Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Changes in carabid beetle assemblages as Norway spruce plantations age

  • T. MaguraEmail author
  • B. Tóthmérész
  • Z. Elek
Article

Abstract

Several managed native forest stands have been reforested with conifer trees in Europe during recent centuries. These habitat alterations have influenced ground-dwelling invertebrates. We studied carabid beetle assemblages from a native beech forest (70-y-old), and a recently established (5-y-old), a young (15-y-old), a middle-aged (30-y-old) and a mature (50-y-old) Norway spruce plantation by pitfall trapping to explore the effect of reforestation on carabid beetles. The total number of carabid species, and the forest species were highest in the beech forest. The number of open-habitat species was highest in the youngest, relatively open monoculture. Ordination also confirmed changes in carabid composition with change in the studied habitats. Newly proposed forest affinity indices, based on species specificity, fidelity, and on a combination of specificity and fidelity were significantly higher in beech forest than in spruce plantations. We found these affinity indices especially useful in revealing the ecological character of the studied carabid assemblages. Regression analyses showed that leaf litter cover, herbs, shrubs, canopy closure and prey abundance were related to the structure of carabid-beetle assemblages.

Keywords

Beech forest Forest affinity indices Forest carabid species Generalist species Open-habitat carabid species 

Abbreviations

FAI

Forest Affinity Index

FSI

Forest affinity Index based on Specificity

FFI

Forest affinity Index based on Fidelity

FSFI

Forest affinity Index based on both Specificity and Fidelity

ANOVA

ANAlysis of VAriance

NMDS

Nonmetric Multidimensional scaling

Nomenclature for carabids follows

Hurka (1996) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allegro, G. and R. Sciaky. 2002. Assessing the potential role of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as bioindicators in poplar stands, with a newly proposed ecological index (FAI). Forest Ecol. Manag. 175:275–284.Google Scholar
  2. Baars, M.A. and Th.S. Van Dijk. 1984. Population dynamics of two carabid beetles at a Dutch heathland. II. Egg production and survival in relation to density. J. Anim. Ecol. 53:389–400.Google Scholar
  3. Basu, A., I. R. Harris, and S. Basu. 1997. Minimum distance estimation: The approach using density-based distances. In: G. S. Maddala and C. R. Rao, (eds), Handbook of Statistics, volume 15, pp. 21–48. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Baguette, M. and S. Gérard. 1993. Effects of spruce plantations on carabid beetles in southern Belgium. Pedobiologia 37:129–140.Google Scholar
  5. Bonham, K.J., R. Mesibov and R. Bashford. 2002. Diversity and abundance of some ground-dwelling invertebrates in plantation vs. native forests in Tasmania, Australia. Forest Ecol. Manag. 158:237–247.Google Scholar
  6. Brunsting, M.H. and H.J.L. Heessen. 1984. Density regulation in the carabid beetle Pterostichus oblongopunctatus. J. Anim. Ecol. 53:751–760.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. Butterfield, J. 1997. Carabid community succession during forestry cycle in conifer plantations. Ecography 20:614–625.Google Scholar
  9. Butterfield, J., M.L. Luff, M. Baines and M.D. Eyre. 1995. Carabid beetle communities as indicators of conservation potential in upland forests. Forest Ecol. Manag. 79:63–77.Google Scholar
  10. Desender, K., A. Ervynck and G. Tack. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belg. J. Zool. 129:139–156.Google Scholar
  11. 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). Pedobiologia 39, 561–576.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Elek, Z., T. Magura and B. Tóthmérész. 2005. Effect of canopy closure of a young Norway spruce plantation on ground beetles. In: G.L. Lövei and S. Toft (eds), European Carabidology 2003. Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. DIAS Report, No. 114. Flakkebjerg, pp. 89–97.Google Scholar
  14. Fahy, O. and M. Gormally. 1998. A comparison of plant and carabid beetle communities in an Irish oak woodland with a nearby conifer plantation and clearfelled site. Forest Ecol. Manag. 110:263–273.Google Scholar
  15. Grüm, L. 1971. Spatial differentiation of the Carabus L. (Carabidae, Coleoptera) mobility. Ekologika Polska 19:1–34.Google Scholar
  16. Guillemain, M., M. Loreau and T. Daufresne. 1997. Relationships between the regional distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and the abundance of their potential prey. Acta Oecol. 18:465–483.Google Scholar
  17. Humphrey, J.W., C. Hawes, A.J. Peace, R. Ferris-Kaan and M.R. Jukes. 1999. Relationship between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. Forest Ecol. Manag. 113:11–21.Google Scholar
  18. Hurka, K. 1996. Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, Zlin.Google Scholar
  19. Ings, T.C. and S.E. Hartley. 1999. The effect of habitat structure on carabid communities during the regeneration of a native Scottish forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 119:123–136.Google Scholar
  20. Jukes, M.R., A.J. Peace and R. Ferris. 2001. Carabid beetle communities associated with coniferous plantations in Britain: the influence of site, ground vegetation and stand structure. Forest Ecol. Manag. 148:271–286.Google Scholar
  21. Koivula, M. 2002. Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages in thinned uneven-aged and clear-cut spruce stands. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 39:131–149.Google Scholar
  22. Koivula, M., J. Kukkonen and J. Niemelä. 2002. Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clear-cut originated succession gradient. Biodivers. Conserv. 11:1269–1288.Google Scholar
  23. Koivula, M. and J. Niemelä. 2003. Gap felling as a forest harvesting method in boreal forests: responses of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecography 26:179–187.Google Scholar
  24. Kotze, D. J. and M.J. Samways. 1999. Invertebrate conservation at the interface between the grassland matrix and natural Afromontane forest fragments. Biodivers. Conserv. 8:1339–1363.Google Scholar
  25. Legendre, P. and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Loreau, M. 1988. Determinants of the seasonal pattern in the niche structure of a forest carabid community. Pedobiologia 31:75–87.Google Scholar
  27. Lövei, G. L. 2005. Generalised entropy indices have a long history in ecology - a comment. Communty Ecology 6:245–247.Google Scholar
  28. Lövei, G. and K.D. Sunderland. 1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41:231–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Luff, M.L. 1975. Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia 19:345–357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mader, H.J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol. Conserv. 29:81–96.Google Scholar
  31. Magura, T. 2002. Carabids and forest edge: spatial pattern and edge effect. Forest Ecol. Manag. 157:23–37.Google Scholar
  32. Magura, T., V. Ködöböcz and Zs. Bokor. 2001a. Effects of forestry practices on carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) – Implication for nature management. Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 36:179–188.Google Scholar
  33. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Zs. Bordán. 1997. Comparison of the carabid communities of a zonal oak-hornbeam forest and pine plantations. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 43:173–182.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Z. Elek. 2002. Impacts of non-native spruce reforestation on ground beetles. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 38:291–295.Google Scholar
  36. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Z. Elek. 2003. Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle. Biodiv. Conserv. 12:73–85.Google Scholar
  37. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and Z. Elek. 2005. Impacts of leaf-litter addition on carabids in a conifer plantation. Biodiv. Conserv. 14:475–491.Google Scholar
  38. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and T. Molnár. 2000b. Spatial distribution of carabids along grass-forest transects. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 46:1–17.Google Scholar
  39. Magura, T., B. Tóthmérész and T. Molnár. 2001b. Forest edge and diversity: carabids along forest-grassland transects. Biodiv. Conserv. 10:287–300.Google Scholar
  40. Mátyás, Cs. 1996. Forestry Ecology. Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest. (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  41. Moffatt, C., S. McNeill and A. J. Morton. 2005. The quantification of habitat architecture for explanations of arthropod assemblage patterns: a comparison of two methods. Community Ecology 5:83–92.Google Scholar
  42. Molnár, T., T. Magura and B. Tóthmérész. 2001. Ground beetles (Carabidae) and edge effect in oak-hornbeam forest and grassland transects. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 37:297–300.Google Scholar
  43. Niemelä, J. 1997. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conserv. Biol. 11:601–610.Google Scholar
  44. Niemelä, J. 1999. Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 115:127–134.Google Scholar
  45. Niemelä, J., Y. Haila, E. Halme, T. Pajunen and P. Punttila. 1992. Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. J. Biogeogr. 19:173–181.Google Scholar
  46. Niemelä, J., Y. Haila and P. Punttila. 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
  47. Niemelä, J., D. Langor and J.R. Spence. 1993. Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground-beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conserv. Biol. 7:551–561.Google Scholar
  48. Niemelä, J. and J.R. Spence. 1994. Distribution of forest dwelling carabids (Coleoptera): spatial scale and the concept of communities. Ecography 17:166–175.Google Scholar
  49. Ohlemüller, R., P. Bannister, K. J. M. Dickinson, S. Walker, B. J. Anderson and J. B. Wilson 2004. Correlates of vascular plant species richness in fragmented indigenous forests: assessing the role of local and regional factors. Community Ecology 5:45–54.Google Scholar
  50. Ricotta C. 2005. On parametric diversity indices in ecology: A historical note. Communty Ecology 6:241–244.Google Scholar
  51. Rutherford, A. 2001. Introducing ANOVA and ANCOVA. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
  52. Sergeeva, T.K. 1994. Seasonal dynamics of interspecific trophic relations in a carabid beetle assemblage. In: K. Desender et al. (eds), Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 367–370.Google Scholar
  53. Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Spence J.R. and J. Niemelä. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Can. Entomol. 126:881–894.Google Scholar
  55. Šustek, Z. 1981. Influence of clear cutting on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a pine forest. Comm. Ins. Forestalis 12:243–254.Google Scholar
  56. Szyszko, J. 1987. How can the fauna of Carabidae be protected in managed pine forest? Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 22:293–303.Google Scholar
  57. Thiele, H.U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  58. Werner, S.M. and K.F. Raffa. 2000. Effects of forest management practices on the diversity of ground-occurring beetles in mixed northern hardwood forests of the Great Lakes Region. Forest Ecol.Manag. 139:135–155.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.Hortobágy National Park DirectorateDebrecenHungary
  2. 2.Ecological InstituteDebrecen UniversityDebrecenHungary
  3. 3.Department of EcologySzent István University, Faculty of Veterinary SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations