Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 5–18 | Cite as

The effects of forestry on carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in boreal forests

Beetle Conservation


As compared to natural forests, managed boreal forests are younger, more homogeneous in terms of tree age and species composition, and consist of smaller fragments. Here we examine the effects of such characteristics caused by forestry on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the boreal region. The main results are the following. (1) Fragmentation of forests and the size of a fragment appear not to be crucial for the survival of the majority of forest carabids, as they tend to be distributed over various successional stages, but species requiring old-growth habitats suffer. (2) For carabids there appear to be no or very few edge specialist species, and forest-open land edges appear to be effective barriers for species associated with forest or open habitat. However, generalist species easily cross the edge, and edges of forest fragments may be invaded by species from the surrounding open habitat. (3) Habitat change following clear-cutting dramatically changes the composition of carabid assemblages: species restricted to mature forests disappear and open-habitat species invade, while habitat generalists survive at least in the short term. Carabid diversity can probably best be maintained if forest management mimics natural processes, maintains natural structures and includes the natural composition of vegetation and other structural elements (such as dead wood) within the stands, provided that these forest features can be maintained and recreated through forest management practices. At a larger scale, the whole spectrum of forest types and ages (especially old-growth forests), and different successional processes (especially fire) should be maintained. These require the development and use of innovative logging methods, and the planning, implementation, and assessment of landscape-scale ecological management strategies.


Carabidae Forest management Boreal forests 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abildsnes J, Tømmerås Bå (2000) Impacts of experimental habitat fragmentation on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a boreal spruce forest. Ann Zool Fenn 37:201–212Google Scholar
  2. Andersson LI, Hytteborn H (1991) Bryophytes and decaying wood: a comparison between managed and natural forest. Holarct Ecol 14:121–130Google Scholar
  3. Andrén H (1995) Effects of landscape composition on predation rates at habitat edges. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. London, Chapman & Hall, pp 225–255Google Scholar
  4. Angelstam P (1997) Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:140–170Google Scholar
  5. Angelstam P (1998) Maintaining and restoring biodiversity by developing natural disturbance regimes in European boreal forest. J Veget Sci 9:593–602Google Scholar
  6. Angelstam P, Pettersson B (1997) Principles of present Swedish forest biodiversity management. Ecol Bull 46:191–203Google Scholar
  7. Anon (2005) Official Swedish red lists. SLU ArtDatabanken, Sweden; (Accessed date 27 February 2006)Google Scholar
  8. Atlegrim O, Sjöberg K, Ball JP (1997) Forestry effects on a boreal ground beetle community in spring: selective logging and clear-cutting compared. Entomol Fenn 8:19–26Google Scholar
  9. Ås S (1993) Are habitat islands islands? Woodliving beetles (Coleoptera) in deciduous forest fragments in boreal forest. Ecography 16:219–228Google Scholar
  10. Bauer LC (1989) Moorland beetle communities on limestone ‘habitat islands’. I. Isolation, invasion and local species diversity in carabids and staphylinids. J Anim Ecol 58:1077–1098Google Scholar
  11. Beaudry S, Duchesne LC, Cote B (1997) Short-term effects of three forestry practices on carabid assemblages in a jack pine forest. Can J For Res 27:2065–2071Google Scholar
  12. Bonan GB, Shugart HH (1989) Environmental factors and ecological processes in boreal forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:1–28Google Scholar
  13. Burke D, Goulet H (1998) Landscape and area effects on beetle assemblages in Ontario. Ecography 21:472–479Google Scholar
  14. Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86Google Scholar
  15. Davies KE, Margules CR (1998) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence. J Anim Ecol 67:460–471Google Scholar
  16. de Warnaffe GDB, Lebrun P (2004) Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 118:219–234Google Scholar
  17. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355Google Scholar
  18. den Boer PJ (1990a) Density limits and survival of local populations in 64 carabid species with different powers of dispersal. J Evol Ecol 3:19–48Google Scholar
  19. den Boer PJ (1990b) The survival value of dispersal in terrestrial arthropods. Biol Conserv 54:175–192Google Scholar
  20. Desender K, Ervynck A, Tack G (1999). Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belg J Zool 129:139–155Google Scholar
  21. Dettki H, Esseen P-A (1998) Epiphytic macrolichens in managed and natural forest landscapes: a comparison at two spatial scales. Ecography 21:613–624Google Scholar
  22. Didham RK (1997) The influence of edge effects and forest fragmentation on leaf litter invertebrates in central Amazonia. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO Jr (eds) Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, pp 55–70Google Scholar
  23. Didham RK, Lawton JH (1999). Edge structure determines the magnitude of changes in microclimate and vegetation structure in tropical forest fragments. Biotropica 31:17–30Google Scholar
  24. Donovan TM, Jones PW, Annand EM, Thompson FR III (1997) Variation in local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064–2075Google Scholar
  25. Esseen P-A, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K (1997) Boreal forests. Ecol Bull 46:16–47Google Scholar
  26. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59Google Scholar
  28. Fournier E, Loreau M (2001) Respective roles of recent hedges and forest patch remnants in the maintenance of ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) diversity in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecol 16:17–32Google Scholar
  29. Fries C, Johansson O, Pettersson B, Simonsson P (1997) Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. For Ecol Manage 94:89–103Google Scholar
  30. Gandhi KJK, Spence JR, Langor DW, Morgantini LE (2001) Fire residuals as habitat reserves for epigaeic beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae). Biol Conserv 102:131–141Google Scholar
  31. Greenslade PJM (1983) Adversity selection and the habitat templet. Am Nat 122:352–365Google Scholar
  32. Haila Y (1999) Islands and fragments. In: Hunter ML Jr (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 234–264Google Scholar
  33. Haila Y, Hanski IK, Niemelä J, Punttila P, Raivio S, Tukia H (1994) Forestry and the boreal fauna: matching management with natural forest dynamics. Ann Zool Fenn 31:187–202Google Scholar
  34. Hallman E, Hokkanen M, Juntunen H, Korhonen KM, Raivio S, Savela O, Siitonen P, Tolonen A, Vainio M (1996) Alue-ekologinen suunnittelu. Vantaa, Finnish Forest and Park Service [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  35. Halme E, Niemelä J (1993) Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Ann Zool Fenn 30:17–30Google Scholar
  36. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Hanski I (2000) Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zool Fenn 37:271–280Google Scholar
  38. Heliölä J, Koivula M, Niemelä J (2001) Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across boreal forest – clear-cut ecotone. Conserv Biol 15:370–377Google Scholar
  39. Helle P, Muona J (1985) Invertebrate numbers in edges between clear-fellings and mature forests in Northern Finland. Silva Fenn 19:281–294Google Scholar
  40. Heyborne WH, Miller JC, Parsons GL (2003) Ground-dwelling beetles and forest vegetation change over a 17-year-period, in western Oregon, USA. For Ecol Manage 179:123–134Google Scholar
  41. Holliday NJ (1984) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) from burned spruce forest (Picea spp.). Can Entomol 116:919–922Google Scholar
  42. Holliday NJ (1991) Species responses of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) during post-fire regeneration of boreal forest. Can Entomol 123:1369–1389Google Scholar
  43. Holliday NJ (1992) The carabid fauna (Coleoptera: Carabidae) during postfire regeneration of boreal forest: properties and dynamics of species assemblages. Can J Zool 70:440–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hunter ML (1996) Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Science IncGoogle Scholar
  45. Hänggi A, Baur B (1998) The effect of forest edge on ground-living arthropods in a remnant of unfertilized calcareous grassland in the Swiss Jura mountains. Mitt Schw Entomol Gesell Bul Soc Entomol Suisse 71:343–354Google Scholar
  46. Imponen V, Kaila S (1988) Uudistusalan koon vaikutus metsän uudistamiskustannuksiin Etelä-Suomen oloissa. Metsätehon Katsaus 18:1–6 [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  47. Jalonen J, Vanha-Majamaa I (2001) Immediate effects of four different felling methods on mature boreal spruce forest understorey vegetation in southern Finland. For Ecol Manage 146:25–34Google Scholar
  48. Jokimäki J, Huhta E, Itämies J, Rahko P (1998) Distribution of arthropods in relation to forest patch size, edge, and stand characteristics. Can J For Res 28:1068–1072Google Scholar
  49. Jonsell M, Weslien J, Ehnström B (1998) Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers Conserv 7:749–764Google Scholar
  50. Karvonen L (2000) Guidelines for landscape ecological planning. Forestry Publications of Metsähallitus 36Google Scholar
  51. Koivula M (2001) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in boreal managed forests – meso-scale ecological patterns in relation to modern forestry. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki, 120 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Koivula M (2002a) Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). For Ecol Manage 167:103–121Google Scholar
  53. Koivula M (2002b) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in thinned uneven-aged and clear-cut spruce stands. Ann Zool Fenn 39:131–149Google Scholar
  54. Koivula M (2003) The forest road network – a landscape element affecting the spatial distribution of boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Szyszko J et al (eds) How to protect or what we know about Carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, pp 287–299Google Scholar
  55. Koivula M (2006) Effects of forest roads on spatial distribution of boreal Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Coleopt Bull 59(4/2005):465–487Google Scholar
  56. Koivula M, Niemelä J (2002) Boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in managed spruce forests – a summary of Finnish case studies. Silva Fenn 36:423–436Google Scholar
  57. Koivula M, Niemelä J (2003) Gap felling as a forest harvesting method in boreal forests: responses of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecography 26:179–187Google Scholar
  58. Koivula MJ, Vermeulen HJW (2005) Highways and forest fragmentation – effects on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Landscape Ecol 20:911–926Google Scholar
  59. Koivula M, Haila Y, Niemelä J, Punttila P (1999) Leaf litter and the small-scale distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the boreal forest. Ecography 22:424–435Google Scholar
  60. Koivula M, Kukkonen J, Niemelä J (2002) Carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages in the boreal forest succession. Biodivers Conserv 11:1269–1288Google Scholar
  61. Koivula M, Hyyryläinen V, Soininen E (2004) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) at forest-farmland edges in southern Finland. J Insect Conserv 8:297–309Google Scholar
  62. Koivula M, Cobb T, Déchêne A, Jacobs J, Spence JR (2005) Sericoda Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera: Carabidae) responses to time since fire, fire severity, post-fire logging, and smoke and charcoal stimuli. In: Serrano J, Gomez-Zurita J, Ruiz C (eds) XII European carabidologists meeting, Murcia, September 19–22, 2005. Ground beetles as a key group for biodiversity conservation studies in Europe. University of Murcia & David Mayntz, Murcia, pp 153–159Google Scholar
  63. Kotze DJ, O’Hara RB (2003) Species decline – but why? Explanations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe. Oecologia 135:138–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Kotze DJ, Samways MJ (1999) Invertebrate conservation at the interface between the grassland matrix and natural Afromontane forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 8:1339–1363Google Scholar
  65. Kuusinen M (1994) Epiphytic lichen flora and diversity on Populus tremula in old-growth and managed forests of southern and middle boreal Finland. Ann Bot Fenn 31:245–260Google Scholar
  66. Kuusinen M (1996) Importance of spruce swamp-forests for epiphyte diversity and flora on Picea abies in southern and middle boreal Finland. Ecography 19:41–51Google Scholar
  67. Langor D, Spence J, Niemelä J, Carcamo H (1994) Insect biodiversity in the boreal forests of Alberta, Canada. In: Haila Y, Niemelä P, Kouki J (eds) Effects of management on the ecological diversity of boreal forests. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 482. Finnish Forest Research Institute, pp 25–31Google Scholar
  68. Laurance WF (2000) Do edge effects occur over large spatial scales? Trends Ecol Evol 15:134–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Law BS, Dickman CR (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 7:323–333Google Scholar
  70. Liebherr JK, Song HJ (2002) Distinct ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages within a New York State wetland complex. J N Y Entomol Soc 110:127–141Google Scholar
  71. Lindenmeyer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity. A comprehensive multiscaled approach. Washington DC, Island PressGoogle Scholar
  72. Linder P, Östlund L (1992) FÖrändringar i norra Sveriges skogar 1870–1991 (Changes in the boreal forests of Sweden 1870–1991). Svensk Bot Tidskrift 86:199–215Google Scholar
  73. Lindroth CH (1985) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomol Scand 15:1–225Google Scholar
  74. Lindroth CH (1986) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomol Scand 15:233–497Google Scholar
  75. Lindroth CH (1992) Ground beetles (Carabidae) of Fennoscandia. A zoogeographic study. Part I. Specific knowledge regarding the species. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution Libraries and the National Science Foundation. xxviii + 630 ppGoogle Scholar
  76. Loope WL (1991) Interrelationships of fire history, land use history, and landscape pattern within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan. Can Field-Nat 105:18–28Google Scholar
  77. Magura T, Kodobocz V, Tothmeresz B (2001) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. J Biogeogr 28:129–138Google Scholar
  78. Magura T, Tothmeresz B, Elek Z (2005) Impacts of leaf-litter addition on carabids in a coniferous plantation. Biodivers Conserv 14:475–491Google Scholar
  79. Martikainen P (2000) Effects of forest management on beetle diversity, with implications for species conservation and forest protection. PhD thesis, University of JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  80. Martikainen P (2001) Conservation of threatened saproxylic beetles: significance of retained aspen Populus tremula on clearcut areas. Ecol Bull 49:205–218Google Scholar
  81. Mascanzoni D, Wallin H (1986) The harmonic radar: a new method of tracing insects in the field. Ecol Entomol 11:387–390Google Scholar
  82. Matlack GR, Litvaitis JA (1999) Forest edges. In: Hunter ML Jr (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 210–233Google Scholar
  83. McCullough DG, Werner RA, Nuemann D (1998) Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest ecosystems of North America. Annu Rev Entomol 43:107–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Moore JD, Ouimet R, Houle D, Camire C (2004) Effects of two silvicultural practices on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a northern hardwood forest, Quebec, Canada. Can J For Res 34:959–968Google Scholar
  85. Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62Google Scholar
  86. Niemelä J (1993) Mystery of the missing species: species-abundance distribution of boreal ground beetles. Ann Zool Fenn 30:169–172Google Scholar
  87. Niemelä J (1997) Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv Biol 11:601–610Google Scholar
  88. Niemelä J (1999) Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest. For Ecol Manage 115:127–134Google Scholar
  89. Niemelä J (2001) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) indicating habitat fragmentation: a review. Eur J Entomol 98:127–132Google Scholar
  90. Niemelä J, Halme E (1992) Habitat associations of carabid beetles in fields and forests on the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Ecography 15:3–11Google Scholar
