Habitat preferences of oak-feeding xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: implications for forest history and management

Original Paper

Abstract

Oaks host the richest fauna of saproxylic insect in Europe. We studied habitat preferences of two beetle families, Buprestidae and Cerambycidae, by rearing the beetles from standardised oak timber baits. Species density was higher in the understorey than in the canopy; and in sun-exposed baits if within the understorey. Insolation was the most important factor affecting the composition of reared assemblages (explaining ca. 30% of variation in the data), followed by vertical stratum (ca. 10%). Local dead wood volume had no effect. The high preference for sun-exposed wood located near the ground suggests that: (i) open-canopy woodlands had to be rather common in temperate Europe; (ii) oak-utilising xylophages would benefit from restoration of management practices such as coppicing or woodland pasture; (iii) the policy of increasing dead wood volume in commercial forests is principally correct, but its success will depend on dead wood location within the forests.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Forest management Oak Saproxylic Xylophages 

References

  1. Attiwill PM (1994) The disturbance of forest ecosystems—the ecological basis for conservative management. For Ecol Manag 63:247–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker ES, Olff H, Vandenberghe C et al (2004) Ecological anachronisms in the recruitment of temperate light-demanding tree species in wooded pastures. J Appl Ecol 41:571–582. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00908.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baselga A (2008) Determinants of species richness, endemism and turnover in European longhorn beetles. Ecography 31:263–271. doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5335.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benes J, Cizek O, Dovala J et al (2006) Intensive game keeping, coppicing and butterflies: the story of Milovicky Wood, Czech Republic. For Ecol Manag 237:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg Å, Ehnström B, Gustavsson L et al (1994) Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat association. Conserv Biol 8:718–731. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030718.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bily S (2002) Summary of the bionomy of the Buprestid beetles of Central Europe (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Acta Entomol Mus Nat Pragae Suppl 10, 104 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Binner V, Bussler H (2006) Erfassung und Bewertung von Alpenbock-Vorkommen. Nat Landsch 38(12):378–382Google Scholar
  8. Bonsignore CP, Bellamy C (2007) Daily activity and flight behaviour of adults of Capnodis tenebrionis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Eur J Entomol 104(3):425–431Google Scholar
  9. Bouget C (2005) Short-term effect of windstorm disturbance on saproxylic beetles in broadleaved temperate forests. Part I: do environmental changes induce a gap effect? For Ecol Manag 216:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouget C, Duelli P (2004) The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biol Conserv 118:281–299. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bridle JR, Vines TH (2007) Limits to evolution at range margins: when and why does adaptation fail? Trends Ecol Evol 22:140–147. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buse J, Schroder B, Assmann T (2007) Modelling habitat and spatial distribution of an endangered longhorn beetle—a case study for saproxylic insect conservation. Biol Conserv 137:372–381. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.02.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandler DS (1991) Comparison of some slime mold and fungus feeding beetles (Coleoptera, Eucinetoidea, Cucujoidea) in an old-growth and 40-year-old forest in New Hampshire. Coleopt Bull 45:239–256Google Scholar
  14. Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford EP et al (2005) Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For Ecol Manag 210:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colwell RK (2006) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8. http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates
  16. Colwell RK, Mao CX, Chang J (2004) Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717–2727. doi:10.1890/03-0557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farkac J, Kral D, Skorpik M (2005) List of threatened species in the Czech Republic. Invertebrates. AOPK CR, PragueGoogle Scholar
  18. Franc N, Götmark F, Økland B et al (2007) Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol Conserv 135:86–98. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freese A, Benes J, Bolz R et al (2006) Habitat use of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas maturna and forestry in Central Europe. Anim Conserv 9:388–397. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00045.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller RJ, Henderson ACB (1992) Distribution of breeding songbirds in Bradefield Woods, Suffolk, in relation to vegetation and coppice management. Bird Study 39:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibb H, Pettersson RB, Hjältén J et al (2006) Conservation-oriented forestry and early successional saproxylic beetles: responses of functional groups to manipulated dead wood substrates. Biol Conserv 129:437–450. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grgic T, Kos I (2005) Influence of forest development phase on centipede diversity in managed beech forests in Slovenia. Biodivers Conserv 14:1841–1862. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-1040-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanks LM, Paine TD, Millar JG, Campbell CD, Schuch UK (1999) Water relations of host tree and resistance to the phloem-boring beetle Phoracantha semipunctata F. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Oecologia 119:400–407. doi:10.1007/s004420050801 Google Scholar
  24. Hjältén J, Johansson T, Alinvi O et al (2007) The importance of substrate type, shading and scorching for the attractiveness of dead wood to saproxylic beetles. Basic Appl Ecol 8:364–376. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2006.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodge SJ, Peterken GF (1998) Deadwood in British forests: priorities and a strategy. Forestry 71:99–112. doi:10.1093/forestry/71.2.99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jedicke E (1997) Die Roten Listen: gefährdete Pflanzen, Tiere, Pflanzengesellschaften und Biotope in Bund und Ländern. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson EA, Miyanishi K (2007) Disturbance and succession. In: Johnson EA, Miyanishi K (eds) Plant disturbance ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  28. Jonasova M, van Hees A, Prach K (2005) Rehabilitation of monotonous exotic coniferous plantations: a case study of spontaneous establishment of different tree species. Ecol Eng 28:141–148. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonsell M, Nordlander G (2002) Insects in polypore fungi as indicator species: a comparison between forest sites differing in amounts and continuity of dead wood. For Ecol Manag 157:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonsell M, Weslien J (2003) Felled or standing retained wood—it makes a difference for saproxylic beetles. For Ecol Manag 175:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonsell M, Weslien J, Ehnström B (1998) Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers Conserv 7:749–764. doi:10.1023/A:1008888319031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonsson BG, Kruys N, Ranius T (2005) Ecology of species living on dead wood—lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn 39:289–309Google Scholar
  33. Jukes MR, Ferris R, Peace AJ (2002) The influence of stand structure and composition on diversity of canopy Coleoptera in coniferous plantations in Britain. For Ecol Manag 163:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaila L, Martikainen P, Punttila P (1997) Dead trees left in clear-cuts benefit saproxylic Coleoptera adapted to natural disturbances in boreal forest. Biodivers Conserv 6:1–18. doi:10.1023/A:1018399401248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kappes H, Topp W (2004) Emergence of Coleoptera from deadwood in a managed broadleaved forest in central Europe. Biodivers Conserv 13:1905–1924. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000035873.56001.7d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kirby KJ (2004) A model of a natural wooded landscape in Britain as influenced by large herbivore activity. Forestry 7:405–420. doi:10.1093/forestry/77.5.405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Komonen A (2007) Are we conserving peripheral populations? An analysis of range structure of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Finland. J Insect Conserv 11:281–285. doi:10.1007/s10841-006-9043-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leps J, Smilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindbladh M, Niklasson M, Nilsson SG (2003) Long-time record of fire and open canopy in a high biodiversity forest in southeast Sweden. Biol Conserv 114:231–243. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00043-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindhe A, Lindelöw Å (2004) Cut high stumps of spruce, birch, aspen and oak as breeding substrates for saproxylic beetles. For Ecol Manag 203:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindhe A, Lindelöw Å, Åsenblad N (2005) Saproxylic beetles in standing dead wood density in relation to substrate sun-exposure and diameter. Biodivers Conserv 14:3033–3053. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-0314-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magura T (2002) Carabids and forest edge: spatial pattern and edge effect. For Ecol Manag 157:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P et al (2000) Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 94:199–209. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00175-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moretti M, Barbalat S (2004) The effects of wildfires on wood-eating beetles in deciduous forests on the southern slope of the Swiss Alps. For Ecol Manag 187:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moretti M, Obrist MK, Duelli P (2004) Arthropod biodiversity after forest fires: winners and losers in the winter fire regime of the southern Alps. Ecography 27:173–186. doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03660.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Økland B, Bakke A, Hĺgvar S (1996) What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 5:75–100. doi:10.1007/BF00056293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ozanne CMP, Hambler C, Foggo A (1997) The significance of edge effects in the management of forests for invertebrate biodiversity. In: Stork NE, Adis J, Didham RK (eds) Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 534–550Google Scholar
  48. Parker GG (1995) Structure and microclimate of forest canopies. In: Lowman MD, Nadkarni NM (eds) Forest canopies. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 431–455Google Scholar
  49. Peterken G (2001) Forest grazing interaction: practical lesson for nature reserves in Britain. Report from the conference: the role of large herbivores in north-west European vegetation. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterken GF, Francis JL (1999) Open spaces as habitats for vascular ground flora species in the woods of central Lincolnshire, UK. Biol Conserv 91:55–72. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00040-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rackham O (1998) Savanna in Europe. In: Kirby KJ, Watkins C (eds) The ecological history of European forests. CABI, Wallingford, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  52. Ranius T (2002) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103:85–91. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00124-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ranius T, Jansson N (2000) The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biol Conserv 95:85–94. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00007-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ranius T, Nilsson SG (1997) Habitat of Osmoderma eremita Scop. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), a beetle living in hollow trees. J Insect Conserv 1:193–204. doi:10.1023/A:1018416000766
  55. Rozkosny R, Vanhara J (1995–1996) Terrestrial Invertebrates of the Pálava Biosphere Reserve of UNESCO, I–III. Folia Fac Sci Nat Univ Masaryk. Brun., Biol. 92:1–208, 93:209–408, 94:409–630Google Scholar
  56. Schiegg K (2000) Are there saproxylic beetle species characteristic of high dead wood connectivity? Ecography 23:579–587. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.230509.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schroeder LM, Ranius T, Ekbom B et al (2006) Recruitment of saproxylic beetles in high stumps created for maintaining biodiversity in a boreal forest landscape. Can J Res 36:2168–2178. doi:10.1139/X06-119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Selonen VAO, Ahlroth P, Kotiaho JS (2005) Anthropogenic disturbance and diversity of species: polypores and polypore-associated beetles in forest, forest edge and clear-cut. Scand J For Res 20:49–58. doi:10.1080/14004080510041002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Pullin AS (1996) Marginality: scale determined processes and the conservation of the British butterfly fauna. Biodivers Conserv 5:1131–1141. doi:10.1007/BF00051568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siitonen J (1994) Decaying wood and saproxylic Coleoptera in two old spruce forests: a comparison based on two sampling methods. Ann Zool Fenn 31:89–95Google Scholar
  61. Similä M, Kouki J, Martikainen P et al (2002) Conservation of beetles in boreal pine forests: the effects of forest age and naturalness on species assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:19–27. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00225-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sláma MEF (1998) Tesaříkovití – Cerambycidae České Republiky a Slovenské Republiky. PrahaGoogle Scholar
  63. Spitzer L, Konvicka M, Benes J et al (2008) Does closure of traditionally managed open woodlands threaten epigeic invertebrates? Effects of coppicing and high deer densities. Biol Conserv 141:827–837. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strandberg B, Kristiansen SM, Tybirk K (2005) Dynamic oak-scrub to forest succession: effects of management on understory vegetation, humus forms and soils. For Ecol Manag 211:318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Ims RA (2002) The effect of forest clearcutting in Norway on the community of saproxylic beetles on aspen. Biol Conserv 106:347–357. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00261-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO, version 4.5. Centre for Biometry. WageningenGoogle Scholar
  67. Ueda M, Shibata E (2007) Host selection of small cedar longicorn beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae), on Japanese cedar, Cryptomeria japonica, in terms of bark water content of host trees. J For Res 12:320–324. doi:10.1007/s10310-007-0022-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ulyshen MD, Hanula JL (2007) A Comparison of the Beetle (Coleoptera) Fauna captured at two heights above the ground in a North America Temperature Deciduous Forest. Am Midl Nat 158:260–278. doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2007)158[260:ACOTBC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Utinek D (2004) Conversions of coppices to a coppice-with-standards in Urban Forests of Moravský Krumlov. J Sci 50:38–46Google Scholar
  70. Vera FWM (2000) Grazing ecology and forest history. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  71. Vrska T, Adam D, Hort L et al (2006) Developmental dynamics of virgin forest reserves in the Czech Republic II—the lowland floodplain forests (Cahnov-Soutok, Ranspurk, Jirina) Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  72. Warren MS (1991) The successful conservation of an endangered species, the Heath fritillary butterfly Mellicta athalia in Britain. Biol Conserv 55:37–56Google Scholar
  73. Warren MS, Key RS (1991) Woodland: past, present and potential for insect. In: Collins MN, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitats. Academic Press, London, pp 155–210Google Scholar
  74. Wermelinger B, Flueckiger PF, Obrist MK et al (2007) Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Col., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytinae) across sections of forest edges. J Appl Entomol 131:104–114Google Scholar
  75. Wikars LO, Sahlin E, Ranius T (2005) A comparison of three methods to estimate species richness of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in logs and high stumps of Norway spruce. Can Entomol 137:304–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zanchi G, Thiel D, Green T et al (2007) Forest area change and afforestation in Europe: critical analysis of available data and the relevance for international environmental policies. European Forest Institute technical report No. 24. http://www.efi.int/attachments/publications/tr_24.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of South BohemiaCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Conservation, Institute of EntomologyCzech Academy of SciencesCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations