Abstract
In Western Norway, farmers have traditionally used fire as a management tool in coastal heathlands to enhance the fodder quality for livestock. Rotational prescribed burning increases landscape heterogeneity by creating a mosaic of different regeneration stages of heather. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) responses to fire in traditionally managed coastal heathland have already been studied, but less is known about other beetle groups in this system. We compared the beetle activity between patches of mature and recently burnt heath, by looking at diversity indices, species composition and ecological preferences and traits. Contrary to previous studies, we did not find an increase in beta diversity after disturbance, but we found that prescribed burning offers micro-environmental conditions which enhanced the activity of sun-loving and xerophilous species. We also identified new indicator species for both mature and pioneer heath in five beetle families: Carabidae, Staphylinidae, Curculionidae, Leiodidae, and Scirtidae. Rotational prescribed burning was confirmed to be an efficient conservation tool for specialists without affecting the overall diversity of the site. We recommend the use of several taxa, ecological preferences and traits to assess the impact of prescribed burning and to monitor the condition of traditionally managed coastal heathlands.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Atlantic heathlands are the outcome of a long history of traditional land use (Gimingham 1975; Webb 1998) and belong to the now highly valued cultural landscapes of Europe (Diemont et al. 2013; Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2017; Vos and Meekes 1999). In Western Norway, coastal heathland vegetation appeared about 6000 years ago (Hjelle et al. 2018) and expanded through increased pastoral agriculture (Prøsch-Danielsen and Simonsen 2000) and the extensive use of fire (Kaland 1986). Today, Norwegian coastal heathlands are classified as endangered (Fremstad and Moen 2001; Hovstad et al. 2018) as only 10% of the original area remains (Hjeltnes 1997). At least half of the habitat has seen its ecological state degraded by 50% over the past 50 years, mainly due to land abandonment (Hovstad et al. 2018). Northern and temperate Atlantic wet heathlands are particularly dependent on active management to control succession and prevent tree growth (Halada et al. 2011), including livestock grazing, mowing and prescribed burning (Måren et al. 2018; Måren and Vandvik 2009; Neumann et al. 2021; Vandvik et al. 2005).
Fire has been shown as a key architect of ecosystems (Bond and Keeley 2005) to the same extent as grazing or flooding, and has driven the natural successional dynamics of several habitats such as savannahs (Bond 2019) or heathlands (Keeley 1986; Vandvik et al. 2014), even before human influence. Fire is also an effective tool for restoration (Aarrestad and Vandvik 2000; Hulme et al. 2002): in regularly burnt habitats, the plant community quickly renews itself from vegetative re-sprouting (Hobbs and Gimingham 1984a; Mallik and Gimingham 1985) and from the seedbank (Hobbs and Gimingham 1984b; Keeley et al. 2011; Måren and Vandvik 2009; Vandvik et al. 2014). The combination of low-intensity sheep or goat grazing with small-scale rotational burning on traditionally managed coastal heathland enhances landscape heterogeneity and the complexity of successional dynamics (Måren et al. 2018; Vandvik et al. 2005; Velle et al. 2014).
Postfire vegetation successional dynamics of European heathland vegetation have been well-documented (e.g., Letten et al. 2014; Mallik and Gimingham 1983; Prentice et al. 1987), especially in Western Norway (e.g., Måren et al. 2010; Velle et al. 2012; Velle and Vandvik 2014), but fewer studies have explored the recolonisation of burnt patches by other organisms, such as arthropods (see however Bargmann et al. 2015; Krause and Assmann 2016; Pryke and Samways 2012). Yet, arthropods in particular have great potential for monitoring changes in land management (Alvarado et al. 2019; Kelly et al. 2015), restoration programs (Borchard et al. 2014; Watts et al. 2008) or habitat recovery after disturbance (Gerisch et al. 2012; Moretti et al. 2006), complementing the use of vegetation surveys (Hacala et al. 2020). Ground-dwelling invertebrate assemblages are mainly driven by the structural diversity of the soil surface and of the standing vegetation (Brose 2003), so they will show high sensitivity to small-scale disturbances (Perry et al. 2018). Factors which are likely to influence recolonisation patterns can be fitted into three categories: fire characteristics, such as intensity, frequency and spatial extent (Buckingham et al. 2019; Moretti et al. 2006; Wikars and Schimmel 2001); environmental parameters, such as type and structure of the vegetation, type and thickness of litter layer, and soil moisture (Brose 2003; Gardner et al. 1997; Šustek 2004); and species traits such as mobility or diet (Bargmann et al. 2016; Buckingham et al. 2015; Driscoll et al. 2020).
The response of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to prescribed heathland burning in Western Norway has been investigated by Bargmann et al. (2015, 2016). Carabidae provide optimal candidates for bioindication: it is one of the most taxonomically well-known beetle families (Kotze et al. 2011; Rainio and Niemelä 2003) and the ecological features and traits of the different species are well-documented (Lövei and Sunderland 1996). Carabid assemblages also show great diversity and specialisation according to habitat (Blake et al. 1994) and are sensitive to environmental disturbance (Cajaiba et al. 2018; Koivula et al. 2002). It would, however, be ill-advised to assume that carabids show an exhaustive picture of beetle (Coleoptera) assemblage patterns following prescribed burning when the correlation between the different families has not been clearly established (Koivula 2011; Lange et al. 2014; Mladenović et al. 2018). For example, Pryke and Samways (2012) found different responses to fire between Scarabaeidae and Carabidae in Mediterranean systems. Morphological, behavioural and ecological traits being key drivers of postburn beetle activity (Wikars and Schimmel 2001), families with a high proportion of specialists such as Staphylinidae (Lange et al. 2014) are relevant to include in fire disturbance research.
In this study, we investigated the effect of small-scale burning on the activity of the beetle assemblage of traditionally managed coastal heathland in Western Norway. Traditional management involves rotational burning to promote winter forage for the low-productivity Old Norwegian Sheep breed. The heath regeneration cycle was originally described by Barclay-Estrup and Gimingham (1969): the pioneer phase, generally up to 5 years after the fire, where fresh buds of Calluna vulgaris are resprouting and grasses and sedges dominate the living vegetation; the building phase, between 5 and 15 years after fire, where Calluna shrubs grow to their adult stage and become dominant over the other life forms; the mature phase, from 15 up to 25–30 years after the fire, where the assemblage dynamics stabilize; and finally the degenerative phase, from 30 years after burn onwards, where dying Calluna shrubs leave open gaps in the canopy and allow local regeneration of pioneer vegetation. In managed heathlands, moderate grazing pressure can prevent Calluna from entering a degenerative phase. As the pioneer phase is the most palatable for the sheep (Thorvaldsen et al. 2017), it is in the farmer’s interest to ensure some heath in the pioneer phase is always available for the livestock. Thus the optimal heathland system for farming is be a mosaic of regeneration stages created by uninterrupted small-scale rotational burning over at least 20 years, as illustrated by the study site from Bargmann et al. (2015, 2016). We decided to focus on a heathland system which had been left unmanaged for several decades before the farmer started burning again in 2018 on small areas. At this early stage of restoration, the complexly intertwined mosaic has not yet become established and recently burnt patches represent isolated stands of pioneer vegetation within the mature heath matrix. Thus, we can question whether at this scale prescribed burns disturb the system enough to provide alternative environmental conditions for some beetle specialists.
We therefore decided to compare beetle activity on pioneer patches following recent burns with activity observed on size-equivalent patches of mature heath. We tested hypotheses related to diversity (H1), composition (H2) and distribution of selected ecological preferences and morphological traits (H3). H1: alpha diversity is expected to be lower in the short-term after the fire disturbance, due to the partial destruction of the aboveground layer and the disruption of habitat continuity. Pioneer vegetation is also less structurally diverse, thus offers fewer micro-habitats for recolonising beetles compared with mature heath (Murdoch et al. 1972). On the other hand, the regeneration dynamic of the vegetation layer is heavily influenced by stochastic drivers (Måren et al. 2018): we can therefore expect a higher variability between pioneer stands, which would increase the beta diversity of the collected assemblages compared to mature stands (Battisti et al. 2016). H2: we predict that fire will be the main driver of divergence in species distribution between patch types. We expect pioneer and mature stands to share a common species pool due to the spatial limitation of the disturbance, but also to be respectively characterised by exclusive or distinctly more active species, which we should be able to identify with an indicator analysis. H3: the differences in species activity between pioneer and mature patches should be primarily driven by ecological preferences such as moisture and vegetation cover (Schirmel and Buchholz 2011). The shrub-dominated vegetation and thick bryophyte layer of mature stands should provide better conditions for shade-loving and hygrophilous species, while sun-loving and xerophilic species are expected to be more active on pioneer stands which offer very short vegetation cover, more bare ground and drier soil (Lamotte 1975). We also expect dispersal ability to influence species activity on the different patch types, but to a lesser extent as the burns are isolated and spatially limited (Bargmann et al. 2016). Pioneer heath patches should be recolonised more easily by full-winged and bigger species, while brachypterous and smaller species should be more frequent in mature patches. Finally, as most ecological traits should be phylogenetically conserved (Barton et al. 2011) and as mean size is likely to be heavily influenced by the large genus Carabus, we expect the family distribution to differ according to patch type.
Materials and methods
Study area
The study area is located on Hopøyna island, at 60° 38′ N and 4° 49′ E, in Øygarden municipality, Vestland county, Norway (Fig. 1). This area is part of the outer region of the Nordhordland UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, which was designated in 2019. The climatic conditions are oceanic, with a mean January temperature of 3.8 °C, a mean June temperature of 13.1 °C and an average yearly precipitation of 1500 mm, with November the wettest month and June the driest (www.seklima.met.no). The eastern side of the island, where our study area is located, has consistent geological and localised climate conditions. The irregular topography of the island creates a pattern of two alternating edaphic conditions, both of which are nutrient-poor. Ridges with visible acidic bedrock make “islands” of drier shrub-dominated plant communities (Calluna vulgaris, Erica tetralix, Juniperus communis), separated by poorly drained depressions with Molinia caerulea and Sphagnum spp. dominated mires. The entire 115-hectares island is grazed at low density (0.4 sheep per ha) by the Old Norwegian sheep breed (Ovis aries, gammelnorsk sau). With such low density, the grazing pressure is expected to be spatially and temporally heterogeneous according to the daily and seasonal movements of the sheep. To provide better quality fodder for the animals, the farmer has been rejuvenating the heath by burning patches of vegetation (approx. 0.05–0.1 ha) in new locations every year since 2018, progressively moving southwards on the island. Due to the traditional burning technique, these burns are mostly restricted to the dry ridges: the farmer ignites the fire at the top of the hump, and the flames move down the slope before quicky dying on lower wet areas. Burnt patches are therefore rather narrow (up to 40 m across), mostly restricted to higher stands, and surrounded by an undisturbed matrix of mires mixed with remnants of mature heath.
Data collection
In 2019, we selected five replicates on the northern end of the island, in two areas burnt in early spring 2018 (CR and GK) and 2019 (TW, CH and ER), respectively (Fig. 1), and five replicates on the southern end of the island still covered with mature heathland. For the pioneer replicates, the sampling areas were defined as the burnt patches themselves, of approximately 500 m2. For the mature replicates, we selected sampling areas of similar sizes that were suitable for prescribed burning and defined them according to the route of a hypothetical fire. In each replicate, a 40 m transect was set along the south-facing slope of a ridge to follow the actual (pioneer) or hypothetical (mature) pathway of the fire. Four octagonal sets of transparent plastic cups (Ø 6.5 cm, 250 mL) were placed along each transect, for a total of 32 pitfall traps per replicate. Cups were set approx. 1 m apart from each other (the shallow soil was a substantial constraint) and there was a minimum distance of 10 m between octagon centres (Fig. 2).
The pitfall traps were set for 2 weeks from mid-June to early July (early summer) and 2 more weeks from mid-July to early August (mid-summer). The soil was removed with a metal core of the same diameter as the plastic cups to avoid substantial soil disturbance. The immediate surrounding litter (about 5 cm radius around the traps) was cleared to prevent debris from falling into or across the cups. Traps were filled about one-third with a salt-saturated solution and a drop of neutral detergent, and in the burnt area they were covered by metal roofs (10 × 10 cm) elevated at approx. 4–5 cm above ground to protect them from the sheep and the rain. Roof presence should not affect capturability efficiency (Buchholz and Hannig 2009; Phillips and Cobb 2005). Traps were emptied every week and all adult beetles were collected and stored in 70% ethanol for identification. For most families, specimens were identified to the species level using the series Beetles of Britain and Ireland (Duff and Schmidt 2012a, b, 2020). For Carabidae, we favoured more local references from Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica (Lindroth 1985, 1986). Staphylinidae were identified using Palm (1961, 1963, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972). Only specimens from the genus Atheta were not identified at the species level due to missing genital parts. All identifications were validated by a taxonomic expert.
Morphological traits and ecological preferences were collected from the same references as for the species identification. We selected moisture and vegetation cover preferences to characterise species’ ecological affinities, and we selected body size and wing morphology as proxies of mobility. Moisture preferences were divided into five categories: Hygrophilous ++; Hygrophilous +; Eurytopic; Xerophilous +; Xerophilous ++, with “++” defining a limiting factor and “+” a preference. Vegetation cover preferences were divided into three categories: “Forest cover” for species associated with woody habitats and trees; “Open systems” for species indifferently colonising a variety of open or semi-open habitats; “Exposed ground” for species bound to the absence of vegetation. Wing characteristics were defined into four categories: “Full-winged”, “Short-winged”, “Wing-dimorphic” (both short-wing and full-wing morphologies found in the populations) and “Wingless”.
Data analysis
Statistical and ordination analyses were based on species count data, spatially and temporally pooled at the replicate level (n = 10). All analyses were performed in R (v. 4.1.3) with R-Studio (v. 1.4.1717) (R Core Team 2022). The package vegan (v. 2.6-2) (Oksanen et al. 2022) was used to calculate diversity indexes and for the ordination analysis. The coefficients of association and indicator values were calculated with the package indicspecies (v. 1.7.12) (De Cáceres et al. 2022). All plots were produced with the package ggplot2 (v. 3.3.5) (Wickham et al. 2022).
We estimated beetle alpha diversity at patch level (H1) by calculating species richness (S), Shannon diversity index (H) and Simpson’s evenness index (E1/D). The evaluation of evenness is not consensual throughout the literature: one of the biggest biases of some indices, including the most popular Pielou’s evenness, is the dependency on species richness. We therefore decided to follow Smith and Wilson (1996)’s recommendation and relied on Simpson’s evenness E1/D, calculated from the inverse of dominance D divided by species richness S. This index performs poorly on symmetry between abundant and rare species, but whether this criterion is desirable or not is at the discretion of the user. To our opinion, it is meaningful that an even distribution of common species within an assemblage has more weight than an even distribution of rare species. Because of the low replication level, differences in diversity and abundance between the pioneer and the mature heaths were tested with the non-parametric Wilcoxon test. Beta diversity was estimated with the betadisper function in vegan, which compares the dispersion of groups of samples. We used Bray–Curtis dissimilarity, which showed robustness to beta diversity assessments (Schroeder and Jenkins 2018), and abundance data were log-transformed (log (x + 1)) to limit the influence of extreme values. The difference between group dispersions was tested with ANOVA.
We used Constrained Correspondence Analysis (CCA) to display how beetle species would fit along the fire gradient and to compare the composition of active assemblages at both ends (H2). CCA was chosen over Redundancy Analysis (RDA) because of the high axis length (over 2 units) showed in a preliminary Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA). We limited the influence of rare species which occurrences could be biased because of our clumped sampling design by log-transforming our abundance data (Ter Braak and Šmilauer 2015) and removing singletons (Legendre and Gallagher 2001). We tested two models, one with the constraining factor divided into two categories (mature and pioneer heath) and one with three categories (unburnt, 2-years postburn, 1-year postburn), and kept the one which fitted the data better. Significances of the two main constrained axes were tested with an ANOVA permutation test (function anova.cca on vegan). The phi association and IndVal indicator analyses were run with the multipatt function of the indicspecies package on the raw abundance data (De Cáceres 2022). Phi’s coefficient of correlation (Sokal and Rohlf 2010), which was originally developed for phytosociological surveys, aims to measure the affinity of species to different vegetation types or groups. This coefficient compares observed against expected occurrences. It is independent from the size of the dataset and can also provide negative correlation values (Chytrý et al. 2002). On the other hand, the IndVal index (Dufrêne and Legendre 1997), which has been widely used to predict species bio-indication potential, evaluates how similar is the target group to the sites where the species is collected (De Cáceres and Legendre 2009). It is made of two components: the specificity (A), which is the probability that a site belongs to a target group based on the presence of the indicator species, and the fidelity (B), which is the probability to find the indicator species in sites belonging to the target group. IndVal is less context-dependent than association coefficients as it does not consider species absence in other groups as a strengthening factor of indication. It should be noted that both phi and IndVal calculate indicator values independently for each species: any individual species coefficient does not affect the values for others. The significances of association and indication were tested with permutations.
We tested the mean difference of relative proportions of ecological traits in species active on recent burns compared with assemblages on mature patches with Fisher t-tests (H3). We calculated community weighted means (CWMs) for body size so that the trait repartition was representative of the assemblage structure and was not influenced by rare species. The genus Atheta (Staphylinidae) was excluded from the trait analysis as most individuals could not be identified at the species level.
Results
Over the whole sampling period, we collected 1580 individuals of 68 species from 13 different families. The main families recorded were Carabidae (1039 individuals), Staphylinidae (308), Elateridae (86) and Curculionidae (69). Of the red-listed species, we found one specimen each of Enalodroma hepatica (NT) and Cymindis vaporariorum (EN) (Artsdatabanken 2021) in mature heath.
Alpha and beta diversity (H1)
On average, more species were recorded on mature heath replicates (S = 31.8; H = 2.91) compared with recently burnt patches (S = 23; H = 2.56) (Table 1). We observed however no significant difference for evenness and beta-diversity.
