Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 579–591 | Cite as

Beavers promote calicioid diversity in boreal forest landscapes

Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forest and plantation biodiversity


Beavers are ecosystem engineers that modify and maintain a range of special habitat types in boreal forests. They also produce large quantities of deadwood that provide substrate for many lignicolous organisms such as calicioid fungi (Ascomycota). We studied how calicioid diversity differed between boreal riparian forests with and without beaver activity. The results show that calicioid diversity were significantly higher at beaver sites compared to the other two forest site types studied. The large quantity and diverse forms of deadwood produced by beavers clearly promotes calicioid diversity in the boreal landscape. The specific lighting and humidity conditions within beaver wetlands could be the reason why they promote the success of certain calicioid species.


Deadwood Flood Pin lichen Riparian forest Snag 



Funding was kindly provided by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation. Special thanks to Stella Thompson for grammatical corrections. Anonymous referees are thanked for their comments on the manuscript.


MV was funded by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation during the study (20150065; 201400098; 201300039). The foundation did not have a role in the formulation of the study design, or in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data. They additionally did not influence the writing of the report, or the decision to submit our paper for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10531_2016_1259_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)


  1. Arvola L, Rask M, Ruuhijärvi J, Tulonen T, Vuorenmaa J, Ruoho-Airola T, Tulonen J (2010) Long-term patterns in pH and colour in small acidic boreal lakes of varying hydrological and landscape settings. Biogeochemistry 101:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker BW, Hill EP (2003) Beaver (Castor canadensis). In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation, 2nd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 288–310Google Scholar
  3. Bangert RK, Slobodchikoff CN (2006) Conservation of prairie dog ecosystem engineering may support arthropod beta and gamma diversity. J Arid Environ 67:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartel RA, Haddad NM, Wright JP (2010) Ecosystem engineers maintain a rare species of butterfly and increase plant diversity. Oikos 119:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Maechler M (2009) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (Computer software manual).
  6. Berg A, Ehnström B, Gustavsson L, Hallingbäck T, Jonsell M, Weslien J (1994) Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conserv Biol 8(3):718–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bitterlich W (1947) Die Winkelzählmessung. Allg Forst-und Holzwirtsch Ztg 58:94–96Google Scholar
  8. Bitterlich W (1948) Die Winkelzählprobe. Allgemeine Forst- und Holzwirtschaftliche Zeitung 59:4–5Google Scholar
  9. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHS, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24(3):127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Byers JB, Cuddington K, Jones CG, Talley TS, Hastings A, Lambrinos JG, Crooks JA, Wilson WG (2006) Using ecosystem engineers to restore ecological systems. Trends Ecol Evol 21(9):493–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Caruso A, Rudolphi J, Thor G (2008) Lichen species diversity and substrate amounts in young planted boreal forests: a comparison between slash and stumps of Picea abies. Biol Conserv 141:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collen P, Gibson RJ (2001) The general ecology of beavers (Castor spp.), as related to their influence on stream ecosystems and riparian habitats, and the subsequent effects on fish—a review. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:439–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crain CM, Bertness MD (2006) Ecosystem engineering across environmental gradients: implications for conservation and management. Bioscience 56:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekbom B, Schroeder LM, Larsson S (2006) Stand specific occurrence of coarse woody debris in a managed boreal forest landscape in central Sweden. For Ecol Manag 221:2–12. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esseen PA, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K (1997) Boreal forests. Ecol Bull 46:16–47Google Scholar
  16. Flecker AS, Taylor BW (2004) Tropical fishes as biological bulldozers: density effects on resource heterogeneity and species diversity. Ecology 85:2267–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3:202–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamfeldt L et al (2013) Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun 4:1340. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gärdenfors U (2005) The 2005 red list of Swedish species. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL, van Rensburg BJ, Koleff P, Sl Chown (2001) Complementary representation and zones of ecological transition. Ecol Lett 4:4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutiérrez JL, Jones CG (2006) Physical ecosystem engineers as agents of biogeochemical heterogeneity. Bioscience 56:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hahn K, Christensen M (2005) Dead wood in European forest reserves—a reference for forest management. In: Marchetti M (ed) Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe—from ideas to operationality, vol 51. European Forest Institute Proceedings, Florence, pp 181–191Google Scholar
  23. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Harper KA, MacDonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts D, Jaiteh MS, Esseen P-A (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19(3):768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawksworth DL, Kirk PM, Sutton BC, Pegler DM (1995) Ainsworth & Bisby’s dictionary of the fungi, 8th edn. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Holien H (1996) Influence of site and stand factors on the distribution of crustose lichens of the caliciales in a suboceanic spruce forest area in central Norway. Lichenologist 28(4):315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holien H (1998) Lichens in spruce forest stands of different successional stages in central Norway with emphasis on diversity and old growth species. Nova Hedwig 66:283–324Google Scholar
  28. Hyvönen T, Nummi P (2008) Habitat dynamics of beaver Castor canadensis at two spatial scales. Wildl Biol 14:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Järvinen M, Rask M, Ruuhijärvi J, Arvola L (2002) Temporal coherence in water temperature and chemistry under the ice of boreal lakes (Finland). Water Res 36:3949–3956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Johansson P (1997) Lavfloran på bark och ved i naturreservatet Uppstaig—en gammal barrskog på Gotland. Svensk Bot Tidskr 91:65–75Google Scholar
  31. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Komonen A, Niemi ME, Junninen K (2008) Lakeside riparian forests support diversity of wood fungi in managed boreal forest. Can J For Res 38:2650–2659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuuluvainen T (1994) Gap disturbance, ground micro-topography, and the regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous forests in Finland, a review. Ann Zool Fenn 31:35–51Google Scholar
  35. Kuusinen M, Siitonen J (1998) Epiphytic lichen diversity in oldgrowth and managed Picea abies stands in southern Finland. J Veg Sci 9:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laaka S (1995) Epixylic lichens on conifer logs in four natural forests in Finland. Graphis Scr 7:25–31Google Scholar
  37. Lahti S, Helminen M (1974) The beaver Castor fiber (L.) and C. canadensis (Kuhl) in Finland. Acta Theriol 19:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bougeta C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Ind 11:1027–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Linnamies O (1956) Majavien esiintymisestä ja niiden aiheuttamista vahingoista maassamme. Suom Riista 10:63–86 [In Finnish] Google Scholar
  40. Liu Q-H, Hytteborn H (1991) Gap structure, disturbance and regeneration in a primeval Picea abies forest. J Veg Sci 2:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P (2011) Old-forest species: the importance of specific substrata vs. stand continuity in the case of calicioid fungi. Silva Fenn 45(5):1115–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDowell DM, Naiman RJ (1986) Structure and function of a benthic invertebrate stream community as influenced by beaver (Castor canadensis). Oecologia 68:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nummi P (1989) Simulated effects of the beaver on vegetation, invertebrates and ducks. Ann Zool Fenn 26:43–52Google Scholar
  44. Nummi P, Hahtola A (2008) The beaver as an ecosystem engineer facilitates teal breeding. Ecography 31:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nummi P, Holopainen S (2014) Whole-community facilitation by beaver: ecosystem engineer increases waterbird diversity. Aquat Conserv 24:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nummi P, Kuuluvainen T (2013) Forest disturbance by an ecosystem engineer: beaver in boreal forest landscapes. Boreal Environ Res 18:13–24Google Scholar
  47. Nummi P, Kattainen S, Ulander P, Hahtola A (2011) Bats benefit from beavers: a facilitative link between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Biodivers Conserv 20:851–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Östlund L, Zackrisson O, Axelsson AL (1997) The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Can J For Res 27:1198–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker H, Nummi P, Hartman G, Rosell F (2012) Invasive North American beaver Castor canadensis in Eurasia: a review of potential consequences and a strategy for eradication. Wild Biol 18(4):354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prestø T. (1994) Bryophytes on decaying wood in the Urvatnet area, central Norway. Cand. scient. thesis, University of TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0.
  52. Rikkinen J (1995) What’s behind the pretty colours? A study on the photobiology of lichens. Bryobrothera 4:1–239Google Scholar
  53. Rikkinen J (2003a) New resinicolous ascomycetes from beaver scars in western North America. Ann Bot Fenn 40:443–450Google Scholar
  54. Rikkinen J (2003b) Calicioid lichens and fungi in the forests and woodlands of western Oregon. Acta Bot Fenn 175:1–41Google Scholar
  55. Rosell F, Bozsér O, Collen P, Parker H (2005) Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mamm Rev 35:248–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rudolphi J, Caruso A, von Cräutlein M, Laaka-Lindberg S, Ryömä R, Berglund H (2011) Relative importance of thinned and clear-cut stands for bryophyte diversity on stumps. For Ecol Manag 261:1911–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sabo JL, Soykan CU (2014) Riparian zones increase regional richness by supporting different, not more, species: reply. Ecology 87(8):2128–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Samuelsson J, Gustafsson L, Ingelög T (1994) Dying and dead trees—a review of their importance for biodiversity. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  59. Schlosser IJ, Kallemeyn LW (2000) Spatial variation in fish assemblages across a beaver influenced successional landscape. Ecology 81:1371–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Selva SB (1994) Lichen diversity and stand continuity in the northern hardwoods and spruce–fir forests of northern New England and western New Brunswick. Bryologist 94:424–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Selva SB (2003) Using calicioid lichens and fungi to assess ecological continuity in the Acadian Forest ecoregion of the Canadian Maritimes. For Chron 79:550–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Selva SB (2013) The calicioid lichens and fungi of the Acadian Forest ecoregion of northeastern North America, I. New species and range extensions. Bryologist 116:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Selva SB (2014) The calicioid lichens and fungi of the Acadian Forest ecoregion of northeastern North America, II. The rest of the story. Bryologist 117:336–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  65. Sippola AL, Siitonen J, Kallio R (1998) Amount and quality of coarse woody debris in natural and managed coniferous forests near the timberline in Finnish Lapland. Scand J For Res 13:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spribille T, Björk CR (2008) New records and range extensions in the North American lignicolous lichen flora. Mycotaxon 105:455–468Google Scholar
  67. Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012) Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson S, Vehkaoja M, Nummi P (2016) Beaver-created deadwood dynamics in the boreal forest. For Ecol Manag 360:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tibell L (1984) A reappraisal of the taxonomy of Caliciales. Nova Hedwig Beih 79:597–714Google Scholar
  70. Tibell L (1992) Crustose lichens as indicators of forest continuity in boreal coniferous forests. Nord J Bot 12:427–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tibell L (1999) Calicioid lichens and fungi. Nord Lichen Flora 1:20–94Google Scholar
  72. Tuovila H (2013) Sticky business—diversity and evolution of Mycocaliciales (Ascomycota) on plant exudates. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  73. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2003) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. Vehkaoja M, Nummi P (2015) Beaver facilitation in the conservation of boreal anuran communities. Herpetozoa 28(1/2):75–87Google Scholar
  75. Vehkaoja M, Nummi P, Rask M, Tulonen T, Arvola L (2015) Spatiotemporal dynamics of boreal landscapes with ecosystem engineers: beavers influence the biogeochemistry of small lakes. Biogeochemistry 124:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wright JP, Jones CG (2004) Predicting effects of ecosystem engineers on patch-scale species richness from primary productivity. Ecology 85:2071–2081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wright JP, Jones CG (2006) The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wright JP, Jones CG, Flecker AS (2002) An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extension in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations