| Literature DB >> 26945089 |
Hanne Eik Pilskog1, Tone Birkemoe2, Erik Framstad3, Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson4.
Abstract
One of the largest threats to biodiversity is land use change and habitat loss. Hollow oaks (Quercus spp. L.) are well-defined patches that are hotspots for biodiversity and red-listed species, but they are often rare and fragmented in the landscape. We investigated the effect of patch size, habitat quality, and isolation on functional groups and red-listed saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks (n = 40) in Norway. The groups were defined by host tree association, trophic grouping, and red-listed status. Habitat quality, represented by tree form was most important in explaining species richness for most groups. Patch size, represented by circumference and amount of dead branches, was most important in explaining abundance. Isolation, that is single oaks compared with oaks in groups, had a negative effect on the abundance of beetles feeding both on wood and fungi (xylomycethopagous), as well as on species associated with broadleaved trees (oak semi-specialists), but did not affect species richness. This indicates that at this scale and in this landscape, isolated oaks are as species rich and valuable for conservation as other oaks, although some functional groups may be more vulnerable to isolation than others. The red-listed species only responded to patch size, indicating that oaks with large circumference and many dead branches are especially important for red-listed species and for conservation.Entities:
Keywords: Coleoptera; ancient tree; fragmentation; saproxylic; trophic group
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26945089 PMCID: PMC4778571 DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/iev145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Insect Sci ISSN: 1536-2442 Impact factor: 1.857
Fig. 1.Map of southern Norway with the locations of the hollow oaks (n = 40). The symbols show isolation category: solitary (high isolation) and aggregated (low isolation).
Variables used in the statistical analyses of oak-associated beetles in hollow oaks (n = 40)
| Variable | Cont. or Cat. | Units or levels | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolation | Cat. | High | Hollow oaks situated in areas with no or few other hollow oaks nearby (within 200 m) ( | |
| Low | Hollow oaks situated in areas with several hollow oaks and close distance (<200 m) to at least four other hollow oaks ( | |||
| Circumference | Cont. | Cm | Circumference measured in breast height (1.3 m above ground) (min: 60 cm, max: 953 cm, median: 310 cm) | |
| Dead branches | Cat. | low, intermediate, high | Amount of dead branches present on the tree was categorized into: low, <50% of branches dead ( | |
| Tree form | Cat. | low, middle, high | The shape of the oaks were categorized based on the positon of the tree crown into low ( | |
| Openness | Cat. | open, shrub, trees | The hollow oaks were categorized according to presence of woody vegetation within 5 m around the oak creating shade: open ( | |
| Landscape | Cat. | cultural | Hollow oaks within agricultural landscapes ( | |
| forest | Hollow oaks in forests ( | |||
| Geographical position | Cont. | UTM32V coordinates | X and Y coordinates from GPS coordinates (WGS84), rounded to nearest 100 m to adjust for uneven spatial distribution. Used in the GLMMs | |
| Entomological region | Cat. | regions | Sampling regions commonly used for insects in Norway ( |
Cont., continuous, Cat., categorical.
Fig. 2.Percentage of saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks split into specialization and trophic levels. (A) Species richness. (B) Number of individuals. The number of species or individuals in each category is shown.
Effect of patch size, habitat quality, and isolation on species richness and abundance of red-listed species and functional groups of oak-associated beetles in hollow oaks
| Patch size | Habitat quality | Isolation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Circum. | Dead branches | Tree form | Openness | high versus low | |
| high/inter. versus low | low/inter. versus high | tree/shrub versus open | |||
| Red-listed species | (+) | ||||
| All oak species | + | ||||
| Xylophage | (+) | + | |||
| Xylomycetophage | (+) | (−) | |||
| Fungivore | + | ||||
| Predator | + | ||||
| Mixed feeding | |||||
| Specialist | |||||
| Oak semi-specialist | + | ||||
| Generalist | + | ||||
| Red-listed individuals | + | ||||
| All oak individuals | (+) | + | (−) | ||
| Xylophage | + | + | + | ||
| Xylomycetophage | + | + | + | – | – |
| Fungivore | + | (+)a | |||
| Predator | + | ||||
| Mixed feeding | + | ||||
| Specialist | + | ||||
| Oak semi-specialist | + | – | |||
| Generalist | + | (+)a | (-)b | ||
Optimal models of GLMMs were used for species richness and LMMs for log-transformed abundance data. The optimal models were found by backward elimination using the drop1 function in R and AIC as selection criterion. For species, UTM coordinates were used as random effect and entomological region was used as random effect in the LMMs for log-transformed abundance. Only the strongest trend is shown for variables with several levels. Significant effects (P < 0.05) are indicated with a + or − only, whereas the nonsignificant variables (P > 0.05) kept in the optimal models are shown in brackets. For full details, see Supplementary Tables 2 and 3. Explanation: Circum, circumference; Inter., intermediate; 0.1 > P > 0.05; 0.15 > P > 0.1.