Assemblage composition and indicator species (H2)
The CCA was performed on 1562 specimens belonging to 44 species. The first axis, which explains 25% of variance, is driven by fire (χ2 = 0.36; F1,7 = 2.98; p-value = 0.001) (Fig. 3). The second constrained axis separates the replicates according to the year of the burns and explains 17% of the variance (χ2 = 0.25; F1,7 = 2.03; p-value 0.021). The mature heath replicates are grouped on the right side, with a pool of 14 species dominated by Micrelus ericae (total abundance n = 60, recorded on 5 out of 5 replicates), Drusilla canaliculata (n = 73, 5/5) and Dalopius marginatus (n = 61, 5/5) (Fig. 4). Carabus nemoralis (n = 24, 5/5), Contacyphon hilaris (n = 13, 5/5) and Calathus micropterus (n = 4, 2/5) were found exclusively on mature stands (Fig. 4). The three patches burned in 2019 (ER, CH, TW) are grouped in the bottom-left corner of the ordination. They were characterized by exclusive occurrences of Geostiba circellaris (n = 7, recorded on 3 out of 3 replicates) and Bembidion lampros (n = 8, 2/3) and almost exclusive occurrence of Dyschirius globosus (n = 32, 3/3) and Cicindela campestris (n = 16, 2/3). For the patches burnt in 2018 (GK, CR), the only exclusive species was Leiodes obesa (n = 3, recorded on 2 out of 2 replicates). The other noticeable feature was a higher activity of Dalopius marginatus (n = 17, 2/2), also common on mature patches (n = 61, recorded on 5 out of 5 replicates), compared with 2019 burns (n = 1). Some species were more active on pioneer patches compared with mature ones (Fig. 4), as for instance Poecilus versicolor (n = 112, 5/5 in pioneer; n = 7, 4/5 in mature) and Pterostichus strenuus (n = 118, 5/5 in pioneer; n = 23, 4/5 in mature). Finally, some species were common indifferently of the heath phase, such as Staphylinus erythropterus (n = 28, 4/5 in pioneer; n = 30, 5/5 in mature), Notiophilus aquaticus (n = 86, 5/5 in pioneer; n = 50, 5/5 in mature) and Nebria salina (n = 30, 5/5 in pioneer; n = 20, 4/5 in mature).
Overall, the IndVal analysis featured fewer species than the phi correlation analysis, and all species with significant IndVal values also had significant phi values (p < 0.05), except Agathidium atrum and Cychrus caraboides (Table 2). Poecilus versicolor (IndVal = 0.97; phi = 0.669) and Dyschirius globosus (IndVal = 0.894; phi = 0.531) were identified as potential indicator species of pioneer heath patches. Pterostichus strenuus was more strongly correlated with recent burns (phi = 0.651) compared with Dyschirius globosus, but this result was not emphasized by the IndVal analysis. Eight species showed positive correlation with mature patches, and among them Carabus nemoralis (IndVal = 1; phi = 0.892), Contacyphon hilaris (IndVal = 1; phi = 0.805), Micrelus ericae (Indval = 0.992; phi = 0.795) and Drusilla canaliculata (IndVal = 0.949; phi = 0.592) also had significant IndVal values. Despite strong phi values, Carabus granulatus (phi = 0.84), Pterostichus niger (phi = 0.824), Ischnosoma splendidum (phi = 0.739) and Carabus violaceus (phi = 0.699) were not highlighted by the IndVal analysis. On the other hand, Agathidium atrum (IndVal = 0.92; phi = 0.635) and Cychrus caraboides (IndVal = 0.918; phi = 0.614) were indicative of mature patches according to IndVal results, but their phi correlation coefficients were only marginally significant. Specificity was the most variable component of the IndVal indicator, while fidelity was maximum for all species except Dyschirius globosus. This means that most indicator species were found across all replicates of their corresponding group, but only three of them were exclusive, namely Dyschirius globosus for pioneer patches and Carabus nemoralis and Contacyphon hilaris for mature patches respectively.
Ecological preferences and dispersal traits (H3)
Fisher t-test results for ecological preferences and dispersal traits are summarised in Table 3. Strict hygrophilous species, such as Pterostichus nigrita, Agathidium atrum and Contacyphon hilaris (Fig. 4), were more active on mature heath patches (15.6 ± 4.9% of captures) compared with pioneer patches (5.7 ± 2.7% of captures) (Fig. 5A). Almost half of the specimens collected on mature stands were eurytopic (46.9 ± 10% of captures), while they comprised only one quarter (24.4 ± 6.0%) of the activity on pioneer stands. Surprisingly, tolerant hygrophilous species represented a higher proportion of captures on pioneer patches (32.3 ± 9.7%) compared with mature patches (23.4 ± 6.8%), but the difference was not significant. Tolerant xerophilous species, but not strict xerophilous species, were more active on pioneer patches (34.1 ± 9.7% of captures) compared with mature patches (9.8 ± 4.7% of captures). The difference was particularly driven by Poecilus versicolor, which was recorded more than 100 times across all pioneer replicates against less than 10 times in mature replicates (Fig. 4). Pioneer stands were also characterised by a higher activity of species associated with exposed ground (22.4 ± 15%), such as Bembidion lampros, Dyschirius globosus, Cicindela campestris, Olisthopus rotundatus and Poecilus versicolor, while these were almost absent from mature stands (Fig. 5B). Woodland beetles were indifferent to patch type, while a higher proportion of species associated with open habitats was collected on mature patches (69.8 ± 4.5%) compared with pioneer patches (50.8 ± 2.7%), even if the difference was only marginally significant (Table 3).
Regarding mobility traits, species collected on mature stands were on average larger (CWL = 10.7 ± 1.0 cm) than species collected on pioneer stands (CWL = 8.9 ± 1.1 cm) (Table 3). We could not detect any significant difference related to wing morphology, but we could observe a higher rate of wing-dimorphic species in pioneer patches (14.5 ± 9.3%) compared with mature patches (5.8 ± 2.5%) (Fig. 5C). The distribution between full-winged and short-winged morphology was on the other hand consistent across the study site: for both patch types, half of the active assemblages were made of full-winged species and one-third of short-winged species.
Collected assemblages had similar community structure regardless of patch type, with a clear dominance of Carabidae over the other families (Fig. 5D). Carabids represented a higher proportion of captures in pioneer stands (74.5 ± 15.1%) compared with mature stands (57.7 ± 9.2%), but the difference was only marginally significant (Table 3). Staphylinidae and Elateridae did not show any clear pattern, but we found more Curculionidae in mature patches (7.4 ± 3.9%) than in pioneer patches (1.7 ± 1.7%). This difference seemed to be driven by the activity of Micrelus ericae in older heath patches (Fig. 4).
Discussion
One to 2 years after fire, small-scale burning locally reduced alpha diversity without significantly increasing beta diversity between patches (H1). Fire was the main driver of divergence in species composition between pioneer and mature stands, for which we could identify new indicator species (H2). Beetle activity was driven by moisture and the absence of vegetation cover but was not affected by species dispersal ability (H3).
Beetle activity partially driven by ecological preferences
Beetle responses to small-scale burning followed ecological preferences according to moisture gradients and vegetation structure (Moretti et al. 2010; Schirmel and Buchholz 2011; Šustek 2004): xerophilous and sun-loving species were more active if not exclusive to pioneer patches, while strict hygrophilous species were more frequent on mature patches. It should be underlined that it is difficult to distinguish purely pyrophilous species, which are fire-dependent, from species which are only favoured by the environmental conditions following the burns (Wikars and Schimmel 2001). As none of the species we collected being defined as fire-loving in the literature, we hereafter consider species preferentially active on burnt patches as fire-favoured.
These trends were mostly reflected in our correlation and indication analyses: for example, xerophilous Poecilus versicolor and sun-loving Dyschirius globosus were indicative of pioneer stands, while strict hygrophilous Contacyphon hilaris and Carabus granulatus were associated with mature stands. However, three out of eight species which correlated with mature patches were associated with forest cover (Carabus violaceus, Agathidium atrum, Pterostichus niger), while the frequency of this trait was surprisingly even across patch types. The paradox is mostly due to Pterostichus strenuus: despite being classified as shade-loving, it was five times as abundant in recent burns compared with mature stands. For ecological preference characterisation of Carabidae we relied on the Nordic Fauna (Lindroth 1986), which describes this species as typical of “litter layer of damp deciduous forests” and “shaded sites in open country”. However, more recent references contradict these habitat preferences: British and Irish faunas (Anderson et al. 2000; Duff and Schmidt 2012b) characterise Pterostichus strenuus as eurytopic, while Šustek (2004) described it as true hygrophilous but indifferent to vegetation cover. This species also showed contrasting responses to plant height in ecological studies, as it was for example more abundant on heavily grazed pastures (Dennis et al. 1997) but clearly avoided cutting management on silage fields (Haysom et al. 2004). Like Hatteland et al. (2005, we observed other seemingly divergent patterns between assumed ecological preferences and species activity. For example, both Quedius fuliginosus and Lathrobium brunnipes should have moderate demand for humidity (50%), particularly in open habitats (Irmler and Lipkow 2018), but the former was mostly found in mature patches while the latter was almost exclusive to a 2018 burn (GK). Likewise, litter-dweller Geostiba circellaris (Betz et al. 2018) was collected on pioneer patches only, while it could have been expected to thrive in well-preserved litter of mature heath.
These contradictions mostly highlight the need to consider several ecological preferences and traits when assessing arthropod responses to disturbance (Buckingham et al. 2019; De Bello et al. 2010; Driscoll et al. 2020; Giménez Gómez et al. 2022): even if moisture and vegetation structure are important drivers of beetle activity (Schirmel and Buchholz 2011; Šustek 2004), these two factors alone cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of observed species distribution (Cadotte and Tucker 2017). For example, we collected on average bigger beetles in mature stands than in pioneer stands, and while community weighted size was considered as a mobility trait, the difference we observed could be explained by a change in trophic dynamics (Buckingham et al. 2019; Driscoll et al. 2020; Harvey et al. 2008; Kwon et al. 2013). Litter destruction by fire mostly affects small detritivores whose diet depends on micro fragments of dead leaves, while bigger species can feed on more coarse matter (Buckingham et al. 2015). In undisturbed systems with preserved soil biota and complex vegetation structure, generalist predators would not only be protected from predation (Brose 2003) but would also find more prey (Murdoch et al. 1972). This could explain why our largest specimens, from the predatory genus Carabus, were three times as abundant in mature replicates than in recent burns. Drawing this reasoning further, the limitation of competition and predation on pioneer patches could favour more specialised predators. For example, the rapid recovery of the collembola community after a light fire could attract collembolan feeders such as Notiophilus aquaticus (Bargmann et al. 2016; Malmström et al. 2008), whose morphological adaption for diurnal collembolan hunting means that they would benefit from vegetation clearance (Baulechner et al. 2022). For fungivorous species, we observed contrasting responses: on the one hand, Acrotona fungi and Leiodes obesa, despite both being hygrophilous species (Duff and Schmidt 2012b; Palm 1970), could potentially favour pioneer patches as low-intensity burning can be followed by the establishment of a diverse fungal community (Fox et al. 2022; Hjältén et al. 2010; Wikars 2002); on the other hand, Agathidium atrum may be indicative of mature patches because it feeds on myxomycetes growing on decaying plant tissue (Duff and Schmidt 2012b).
Ecological preferences and trait-based approaches featuring life-history, morphology and behaviour have shown to be very useful and pertinent to assess beetle responses to disturbance (Bettacchioli et al. 2012; Mouillot et al. 2013) or management (Giménez Gómez et al. 2022; Larsen et al. 2008; Ribera et al. 2001). However, there is clear scarcity and inconsistency of knowledge for non-carabid species (Cardoso et al. 2011; Salnitska et al. 2022). For example, due to substantial gaps for Staphylinidae which comprised 20% of our captures, we had to discard diet preferences from our analysis even though this trait has shown to be an effective response indicator to fire management (Bargmann et al. 2016; Bulan and Barrett 1971; Driscoll et al. 2020). As ecological interpretation of collection data is influenced by the initial choice of traits (Zhu et al. 2017), bridging these knowledge gaps through open databases would be essential. Currently, only Carabidae are covered by a widescale, open and collaborative trait database (Homburg et al. 2014). On the other hand, databases including other families target specific trophic groups, such as saproxylic beetles (Hagge et al. 2021) or dung beetles (Buse et al. 2018), and rely on regional scale studies for which applicability is likely to be limited beyond their ranges (Brose et al. 2006). A generalist Coleoptera database would undoubtedly revolutionise the field, but it needs primary data of good quality as the foremost prerequisite (Wong et al. 2019), which requires not only considerable time and resources but also well-defined methodological standards (Moretti et al. 2017; Schneider et al. 2019).
A matter of scales
The disturbance induced by traditional prescribed burning has low intensity and is spatially limited (Hobbs and Gimingham 1984b). Thus, unlike severe wildfires in forest or shrubland in flat landscapes (Buckingham et al. 2019; Driscoll et al. 2020; Kwon et al. 2013; Pippin and Nichols 1996), there is no major disruption of connectivity which would require high dispersal abilities to recolonise recently burnt areas (Bargmann et al. 2016). Yet, despite the isolation and the limited size of the burnt patches, the beetle activity still diverged from the mature stands even 2 years after the fire. In Bargmann et al. (2015, 2016), the study site had been under rotational prescribed burning for 20 years: it can be argued that this controlled recurring disturbance, which maintains the system into a continuously renewed habitat mosaic by combining rejuvenation and regeneration, would be a factor of stability of the beetle assemblage at the site scale (Battisti et al. 2016; Beckage et al. 2011; Bond 2019). In our study, fire was not part of the system dynamic as prescribed burning was not used for at least the past 50 years (Hjelle et al. 2018). A remaining question is if small-scale burning stimulated already present species by expanding existing conditions, or if it created an exclusive micro-habitat which allowed exogenous species to colonise the area.
We cannot address how this disturbance affected the original beetle assemblage per se, firstly because of the scope and limitations of our study. Our focus at the patch level resulted in a heavily clumped trapping design, which should not be affected by spatial autocorrelation (Baker and Barmuta 2006; Ward et al. 2001) but is not suited for density assessment and could lead to the underestimation of rare species (Ward et al. 2001). This latter issue can be particularly visible in our mature patches, in which 20 out of 24 exclusive species were only collected three times or fewer over the whole sampling period. We therefore advise strong caution when interpreting these species’ responses to fire. Furthermore, it should always be emphasized that pitfall catches are estimations of species “activity-trappability-density” (Jansen and Metz 1979; Sunderland et al. 1995), and that accurate density measures are only possible under specific design requirements which were not met in our study (Baars 1979; Perner and Schueler 2004; Zhao et al. 2013).
The pitfall trapping method has been criticised for many potential biases related for instance to species behaviour and body mass (Hancock and Legg 2012; Mommertz et al. 1996; Wallin and Ekbom 1988), trap setting and design (Brown and Matthews 2016; Hohbein and Conway 2018; Lange et al. 2011; Schirmel et al. 2010; Schmidt et al. 2006), and surrounding environment (Greenslade 1964; Koivula et al. 2003; Melbourne 2009; Phillips and Cobb 2005), this latter point being particularly sensitive when comparing different micro-habitats and vegetation structures. Walking behaviour can differ not only between species from the same genus (Mommertz et al. 1996), but also according to their habitat preferences: beetles are more likely to walk randomly in their preferred habitats, while they will follow directed patterns in unfavourable environments (Wallin and Ekbom 1988). These different behaviours would affect the time spent in the capture zone and could lead to overestimation of favoured species against underestimation of unfavoured species (Baars 1979). Short vegetation and a thin litter layer would also facilitate beetle movement and thus increase capture efficiency (Greenslade 1964), but this effect does not seem consistent according to species (Melbourne 2009) or vegetation layer (Koivula et al. 2003; Phillips and Cobb 2005), and was only observed when a substantial area of vegetation was clipped around the traps (from 30 to 250 cm radius). We assumed that clearing this amount of vegetation around each trap would have been detrimental considering our study scale, our limited period of sampling and our clumped sampling design, and therefore we only cleared the immediate surrounding of our traps (about 5 cm radius) to prevent debris from falling into or across the cups.
Methodological considerations aside, how informative could be our captures from mature patches of the original community before the prescribed burns? Our choice of replicates was limited by the farmer’s burning strategy from north to south and by the site topography which made neighbouring vegetation unrepresentative of the stands before fire, leading to a grouped spatial arrangement of the different heath stages. However we argue that north-south geographical bias was unlikely regarding the size of the sampling area (less than 25 ha) (Irmler et al. 2010), the absence of prominent relief which would disrupt population exchanges and affect local climate, the homogeneity of geological conditions and the continuity of management history. Our results seemed to confirm our assumption as mature replicates displayed similar composition despite being further apart compared with burnt stands. We can therefore consider that the assemblages we collected on the mature patches were quite representative of the beetle community over the whole sampling area before the fire management, even if the list of inventoried species could not be exhaustive due to our choices of study scale and design (Ward et al. 2001).
As the closest fire-managed heathland is located at 15 km away from our study area, with a 5 km wide stretch of open fjord in between, the colonisation of fire-favoured species from exogenous sources would be quite unlikely. Conversely, our site topography with exposed bedrock on ridges already created a vegetation mosaic which could, even to a lesser extent, offer suitable conditions for xerophilous and sun-loving species. The most realistic interpretation of our results would be that species exclusive to pioneer stands were already present in the area prior to fire but were missed from mature patches due to lower activity. Thus, in these circumstances, small-scale prescribed burning would enhance specialist beetle activity by increasing the area and number of dry and exposed micro-habitats.
Implications for heathland conservation and monitoring
Up to 2 years after the burn, alpha diversity was still lower on pioneer heath stands compared with mature stands, as expected with the niche simplification effect (Bulan and Barrett 1971). However, despite adding selection pressure to already existing micro-scale environmental factors (Jentsch and White 2019), fire did not significantly increase beta-diversity even if divergence between patches was seemingly higher on recent burns. The vegetation composition of early successional stages of heathland after prescribed burning was shown to be mainly driven by stochasticity, deterministic factors becoming increasingly important with time since fire (Måren et al. 2018). Several studies have observed a postfire increase of beta-diversity in plant communities (Vandvik et al. 2005; Velle et al. 2014) and arthropod assemblages (Bargmann et al. 2015; Brunbjerg et al. 2015). Beta-diversity measurements can however be affected by random sampling effect due to smaller community size and by strong micro-environmental conditions unrelated to fire (Myers et al. 2015). Our study site not only shows distinctive topographical features with a mosaic of ridges and depressions, but it is also an island subjected to salt-spray and sheep grazing all year round. This combination of factors is likely to influence the dynamics of the beetle assemblages independently from the fire effect (Finch et al. 2007; Kelly et al. 2015; Moranz et al. 2012).
Likewise, species richness responses to burning are not straightforward in the literature, as several studies reported increased alpha diversity after fire for plants (Velle et al. 2014), arthropods (Brunbjerg et al. 2015), and more specifically beetles (Bargmann et al. 2015). In Mediterranean heathlands, if overall beetle species richness did not change with time since fire (Yekwayo et al. 2018) trends at the family level diverged, with for example Scarabaeidae showing negative response while Carabidae remained unaffected (Pryke and Samways 2012). In forested systems, Carabidae and Staphylinidae also showed different postburn trends in diversity (Gandhi et al. 2001), but not always in abundance (Kwon et al. 2013), while overall ground-dwelling arthropod richness would not change (Coleman and Rieske 2006). Thus our work highlights the importance of including several taxa to assess the effect of fire on biodiversity (Kwon et al. 2013; Moretti et al. 2006; Pryke and Samways 2012), especially in the context of monitoring habitat resilience which could require the identification of suitable indicator species.
Comparing with Bargmann et al. (2016), we confirmed Poecilus versicolor and Carabus violaceus to be correlated with pioneer and mature heath patches respectively, the former being a sun-loving eurytopic (Lindroth 1985) and the latter being a forest species found locally common in wet heathland (Hatteland et al. 2005). However, our findings were only partially consistent with those of Bargmann et al. (2016): if we could support the association of Bembidion lampros and Cicindela campestris with pioneer stands, even if these two species were not emphasized in our own indicator analysis, we detected no significant trend for Nebria salina and Notiophilus aquaticus. Most importantly, our results diverge concerning Dyschirius globosus, which we found indicative of pioneer patches while it showed as characteristic of building phase in Bargmann et al. (2016). We identified new potential indicator species among Carabidae, such as Pterostichus strenuus for pioneer stands, or Carabus granulatus and Cychrus caraboides for mature stands, but more interestingly our analysis highlighted the importance to investigate all Coleoptera families for the determination of potential indicators (Yekwayo et al. 2018), as only five out of ten species associated with mature patches were Carabidae. Thus, we also recorded two Staphylinidae (Ischnosoma splendidum, Drusilla canaliculata), one Curculionidae (Micrelus ericae), one Leiodidae (Agathidium atrum) and one Scirtidae (Contacyphon hilaris), while these two later families made for less than 2% of total captures respectively.
It must however be emphasized that the choice of analytical approach does influence the results, as the phi coefficient and the IndVal value did not highlight identical species. Overall, IndVal was more restrictive than the phi correlation analysis, as it detected fewer species (8 against 11 in total) and excluded some which had surprisingly high correlation values (e.g. Carabus granulatus, Pterostichus niger). On the other hand, both Agathidium atrum and Cychrus caraboides had significant IndVal scores but were not significantly correlated to mature stands according to Pearson’s phi. For an extensive comparison of these two indexes, with suggested improving transformations, we recommend Tichy and Chytry (2006) and De Cáceres and Legendre (2009). As both indices offer some complementarity without requiring many additional analytical steps, it may be valuable to include both to enhance comparability between ecological studies.
Selecting indicator species for management perspectives should be done in the scope of a well-defined monitoring program with a good knowledge of species’ ecology (Landres et al. 1988). For example, we mentioned earlier that Staphylinidae, due to their diversity and sensitivity to fine-scale disturbances would make, in theory, optimal candidates. However, this family is particularly challenging for both collection and identification (Duelli and Obrist 1998; Levesque and Levesque 1995; Salnitska et al. 2022; Schmidt et al. 2006), and we can assume that we probably underestimated the activity and richness of Staphylinidae in our study, due to our sampling method and the deterioration of Atheta specimens.
As the biodiversity benefits of small-scale rotational burning relies on the resulting mosaic of heath regeneration stages, it could be valuable for the biosphere reserve managers to use indicator species of the different phases to monitor the condition of heathlands in Western Norway (Bal et al. 2018). Indeed, creating new micro-habitat conditions for xerophilous and sun-loving species should not threaten species associated with mature heath. Poecilus versicolor could be a suitable indicator for pioneer phase as it was identified in both Bargmann et al. (2016) and our study, but it should be underlined that as an eurytopic and generalist species it may not be representative of a more rare and specialised assemblage. For the mature phase, a good candidate could be the Ericaceae specialist Micrelus ericae (Duff and Schmidt 2012a): this Curculionidae is well-distributed in Europe and has distinct morphological features which makes its identification easy for non-experts. Furthermore, Micrelus ericae could be a good indicator of the heath condition in general, regarding for instance the droughts which are likely to occur more frequently in Northern areas (Haugum et al. 2021).
Conclusion
Rotational prescribed burning as traditionally applied in coastal heathland management increases the abundance and richness of specialists by creating a fine mosaic of new ecological conditions (Brunbjerg et al. 2015; Pedley et al. 2013; Schirmel and Buchholz 2011; Velle et al. 2014). Even if we could not demonstrate an increase of beta diversity after disturbance (H1), controlled burning facilitated the activity of xerothermic species independently of their dispersal abilities (H3). We highlighted the importance of using a combination of several traits and ecological preferences to assess the responses of arthropod assemblages to disturbance, as their relevance will differ according to local environmental conditions and fire characteristics (Driscoll et al. 2020). There is therefore the need for a more thorough investigation of life traits and ecological preferences in less-studied taxonomic groups, especially those offering a high potential of specialisation. We were able to identify new indicator species for both the pioneer and the mature heath (H2), including five non-carabid beetles, but our results showed substantial differences between the two indices used (IndVal and Phi), as well as with the related literature (Bargmann et al. 2016; Brunbjerg et al. 2015). We therefore encourage future studies to investigate different taxa, not only among ground-dwelling arthropods (e.g., spiders in Bell et al. (2001) but also to include soil invertebrates (Yekwayo et al. 2018), in order to provide a more comprehensive overview of the effects of prescribed burning which is currently used as an essential tool for Atlantic heathland conservation and management.
Data availability
The abundance and trait data presented in this study are available in the supplementary material.
References
Aarrestad PA, Vandvik V (2000) Vegetasjonsendringer i vestnorsk kystlynghei: Effekter skøtelsesformene brann og sauebeite ved rehabilitering av gammel lynghei på Lurekalven i Hordaland [Vegetation changes in western norwegian coastal heathland: effects of fire management and sheep grazing when rehabilitating old heather on Lurekalven in Hordaland]. Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning, Trondheim
Alvarado F, Dáttilo W, Escobar F (2019) Linking dung beetle diversity and its ecological function in a gradient of livestock intensification management in the Neotropical region. Appl Soil Ecol 143:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.06.016
Anderson R, McFerran D, Cameron A (2000) The ground beetles of Northern Ireland (Coleoptera-Carabidae). Ulster Museum, Belfast
Artsdatabanken (2021) Norsk rødliste for arter 2021 [Norvegian red list for year 2021] [WWW Document]. https://www.artsdatabanken.no/lister/rodlisteforarter/2021/. Accessed 8 Feb 2022
Baars MA (1979) Catches in pitfall traps in relation to mean densities of carabid beetles. Oecologia 41:25–46
Baker SC, Barmuta LA (2006) Evaluating spatial autocorrelation and depletion in pitfall-trap studies of environmental gradients. J Insect Conserv 10:269–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-0016-8
Bal P, Tulloch AI, Addison PF, McDonald-Madden E, Rhodes JR (2018) Selecting indicator species for biodiversity management. Front Ecol Environ 16:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1972
Barclay-Estrup P, Gimingham CH (1969) The description and interpretation of cyclical processes in a heath community: I. Vegetational change in relation to the Calluna cycle. J Ecol 57:737. https://doi.org/10.2307/2258496
Bargmann T, Hatteland BA, Grytnes J-A (2015) Effects of prescribed burning on carabid beetle diversity in coastal anthropogenic heathlands. Biodivers Conserv 24:2565–2581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0945-1
Bargmann T, Heegaard E, Hatteland BA, Chipperfield JD, Grytnes J (2016) Species trait selection along a prescribed fire chronosequence. Insect Conserv Divers 9:446–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12182
Barton PS, Gibb H, Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham SA (2011) Morphological traits as predictors of diet and microhabitat use in a diverse beetle assemblage. Biol J Linn Soc 102:301–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01580.x
Battisti C, Poeta G, Fanelli G (2016) An introduction to disturbance ecology: a road map for wildlife management and conservation, environmental science and engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32476-0
Baulechner D, Jauker F, Wolters V (2022) Carabid adaptation to a collembolan diet: hunting efficiency and nutritional value. Ecol Entomol 47:242–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13106
Beckage B, Gross LJ, Platt WJ (2011) Grass feedbacks on fire stabilize savannas. Ecol Model 222:2227–2233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.01.015
Bell JR, Wheater CP, Cullen WR (2001) The implications of grassland and heathland management for the conservation of spider communities: a review. J Zool 255:377–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836901001479
Bettacchioli G, Taormina M, Bernini F, Migliorini M (2012) Disturbance regimes in a wetland remnant: implications for trait-displacements and shifts in the assemblage structure of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). J Insect Conserv 16:249–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9412-9
Betz O, Irmler U, Klimaszewski J (eds) (2018) Biology of rove beetles (Staphylinidae): life history, evolution, ecology and distribution, 1st edn. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70257-5
Blake S, Foster GN, Eyre MD, Luff ML (1994) Effects of habitat type and grassland management practices on the body size distribution of carabid beetles. Pedobiologia 38:502–512
Bond WJ (2019) Open ecosystems: ecology and evolution beyond the forest edge. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bond W, Keeley J (2005) Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 20:387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025
Borchard F, Buchholz S, Helbing F, Fartmann T (2014) Carabid beetles and spiders as bioindicators for the evaluation of montane heathland restoration on former spruce forests. Biol Conserv 178:185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.006
Brose U (2003) Bottom-up control of carabid beetle communities in early successional wetlands: mediated by vegetation structure or plant diversity? Oecologia 135:407–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1222-7
Brose U, Jonsson T, Berlow EL, Warren P, Banasek-Richter C, Bersier L-F, Blanchard JL, Brey T, Carpenter SR, Blandenier M-FC, Cushing L, Dawah HA, Dell T, Edwards F, Harper-Smith S, Jacob U, Ledger ME, Martinez ND, Memmott J, Mintenbeck K, Pinnegar JK, Rall BC, Rayner TS, Reuman DC, Ruess L, Ulrich W, Williams RJ, Woodward G, Cohen JE (2006) Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87:2411–2417. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2411:CBRINF]2.0.CO;2
Brown GR, Matthews IM (2016) A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. Ecol Evol 6:3953–3964. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2176
Brunbjerg AK, Jørgensen GP, Nielsen KM, Pedersen ML, Svenning J-C, Ejrnæs R (2015) Disturbance in dry coastal dunes in Denmark promotes diversity of plants and arthropods. Biol Conserv 182:243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.013
Buchholz S, Hannig K (2009) Do covers influence the capture efficiency of pitfall traps? Eur J Entomol 106:667–671. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2009.083
Buckingham S, Murphy N, Gibb H (2015) The effects of fire severity on macroinvertebrate detritivores and leaf litter decomposition. PLoS ONE 10:e0124556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124556
Buckingham S, Murphy N, Gibb H (2019) Effects of fire severity on the composition and functional traits of litter-dwelling macroinvertebrates in a temperate forest. For Ecol Manag 434:279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.030
Bulan CA, Barrett GW (1971) The effects of two acute stresses on the arthropod component of an experimental grassland ecosystem. Ecology 52:597–605. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934147
Buse J, Šlachta M, Sladecek FXJ, Carpaneto GM (2018) Summary of the morphological and ecological traits of central European dung beetles: traits of central European dung beetles. Entomol Sci 21:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12313
Cadotte MW, Tucker CM (2017) Should environmental filtering be abandoned? Trends Ecol Evol 32:429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.004
Cajaiba RL, Périco E, da Silva WB, Vieira TB, Dalzochio MS, Bastos R, Cabral JA, Santos M (2018) How informative is the response of ground beetles’ (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages to anthropogenic land use changes? Insights for ecological status assessments from a case study in the Neotropics. Sci Total Environ 636:1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.392
Cardoso P, Erwin TL, Borges PAV, New TR (2011) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol Conserv 144:2647–2655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.024
Chytrý M, Tichý L, Holt J, Botta-Dukát Z (2002) Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J Veg Sci 13:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02025.x
Coleman TW, Rieske LK (2006) Arthropod response to prescription burning at the soil–litter interface in oak–pine forests. For Ecol Manag 233:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.06.001
De Bello F, Lavorel S, Díaz S, Harrington R, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD, Berg MP, Cipriotti P, Feld CK, Hering D, Da Silva PM, Potts SG, Sandin L, Sousa JP, Storkey J, Wardle DA, Harrison PA (2010) Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers Conserv 19:2873–2893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9850-9
De Cáceres M (2022) Indicator species analysis using 'indicspecies'. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/indicspecies/vignettes/IndicatorSpeciesAnalysis.html
De Cáceres M, Legendre P (2009) Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90:3566–3574. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1823.1
De Cáceres M, Jansen F, Dell N (2022) Indicspecies: relationship between species and groups of sites. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=indicspecies
Dennis P, Young MR, Howard CL, Gordon IJ (1997) The response of epigeal beetles (Col.: Carabidae, Staphylinidae) to varied grazing regimes on upland Nardus stricta grasslands. J Appl Ecol 34:433. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404888
Diemont WH, Heijman WJ, Siepel H, Webb NR (eds) (2013) Economy and ecology of heathlands. KNNV Publishing, Zeist
Driscoll DA, Smith AL, Blight S, Sellar I (2020) Interactions among body size, trophic level, and dispersal traits predict beetle detectability and occurrence responses to fire. Ecol Entomol 45:300–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12798
Duelli P, Obrist MK (1998) In search of the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodivers Conserv 7:297–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008873510817
Duff A, Schmidt U (2012a) Beetles of Britain and Ireland: volume 4: Cerambycidae to Curculionidae. A.G. Duff, West Runton, Norfolk
Duff A, Schmidt U (2012b) Beetles of Britain and Ireland: volume 1: Sphaeriusidae to Silphidae. A.G. Duff, West Runton, Norfolk
Duff A, Schmidt U (2020) Beetles of Britain and Ireland: volume 3: Geotrupidae to Scraptiidae. A.G. Duff, West Runton, Norfolk
Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0345:SAAIST]2.0.CO;2
Finch O-D, Krummen H, Plaisier F, Schultz W (2007) Zonation of spiders (Araneae) and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in island salt marshes at the North Sea coast. Wetl Ecol Manag 15:207–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-006-9024-4
Fox S, Sikes BA, Brown SP, Cripps CL, Glassman SI, Hughes K, Semenova-Nelsen T, Jumpponen A (2022) Fire as a driver of fungal diversity—a synthesis of current knowledge. Mycologia 114:215–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2021.2024422
Fremstad E, Moen A (2001) Truete vegetasjonstyper i Norge [Endangered vegetation types in Norway]. Vitenskapsmuseet, Trondheim
Gandhi KJK, Spence JR, Langor DW, Morgantini LE (2001) Fire residuals as habitat reserves for epigaeic beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae). Biol Conserv 102:131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00099-4
Gardner SM, Hartley SE, Davies A, Palmer SCF (1997) Carabid communities on heather moorlands in northeast Scotland: the consequences of grazing pressure for community diversity. Biol Conserv 81:275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00148-6
Gerisch M, Dziock F, Schanowski A, Ilg C, Henle K (2012) Community resilience following extreme disturbances: the response of ground beetles to a severe summer flood in a central European lowland stream. River Res Appl 28:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1438
Giménez Gómez VC, Verdú JR, Casanoves F, Zurita GA (2022) Functional responses to anthropogenic disturbance and the importance of selected traits: a study case using dung beetles. Ecol Entomol 47:503–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13135
Gimingham CH (1975) An introduction to heathland ecology. Oliver Boyd, Edinburgh
Greenslade PJM (1964) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). J Anim Ecol 33:301. https://doi.org/10.2307/2632
Hacala A, Le Roy M, Sawtschuk J, Pétillon J (2020) Comparative responses of spiders and plants to maritime heathland restoration. Biodivers Conserv 29:229–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01880-y
Hagge J, Müller J, Birkemoe T, Buse J, Christensen RHB, Gossner MM, Gruppe A, Heibl C, Jarzabek-Müller A, Seibold S, Siitonen J, Soutinho JG, Sverdrup‐Thygeson A, Thorn S, Drag L (2021) What does a threatened saproxylic beetle look like? Modelling extinction risk using a new morphological trait database. J Anim Ecol 90:1934–1947. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13512
Halada L, Evans D, Romão C, Petersen J-E (2011) Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodivers Conserv 20:2365–2378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z
Hancock MH, Legg CJ (2012) Pitfall trapping bias and arthropod body mass: pitfall bias and body mass. Insect Conserv Divers 5:312–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00162.x
Harvey JA, Van Der Putten WH, Turin H, Wagenaar R, Bezemer TM (2008) Effects of changes in plant species richness and community traits on carabid assemblages and feeding guilds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.006
Hatteland BA, Hauge E, Kirkendall LR, Solhøy T (2005) Diversity and habitat preferences of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a coastal area of North Trøndelag, Central Norway. DIAS Rep 114:125–135
Haugum SV, Thorvaldsen P, Vandvik V, Velle LG (2021) Coastal heathland vegetation is surprisingly resistant to experimental drought across successional stages and latitude. Oikos 130:2015–2027. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08098
Haysom KA, McCracken DI, Foster GN, Sotherton NW (2004) Developing grassland conservation headlands: response of carabid assemblage to different cutting regimes in a silage field edge. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102:263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.014
Hernández-Morcillo M, Bieling C, Bürgi M, Lieskovský J, Palang H, Printsmann A, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH, Plieninger T (2017) Priority questions for the science, policy and practice of cultural landscapes in Europe. Landsc Ecol 32:2083–2096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0524-9
Hjältén J, Gibb H, Ball JP (2010) How will low-intensity burning after clear-felling affect mid-boreal insect assemblages? Basic Appl Ecol 11:363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.012
Hjelle KL, Halvorsen LS, Prøsch-Danielsen L, Sugita S, Paus A, Kaland PE, Mehl IK, Overland A, Danielsen R, Høeg HI, Midtbø I (2018) Long-term changes in regional vegetation cover along the west coast of southern Norway: the importance of human impact. J Veg Sci 29:404–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12626
Hjeltnes A (1997) Overvåking av kystlynghei - kartlegging av skader og skadeårsaker på røsslyng og forandringer i vegetasjonen i kystlyngheia på Sør-Vestlandet [Monitoring of coastal heathland - mapping damage and causes of damage to heather and changes in vegetation in coastal heathland in Southwestern Norway] (No. 129). Telemarksforsking.
Hobbs RJ, Gimingham CH (1984a) Studies on fire in Scottish heathland communities II. Post-fire vegetation development. J Ecol 72:585. https://doi.org/10.2307/2260069
Hobbs RJ, Gimingham CH (1984b) Studies on fire in Scottish heathland communities: I. Fire characteristics. J Ecol 72:223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2260015
Hohbein RR, Conway CJ (2018) Pitfall traps: a review of methods for estimating arthropod abundance. Wildl Soc Bull 42:597–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.928
Homburg K, Homburg N, Schäfer F, Schuldt A, Assmann T (2014) Carabids.org—a dynamic online database of ground beetle species traits (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Insect Conserv Divers 7:195–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12045
Hovstad KA, Johansen L, Arnesen A, Svalheim E, Velle LG (2018) Kystlynghei, Semi-naturlig. Norsk rødliste for naturtyper 2018 [Coastal heathland, Semi-natural. Norwegian red list for nature types 2018]. Artsdatabanken, Trondheim
Hulme PD, Merrell BG, Torvell L, Fisher JM, Small JL, Pakeman RJ (2002) Rehabilitation of degraded Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull-dominated wet heath by controlled sheep grazing. Biol Conserv 107:351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00073-3
Irmler U, Lipkow E (2018) Effect of environmental conditions on distribution patterns of rove beetles. In: Betz O, Irmler U, Klimaszewski J (eds) Biology of rove beetles (Staphylinidae): life history, evolution, ecology and distribution. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70257-5_7
Irmler U, Arp H, Nötzold R (2010) Species richness of saproxylic beetles in woodlands is affected by dispersion ability of species, age and stand size. J Insect Conserv 14:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-009-9249-7
Jansen MJW, Metz JAJ (1979) How many victims will a pitfall make? Acta Biotheor 28:98–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00046807
Jentsch A, White P (2019) A theory of pulse dynamics and disturbance in ecology. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2734
Kaland PE (1986) The origin and management of Norwegian coastal heaths as reflected by pollen analysis. In: Anthropogenic indicators in pollen diagrams. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 19–36
Keeley JE (1986) Resilience of mediterranean shrub communities to fires. In: Dell B, Hopkins AJM, Lamont BB (eds) Resilience in Mediterranean-type ecosystems, tasks for vegetation science. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4822-8_7
Keeley JE, Pausas JG, Rundel PW, Bond WJ, Bradstock RA (2011) Fire as an evolutionary pressure shaping plant traits. Trends Plant Sci 16:406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.04.002
Kelly SL, Song H, Jenkins DG (2015) Land management practices interactively affect wetland beetle ecological and phylogenetic community structure. Ecol Appl 25:891–900. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1225.1
Koivula M (2011) Useful model organisms, indicators, or both? Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) reflecting environmental conditions. ZooKeys 100:287–317. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1533
Koivula M, Kukkonen J, Niemelä J (2002) Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clear-cut originated succession gradient. Biodivers Conserv 11:1269–1288. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016018702894
Koivula M, Kotze J, Hiisivuori L, Rita H (2003) Pitfall trap efficiency: do trap size, collecting fluid and vegetation structure matter? Entomol Fenn. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.84167
Kotze DJ, Brandmayr P, Casale A, Dauffy-Richard E, Dekoninck W, Koivula M, Lovei G, Mossakowski D, Noordijk J, Paarmann W, Pizzoloto R, Saska P, Schwerk A, Serrano J, Szyszko J, Taboada Palomares A, Turin H, Venn S, Vermeulen R, Brandmayr Z (2011) Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe—from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation. ZooKeys 100:55–148. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1523
Krause RH, Assmann T (2016) Impact of prescribed burning on a heathland inhabiting spider community. Arachnol Mitt 51:57–63. https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit5108
Kwon T-S, Park YK, Lim J-H, Ryou SH, Lee CM (2013) Change of arthropod abundance in burned forests: different patterns according to functional guilds. J Asia-Pac Entomol 16:321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2013.04.008
Lamotte M (1975) The structure and function of a tropical savannah ecosystem. In: Golley FB, Medina E (eds) Tropical ecological systems, ecological studies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 179–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88533-4_15
Landres PB, Verner J, Thomas JW (1988) Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conserv Biol 2:316–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00195.x
Lange M, Gossner MM, Weisser WW (2011) Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by-catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling: reducing by-catches in pitfall traps. Methods Ecol Evol 2:185–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00062.x
Lange M, Türke M, Pašalić E, Boch S, Hessenmöller D, Müller J, Prati D, Socher SA, Fischer M, Weisser WW, Gossner MM (2014) Effects of forest management on ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae, Staphylinidae) in Central Europe are mainly mediated by changes in forest structure. For Ecol Manag 329:166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.06.012
Larsen TH, Lopera A, Forsyth A (2008) Understanding trait-dependent community disassembly: dung beetles, density functions, and forest fragmentation. Conserv Biol 22:1288–1298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00969.x
Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100716
Letten AD, Keith DA, Tozer MG (2014) Phylogenetic and functional dissimilarity does not increase during temporal heathland succession. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20142102. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2102
Levesque C, Levesque G-Y (1995) Abundance, diversity and dispersal power of rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) in a raspberry plantation and adjacent sites in eastern Canada. J Kans Entomol Soc 68:335–370
Lindroth CH (1985) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. 1, Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica. Brill, Leiden
Lindroth CH (1986) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. 2, Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica. Brill, Leiden
Lövei GL, Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu Rev Entomol 41:231–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.001311
Mallik AU, Gimingham CH (1983) Regeneration of heathland plants following burning. Vegetatio 53:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00039771
Mallik AU, Gimingham CH (1985) Ecological effects of heather burning: II. Effects on seed germination and vegetative regeneration. J Ecol 73:633. https://doi.org/10.2307/2260500
Malmström A, Persson T, Ahlström K (2008) Effects of fire intensity on survival and recovery of soil microarthropods after a clearcut burning. Can J For Res 38:2465–2475. https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-094
Måren IE, Vandvik V (2009) Prescribed burning and the role of seed banks in post-fire succession of northern heathlands, Lygra and Lurekalven islands, Hordaland, Norway. Conserv Evid 6:48–56
Måren IE, Janovský Z, Spindelböck JP, Daws MI, Kaland PE, Vandvik V (2010) Prescribed burning of northern heathlands: Calluna vulgaris germination cues and seed-bank dynamics. Plant Ecol 207:245–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9669-1
Måren IE, Kapfer J, Aarrestad PA, Grytnes J-A, Vandvik V (2018) Changing contributions of stochastic and deterministic processes in community assembly over a successional gradient. Ecology 99:148–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2052
Melbourne BA (2009) Bias in the effect of habitat structure on pitfall traps: an experimental evaluation. Austral Ecol 24:228–239. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.00967.x
Mladenović S, Loskotová T, Boháč J, Pavlíček J, Brestovanský J, Horák J (2018) The effects of within stand disturbance in plantation forests indicate complex and contrasting responses among and within beetle families. Bull Entomol Res 108:750–764. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485317001304
Mommertz S, Schauer C, Kösters N, Lang A, Filser J (1996) A comparison of D-Vac suction, fenced and unfenced pitfall trap sampling of epigeal arthropods in agroecosystems. Ann Zool Fenn 33:117–124
Moranz RA, Debinski DM, McGranahan DA, Engle DM, Miller JR (2012) Untangling the effects of fire, grazing, and land-use legacies on grassland butterfly communities. Biodivers Conserv 21:2719–2746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0330-2
Moretti M, Duelli P, Obrist MK (2006) Biodiversity and resilience of arthropod communities after fire disturbance in temperate forests. Oecologia 149:312–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0450-z
Moretti M, De Cáceres M, Pradella C, Obrist MK, Wermelinger B, Legendre P, Duelli P (2010) Fire-induced taxonomic and functional changes in saproxylic beetle communities in fire sensitive regions. Ecography 33:760–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06172.x
Moretti M, Dias ATC, Bello F, Altermatt F, Chown SL, Azcárate FM, Bell JR, Fournier B, Hedde M, Hortal J, Ibanez S, Öckinger E, Sousa JP, Ellers J, Berg MP (2017) Handbook of protocols for standardized measurement of terrestrial invertebrate functional traits. Funct Ecol 31:558–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12776
Mouillot D, Graham NAJ, Villéger S, Mason NWH, Bellwood DR (2013) A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol Evol 28:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.004
Murdoch WW, Evans FC, Peterson CH (1972) Diversity and pattern in plants and insects. Ecology 53:819–829. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934297
Myers JA, Chase JM, Crandall RM, Jiménez I (2015) Disturbance alters beta-diversity but not the relative importance of community assembly mechanisms. J Ecol 103:1291–1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12436
Neumann C, Schindhelm A, Müller J, Weiss G, Liu A, Itzerott S (2021) The regenerative potential of managed Calluna heathlands—revealing optical and structural traits for predicting recovery dynamics. Remote Sens 13:625. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040625
Oksanen J, Simpson GL, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Szoecs E, Wagner H, Barbour M, Bedward M, Bolker B, Borcard D, Carvalho G, Chirico M, Caceres MD, Durand S, Evangelista HBA, FitzJohn R, Friendly M, Furneaux B, Hannigan G, Hill MO, Lahti L, McGlinn D, Ouellette M-H, Cunha ER, Smith T, Stier A, Braak, Weedon J (2022) Vegan: community ecology package. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
Palm T (1961) Skalbaggar: Coleoptera, Kortvingar, Fam. Staphylinidae. Underfam. Oxytelinae, Oxyporinae, Steninae, Euaesthetinae, Svensk Insektfauna. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm
Palm T (1963) Skalbaggar: Coleoptera, Kortvingar, Fam. Staphylinidae. Underfam. Paederinae, Staphylininae, Svensk Insektfauna. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm
Palm T (1966) Skalbaggar: Coleoptera, Kortvingar, Fam. Staphylinidae. Underfam. Habrocerinae, Trichophyinae, Tachyporinae, Svensk Insektfauna. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm
Palm T (1968) Skalbaggar: Coleoptera, Kortvingar, Fam. Staphylinidae. Underfam. Aleocharinae (Deinopsis-Trichomicra), Svensk Insektfauna. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm
Palm T (1970) Skalbaggar: Coleoptera, Kortvingar, Fam. Staphylinidae. Underfam. Aleocharinae (Atheta), Svensk Insektfauna. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm
Palm T (1972) Skalbaggar: Coleoptera, Kortvingar, Fam. Staphylinidae. Underfam. Aleocharinae (Aleuonota-Tinotus), Svensk Insektfauna. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm, Stockholm
Pedley SM, Franco AMA, Pankhurst T, Dolman PM (2013) Physical disturbance enhances ecological networks for heathland biota: a multiple taxa experiment. Biol Conserv 160:173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.006
Perner J, Schueler S (2004) Estimating the density of ground-dwelling arthropods with pitfall traps using a nested-cross array. J Anim Ecol 73:469–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00821.x
Perry KI, Wallin KF, Wenzel JW, Herms DA (2018) Forest disturbance and arthropods: small-scale canopy gaps drive invertebrate community structure and composition. Ecosphere 9:e02463. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2463
Phillips ID, Cobb TP (2005) Effects of habitat structure and lid transparency on pitfall catches. Environ Entomol 34:875–882. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-34.4.875
Pippin WF, Nichols B (1996) Observations of arthropod populations following the La Mesa Fire of 1977. In: Fire effects in southwestern forests: proceedings of the second La Mesa Fire symposium—1994 March 29–31. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins
Prentice IC, van Tongeren O, Smidt JTD (1987) Simulation of heathland vegetation dynamics. J Ecol 75:203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2260546
Prøsch-Danielsen L, Simonsen A (2000) Palaeoecological investigations towards the reconstruction of the history of forest clearances and coastal heathlands in south-western Norway. Veg Hist Archaeobot 9:189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01294634
Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2012) Importance of using many taxa and having adequate controls for monitoring impacts of fire for arthropod conservation. J Insect Conserv 16:177–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9404-9
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rainio J, Niemelä J (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 12:487–506. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022412617568
Ribera I, Dolédec S, Downie IS, Foster GN (2001) Effect of land disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assemblages. Ecology 82:1112–1129. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1112:EOLDAS]2.0.CO;2
Salnitska M, Solodovnikov A, Orlov I (2022) Sampling and curation of rove beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) for comprehensive and DNA-grade collections to enhance biodiversity exploration in Northern Eurasia. Biodivers Data J 10:e96080. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.10.e96080
Schirmel J, Buchholz S (2011) Response of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) to coastal heathland succession. Biodivers Conserv 20:1469–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0038-8
Schirmel J, Lenze S, Katzmann D, Buchholz S (2010) Capture efficiency of pitfall traps is highly affected by sampling interval: pitfall trap catch and sampling interval. Entomol Exp Appl 136:206–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.01020.x
Schmidt MH, Clough Y, Schulz W, Westphalen A, Tscharntke T (2006) Capture efficiency and preservation attributes of different fluids in pitfall traps. J Arachnol 34:159–162. https://doi.org/10.1636/T04-95.1
Schneider FD, Fichtmueller D, Gossner MM, Güntsch A, Jochum M, König-Ries B, Le Provost G, Manning P, Ostrowski A, Penone C, Simons NK (2019) Towards an ecological trait‐data standard. Methods Ecol Evol 10:2006–2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13288
Schroeder PJ, Jenkins DG (2018) How robust are popular beta diversity indices to sampling error? Ecosphere 9:e02100. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2100
Smith B, Wilson JB (1996) A consumer’s guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76:70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545749
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2010) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn., 11 print. edn. Freeman, New York
Sunderland KD, De Snoo GR, Dinter A, Hance T, Helenius J, Jepson P, Kromp B, Lys J-A, Samu F, Sotherton NW, Toft S, Ulber B (1995) Density estimation for invertebrate predators in agroecosystems. In: Arthropod natural enemies in arable land I: density, spatial heterogeneity and dispersal. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp 133–162
Šustek Z (2004) Characteristics of humidity requirements and relation to vegetation cover of selected Central-European Carabids (Col. Carabidae). In: Hodnocení Stavu a Vývoje Lesních Geobiocenóz. Sborník Příspěvků z Mezinárodní Konference 15.–16. 10. 2004 v Brně. MZLU, Brně, pp 210–214
Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2015) Topics in constrained and unconstrained ordination. Plant Ecol 216:683–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0356-5
Thorvaldsen P, Velle LG, Norderhaug A, Øpstad S (2017) Gammalnorsk sau og skjøtsel av kystlyngheibeitepreferansar, beitetrykk og dyrevelferd [Old Norse sheep and management of coastal heath grazing preferences, grazing pressure and animal welfare]. NIBIO POP 3
Tichy L, Chytry M (2006) Statistical determination of diagnostic species for site groups of unequal size. J Veg Sci 17:809–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2006.tb02504.x
Vandvik V, Heegaard E, Maren IE, Aarrestad PA (2005) Managing heterogeneity: the importance of grazing and environmental variation on post-fire succession in heathlands. J Appl Ecol 42:139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.00982.x
Vandvik V, Töpper JP, Cook Z, Daws MI, Heegaard E, Måren IE, Velle LG (2014) Management-driven evolution in a domesticated ecosystem. Biol Lett 10:20131082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.1082
Velle LG, Vandvik V (2014) Succession after prescribed burning in coastal Calluna heathlands along a 340-km latitudinal gradient. J Veg Sci 25:546–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12100
Velle LG, Nilsen LS, Vandvik V (2012) The age of Calluna stands moderates post-fire regeneration rate and trends in northern Calluna heathlands: post-fire regeneration in Calluna heathlands. Appl Veg Sci 15:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2011.01144.x
Velle LG, Nilsen LS, Norderhaug A, Vandvik V (2014) Does prescribed burning result in biotic homogenization of coastal heathlands? Glob Change Biol 20:1429–1440. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12448
Vos W, Meekes H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc Urban Plan 46:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2
Wallin H, Ekbom BS (1988) Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a field tracing study. Oecologia 77:39–43
Ward DF, New TR, Yen AL (2001) Effects of pitfall trap spacing on the abundance, richness and composition of invertebrate catches. J Insect Conserv 5:47–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011317423622
Watts CH, Clarkson BR, Didham RK (2008) Rapid beetle community convergence following experimental habitat restoration in a mined peat bog. Biol Conserv 141:568–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.008
Webb NR (1998) The traditional management of European heathlands. J Appl Ecol 35:987–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.1998.tb00020.x
Wickham H, Chang W, Henry L, Pedersen TL, Takahashi K, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H, Dunnington D, RStudio (2022) Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggplot2
Wikars L-O (2002) Dependence on fire in wood-living insects: an experiment with burned and unburned spruce and birch logs. J Insect Conserv 6:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015734630309
Wikars L-O, Schimmel J (2001) Immediate effects of re-severity on soil invertebrates in cut and uncut pine forests. For Ecol Manag 141:189–200
Wong MKL, Guénard B, Lewis OT (2019) Trait-based ecology of terrestrial arthropods. Biol Rev 94:999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12488
Yekwayo I, Pryke JS, Gaigher R, Samways MJ (2018) Only multi-taxon studies show the full range of arthropod responses to fire. PLoS ONE 13:e0195414. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195414
Zhao Z-H, Shi P-J, Hui C, Ouyang F, Ge F, Li B-L (2013) Solving the pitfalls of pitfall trapping: a two-circle method for density estimation of ground-dwelling arthropods. Methods Ecol Evol 4:865–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12083
Zhu L, Fu B, Zhu H, Wang C, Jiao L, Zhou J (2017) Trait choice profoundly affected the ecological conclusions drawn from functional diversity measures. Sci Rep 7:3643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03812-8
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank John Skartveit who identified Staphylinidae, verified the identification of other beetle species and provided precious advice on the sampling design. We also thank Richard James Telford for very helpful guidance on the ordination analysis. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer of our paper for his/her very insightful and pertinent comments which undoubtedly contributed to substantial improvements of the manuscript. We are grateful to Tormod Magnesen for allowing us to sample the area where his sheep were grazing. We thank very involved volunteer Kristi Natås for her great help on the field and in the lab. We finally thank Bjørn Arild Hatteland for sampling material provision and support throughout the identification.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Bergen (incl Haukeland University Hospital). This study was part of the TradMod project at the University of Bergen, funded by the Research Council of Norway (NFR; Project Number 280299).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, MK; methodology, MK; validation, MK and AEE; formal analysis, MK and AEE; data collection, MK; writing—original draft preparation, MK; writing—review and editing, AEE and IEM; visualization, MK; supervision, AEE and IEM; project administration, IEM; funding acquisition, IEM. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Consent to publish
All authors have given consent to publish.
Additional information
Communicated by Eckehard Brockerhoff.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kerdoncuff, M., Måren, I.E. & Eycott, A.E. Traditional prescribed burning of coastal heathland provides niches for xerophilous and sun-loving beetles. Biodivers Conserv 32, 4083–4109 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02684-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02684-x