J, Ranius T, Assmann T (2008) An endangered longhorn beetle associated with old oaks and its possible role as an ecosystem engineer. Conserv Biol 22:329–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Engen S, Sæther B-E, Sverdrup-Thygeson A et al (2008) Assessment of species diversity from species abundance distributions at different localities. Oikos 117:738–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franc N, Gotmark F, Okland B et al (2007) Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol Conserv 135:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors U (2005) The 2005 red list of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  8. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grove SJ (2002) Tree basal area and dead wood as surrogate indicators of saproxylic insect faunal integrity: a case study from the Australian lowland tropics. Ecol Indic 1:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hope ACA (1968) A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. J R Stat Soc B 30:582–598Google Scholar
  11. Jansson N, Bergman KO, Jonsell M et al (2009) An indicator system for identification of sites of high conservation value for saproxylic oak (Quercus spp.) beetles in southern Sweden. J Insect Conserv 13:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kålås JA, Viken Å, Bakken T (eds) (2006) Norwegian red list. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (in Norwegian and English), TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  13. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Kaila L et al (1999) Bark beetles (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) and associated beetle species in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manag 116:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitchell FJG (2005) How open were European primeval forests? Hypothesis testing using palaeoecological data. J Ecol 93:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (2006) Red list database. http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Article.aspx?m=39&amid=1864 (in Norwegian)
  16. Ohsawa M (2007) The role of isolated old oak trees in maintaining beetle diversity within larch plantations in the central mountainous region of Japan. For Ecol Manag 250:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Økland B, Bakke A, Hagvar S et al (1996) What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 5:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oleksa A, Ulrich W, Gawronski R (2007) Host tree preferences of hermit beetles (Osmoderma eremita Scop., Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in a network of rural avenues in Poland. Pol J Ecol 55:315–323Google Scholar
  19. Ranius T (2002a) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ranius T (2002b) Population ecology and conservation of beetles and pseudoscorpions living in hollow oaks in Sweden. Anim Biodivers Conserv 25:53–68Google Scholar
  21. Ranius T, Hedin J (2001) The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 126:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ranius T, Jansson N (2000) The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biol Conserv 95:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Read H, Forfang AS, Marciau R (eds) (2003) Tools for preserving woodland biodiversity. NACONEX Textbook 2. Töreboda Tryckeri AB, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  24. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org. ISBN 3-900051-07-0
  25. Vera FWM (2000) Grazing ecology and forest history. CABI Publishing, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson
    • 1
  • Olav Skarpaas
    • 1
  • Frode Ødegaard
    • 2
  1. 1.Landscape Ecology DepartmentNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)OsloNorway
  2. 2.Terrestrial Ecology DepartmentNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations