Skip to main content
Log in

Assignment and evaluation of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages to sites on different scales in a grassland landscape

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carabid beetles and environmental parameters were investigated in 52 grassland sites with three replicate pitfall traps in each site and in the valley of the River Eider in Schleswig–Holstein (northern Germany) with 61 pitfall traps. Environmental parameters included water content of soil, sand content, organic matter content and pH. Ground beetle assemblages were derived by detrended correspondence analyses (DCA) and characterised by the specific environmental conditions as means for each assemblage. On the regional scale including all investigated sites of Schleswig–Holstein, five assemblages were differentiated. On the local scale including the investigated sites in the valley of the River Eider, three assemblages were found corresponding well with those found on the regional scale. Environmental conditions at the sites of the five assemblages were correlated with land use data, soil types, and water level stages provided by three maps of a geographic information system (GIS). The GIS maps were combined to develop smaller areas with land use, soil type and water level stage information. The characteristic environmental conditions were assigned to each area to derive the spatial distribution of the five ground beetle assemblages. Spatial prediction was correct for 65% of investigated sites. The potential area of each assemblage was estimated for the valley. The different grassland areas were evaluated as potential habitats for ground beetle species comparing total species richness with the regional species richness of each assemblage. The comparison shows that species richness in the evaluated assemblages is relatively low compared to the regional potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Computer Sciences Corporation 1990. Geo.Eas. Geostatistical Environmental Software, v. 1.2.1. US Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist P.J., Kohley T.W. and Oakleaf J. 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert system tool. Landscape Ecology 15: 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis P., Young M.R., Howard C.L. and Gordon I.J. 1997. The response of epigeal beetles (Col.: Carabidae, Staphylinidae) to varied grazing regimes on upland Nardus stricta grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 433–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Duelli P. 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 62: 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P. and Obrist M.K. 1998. In search of the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 297–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P., Obrist M.K. and Schmatz D.R. 1999. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 33–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufrene M. and Legendre P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. and Jonsen I. 1998. Effect of habitat patch characteristics on abundance and diversity of insects in an agricultural landscape. Ecosystems 1: 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag S., van Jaarsveld A.S. and Biggs H.C. 1997. Ranking priority biodiversity areas: an iterative conservation value-based approach. Biological Conservation 82: 263–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • French B.W. and Elliott N.C. 1999. Temporal and spatial distribution of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in grasslands and adjacent wheat fields. Pedobiologia 43: 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haila Y. and Kouki J. 1994. The phenomenon of biodiversity in conservation biology. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydemann B. 1955. Carabiden der Kulturfelder als ökologische Indikatoren. Bericht 7. Wanderversammlung Deutscher Entomologen 1954: 172–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulshoff R.M. 1995. Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Landscape Ecology 10: 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irmler U. 1999. Environmental characteristics of ground beetle assemblages in northern German forests as basis for an expert system. Zeitschrift Ökologie und Naturschutz 8: 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irmler U., Schrautzer J., Grabo J., Hanssen U., Hingst R. and Pichinot V. 1998. Der Einfluß von Nutzung und Bodenparametern auf die Biozönosen des Feuchtgrünlandes. Zeitschrift Őkologie und Naturschutz 7: 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongman R.H.G., ter Braak C.J.F. and van Tongeren O.F.R. 1987. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M. 1992. Species abundance patterns and the structure of ground-beetle communities. Annales Zoologici Fennici 28: 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystems functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91: 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luff M.L. 1996. Use of carabids as environmental indicators in grasslands and cereals. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 185–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luff M.L., Eyre M.D. and Rushton S.P. 1989. Classification and ordination of habitats of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in northeast England. Journal of Biogeography 16: 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J.N., Brooks R.P. and Croonquist M.J. 1997. Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities. Landscape Ecology 12: 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Motzfeld G. 1989. Laufkäfer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) als pedobiologische Indikatoren. Pedobiologia 33: 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson R., King G.A. and Koerper G. 1992. Toward a rule-based biome model. Landscape Ecology 7: 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J. 2000. Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making. Annales Zoologici Fennici 37: 307–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Niemelä J., Haila Y. and Punttlia 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 

  • Niemelä J., Kotze J., Ashworth A., Brandmyr P., Desender K. and New T. 2000. The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. Journal of Insect Conservation 4: 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plachter H. 1992. Grundzuge der naturschutzfachlichen Bewertung.Veröffentlichungen Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Baden-Württemberg 67: 9–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkonen O. 1938. Statistisch-ökologische Untersuchungen über die terrestrische Käferwelt der finnischen Bruchmoore. Annales Zoologici Societatis Zooligicae Botanicae Fennici 6: 1–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton S.P., Luff M.L. and Eyre M.D. 1991. Habitat characteristics of grassland Pterostichus species (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecological Entomology 16: 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer F. 1992. Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde. Enke, Stuttgart, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrautzer J., Jensen K., Holsten B., Irmler U., Kieckbusch J. and Leiner U. 2002. The Eidertal pasture landscape – Mire restoration and species conservation in a river valley of Schleswig-Holstein (northwest Germany). In: Redecker B., Finck P., Härdtle W., Riecken U. and Schröder E. (eds), Pasture Landscapes and Nature Conservation. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrautzer J. and Trepel M. 1997. Wechselwirkungen zwischen bodenphysikalischen Parametern, Grundwasserdynamik und der Vegetationszusammensetzung in unterschiedlich stark genutzten Niedermoor-Ökosystemen. Feddes Repertorium 108: 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz W. and Finch O.D. 1997. Ein Tierarten-Klassifizierungsverfahren als Basis für biotoptypen-bezogene ökofaunistische Zustandsanalysen und Bewertungen. Zeitschrift Ökologie und Naturschutz 6: 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • StatSoft 1996. Statistica for Windows (Handbook). StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter W. 1998. Involving conservation biology in biodiversity strategy and action planning. Biological Conservation 83: 235–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak C.J.F. and Smilauer P. 1998. Canoco for Windows Version 4.0. Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele H. 1977. Carabid beetles in their environments. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turin H. 2000. De Nederlandse Loopkevers. Verspreiding en Oecologie (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis: KNNV Uitgeverij, European Invertebrate Survey, Leiden, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turin H., Alders K., den Boers D.J., van Essen S., Heijerman T. and Laane W. 1991. Ecological characterization of carabid species (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in The Netherlands from thirty years of pitfall sampling. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 134: 279–304.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Irmler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Irmler, U., Hoernes, U. Assignment and evaluation of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages to sites on different scales in a grassland landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1405–1419 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023681827758

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023681827758

Navigation