Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1011–1020 | Cite as

Arthropods and novel bird habitats: do clear-cuts in spruce plantations provide similar food resources for insectivorous birds compared with farmland habitats?

  • Franck A. HollanderEmail author
  • Nicolas Titeux
  • Thomas Walsdorff
  • Alice Martinage
  • Hans Van Dyck


Arthropods, and insects in particular, constitute important food resources for several higher trophic levels like birds. Their abundance and diversity is likely to differ between habitat types depending on the local conditions and resources. This may have important consequences for arthropod consumers that occupy structurally different habitat types. Most bird-focused studies address, however, habitats at the structural, vegetation-based level and disregard the presence of sufficient quantities and qualities of arthropod prey items. Here, we compare the quantity and quality of ground-dwelling and above-ground arthropods as food resources for early-successional birds between two structurally different human-modified habitat types sharing similar bird assemblages: low-intensity farmland areas and plantation forest clear-cut areas in the south of Belgium. Forest clear-cut patches constitute a novel habitat for so-called ‘farmland’ birds. Our results show that arthropod abundance is substantially higher in farmland than in forest clear-cuts, although arthropods are slightly larger in clear-cuts. Higher arthropod abundance is associated with higher ground-level temperature in farmland. Although both habitat types host the same spectrum of arthropod species, forest and farmland management practices induce different conditions for food quantity and, to some extent, food quality for insectivorous birds. We discuss the mechanisms behind the observed pattern of arthropod abundance and the fitness-related consequences of contrasting food availability in farmland and forest clear-cut habitats for early-successional bird species.


Agriculture Early-succession birds Habitat Insects Food Forest harvesting Resource-based approach 



We are grateful to Hubert Baltus and Chris Pels for their helpful assistance for field and lab work. We also thank landowners for access facilities to private properties and the Service Public de Wallonie (DNF/DGARNE) for access to public sites. Franck A. Hollander was funded by the Belgian National Fund of Scientific Research (FRIA PhD-grant). Nicolas Titeux was financially supported by the National Research Fund of Luxembourg (C12/SR/3985735 COLLURIO project). This is publication number BRC 353 of the Biodiversity Research Centre (UCL).


  1. Bennie J, Huntley B, Wiltshire A, Hill MO, Baxter R (2008) Slope, aspect and climate: spatially explicit and implicit models of topographic microclimate in chalk grassland. Ecol Model 216:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brawn JD, Robinson SK, Thompson FR III (2001) The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brickle NWK, Peach WJ (2004) The breeding ecology of Reed buntings Emberiza schoeniclus in farmland and wetland habitats in lowland England. Ibis 146(S2):69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britschgi A, Spaar R, Arlettaz R (2006) Impact of grassland farming intensification on the breeding ecology of an indicator insectivorous passerine, the Whinchat Saxicola rubetra: lessons for overall Alpine meadowland management. Biol Conserv 130:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardador L, De Cáceres M, Bota G, Giralt D, Casas F, Arroyo B, Mougeot F, Cantero-Martinez C, Moncunill J, Butler SJ, Brotons L (2014) A resource-based modelling framework to assess habitat suitability for steppe birds in semiarid Mediterranean agricultural systems. PLoS ONE 9:e92790PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen M, Emborg J (1996) Biodiversity in natural versus managed forest in Denmark. For Ecol Manag 85:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cizek O, Zamecnik J, Tropek R, Kocarek P, Konvicka M (2012) Diversification of mowing regime increases arthropods diversity in species-poor cultural hay meadows. J Insect Conserv 16:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis RLH, Dapporto L, Dover J (2014) Ten years of the resource-based habitat paradigm: the biotope-habitat issue and implications for conserving butterfly diversity. J Insect Biodivers 2:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. du Bus de Warnaffe GD, Deconchat M (2008) Impact of four silvicultural systems on birds in the Belgian Ardenne: implication for biodiversity in plantation forests. Biodivers Conserv 17:1041–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. du Bus de Warnaffe GD, Lebrun P (2004) Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 118:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller RJ (2012) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greig-Smith PW, Quicke DLJ (1983) The diet of nestling stonechats. Bird Study 30:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallmann CA, Foppen RPB, van Turnhout CAM, de Kroon H, Jongejans E (2014) Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Halme E, Niemelä J (1993) Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous fragments. Ann Zool Fenn 30:17–30Google Scholar
  18. Hart JD, Milsom TP, Fisher G, Wilkins V, Moreby SJ, Murray AWA, Robertson PA (2006) The relationship between yellowhammer breeding performance, arthropod abundance and insecticide applications on arable farmland. J Appl Ecol 43:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heithecker TD, Halpern CB (2006) Variation in microclimate associated with dispersed-retention harvests in coniferous forests of western Washington. For Ecol Manag 226:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollander FA, Van Dyck H, San Martin G, Titeux N (2011) Maladaptive habitat selection of a migratory passerine bird in a human-modified landscape. PLoS ONE 6:e25703PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollander FA, Titeux N, Van Dyck H (2013) Habitat-dependent prey availability and offspring provisioning explain an ecological trap in a migratory bird. Funct Ecol 27:702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson MD (2007) Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor 109:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kristan WB (2003) The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source-sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos 103:457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawrence JM, Samways MJ, Kelly JA, Henwood J (2013) Beyond vegetation-based habitat restoration for a threatened giant Spirostreptid millipede. J Insect Conserv 17:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lecomte H, Florkin P, Morimont JP, Thirion M (2003) La forêt wallonne, état de la ressource à la fin du 20ème siècle. In: Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Division de la Nature et des Forêts, JambesGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindenmayer DB, McCarthy MA (2002) Congruence between natural and human forest disturbance: a case study from Australian montane ash forests. For Ecol Manag 155:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Losey JE, Vanghan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Elek Z (2005) Impacts of leaf-litter addition on carabids in a conifer plantation. Biodivers Conserv 14:475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin TE (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:453–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matveinen-Huju K, Koivula M (2008) Effects of alternative harvesting methods on boreal forest spider assemblages. Can J For Res 38:782–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCracken DI, Tallowin JR (2004) Swards and structure: the interactions between farming practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis 146(S2):108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Melbourne BA (1999) Bias in the effect of habitat structure on pitfall traps: an experimental evaluation. Aust J Ecol 24:228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nittérus K, Gunnarsson B (2006) Effect of microhabitat complexity on the local distribution of arthropods in clear-cuts. Environ Entomol 35:1324–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paquet JY, Vandevyvre X, Delahaye L, Rondeux J (2006) Bird assemblages in a mixed woodland–farmland landscape: the conservation value of silviculture-dependant open areas in plantation forest. For Ecol Manag 227:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paz Acuña M, Estades CF (2011) Plantation clearcut size and the persistence of early-successional wildlife populations. Biol Conserv 144:1577–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petit CC, Lambin EF (2002) Long-term land-cover changes in the Belgian Ardennes (1775–1929): model-based reconstruction vs. historical maps. Glob Change Biol 8:616–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robertson BA, Rehage JS, Sih A (2013) Ecological novelty and the emergence of evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 28:552–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwagmeyer PL, Mock DW (2008) Parental provisioning and offspring fitness: size matters. Anim Behav 75:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Snow DW, Perrins CM (1998) The birds of the western palearctic. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Söderström B, Karlsson H (2011) Increased reproductive performance of Red-backed Shrikes Lanius collurio in forest clearcuts. J Ornithol 152:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Speight MR, Hunter MD, Watt AD (2008) Ecology of insects: concepts and applications. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, p 628Google Scholar
  42. Suggitt AJ, Gillingham PK, Hill JK, Huntley B, Kunin WE, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat microclimates drive fine-scale variation in extreme temperatures. Oikos 120:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2002) Effects of timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera: community, guild, and species responses. Ecol Appl 12:820–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swanson ME, Franklin JF, Beschta RL, Crisafulli CM, DellaSala DA, Hutto RL, Lindemayer DB, Swanson FJ (2011) The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Front Ecol Environ 9:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Wilgenburg SL, Mazerolle DF, Hobson KA (2001) Patterns of arthropod abundance, vegetation, and microclimate at boreal forest edge and interior in two landscapes: implications for forest birds. EcoScience 8:454–461Google Scholar
  46. Vanreusel W, Van Dyck H (2007) When functional habitat does not match vegetation types: a resource-based approach to map butterfly habitat. Biol Conserv 135:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vickery JA, Tallowin JR, Feber RE, Asteraki EJ, Atkinson PW, Fuller RJ, Brown VK (2001) The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. J Appl Ecol 38:647–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ward DF, New TR, Yen AL (2001) Effects of pitfall trap spacing on the abundance, richness and composition of invertebrate catches. J Insect Conserv 5:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weisser WW, Siemann E (2004) Insects and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin, p 413CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franck A. Hollander
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicolas Titeux
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thomas Walsdorff
    • 1
  • Alice Martinage
    • 1
  • Hans Van Dyck
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Ecology and Conservation Group, Biodiversity Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute (ELI)Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL)Louvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN)Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)Esch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  3. 3.InForest Joint Research Unit (CSIC-CTFC-CREAF)Forest Sciences Centre of Catalonia (CTFC)SolsonaSpain

Personalised recommendations