Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 7, pp 1269–1288 | Cite as

Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clear-cut originated succession gradient

  • Matti Koivula
  • Jarno Kukkonen
  • Jari Niemelä
Article

Abstract

We examined the occurrence of carabid beetles along a forest successiongradient in central Finland (forest age classes: 5, 10, 20, 30 and 60years since clear-cutting). Species richness of carabids was higherin the two youngest age classes, while no clear differences were detected incarabid abundance. The high species richness in the young, open sites was due toinvasion of open-habitat species. Many forest species were absent from or scarcein the young sites and became gradually more abundant towards the older forestage classes. The catches indicated a drastic decrease and assemblage-levelchange in concert with canopy closure, i.e. 20–30 years afterclear-cutting. Some forest specialists with poor dispersal ability may facelocal extinction, if the proportion of mature forest decreases further and theremaining mature stands become more isolated. We recommend that, whileharvesting timber, connectivity between mature stands is ensured, mature standsare maintained close (a few tens of metres) to each other and the matrix qualityis improved for forest species by green tree retention.

Carabidae Diversity Forest management Logging Species–environment relationship Succession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abildsnes J. and Tømmerås B.Å. 2000. Impacts of experimental habitat fragmentation on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a boreal spruce forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37: 201-212.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Begon M., Harper J.L. and Townsend C.R. 1996. Ecology-Individuals, Populations and Communities. 3rd edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Berbiers P., Maelfait J.-P. and Mertens J. 1989. Evaluation of some sampling methods used to study Collembola (Insecta, Apterygota) in a pasture. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol 26: 305-320.Google Scholar
  5. Berg Å., Ehnström B., Gustaffsson L., Hallingbäck 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.Google Scholar
  6. Butterfield J. 1997. Carabid community succession during the forestry cycle in conifer plantations. Ecography 20: 614-625.Google Scholar
  7. Cajander A.K. 1949. Forest types and their significance. Acta Forestalia Fennica 56: 1-71.Google Scholar
  8. Connell J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Science199: 1302-1310.Google Scholar
  9. Darlington P.J. Jr 1943. Carabidae of mountains and islands: data on the evolution of isolated faunas, and on atrophy of wings. Ecological Monographs 13: 37-61.Google Scholar
  10. Davies K.E. and Margules C.R. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 460-471.Google Scholar
  11. den Boer P.J. 1990. Density limits and survival of local populations in 64 carabid species with different powers of dispersal. Journal of Evolutionary Ecology 3: 19-48.Google Scholar
  12. Desender K. and Maelfait P.-J. 1986. Pitfall trapping within enclosures: a method for estimating the relationship between the abundances of coexisting carabid species (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Holarctic Ecology 9: 245-250.Google Scholar
  13. Desender K., Ervynck A. and Tack G. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belgian Journal of Zoology 129: 139-155.Google Scholar
  14. deVries H.H. and den Boer P.J. 1990. Survival of populations of Agonum ericeti Panz. (Col., Carabidae) in relation to fragmentation of habitats. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 40: 484-498.Google Scholar
  15. de Vries H.H., den Boer P.J. and van Dijk T.S. 1996. Ground beetle species in heathland fragments in relation to survival, dispersal, and habitat preference. Oecologia 107: 332-342.Google Scholar
  16. Digweed S.C., Currie C.R., Cárcamo H.A. and Spence J.R. 1995. Digging out the digging-in effect of pitfall traps: influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera Carabidae). Pedobiologia 39: 561-576.Google Scholar
  17. Dunning J.B., Danielson J.B. and Pulliam H.R. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169-175.Google Scholar
  18. Enoksson B., Angelstam P. and Larsson K. 1995. Deciduous forest and resident birds: the problem of fragmentation within a coniferous forest landscape. Landscape Ecology 10: 267-275.Google Scholar
  19. Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericson L. and Sjöberg K. 1992. Boreal forests-the focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In: Hansson L. (ed.), Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation. Elsevier, London, pp. 252-325.Google Scholar
  20. Esseen P.-A., Ehnström B., Ericson L. and Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletin 46: 16-47.Google Scholar
  21. Fahrig L. and Merriam G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8: 50-59.Google Scholar
  22. Finegan B. 1984. Forest succession. Nature 312: 109-114.Google Scholar
  23. Fries C., Johansson O., Pettersson B. and Simonsson P. 1997. Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 94: 89-103.Google Scholar
  24. Gyldén C.W. 1853. Handledning för skogshushållare i Finland. Med tabeller, en planch och en skogskarta. H.C. Friis, Helsinki (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  25. Haila Y. 1994. Preserving ecological diversity in boreal forests. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 203-217.Google Scholar
  26. Haila Y., Hanski I.K. and Raivio S. 1987. Breeding bird distribution on fragmented coniferous taiga, southern Finland. Ornis Fennica 64: 90-106.Google Scholar
  27. Haila Y., Hanski I.K., Niemelä I.K., Punttila P., Raivio S. and Tukia H. 1994. Forestry and the boreal fauna: matching management with natural forest dynamics. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 187-202.Google Scholar
  28. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  29. Hanski I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37: 271-280.Google Scholar
  30. Hansson L. 1992. Landscape ecology of boreal forests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 299-302.Google Scholar
  31. Heliölä J., Koivula M. and Niemelä J. 2001. Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across boreal forest-clearcut ecotone. Conservation Biology 15: 370-377.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hengeveld R. 1980. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of the food of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae): a review. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30: 555-563.Google Scholar
  34. Honek A. 1988. The effect of crop density and microclimate on pitfall trap catches of Carabidae, Staphylinidae (Coleoptera), and Lycosidae (Araneae) in cereal fields. Pedobiologia 32: 233-242.Google Scholar
  35. Horwood J.A. and Butt K.R. 2000. Changes within oribatid mite communities associated with Scots pine regeneration. Web Ecology 1: 76-81.Google Scholar
  36. Ings T.C. and Hartley S.E. 1999. The effect of habitat structure on carabid communities during the regeneration of a native Scottish forest. Forest Ecology and Management 119: 123-136.Google Scholar
  37. Järvinen O., Kuusela K. and Väisänen R.A. 1977. Metsien rakenteen muutoksen vaikutus pesimälinnustoomme viimeisten 30 vuoden aikana. Silva Fennica 11 (in Finnish with English summary): 284-294.Google Scholar
  38. Jennings D.T., Houseweart M.W. and Dunn G.A. 1986. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) associated with strip clearcut and dense spruce-fir forests of Maine (USA). Coleopterists Bulletin 40: 251-263.Google Scholar
  39. Jongman R.H.G., ter Braak C.J.F. and van Tongeren O.F.R. (eds) 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  40. Kinnunen H. 1999. In search of spatial scale-carabid beetle communities in agricultural landscapes, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  41. Koivula M. 2002a. Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Forest Ecology and Management (in press).Google Scholar
  42. Koivula M. 2002b. Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages in thinned uneven-aged and clear-cut spruce stands. Annales Zoologici Fennici (in press).Google Scholar
  43. Koivula M., Punttila P., Haila Y. and Niemelä J. 1999. Leaf litter and the small-scale distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the boreal forest. Ecography 22: 424-435.Google Scholar
  44. Langor D., Spence J., Niemelä J. and Carcamo H. 1994. Insect biodiversity in the boreal forests of Alberta, Canada. In: Haila Y., Niemelä P. and Kouki J. (eds), Effects of Management on the Ecological Diversity of Boreal Forests. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja Vol. 482. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp. 25-31.Google Scholar
  45. Lenski R.E. 1982. The impact of forest cutting on the diversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the southern Appalachians. Ecological Entomology 7: 385-390.Google Scholar
  46. Lindroth C.H. 1985. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark,Vol 15, Part 1. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Brill, Leiden, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  47. Lindroth C.H. 1986. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark,Vol 15, Part 2. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Brill, Leiden, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  48. Lövei G.L. and Sunderland K.D. 1996. Ecology and behaviour of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41: 231-256.Google Scholar
  49. Mader H.J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation 29: 81-96.Google Scholar
  50. Magura T., Tóthmérész B. and Bordán Z. 2000. Effects of nature management practice on carabid assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a non-native plantation. Biological Conservation 93: 95-102.Google Scholar
  51. Magura T., Tóthmérész B. and Molnár T. 2001. Forest edge and diversity: carabids along forest-grassland transects. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 287-300.Google Scholar
  52. Magurran A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  53. Martikainen P. 2000. Effects of forest management on beetle diversity, with implications for species conservation and forest protection, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
  54. Mascanzoni D. and Wallin H. 1986. The harmonic radar: a new method of tracing insects in the field. Ecological Entomology 11: 387-390.Google Scholar
  55. Murcia C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 58-62.Google Scholar
  56. Niemelä J. 1993. Mystery of the missing species: species-abundance distribution of boreal ground beetles. Annales Zoologici Fennici 30: 169-172.Google Scholar
  57. Niemelä J. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conservation Biology 11: 601-610.Google Scholar
  58. Niemelä J. 1999. Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 127-134.Google Scholar
  59. Niemelä J. 2001. The utility of movement corridors in forested landscapes. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Suppl. 3: 70-78.Google Scholar
  60. Niemelä J. 2002. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) indicating habitat fragmentation: a review. European Journal of Entomology (in press).Google Scholar
  61. Niemelä J. and Halme E. 1992. Habitat associations of carabid beetles in fields and forests on the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Ecography 15: 3-11.Google Scholar
  62. Niemelä J., Haila Y. and Ranta E. 1986. Spatial heterogeneity of carabid beetle dispersion in uniform forests on the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 23: 289-296.Google Scholar
  63. Niemelä J., Haila Y., Pajunen T., Punttila P. and Tukia H. 1987. Habitat preferences and conservation status of Agonum mannerheimii Dej in Häme, southern Finland. Notulae Entomologicae 67: 175-179.Google Scholar
  64. Niemelä J., Haila Y., Halme E., Lahti T., Pajunen T. and Punttila P. 1988. The distribution of carabid beetles in fragments of old coniferous taiga and adjacent managed forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici 25: 107-119.Google Scholar
  65. Niemelä J., Haila Y., Halme E., Pajunen T. and Punttila P. 1992a. Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. Journal of Biogeography 19: 173-181.Google Scholar
  66. Niemelä J., Spence J.R. and Spence D.H. 1992b. Habitat associations and seasonal activity of groundbeetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Central Alberta. Canadian Entomologist 124: 521-540.Google Scholar
  67. Niemelä J., Langor D.W. and Spence J.R. 1993a. Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conservation Biology 7: 551-561.Google Scholar
  68. Niemelä J., Spence J.R., Langor D.W., Haila Y. and Tukia H. 1993b. Logging and boreal ground beetle assemblages on two continents: implications for conservation. In: Gaston K.J., New T.R. and Samways M.J. (eds), Perspectives in Insect Conservation. Intercept Publishers Ltd, Andover, Hampshire, UK, pp. 29-50.Google Scholar
  69. Niemelä J., Haila Y. and Punttila P. 1996. The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19: 352-368.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Paquin P. and Coderre D. 1997. Changes in soil macroarthropod communities in relation to forest maturation through three successional stages in the Canadian boreal forest. Oecologia 112: 104-111.Google Scholar
  72. Pulliam H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. American Naturalist 132: 652-661.Google Scholar
  73. Ranta E. and Ås S. 1982. Non-random colonization of habitat islands by carabid beetles. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19: 175-181.Google Scholar
  74. Rassi P., Alanen A., Hakalisto S., Hanski I., Lehikoinen E., Ohenoja E. et al. 2000. Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Uhanalaisten lajien II seurantatyöryhmä. Finnish Ministry of Environment (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  75. Riecken U. and Raths U. 1996. Use of radio telemetry for studying dispersal and habitat use of Carabus coriaceus L. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 109-116.Google Scholar
  76. Sevola Y. 1999. Forest resources. In: Sevola Y. (ed.), Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp. 31-73.Google Scholar
  77. Siemann E., Tilman D., Haarstad J. and Ritchie M. 1998. Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity. American Naturalist 152: 738-750.Google Scholar
  78. Siitonen J. and Saaristo L. 2000. Habitat requirements and conservation of Pytho kolwensis, a beetle species of old-growth boreal forest. Biological Conservation 94: 211-220.Google Scholar
  79. Spence J.R., Langor D.W., Niemelä J., Cárcamo H.A. and Currie C.R. 1996. Northern forestry and carabids: the case for concern about old-growth species. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 173-184.Google Scholar
  80. Szyszko J. 1990. Planning of Prophylaxis in Threatened Pine Forest Biocenoses Based on an Analysis of the Fauna of Epigeic Carabidae. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  81. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K. and Merriam G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571-573.Google Scholar
  82. ter Braak C.J.F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167-1179.Google Scholar
  83. ter Braak C.J.F. and Šmilauer P. 1998a. CANOCO for Windows Version 4.0. Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  84. ter Braak C.J.F. and Šmilauer P. 1998b. CANOCO Reference Manual and User' Guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  85. Thiele H.-U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  86. Västilä S. and Herrala-Ylinen H. 1999. Silviculture. In: Sevola Y. (ed.), Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp. 101-148.Google Scholar
  87. Virkkala R., Korhonen K.T., Haapanen R. and Aapala K. 2000. Metsien ja soiden suojelutilanne metsä-ja suokasvillisuusvyöhykkeittäin valtakunnan metsien 8. inventoinnin perusteella (in Finnish with English summary). Finnish Environment Institute and Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  88. Zar J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matti Koivula
    • 1
  • Jarno Kukkonen
    • 1
  • Jari Niemelä
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Population BiologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations