| Literature DB >> 29772015 |
Eugénie Cateau1, Pierre-Alexis Herrault2, David Sheeren2, Sylvie Ladet3, Hervé Brustel1.
Abstract
Flightless saproxylic beetles were selected in order to study the impact of temporal and spatial discontinuity of forests. They were chosen because: (1) they are unable to fly, making them dispersal-limited species, (2) they have a saproxylic diet, which means they are closely linked to the forest, and (3), they have rarely been studied. Forest temporal continuity was expected to be the main factor explaining the presence of these species, modulated by the past and present amount of forest in the surrounding landscape. Twenty-seven forests, distributed into three zones, were sampled in southwestern France. Flightless saproxylic beetles were surveyed using a Winkler extractor and a Berlese funnel. Their presence/absence were modelled using generalised linear mixed models, with zone variable as random effect. Two species showed significant zone effect and were only or more present in the zone with the highest present forest amount in a 0.5 km radius. In the model that converged, the only selected variable was the past amount of forest in the landscape. The size of the forest, the presence of dead wood and the forest temporal continuity were not included in this model. The importance of the amount of forest in the landscape supports the hypothesis that dispersal-limited species are affected by landscape characteristics. This study demonstrates an important link between the presence of Dienerella clathrata and the amount of forest in the past, which led to an indicator species analysis being performed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29772015 PMCID: PMC5957437 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197847
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Sampling plan: 27 forests were sampled in a highly fragmented region.
Grey indicates forest in the landscape.
GLM tested to explain the presence-absence of the four FSLB species recorded in a fragmented forest landscape.
| Explanatory variables | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| Model form: E(y) = β0 + β1+ β2_0.5+ β3_0.5+ β4+ β5+ β6+ β7+(1|β8) | ||
| Area 2010 | β1 | Present area of woodland (topographic database 2010) (ha) |
| Forest_amount 2010_0.5 | B2_0.5 | Present forest amount in a zone with a 0.5 km radius (topographic database 2010) (%) |
| Forest_amount 1850_0.5 | B3_0.5 | Past forest amount in a zone with a 0.5 km radius (historical map of 1850) (%) |
| STW | β4 | Volume of large standing deadwood per forest (m3/ha) |
| CWD | β5 | Volume of coarse woody debris per hectare (m3/ha) |
| ITS | β6 | Number of indigenous tree species per hectare |
| Histo_continuity | β7 | Historical forest continuity over time (present in 1850 = ancient; recorded after 1850 = recent) |
| Zone (random effect) | β8 | Zone (south east or west) in which the forest is located |
| Model form: E(y) = β0 + β1+ β2_1+ β3_1+ β4+ β5+ β6+ β7+(1|β8) | ||
| Area 2010 | β1 | Present area of woodland (topographic database 2010) (ha) |
| Forest_amount 2010_1 | β2_1 | Present forest amount in a zone with a 1 km radius (topographic database 2010) (%) |
| Forest_amount 1850_1 | β3_1 | Past forest amount in a buffer zone with a 1 km radius (historical map of 1850) (%) |
| STW | β4 | Volume of large standing deadwood per forest (m3/ha) |
| CWD | β5 | Volume of coarse woody debris per hectare (m3/ha) |
| ITS | β6 | Number of indigenous tree species per hectare |
| Histo_continuity | β7 | Historical forest continuity over time (present in 1850 = ancient; recorded after 1850 = recent) |
| Zone (random effect) | β8 | Zone (south east or west) in which the forest is located |
Fig 2Forest amount in 2010 within a 0.5 km radius in the three zones.
Results of the GLMM; NA: Not applicable.
| Model 0.5 | ||||
| AIC | 33.4 | 25.6 | 39.5 | 45.9 |
| Fixed effect (estimate, with 95% confidence interval) | ||||
| Intercept | -7.45 | - | - | - |
| Area 2010 | - | - | - | - |
| Forest_amount 2010_0.5 | 0.68 | - | - | - |
| Forest_amount 1850_0.5 | -0.41 | - | - | - |
| STW | 0.14 | - | - | - |
| CWD | - | - | - | - |
| ITS | - | - | - | - |
| Histo_continuity | - | - | - | - |
| Random effect (variance component) | ||||
| Zone | 0 | 192,5 | 0 | 0 |
| R2 marginal | 0.93 | NA | NA | NA |
| R2 conditional | 0.93 | NA | NA | NA |
| Model 1 | ||||
| AIC | 42.7 | 27.0 | 34.5 | 43.2 |
| Fixed effect (estimate, with 95% confidence interval) | ||||
| Intercept | - | - | -7.69 | - |
| Area 2010 | - | - | - | - |
| Forest_amount 2010_1 | - | - | - | - |
| Forest_amount 1850_1 | - | - | 0.47 | - |
| STW | - | - | - | - |
| CWD | - | - | - | - |
| ITS | - | - | - | - |
| Histo_continuity | - | - | - | - |
| Random effect (variance component) | ||||
| Zone | 1.41 | 367.7 | 0 | 0 |
| R2 marginal | NA | NA | 0.60 | NA |
| R2 conditional | NA | NA | 0.60 | NA |
Fig 3Comparison between the observed and predicted distribution of D. clathrata (model 1.0).