The Role of Urban Environments for Saproxylic Insects

  • Jakub Horák
Part of the Zoological Monographs book series (ZM, volume 1)


The value of urban environments to saproxylic insect conservation remains largely unstudied but is known to vary depending on the number and density of trees as well as their age, distribution, and species composition. Perhaps the most important factor influencing the distribution of saproxylics in urban areas is the degree of isolation among suitable habitats. Solitary trees form one of the primary urban habitats for beetles and other saproxylic insects, especially those that possess cavities and other characteristics common to veteran trees. Linear woody vegetation corridors, such as avenues or vegetation along riverbanks, also form important habitats. Small groups of trees, like those in city parks, can also provide valuable resources for urban saproxylics, as can small forested areas, like those that also exist in parks, zoos, or other green spaces. Of the utmost importance are larger urban forests, but much depends on the management intensity of these areas. Urban areas are defined by high human population densities, and this creates challenges for the long-term survival of saproxylic insects and complicates efforts to study and conserve these insects in public areas. Efforts to protect the oldest trees, such as pollarding which can make them less hazardous, as well as the protection or creation of downed woody debris, can make urban environments more friendly to a wide range of saproxylic insects, including some of the most threatened species.



Michael Ulyshen, Jessica Mou, and two referees helped improve the paper. Wendy Chen kindly provided figures from China.


  1. Bogusch P, Horák J (2018) Saproxylic bees and wasps. In: Ulyshen MD (ed) Saproxylic insects: diversity, ecology and conservation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 217–235Google Scholar
  2. Carpaneto GM, Mazziotta A, Coletti G, Luiselli L, Audisio P (2010) Conflict between insect conservation and public safety: the case study of a saproxylic beetle (Osmoderma eremita) in urban parks. J Insect Conserv 14:555–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen WY (2015) Public willingness-to-pay for conserving urban heritage trees in Guangzhou, south China. Urban For Urban Green 14:796–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clapson M, Hutchison R (2010) Suburbanization in global society. Emerald Group, BingleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen B (2006) Urbanization in developing countries: current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technol Soc 28:63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fattorini S, Galassi DM (2016) Role of urban green spaces for saproxylic beetle conservation: a case study of tenebrionids in Rome, Italy. J Insect Conserv 20:737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fremlin M (2009) Stag beetle (Lucanus cervus (L., 1758), Lucanidae) urban behaviour. In: Buse J, Assman T, Alexander KNA (eds) Saproxylic beetles. Their role and diversity in European woodland and tree habitats. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, pp 161–176Google Scholar
  8. García-López A, Martínez-Falcón AP, Micó E, Estrada P, Grez AA (2016) Diversity distribution of saproxylic beetles in Chilean Mediterranean forests: influence of spatiotemporal heterogeneity and perturbation. J Insect Conserv 20:723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2005) Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harvey DJ, Gange AC, Hawes CJ, Rink M (2011) Bionomics and distribution of the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus (L.) across Europe. Insect Conserv Divers 4:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawes CJ (2008) The stag beetle Lucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Lucanidae): a mark-release-recapture study undertaken in one United Kingdom residential garden. Rev Ecol 63:139–146Google Scholar
  13. Horák J (2011) Response of saproxylic beetles to tree species composition in a secondary urban forest area. Urban For Urban Green 10:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horák J (2016a) Threatened or harmful? Opportunism across spatial scales apparently leads to success during extralimital colonization. Insect Conserv Divers 9:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horák J (2016b) Suitability of biodiversity-area and biodiversity-perimeter relationships in ecology: a case study of urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst 19:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horák J (2017) Insect ecology and veteran trees. J Insect Conserv 21:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horák J, Chobot K (2011) Jaká je šance sněhových koulí v pekle? Vesmír 90:578–583Google Scholar
  18. Horák J, Rébl K (2013) The species richness of click beetles in ancient pasture woodland benefits from a high level of sun exposure. J Insect Conserv 17:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonsell M (2004) Old park trees: a highly desirable resource for both history and beetle diversity. J Arboricult 30:238–243Google Scholar
  20. Jonsell M (2012) Old park trees as habitat for saproxylic beetle species. Biodivers Conserv 21:619–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kadej M, Zając K, Smolis A, Tarnawski D, Malkiewicz A (2016) Isolation from forest habitats reduces chances of the presence of Osmoderma eremita sensu lato (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) in rural avenues. J Insect Conserv 20:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindhe A, Lindelöw Å, Åsenblad N (2005) Saproxylic beetles in standing dead wood density in relation to substrate sun-exposure and diameter. Biodivers Conserv 14:3033–3053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melichar J, Kaprová K (2013) Revealing preferences of Prague’s homebuyers toward greenery amenities: the empirical evidence of distance–size effect. Landsc Urban Plann 109:56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rink D (2009) Wilderness: the nature of urban shrinkage? The debate on urban restructuring and restoration in Eastern Germany. Nat Cult 4:275–292Google Scholar
  25. Sebek P, Altman J, Platek M et al (2013) Is active management the key to the conservation of saproxylic biodiversity? Pollarding promotes the formation of tree hollows. PLoS ONE 8:e60456CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. PNAS 109:16083–16088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomaes A, Kervyn T, Maes D (2008) Applying species distribution modelling for the conservation of the threatened saproxylic Stag Beetle (Lucanus cervus). Biol Conserv 141:1400–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 797–834Google Scholar
  29. Vodka S, Konvicka M, Cizek L (2009) Habitat preferences of oak-feeding xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: implications for forest history and management. J Insect Conserv 13:553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zapponi L, Cini A, Bardiani M, Hardersen S, Maura M, Maurizi E, Redolfi De Zan L, Audisio P, Bologna MA, Carpaneto GM, Roversi PF, Sabbatini Peverieri G, Mason F, Campanaro A (2017) Citizen science data as an efficient tool for mapping protected saproxylic beetles. Biol Conserv 208:139–145CrossRefGoogle 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

  • Jakub Horák
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Department of Forest Protection and EntomologyCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations