What window traps can tell us: effect of placement, forest openness and beetle reproduction in retention trees

Original Paper


The use of flight interception traps (window traps) has been criticized for catching too many species without affinity to the immediate surroundings. We study aspen retention trees left for conservation reasons in a boreal forest in south-eastern Norway, and investigate how placement of window traps affects the beetle species assemblage, abundance of habitat specialists, saproxylic species and vagrant species. We also test the correlation between beetle trappings and beetle exit holes in wood. The window traps clearly responded to the immediate surroundings of the trap. Traps located on tree trunks had a different species assemblage than traps hanging freely. Traps mounted on trees caught more aspen associated beetles and less vagrant species than their free-hanging counterparts. The differences were larger when trees were dead than alive. There was a significant positive correlation between presence of individuals in the trunk-window traps and presence of exit holes for three aspen associated species. Thus, the trapping results indicated successful reproduction, showing that aspen associated beetles are not only attracted to but also utilise aspen retention trees/high stumps left in clear-cuts. This indicates that this conservation measure in forest management can have positive, alleviating effects concerning the dead wood deficit in managed boreal forest.


Coleoptera Saproxylic beetles Norway Aspen Boreal forest Forest management Retention trees 


  1. Alinvi O, Ball JP, Danell K, Hjalten 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 11:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bílý S, Mehl O (1989) Longhorn beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Ent Scand 22:1–204Google Scholar
  3. Dahlberg A, Stokland J (2004) Vedlevande arters krav på substrat—sammanställning och analys av 3 600 arter. Rapport fra Skogsstyrelsen No. 7. 75 pp (In Swedish, English abstr.)Google Scholar
  4. Ehnström B, Axelsson R (2002) Insektsgnag i bark och ved. Artdatabanken, SLU, Uppsala 512 pp. (In Swedish)Google Scholar
  5. Hansen V, Henriksen K, Rye B, Jensen-Haarup A 1908–1965: Danmarks Fauna, Biller 1–21. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads ForlagGoogle Scholar
  6. Hansson L (1997) Boreal ecosystems and landscapes: structures, processes and conservation of biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:1–203Google Scholar
  7. Hunter MLJ (1990) Wildlife, forest and forestry. Principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 370 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Hyvarinen E, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2006) A comparison of three trapping methods used to survey forest-dwelling Coleoptera. Eur J Entomol 103:397–407Google Scholar
  9. Jonsell M, Weslien J (2003) Felled or standing retained wood—it makes a difference for saproxylic beetles. For Ecol Manage 175:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaila L, Martikainen P, Punttila P (1997) Dead trees left in clear-cuts benefit saproxylic Coleoptera adapted to natural disturbances in boreal forest. Biodiv Conserv 6:1–18Google Scholar
  11. Kålås JA, Viken Å, Bakken T (eds) (2006) Norsk Rødliste 2006-Norwegian red list. Artsdatabanken, Norway, 416 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindhe A, Lindelow A, Asenblad N (2005) Saproxylic beetles in standing dead wood density in relation to substrate sun-exposure and diameter. Biodiv Conserv 14:3033–3053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martikainen P, Kouki J (2003) Sampling the rarest: threatened beetles in boreal forest biodiversity inventories. Biodiv Conserv 12:1815–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moen A (1998) Vegetasjonsatlas for Norge. Statens kartverk, NorgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Økland B (1996) A comparison of three methods of trapping saproxylic beetles. Eur J Entomol 93:195–209Google Scholar
  16. Palm T (1951) Die Holz- und Rinden-Käfer der nordschwedischen Laubbäume. Meddn St SkogsforskningsInst 40(2):1–242Google Scholar
  17. Palm T (1959) Die Holz- und Rinden-Käfer der süd- und mittelschwedischen Laubbäume. Opusc Entomol Suppl 16:1–371Google Scholar
  18. Ranius T, Jansson N (2002) A comparison of three methods to survey saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks. Biodiv Conserv 11:1759–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saint-Germain M, Buddle CM, Drapeau P (2006) Sampling saproxylic Coleoptera: scale issues and the importance of behavior. Environ Entomol 35:478–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stokland JN, Meyke E (in press) The Nordic saproxylic database—an emerging overview of the biological diversity in dead wood. La Terre et la Vie—Revue d’EcologieGoogle Scholar
  21. Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Borg P, Bergsaker E (2005) Miljøhensyn på hogstflatene—før og etter Levende Skog. NORSKOG-rapport No.1-2005, 62 pp (In Norwegian, English abstr.)Google Scholar
  22. Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Ims RA (2002) The effect of forest clearcutting in Norway on the community of saproxylic beetles on aspen. Biol Conserv 106:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wikars LO, 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. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research – NINAOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute of Public HealthOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations