Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-5zgkz Total loading time: 0.19 Render date: 2021-09-21T23:56:02.909Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Evaluation of carabid beetles as indicators of forest change in Canada1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Timothy T. Work*
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, et la UQAT–UQAM Chaire en Aménagement Forestier Durable, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8
Matti Koivula
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskalä, P.O. Box 35 (MaD) F1-40014 Jyväskalän, Yliopisto, Finland
Jan Klimaszewski
Affiliation:
Laurentian Centre, Canadian Forest Service, 1055 rue du P.E.P.S., C.P. 10380, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada G1V 4C7
David Langor
Affiliation:
Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, 5320 – 122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5
John Spence
Affiliation:
Department of Renewable Resources, 4-42 ESB, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
Jon Sweeney
Affiliation:
Atlantic Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, P.O. Box 4000, 1350 Regent Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 5P7
Christian Hébert
Affiliation:
Laurentian Centre, Canadian Forest Service, 1055 rue du P.E.P.S., C.P. 10380, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada G1V 4C7
*Corresponding
2Corresponding author (e-mail: Work.timothy@uqam.ca).

Abstract

Our objective was to assess the potential of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as effective bioindicators of the effects of forest management at a Canadian national scale. We present a comparison of carabid beetle assemblages reported from large-scale studies across Canada. Based on the initial response following disturbance treatment, we found that carabid assemblages consistently responded to disturbance, but responses of individual species and changes in species composition were nested within the context of regional geography and finer scale differences among forest ecosystems. We also explored the relationship between rare and dominant taxa and species characteristics as they relate to dispersal capacity and use of within-stand habitat features such as coarse woody debris. We found no relationship between life-history characteristics (such as body size, wing morphology, or reported associations with downed wood) and the relative abundance or frequency of occurrence of species. Our results suggest that carabids are better suited to finer scale evaluations of the effects of forest management than to regional or national monitoring programs. We also discuss several knowledge gaps that currently limit the full potential of using carabids as bioindicators.

Résumé

Notre objectif est d’évaluer l’efficacité potentielle des carabes (Coleoptera: Carabidae) comme bioindicateurs des effets de l’aménagement forestier à l’échelle canadienne. Nous comparons les peuplements de carabidés dans des études de grande envergure faites dans diverses régions canadiennes. D’après leur réaction initiale à la perturbation, les peuplements de carabes répondent de façon cohérente aux effets des perturbations, bien que les réactions des espèces individuelles et les changements de composition spécifique soient emboîtés dans le contexte de la géographie régionale et des différences fines entre les écosystèmes forestiers. Nous examinons aussi les relations entre les espèces rares et dominantes, de même que les caractéristiques des espèces, en ce qui a trait à la capacité de dispersion des espèces et des particularités des habitats au sein des peuplements forestiers, comme la présence de débris ligneux grossiers. Il n’existe pas de relation entre les caractéristiques biologiques des carabes (telles que la taille corporelle, la morphologie alaire ou l’association présumée avec le bois mort au sol) et l’abondance relative ou la fréquence des espèces. Nos résultats indiquent que les carabes peuvent mieux servir aux évaluations fines des effets des aménagements forestiers qu’aux programmes de surveillance à l’échelle régionale ou nationale. La discussion traite de plusieurs lacunes dans nos connaissances qui restreignent la pleine utilisation potentielle des carabes comme bioindicateurs.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abildsnes, J., and Tommeras, B.A. 2000. Impacts of experimental habitat fragmentation on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a boreal spruce forest. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 37: 201212.Google Scholar
Allegro, G., and Sciaky, R. 2003. Assessing the potential role of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as bioindicators in poplar stands, with a newly proposed ecological index (FAI). Forest Ecology and Management, 175: 275284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlegrim, O., Sjoberg, K., and Ball, J.P. 1997. Forestry effects on a boreal ground beetle community in spring: selective logging and clear-cutting compared. Entomologica Fennica, 8: 1926.Google Scholar
Aukema, B. 1995. Flying for life: wing dimorphism in closely related species of the genus Calathus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Baker, S.C., Richardson, A.M.M., Seeman, O.D., and Barmuta, L.A. 2004. Does clearfell, burn and sow silviculture mimic the effect of wildfire? A field study and review using litter beetles. Forest Ecology and Management, 199: 433448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, Y., and Harvey, B. 1997. Basing silviculture on natural ecosystem dynamics: an approach applied to the southern boreal mixedwood forest of Quebec. Forest Ecology and Management, 92: 235242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, P.J.den. 1981. On the survival of populations in a heterogeneous and variable environment. Oecologia, 50: 3953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousquet, Y., and Larochelle, A. 1993. Catalogue of the Geadephaga (Coleoptera: Trachypachidae, Rhysodiddae, Carabidae including Cicindelini) of America north of Mexico. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada No. 167.Google Scholar
Brais, S., Harvey, B.D., Bergeron, Y., Messier, C., Greene, D., Belleau, A., and Paré, D. 2004. Testing 412 Can. Entomol. Vol. 140, 2008 forest ecosystem management in boreal mixed-woods of northwestern Quebec: initial response of aspen stands to different levels of harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 431436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2003. Defining sustainable forest management in Canada; criteria and indicators [online]. Available at http://www.ccfm.org/ci/CI_Booklet_e.pdf Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
De'ath, G. 2002. Multivariate regression trees: a new technique for modeling species–environment relationships. Ecology, 83: 11051117.Google Scholar
Digweed, S.C., Currie, C.R., Carcamo, H.A., and Spence, J.R. 1995. Digging out the “digging-in effect” of pitfall traps: influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles. Pedobiologia, 39: 561576.Google Scholar
Duchesne, L.C., Lautenschlager, R.A., and Bell, F.W. 1999. Effects of clear-cutting and plant competition control methods on carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in northwestern Ontario. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 56: 8796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufrene, M., and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible assymetrcal approach. Ecological Monographs, 67: 345366.Google Scholar
Finch, O.D. 2005. Evaluation of mature conifer plantations as secondary habitat for epigeic forest arthropods (Coleoptera: Carabidae; Araneae). Forest Ecology and Management, 204: 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, K.J.K., Spence, J.R., Langor, D.W., and Morgantini, L.E. 2001. Fire residuals as habitat reserves for epigaeic beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae). Biological Conservation, 102: 131141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K.J. 1996. The multiple forms of the interspecific abundance–distribution relationship. Oikos, 76: 211220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulet, H. 1974. Biology and relationships of Pterostichus adstrictus Eschscholtz and Pterostichus pensylvanicus LeConte (Coleoptera:Carabidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae, 10: 333.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, D., and Menendez, R. 1997. Patterns in the distribution, abundance and body size of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Caraboidea) in relation to dispersal ability. Journal of Biogeography, 24: 903914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distributions: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos, 38: 210221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, B.D., Leduc, A., Gauthier, S., and Bergeron, Y. 2002. Stand–landscape integration in natural disturbance-based management of the southern boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 155: 369385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heliola, J., Koivula, M., and Niemela, J. 2001. Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across a boreal forest–clearcut ecotone. Conservation Biology, 15: 370377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbell, S.P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, and Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Hunter, M.L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In Balancing on the edge of extinction. Edited by Kohm, K.A.. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 266281.Google Scholar
Kean, J., and Bigelow, N. 2004. Exploring rarity using a general model for distribution and abundance. American Naturalist, 163: 407416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klimaszewski, J., Langor, D.W., Work, T.T., Pelletier, G, Hammond, H.E.J., and Germaine, C. 2005 a. The effects of patch harvesting and site preparation on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in yellow birch dominated forests of southeastern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35: 26162628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimaszewski, J., Sweeney, J., Price, J., and Pelletier, G. 2005 b. Rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) in red spruce stands, eastern Canada: diversity, abundance, and descriptions of new species. The Canadian Entomologist, 137: 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivula, M., Kukkonen, J., and Niemela, J. 2002. Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clear-cut originated succession gradient. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11: 12691288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotze, D.J., and O'Hara, R.B. 2003. Species decline — but why? Explanations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe. Oecologia, 135: 138148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotze, D.J., Niemala, J., O'Hara, R.B., and Turin, H. 2003. Testing abundance – range size relationships in European carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecography, 26: 553566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larochelle, A., and Larivière, M.-C. 2003. A natural history of the ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America north of Mexico. Pensoft Publishers, Sophia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Larsson, S., and Danell, K. 2001. Science and the management of boreal forest biodiversity. Scandinavian Journal of Forestry Research, 16(Suppl. 3): 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemieux, J.P., and Lindgren, B.S. 2004. Ground beetle responses to patch retention harvesting in high elevation forests of British Columbia. Ecography, 27: 557566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D.B., Margules, C.R., and Botkin, D.B. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology, 14: 941950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1961. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cincindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 2. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 20. pp. 1200.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1963. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cincindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 3. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 24. pp. 201408.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1966. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cincindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 4. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 29. pp. 409648.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1968. The ground-beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cincindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 5. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 33. pp. 649944.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1969 a. The ground-beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cincindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 6. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 34. pp. 9451192.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1969 b. The ground-beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cincindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Part 1. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum 35. pp. I– XLVII.Google Scholar
Luff, M.L. 1993. The Carabidae (Coleoptera) larvae of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, 27: 1186.Google Scholar
Martikainen, P., and Kouki, J. 2003. Sampling the rarest: threatened beetles in boreal forest biodiversity inventories. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 18151831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascanzoni, D., and Wallin, H. 1986. The harmonic radar: a new method for tracing insects in the field. Ecological Entomology, 11: 387390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B., and Grace, J.B. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.Google Scholar
McGeoch, M.A. 1998. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 73: 181302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGeoch, M.A., and Gaston, K.J. 2002. Occupancy frequency distributions: patterns, artefacts and mechanisms. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 77: 311331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, J.D., Ouimet, R., Houle, D., and Camire, C. 2004. Effects of two silvicultural practices on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a northern hardwood forest, Quebec, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 959968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, J. 2001. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and habitat fragmentation: a review. European Journal of Entomology, 98: 127132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, J., and Spence, J.R. 1994. Distribution of forest dwelling carabids (Coleoptera) — spatial scale and the concept of communities. Ecography, 17: 166175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, J., Langor, D, and Spence, J.R. 1993. Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground-beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in western Canada. Conservation Biology, 7: 551561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niwa, C.G., and Peck, R.W. 2002. Influence of prescribed fire on carabid beetle (Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages in forest litter in southwestern Oregon. Environmental Entomology, 31: 785796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, B. 1987. The principle of nested subsets and its implications for biological conservation. Conservation Biology, 1: 323334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, R., and Niwa, C.G. 2004. Longer-term effects of selective thinning on carabid beetles and spiders in the Cascade Mountains of southern Oregon. Northwest Science, 78: 267277.Google Scholar
Rainio, J., and Niemelä, J. 2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biological Conservation, 12: 487506.Google Scholar
Rykken, J.J., Capen, D.E., and Mahabir, S.P. 1997. Ground beetles as indicators of land type diversity in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Conservation Biology, 11: 523530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J.R. 1979. Riparian guilds as spontaneous question generators. In Carabid beetles: their evolution, natural history and classification. Edited by Erwin, T.L.. DR. W. Junk, The Hague, the Netherlands. pp. 525537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J.R., and Niemelä, J.K. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. The Canadian Entomologist, 126: 881894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J.R., and Volney, W.J.A. 1999. EMEND: ecosystem management emulating natural disturbance: Sustainable Forest Management Network Project report 1999-14. Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta.Google Scholar
Szyszko, J. 1974. Relationship between the occurrence of epigeic carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae), certain soil properties, and species composition of a forest stand. Ekologia Polska, 22: 237274.Google Scholar
Szyszko, J. 1983. State of Carabidae (Col.) fauna in fresh pine forest and tentative valorisation of this environment. Treatises and monographs SGGWAR. Vol. 28. Warsaw Agricultural University, Warsaw, Poland. pp. 180.Google Scholar
Thiele, H.-U. 1977. Carabid beetles in their environment: a study on habitat selection by adaptations in physiology and behavior. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, W., and Zalewski, M. 2006. Abundance and co-occurrence patterns of core and satellite species of ground beetles on small lake islands. Oikos, 114: 338348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkov, I., Banavar, J.R., Hubbell, S.P., and Maritan, A. 2003. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature (London), 424: 10351037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallin, H., and Ekbom, B.S. 1988. Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a tracing study. Oecologia, 77: 3943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallin, H., and Ekbom, B. 1994. Influence of hunger level and prey densities on movement patterns in 3 species of Pterostichus beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Environmental Entomology, 23: 11711181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, F. 1996. Genetics and dynamics of a Carabus auronitens metapopulation in the Westphalian lowlands (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici, 38: 8596.Google Scholar
Werner, S.M., and Raffa, K.F. 2000. Effects of forest management practices on the diversity of ground-occurring beetles in mixed northern hardwood forests of the Great Lakes Region. Forest Ecology and Management, 139: 135155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikars, L.O. 1995. Clear-cutting before burning prevents establishment of the fire-adapted Agonum quadripunctatum (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici, 32: 375384.Google Scholar
Work, T.T., Buddle, C.M., Korinus, L.M., and Spence, J.R. 2002. Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Environmental Entomology, 31: 438448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Work, T.T., Spence, J.R., Volney, W.J.A., and Burton, P.J. 2003. Sustainable forest management as license to think and try something different. In Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest. Edited by Burton, P.J., Messier, C., Smith, D.W., and Adamowicz, W.L.. NRC Press, Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 953970.Google Scholar
36
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluation of carabid beetles as indicators of forest change in Canada1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Evaluation of carabid beetles as indicators of forest change in Canada1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Evaluation of carabid beetles as indicators of forest change in Canada1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *