Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 161–178 | Cite as

Species change in an urban setting—ground and rove beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae) in Berlin

Article

Abstract

The influence of environmental parameters on epigeic beetle communities of forest fragments in an urbanization gradient was studied in Berlin. Eight deciduous forests along a rural to urban gradient were sampled with pitfall traps. Species richness did not decline across the rural to urban gradient. As expected, impervious surface cover as an indicator of urbanization correlated not only with habitat fragmentation and heat island effect but also with altered soil properties. The proportion of forest specialist staphylinid species decreased with increasing urbanization. The differences between staphylinid communities of neighboring forest fragments were enhanced in the most urban parts, probably due to increased habitat fragmentation. Furthermore, the loss of flightless species with increasing habitat isolation emphasized the influence of habitat fragmentation. The carabid communities revealed the urbanization effects not as clearly as the staphylinid communities, but both taxa revealed that direct anthropogenic habitat alteration, indicated by removal of decaying wood, favors open-habitat specialists. The extent of the urbanization influence seems to vary seasonally. Environmental parameters associated with urbanization explain the ordination of species communities in the winter better than in the summer. Heat island effect is suggested as an explanation for this difference.

Keywords

Habitat fragmentation Epigeic beetles Habitat structure Urbanization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alaruikka D, Kotze DJ, Matveinen K, Niemelä J (2003) Carabid beetle and spider assemblages along a forested urban-rural gradient in southern Finland. Journal of Insect Conservation 6:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthrop M (2000) Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology 15:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold CL, Gibbons C (1996) Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2):243–258Google Scholar
  4. Assing V (1992) Die Kurzflügelkäfer (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) eines urbanen Inselbiotopkomplexes in Hannover. 3. Beitrag zur Faunistik und Ökologie der Staphyliniden von Hannover. Berichte der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft Hannover 134:173–187Google Scholar
  5. Barndt D, Brase S, Glauche M, Gruttke H, Kegel B, Platen R, Winkelmann H (1991) Die Laufkäferfauna von Berlin (West)—mit Kennzeichnung und Auswertung der verschollenen und gefährdeten Arten. In: Rote Listen der gefährdeten Pflanzen und Tiere in Berlin. Auhagen A, Platen R, Sukopp H, (eds.), Extra volume S6 of: Landschaftentwicklung und Umweltforschung. Technical University Berlin, pp. 243–275Google Scholar
  6. Basedow T, Rzehak H, Dickler E (1990) Untersuchungen zur Flugaktivität epigäischer Raubarthropoden mittels Licht- und Fensterfallen. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemeine und Angewandte Entomologie 7:386–394Google Scholar
  7. Bolger DT, Suarez AV, Crooks KR, Morrison SA, Case TJ (2000) Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: Area, age, and edge effects. Ecological Applications 10(4):1230–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman DC, Crossley DA, Jr. Hendrix PF (2004) Fundamentals of Soil Ecology. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell RK (2004) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 7. Available at http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
  10. Czechowski W (1982) Occurence of carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the urban greenery of Warsaw according to the land utilization and cultivation. Memorabilia Zoologica 39:3–108Google Scholar
  11. Davis BNK (1982) Habitat diversity and invertebrates in urban areas. In: Urban Ecology. Bornkamm R, Lee JA, Seaward MRD (eds) Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 75–82Google Scholar
  12. Desender K, Dufrene M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait JP (eds) (1994) Carabid Beetles—Ecology and Evolution. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Faeth SH, Kane TC (1978) City parks as Islands for Diptera and Coleoptera. Oecologia 32:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biological Conservation 106(1):91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs JP, Stanton EJ (2001) Habitat fragmentation and arthropod community change: Carrion beetles, phoretic mites, and flies. Ecological Applications 11(1):79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grandchamp A-C, Niemelä J, Kotze DJ (2000) The effects of trampling on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Ecosystems 4:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halme E, Niemelä J (1993) Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30:17–30Google Scholar
  19. Hupfer P, Chmielewski F-M (1990) (eds) Das Klima von Berlin. Akademie Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Irmler U (1998) Die vertikale Verteilung flugaktiver Käfer (Coleoptera) in drei Wäldern Norddeutschlands. Faunistisch-Ökologische Mitteilungen 7:387–404Google Scholar
  21. Irmler U (2001) Bedeutung urbaner Brachen für Laufkäfer (Carabidae). Faunistisch-Ökologische Mitteilungen 8:135–145Google Scholar
  22. Ishitani M, Kotze DJ, Niemelä J (2003) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages across an urban-rural gradient in Japan. Ecography 26:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klausnitzer B, Richter K (1983) Presence of an urban gradient demonstrated for carabid associations. Oecologia 59:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klazenga N, de Vries HH (1994) Walking distances of five differently sized ground beetle species. Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society 5:99–100Google Scholar
  25. Korge H (1991) Liste der Kurzflügelkäfer (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) von Berlin (West) mit Kennzeichnung der verschollenen und gefährdeten Arten (Rote Liste). In: Rote Listen der gefährdeten Pflanzen und Tiere in Berlin. Auhagen A, Platen R, Sukopp H, (eds.) Extra volume S6 of: Landschaftentwicklung und Umweltforschung. Technical University, Berlin, pp. 277–317Google Scholar
  26. Kühn I, Brandl R, Klotz S (2004) The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:749–764Google Scholar
  27. Landgrebe D, Biehl L (2005) MULTISPEC- A Freeware Multispectral Image Data Analysis System. Available at http://dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu/~sim$biehl/MultiSpec/Index.html
  28. Landsberg H (1981) The Urban Climate. In: International Geophysics Series, Vol 28, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Mader H-J (1980) Die Verinselung der Landschaft aus tierökologischer Sicht. Natur und Landschaft 55:91–96Google Scholar
  30. Magura T, Ködöböcz V, Tóthmérész B (2001) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. Journal of Biogeography 28:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Molnár T (2004) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in the city of Debrecen, Hungary. Landscape Ecology 19:747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Markgraf A, Basedow T (2002) Flight activity of predatory Staphylinidae in agriculture in central Germany. Journal of Applied Entomology 126:79–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDonell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Poyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miyashita T, Shinkai A, Chida T (1998) The effects of forest fragmentation on web spider communities in urban areas. Biological Conservation 86:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York-London-Sydney-TorontoGoogle Scholar
  37. Niemelä J, Kotze DJ, Ashworth A, Brandmayr P, Desender K, New T, Penev L, Samways M, Spence J (2000) The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. Journal of Insect Conservation 4:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niemelä J (2001) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and habitat fragmentation: a review. European Journal of Entomology 98:127–132Google Scholar
  39. Niemelä J, Kotze DJ, Venn S, Penev L, Stoyanov I, Spence J, Hartley D, Montes de Oca E, (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban-rural gradients: an international comparison. Landscape Ecology 17:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oksanen J, Kindt R, O'Hara B (2005) Vegan—Community Ecology Package. Available at http://cc.oulu.fi/~sim$jarioksa/
  41. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at http://www.R-project.org
  42. Schaefer M, Kock K (1979) Zur Ökologie der Arthropodenfauna einer Stadtlandschaft und ihrer Umgebung. I. Laufkäfer (Carabidae) und Spinnen (Araneida). Anzeiger für Schädlingkunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz 52:85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH (2004) Urbanization and Spider Diversity: Influences of Human Modification of Habitat Structure and Productivity. Ecological Applications 14:268–280Google Scholar
  44. StatSoft (2001) Statistica for Windows 6.0. Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  45. Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T, (eds) (2002) How to protect or what we know about Carabid Beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  46. Thiele H-U (1977) Carabid beetles in their environments. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Tonteri T, Haila Y (1990) Plants in a boreal city: ecological characteristics of vegetation in Helsinki and its surroundings, southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 27:337–352Google Scholar
  48. Tscharntke T, Brandl R (2004) Plant-Insect Interactions in Fragmented Landscapes. Annual Review of Entomology 49:405–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UEIS (2005) Berlin Urban and Environmental Information System. Available at http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/edua_index.shtml
  50. Usher MB, Field J, Bedford S (1993) Biogeography and diversity of ground-dwelling arthropods in farm woodlands. Biodiversity Letters 1:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vernon P, Vannier G (2002) Evolution of freezing susceptibility and freezing tolerance in terrestrial arthropods. Comptes Rendus Biologies 325(12):1185–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weller B, Ganzhorn JU (2004) Carabid beetle community composition, body size, and fluctuating asymmetry along an urban-rural gradient. Basic and Applied Ecology 5:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Freie Universität Berlin, Laboratory for Soil Zoology and EcologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations