Advertisement

The Importance of Dead-Wood Amount for Saproxylic Insects and How It Interacts with Dead-Wood Diversity and Other Habitat Factors

  • Sebastian Seibold
  • Simon Thorn
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Zoological Monographs book series (ZM, volume 1)

Abstract

Natural amounts of dead wood in a forest vary considerably, depending on living tree biomass, decomposition rates, and rates of dead-wood development. In natural forests, dead wood is created by the senescence of trees and natural disturbances. However, dead-wood amounts in many forest ecosystems worldwide nowadays are largely influenced by human activities, such as timber and fuel wood production and post-disturbance salvage logging. The biodiversity of saproxylic insects is usually positively correlated with the amount of dead wood, and dead-wood amount affects species composition and functional characteristics of saproxylic assemblages. Dead-wood amount is in turn correlated with dead-wood diversity, and several studies highlight the importance of dead-wood diversity for saproxylic biodiversity, which suggests that habitat heterogeneity is a major driver behind the positive relationship between dead-wood amount and biodiversity. The strength of this relationship is mediated by temperature. Effects of both temporal forest continuity and spatial connectivity are often linked to differences in dead-wood amount. Frequent interactions and correlations between dead-wood amount and other habitat factors indicate that future studies should aim more precisely at unraveling the importance of individual factors for saproxylic biodiversity, which will help to improve conservation strategies to counteract negative effects of anthropogenically altered dead-wood amount and diversity. Such conservation strategies, particularly in Europe and North America, include passive and active measures to retain dead wood in managed forests and to restore amounts and diversity of dead wood similar to levels in natural forests. More research is needed in the subtropics and tropics where conservation strategies rarely consider dead wood, although the few existing studies suggest that dead wood is an important factor for biodiversity in these regions.

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

References

  1. Abrahamsson M, Jonsell M, Lindbladh M (2009) Saproxylic beetle assemblages in artificially created high-stumps of spruce (Picea Abies) and birch (Betula pendula/pubescens)—does the surrounding landscape matter? Insect Conserv Divers 2:284–294.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00066.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelstam PK (1998) Maintaining and restoring biodiversity in European boreal forests by developing natural disturbance regimes. J Veg Sci 9:593–602.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3237275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett EB, Kroll AJ, Duke SD (2010) Avian foraging and nesting use of created snags in intensively-managed forests of western Oregon, USA. For Ecol Manag 260:1773–1779.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASFMT (2002) Arabuko-Sokoke forest strategic forest management plan 2002–2007. Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management Team, Forest Department and Partners, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  5. Attiwill PM (1994) The disturbance of forest ecosystems - the ecological basis for conservative management. For Ecol Manag 63:247–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90114-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlow J, Lennox GD, Ferreira J et al (2016) Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535:144–147.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C (2009) Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manag 258:525–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beudert B, Bässler C, Thorn S et al (2015) Bark beetles increase biodiversity while maintaining drinking water quality. Conserv Lett 8:272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouget C, Duelli P (2004) The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biol Conserv 118:281–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouget C, Brustel H, Zagatti P (2008) The FRench Information system on Saproxylic BEetle Ecology (FRISBEE): an ecological and taxonomical database to help with the assessment of forest conservation status. Rev d’Ecologie (La Terre la Vie) 63:33–36Google Scholar
  11. Bouget C, Lassauce A, Jonsell M (2012) Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity—a review focused on the situation in Europe. Can J For Res 42:1421–1432.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouget C, Larrieu L, Nusillard B (2013) In search of the best local habitat drivers for saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate deciduous forests. Biodivers Conserv 22:2111–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bouget C, Brin A, Tellez D, Archaux F (2015) Intraspecific variations in dispersal ability of saproxylic beetles in fragmented forest patches. Oecologia 177:911–920.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3162-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Brandeis TJ, Newton M, Filip GM, Cole EC (2002) Cavity-nester habitat development in artificially made Douglas-fir snags. J Wildl Manag 66:625–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brin A, Brustel H, Jactel H, Brin A, Brustel H, Jactel H (2009) Species variables or environmental variables as indicators of forest biodiversity: a case study using saproxylic beetles in maritime pine plantations. Ann For Sci 66:306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brin A, Valladares L, Ladet S, Bouget C (2016) Effects of forest continuity on flying saproxylic beetle assemblages in small woodlots embedded in agricultural landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 25:587–602.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1076-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burrascano S, Keeton WS, Sabatini FM, Blasi C (2013) Commonality and variability in the structural attributes of moist temperate old-growth forests: a global review. For Ecol Manag 291:458–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burton PJ, Messier C, Adamowicz WL, Kuuluvainen T (2006) Sustainable management of Canada’s boreal forests: progress and prospects. Ecoscience 13:234–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke A, Gaston KJ (2006) Climate, energy and diversity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:2257–2266.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cobb TP, Morissette JL, Jacobs JM et al (2011) Effects of postfire salvage logging on deadwood-associated beetles. Conserv Biol 25:94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01566.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Convey S (1982) Logging practices. Miller Freeman, CoppellGoogle Scholar
  22. Cotta H (1865) Anweisung zum Waldbau. Arnoldische Buchhandlung, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  23. Davies ZG, Tyler C, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2007) Are current management recommendations for saproxylic invertebrates effective? A systematic review. Biodivers Conserv 17:209–234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9242-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Day WR (1950) Forest hygiene: the conception of health and character of the forest in relation to health. Emp For Rev 29:204–210Google Scholar
  25. Delaney M, Brown S, Lugo AE et al (1998) The quantity and turnover of dead wood in permanent forest plots in six life zones of Venezuela. Biotropica 30:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dörfler I, Gossner M, Müller J, Weisser WW (2017) Success of a deadwood enrichment strategy in production forests depends on stand type and management intensity. For Ecol Manag 400:607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Drag L, Hauck D, Bérces S et al (2015) Genetic differentiation of populations of the threatened saproxylic beetle Rosalia longicorn, Rosalia alpina (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in central and South-East Europe. Biol J Linn Soc 116:911–925.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elton CS (1966) The pattern of animal communities. Wiley, London.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5872-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eriksson M, Pouttu A, Roininen H (2005) The influence of windthrow area and timber characteristics on colonization of wind-felled spruces by Ips typographus (L). For Ecol Manag 216:105–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eriksson M, Neuvonen S, Roininen H (2008) Ips typographus (L.) attack on patches of felled trees: “wind-felled” vs. cut trees and the risk of subsequent mortality. For Ecol Manag 255:1336–1341.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foster DR, Orwig DA (2006) Preemptive and salvage harvesting of New England forests: when doing nothing is a viable alternative. Conserv Biol 20:959–970.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00495.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:349–350.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812016105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Franklin JF, Lindenmayer D, Macmahon JA et al (2000) Threads of continuity: ecosystem disturbances, biological legacies and ecosystem recovery. Conserv Biol Pract 1:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fukami T, Dickie IA, Wilkie JP et al (2010) Assembly history dictates ecosystem functioning: evidence from wood decomposer communities. Ecol Lett 13:675–684.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01465.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibbons WH (1918) Logging in the Douglas-fir region. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Contributions BulletinGoogle Scholar
  39. Gmelin JF (1787) Abhandlung über die Wurmtroknis [treatise on the worm dryness]. Verlag Crusious, LeipzigCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gossner MM, Lachat T, Brunet J et al (2013) Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol 27:605–614.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12023CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Gossner MM, Wende B, Levick S et al (2016) Deadwood enrichment in European forests—which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity? Biol Conserv 201:92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Graham SA (1924) Temperature as a limiting factor in the life of subcortical insects. J Econ Entomol 17:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grove SJ (2001) Extent and composition of dead wood in Australian lowland tropical rainforest with differet managemant histories. For Ecol Manag 154:35–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00618-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Grove SJ (2002a) Tree basal area and dead wood as surrogate indicators of saproxylic insect faunal integrity: a case study from the Australian lowland tropics. Ecol Indic 1:171–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(01)00016-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grove SJ (2002b) Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grove SJ, Stork NE (1999) The conservation of saproxylic insects in tropical forests: a research agenda. J Insect Conserv 3:67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009616112275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grove SJ, Stork NE (2000) An inordinate fondness for beetles. Invertebr Taxon 14:733–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gustafsson L, Kouki J, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2010) Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences. Scand J For Res 25:295–308.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.497495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hammond HEJ, Langor DW, Spence JR (2017) Changes in saproxylic beetle (Insecta: Coleoptera) assemblages following wildfire and harvest in boreal Populus forests. For Ecol Manag 401:319–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.07.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Harmon ME (2001) Moving towards a new paradigm for woody detritus management. Ecol Bull 5752:269–278.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20113283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Harmon MEM, Franklin JFJ, Swanson FJ et al (1986) Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res 15:133–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60121-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hartig GL (1808) Anweisung zur Holzzucht für Förster. Neue Akademische Buchhandlung, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  54. Heikkala O, Suominen M, Junninen K et al (2014) Effects of retention level and fire on retention tree dynamics in boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 328:193–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Heikkala O, Seibold S, Koivula M et al (2016) Retention forestry and prescribed burning result in functionally different saproxylic beetle assemblages than clear-cutting. For Ecol Manag 359:51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hekkala A-M, Ahtikoski A, Päätalo M-L et al (2016) Restoring volume, diversity and continuity of deadwood in boreal forests. Biodivers Conserv 25:1107–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1112-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hottola J, Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2009) A unified measure of the number, volume and diversity of dead trees and the response of fungal communities. J Ecol 97:1320–1328.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01583.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hyvärinen E, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2006) Fire and green-tree retention in conservation of red-listed and rare deadwood-dependent beetles in Finnish boreal forests. Conserv Biol 20:1711–1719.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00511.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Janssen P, Cateau E, Fuhr M et al (2016) Are biodiversity patterns of saproxylic beetles shaped by habitat limitation or dispersal limitation? A case study in unfragmented montane forests. Biodivers Conserv 25:1167–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1116-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Janssen P, Fuhr M, Cateau E et al (2017) Forest continuity acts congruently with stand maturity in structuring the functional composition of saproxylic beetles. Biol Conserv 205:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jonsell M, Nittérus K, Stighäll K (2004) Saproxylic beetles in natural and man-made deciduous high stumps retained for conservation. Biol Conserv 118:163–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jonsson BG, Kruys N, Ranius T (2005) Ecology of species living on dead wood—lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn 39:289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kausrud K, Okland B, Skarpaas O et al (2011) Population dynamics in changing environments: the case of an eruptive forest pest species. Biol Rev 87:34–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00183.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Klepzig KD, Ferro ML, Ulyshen MD et al (2012) Effects of small-scale dead wood additions on beetles in southeastern U.S. pine forests. Forests 3:632–652.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f3030632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Komonen A, Halme P, Jäntti M, Koskela T (2014a) Created substrates do not fully mimic natural substrates in restoration: the occurrence of polypores on spruce logs. Silva Fenn 48:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Komonen A, Kuntsi S, Toivanen T, Kotiaho JS (2014b) Fast but ephemeral effects of ecological restoration on forest beetle community. Biodivers Conserv 23:1485–1507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0678-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kortmann M, Hurst J, Brinkmann R et al (2017) Beauty and the beast: how a bat utilizes forests shaped by outbreaks of an insect pest. Anim Conserv:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12359
  68. Kraus D, Bütler R, Krumm F et al (2016) Catalogue of tree microhabitats—reference field list. Integrate Technical Paper, pp 1–16. doi:  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1500.6483
  69. Lachat T, Müller J (2018) Importance of primary forests for the conservation of saproxylic insects. In: Ulyshen MD (ed) Saproxylic insects: diversity, ecology and conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 581–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lachat T, Nagel P, Cakpo Y et al (2006) Dead wood and saproxylic beetle assemblages in a semi-deciduous forest in southern Benin. For Ecol Manag 225:27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lachat T, Wermelinger B, Gossner MM et al (2012) Saproxylic beetles as indicator species for dead-wood amount and temperature in European beech forests. Ecol Indic 23:323–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Langor DW, Hammond HEJ, Spence JR et al (2006) Saproxylic insect assemblages in Canadian forests: diversity, ecology, and conservation. Can Entomol 140:453–474.  https://doi.org/10.4039/n07-LS02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Larrieu L, Cabanettes A, Gonin P et al (2014) Deadwood and tree microhabitat dynamics in unharvested temperate mountain mixed forests: a life-cycle approach to biodiversity monitoring. For Ecol Manag 334:163–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lassauce A, Paillet Y, Jactel H, Bouget C (2011) Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol Indic 11:1027–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Leather SRS, Baumgart EAE, Evans HF, Quicke DJ (2014) Seeing the trees for the wood-beech (Fagus sylvatica) decay fungal volatiles influence the structure of saproxylic beetle communities. Insect Conserv Divers 7:314–326.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lee S-I, Spence JR, Langor DW (2018) Conservation of saproxylic insect diversity under variable retention harvesting. In: Ulyshen MD (ed) Saproxylic insects: diversity, ecology and conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 639–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lindenmayer DB, Incoll RD, Cunningham RB, Donnelly CF (1999) Attributes of logs on the floor of Australian Mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests of different ages. For Ecol Manag 123:195–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00047-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lindenmayer DB, Foster D, Franklin JF et al (2004) Salvage harvesting policies after natural disturbance. Science 303:1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Lindenmayer DB, Burton PJ, Franklin JF (2008) Salvage logging and its ecological consequences. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  80. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE, Franklin JF (2010) Rapid responses to facilitate ecological discoveries from major disturbances. Front Ecol Environ 8:527–532.  https://doi.org/10.1890/090184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Lindenmayer DB, Laurance W, Franklin J (2012) Global decline in large old trees. Science 338:1305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Lindenmayer DB, Thorn S, Banks S (2017) Please do not disturb ecosystems further. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. MacArthur R, MacArthur J (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Maser C, Trappe J (1984) The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-164, 56 p. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  85. Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2011) Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. Annu Rev Environ Resour.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-090710-143732
  86. Moretti M, Dias ATC, de Bello F et al (2017) Handbook of protocols for standardized measurement of terrestrial invertebrate functional traits. Funct Ecol 31:558–567.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Müller J, Bütler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res 129:981–992.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0400-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Müller J, Bußler H, Bense U (2005) Urwald relict species–saproxylic beetles indicating structural qualities and habitat tradition. Waldoekologie Online 2:106–113Google Scholar
  89. Müller J, Noss RF, Bussler H, Brandl R (2010) Learning from a “benign neglect strategy” in a national park: response of saproxylic beetles to dead wood accumulation. Biol Conserv 143:2559–2569.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Müller J, Jarzabek-Müller A, Bussler H (2013) Some of the rarest European saproxylic beetles are common in the wilderness of northern Mongolia. J Insect Conserv 17:989–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9581-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Müller J, Jarzabek-Müller A, Bussler H, Gossner MM (2014) Hollow beech trees identified as keystone structures by analyses of functional and phylogenetic diversity. Anim Conserv 17:154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Müller J, Brustel H, Brin A et al (2015) Increasing temperature may compensate for lower amounts of dead wood in driving richness of saproxylic beetles. Ecography 38:499–509.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Müller J, Thorn S, Baier R et al (2016) Protecting the forests while allowing removal of damaged trees may imperil saproxylic insect biodiversity in the Hyrcanian beech forests of Iran. Conserv Lett 9:106–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12187.ThisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Nappi A, Drapeau P, Saint-Germain M, Angers VA (2010) Effect of fire severity on long-term occupancy of burned boreal conifer forests by saproxylic insects and wood-foraging birds. Int J Wildl Fire 19:500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Nordén B, Appelqvist T (2001) Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 10:779–791.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016675103935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Nordén B, Dahlberg A, Brandrud TE et al (2014) Effects of ecological continuity on species richness and composition in forests and woodlands: a review. Écoscience 21:34–45.  https://doi.org/10.2980/21-1-3667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Norvez O, Hébert C, Bélanger L (2013) Impact of salvage logging on stand structure and beetle diversity in boreal balsam fir forest, 20 years after a spruce budworm outbreak. For Ecol Manag 302:122–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Okland B, Bakke A, Hagvar S, Kvamme T (1996) What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv 5:75–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Oleksa A (2014) Weak isolation by distance in Diaperis boleti, a fungivorous saproxylic beetle. J Insect Sci 14:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/14.1.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Prestemon JP, Wear DN, Stewart FJ, Holmes TP (2006) Wildfire, timber salvage, and the economics of expediency. For Policy Econ 8:312–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Priewasser K, Brang P, Bachofen H et al (2013) Impacts of salvage-logging on the status of deadwood after windthrow in Swiss forests. Eur J For Res 132:231–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-012-0670-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Ranius T, Douwes P (2002) Genetic structure of two pseudoscorpion species living in tree hollows in Sweden. Anim Biodivers Conserv 25:67–74Google Scholar
  103. Ranius T, Martikainen P, Kouki J (2011) Colonisation of ephemeral forest habitats by specialised species: beetles and bugs associated with recently dead aspen wood. Biodivers Conserv 20:2903–2915.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0124-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Ribot JC (1999) A history of fear: imagining deforestation in the west African dryland forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 8:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Richardson BA, Richardson MJ, González G et al (2010) A canopy trimming experiment in Puerto Rico: the response of litter invertebrate communities to canopy loss and debris deposition in a tropical forest subject to hurricanes. Ecosystems 13:286–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9317-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Richter L, Frangi J (1992) An ecolegical basis for Nothofagus pumilio forest management in Tierra del Fuego. Rev Fac Agron 68:35–52Google Scholar
  107. Riffell S, Verschuyl J, Miller D, Wigley TB (2011) Biofuel harvests, coarse woody debris, and biodiversity—a meta-analysis. For Ecol Manag 261:878–887.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Roberge JM, Lämås T, Lundmark T et al (2015) Relative contributions of set-asides and tree retention to the long-term availability of key forest biodiversity structures at the landscape scale. J Environ Manag 154:284–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Rolstad J, Gjerde I, Gundersen V, Sætersdal M (2002) Use of indicator species to assess forest continuity: a critique. Conserv Biol 16:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Russell RE, Saab VA, Dudley JG, Rotella JJ (2006) Snag longevity in relation to wildfire and postfire salvage logging. For Ecol Manag 232:179–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Saint-Germain M, Drapeau P (2011) Response of saprophagous wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to severe habitat loss due to logging in an aspen-dominated boreal landscape. Landsc Ecol 26:573–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Saint-Germain M, Buddle CM, Drapeau P (2010) Substrate selection by saprophagous wood-borer larvae within highly variable hosts. Entomol Exp Appl 134:227–233.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00960.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Schmiegelow FKA, Stepnisky DP, Stambaugh CA, Koivula M (2006) Reconciling salvage logging of boreal forests with a natural-disturbance management model. Conserv Biol 20:971–983.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00496.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Schowalter T (2006) Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach. Elsevier, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  115. Schowalter TD, Willig MR, Presley SJ (2014) Canopy arthropod responses to experimental canopy opening and debris deposition in a tropical rainforest subject to hurricanes. For Ecol Manag 332:93–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R et al (2015a) Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity—a review identifying global gaps in knowledge. Biol Conserv 191:139–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Seibold S, Brandl R, Buse J et al (2015b) Association of extinction risk of saproxylic beetles with ecological degradation of forests in Europe. Conserv Biol 29:382–390.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12427CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R et al (2016) Microclimate and habitat heterogeneity as the major drivers of beetle diversity in dead wood. J Appl Ecol 53:934–943.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R et al (2017) An experimental test of the habitat-amount hypothesis for saproxylic beetles in a forested region. Ecology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1819
  120. Seidl R, Rammer W, Spies T (2014) Disturbance legacies increase the resilience of forest ecosystem structure, composition, and functioning. Ecol Appl 24:2063–2077.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0255.1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  121. Sessions J, Bettinger P, Buckman R et al (2004) Hastening the return of complex forests following fire: the consequences of delay. J For 102:38–45Google Scholar
  122. Shea PJ, Laudenslayer Jr WF, Ferrell G, Borys R (2002) Girdled versus bark beetle-created ponderosa pine snags: utilization by cavity-dependent species and differences in decay rate and insect diversity. In: Laudenslayer Jr WF, Shea PJ, Valentine BE, Weatherspoon PC, Lisle TE (tech coords) Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. General technical report PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA, pp 145–153Google Scholar
  123. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  124. Siitonen J, Saaristo L (2000) Habitat requirements and conservation of Pytho kolwensis, a beetle species of old-growth boreal forest. Biol Conserv 94:211–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00174-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Siitonen J, Martikainen P, Punttila P, Rauh J (2000) Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. For Ecol Manag 128:211–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00148-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Similä M, Kouki J, Martikainen P (2003) Saproxylic beetles in managed and seminatural scots pine forests: quality of dead wood matters. For Ecol Manag 174:365–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00061-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Speight MCD (1989) Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nat Environ Ser 42:1–79Google Scholar
  128. Srivastava DS, Lawton JH (1998) Why more productive sites have more species: an experimental test of theory using tree-hole communities. Am Nat 152:510–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Stadelmann G, Bugmann H, Meier F et al (2013) Effects of salvage logging and sanitation felling on bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) infestations. For Ecol Manag 305:273–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Stadelmann G, Bugmann H, Wermelinger B, Bigler C (2014) Spatial interactions between storm damage and subsequent infestations by the European spruce bark beetle. For Ecol Manag 318:167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.01.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Stewart GH, Burrows LE (1994) Coarse woody debris in old-growth temperate beech (Nothofagus) forests of New Zealand. Can J For Res 24:1989–1996.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x94-255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Stokland J, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012) Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Swanson ME, Franklin JF, Beschta RL et al (2011) The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Front Ecol Environ 9:117–125.  https://doi.org/10.1890/090157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V et al (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00994.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Thorn S, Bässler C, Gottschalk T et al (2014) New insights into the consequences of post-windthrow salvage logging revealed by functional structure of saproxylic beetles assemblages. PLoS One 9:e101757.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  136. Thorn S, Bässler C, Bernhardt-Römermann M et al (2016a) Changes in the dominant assembly mechanism drives species loss caused by declining resources. Ecol Lett 19:163–170.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Thorn S, Bässler C, Svoboda M, Müller J (2016b) Effects of natural disturbances and salvage logging on biodiversity—lessons from the bohemian forest. For Ecol Manag 388:113–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2006.11.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Thorn S, Bässler C, Burton PJ et al (2018) Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity—a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 55(1):279–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Thrower J (2005) Earth Island institute v. United States forest service: salvage logging plans in star fire region undermine sierra Nevada framework. Ecol Law Q 32:721Google Scholar
  140. Ulyshen MD, Hanula JL (2009) Responses of arthropods to large-scale manipulations of dead wood in loblolly pine stands of the Southeastern United States. Environ Entomol 38:1005–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. Ulyshen MD, Pawson S, Branco M, Horn S, Hoebeke ER, Gossner MM (2018) Utilization of non-native wood by saproxylic insects. In: Ulyshen MD (ed) Saproxylic insects: diversity, ecology and conservation, ecology and conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 797–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Uri V, Aosaar J, Varik M et al (2015) Biomass resource and environmental effects of Norway spruce (Picea abies) stump harvesting: an Estonian case study. For Ecol Manag 335:207–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Waldron K, Rue J-C, Gauthier S (2013) Forest structural attributes after windthrow and consequences of salvage logging. For Ecol Manag 289:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Walter ST, Maguire CC (2005) Snags, cavity-nesting birds, and silvicultural treatments in western Oregon. J Wildl Manag 69:1578–1591.  https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1578:SCBAST]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Wermelinger B (2004) Ecology and management of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus—a review of recent research. For Ecol Manag 202:67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Wermelinger B, Duelli P, Obrist MK (2002) Dynamics of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in windthrow areas in alpine spruce forests. For Snow Landsc Res 77:133–148Google Scholar
  147. White SP, Pickett ST (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  148. Whitehouse NJ (2006) The Holocene British and Irish ancient forest fossil beetle fauna: implications for forest history, biodiversity and faunal colonisation. Quat Sci Rev 25:1755–1789.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Whittaker RJ (1998) Island biogeography: ecology, evolution, and conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  150. Wright DH (1983) Species-energy theory: an extension of species-area theory. Oikos 41:496–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Zapponi L, Minari E, Longo L et al (2015) The habitat-trees experiment: using exotic tree species as new microhabitats for the native fauna. IForest 8:464–470.  https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1281-007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection.  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Seibold
    • 1
  • Simon Thorn
    • 2
  1. 1.Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem ManagementTechnical University of MunichFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Field Station Fabrikschleichach, Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, BiocenterUniversity of WürzburgRauhenebrachGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options