[en] Studies concerning the influence of forest management on invertebrate communities often focus on a limited set of chosen variables and rarely quantify the importance of management as opposed to other influences. We aimed at: 1) comparing the importance for species assemblages of habitat variables defined by management with those independent of it; 2) understanding the ecological significance of the variation remaining when both management and non-management variables are used. We caught carabid beetles according to a stratified pitfall sampling based on forest structure, tree composition and stand age. Forty-nine habitat variables were measured using three spatial scales. We decomposed the variation of species assemblages with successive constrained ordinations based on sets of variables, and studied the life traits of the species least and best explained by the model including all of the variables. Forest structure, composition and stand age showed important effects but explained a relatively small part of the overall variation in species assemblages. Management accounted for ca 30% of the variation, but non-management variables had a significant impact and the interaction between management and non-management sets resulted in significant influences. Most species for which the variation was highly explained by the model were generally large and with inefficient wings, while the least explained species were small. Our study suggests that: 1) even with highly controlled samples, the influence of management on species assemblages should not be studied by a limited set of categorical variables; 2) management variables may interact with factors outside of the manager's control; 3) a significant part of the variation cannot be explained by habitat variables and needs taking ecological processes into account; 4) rules to optimise constrained ordination techniques applied to species-habitat studies can be proposed.
Disciplines :
Environmental sciences & ecology Entomology & pest control
Author, co-author :
De Warnaffe, G. D. B.; U. des Eaux et Forêts, Ctr. de Rech. Sur la Biodiversite, Univ. Catholique de Louvain, Place Croix du Sud 2/9, B-1348 Lowain-la-Neuve, Belgium, UMR 1201 Dynamique Forestiere D., Natl. Inst. of Agricultural Research, Chemin de Borde Rouge, BP 27, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
Dufrêne, Marc ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Forêts, Nature et Paysage > Biodiversité et Paysage
Language :
English
Title :
To what extent can management variables explain species assemblages? A study of carabid beetles in forests
Anderson, M. J. and Gribble, N. A. 1998. Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. - Aust. J. Ecol. 23: 158-167.
Anon. 1990. Soil map of the world, revised legend. - FAO-Unesco, Rome.
Antvogel, H. and Bonn, A. 2001. Environmental parameters and microspatial distribution of insects: a case study in an alluvial forest. - Ecography 24: 470-482.
Baars. M. A. 1979. Patterns of movements of radioactive carabid beetles. - Oecologia 44: 125-140.
Baguette, M. 1993. Habitat selection of carabid beetles in deciduous woodlands of southern Belgium. - Pedobiologia 37: 365-378.
Baguette, M. and Gérard, S. 1993. Effects of spruce plantations on carabid beetles in southern Belgium. - Pedobiologia 37: 129-140.
Borcard, D., Legendre, P. and Drapeau, P. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. - Ecology 73: 1045-1055.
Buse, A. and Good, J. E. G. 1993. The effects of conifer forest design and management on abundance and diversity of rove beetles (Coleoptera Staphylinidae): implications for conservation. - Biol. Conserv. 64: 67-76.
Butterfield, M. L. et al. 1995. Carabid beetles as indicators of conservation potential in upland forests. - For. Ecol. Manage. 79: 63-77.
Coulon, G. (ed.) 1995. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Belgicae, 1. - Société Royale Belge d'Entomologie, Bruxelles.
Cushman, S. A. and MacGarigal, K. 2002. Hierarchical, multiscale decomposition of species-environment relationships. - Landscape Ecol. 17: 637-646.
Cushman, S. A. and Wallin, D. O. 2002. Separating the effects of environment, spatial and disturbance factors on forest community structure in the Russian Far East. - For. Ecol. Manage. 168: 201-215.
Desender, K. et al. 1995. Een gedocumendeerde Rode lijst van de zandloopkevers van Vlaanderen. - Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 1995 (1): 1-208, pp. 189-198.
Devillez, F. and Delhaise, C. 1991. Histoire de la forêt wallonne. - Forêt Wallonne 13: 2-12.
du Bus de Warnaffe, G. 2002. Impact des systèmes sylvicoles sur la biodiversité: une approche comparative en Ardenne. Réaction de la flore vasculaire, des coléoptères carabidés et de l'avifaune chanteuse à la structure de l'habitat forestier, à plusieurs échelles spatiales. - Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
du Bus de Warnaffe, G. and Lebrun, P. 2004. Effects of forest management on carabid assemblages in southern Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. - Biol. Conserv. 118: 219-234.
Dufrêne, M. 1988. Description d'un piège à fosse original, efficace et polyvalent. - Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d'Entomologie 124: 282-285.
Elek, Z., Magura, T. and Tóthmérésk, B. 2001. Impacts of nonnative Norway spruce plantation on abundance and species richness of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). - Web Ecol. 2: 32-37.
Eyre, M. D. and Rushton, S. P. 1989. Quantification of conservation criteria using invertebrates. - J. Appl. Ecol. 26: 159-171.
Ferris, R. and Humphrey, J. W. 1999. A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. - Forestry 72/4: 313-328.
Gauch, H. G. 1982. Noise reduction by eigenvector ordinations. - Ecology 63: 1643-1649.
Gourov, A., Godron, M. and Loshcev, S. 1999. Overlap distribution of forest and meadow insect species in mesoecotones II. Assemblages of soil-inhabiting wireworms (Coleptera, Elateridae). - Ecologie 30: 177-186.
Heliölä, J., Koivula, M. and Niemelä, J. 2001. Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across a boreal forest-clearcut ecotone. - Conserv. Biol. 15: 370-377.
Hill, M. O. 1974. Correspondence analysis: a neglected multivariate method. - Appl. Stat. 23: 340-354.
Humphrey. J. W. et al. 1999. Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. - For. Ecol. Manage. 113: 11-21.
Hunter, M. L. H. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ings, T. C. and Hartley, S. E. 1999. The effect of habitat structure on carabid communities during the regeneration of a native Scottish forest. - For. Ecol. Manage. 119: 123-136.
Irmler, U., Heller, K. and Warning, J. 1996. Age and tree species as factors influencing the populations of insects living in dead wood (Coleoptera, Diptera, Sciaridae, Mycetophylidae). - Pedobiologia 40: 134-148.
Jongmann, R. H. G., ter Braak, C. J. F. and van Tongeren, O. F. R. 1987. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. - Pudoc, Wageningen.
Jukes, M. R., Peace, A. and Ferris, R. 2001. Carabid beetle communities associated with coniferous plantations in Britain: the influence of site, ground vegetation and stand structure. - For. Ecol. Manage. 148: 271-286.
Kerr, G. 1999. The use of silvicultural systems to enhance the biological diversity of plantation forests in Britain. - Forestry 72: 191-205.
Kinnunen, H., Tiainen, J. and Tukia, H. 2001. Farmland carabid beetle communities at multiple levels of spatial scale. - Ecography 24: 189-197.
Koivula, M. and Niemelä, J. 2003. Gap felling as a forest harvesting method in boreal forests: responses of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). - Ecography 26: 179-187.
Koivula, M., Kukkonen, J. and Niemelä, J. 2002. Boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clearcut originated succession gradient. - Biodiv. Conserv. 11: 1268-1288.
Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical ecology, 2nd ed. - Elsevier.
Lindroth, C. H. J. 1974. Handbook for the identification of British insects Vol. IV, Part 2, Coleoptera: Carabidae. - Roy. Entomol. Soc., London.
MacCune, B. 1997. Influence of noisy environmental data on Canonical Correspondence Analysis. - Ecology 78: 2617-2623.
Magura, T., Totmeresz, B. and Bordan, Z. 2000. Effects of nature management practice on carabid assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a non-native plantation. - Biol. Conserv. 93: 95-102.
Matveev, A. 1992. Carabids as bioindicators of anthropogenic impact in the monitoring system. - 8th European Carabidologists' Meeting and 2nd Intenational Symp. of Carabidology, p. 89.
Møller. A. and Jennions, M. D. 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? - Oecologia 132: 492-500.
Murrell, D. J. and Law, R. 2000. Beetles in fragmented woodlands: a formal framework for dynamics of movement in ecological landscapes. - J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 471-483.
Nève de Mévergnie, N. and Baguette, M. 1990. Spatial behaviour and micro-habitat preferences of Carabus auronitens and Carabus problematicus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). - Acta Oecol. 11: 327-336.
Niemelä, J. et al. 1992. Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. - J. Biogeogr. 19: 173-181.
Noirfalise, A. 1984. Les stations forestières de Luxembourg. - Presses agronomiques de Gembloux
Økland, R. H. 1996. Are ordination and constrained ordination alternative or complementary strategies in general ecological studies? - J. Veg. Sci. 7: 289-292.
Økland, R. H. 1999. On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axes. - J. Veg. Sci. 10: 131-136.
Økland, R. H. and Odd, E. 1994. Canonical Correspondence Analysis with variation partitioning: some comments and an application. - J. Veg. Sci. 5: 117-126.
Palmer, W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of Canonical Correspondence Analysis. - Ecology 74: 2215-2230.
Peek, M. S. et al. 2003. How much variance is explained by ecologists? Additional perspectives. - Oecologia 137: 161-170.
Petit, S. 1994. Diffusion of forest carabid beetles in hedgerow network landscapes. - In: Desender, K. et al. (eds), Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer, pp. 337-341.
Prodon, R. and Lebreton, J. D. 1994. Analyses multivariées des relations espèces-milieu: structure et interprétation écologique. - Vie et Milieu 44: 69-91.
Rameau, J. C., Gauberville, C. and Drapier, N. 2000. Gestion forestière et biodiversité. Identification et gestion intégrée des habitats et espèces d'intérêt communautaire, partie Wallonie et Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. - ENGREF. ONF and IDF.
Schowalter, T. D. 1995. Canopy arthropod communities in relation to forest age and alternative harvest practices in western Oregon. - For. Ecol. Manage. 78: 115-125.
Smith, K. G. 1980. Canonical correlation analysis and its use in wildlife habitat studies. - Workshop on the use of multivariate statistics in studies of wildlife habitats, 23-25 April, Burlington Vt.
Speight, M. 1989. Saproxylic beetles and their conservation. - Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Sustek, Z. 1981. Influence of clear-cutting on ground beetles in a pine forest. - Communicationes Inst. Forestalis Ceschoslovaniae 12: 243-254.
ter Braak, C. J. F. 1986. Canonical correspondance analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. - Ecology 67: 1167-1179.
ter Braak, C. J. F. 1988. Partial correspondence analysis. - In: Bock, H. (ed.), Classification and related methods of data analysis. Amsterdam, pp. 551-558.
ter Braak, C. J. F. and Prentice, I. C. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. - Adv. Ecol. Res. 18: 271-317.
ter Braak, C. J. F. and Smilauer, P. 1998. Canoco: a software for Canonical Community Ordination (ver. 4). - Centre for Biometry of Wageningen.
Tukia, H. and Haila, Y. 1992. Spatial and temporal distribution of carabid beetles in young plantations in southern finnish Taiga. - 8th European Carabidologists' Meeting and 2nd Intenational Symp. of Carabidology, p. 102.
Weissen, F., Bronchart, L. and Piret, A. 1994. Guide de boisement des stations forestières de Wallonie. - Groupe interuniversitaire «définition de l'aptitude des stations forestières». FSAGx-UCL-ULB-Ulg, pp. 164-165.
Yodzis, P. 1988. The indeterminacy of ecological interactions as perceived through perturbation experiments. - Ecology 69: 508-515.
