Effects of some ecological variables on carabid communities in native and non native forests in the Ibaizabal basin (Basque Country: Spain)

Abstract

Abstract• Carabid beetles were investigated at five different forest types in the Ibaizabal basin (northern Spain). The landscape is characterized by the presence of remnants of native forest surrounded by conifer plantations.• Carabids were trapped in 52 stands of mixed forest, beech forest, holm oak forest, mixed pine and Monterey pine plantations in 2005 and 2006. The main objectives of the study were: compare carabid diversity, recognise the characteristic species, and study the effects of ecological variables on carabid assemblages in the different forest types.• No significative differences in species abundance, richness and diversity were found among the studied forests. Most of the trapped beetles were identified as forest generalists, nevertheless some native and non-native forest specialist species were also found. Distribution of carabid communities overlapped and, except for beech forest, no specific communities were distinguished. Altitude, percentage of grass coverage and temperature were the main variables influencing species distribution.• The results suggest high habitat homogeneity, caused by regeneration in pine plantations of the indigenous understorey, and by poor habitat quality in native forest (patchy remnants enclosed in conifer plantations). This situation could explain the similar carabid diversity. Mots-clés :carabidés / habitats forestiers / variables écologiques / gestion forestière / biodiversité Résumé -Effets de certaines variables écologiques sur les communautés de carabidés autochtones et non autochtones des forêts dans le bassin Ibaizabal au Pays Basque espagnol.• Les carabidés ont été étudiés dans cinq différents types de forêts dans le bassin Ibaizabal (nord de l'Espagne). Le paysage est caractérisé par la présence de vestiges de la forêt naturelle entourés par des plantations de conifères.• Les carabidés ont été piégés en 2005 et 2006, dans 52 peuplements de forêts mixtes, hêtraies, chê-naies vertes, peuplement mélangé de pins et plantations de pins de Monterey. Les principaux objectifs de l'étude ont été : la comparaison de la diversité des carabidés, la reconnaissance des espèces caractéristiques, et l'étude des effets des variables écologiques sur les assemblages de carabidés dans les différents types de forêts.• Parmi les forêts étudiées, il n'a pas été mis en évidence de différences significatives pour ce qui concerne l'abondance des espèces, la richesse et la diversité. La plupart des coléoptères piégés ont été identifiés comme étant des généralistes des forêts, néanmoins certaines espèces autochtones et non autochtones des forêts ont également été trouvées. Les répartitions des communautés de carabidés se chevauchent et, à l'exception des hêtraies, aucune communauté spécifique n'a été distinguée. L'altitude, le pourcentage de couverture herbacée et la température ont été les principales variables qui ont influencé la répartition des espèces.• Les résultats obtenus suggèrent que la haute homogénéité de l'habitat est causée par la régénération d'un sous-bois d'espèces ...

Impact of rubber plantation on carabid beetle communities and species distribution in a changing tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, China)

“…There are studies showing a reduced carabid species richness in plantations compared to forests (da Silva et al 2008;Fahy and Gormally 1998;Magura et al 2003) or a lower number of forest specialist species (Fuller et al 2008). On the other hand, it was shown that carabid beetle assemblages of mature plantations do not significantly differ from those of natural or semi-natural forest (Elek et al 2010;Karen et al 2008;Martinez et al 2009), indicating that the establishment of tree plantations will not Fig. 4 NMS ordination of carabid communities at the 13 sample sites: (filled triangle) rubber plantation; (empty square) grassland and shrubland; (empty square) rice field fallow; (filled circle) forest.…”

“…The poor habitat quality of patchy native forest remnants enclosed by plantations was assumed to be the main factor explaining the high similarity in carabid diversity of the two habitat types in the study of Martinez et al (2009).…”

Living in Heterogeneous Woodlands – Are Habitat Continuity or Quality Drivers of Genetic Variability in a Flightless Ground Beetle?

“…We characterized each plot in terms of variables related to the litter layer, which serves as the beetle's habitat, in terms of variables that can be related to the land use history of the plot, in terms of variables that can be related to local population size, and also in terms of variables related to soil, vegetation, climate, geography, and forest management. To characterize our plots in terms of general parameters known to affect ground beetles and therefore Abax parallelepipedus (for general overview see [ 67 ], with specific references listed for each variable), we used longitude [ 68 ], latitude [ 69 ], elevation [ 70 , 71 ], mean annual temperature [ 71 , 72 ], mean annual precipitation [ 71 ], forest management type [ 53 ], main tree species [ 53 ], number of vascular plant species [ 51 , 73 ], soil type [ 74 ], soil pH [ 75 ], and the Forest Management Intensity index (FORMI) ([ 53 ], defined in [ 76 ]). Depth of the litter layer and ground cover of litter, of deadwood, and of trees (see [ 77 , 78 ]) were included to characterize the habitat of the beetle and thus local population sizes.…”

How good are carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as indicators of invertebrate abundance and order richness?

“…'' In ecological impact studies carabid beetles are frequently cited as indicators in the vague sense, but according to Landres et al (1988) strict definition they should more often be cited as model or study organisms. Many studies have tested the effects of environmental variables on carabids: amongst other things they have been used to measure effects of forest fragmentation (Fujita et al 2008;Gaublomme et al 2008), forest management (Koivula 2002;Fuller et al 2008;Martinez et al 2009;Maleque et al 2009), climate change (Scott and Anderson 2003;Eyre et al 2005), agricultural practices (Desender and Bosmans 1998;Irmler 2003), land cover variables (Eyre et al 2003;Small et al 2006), biodiversity (Pizzolotto 1994;Duelli and Obrist 1998), pollution (Heliövaara and Väisänen 1993;Avgn and Luff 2010), salt stress (Petillon et al 2008), insecticides (Everts et al 1985;Walsh et al 1993;Frampton and Ç ilgi 1994), environmental classification (Casale 1990;Dufrêne et al 1990;Eyre and Luff 1990;Mossakowski et al 1990;Zulka 1994), urbanization (Magura et al 2010), habitat quality (Heijerman and Turin 1994) and management of urban roundabouts (Jones 2010). Studies such as these test for effects on carabid populations and often lead to habitat management conclusions without testing for the effects of management strategies on other groups of organisms.…”