Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 393–405 | Cite as

Boxing for biodiversity: evaluation of an artificially created decaying wood habitat

  • Staffan Carlsson
  • Karl-Olof Bergman
  • Nicklas Jansson
  • Thomas Ranius
  • Per Milberg
Original Paper

Abstract

Many saproxylic species are threatened in Europe because of habitat decline. Hollow trees represent an important habitat for saproxylic species. Artificial habitats may need to be created to maintain or increase the amount of habitat due to natural habitat decline. This study investigated the extent to which saproxylic beetles use artificial habitats in wooden boxes. The boxes were placed at various distances (0–1800 m) from known biodiversity hotspots with hollow oaks and studied over 10 years. Boxes were mainly filled with oak saw dust, oak leaves, hay and lucerne flour. In total, 2170 specimens of 91 saproxylic beetle species were sampled in 43 boxes. The abundance of species associated with tree hollows, wood rot and animal nests increased from the fourth to the final year, but species richness declined for all groups. This study shows that wooden boxes can function as saproxylic species habitats. The artificial habitats developed into a more hollow-like environment during the decade long experiment with fewer but more abundant tree hollow specialists.

Keywords

Artificial habitats Hollow trees Intervention Saproxylic beetles Succession Wood mould 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Stig Lundberg, Arne Ekström, Gunnar Sjödin and Rickard Andersson for help with beetle identification. We also thank Stiftelsen Oscar och Lili Lamms minne and Eklandskapsfonden i Linköpings kommun for financial support.

References

  1. Andersson R, Östlund L (2004) Spatial patterns, density changes and implications on biodiversity for old trees in the boreal landscape of northern Sweden. Biol Conserv 118:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björse G, Bradshaw R (1998) 2000 years of forest dynamics in southern Sweden: suggestions for forest management. For Ecol Manag 104:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2005) Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Biostat, Englewood. www.meta-analysis.com
  4. Bryant G, Dundas S, Fleming P, Bennett N (2012) Tree hollows are of conservation importance for a Near- Threatened python species. J Zool 286:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dodelin B, Ballot P, Stokland J (2008) The saproxylic database checklist of beetles, vers. 8/2008. http://radon.uio.no/WDD/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fwdd%2fDefault.aspx. Accessed 10 Dec 2010
  6. Dubois G, Vignon V, Delettre YR, Rantier Y, Vernon P, Burel F (2009) Factors affecting the occurrence of the the endangered saproxylic beetle Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763) (Coleoptera: Cetoniidae) in an agricultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 91:152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eliasson P, Nilsson S (2002) You should hate young oaks and young noblemen: the environmental history of oaks in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Sweden. Environ Hist 7:659–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fritz Ö, Heilmann-Clausen J (2010) Rot holes create key microhabitats for epiphytic lichens and bryophytes on beech (Fagus sylvatica). Biol Conserv 143:1008–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors U (ed) (2010) The 2010 red list of Swedish species. Swedish Species Information Center, SLU, Uppsala, p 592Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons P, Lindenmayer D (2002) Tree hollows and wildlife conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, p 211. ISBN 9780643067059Google Scholar
  11. Goldingay RL, Stevens JR (2009) Use of artificial tree hollows by Australian birds and bats. Wildl Res 36:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagen S (2015) The significance of tree, site and landscape variables on eight saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks. MSc thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Ecology & Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannah L, Carr J, Lankerani A (1995) Human disturbance and natural habitat: a biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodivers Conserv 4:128–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilszczański J, Jaworski T, Plewa R, Jansson N (2014) Surrogate tree cavities: boxes with artificial substrate can serve as temporary habitat for Osmoderma barnabita (Motsch.) (Coleoptera, Cetoniinae). J Insect Conserv 18:855–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jansson N, Larsson A, Milberg P, Ranius T (2009a) Boxes mimicking tree hollows can help conservation of saproxylic beetles. Biodivers Conserv 18:3891–3908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jansson N, Bergman K-O, Jonsell M, Milberg P (2009b) 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
  17. Kaila L, Martikainen P, Punttila P, Yakovlev E (1994) Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) on dead birch trunks decayed by different polypore species. Ann Zool Fenn 31:97–107Google Scholar
  18. Kosinski Z (2006) Factors affecting the occurrence of middle spotted and great spotted woodpeckers in deciduous forests—a case study from Poland. Ann Zoologici Fenn 43:198–210Google Scholar
  19. Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Indic 11:1027–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee SI, Spence JR, Langor DW (2014) Succession of saproxylic beetles associated with decomposition of boreal white spruce logs. Agric For Entomol 16:391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R (1998) The origin of present forest composition and pattern in southern Sweden. J Biogeogr 25:463–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindenmayer D, Laurance W, Franklin J (2012) Global decline in large old trees. Science 338:1305–1306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Manning A, Gibbons P, Fischer J, Oliver D, Lindenmayer D (2013) Hollow futures? Tree decline, lag effects and hollow-dependent species. Anim Conserv 16:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milberg P, Bergman K-O, Sancak K, Jansson N (2016) Assemblages of saproxylic beetles on large downed trunks of oak. Ecology & Evolution 6. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1935
  25. Müller J, Jarzabek-Müller A, Bussler H, Gossner MM (2014) Hollow beech trees identified as keystone structures for saproxylic beetles by analyses of functional and phylogenetic diversity. Anim Conserv 17:154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Økland B (1996) A comparison of three methods of trapping saproxylic beetles. Eur J Entomol 93:195–209Google Scholar
  27. 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 5:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ranius T (2002) Osmoderma eremita as an indicator of species richness of beetles in tree hollows. Biodivers Conserv 11:931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ranius T (2006) Measuring the dispersal of saproxylic insects: a key characteristic for their conservation. Popul Ecol 48:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ranius T, Hedin J (2001) The dispersal rate of a beetle, Osmoderma eremita, living in tree hollows. Oecologia 126:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Ranius T, Wilander P (2000) Occurrence of Larca lata H.J. Hansen (Pseudoscorpionida: Garypidae) and Allochernes wideri C.L. Koch (Pseudoscorpionida: Chernetidae) in tree hollows in relation to habitat quality and density. J Insect Conserv 4:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ranius T, Niklasson M, Berg N (2009a) Development of tree hollows in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur). For Ecol Manag 257:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ranius T, Svensson GP, Berg N, Niklasson M, Larsson MC (2009b) The successional change of hollow oaks affects their suitability for an inhabiting beetle, Osmoderma eremita. Ann Zoologici Fenn 46:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ranius T, Johansson V, Fahrig L (2010) A comparison of patch connectivity measures using data on invertebrates in hollow oaks. Ecography 33:971–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Remm J, Lõhmus A (2011) Tree cavities in forests: the broad distribution pattern of a keystone structure for biodiversity. For Ecol Manag 262:579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sebek P, Altman J, Platek M, Cizek L (2013) Is active management the key to the conservation of saproxylic biodiversity? Pollarding promotes the formation of tree hollows. PLoS ONE 8:e60456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor A, Ranius T (2014) Tree hollows harbour a specialised oribatid mite fauna. J Insect Conserv 18:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang Y, Naumann U, Wright S, Warton D (2010) mvabund: statistical methods for analysing multivariate abundance data. R package version 3.9.3Google Scholar
  40. Weslien J, Djupström LB, Schroeder M, Widenfalk O (2011) Long-term priority effects among insects and fungi colonizing decaying wood. J Anim Ecol 80:1155–1162PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Staffan Carlsson
    • 1
  • Karl-Olof Bergman
    • 1
  • Nicklas Jansson
    • 1
  • Thomas Ranius
    • 2
  • Per Milberg
    • 1
  1. 1.IFM Biology, Conservation Ecology GroupLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations