Carabid beetle communities as indicators of conservation potential in upland forests

Butterfield, Jennifer; Luff, M. L.; Baines, M.; Eyre, M. D.

doi:10.1016/0378-1127(95)03620-2

Cited by 136 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the present study found that plantation 20 forests supported fewer species than the open space. Previous studies have also found that, in terms of invertebrates, ma ture plantation forests are relatively species poor compared to more open habitats (Day and Carthy 1988;Butterfield, et al 1995;Oxbrough, et al 2005).…”

Section: The Influence Of Open-space Type and Sizementioning

confidence: 96%

The influence of open space on ground-dwelling spider assemblages within plantation forests

Oxbrough

Gittings

O’Halloran

et al. 2006

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Influence Of Open-space Type and Sizementioning

confidence: 96%

The influence of open space on ground-dwelling spider assemblages within plantation forests

Oxbrough

Gittings

O’Halloran

et al. 2006

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Butterfield et al (1995), who studied carabid assemblages in deciduous forests and in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) plantations with closed canopy in northern England, also found that carabid species richness was lower in the plantations as compared to the deciduous forests. In Ireland Fahy and Gormally (1998), comparing carabid beetles in a semi-natural oak woodland with those of a nearby mature Sitka spruce plantation, concluded that carabid populations were significantly richer in species in the oak forest than in the conifer plantation.…”

Section: Changes Of Carabid Assemblages In Relation To Ageing Of Sprumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finland (Niemelä et al 1996, United Kingdom (Butterfield et al 1995, Butterfield 1997, Humphrey et al 1999, Ings and Hartley 1999, Jukes et al 2001 and Ireland (Fahy and Gormally 1998). Data on the impacts of non-native conifer trees on carabids have also been published (Šustek 1981, Szyszko 1987, Baguette and Gérard 1993, Magura et al 1997, Bonham et al 2002.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in carabid beetle assemblages as Norway spruce plantations age

Magura¹,

Tóthmérész²,

Elek³

2006

Community Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several managed native forest stands have been reforested with conifer trees inEurope 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.

show abstract

“…Ground beetles are increasingly being studied because they are very sensitive to environmental changes (Thiele, 1977;Niemelä et al, 2000;Scott & Anderson, 2003) and thus potentially excellent bio-indicators (Butterfield et al, 1995;Rainio & Niemelä, 2003;Pearce & Venier, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assembly rules for ground beetle communities: What determines community structure, environmental factors or competition?

Shibuya¹,

Kubota²,

Ohsawa³

et al. 2011

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Species assembly in ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) communities in local microhabitats was studied in a forest. The following questions were addressed: are there important filters that sort the species in the assemblages? If so, what is the specific nature of these filters? In order to address these questions rarefaction analysis was used to determine whether ground beetle species are distributed non-randomly. Next, the nature of filters was determined by analyzing (1) the community matrix and searching for the consequences of competitive exclusion and (2) species-environmental relations. Rarefaction analysis revealed that the species composition is filtered: species richness was less than expected and there were fewer than expected congeneric species coexisting at high beetle population densities. However, community matrix and body size analyses did not detect significant competition among the beetle species and the matrix was significantly nested. Species-environmental analyses indicated that the ground beetle assembly was strongly linked to ground vegetation. It is concluded that spatial distribution of ground beetles across local communities in this forest habitat is determined more by local environmental conditions than competition, and ground beetles do not interact strongly among themselves so that competitive effects do not play an important role in their distribution except at high beetle population densities.

show abstract

Carabid beetle communities as indicators of conservation potential in upland forests

Cited by 136 publications

References 19 publications

The influence of open space on ground-dwelling spider assemblages within plantation forests

The influence of open space on ground-dwelling spider assemblages within plantation forests

Changes in carabid beetle assemblages as Norway spruce plantations age

Assembly rules for ground beetle communities: What determines community structure, environmental factors or competition?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About