4.5 Article

Effects of Pure and Mixed Pine and Oak Forest Stands on Carabid Beetles

Journal

DIVERSITY-BASEL
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d13030127

Keywords

mixed forests; Carabidae; activity density; body size; sex ratio; aggregation index; spatial effect zones

Funding

  1. Michael-Jahr-Foundation
  2. TU Dresden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The multiple-use approach to forestry in Germany combines timber production and habitat management by preserving specific stand structures. Different forest stand types have varying effects on the species of carabid beetles, and understanding these preferences is crucial for adapting forest structures to habitat requirements.
The multiple-use approach to forestry applied in Germany aims to combine timber production and habitat management by preserving specific stand structures. We selected four forest stand types comprising (i) pure oak, (ii) equal oak-pine mixtures, (iii) single tree admixtures of oak in pine forest and (iv) pure pine. We analysed the effects of stand composition parameters on species representative of the larger carabid beetles (Carabus arvensis, C. coriaceus, C. hortensis, C. violaceus, Calosoma inquisitor). The main statistical methods used were correlation analyses and generalised linear mixed models. Cal. inquisitor was observed in pure oak forests exclusively. C. coriaceus and C. hortensis were absent from pure pine stands. High activity densities of C. arvensis and C. violaceus were observed in all four forest types. When assessed at the smaller scales of species crown cover proportions and spatial tree species effect zones, C. hortensis was found to be positively related to oak trees with a regular spatial distribution, whereas C. coriaceus preferred lower and more aggregated oak tree proportions. C. violaceus showed strong sex-specific tree species affinities. Information about preferences of carabid beetles is necessary for management activities targeting the adaptation of forest structures to habitat requirements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available