Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 9, Issue 9, pp 1297–1311

Diversity of surface dwelling beetle assemblages in open-cast lignite mines in Central Germany

  • Martin Brändle
  • Walter Durka
  • Michael Altmoos
Article

Abstract

We investigated species richness of ground dwelling beetle assemblages in two non-reclaimed lignite mines and a dump in Central Germany by means of pitfall trapping. During a period of five months, a total of 203 beetle species within 27 families represented by 4099 individuals were trapped. This included 75 species of ground beetles represented in a sample of 957 individuals from which 10 species are regionally endangered. The number of individuals, species richness, as well as the proportions of endangered species did not differ between successional stages whereas species composition of sites could be related well to a set of environmental variables. High values of beta-diversity between sites indicated that the total number of species recorded is caused by habitat diversity. From the viewpoint of nature conservation, we conclude that postmining areas can play a key role in conservation of beetle diversity in agricultural areas since they harbour threatened species whose original habitats are now rare due to human impact. An important task for future management of postmining areas is to maintain successional processes and to prevent loss of habitat diversity through afforestation. Areas with extreme soil conditions should also be preserved for long-term availability of bare soil and pioneer vegetation and associated fauna.

beetles conservation diversity open-cast lignite mining restoration succession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmoos M and Durka W(1998) Prozeßschutz in Bergbaufolgelandschaften. Eine Naturschutzstrategie am Beispiel des Südraums Leipzig. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 30: 291–297Google Scholar
  2. Arndt E and Richter K (1995) Rote Liste Laufkäfer im Freistaat Sachsen – Stand 1995. Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie, DresdenGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkner A (1998) Naturraum und ausgewählte Geofaktoren im Mitteldeutschen Förderraum – Ausgangszustand, bergbaubedingte Veränderrungen, Zielvorstellungen. In: Pflug W (ed) Braunkohlentagebau und Rekultivierung, pp 767–779. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw AD (1989) Wasteland management and restoration in Western Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 775–786Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw AD and Chadwick MJ (1980) The Restoration of Land. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford Bruns D (1988) Restoration and management of ecosystems for nature conservation in West Germany. In: Crains JJ (ed) Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, pp 163–186. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for Ecologists. Blackwell Scientific, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Crisp PN, Dickinson KJM and Gibbs GW (1998) Does native invertebrate diversity reflect native plant diversity? A case study from New Zealand and implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 83: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Vries HH, den Boer PJ, van Dijk TS (1996) Ground beetle species in heathland fragments in relation to survival, dispersal, and habitat preference. Oecologia 107: 332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Den Boer PJ, Van Huizen THP, Den Boer-Daanje W, Aukema B and Den Bieman CFM (1980) Wing polymorphisms and dimorphism in ground beetles as stages in an evolutionary process (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Entomologia Generalis 6: 107–134Google Scholar
  10. Denno RF, Roderick GK, Olmstead KL and Döbel HG (1991) Density-related migration in planthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae): The role of habitat persistence. American Naturalist 138: 1513–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desender K and Bosmans R (1998) Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) on set-aside fields in the Campine region and their importance for nature conservation in Flanders (Belgium). Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1485–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunger W (1989) The return of soil fauna to coal mined areas in the German Democratic Republic. In: Majer J (ed) Animals in Primary Succession. The Role of Fauna in Reclaimed Land, pp 307–337. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Durka W, Altmoos M and Henle K (1997)Naturschutz in Bergbaufolgelandschaften des Südraumes Leipzig unter besonderer Berücksichtigung spontaner Sukzession. UFZ-Bericht 22, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  14. Francis B, Green M and Payne C (eds) (1994) The GLIM System. Release 4 Manual. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Freude H, Harde KW and Lohse GA (1965–1983) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Band 1–11. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  16. Freude H, Harde KW and Lohse GA (1976) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Band 2. Adephaga 1. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  17. Geißler-Strobel S, Gras J and Herbst F (1997) Bergbaufolgelandschaft und Naturschutz in den östlichen Bundesländern – Defizite und Lösungsansätze, dargestellt am Beispiel der Tagebauregion Goitzsche bei Bitterfeld. Natur und Landschaft 72: 235–238Google Scholar
  18. Greenslade PJM (1964) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae. Journal of Animal Ecology 33: 301–310Google Scholar
  19. Halsall NB, Wratten SD (1988) The efficiency of pitfall trapping for polyphagous predatory Carabidae. Ecologcial Entomology 13: 293–299Google Scholar
  20. Hejkal J (1985) The development of a carabid fauna (Coleoptera, Carabidae) on spoil banks under conditions of primary succession. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 82: 321–346Google Scholar
  21. Hildmann E and Wünsche M (1996) Lignite mining and its after-effects on the Central German landscape. Water Air and Soil Pollution 91: 79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kendle T (1995) Reclaiming derelict land for nature conservation. Brachflächenrecycling 2/1995: 27–32Google Scholar
  23. Kielhorn K-H, Keplin B and Hüttl RF (1998) Entwicklung von Artenzusammensetzungen und Aktivitätsdichte in Carabidenzoenosen forstlich rekultivierter Tagebauflächen. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 28: 301–306Google Scholar
  24. Koch K (1989) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie. Band 1. Goecke & Evers, KrefeldGoogle Scholar
  25. Köhler F and Klausnitzer B (eds) (1998) Verzeichnis der Käfer Deutschlands. Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte, Beiheft 4: 1–185Google Scholar
  26. Lindroth CH (1986) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 15 Vols. 1, 2. E.J. Brill/Scandinavian Science Press Ltd, Leiden/CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. Lövei GL and Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behaviour of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41: 231–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mader H-J (1986) The succession of carabid species in a lignite mining area and the influence of afforestation. In:Den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D and Weber F (eds) Carabid Beetles: Their Adaptations and Dynamics, pp 497–508. Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  29. Maelfait JP and Desender K (1990) Possibilities of short-term carabid sampling for site assessment studies. In: Stork NE (ed) The role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies, pp 217–225. Andover, InterceptGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer F and Große WR (1997) Sukzession oder Habitatmanagement? Aspekte des Artenschutzes bei der Rekultivierung ostdeutscher Braunkohlentagebaue – dargestellt am Beispiel der Amphibien. Natur und Landschaft 72: 227–234Google Scholar
  31. Neumann U (1971) Die Sukzession der Bodenfauna (Carabidae [Coleoptera], Diplopoda und Isopoda) in den forstlich rekultivierten Gebieten des Rheinischen Braunkohlereviers. Pedobiologia 11: 193–226Google Scholar
  32. Oliver I and Beattie AJ (1996) Designing a cost-effective invertebrate survey: a test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecological Applications 6: 594–607Google Scholar
  33. Petit S and Usher MB (1998) Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: the ground beetle communities of woody uncultivated habitats. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1549–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pflug WE (1998) Braunkohlentagebau und Rekultivierung. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Podani J (1994) Multivariate Data Analysis in Ecology and Systematics: A Methodological Guide to the SYN-TAX 5.0 Package. Ecological Computations Series (ECS): Vol. 6. SPB Academic Publishing, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollard E (1968) Hedges, IV. A comparison between the Carabidae of a hedge and field site and those of a woodland glade. Journal of Applied Ecology 5: 649–657Google Scholar
  37. Southwood TRE (1977) Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology 46: 337–365Google Scholar
  38. Stein W(1965) Die Zusammensetzung der Carabidenfauna einer Wiese mit stark wechselnden Feuchtigkeitsverhältnissen. Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere 55: 83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thiele HU (1977) Carabid Beetles in Their Environments. A Study of Habitat Selection by Adaptations in Physiology and Behaviour. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. Tietze F and Eppert F (1993) Zur Habitatnutzung von Carabiden-Gemeinschaften in verschiedenaltrigen Rekultivierungsbiotopen des Halle-Bitterfelder-Braunkohlereviers (Coleoptera – Carabidae). Mitteilungen Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeine und Angewandte Entomologie 8: 537–543Google Scholar
  41. Ter Braak CJF and Smilauer P (1998) CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4). Microcomputer Power. Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Trautner J and Müller-Motzfeld G (1995) Faunistisch-ökologischer Berarbeitungsstand, Gefährdung und Checkliste der Laufkäfer. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 27: 96–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Brändle
    • 1
  • Walter Durka
    • 1
  • Michael Altmoos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Community EcologyUFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle Ltd.Halle/SaaleGermany
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Department of Conservation Biology and Natural ResourcesLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations