Seasonal dynamics of interspecific trophic relations in a carabid beetle assemblage

Sergeeva, T. K.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0968-2_55

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to lower spatial resistance there, large spiders (such as free hunting Agelenidae and Lycosidae) preferentially occur in the spacious, upper litter layer or on the litter surface, while small-bodied species more frequently occur in the compacted, middle and lower litter layers. The same is reported for carabid beetles by Sergeeva (1994). Consequently, the probability of trapping large-bodied species may be higher since pitfall traps mostly catch surface-active species while litter-dwelling species are mostly unrepresented.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats

Siewers¹,

Schirmel²,

Buchholz³

2014

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Pitfall trapping is an approved self-sampling method for capturing epigeal arthropods for ecological and faunistic studies. Capture efficiency of pitfall traps may be affected by external factors and the design of the trap. Pitfall traps set in forests are usually protected with covers or wire grids, but the effect of these constructions on sampling efficiency as well as their practicability and necessity have so far received little attention. During the present study pitfall traps of four different designs (covers, wire grids, litter exclosure, open) were tested in terms of their efficiency in capturing ground-dwelling arthropods (Acari, Araneae, Carabidae, Formicidae, Isopoda, Myriapoda, Opiliones) in order to gain a better understanding of the applicability and reliability of pitfall traps in forests. The study was carried out in an oak-beech forest in Northwest Germany using a total of 40 pitfall traps (ten replicates per trap design). Generalised linear models indicated no significant differences in arthropods counts among catches of pitfall traps of the four different designs, except for woodlice. Ordination analyses (NMDS) and MANOVA revealed no significant differences in spider and carabid beetle species compositions of the catches. In contrast, for both these taxa there were significant differences in the body sizes of the individuals caught. We conclude that the catches of pitfall traps are little affected by their design. Furthermore, the litter layer and litter input have no effect on the capture efficiency and thus there seems to be no need to protect pitfall traps with covers or wire grids in litter rich forest habitats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats

Siewers¹,

Schirmel²,

Buchholz³

2014

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, N. biguttatus eats mainly springtails (Collembola) (Hengeveld 1980a, b, c, Lindroth 1985, and C. caraboldes is specialized on preying upon molluscs (Thiele 1977). The amount of food is one of the most important biotic factors affecting carabid distributions (Thiele 1977, Niemelii 1993a, Sergeeva 1994. In the soil samples taken from the humus layer of our study plots, there were more springtails in the litter than in the control plots, whereas the numbers of mites did not show differences between the plot types (Koivula 1996).…”

Section: Species Characteristics Explaining the Distribution Patternsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Humidity, temperature, light, and physical and chemical qualities of soil can have an effect on their distribution patterns (Thiele 1977, Lindroth 1985. Also interspecific interactions such as competition, predation and parasitism can greatly influence the distribution of carabid beetles and food available to them (Sergeeva 1994). However, abiotic factors are probably more important than biotic ones in determining distribution patterns (e.g.…”

Section: Species Characteristics Explaining the Distribution Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaf litter and the small‐scale distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the boreal forest

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management practices favoring conifers at the expense of deciduous tree species, and the eradication of deciduous trees, especially aspen Populus tremula, from managed forests have resulted in population declines in several species in Fennoscandia. ln addition to species depending on decaying wood of deciduous trees, earlier evidence suggests that leaf litter, especially that of aspen, is favored by many carabid species. We ran a four-year experiment in order to compare carabid assemblages of unchanged forest floor with artificially created leaf-litter plots in central Finland. A total of 18 plots (5 m in diameter) were established in three forest stands without aspen a few kilometers apart. Each stand had 3 litter plots (litter added) and 3 control plots. Pre-treatment samples were compared with those collected after litter addition. The litter addition affected the carabid-assemblage structure by increasing the catches of some species and decreasing the catch of one species. The number of carabid species was similar in control and litter plots. The litter elfect was smaller than variation among forest stands and year-to-year fluctuations. There was a strong temporal constancy among the plots: "rich" plots remained "rich" from year to year and similarly. "poor" plots remained "poor".The significant influence of leaf litter on carabid abundance can be attributable to both abiotic factors (microenvironmental conditions, especially humidity and temperature), and biotic ones (changes in niche structure, improved food supply). Leaf litter seems to have an effect on carabid distribution patterns, and deciduous trees scattered among conifers are likely to be of importance on carabid fauna in boreal IOrests.M. Koiuula (mkoiuula@cc.helsinki.fi) and J. Niemeki,

show abstract

“…The temperature of the soil at a depth of 2 cm, the temperature at the soil surface, relative air humidity, soil pH, soil compactness, CaCO 3 content, organic matter content were measured next to each trap. We also estimated the cover of leaf litter, herbs, shrubs and canopy around each trap in a circle within radius of 1 m. We counted the number of individuals of the following taxa: Coleoptera, Chilopoda, Collembola, Diplopoda, Gastropoda, Isopoda, Orthoptera in the traps, because they are potential preys of carabids (Sergeeva 1994).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of non-native Norway spruce plantation on abundance and species richness of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Elek¹,

Magura

Tóthmérész³

2001

Web Ecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impacts of non-native Norway spruce plantation on the abundance and species richness of carabids were studied in the Bükk National Park in Hungary, central Europe. Pitfall catches from recently established (5 yr old), young (15 yr after planting), middle-aged (30 yr after planting), old Norway spruce Picea abies plantation (50 yr after planting), and a native submontane beech forest (Fagetum sylvaticae) as a control stand were compared. Our results showed that deciduous forest species decreased significantly in abundance in the plantations, and appeared in high abundance only in the native beech forest. Furthermore, open habitat species increased remarkably in abundance in the recently established plantation. Carabids were significantly more abundant and species rich in the native forest than in the plantations, while differences were not significant among the plantations. Multiple regression between the abundance and species richness of carabids and twelve environmental measurements showed that pH of the soil, herb cover and density of the carabids’ prey had a significant effect in determining abundance and species richness. Our results showed that plantation of non-native Norway spruce species had a detrimental effect on the composition of carabid communities and no regeneration could be observed during the growth of plantations even 50 yr after the establishment. This emphasises the importance of an active nature management practice to facilitate the recolonization of the native species

show abstract

Seasonal dynamics of interspecific trophic relations in a carabid beetle assemblage

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats

The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats

Leaf litter and the small‐scale distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the boreal forest

Impacts of non-native Norway spruce plantation on abundance and species richness of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About