Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Forest edge contrasts have a predictable effect on the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in urban forests

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

Abstract

Fragmented urban forest remnants are characterised by sharp edges and are bordered by various land-use types, which may have a considerable effect on the fauna and flora at forest edges, and into forest interiors. To investigate the effects of differentially contrasting edges (low vs. intermediate vs. high) on carabid beetle assemblages in urban boreal forests, we placed pitfall traps along a gradient from 6 m into three matrix types (secondary forest vs. grassland vs. asphalt) up to 60 m into urban forest patches in the cities of Vantaa and Helsinki, southern Finland. Individual species and carabid beetle assemblages were strongly affected by edge contrasts and distance from the forest edge. The strongest effect on individual species was caused by high contrasting edges: generalist and open-habitat species were favoured or not affected while forest specialists were affected negatively. Effects of the abundances of potential prey and competitors on the carabid beetles were also evaluated. Forest and moisture-associated carabid species were negatively to neutrally associated with springtail abundances while generalist and open habitat, and dryness associated species were more positively related to springtail abundances (a potential food source). In terms of potential competitors, forest and moisture-associated carabid species were negatively and/or neutrally affected by ant and wood ant numbers, while generalist and open-habitat species were neutrally to positively associated with these taxa. It appears that carabid beetle habitat associations are more important in the responses of these beetles across edges of different contrast than are the prey and competitor numbers collected there. We recommend the creation of “soft” or low-contrast urban edges if the aim of urban management is to protect forest carabids in cities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bolger DT, Suarez AV, Crooks KR, Morrison SA, Case TJ (2000) Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age and edge effects. Ecol Appl 10:1230–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brearley G, Bradley A, Bell S, McAlpine C (2010) Influence of contrasting urban edges on the abundance of arboreal mammals: a study of squirrel gliders (Petaurus norfolcensis) in southeast Queensland, Australia. Biol Conserv 143:60–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan KM, Wratten SD (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cajander AK (1926) The theory of forest types. Acta For Fenn 29:1–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiverton PA (1988) Searching behaviour and cereal aphid consumption by Bembidion lampros and Pterostichus cupreus, in relation to temperature and prey density. Entomol Exp Appl 47:173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coxson DS, Stevenson SK (2007) Influence of high-contrast and low-contrast forest edges on growth rates of Lobaria pulmonaria in the inland rainforest, British Columbia. For Ecol Manage 253:103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KF, Margules CR (1998) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence. J Anim Ecol 67:460–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers A, Hanski IK, Selonen V (2003) Siberian flying squirrel responses to high- and low-contrast forest edges. Landsc Ecol 18:543–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinter A (1998) Intraguild predation between erigonid spiders, lacewing larvae and carabids. J Appl Entomol 122:163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2007) Synergetic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88:96–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier E, Loreau M (1999) Effects of newly planted hedges on ground-beetle diversity (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in an agricultural landscape. Ecography 22:87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaublomme E, Hendrickx F, Dhuyvetter H, Desender K (2008) The effects of forest patch size and matrix type on changes in carabid beetle assemblages in an urbanized landscape. Biol Conserv 141:2585–2596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandchamp AC, Niemelä J, Kotze J (2000) The effects of trampling on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Ecosyst 4:321–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillemain M, Loreau M, Daufresne T (1997) Relationships between the regional distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and the abundance of their potential prey. Acta Oecol 18:465–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haila Y, Hanski IK, Niemelä J, Punttila P, Raivio S, Tukia H (1994) Forestry and the boreal fauna—matching management with natural forest dynamics. Ann Zool Fenn 31:187–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamberg L, Lehvävirta S, Malmivaara-Lämsä M, Rita H, Kotze DJ (2008) The effects of habitat edges and trampling on understorey vegetation in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland. Appl Veg Sci 11:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberg L, Lehvävirta S, Kotze JD (2009) Forest edge structure as a shaping factor of understorey vegetation in urban forests in Finland. For Ecol Manage 257:712–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heliölä J, Koivula M, Niemelä J (2001) Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across a Boreal forest-clearcut ecotone. Conserv Biol 15:370–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivula M (2002) Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). For Ecol Manage 167:103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivula MJ (2005) Effects of forest roads on spatial distribution of boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Coleopt Bull 59:465–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivula M, Hyyrylainen V, Soininen E (2004) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) at forest-farmland edges in southern Finland. J Insect Conserv 8:297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotze DJ, O’Hara RB (2003) Species decline—but why? Explanations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe. Oecologia 135:138–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159:1974–1983

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2003) Intraguild interference and biocontrol effects of generalist predators in a winter wheat field. Oecologia 134:144–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larrivee M, Drapeau P, Fahrig L (2008) Edge effects created by wildfire and clear-cutting on boreal forest ground-dwelling spiders. For Ecol Manage 255:1434–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehvävirta S, Kotze JD, Niemelä J, Mäntysaari M, O’Hara B (2006) Effects of fragmentation and trampling on carabid beetle assemblages in urban woodlands in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Ecosyst 9:13–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin LX, Cao M (2009) Edge effects on soil seed banks and understory vegetation in subtropical and tropical forests in Yunnan, SW China. For Ecol Manage 257:1344–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth CH (1985) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark, Part I. Scandinavian Science Press, Copenhagen

  • Lindroth CH (1986) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Part II. Scandinavian Science Press, Copenhagen

  • Lövei GL, Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ann Rev Entomol 41:231–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luff ML (2007) The Carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland, 2nd edn. Royal Entomological Society, Chiswell Green

  • Magura T (2002) Carabids and forest edge: spatial pattern and edge effect. For Ecol Manage 157:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Ködöböcz V, Tóthmérész B (2001a) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. J Biogeogr 28:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Molnar T (2001b) Forest edge and diversity: carabids along forest-grassland transects. Biodiversity Conserv 10:287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magura T, Lövei GL, Tóthmérész B (2010) Does urbanization decrease diversity in ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages? Global Ecol Biogeogr 19:16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matveinen-Huju K, Niemelä J, Rita H, O’Hara RB (2006) Retention-tree groups in clear-cuts: do they constitute “life-boats” for spiders and carabids? For Ecol Manage 230:119–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDade KA, Maguire CC (2005) Comparative effectiveness of three techniques for salamander and gastropod land surveys. Am Midl Nat 153:309–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merivee E, Vanatoa A, Luik A, Rahi M, Sammelselg V, Ploomi A (2003) Electrophysiological identification of cold receptors on the antennae of the ground beetle Pterostichus aethiops. Physiol Entomol 28:88–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Biol Conserv 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä J, Kotze DJ (2009) Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: a review. Landscape Urban Plan 92:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara RB, Kotze DJ (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:118–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2009) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.15–3

  • Pollet M, Desender K (1985) Adult and larval feeding ecology in Pterostichus melanarius Ill. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent 50:581–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainio J, Niemelä J (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 12:487–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reino L, Beja P, Osborne PE, Morgado R, Fabiao A, Rotenberry JT (2009) Distance to edges, edge contrast and landscape fragmentation: interactions affecting farmland birds around forest plantations. Biol Conserv 142:824–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznikova Z, Dorosheva H (2003) Impacts of red wood ants Formica polyctena on the spatial distribution and behavioural patterns of ground beetles (Carabidae). Pedobiologia 47:15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Sisk TD (2004) A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology 85:2917–2926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Sisk TD (2008) Butterfly edge effects are predicted by a simple model in a complex landscape. Oecologia 156:75–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saska P, Vodde M, Heijerman T, Westerman P, Werf WVD (2007) The significance of a grassy field boundary for the spatial distribution of carabids within two cereal fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:427–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silfverberg H (2004) Enumeratio nova Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae, Daniae et Baltiae. Sahlbergia 9:1–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Symondson WOC, Glen DM, Erickson ML, Liddell JE, Langdon CJ (2000) Do earthworms help to sustain the slug predator Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) within crops? Investigations using a monoclonal antibody-based detection system. Molecular Ecol 9:1279–1292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org

  • Thiele HU (1977) Carabid beetles in their environments. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CFG, Parkinson L, Marshall EJP (1998) Isolating the components of activity-density for the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius in farmland. Oecologia 116:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toft S, Bilde T (2002) Carabid diets and food value. In: Holland JM (ed) The agroecology of carabid beetles. Intercept Ltd., Andover, UK, pp 81–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Watling JI, Orrock JL (2010) Measuring edge contrast using biotic criteria helps define edge effects on the density of invasive plant. Landsc Ecol 25:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32:1353–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Bennetts RE (1996) Analysis of frequency count data using the negative binomial distribution. Ecology 77:2549–2557

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank HENVI (Helsinki University Centre for Environment) and the Academy of Finland for partly funding this project. We would also like to thank Tiina Saukkonen from the Public Works Department, City of Helsinki, for providing forest maps of the city of Helsinki. Drs Søren Toft and Gabor Lövei provided useful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Norbertas Noreika

    Present address: Urban Ecology Research Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Viikki Environment House, Viikinkaari 2a, PO Box 65, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urban Ecology Research Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Viikki Environment House, Viikinkaari 2a, PO Box 65, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    D. Johan Kotze

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade Building 1540, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Norbertas Noreika

Authors
  1. Norbertas Noreika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Johan Kotze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbertas Noreika.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Abundance patterns of potential carabid beetle prey and competitors across urban forest edges of different contrasts

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noreika, N., Kotze, D.J. Forest edge contrasts have a predictable effect on the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in urban forests. J Insect Conserv 16, 867–881 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9474-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9474-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation