Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Heathland management effects on carabid beetle communities: the relationship between bare ground patch size and carabid biodiversity

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carabid beetles were sampled by pitfall trapping on Brentmoor Heath, Surrey, UK during the summers of 2009 and 2010 to determine the effects of bare ground patch size on beetle abundance, richness and diversity. Four patch sizes were investigated: 1, 4, 25 and 100 m2 as well as the adjacent mown and unmown areas. A range of environmental parameters relating to soil characteristics, stones and nearby vegetation were measured at each patch and control habitat in order to distinguish the effect of patch size. Results show that bare ground is a valuable habitat for carabids, but that the response of their abundance, richness and diversity to bare ground patch size depends on a large number of environmental variables on and around the patches. When all variables are taken into account, smaller patches appear to benefit carabid abundance, richness and diversity. In the presence of Molinia caerulea at the patch edges, however, larger patches were more beneficial. Given this dependence on environmental variables, the perfect patch size for conservation of biodiversity is likely to be site specific and the best approach may be to use a variety of patch sizes at a range of successional stages.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander K, Archer M, Colenutt S, Denton J, Falk S, Godfrey A, Hammond P, Ismay J, Lee P, Macadam C, Morris M, Murray C, Plant C, Ramsay A, Schulten B, Shardlow M, Stewart A, Stubbs A, Sutton P, Telfer M, Wallace I, Willing M, Wright R (2005) Managing priority habitats for invertebrates. Habitat section 17: lowland heath. Buglife—The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars MA (1979) Catches in pitfall traps in relation to mean densities of carabid beetles. Oecologia 41:25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker SC, Barmuta LA (2006) Evaluating spatial autocorrelation and depletion in pitfall-trap studies of environmental gradients. J Insect Conserv 10:269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balisky AC, Burton PJ (1995) Root-zone soil temperature variation associated with microsite characteristics in high-elevation forest openings in the interior of British Columbia. Agric Forest Meteorol 77:31–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blight O, Fadda S, Orgeas J, Ponel P, Buisson E, Dutoit T (2011) Using stone cover patches and grazing exclusion to restore ground-active beetle communities in a degraded pseudo-steppe. J Insect Conserv 15:561–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BRIG (2008) UK biodiversity action plan; priority habitat descriptions: open mosaic habitats on previously developed land. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Brose U (2003) Bottom-up control of carabid beetle communities in early successional wetlands: mediated by vegetation structure or plant diversity? Oecologia 135:407–413

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz S, Hannig K (2009) Do covers influence the capture efficiency of pitfall traps? Eur J Entomol 106:667–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron K (2010) Barely manageable: the relationship between bare ground patch size and carabid biodiversity on a heathland. MSc thesis, Imperial College London

  • Chao A (1987) Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43:783–791

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Wilson RJ, Coles S, Thomas CD (2006) Changing habitat associations of a thermally constrained species, the silver-spotted skipper butterfly, in response to climate warming. J Anim Ecol 75:247–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denton J (2005) The Beetles of Surrey—a checklist. Surrey Wildlife Trust Woking, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Digweed SC, Currie CR, Cárcamo HA, Spence JR (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 

  • Driscoll DA (2010) Few beetle species can be detected with 95% confidence using pitfall traps. Austral Ecol 35:13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikstad KE (1989) The diel activity of carabid beetles (Coleoptera) north of the Arctic Circle, with particular reference to Patrobus assimilis Chaud. and Notiophilus aquaticus L. Polar Biol 9:319–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry R, Lonsdale D (eds) (1991) Habitat conservation for insects—a neglected green issue. Amateur Entomologists’ Society, Middlesex

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CWD (1998) Brownfield: red data. The values of artificial habitats have for uncommon invertebrates. English Nature, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenslade PJM (1961) Studies in the ecology of Carabidae (Coleoptera). PhD thesis, University of London

  • Greenslade PJM (1964) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). J Anim Ecol 33:301–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gröning J, Krause S, Hochkirch A (2007) Habitat preferences of an endangered insect species, Cepero’s ground-hopper (Tetrix ceperoi). Ecol Res 22:767–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme E, Niemelä J (1993) Carabid beetles in fragments of coniferous forest. Ann Zool Fenn 30:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris RJ, Burns BR (2000) Beetle assemblages of kahikatea forest fragments in a pasture-dominated landscape. NZ J Ecol 24:57–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollier JA, McArthur P, Whitehouse D, Mortimer SR (2009) The ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages of chalk grasslands of known age in the Chilterns. Br J Entomol Nat Hist 22:73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman PS, Parsons MS (1992) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. Part 1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Ings TC, Hartley SE (1999) The effect of habitat structure on carabid communities during the regeneration of a native Scottish forest. For Ecol Manag 119:123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JNCC (2009) Species pages for 2007 UK BAP priority species: Anisodactylus nemorivagus (Duftschmid, 1812). http://www.jncc.gov.uk/_speciespages/97.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2010