  91. Niemelä J, Spence J (1999) Dynamics of local expansion by an introduced species: Pterostichus melanarius Ill. (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Alberta, Canada. Divers Distrib 5:121–127Google Scholar
  92. Niemelä J, Haila Y, Halme E, Pajunen T, Punttila P, Tukia H (1987) Habitat preferences and conservation status of Agonum mannerheimii Dej. in Häme, southern Finland. Notulae Entomol 67:175–179Google Scholar
  93. Niemelä J, Haila Y, Halme E, Lahti T, Pajunen T, Punttila P (1988) The distribution of carabid beetles in fragments of old coniferous taiga and adjacent managed forest. Ann Zool Fenn 25:107–119Google Scholar
  94. Niemelä J, Haila Y, Halme E, Pajunen T, Punttila P (1992) Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. J Biogeogr 19:173–181Google Scholar
  95. Niemelä J, Spence JR, Langor DW, Haila Y, Tukia H (1993a) Logging and boreal ground beetle assemblages on two continents: implications for conservation. In: Gaston KJ, New TR, Samways MJ (eds) Perspectives in insect conservation. Intercept Publishers Ltd, Andover, Hampshire, pp 29–50Google Scholar
  96. Niemelä J, Langor DW, Spence JR (1993b) Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conserv Biol 7:551–561Google Scholar
  97. Niemelä J, Haila Y, Punttila P (1996) The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19:352–368Google Scholar
  98. Niwa CG, Peck RW (2002) Influence of prescribed fire on carabid beetle (Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages in forest litter in southwestern Oregon. Environ Entomol 31:785–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Økland B (1994) Mycetophilidae (Diptera), an insect group vulnerable to forestry practices? A comparison of clearcut, managed and semi-natural spruce forests in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 3:68–85Google Scholar
  100. Pajunen T, Haila Y, Halme E, Niemelä J, Punttila P (1995) Ground-dwelling spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) in fragments of old forest and surrounding managed forests in southern Finland. Ecography 18:62–72Google Scholar
  101. Parviainen J, Seppänen P (1994) Metsien ekologinen kestävyys ja metsänkasvatusvaihtoehdot. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 511. Finnish Forest Research Institute [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  102. Pearce JL, Venier LA, McKee J, Pedlar J, McKenney D (2003) Influence of habitat and microhabitat on carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in four stand types. Can Entomol 135:337–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Peck R, Niwa CG (2004) Longer-term effects of selective thinning on carabid beetles and spiders in the Cascade Mountains of southern Oregon. Northwest Sci 78:267–277Google Scholar
  104. Poole A, Gormally A, Skeffington MS (2003) The flora and carabid fauna of a mature and regenerating semi-natural oak woodland in south-east Ireland. For Ecol Manage 177:207–220Google Scholar
  105. Punttila P, Haila Y, Pajunen T, Tukia H (1991) Colonisation of clearcut forests by ants in the southern Finnish taiga: a quantitative survey. Oikos 61:250–262Google Scholar
  106. Punttila P, Haila Y, Niemelä J, Pajunen T (1994) Ant communities in fragments of old-growth taiga and managed surroundings. Ann Zool Fenn 31:131–144Google Scholar
  107. Rassi P, Alanen A, Hakalisto S, Hanski I, Lehikoinen E, Ohenoja E, Siitonen J, Suvantola L, Vitikainen O, Väisänen R, Kanerva T, Mannerkoski I (2000) Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Uhanalaisten lajien II seurantatyöryhmä. Finnish Ministry of Environment, 432 pp [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  108. Riecken U, Raths U (1996) Use of radio telemetry for studying dispersal and habitat use of Carabus coriaceus L. Ann Zool Fenn 33:109–116Google Scholar
  109. Saint-Germain M, Larrivée M, Drapeau P, Fahrig L, Buddle C (2005) Short-term response of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to fire and logging in a spruce-dominated boreal landscape. For Ecol Manage 212: 118–126.Google Scholar
  110. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32Google Scholar
  111. Savolainen J (ed) (1997) Metsälaki perusteluineen. Edita, Helsinki [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  112. Schneider RR (2002) Alternative futures. Alberta’s boreal forest at the crossroads. The Federation of Alberta Naturalists and the Alberta Centre for Boreal Research, Edmonton, 152 ppGoogle Scholar
  113. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–42Google Scholar
  114. Siitonen J, Martikainen P (1994) Occurrence of rare and threatened insects living on decaying Populus tremula: a comparison between Finnish and Russian Karelia. Scand J For Res 9:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Siitonen J, Saaristo L (2000) Habitat requirements and conservation of Pytho kolwensis, a beetle species of old-growth boreal forest. Biol Conserv 94:211–220Google Scholar
  116. Sippola A-L, Siitonen J, Punttila P (2002) Beetle diversity in timberline forests: a comparison between old-growth and regenerating areas in Finnish Lapland. Ann Zool Fenn 39:69–86Google Scholar
  117. 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 33:173–184Google Scholar
  118. Spence JR, Buddle CM, Gandhi KJK, Langor DW, Volney WJA, Hammond HEJ, Pohl GR (1999) Invertebrate biodiversity, forestry and emulation of natural disturbance: a down-to-earth perspective. In: Meurisse RT, Ypsilantis WG, Seybold C (eds) Proceedings: Pacific northwest forest and rangeland soil organism symposium 461, pp 80–90Google Scholar
  119. Stevens SM, Husband TP (1998) The influence of edge on small mammals: evidence from Brazilian Atlantic forest fragments. Biol Conserv 85:1–8Google Scholar
  120. Taboada A, Kotze DJ, Salgado JM (2004) Carabid beetle occurrence at the edges of oak and beech forests in NW Spain. Eur J Entomol 101:555–563Google Scholar
  121. Usher MB, Field JP, Bedford SE (1993) Biogeography and diversity of ground-dwelling arthropods in farm woodlands. Biodivers Lett 1:54–62Google Scholar
  122. Vance CC, Nol E (2003) Temporal effects of selection logging on ground beetle communities in northern hardwood forests of eastern Canada. EcoScience 10:49–56Google Scholar
  123. van Dijk TS (1996) The influence of environmental factors and food on life cycle, ageing and survival of some carabid beetles. Acta Jutland 71:11–24Google Scholar
  124. Vanha-Majamaa I, Jalonen J (2001) Green tree retention in Fennoscandian forestry. Scand J For Res 3(Suppl.):79–90Google Scholar
  125. Väisänen R (1995) Perhoset. In: Raivio S (ed) Talousmetsien luonnonsuojelu – yhteistutkimushankkeen väliraportti. Metsähallinnon luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja, Sarja A, 43, pp␣103–108 [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  126. Väisänen R, Biström O, Heliövaara K (1993) Sub-cortical Coleoptera in dead pines and spruces: is primeval species composition maintained in managed forests? Biodivers Conserv 2:95–113Google Scholar
  127. Västilä S, Herrala-Ylinen H (1999) Silviculture. In: Sevola Y (ed) Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry. Finnish Forest Research Institute, pp 101–148Google Scholar
  128. Wallin H (1986) Habitat choice of some field-inhabiting carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) studied by recapture of marked individuals. Ecol Entomol 11:457–466Google Scholar
  129. Werner SM, Raffa KF (2000) Effects of forest management practices on the diversity of ground-occurring beetles in mixed northern hardwood forests of the Great Lakes Region. For Ecol Manage 139:135–155Google Scholar
  130. Wikars L-O (1992) Skogsbränder och insekter. Entomol Tidskrift 113:1–11 [In Swedish with English summary]Google Scholar
  131. Wikars L-O (1995) Clear-cutting before burning prevent establishment of the fire-adapted Agonum quadripunctatum (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ann Zool Fenn 32:375–384Google Scholar
  132. Wikars L-O, Schimmel J (2001) Immediate effects of fire-severity on soil invertebrates in cut and uncut pine forests. For Ecol Manage 141:189–200Google Scholar
  133. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169Google Scholar
  134. Work TT, Shorthouse DP, Spence JR, Volney WJA, Langor D (2004) Stand composition and structure of the boreal mixedwood and epigaeic arthropods of the Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) landbase in northwest Alberta. Can J For Res 34:417–430Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations