Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 387–401 | Cite as

Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban-rural gradients: an international comparison

  • Jari Niemelä
  • D. Johan Kotze
  • Stephen Venn
  • Lyubomir Penev
  • Ivailo Stoyanov
  • John Spence
  • Dustin Hartley
  • Enrique Montes de Oca


We studied communities of carabid beetles in residual forest patchesalong urban-suburban-rural gradients in three cities (Helsinki, Finland; Sofia,Bulgaria and Edmonton, Canada) to examine their responses to urbanisation. OnlyFinnish carabids showed a marked division of community structure along thegradient. In Bulgaria and Canada, carabids did not separate into distincturban,suburban and rural communities. Our results provide some support for thepredictions that species richness will decrease, that opportunistic specieswillgain dominance, and that small-sized species will become more numerous underdisturbance such as that provided by urbanisation. The rather weak and variedresponse of carabids to this disturbance suggests that local factors and theirinteraction are of primary importance for community composition. Occurrence ofreasonably similar carabid communities across the gradient at each of the threelevels of urbanisation suggests that habitat changes commonly associated withurbanisation have not affected the ecological integrity of carabid assemblagesin residual urban forest patches.

Bulgaria Canada Carabidae Finland Urban-rural gradients Urbanisation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahti T., Hämet-Ahti L. and Jalas J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169-211.Google Scholar
  2. Baev P.V. and Penev L.D. 1995. BIODIV: Program for calculating biological diversity parameters, similarity, niche overlap, and cluster analysis. Pensoft, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  3. Berg A., Ehnstrom B., Gustaffsson L., Hallingback T., Jonsell M. and Weslien J. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology 8: 718-731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake S., Foster G.N., Eyre M.D. and Luff M.L. 1994. Effects of habitat type and grassland management practices on the body size distribution of carabid beetles. Pedobiologia 38: 502-512.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke K.R. and Warwick R.M. 1994. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Bowne Press Limited, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Colwell R.K. and Coddington J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 345: 101-118.Google Scholar
  7. Connell J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302-1310.Google Scholar
  8. Davis B.N.K. 1978a. The ground arthropods of London gardens. The London Naturalist 58: 15-24.Google Scholar
  9. Davis B.N.K. 1978b. Urbanisation and the diversity of insects. In: Mound L.A. and Waloff N. (eds), Diversity of Insect Faunas. Blackwell, London, pp. 126-138.Google Scholar
  10. Desender K. 1996. Diversity and dynamics of coastal dune carabids. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 65-76.Google Scholar
  11. Desender K., Dufrêne M., Loreau M., Luff M.L. and Maelfait J.-P. 1994. Carabid Beetles: Ecology and Evolution. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Desender K., Maelfait J.-P. and Baert L. 1991. Carabid beetles as ecological indicators in dune management. Elytron: 239-247.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas I. 1992. The case for urban ecology. Urban Nature Magazine 1: 15-17.Google Scholar
  14. Dufrêne M. and Legendre P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345-366.Google Scholar
  15. Eversham B.C., Roy D.B. and Telfer M.G. 1996. Urban, industrial and other manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for Carabidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 149-156.Google Scholar
  16. Frankie G.W. and Ehler L.E. 1978. Ecology of insects in urban environments. Annual Review of Entomology 23: 367-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freude H., Harde K.W. and Lohse G.A. 1976. Die Kaefer Mitteleuropas (Bd. 2: Adephaga 1: Fam. Carabidae). Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Giller P.S. 1996. The diversity of soil communities, the ‘poor man’s tropical rainforest’. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 135-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray J.S. 1987. Species-abundance patterns. In: Gee J.H.R. and Giller P.S. (eds), Organization of communities, past and present. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, pp. 53-67.Google Scholar
  20. Gray’s J.S. 1989. Effects of environmental stress on species rich assemblages. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 37: 19-32.Google Scholar
  21. Halme E. and Niemelä J. 1993. Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 17-30.Google Scholar
  22. Heliövaara K. and Väisänen R. 1984. Effects of modern forestry on northwestern European forest invertebrates: a synthesis. Acta Forestalia Fennica 189: 1-32.Google Scholar
  23. Hurka K. 1996. Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, Zlin, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  24. Lindroth C.H. 1961. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica: 1-200.Google Scholar
  25. Lindroth C.H. 1963. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica: 201-408.Google Scholar
  26. Lindroth C.H. 1966. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica: 409-648.Google Scholar
  27. Lindroth C.H. 1968. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica: 649-944.Google Scholar
  28. Lindroth C.H. 1969. The ground beetles of Canada and Alaska 1-6. Opuscula Entomologica: 945-1192.Google Scholar
  29. Lindroth C.H. 1985. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 15, part 1. Scandinavian Science Press Ltd., Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  30. Lindroth C.H. 1986. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 15, part 2. Scandinavian Science Press Ltd., Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  31. Lövei G.L. and Sunderland K.D. 1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41: 231-256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Luff M. 1996. Use of carabids as environmental indicators in grasslands and cereals. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 185-195.Google Scholar
  33. Magura T., Tothmeresz B. and Molnar T. 2000. Spatial distribution of carabids along grass-forest transects. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46: 1-17.Google Scholar
  34. McDonnell M.J. and Pickett S.T.A. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71: 1232-1237.Google Scholar
  35. McDonnell M.J., Pickett S.T.A., Groffman P., Bohlen P., Pouyat R.V., Zipperer W.C. et al. 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1: 21-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDonnell M.J., Pickett S.T.A. and Pouyat R.V. 1993. The application of the ecological gradient paradigm to the study of urban effects. In: McDonnell M.J. and Pickett S.T.A. (eds), Humans as Components of Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 175-189.Google Scholar
  37. Naeem S., Thompson L.J., Lawler S.P., Lawton J.H. and Woodfin R.M. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368: 734-736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niemelä J. 1996. From systematics to conservation-carabidologists do it all. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 1-4.Google Scholar
  39. Niemelä J. 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 119-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niemelä J. 2000. Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosystems 3: 57-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niemelä J., Kotze J., Ashworth A., Brandmayr P., Desender K., New T. et al. 2000. The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. Journal of Insect Conservation 4: 3-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niemelä J. and Spence J.R. 1991. Distribution and abundance of an exotic ground-beetle (Carabidae): a test of community impact. Oikos 62: 351-359.Google Scholar
  43. Niemelä J., Spence J.R., Langor D., Haila Y. and Tukia H. 1994. Logging and boreal ground-beetle assemblages on two continents: implications for conservation. In: Gaston K., Samways M. and New T. (eds), Perspectives in insect conservation. Intercept Publications, Andover, UK, pp. 29-50.Google Scholar
  44. Pouyat R.V., McDonnell M.J. and Pickett S.T.A. 1997. Litter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in oak stands along an urban-rural land use gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1: 117-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Probst J.R. and Crow T.R. 1991. Integrating biological diversity and resource management. Journal of Forestry 89: 12-17.Google Scholar
  46. Putman R.J. 1996. Community Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  47. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. 3rd edn. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Spence J.R. and Spence D.H. 1988. Of ground beetles and men: introduced species and the synanthropic fauna of western Canada. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 144: 151-168.Google Scholar
  49. Stork N. 1990. The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies. Intercept, Andover, UK.Google Scholar
  50. Tonteri T. and Haila Y. 1990. Plants in a boreal city: ecological characteristics of vegetation in Helsinki and its surroundings, southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 27: 337-352.Google Scholar
  51. Vandruff L.W., Leedy D.L. and Stearns F.W. 1995. Urban wildlife and human well-being. In: Sukopp H., Numata M. and Huber A. (eds), Urban Ecology as the Basis for Urban Planning. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 203-211.Google Scholar
  52. Wootton J.T. 1998. Effects of disturbance on species diversity: a multitrophic perspective. The American Naturalist 152: 803-825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jari Niemelä
    • 1
  • D. Johan Kotze
    • 1
  • Stephen Venn
    • 1
  • Lyubomir Penev
    • 2
  • Ivailo Stoyanov
    • 2
  • John Spence
    • 3
  • Dustin Hartley
    • 3
  • Enrique Montes de Oca
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Population BiologyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Central Laboratory for General EcologySofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations