Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 321–328 | Cite as

Microhabitat mosaics are key to the survival of an endangered ground beetle (Carabus nitens) in its post-industrial refugia

  • Martin VolfEmail author
  • Michal Holec
  • Diana Holcová
  • Pavel Jaroš
  • Radek Hejda
  • Lukáš Drag
  • Jaroslav Blízek
  • Pavel Šebek
  • Lukáš Čížek


Biota dependant on early seral stages or frequently disturbed habitats belong to the most rapidly declining components of European biodiversity. This is also the case for Carabus nitens, which is threatened across Western and Central Europe. We studied one of the last remaining populations of this ground beetle in the Czech Republic, which inhabits post-extraction peat bogs. In line with findings from previous studies, we show that C. nitens prefers patches characterized by higher light intensity and lower vegetation cover. Abundance of females was positively correlated with the cover of plant species requiring higher temperature. In addition, we demonstrate its preference for periodically moist, but not wet or inundated plots, suggesting that the transition between dry heathland and wet peat bog might be the optimal habitat for this species. This hypothesis is further supported by results showing a positive correlation between the abundance of C. nitens and vegetation cover comprising of a mix of species typical for heathland, peat bog, and boreal habitats. Our results show that C. nitens mobility is comparable to other large wingless carabids. The maximum covered distance was ~ 500 m in a month. To ensure the survival of this population, sites of recent peat extraction should be spared from reclamation and afforestation. In contrast, active measures should be taken to facilitate nutrient removal, disturbance of vegetation cover, and the creation of depressions with a humid microclimate. These actions will create a mosaic of heath, bog, and bare ground, which seems to be the preferred habitat of C. nitens at our study site.


Heathland Habitat preferences Peat bog Insect conservation 



The work was supported by Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic and Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Grant Number RVO: 60077344). We thank Jan Hubáček, Tereza Vachová, and Vojtěch Kolář for help with the sampling; Pavel Krásenský, Oldřich Odvárka, and Miloš Trýzna for sharing their experience with the beetle, Conor Redmond for language corrections; and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which helped to improve the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10841_2018_64_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (6.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 6904 KB)
10841_2018_64_MOESM2_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 28 KB)


  1. Arndt E (1989) Beitrage zur Insektenfauna der DDR: Gattung Carabus Linne (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Beitr Entomol 39:63–103Google Scholar
  2. Assmann T, Janssen J (1999) The effect of habitat changes on the endangered ground beetle Carabus nitens (Coleoptera: Carabidae. J Insect Conserv 3:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker JP, Berendse F (1999) Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Trends Ecol Evol 14:63–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bokdam J, Gleichman JM (2000) Effects of grazing by free-ranging cattle on vegetation dynamics in a continental north-west. Eur Heathland J Appl Ecol 37:415–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie: grundzüge der vegetationskunde. Zweite, umgearbeitete und vermehrte Auflage. Springer, WienCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clavier H (1977) Capture en France de Hemicarabus nitens et Eutelocarabus alysidotus. Entomologiste 33:143–154Google Scholar
  7. Craig CC (1953) On the utilization of marked specimens in estimating populations of flying insects. Biometrika 40:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Den Boer P (1970) On the significance of dispersal power for populations of carabid-beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 4:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggers B, Matern A, Drees C, Eggers J, Haerdtle W, Assmann T (2010) Value of semi-open corridors for simultaneously connecting open and wooded habitats: a case study with ground beetles. Conserv Biol 24:256–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Elek Z, Drag L, Pokluda P, Čízek L, Bérces S (2014) Dispersal of individuals of the flightless grassland ground beetle, Carabus hungaricus (Coleoptera: Carabidae), in three populations and what they tell us about mobility estimates based on mark-recapture European. J Entomol 111:663Google Scholar
  11. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulißen D (1992) Zeigerwerte von pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scr Geobot 18:1–258Google Scholar
  12. Eyre M, Luff M, Woodward J (2003) Grouse moor management: habitat and conservation implications for invertebrates in southern Scotland. J Insect Conserv 7:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Filippov BY (2007) Seasonal patterns of life cycle of ground beetle Carabus nitens (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in southern tundra. Biol Bull 34:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Filippov P et al (2008) Příručka hodnocení biotopů. NCA CR, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner SM (1991) Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) communities on upland heath and their association with heathland flora. J Biogeogr 8:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gersdorf E, Kuntze K (1957) Zur Faunistik der Carabiden Niedersachsens Ber Naturh Ges Hannover. Hannover 103:101–136Google Scholar
  17. Halada L, Evans D, Romão C, Petersen J-E (2011) Which habitats of European importance depend on agricultural practices? Biodivers Conserv 20:2365–2378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hůrka K (1996) Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak republics. Kabourek, ZlínGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeannel R (1941) Faune de France, 39. Coléoptères Carabiques. Première partie Lechevalier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Koivula M (2002) Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). For Ecol Manag 167:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kotze DJ et al (2011) Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe—from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment conservation. ZooKeys 100:55–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luff ML (1998) Provisional atlas of the ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Britain. Biological Records Centre, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
  23. Mathyl E (1990) Measures for the protection of the heath carabid (Carabus nitens) (Coleoptera, Carabidae. Entomol Nachrichten Berichte 34:73–76Google Scholar
  24. Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic (2012) Plán péče o přírodní rezervaci Novodomské a Polské rašeliniště na období 2012–2014 (Management plan for natural reserve Novodomské a Polské rašeliniště for 2012–2014). Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, Ústí nad LabemGoogle Scholar
  25. Negro M, Casale A, Migliore L, Palestrini C, Rolando A (2008) Habitat use and movement patterns in the endangered ground beetle species, Carabus olympiae (Coleoptera: Carabidae. Eur J Entomol 105:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nenadál S (1987) Die Biotopenbindung der Laufkäfer (Carabidae) an irgend unterschiedenen Sukzessionsstufen der Torfgrunde und Torfmoore im Landschaftschutzgebiet Žďárské vrchy Vlastivědný sborník. Vysočiny 8:193–202Google Scholar
  27. Niedl J (1959) Monographie der in der Tschechoslowakei vorkommenden Arten des Tribus Carabini, V. Přírodovědecký sborník Ostravského kraje. Oprava 20:411–437Google Scholar
  28. Niemeyer T, Niemeyer M, Mohamed A, Fottner S, Härdtle W (2005) Impact of prescribed burning on the nutrient balance of heathlands with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus. Appl Veg Sci 8:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pokluda P, Hauck D, Cizek L (2012) Importance of marginal habitats for grassland diversity: fallows and overgrown tall grass steppe as key habitats of endangered ground-beetle Carabus hungaricus. Insect Conserv Divers 5:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pokorný J (2006) Příspěvek k poznání druhu Hemicarabus nitens Linné 1758. Folia Entomol Decinensis 6:17–19Google Scholar
  31. Prach K et al (2015) Výsypky. In: Řehounek J, Řehounková K, Prach K (eds) Ekologická obnova území narušených těžbou nerostných surovin a průmyslovými deponiemi. Calla, České Budějovice, pp 17–43Google Scholar
  32. Procházka F (2001) Černý a červený seznam cévnatých rostlin České republiky (stav v roce 2000). Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  33. Pyšek P (1992) Dominant species exchange during succession in reclaimed habitats: a case study from areas deforested by air pollution. For Ecol Manag 54:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Růžičková J, Veselý M (2016) Using radio telemetry to track ground beetles: movement of Carabus ullrichii. Biologia 71:924–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaffers AP, Sýkora KV (2000) Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurements. J Veg Sci 11:225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz CJ, Arnason AN (1996) A general methodology for the analysis of capture-recapture experiments in open populations. Biometrics 52:860–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Šebek O, Šebek P (2011) Craig estimator: free program for population size estimation from mark-recapture data. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
  40. Slamova I, Klecka J, Konvicka M (2013) Woodland and grassland mosaic from a butterfly perspective: habitat use by Erebia aethiops (Lepidoptera: Satyridae). Insect Conserv Divers 6:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spitzer K, Danks HV (2006) Insect biodiversity of boreal peat bogs. Annu Rev Entomol 51:137–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Svobodová J, Bejček V, Málková P, Štastný K (2011) Low survival rate of black grouse (tetraotetrix) in maturating forest growths in the Krušnéhory mts. Sylvia 47:77–89Google Scholar
  43. Telfer MG, Eversham BC (1996) Ecology and conservation of heathland Carabidae in eastern England. Ann Zool Fenn 33:133–138Google Scholar
  44. ter Braak C, Smilauer P (2012) Canoco 5, Windows release (5.00) Software for mutivariate data exploration, testing, and summarization Biometris. Plant Research International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  45. Traill LW, Bradshaw CJ, Brook BW (2007) Minimum viable population size: a meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates. Biol Conserv 139:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tropek R et al (2010) Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants. J Appl Ecol 47:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tropek R, Cerna I, Straka J, Cizek O, Konvicka M (2013) Is coal combustion the last chance for vanishing insects of inland drift sand dunes in Europe? Biol Conserv 162:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turin H (2000) De Nederlandse Loopkevers. Verspreiding en Oecologie. KNNV Uitgeverij, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Vanbergen AJ et al (2017) Dispersal capacity shapes responses of river island invertebrate assemblages to vegetation structure, island area, and flooding Insect. Conserv Divers 10:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Veselý P et al (2009) Zajímavé nálezy střevlíkovitých brouků (Coleoptera, Carabidae) z České republiky v letech 2002–2006 a doplněk údajů o sběrech z předcházejícího období Interesting findings of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) from the Czech Republic in the years 2002–2006 with supplementary earlier data. Klapalekiana 45:83–116Google Scholar
  51. Webb N (1998) The traditional management of European heathlands. J Appl Ecol 35:987–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre CASČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Molecular Interaction Ecology GroupGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of EnvironmentJan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad LabemÚstí nad LabemCzech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Mining and GeologyVŠB - Technical University of OstravaOstrava-PorubaCzech Republic
  5. 5.Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech RepublicPragueCzech Republic
  6. 6.České BudějoviceCzech Republic
  7. 7.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations