Moya L. Burns, Mike Smith, Eleanor M. Slade, Richard A. Ennos
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, UK.
School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
DOI: 10.4236/ojf.2014.42020   PDF    HTML   XML   5,032 Downloads   8,230 Views   Citations

Abstract

Restoring deadwood habitat is vital in order to recreate fully functioning forest ecosystems. Letting this process occur naturally can take in excess of one hundred years, thus management practises typically try to accelerate this via the artificial addition of deadwood. Since the species which rely on deadwood often have poor dispersal abilities, restoring deadwood habitat rarely results in the full restoration of the saproxylic fauna. Furthermore, standard deadwood monitoring protocol only records the amount and type of substrate available and is not capable of determining whether saproxylic insects have been restored. Full species inventories are time-consuming, costly and require great expertise. We present a rapid biodiversity assessment tool which we believe is the first protocol for measuring saproxylic activity which is accessible to non-specialists. Utilising the exit bore holes which saproxylics create on deadwood can provide an indication of the density, richness and diversity of species present; we call this the Saproxylic Activity Index. We show that this index can detect differences in the activity of insects between substrates. As saproxylic insects provide important ecosystem functions, such as aiding in the decay of deadwood and recycling nutrients, a measure of their activity levels may indicate the rate of restoration of these ecosystem processes. We believe that further exploration of this method provides an exciting opportunity for the functional restoration of saproxylic fauna to become incorporated into mainstream forest management.

 

Keywords

Citizen Science; Temperate Forest; Beetles; Bioindicators; Volunteers; Coleoptera; Biodiversity; Surveys

Share and Cite:

Bore hole richness accumulation curves for (a) standing deadwood and (b) fallen deadwood.

Bore hole (a) density and (b) diversity in relation to area of substrate (fallen and standing deadwood combined). Bore hole (c) den- sity and (d) diversity in relation to direction of rot-site (fallen and standing deadwood combined). Error bars show standard error of the mean. Only one rot site occurred facing towards the north-east (NE).

Rot type was found to have a significant effect on all measures of the Saproxylic Activity Index. Bore hole density varied significantly between rot types (df = 7, F = 3.27, p = 0.004). Rot type G (Red/ Brown Fibrous Moist) was found to have the greatest mean density of insect bore holes and rot type F (Red/ Brown Cubical Dry) the least (Figure 4(a)). Bore hole richness (df = 7, F = 3.11, p = 0.009) and diversity (df = 7, F = 2.30, p = 0.042) also differed significantly among rot types. Bore hole richness was greatest on rot type B (White Fibrous Dry) and lowest on rot type P (Black Fibrous Dry) (Figure 4(b)). Rot type A (White Cubical Dry) supported the greatest diversity of bore holes (Figure 4(c)). Since rot type A was observed only once in the field, this data point was removed from the analysis and an a-posteriori ANOVA confirmed that even excluding this there was a significant difference in bore hole diversity between rot types (df = 6, F = 2.80, p = 0.027).

Discussion

These results open an exciting new avenue of research for the future rapid assessment of saproxylic activity during forest restoration. Rot type was found to affect the density, richness and diversity of insect bore holes, indicating that this method of rapid biodiversity assessment can reflect real differences in the activity of saproxylic insects. Deadwood is already used as an indicator of “old growth” conditions being reached during forest restoration. We argue that direct evidence of the activ- ity of saproxylic invertebrates, such as that demonstrated

Bore hole (a) density (b) richness and (c) diversity in relation to rot type (fallen and standing deadwood combined). Error bars show standard error of the mean. Rot type A only occurred once in the survey area.

in this paper, is needed in order to truly establish the success of restoration of deadwood species to a site; the Saproxylic Activ- ity Index offers a viable method by which this can be achieved.

Indicators need to be simple to use and effective in order to show whether management targets are being met (Ferris & Humphrey, 1999). The Saproxylic Activity Index has the po- tential to meet these requirements. It is quick, easy to use, and readily accessible to non-specialists, such as habitat managers and citizen scientists. Moreover, it is a non-destructive method of sampling saproxylic invertebrate presence. This is of partic- ular importance due to the already threatened nature of this group (Harvey et al., 2011).

We found that rot type influenced bore hole density, richness and diversity. As wood decays, the host range for saproxylic insects broadens and the flora of decay becomes the most im- portant factor determining the saproxylic fauna (Larkin & Elbourn, 1964; Jonsell et al., 1998), this may explain the rela- tionship found between rot type and the Saproxylic Activity Index. Rot type A, which only occurred in one site had the highest bore-hole diversity, which may indicate that rare rot types provide habitats for rare species.

It has been hypothesised that saproxylic invertebrates may prefer trees with larger diameters because they have a more stable microclimate (Ranius & Jansson, 2000). Some studies which have surveyed saproxylic insect fauna using capture methods have provided support for this theory, although they point out that this pattern may be species specific (Ranius & Jansson, 2002). Our study found no relationship at Dalkeith Old Wood between diameter and the Saproxylic Activity Index, and we suggest that this may be because of the homogeneity of the diameter of standing and fallen deadwood at the study site, due to the uniformity of tree age (Johnston, 2002). Alternatively, it may be that if such diameter effects are not apparent across all saproxylic species then a coarse measure of diversity such as the Saproxylic Activity Index will be unable to detect individu- al species responses.

A wood pasture by its nature has a far more open canopy than a plantation or semi-natural forest (Hol & Smith 2002). Most published studies looking at saproxylic invertebrate di- versity in relationship to exposure have been carried out in closed canopy forests (Ranius & Nilsson 1997). This may ex- plain why no pattern between rot site direction and the Saprox- ylic Activity Index was found in Dalkeith Old Wood.

The relationship between invertebrate bore hole diversity and actual saproxylic invertebrate species diversity is not known, and little information exists on which species produce which size and shape of bore holes. Moreover, some beetles are di- morphic in size, with females larger than males (Hespenheide, 1976), adding further complication to the idea that bore holes of a certain type are representative of a certain species. While we do not suggest that this method provides a substitute for full saproxylic surveys, in times of limited resources and expertise, the Saproxylic Activity Index can act as a coarse measure of the overall saproxylic density, richness and diversity of a site. In particular we suggest that if surveys using the Saproxylic Ac- tivity Index are conducted yearly during a forest restoration treatment, then changes in levels of saproxylic activity can be tracked over time.

Conclusion

Extensive studies aimed at developing umbrella groups of saproxylics which can be used as indicators have been largely unsuccessful and results have not been transferable between regions (Jansson et al., 2009). In contrast, measuring activity levels of saproxylics as a measure of ecosystem functioning offers an exciting new area of research, especially if consistent values representing old growth forest can be determined against which survey results can be compared. We hope this paper will stimulate further research into the relationship between the Saproxylic Activity Index and measurable saproxylic insect diversity and ecosystem functioning, such as the rate of wood decay. We anticipate that in future direct evidence of saproxylic activity may become commonplace in rapid biodiversity as- sessments carried out by forest managers and citizen scientists.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks are owed to Scottish Natural Heritage for al- lowing this study to be carried out at Dalkeith Old Wood and for providing background information on the site.

References

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Abate, T. (1992). Environmental rapid assessment programs have appeals and critics. BioScience, 42, 486-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1311877 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[2]	Angelstam, P., & Doenz-Breuss, M. (2004). Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale—An evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecological Bulletins, 51, 305-332.
[3]	Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C. et al. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A metaanalysis. Science, 325, 1121-1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172460 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4]	Cardoso, P., Erwin, T. L. et al. (2011). The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biological Conservation, 144, 2647-2655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.024 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[5]	Cromsigt, J., van Rensburg, S. J. et al. (2009). Monitoring large herbivore diversity at different scales: Comparing direct and indirect methods. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 1219-1231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9506-1 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[6]	Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B. et al. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 149-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[7]	Ehnstrohm, B., &Axelsson, R. (2002). Insect marks in bark and wood. Uppsala: Art Databanken.
[8]	Fay, N., & De Berker, N. (1996). Veteran trees inititiative, specialist survey method. Peterborough: English Nature.
[9]	Ferris, R., & Humphrey, J. (1999). A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry, 72, 313-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/72.4.313 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[10]	Gollan, J. R., Smith, H. M. et al. (2010). Using spider web types as a substitute for assessing web-building spider biodiversity and the success of habitat restoration. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 3141-3155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9882-1 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[11]	Grove, S., & Stork N. (1999). The conservation of saproxylic insects in tropical forests: A research agenda. Journal of Insect Conservation, 3, 67-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009616112275 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[12]	Grove, S. J. (2002). Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150507 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[13]	Hagan, J. M., & Grove, S. L. (1999). Coarse woody debris. Journal of Forestry, 97, 6-11.
[14]	Harrington, L. A., Harrington, A. L. et al. (2008). Estimating the relative abundance of American mink Mustela vison on lowland rivers: Evaluation and comparison of two techniques. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54, 79-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0114-2 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[15]	Harvey, D. J., Hawes, C. J. et al. (2011). Development of non-invasive monitoring methods for larvae and adults of the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4, 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00072.x [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[16]	Hespenheide, H. A. (1976). Patterns in use of single plant hosts by wood-boring beetles. Oikos, 27, 161-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3543446 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[17]	Hodge, S. J., & Peterken, G. F. (1998). Deadwood in British forests: Priorities and a strategy. Forestry, 71, 99-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/71.2.99 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[18]	Hol, K., & Smith, M. (2002). Ancient wood pasture in Scotland: Classification and management principles. Edinburgh, MB: Scottish Natural Heritage.
[19]	Hopkins, G. W., & Freckleton, R. P. (2002). Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation, 5, 245-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1367943002002299 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[20]	Horak, J., Chobot, K. et al. (2012). Hanging on by the tips of the tarsi: A review of the plight of the critically endangered saproxylic beetle in European forests. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 101-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.09.002 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[21]	Humphrey, J. W. (2005). Benefits to biodiversity from developing oldgrowth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: A review and recommendations. Forestry, 78, 33-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpi004 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[22]	Jansson, N., Bergman, K. O. et al. (2009). An indicator system for identification of sites of high conservation value for saproxylic oak (Quercus spp.) beetles in southern Sweden. Journal of Insect Conservation, 13, 399-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-008-9187-9 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[23]	Johnston, T. G. (2002). Dalkeith old wood. Scottish Forestry, 56, 105-111.
[24]	Jonsell, M., Weslien, J. et al. (1998). Substrate requirements of redlisted saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 749-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008888319031 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[25]	Kaartinen, R., Hardwick, B. et al. (2013). Using citizen scientists to measure an ecosystem service nationwide. Ecology, 94, 2645-2652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-1165.1 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26]	Kelsey, R. G., & Joseph, G. (2001). Attraction of Scolytus unispinosus bark beetles to ethanol in water-stressed Douglas-fir branches. Forest Ecology and Management, 144, 229-238.
[27]	Kim, K. C. (1993). Biodiversity, conservation and inventory—Why insects matter. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2, 191-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00056668 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[28]	Kuhn, E., Feldmann, R. et al. (2008). Getting the public involved in butterfly conservation: Lessons learned from a new monitoring scheme in Germany. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 54, 89-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1560/IJEE.54.1.89 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[29]	Laing, S. E., Buckland, S. T. et al. (2003). Dung and nest surveys: Estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 1102-1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00861.x [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[30]	Larkin, P. A., & Elbourn C. A. (1964). Some observation on fauna of dead wood in live oak trees. Oikos, 15, 79-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3564749 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[31]	Lassauce, A., Paillet, Y. et al. (2011). Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecological Indicators, 11, 1027-1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.004 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[32]	Lovell, S., Hamer, M. et al. (2009). An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 3295-3307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9642-2 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[33]	Lozano, C., Kidd, N. A. C. et al. (1997). Effects of parasitoid spatial heterogeneity, sex ratio and mutual interference on the interaction between the olive bark beetle Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Col., Scolytidae) and the pteromalid parasitoid Cheiropachus quadrum (Hym., Pteromalidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 121, 521-528.
[34]	Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
[35]	Patton, R. F. (1990). Diseases of forest trees. In R. A. Young, & R. L. Giese (Eds.), Introduction to forest science (pp. 169-194). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[36]	Peterken, G. F. (1996). Natural woodland. Ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[37]	R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
[38]	Ranius, T., & Jansson, N. (2000). The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biological Conservation, 95, 85-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00007-0 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[39]	Ranius, T., & Jansson, N. (2002). A comparison of three methods to survey saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 1759-1771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020343030085 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[40]	Ranius, T., & Nilsson, S. G. (1997). Habitat of Osmoderma eremita Scop. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), a beetle living in hollow trees. Journal of Insect Conservation, 1, 193-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018416000766 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[41]	Reynolds, J. C., Short, M. J. et al. (2004). Development of population control strategies for mink Mustela vison, using floating rafts as monitors and trap sites. Biological Conservation, 120, 533-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.026 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[42]	Rondeux, J., & Sanchez, C. (2010). Review of indicators and field methods for monitoring biodiversity within national forest inventories. Core variable: Deadwood. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 164, 617-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0917-6 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43]	Ruiz-Jaen, M. C., & Aide, T. M. (2005). Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restoration Ecology, 13, 569-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00072.x [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[44]	Schlick-Steiner, B. C., Steiner, F. M. et al. (2006). Assessing ant assemblages: Pitfall trapping versus nest counting (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux, 53, 274-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00040-006-0869-6 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[45]	Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 467-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[46]	Slade, E. M., Merckx, T. et al. (2013). Life-history traits and landscape characteristics predict macro-moth responses to forest fragmentation. Ecology, 94, 1519-1530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-1366.1 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[47]	Speight, M. C. D. (1989). Life in dead trees—A neglected part of Europe wildlife heritage. Environmental Conservation, 16, 354-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900009796 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[48]	Speight, M. C. D. (1989). Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and environment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
[49]	Speight, M. R. (2005). Sampling insects from trees: Shoots, stems, and trunks. In Leather, S. R. (Ed.), Insect sampling in forest ecosystems (pp. 77-115). Oxford: Blackwell.
[50]	Suding, K. N. (2011). Toward an era of restoration in ecology: Successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 42, 465-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[51]	Swift, M. J. (1977). The roles of fungi and animals in the immobilization and release of nutrient elements from decomposing branch wood. Ecological Bulletins, 25, 193-202.
[52]	Ulyshen, M. D. (2013). Strengthening the case for saproxylic arthropod conservation: A call for ecosystem services research. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6, 393-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00220.x [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[53]	Ulyshen, M. D., & Wagner, T. L. (2013). Quantifying arthropod contributions to wood decay. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 345-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12012 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[54]	Wallenius, T., Niskanen, L. et al. (2010). Loss of habitats, naturalness and species diversity in Eurasian forest landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 10, 1093-1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.03.006 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[55]	Webbon, C. C., Baker, P. J. et al. (2004). Faecal density counts for monitoring changes in red fox numbers in rural Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 768-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00930.x [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]