Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 91–97 | Cite as

Forest edge and carabid diversity in a Carpathian beech forest

  • I. MáthéEmail author
Article

Abstract

Diversity relationships of carabids in forest edges and the neighbouring forest interior and the surrounding grassland were studied. Samples were taken along three replicated forest-grassland transects using pitfall traps in the Vârghiº-valley (Harghita County, Romania). The study revealed significant edge effect on the carabids. Both the number of species and the Shannon diversity of carabids were significantly higher in the forest edge than in the grassland and in the forest interior. The forest was also significantly more species rich and more diverse by Shannon diversity than the grassland. Carabids of the forest interior, forest edge and grassland can be separated from each other by ordination based on abundances, suggesting that all three habitats have a distinct species assemblage. Indicator species analysis detected significant edge associated species. Our results show that the high diversity of carabids in forest edges is due both to the edge-associated species and the presence of species characteristic of the adjacent habitats.

Keywords

Edge effect Indicator species IndVal Nature conservation Rényi Diversity Source habitat 

Abbreviation

NMDS

Non-metric multidimensional scaling

Nomenclature follows

Hůrka (1996) for carabids 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, A. 1997. Densities of overwintering carabids and staphylinids (Col., Carabidae and Staphylinidae) in cereal and grass fields and their boundaries. J. Appl. Ent. 121:77–80.Google Scholar
  2. Asteraki, E.J., C.B. Hanks and R.O. Clements 1995. The influence of different types of grassland field margin on carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 54:195–202.Google Scholar
  3. Baars, M.A. 1979. Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44:125–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Batáry, P. and Báldi, A. 2004. Evidence of an edge effect on avian net success. Conservation Biology 18:389–400.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, N., Z. Kenyeres and T. Kisbenedek 2004. A comparison of cluster analysis and diversity-ordering in community classification. Community Ecology 5:189–196.Google Scholar
  6. Bedford, S.E. and M.B. Usher 1994. Distribution of arthropod species across the margins of farm woodlands. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 48:295–305.Google Scholar
  7. Bryan, K.M. and S.D. Wratten 1984. The responses of polyphagous predators to spatial heterogeneity: aggregation by carabid and staphylinid beetles to their cereal aphid prey. Ecol. Entomol. 9:251–259.Google Scholar
  8. Butovsky, R.O. 1994. Carabids in roadside ecosystems: perspectives of bioindication. In: K. Desender et al. (eds), Carabid Beetles: Ecology and Evolution. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 241–246.Google Scholar
  9. Digby, P.G.N. and R.A. Kempton 1987. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Communities. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  10. Digweed, S.C., C.R. Currie, H.A. Cárcamo and J.R. Spence 1995. Digging out the digging–in effect of pitfall traps: influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pedobiol. 39:561–576.Google Scholar
  11. Dufrêne, M. and P. Legendre 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67:345–366.Google Scholar
  12. Elek, Z., T. Magura and B. Tóthmérész 2001. Impacts of non-native Norway spruce plantation on abundance and species richness of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Web Ecology 2:32–37.Google Scholar
  13. Freude, H., K.W. Harde and G.A. Lohse 1976. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Goecke and Evers Verlag, Krefeld.Google Scholar
  14. Grüm, L. 1971. Spatial differentiation of the Carabus L. (Carabidae, Coleoptera) mobility. Ekologia Polska 19:1–34.Google Scholar
  15. Holland, M.M., P.G. Risser, and R.J. Naiman 1991. Ecotones. The Role of Landscape Boundaries in the Management and Restoration of Changing Environments. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  16. Horváth, R., T. Magura, G. Péter and K. Bayar 2000. Edge effect on weevil and spider communities at the Bükk National Park in Hungary. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46:275–290.Google Scholar
  17. Horváth, R., T. Magura, G. Péter and B. Tóthmérész 2002. Edge effect on weevils and spiders. Web Ecology 3:43–47.Google Scholar
  18. Hůrka, K. 1996. Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, Zlin, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  19. Koivula, M., V. Hyyryläinen and E. Soininen 2004. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) at forest-farmland edges in southern Finland. Journal of Insect Conservation 8:297–309.Google Scholar
  20. Lövei, G. L. 2005. Generalised entropy indices have a long history in ecology - a comment. Community Ecology 6:245–247.Google Scholar
  21. Lövei, G. and K.D. Sunderland 1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ann. Rev. Entomol. 41:231–256.Google Scholar
  22. Lövei, G. L., T. Magura, B. Tóthmérész and V. Ködöböcz. 2006. The influence of matrix and edges on species richness patterns of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in habitat islands. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 283–289.Google Scholar
  23. Magura, T. 1995. Wanderungsverhalten und Ortstreue der Arten Abax ater und Abax ovalis (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica 56:89–99.Google Scholar
  24. Magura, T. and B. Tóthmérész 1997. Testing edge effect on carabid assemblages in an oak-hornbeam forest. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 43:303–312.Google Scholar
  25. Magura, T. and B. Tóthmérész 1998. Edge effect on carabids in an oak-hornbeam forest at the Aggtelek National Park (Hungary). Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 33:379–387.Google Scholar
  26. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Zs. Bordán 2000a. Effects of nature management practice on carabid assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a non-native plantation. Biol. Conserv. 93:95–102.Google Scholar
  27. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Z. Elek 2003. Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:73–85.Google Scholar
  28. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Z. Elek 2004. Effects of leaf-litter addition on carabid beetles in a non-native Norway spruce plantation. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 50:9–23.Google Scholar
  29. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and T. Molnár 2000b. Spatial distribution of carabid species along grass-forest transects. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 46:1–17.Google Scholar
  30. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and T. Molnár 2001a. Edge effect on carabids along forest-grass transects. Web Ecology 2:7–13.Google Scholar
  31. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and T. Molnár 2001b. Forest edge and diversity: carabids along forest-grassland transects. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:287–300.Google Scholar
  32. Molnár, T., T. Magura, B. Tóthmérész and Z. Elek 2001. Ground beetles (Carabidae) and edge effect in oak-hornbeam forest - grassland transects. European Journal of Soil Biology 37:297–300.Google Scholar
  33. Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:58–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Niemelä, J. 1988. Carabid beetles in shore habitats on the Åland islands, SW Finland: the effect of habitat availability and species characteristics. Acta Oecol. 9:379–395.Google Scholar
  35. Ricotta, C. 2005. On parametric diversity indices in ecology: A historical note. Community Ecology 6:241–244.Google Scholar
  36. Samways, M. J. 2005. Insect Diversity Conservation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  37. Spence, J.R. and J. Niemelä 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Can. Ent. 126:881–894.Google Scholar
  38. Spence, J.R., D.W. Langor, J. Niemelä, H.A. Cárcamo and C.R. Currie 1996. Northern forestry and carabids: the case for concern about old–growth species. Ann. Zool. Fennici 33:173–184.Google Scholar
  39. Taboada, A., D.J. Kotze and J.M. Salgado 2004. Carabid beetle occurrence at the edges of oak and beech forests in NW Spain. Eu. J. Entomol. 101:555–563.Google Scholar
  40. Thiele, H.U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  41. Tóthmérész, B. 1995. Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. J. Veg. Sci. 6:283–290.Google Scholar
  42. Tóthmérész, B. 1998. On the characterization of scale-dependent diversity. Abstracta Botanica 22:149–156.Google Scholar
  43. Tóthmérész, B. 2005. Diversity Characterizations. In R. In: G. L. Lövei and S. Toft (eds.), European Carabidology 2003. Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting, DIAS Report No. 114, Flakkebjerg. pp. 333–344.Google Scholar
  44. Tóthmérész, B. and T. Magura 2005a. Affinity indices for environmental assessment using carabids. In: G. L. Lövei and S. Toft (eds.), European Carabidology 2003. Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. DIAS Report No. 114, Flakkebjerg. pp. 345–352.Google Scholar
  45. Tóthmérész, B. and T. Magura 2005b. Diversity and scalable diversity characterizations. In: G. L. Lövei and S. Toft (eds.), European Carabidology 2003. Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. DIAS Report No. 114, Flakkebjerg. pp. 353–368.Google Scholar
  46. Wallin, H. 1986. Habitat choice of some field-inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) studied by recapture of marked individuals. Ecol. Entomol. 11:457–466.Google Scholar
  47. Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall International, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2006

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural and Technological SciencesSapientia UniversityMiercurea CiucRomania

Personalised recommendations