Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

In search of the best local habitat drivers for saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate deciduous forests

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Deadwood-associated species are increasingly targeted in forest biodiversity conservation. In order to improve structural biodiversity indicators and sustainable management guidelines, we need to elucidate ecological and anthropogenic drivers of saproxylic diversity. Herein we aim to disentangle the effects of local habitat attributes which presumably drive saproxylic beetle communities in temperate lowland deciduous forests. We collected data on saproxylic beetles in 104 oak and 49 beech stands in seven French lowland forests and used deadwood, microhabitat and stand features (large trees, openness) as predictor variables to describe local forest conditions. Deadwood diversity and stand openness were consistent key habitat features for species richness and composition in deciduous forests. Large downed deadwood volume was a significant predictor of beetle species richness in oak forests only. In addition, the density of cavity- and fungus-bearing trees had weak but significant effects. We recommend that forest managers favor the local diversification of deadwood types, especially the number of combinations of deadwood positions and tree species, the retention of large downed deadwood and microhabitat-bearing trees in order to maximize the saproxylic beetle diversity at the stand scale in deciduous forests. To improve our understanding of deadwood-biodiversity relationships, further research should be based on targeted surveys on species-microhabitat relationships and should investigate the role of landscape-scale deadwood resources and of historical gaps in continuity of key features availability at the local scale.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop DJ, Majka CG, Bondrup-Nielsen S, Peck SB (2009) Deadwood and saproxylic beetle diversity in naturally disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia. Zookeys 22:309–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouget C, Brustel H, Zagatti P, Noblecourt T (2010) The French information system on saproxylic beetle ecology (FRISBEE): an ecological and taxonomical database to help with the assessment of forest conservation statuts. http://frisbee.nogent.cemagref.fr/index.php/en/. Accessed 15 Jan 2013

  • Bouget C, Brin A, Brustel H (2011) Exploring the last biotic frontier: are temperate forest canopies special for saproxylic beetles? Forest Ecol Manag 261:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouget C, Nusillard B, Pineau X, Ricou C (2012) Effect of deadwood position on saproxylic beetles in temperate forests and conservation interest of oak snags. Insect Conserv Divers 5:264–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Forest Sci 66:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Brin A, Bouget C, Brustel H, Jactel H (2011) Diameter of downed woody debris does matter for saproxylic beetle assemblages in temperate oak and pine forests. J Insect Conserv 15:653–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunet J, Isacsson G (2009) Influence of snag characteristics on saproxylic beetle assemblages in a south Swedish beech forest. J Insect Conserv 13:515–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (eds) (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

  • Cobb TP, Hannam KD, Kishchuk BE, Langor DW, Quideau SA, Spence JR (2010) Wood-feeding beetles and soil nutrient cycling in burned forests: implications of post-fire salvage logging. Agric Forest Entomol 12(1):9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodelin B, André J, Wlérick L, Lempérière G (2004) Le bois mort en forêt de montagne (Alpes françaises). R. F. F. 66:507–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. Luxembourg: European Environment Agency, 186 p. ISBN 978-92-9167-931-7

  • Ekbom B, Schroeder LM, Larsson S (2006) Stand specific occurrence of coarse woody debris in a managed boreal forest landscape in central Sweden. Forest Ecol Manag 221:2–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franc N, Gotmark F, Okland B, Norden B, Paltto H (2007) Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol Conserv 135:86–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank AF (2011) R-hacks/mer-utils.R. https://github.com/aufrank/R-hacks/blob/master/mer-utils.R. Accessed 15 Jan 2013

  • Fridman J, Walheim M (2000) Amount, structure and dynamics of deadwood on managed forestland in Sweden. Forest Ecol Manag 131:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz O, Gustafsson L, Larsson K (2008) Does forest continuity matter in conservation? A study of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests of southern Sweden. Biol Conserv 141:655–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb H, Hjältén J, Ball JP, Atlegrim O, Pettersson RB, Hilszczanski J, Johansson T, Danell K (2006) Effects of landscape composition and substrate availability on saproxylic beetles in boreal forests: a study using experimental logs for monitoring assemblages. Ecography 29:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove SJ (2002a) Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove SJ (2002b) Tree basal area and deadwood as surrogate indicators of saproxylic insect faunal integrity: a case study from the Australian lowland tropics. Ecol Indic 1:171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeilis A (2006) Party: a laboratory for recursive part(y)itioning (2006). http://CRAN.R-project.org/. Accessed 20 August 2012

  • Jonsell M, Nordlander G (2002) Insects in polypore fungi as indicator species: a comparison between forest sites differing in amounts and continuity of deadwood. Forest Ecol Manag 157:101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch Widerberg M, Ranius T, Drobyshev I, Nilsson U, Lindbladh M (2012) Increased openness around retained oaks increases species richness of saproxylic beetles. Biodivers Conserv 21:3035–3059

    Google Scholar 

  • Larjavaara M, Muller-Landau HC (2010) Comparison of decay classification, knife test and two penetrometers for estimating wood density of coarse woody debris. Can J Forest Res 40:2313–2321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrieu L, Cabanettes A (2012) Species, live status, and diameter are important tree features for diversity and abundance of tree microhabitats in subnatural montane beech-fir forests. Can J Forest Res 42:1433–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson TB (Ed) (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecol Bull 50:1–240

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martikainen P, Kaila L (2004) Sampling saproxylic beetles: lessons from a 10 year monitoring study. Biol Conserv 120:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martikainen P, Siitonen J, Punttila P, Kaila L, Rauh J (2000) Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland. Biol Conserv 94:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Bütler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for deadwood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J Forest Res 129:981–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson SG, Niklasson M, Hedin J, Aronsson G, Gutowski JM, Linder P, Ljungberg H, Mikusinski G, Ranius T (2002) Densities of large living and dead trees in old-growth temperate and boreal forests. Forest Ecol Manag 161:189–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecol Manag 115:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Økland 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Päivinen J, Ahlroth P, Kaitala V, Suhonen J (2003) Species richness and regional distribution of myrmecophilous beetles. Oecologia 134:587–595

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parmain G, Dufrene M, Brin A, Bouget C (in press) Influence of sampling effort on saproxylic beetle diversity assessment. Implications for biomonitoring studies in European temperate forests. Agric Forest Entomol 15:135–145

  • Ranius T (2002) Influence of stand size and quality of tree hollows on saproxylic beetles in Sweden. Biol Conserv 103:85–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranius T, Fahrig L (2006) Targets for maintenance of deadwood for biodiversity conservation based on extinction thresholds. Scand J Forest Res 21:201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranius T, Jansson N (2002) A comparison of three methods to survey saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks. Biodivers Conserv 11:1759–1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms : Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Siitonen J, Martikainen P, Punttilä P, Rauh J (2000) Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland. Forest Ecol Manag 128:211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sippola A, Siitonen J, Kallio R (1998) Amount and quality of coarse woody debris in natural and managed coniferous forests near the timberline in Finnish lapland. Scand J Forest Res 13:204–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokland JN, Tomter SM, Söderberg GU (2004) Development of deadwood indicators for biodiversity monitoring: experiences from Scandinavia. In: Marchetti M (ed) Monitoring and indicators of forest biodiversity in Europe—from ideas to operationality. European Forest Institute, EFI proceedings n°51, pp 207–226

  • Stokland JN, Siitonen J, Jonsson BG (2012) Biodiversity in deadwood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Turner WR, Tjørve E (2005) Scale-dependence in species-area relationships. Ecography 28:721–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:553–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter S, Möller GC (2008) Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. Forest Ecol Manag 255:1251–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshimoto J, Kakutani T, Nishida T (2005) Influence of resource abundance on the structure of the insect community attracted to fermented tree sap. Ecol Res 20:405–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Y. Paillet, A. Lassauce, C. Moliard (Irstea), T. Noblecourt, T. Barnouin, F. Soldati (ONF), N. Debaive (RNF), J. Willm, L. Burnel (INRA) and all the local forest managers for their field and laboratory work, and to F. Gosselin for helpful comments during the project, and Vicki Moore who checked the English language, and two anonymous reviewers whose detailed comments deeply improved our manuscript. This research was funded by the French Ministry in Charge of the Ecology through the BGF program (convention RESINE CVOJ000150, convention 10-MBGD-BGF-1-CVS-092, n°CHORUS 2100214651) and the National Forestry Board (ONF-Cemagref convention, Action 5, 2008). Part of this work was funded by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (Irstea), ‘Forest Ecosystems’ Research Unit, Domaine des Barres, 45290, Nogent-sur-Vernisson, France

    C. Bouget, B. Nusillard & G. Parmain

  2. INRA, INPT/ENSAT/EIPURPAN, UMR 1201 Dynafor, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    L. Larrieu

  3. Centre Régional de la Propriété Forestière de Midi-Pyrénées, 7 chemin de la Lacade, 31320, Auzeville Tolosane, France

    L. Larrieu

  4. National Laboratory of Forest Entomology, National Forest Office (ONF), 2 rue Charles Péguy, 11500, Quillan, France

    G. Parmain

  5. Natural Patrimony Department, National Museum of Natural History, 36 rue Geoffroy St Hilaire, CP 41, 75 231, Paris Cedex 05, France

    G. Parmain

Authors
  1. C. Bouget
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Larrieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Nusillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Parmain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Bouget.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouget, C., Larrieu, L., Nusillard, B. et al. In search of the best local habitat drivers for saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate deciduous forests. Biodivers Conserv 22, 2111–2130 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0531-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0531-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation