Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:39:23.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principal determinants of species and functional diversity of carabid beetle assemblages during succession at post-industrial sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2017

J. Sipos ,
J. Hodecek ,
T. Kuras  and
A. Dolny
J. Sipos*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 710 00, Ostrava, Czech Republic Department of Vegetation Ecology, Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Lidicka 25/27, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
J. Hodecek
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Ecology/Institute of Environmental Technologies, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 710 00, Ostrava, Czech Republic
T. Kuras
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Palacky University in Olomouc, Slechtitelu 27, 771 46, Olomouc, Czech Republic
A. Dolny
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Ecology/Institute of Environmental Technologies, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 710 00, Ostrava, Czech Republic
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +420737777513 Fax: +420596120478 E-mail: jsipos@seznam.cz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although ecological succession is one of the principal focuses of recent restoration ecology research, it is still unclear which factors drive this process and positively influence species richness and functional diversity. In this study we sought to elucidate how species traits and functional diversity change during forest succession, and to identify important factors that determine the species in the observed assemblages. We analyzed species richness and functional diversity of ground beetle assemblages in relation to succession on post-industrial localities after habitat deterioration caused by spoil deposition. We selected ground beetles as they are known to be sensitive to landscape changes (with a large range of responses), and their taxonomy and ecology are generally well-known. Ground beetles were sampled on the spoil heaps during the last 30 years when spontaneous succession occurred. To calculate functional diversity, we used traits related to habitat and trophic niche, i.e. food specialization, wing morphology, trophic level, and bio-indication value. Ground beetle species were found to be distributed non-randomly in the assemblages in the late phase of succession. Ordination analyses revealed that the ground beetle assemblage was significantly associated with the proportion of forested area. Environmental heterogeneity generated assemblages that contained over-dispersed species traits. Our findings indicated that environmental conditions at late successional stages supported less mobile carnivorous species. Overall, we conclude that the decline in species richness and functional diversity in the middle of the studied succession gradient indicated that the assemblages of open habitats had been replaced by species typical of forest ecosystems.

Keywords

environmental factorsfunctional traitslandscape restorationspoil heapsfunctional redundancycarabid
Type
Research Papers
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 107 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 466 - 477
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Bartemucci, P., Messier, C. & Canham, C.D. (2006) Overstory influences on light attenuation patterns and understory plant community diversity and composition in southern boreal forests of Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36, 2065–2079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bihn, J.H., Gebauer, G. & Brandl, R. (2010) Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forest. Ecology 91, 782–792. DOI: 10.1890/08-1276.1.Google Scholar
De Vasconcelos, H.L. (1990) Effects of litter collection by understory palms on the associated macroinvertebrate fauna in central Amazonia. Pedobiologia 34, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. (2001) Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 646–655. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02283-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflot, R., Georges, R., Ernoult, A., Aviron, S. & Burel, F. (2014) Landscape heterogeneity as an ecological filter of species traits. Acta Oecologica, 56, 19–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2014.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farias, A.A. & Jaksic, F.M. (2011) Low functional richness and redundancy of a predator assemblage in native forest fragments of Chiloe Island, Chile. Journal of Animal Ecology 80, 809–817.Google Scholar
Fournier, B., Gillet, F., Le Bayon, R.C., Mitchell, E.A.D., & Moretti, M. (2015) Functional responses of multitaxa communities to disturbance and stress gradients in a restored floodplain. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 1364–1363. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12493.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. & Van Pelt, R. (2004) Spatial aspect of structural complexity in old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry 102, 22–28.Google Scholar
Gerisch, M. (2014) Non-random patterns of functional redundancy revealed in ground beetle communities facing an extreme flood event. Functional Ecology 28, 1504–1512. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerisch, M., Agostinelli, V., Henle, K. & Dziock, F. (2012) More species, but all do the same: contrasting effects of flood disturbance on ground beetle functional and species diversity. Oikos 121, 508–515. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19749.x.Google Scholar
Gerlach, J., Samways, M. & Pryke, J. (2013) Terrestrial invertebrates as bioindicators: an overview of available taxonomic groups. Journal of Insect Conservation 17, 831–850. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-013-9565-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, H., Johansson, T., Stenbacka, F. & Hjätlén, J. (2013) Functional roles affect diversity-succession relationships for boreal beetles. PLoS ONE 8, 1–14. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gotelli, N.J. & Colwell, R.K. (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4, 379–391.Google Scholar
Hodecek, J., Kuras, T., Sipos, J. & Dolny, A. (2015) Post-industrial areas as successional habitats: long-term changes of functional diversity in beetle communities. Basic and Applied Ecology 16, 629–640. DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2015.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurka, K. (1996) Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics – Illustrated Key. Zlín, Kabourek.Google Scholar
Hurka, K., Vesely, P., Farkac, J. (1996) Vyuziti strevlikovitych (Coleoptera: carabidae) k indikaci kvality prostredi [The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: carabidae) as bioindicators]. Klapalekiana 32, 15–26.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G.E. (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbour Symposium on Quantitative Biology 22, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jocque, M., Field, R., Brendonck, L. & De Meester, L. (2010) Climatic control of dispersal–ecological specialization trade-offs: a metacommunity process at the heart of the latitudinal diversity gradient? Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 244–252. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00510.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kara, Ö., Bolat, İ., Çakiroğlu, K. & Öztürk, M. (2008) Plant canopy effect on litter accumulation and soil microbial biomass in two temperate forests. Biology and Fertility of Soils 45, 193–198. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-008-0327-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kašák, J., Mazalová, M., Šipoš, J. & Kuras, T. (2015) Dwarf pine: invasive plant threatens biodiversity of alpine beetles. Biodiversity and Conservation 24, 2399–2415. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-015-0929-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katayama, N., Amano, T., Naoe, S., Yamakita, T., Komatsu, I., Takagawa, S., Sato, N., Ueta, M. & Miyashita, T. (2014) Landscape heterogeneity–biodiversity relationship: effect of range size. PLoS ONE 9, 1–8.Google Scholar
Kromp, B. (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74, 187–228. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00037-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruess, A. & Tscharntke, T. (1994) Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control. Science 264, 1581–1584. DOI: 10.1126/science.264.5165.1581.Google Scholar
Kusch, J. (2005) Effects of patch type and food specializations on fine spatial scale community patterns of nocturnal forest associated Lepidoptera. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 38, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. (2010) A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., McIntyre, S., Williams, N.S.G., Garden, D., Dorrough, J., Berman, S., Quétier, F., Thébault, A. & Bonis, A. (2008) Assessing functional diversity in the field - methodology matters! Functional Ecology 22, 134–147.Google Scholar
Lavorel, S. & Garnier, E. (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional Ecology 16, 545–556. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x.Google Scholar
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M., Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G. & Douzet, R. (2010) Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology 99, 135–147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01753.x.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. (1992) Ground Beetles (Carabidae) of Fennoscandia. A Zoogeographic Study. Washington, Smithsonian Institute Libraries and the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Lohbeck, M., Poorter, L., Paz, H., Pla, L., van Breugel, M., Ramos, M.M. & Bongers, F. (2012) Functional diversity changes during tropical forest succession. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14, 89–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ppees.2011.10.002.Google Scholar
Lortie, C.J., Brooker, R.W., Choler, P., Kikvidze, Z., Michalet, R., Pugnaire, F.I. & Callaway, R.M. (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107, 433–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, N.W.H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W.G. & Wilson, J.B. (2005) Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111, 112–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13886.x.Google Scholar
Menge, B.A. & Sutherland, J.P. (1976) Species diversity gradients: synthesis of the roles of predation, competition, and temporal heterogeneity. American Naturalist 110, 351–369. DOI: 10.1086/283073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouchet, M.A., Villeger, S., Mason, N.W.H. & Mouillot, D. (2010) Functional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Functional Ecology 24, 867–876. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01695.x.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J. (1999) Management in relation to disturbance in the boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 115, 127–134. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00393-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, J. (2001) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and habitat fragmentation: a review. European Journal of Entomology 98, 127–132. DOI: 10.14411/eje.2001.023.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J., Langor, D. & Spence, J.R. (1993) Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground-beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conservation Biology 7, 551–561. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030551.x.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J., Spence, J.R., Langor, D., Haila, Y. & Tukia, H. (1994) Logging and boreal ground-beetle assemblages on two continents: implications for conservation. pp. 29–50 in Gaston, K., Samways, M., New, T. (Eds) Perspectives in Insect Conservation. Andover, Intercept.Google Scholar
Parker, G.G. (1995) Structure and microclimate of forest canopies. pp. 73–106 in Lowman, M.D., Nadkarni, N.M. (Eds) Forest canopies. San Diego, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paquin, P. (2008) Carabid beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) diversity in the black spruce succession of eastern Canada. Biological Conservation 141, 261–275. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purschke, O., Schmid, B.C., Sykes, M.T., Poschlod, P., Michalski, S.G., Durka, W., Kühn, I., Winter, M. & Prentice, H.C. (2013) Contrasting changes in taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity during a long-term succession: insights into assembly processes. Journal of Ecology 101, 857–866. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, the R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rainio, J. & Niemelä, J. (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 487–506. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022412617568.Google Scholar
Ribera, I., Dolédec, S., Downie, I.S. & Foster, G.N. (2001) Effect of land disturbance and stress on species traits of ground beetle assemblages. Ecology 82, 1112–1129. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1112:EOLDAS]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
Ricotta, C. & Moretti, M. (2011) CWM and Rao's quadratic diversity: a unified framework for functional ecology. Oecologia 167, 181–188. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-1965-5.Google Scholar
Roscher, C., Schumacher, J., Gubsch, M., Lipowsky, A., Weigelt, A., Buchmann, A., Schmid, B. & Schulze, E. (2012) Using plant functional traits to explain diversity–productivity relationships. PLoS ONE 7, 1–11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036760.Google Scholar
Schwerk, A. & Szyszko, J. (2011) Model of succession in degraded areas based on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 100, 319–332.Google Scholar
Shibuya, S., Kubota, K., Ohsawa, M. & Kikvidze, Z. (2011) Assembly rules for ground beetle communities: what determines community structure, environmental factors or competition? European Journal of Entomolology 108, 453–459. DOI: 10.14411/eje.2011.058.Google Scholar
Shibuya, S., Kikvidze, Z., Toki, W., Kanazawa, Y., Suizu, T., Yajima, T., Fujimori, T., Mansournia, M.R., Sule, Z., Kubota, K. & Fukuda, K. (2014) Ground beetle community in suburban Satoyama — A case study onwing type and body size under small scale management. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 17, 775–780. DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2014.07.013.Google Scholar
Slezak, V., Hora, P. & Tuff, I.H. (2010) Effect of pitfall-trapping on the abundance of epigeic macrofauna – preliminary results. Acta Societatis Zooligicae Bohemicae 74, 129–133.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. (1977) Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology 46, 337–365. DOI: 10.2307/3817.Google Scholar
Stanovsky, J. & Pulpan, J. (2006) Strevlikoviti Brouci Slezska (severovychodni Moravy) [The Ground Beetles of Silesia (Northeastern Moravia)]. Frydek-Mistek, Muzeum Beskyd.Google Scholar
ter Braak, C.J.F. & Smilauer, P. (2012) Canoco Reference Manual and User's Guide: Software for Ordination, Version 5.0. Ithaca, USA, Microcomputer Power.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, D., Ritchie, M. & Siemann, E. (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1300–1302. DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5330.1300.Google Scholar
Walker, L.R. (2012) The Biology of Disturbed Habitats. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, L.R. & Moral, R. (2003) Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wayman, R.B. & North, M. (2007) Initial response of a mixed-conifer understory plant community to burning and thinning restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 239, 32–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.11.011.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sipos supplementary material

Sipos supplementary material 1

Download Sipos supplementary material(File)
File 20.4 KB