  • Jones EL (2010) Factors affecting the diversity and abundance of roadside invertebrates and plants in urban areas. PhD thesis, Imperial College London

  • Jones R (2002) Brown can be beautiful. Urbio 2:12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessock-Philip R, Hurst H, Rossington SR, Holloway GJ (2004) Nesting ecology of Formica cumicularia. Eng Nat Res Rep 612:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Key R (2000) Bare ground and the conservation of invertebrates. Br Wildl 11:183–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Key R (no date) Species action plan: heath tiger beetle (Cicindela sylvatica). UK Biodiversity Action Plan. http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=220. Accessed 2 September 2009

  • Koivula MJ, Vermeulen HJW (2005) Highways and forest fragmentation—effects on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Landsc Ecol 20:911–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotze DJ, Brandmayr P, Casale A, Dauffy-Richard E, Dekoninck W, Koivula MJ, Lövei GL, Mossakowski D, Noordijk J, Paarmann W, Pizzolotto R, Saska P, Schwerk A, Serrano J, Szyszko J, Taboada A, Turin H, Venn S, Vermeulen R, Zetto T (2011) Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe—from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation. Zookeys 100:55–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luff ML (2007) The Carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. RES handbooks for the identification of British insects, vol 4, part 2, 2nd edn. Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of Island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Ele Z (2003) Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle. Biodivers Conserv 12:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majer JD (1978) An improved pitfall trap for sampling ants and other epigaeic invertebrates. J Aust Entomol Soc 17:261–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGavin GC (2001) Essential entomology: an order-by-order introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural England (no date) Gardening with wildlife in mind: common sun beetle—Amara aenea. http://www.plantpress.com/wildlife/search.php. Accessed 20 August 2010

  • Nitterus K, Gunnarsson A, Gunnarsson B (2008) Manipulated structural variability affects the habitat choice of two ground-living beetle species in a laboratory experiment. Entomol Fenn 19:122–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottesen PS (1990) Diel activity patterns of Carabidae, Staphylinidae and Perimylopidae (Coleoptera) at South Georgia, Sub-Antarctic. Polar Biol 10:515–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paje F, Mossakowski D (1984) pH-preferences and habitat selection in carabid beetles. Oecologia (Berlin) 64:41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinna S, Varady-Szabo H, Boivin P, Lucas E (2009) Relevance of using a vegetation-based method to conserve urban carabid diversity. J Insect Conserv 13:387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Lovette IJ (1999) The roles of island area per se and habitat diversity in the species-area relationship of four Lesser Antillean faunal groups. J Anim Ecol 68:1142–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirmel J, Lenze S, Katzmann D, Buchholz S (2010) Capture efficiency of pitfall traps is highly affected by sampling interval. Entomol Exp Appl 136:206–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw PJA (1997) Post-fire successions of Collembola in lowland heaths in South-Eastern UK. Pedobiologia 41:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff DS (1972) Models in biogeography. In: Schopf TJM (ed) Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco, p 250

    Google Scholar 

  • Taboada A, Tarrega R, Calvo L, Marcos E, Marcos JA, Salgado JM (2010) Plant and carabid beetle species diversity in relation to forest type and structural heterogeneity. Eur J For Res 129:31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiele HU (1977) Carabid beetles in their environment. A study of habitat selection by adaptation in physiology and behaviour. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend CR, Begon M, Harper JL (2009) Essentials of ecology, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Carlton

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel JA, Debinski DM, Koford RR, Miller JR (2007) Butterfly responses to prairie restoration through fire and grazing. Biol Conserv 140:78–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams CB (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock BA (2005) Pitfall trapping in ecological studies. In: Leather S (ed) Insect sampling in forest ecosystems. Methods in ecology. Blackwell, Massachusetts, pp 37–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Surrey Wildlife Trust for allowing us to use their land and helping to create the bare ground patches, especially to Scotty Dodd who provided useful information about Brentmoor Heath and heathland ecology in general. Many thanks to Fran Sconce for her assistance and company during fieldwork, and to Tilly Collins for help with statistics. Finally, thanks also to CABI for their financial support towards K. Cameron’s MSc course, of which this work was a part.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK

    Katherine H. Cameron & Simon R. Leather

Authors
  1. Katherine H. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon R. Leather
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine H. Cameron.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cameron, K.H., Leather, S.R. Heathland management effects on carabid beetle communities: the relationship between bare ground patch size and carabid biodiversity. J Insect Conserv 16, 523–535 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9438-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9438-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation