4.7 Article

Effects of forest management on ground beetle diversity in alpine beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 328, 期 -, 页码 300-309

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.049

关键词

Carabus olympiae; Coppice; Conversion to high forest; Fagus sylvatica; Insect ecology; Ageing islands

类别

资金

  1. European grant (EU LIFE+ Project) [NAT/IT000213]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

European beech forests are of particular importance for biodiversity, although relatively little is known about how beech forest management impacts on invertebrate communities. In this paper we investigated the influence of beech forest management history [i.e. over-mature coppices (OC) and coppices in conversion to high forests (CCHF)], climatic, topographic and microhabitat characteristics on ground beetle diversity (measured as total relative abundance, species richness, Shannon diversity and abundance of the endangered endemic species Carabus olympiae) in northern Italy. The diversity of forest specialist carabids was higher in OC and in forest stands characterized by a higher mean temperature and lower relative humidity. Moreover, we detected a positive response of several diversity variables to coarse wood debris cover or volume, herb cover, and the standard deviation of tree diameter. Currently, OC seems to be a more favorable habitat for forest carabids, including C olympiae, although succession over time can lead to a progressive homogenization of the vegetation structure, with negative consequences for the conservation of the forest carabid assemblage. Based on our results, we suggest that the traditional management of beech coppice and its conversion to high forest be modified by including practices aimed at promoting structural and microhabitat diversity such as retention of large trees, creation of canopy gaps, retention of coarse wood debris and the preservation of 'islands' of older trees in the managed stands. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据