Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae)

Koivula, Matti

doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(01)00717-4

Cited by 131 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent work in Finland has found small (0.16 ha) openings to be less disruptive of community structure than larger clear-cut stands (Koivula 2002b;Koivula and Niemela¨2003) but much more comparative work is needed to ascertain the advantages of various harvesting techniques with respect to environmental health. Different forests have different natural rates of disturbance (Hunter 1990;Guldin 1996) so the effects of a particular management technique may depend upon the forest type under consideration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the response of ground beetles to clearcuts in the conifer forests of Europe and northeastern North America has been well studied Altegrim et al 1997;Beaudry et al 1997;Niemela¨1997;Duchesne et al 1999;Heliola et al 2001;Koivula 2002a;Koivula et al 2002;Magura et al 2003;Pearce et al 2003), little work has been done on alternative harvesting methods (Altegrim et al 1997;Werner and Raffa 2000;Koivula 2002b; Koivula and Niemela¨2003;Vance and Nol 2003;Moore et al 2004), or in hardwood forests (Lenski 1982a;Warriner et al 2002;Vance and Nol 2003;Moore et al 2004). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Response of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to Selection Cutting in a South Carolina Bottomland Hardwood Forest

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We compared the response of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to the creation of canopy gaps of different size (0.13, 0.26, and 0.50 ha) and age (1 and 7 years) in a bottomland hardwood forest (South Carolina, USA). Samples were collected four times in 2001 by malaise and pitfall traps placed at the center and edge of each gap, and 50 m into the surrounding forest. Species richness was higher at the center of young gaps than in old gaps or in the forest, but there was no statistical difference in species richness between old gaps and the forests surrounding them. Carabid abundance followed the same trend, but only with the exclusion of Semiardistomis viridis (Say), a very abundant species that differed in its response to gap age compared to most other species. The carabid assemblage at the gap edge was very similar to that of the forest, and there appeared to be no distinct edge community. Species known to occur in open or disturbed habitats were more abundant at the center of young gaps than at any other location. Generalist species were relatively unaffected by the disturbance, but one species (Dicaelus dilatatus Say) was significantly less abundant at the centers of young gaps. Forest inhabiting species were less abundant at the centers of old gaps than in the forest, but not in the centers of young gaps. Comparison of community similarity at various trapping locations showed that communities at the centers of old and young gaps had the lowest similarity (46.5%). The community similarity between young gap centers and nearby forest (49.1%) and old gap centers and nearby forest (50.0%) was similarly low. These results show that while the abundance and richness of carabids in old gaps was similar to that of the surrounding forest, the species composition between the two sites differed greatly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Response of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to Selection Cutting in a South Carolina Bottomland Hardwood Forest

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much work has utilised them in this role previously and they have been used to measure effects of forest fragmentation (Desender & Bosmans, 1998;Fujita et al, 2008), forest management (Koivula, 2002;Fuller et al, 2008), climate change (Scott & Anderson, 2003), agricultural practices (Desender & Bosmans, 1998;Irmler, 2003), land cover variables (Eyre et al, 2003aSmall et al, 2006), biodiversity (Pizzolotto, 1994;Duelli & Obrist, 1998), pollution (Heliövaara & Väisänen, 1993), insecticides (Frampton & Cilgi, 1994;Walsh, 1993), environmental classification (Casale, 1990;Dufrêne et al, 1990;Eyre & Luff, 1990;Mossakowski et al, 1990;Zulka, 1994), habitat quality (Heijerman & Turin, 1994), as well as many more. As noted above they have also been widely utilised as indicators of urbanisation.…”

Section: Invertebrates As Urban Bioindicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invertebrates in urban areas: A review

Jones¹,

Leather²

2012

Eur. J. Entomol.

193

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. As urbanisation is set to continue, understanding the impact on wildlife becomes increasingly important if we are to be able to conserve biodiversity. As an excellent group of bioindicators, invertebrates can allow us to understand some of the forces in urban areas which impact upon biodiversity and wildlife populations. This paper discusses some of the trends in the abundance, diversity and richness of invertebrates related to urbanisation and the specific urban environmental and traffic factors which may be at play.

show abstract

“…Beetles tend to survive better in group retentions, possibly because of the higher heterogeneity of deadwood substrates in these groups (Hyvärinen et al, 2005(Hyvärinen et al, , 2006Martikainen et al, 2006a). However, even very high retention amounts or large groups cannot maintain the forest interior species that are typical in mature and old-growth forests (Koivula, 2002;Martikainen et al, 2006a;Matveinen-Huju et al, 2009). The type of trees that are included in the retention groups may have a strong effect on species composition.…”

Section: Retention Patchesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences

Gustafsson

Kouki

Sverdrup‐Thygeson

2010

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

201

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the mid-1990s, it has been common practice to leave trees for biodiversity purposes when clear-cutting in Finland, Norway and Sweden, and regulations for such tree retention are today included in national legislation and certification standards. Peer-reviewed research publications on tree retention from studies performed in the three countries were analyzed and about 50 relevant biodiversity studies were found, with the first published in 1994. Most studies were directed towards beetles and dead wood, especially high stumps. General conclusions were that retention trees (1) provide some of the substrate types required by early-successional species, (2) alleviate the most serious consequences of clear-cutting on biota, and (3) cannot maintain characteristics of intact mature forests. Larger volumes and more trees tend to maintain diversity better. There is a particular lack of studies on dispersal, landscape effects and long-term dynamics. There is a need to study further the relationship between the biota and the amount of trees, as well as their spatial arrangement. Retention trees should preferably be evaluated in relation to other components in multiscaled conservation, including woodland key habitats and larger protected areas.

show abstract

Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae)

Cited by 131 publications

References 39 publications

The Response of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to Selection Cutting in a South Carolina Bottomland Hardwood Forest

The Response of Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to Selection Cutting in a South Carolina Bottomland Hardwood Forest

Invertebrates in urban areas: A review

Tree retention as a conservation measure in clear-cut forests of northern Europe: a review of ecological consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About