Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are streamside buffers edge-affected habitat for ground-dwelling forest beetle assemblages?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reservation of forest in riparian buffers is common practice in commercial forestry areas worldwide, potentially providing valuable habitat for biodiversity dependent on mature forest. However, the habitat value of narrow reserve corridors can be compromised by edge effects. We investigated the habitat value of streamside buffers in wet eucalypt forest for ground-dwelling beetles in Tasmania, Australia. Beetles were collected with pitfall traps in five replicates of four habitats: unlogged corridors of mature forest in streamside reserves (buffers) with clearfelling-derived logging regeneration either side; continuous mature upslope forest; continuous mature riparian forest; and <20-year-old upslope clearfelling-derived logging regeneration. Streamside reserve widths on each side of the stream were on average 40 ± 6 m (±95% CI) from reserve edge to stream. Beetle assemblages in logging regeneration differed substantially from those in the unlogged habitats, including the streamside reserves. Streamside reserve assemblages nevertheless differed from those of the continuous unlogged areas. Assemblage composition in streamside reserves was most similar to that in continuous mature riparian forest, although beetle diversity was higher in the reserves. Our results suggest that although streamside reserves provide habitat for the majority of commonly collected beetle species occurring in continuous mature forest, wider reserve corridors in the wet eucalypt forests of Tasmania may be required to provide habitat that is not edge-affected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0511:CAOPCA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC (2006) A comparison of litter beetle assemblages (Coleoptera) in mature and recently clearfelled Eucalyptus obliqua forest. Aust J Entomol 45:130–136. doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.2006.00526.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC, Barmuta LA (2006) Evaluating spatial autocorrelation and depletion in pitfall-trap studies of environmental gradients. J Insect Conserv 10:269–276. doi:10.1007/s10841-006-0016-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC, Richardson AMM, Barmuta LA, Thomson R (2006) Why conservation reserves should not always be concentrated in riparian areas: a study of ground-dwelling beetles in wet eucalypt forest. Biol Conserv 133:156–168. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC, Barmuta LA, McQuillan PB, Richardson AMM (2007a) Estimating edge effects on ground-dwelling beetles at clearfelled non-riparian stand edges in Tasmanian wet eucalypt forest. For Ecol Manag 239:92–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC, Richardson AMM, Barmuta LA (2007b) Site effects outweigh riparian influences on ground-dwelling beetles adjacent to first order streams in wet eucalypt forest. Biodivers Conserv 16:1999–2014. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9056-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC, Barmuta LA, Richardson AMM (2009) Response of ground-dwelling beetles across logging coupe edges into streamside reserves. Aust J Ent (in press)

  • Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR, Green RH (1988) Statistical design and analysis for a ‘biological effects’ study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 46:213–226. doi:10.3354/meps046213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinnick PF (1985) Buffer strip management in forest operations: a review. Aust For 48:34–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Darveau M, Labbe P, Beauchesne P, Belanger L, Huot J (2001) The use of riparian forest strips by small mammals in a boreal balsam fir forest. For Ecol Manag 143:95–104. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00509-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies PE, Nelson M (1994) Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 45:1289–1305. doi:10.1071/MF9941289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KF, Melbourne BA, Margules CR (2001) Effects of within- and between-patch processes on community dynamics in a fragmentation experiment. Ecology 82:1830–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KF, Margules CR, Lawrence JF (2004) A synergistic effect puts rare, specialized species at greater risk of extinction. Ecology 85:265–271. doi:10.1890/03-0110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK (1997) The influence of edge effects and forest fragmentation on leaf litter invertebrates in Central Amazonia. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO (eds) Tropical forest remnants: ecology management and conservation of fragmented communities. University of Chigago Press, Chigago, pp 55–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA (2008) The frequency of metapopulations, metacommunities and nestedness in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 117:297–309. doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16202.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA, Weir T (2005) Beetle responses to habitat fragmentation depend on ecological traits, habitat condition, and remnant size. Conserv Biol 19:182–194. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00586.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2007) The effect of fragment shape and species’ sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conserv Biol 21:926–936. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00720.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2008) Pervasive impact of large-scale edge effects on a beetle community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:5426–5429. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800460105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2007) Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88:96–106. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[96:SIBEAA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forest Practices Board (2000) Forest practices code. Forest Practices Board, Hobart

    Google Scholar 

  • Forestry Tasmania (2008) Forestry Tasmania sustainable forest management report 2007. Hobart

  • Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA, Tappeiner JC (1997) Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, pp 111–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenslade PJM (1973) Sampling ants with pitfall traps: digging-in effects. Insect Soc 20:343–353. doi:10.1007/BF02226087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory SV (1997) Riparian management in the 21st century. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, pp 69–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove S (2004) The effectiveness of wildlife habitat strips in maintaining mature forest carabid beetle assemblages at Tarraleah in Tasmania’s central highlands. Division of Research and Development, Forestry Tasmania, Hobart

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove S, Yaxley B (2005) Wildlife habitat strips and native forest ground-active beetle assemblages in plantation nodes in northeast Tasmania. Aust J Entomol 44:331–343. doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.2005.00490.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagar JC (1999) Influence of riparian buffer width on bird assemblages in western Oregon. J Wildl Manag 63:484–496. doi:10.2307/3802633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme E, Niemelä J (1993) Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Ann Zool Fenn 30:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannon SJ, Paszkowski CA, Boutin S, DeGroot J, Macdonald E, Wheatley M, Eaton B (2002) Abundance and species composition of amphibians, small mammals, and songbirds in riparian forest buffer strips of varying widths in the boreal mixedwood Alberta. Can J Res 32:1784–1800. doi:10.1139/x02-092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heliölä J, Koivula M, Niemelä J (2001) Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across a boreal forest-clearcut ecotone. Conserv Biol 15:370–377. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002370.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henttonen H, Haukisalmi V, Pirkkalainen H, Niemelä J (1998) Ekologisten käytävien merkityksestä keskisuomalaisissa talousmetsissä. In: Annila E (ed) Monimuotoinen metsämetsä monimuotoisuuden tutkimusohjelman väliraportti. Metsäntutkimulaitoksen tiedonantoja, pp 255–271

  • Hobbs RJ (1992) The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon. Trends Ecol Evol 7:389–392. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(92)90010-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylander K, Nilsson C, Gothner T (2004) Effects of buffer-strip retention and clearcutting on land snails in Boreal riparian forests. Conserv Biol 18:1052–1062. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00199.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald MA, Taylor RA, Candy SG (2002) Bird assemblages in wildlife habitat strips in a Tasmanian plantation matrix. Pac Conserv Biol 8:82–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Tóthmérész B (1997) Testing edge effect on carabid assemblages in an oak-hornbeam forest. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 43:303–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott CL, Cashore B, Kanowski P (2007) A global comparison of forest practice policies using Tasmania as a constant case. In: GISF research paper 010. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, Connecticut, USA, p 64

  • Meggs JM, Munks SA (2003) Distribution, habitat characteristics and conservation requirements of a forest-dependent threatened invertebrate Lissotes latidens (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). J Insect Conserv 7:137–152. doi:10.1023/A:1027333323362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mönkkönen M (1999) Managing Nordic boreal forest landscapes for biodiversity: ecological and economic perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 8:85–99. doi:10.1023/A:1008813225086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mönkkönen M, Mutanen M (2003) Occurrence of moths in boreal forest corridors. Conserv Biol 17:468–475. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01414.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J (2001) The utility of movement corridors in forested landscapes. Scand J For Res Suppl 3:70–78. doi:10.1080/028275801300090645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl GR, Langor DW, Spence JR (2007) Rove beetles and ground beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Carabidae) as indicators of harvest and regeneration practices in western Canadian foothills forests. Biol Conserv 137:294–307. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2003) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (1991) The role of corridors in conservation: what do we know and where do we go? In: Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, pp 421–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Cox J (1987) Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 1:63–71. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1987.tb00010.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME, Gilpin ME (1991) The theory of wildlife corridor capability. In: Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (eds) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence JR, Langor DW, Niemelä J, Cárcamo HA, Currie CR (1996) Northern forestry and carabids: the case for concern about old-growth species. Ann Zool Fenn 33:173–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RJ (1991) Fauna conservation in production forests in Tasmania. Forest Practices Unit, Forestry Commission Tasmania, Hobart

  • Taylor R, Michaels K, Bashford D (2000) Occurrence of carabid beetles in retained unlogged strips within production forests of southern Tasmania. In: Craig JL, Mitchell N, Saunders DA (eds) Nature conservation 5: nature conservation in production environments: managing the matrix. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, pp 120–127

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Tegan Kelly, Russell Lewis-Jones and Stewart Alexander for assistance with initial extraction of beetles from pitfall samples. The study was supported by a Maxwell Ralph Jacobs Fund grant to fund fieldwork, and a Forestry Tasmania grant to fund beetle identification. Ann Watson and Graham Edgar gave statistical advice and Graham Edgar and Peter McQuillan kindly commented on a draft of the manuscript. We are grateful to the anonymous referees, whose constructive comments greatly improved the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Zoology and CRC for Forestry, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 05, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Sue Baker & Alastair Richardson

  2. School of Zoology and Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 05, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Leon Barmuta

  3. Forestry Tasmania and CRC for Forestry, P.O. Box 207, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Sue Baker & Simon Grove

Authors
  1. Sue Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leon Barmuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Grove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alastair Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sue Baker.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 2 Abundance of the 24 commonly collected beetle species in five sites (S1–S5) each of the four habitat types
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, S., Barmuta, L., Grove, S. et al. Are streamside buffers edge-affected habitat for ground-dwelling forest beetle assemblages?. Biodivers Conserv 18, 3467–3482 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9655-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9655-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation