| Literature DB >> 25756871 |
Jon Andersson1, Joakim Hjältén1, Mats Dynesius2.
Abstract
The increasing demand for biofuels from logging residues require serious attention on the importance of dead wood substrates on clear-cuts for the many forestry-intolerant saproxylic (wood-inhabiting) species. In particular, the emerging harvest of low stumps motivates further study of these substrates. On ten clear-cuts we compared the species richness, abundance and species composition of saproxylic beetles hatching from four to nine year old low stumps, high stumps and logs of Norway spruce. By using emergence traps we collected a total of 2,670 saproxylic beetles among 195 species during the summers of 2006, 2007 and 2009. We found that the species assemblages differed significantly between high stumps and logs all three years. The species assemblages of low stumps, on the other hand, were intermediate to those found in logs and high stumps. There were also significant difference in species richness between the three examined years, and we found significant effect of substrate type on richness of predators and fungivores. As shown in previous studies of low stumps on clear-cuts they can sustain large numbers of different saproxylic beetles, including red-listed species. Our study does, in addition to this fact, highlight a possible problem in creating just one type of substrate as a tool for conservation in forestry. Species assemblages in high stumps did not differ significantly from those found in low stumps. Instead logs, which constitute a scarcer substrate type on clear-cuts, provided habitat for a more distinct assemblage of saproxylic species than high stumps. It can therefore be questioned whether high stumps are an optimal tool for nature conservation in clear-cutting forestry. Our results also indicate that low stumps constitute an equally important substrate as high stumps and logs, and we therefore suggest that stump harvesting is done after carefully evaluating measures to provide habitat for saproxylic organisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25756871 PMCID: PMC4355491 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118896
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area.
The location of the 10 clear-cuts in Sweden (A) and in the region (B). The distance between the vertical grid lines in B is approximately 50 km.
Fig 2Substrate types and traps.
Low stump (A), high stump (B) and log (C) with the emergence traps attached. Observe that the cut surface was covered by the trap only on low stumps. Note that in drawings B and C, the proportional length of the substrate covered by the trap is longer than in reality.
The number of traps and substrates.
| Substrate type | Yr1 | Yr2 | Yr4 | # traps | # substrates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HS | 30 | 28 | 27 | 85 | 30 |
| L | 28 | 28 | 28 | 84 | 30 |
| LS | 30 | 30 | 29 | 89 | 89 |
| Total | 88 | 86 | 84 | 258 | 149 |
In total we used 258 traps on 149 substrates on ten different clear-cuts. As each low stump was sampled only once, we sampled 90 different low stumps in total. The last year one trap on a low stump was destroyed.
Species richness.
| Source | Chi2 | P | post hoc test |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| All saproxylics | 10.694 |
| Yr 2 > Yr 1, Yr 3 |
| Predators | 18.635 |
| Yr 2 > Yr 1, Yr 3 |
| Fungivores | 1.265 | 0.531 | |
| Wood borers | 20.084 |
| Yr 2 > Yr 1, Yr 3 |
|
| |||
| All saproxylics | 1.282 | 0.527 | |
| Predators | 7.322 |
| HS > L, LS |
| Fungivores | 18.694 |
| L, LS > HS |
| Wood borers | 3.217 | 0.200 |
When significance (α < 0.05) occurred, we examined the effect of each factor level with Tukey tests. N = 10, i.e. each clear-cut was used as a replicate. HS > L denotes higher species richness in high stumps than in logs. HS = high stumps, L = logs and LS = low stumps.
The relation between substrate type, time, and the species richness of the three nutritional subgroups as described by the GLMM. For factors time and substrate, type df = 2 and for the interaction between time and substrate type df = 4. No significant result was encountered for this interaction and no result is reported.
Species composition.
| Source | df | wald | P | post hoc test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Substrate type | 2 | 9.879 |
| HS ≠ L |
| Error | 27 | |||
|
| ||||
| Substrate type | 2 | 10.25 |
| HS, LS ≠ L |
| Error | 27 | |||
|
| ||||
| Substrate type | 2 | 8.645 |
| HS ≠ L |
| Error | 27 |
For the post hoc test the α-probability was set to 0.05 and N = 10, i.e. each clear-cut was used as a replicate. “≠”denotes significant difference between the substrates (abbreviations: HS = high stumps, L = logs and LS for = low stumps).
The ManyGLM analysis testing the relations between saproxylic beetle assemblages on clear-cuts and the studied substrate types.
Fig 3NMDS plots.
The best two-dimensional NMDS solution of the difference in species assemblage. Each point represents one clear-cut and high stumps, logs and low stumps are denoted with squares, triangles, and circles respectively. Lines and shadows are drawn around each substrate type to the emphasize groupings. To be able to draw all plots on the same scale, one data point was left out in year. The 2D stress was 0.26.
Individual species responses.
| Species | Subgroup | Substrate | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| P, W | HS | ns | HS > L | HS > L |
|
| P | HS | ns | - | HS > L, LS |
|
| F | HS | ns | ns | HS > L, LS |
|
| F | HS | ns | HS > LS | ns |
|
| P | HS | ns | HS > LS | ns |
|
| F | L | L > HS | L > HS | L > HS, LS |
|
| F | L | L > HS | L > HS, LS | L > HS, LS |
|
| P, W | L | L > HS | L > LS | ns |
|
| P | L | ns | L > HS, LS | ns |
|
| ?F | L | ns | L > HS | ns |
|
| C | L | L > LS | ns | ns |
|
| C | L | L > HS | ns | ns |
|
| F | L | ns | L > HS | ns |
|
| F | L | L > LS | ns | ns |
|
| F | L | ns | L > LS | ns |
|
| F | L | L > HS | ns | - |
|
| P | L | ns | L > LS | - |
|
| C, W | L, LS | L > LS > HS | LS > L | ns |
|
| F | L, LS | L, LS > HS | L, LS > HS | L, LS > HS |
|
| F | LS | ns | LS > HS | LS > HS |
|
| F | LS | ns | ns | LS > HS, L |
|
| F | LS | LS > L | ns | ns |
|
| F | LS | ns | LS > L | ns |
|
| F,? D, P | LS | - | ns | LS > HS |
|
| P | LS | ns | LS > L | ns |
|
| P | LS | ns | LS > L | ns |
|
| P, W | LS | ns | LS > L | ns |
|
| P | i | L, LS > HS | LS > HS > L | ns |
Abbreviations for nutritional subgroups: C = cambivore, D = detritrivore, F = fungivore, P = predator, and W = wood borer. “?” before a classification means that the classification is uncertain; and for substrate types: HS = high stumps, L = logs and LS for = low stumps. HS > L denotes higher abundance in high stumps than in logs. “i” and “ns” denotes inconclusive result and non-significant result respectively and “-”indicate absence of the species.
Species that, according to the univariate pair-wise tests, significantly (α < 0.05) responded to the different substrate types ordered from top to bottom in respect to their respective substrate preference and according to the number of years the response was significant (all years, two years or one year).