Ground-dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations

Anne Oxbrough, Sandra Irwin, Thomas C. Kelly, John O'Halloran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Plantation forests are an important part of the forest estate in many countries. In Ireland, they cover around 9% of the land area and many that are commercially mature are now being felled and reforested. The potential biodiversity value of such second rotation forests has yet to be determined, yet this may be particularly significant in Ireland where cover of semi-natural woodland is only 1%. Invertebrates are a vital component of forest biodiversity, functioning as decomposers and pollinators, herbivores, predators and prey. Spiders and Carabid beetles are often used in biodiversity assessment as they are easily captured using pitfall traps, are taxonomically well known and respond to changes in habitat structure. This study aimed to examine spider and Carabid beetle diversity in second rotation Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) plantations at different stages of the forest cycle (5, 8–12, 20–30, 35–50 years), and compare the spiders captured in second rotation forests with those from first rotation. Spider and beetle diversity was influenced by stand structural development in second rotation plantations with numbers of forest-associated species increasing over the forest cycle. Overall, spider richness declined over the forest cycle and this was related to decreasing cover of field layer vegetation and fewer open-associated species. In contrast, total beetle richness increased and became more specialised over the forest cycle which may be related to slower colonisation of disturbed areas by beetles in comparison with spiders, and fewer open specialists at the early stages of second rotation. Spider assemblages were distinguished between rotations. This may be related to differing habitat conditions in second rotation forests including dryer soils with lower pH, differing vegetation complexity and presence of brush piles. Few of the forest species accumulated during first rotation were retained and the early stages of second rotation forest cycle was characterised by a generalist open fauna. Nonetheless, as the forest cycle progressed the spider assemblages between rotations became more similar. Current forest policy supports retaining over-mature trees and creating a mosaic of different aged stands within a plantation. Such measures may provide refuge for forest species after clearfell. In countries where forest fragments exist in a landscape dominated by agriculture, consideration should be given to the capacity of mature forest adjacent to felled stands to support forest species, and to the configuration of over-mature areas retained after felling.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2111-2121
JournalForest Ecology and Management
Volume259
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

conifers
coniferous tree
plantation
plantations
invertebrate
invertebrates
Araneae
spider
beetle
Coleoptera
dwelling
Picea sitchensis
biodiversity
Ireland
field layer
vegetation
forest policy
felling
forest plantations
pitfall traps

Cite this

Oxbrough, Anne ; Irwin, Sandra ; Kelly, Thomas C. ; O'Halloran, John. / Ground-dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations. In: Forest Ecology and Management. 2010 ; Vol. 259, No. 10. pp. 2111-2121.
@article{ebc46a11d8a14d39a1e0ece800ba2a0c,
title = "Ground-dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations",
abstract = "Plantation forests are an important part of the forest estate in many countries. In Ireland, they cover around 9{\%} of the land area and many that are commercially mature are now being felled and reforested. The potential biodiversity value of such second rotation forests has yet to be determined, yet this may be particularly significant in Ireland where cover of semi-natural woodland is only 1{\%}. Invertebrates are a vital component of forest biodiversity, functioning as decomposers and pollinators, herbivores, predators and prey. Spiders and Carabid beetles are often used in biodiversity assessment as they are easily captured using pitfall traps, are taxonomically well known and respond to changes in habitat structure. This study aimed to examine spider and Carabid beetle diversity in second rotation Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) plantations at different stages of the forest cycle (5, 8–12, 20–30, 35–50 years), and compare the spiders captured in second rotation forests with those from first rotation. Spider and beetle diversity was influenced by stand structural development in second rotation plantations with numbers of forest-associated species increasing over the forest cycle. Overall, spider richness declined over the forest cycle and this was related to decreasing cover of field layer vegetation and fewer open-associated species. In contrast, total beetle richness increased and became more specialised over the forest cycle which may be related to slower colonisation of disturbed areas by beetles in comparison with spiders, and fewer open specialists at the early stages of second rotation. Spider assemblages were distinguished between rotations. This may be related to differing habitat conditions in second rotation forests including dryer soils with lower pH, differing vegetation complexity and presence of brush piles. Few of the forest species accumulated during first rotation were retained and the early stages of second rotation forest cycle was characterised by a generalist open fauna. Nonetheless, as the forest cycle progressed the spider assemblages between rotations became more similar. Current forest policy supports retaining over-mature trees and creating a mosaic of different aged stands within a plantation. Such measures may provide refuge for forest species after clearfell. In countries where forest fragments exist in a landscape dominated by agriculture, consideration should be given to the capacity of mature forest adjacent to felled stands to support forest species, and to the configuration of over-mature areas retained after felling.",
author = "Anne Oxbrough and Sandra Irwin and Kelly, {Thomas C.} and John O'Halloran",
note = "Babel, U., 1977. Influence of High Densities of Fine Roots of Norway spruce on Processes in Humus Covers. Ecol. Bull. 25, 584–586. Barbaro, L., Pontcharraud, L., Vetillard, F., Guyon, D., Herveacute, J., 2005. Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12, 110–121. Brainard, J., Bateman, I.J., Lovett, A.A., 2009. The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain’s woodlands. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1257–1267. Buddle, C.M., Langor, D.W., Pohl, G.R., Spence, J.R., 2006. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: Implications for emulation of natural disturbance in forest management. Biol. Conserv. 128, 346–357. Buddle, C.M., Spence, J.R., Langor, D.W., 2000. Succession of boreal forest spider assemblages following wildfire and harvesting. Ecography 23, 424–436. Buse, A., Good, J.E.G., 1993. The effects of conifer forest design and management on abundance and diversity of rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 64, 67–76. Castro, A., Wise, D., 2009. Influence of fine woody debris on spider diversity and community structure in forest leaf litter. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3705–3731. Chamberlain, P.M., McNamara, N.P., Chaplow, J., Stott, A.W., Black, H.I.J., 2006. Translocation of surface litter carbon into soil by collembola. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 2655–2664. COFORD, 2009. Forestry 2030. National Council for Forest Research and Development, Dublin. Cole, L.J., McCracken, D.I., Downie, I.S., Dennis, P., Foster, G.N., Waterhouse, T., Murphy, K.J., Griffin, A.L., Kennedy, M.P., 2005. Comparing the effects of farming practices on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages of Scottish farmland. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 441–460. Cooper, A., McCann, T., Ridge, D., 2008. Vegetation development in second rotation Irish conifer plantations. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 962–972. Day, K.R., Carthy, J., 1988. Changes in Carabid communities accompanying a rotation of Sitka spruce. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 24, 407–415. Division of Forest Policy, 2004. The Danish National Forest Programme in an International Perspective. Ministry of Environment. Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen. Ferris, R., Peace, A.J., Humphrey, J.W., Broome, A.C., 2000. Relationships between vegetation, site type and stand structure in coniferous plantations in Britain. For. Ecol. Manage. 136, 35–51. Forest Service, 2000. Forest Biodiversity Guidelines. Forest Service. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland. Forest Service, 2003. Forestry Schemes Manual. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland. Forest Service, 2007. National Forest Industry: Republic of Ireland Results. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ireland. Forestry Commission, 2004. The UK Forestry Standard: The Government’s Approach to Sustainable Forest Management. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Forest Service, UK. Forsythe, T., 2000. Ground Beetles. Naturalists Handbook, vol. 8. The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd, Slough. Gotelli, N.J., Colwell, R.K., 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4, 379–391. Gunnarsson, B., 1996. Bird predation and vegetation structure affecting spruceliving arthropods in a temperate forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 389–397. Harvey, P., Nellist, D., Telfer, M., 2002. Provisional Atlas of British spiders (Arachnida, Araneae), vols. 1 and 2. Biological Records Centre, Huntingdon. Holden, N.M., Brereton, A.J., Fealy, R., Sweeney, J., 2003. Possible change in Irish climate and its impact on barley and potato yields. Agric. For. Meteorol. 116, 181–196. Ings, T., Hartley, S., 1999. The effect of habitat structure on carabid communities during the regeneration of a native Scottish forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 119, 123–136. Jonsell, M., Hansson, J., Wedmo, L., 2007. Diversity of saproxylic beetle species in logging residues in Sweden - Comparisons between tree species and diameters. Biol. Conserv. 138, 89–99. Jukes, M.R., Peace, A.J., Ferris, R., 2001. Carabid beetle communities associated with coniferous plantations in Britain: the influence of site, ground vegetation and stand structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 148, 271–286. Kattan, G.H., Correa, D., Escobar, F., Medina, C., 2006. Leaf-litter arthropods in restored forests in the Colombian Andes: a comparison between secondary forest and tree plantations. Rest. Ecol. 14, 95–102. Kevan, P.G., 1999. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity and diversity. Agric. Ecosyst Environ. 74, 373–393. Luff, M., 2007. RES Handbook Volume 4 Part 2: The Carabidae (Ground Beetles) of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council, Shropshire, UK. Magurran, A., 2008. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Marcos, J.A., Marcos, E., Taboada, A., Tarrega, R., 2007. Comparison of community structure and soil characteristics in different aged Pinus sylvestris plantations and a natural pine forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 247, 35–42. Matveinen-Huju, K., Koivula, M., Niemel{\"a}, J., Rauha, A.M., 2009. Short-term effects of retention felling at mire sites on boreal spiders and Carabid beetles. For. Ecol. Manage. 258, 2388–2398. McCune, B., Grace, J., 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Oregon. McFerran, D., 1997. Northern Ireland Species Inventory: spiders (Arachnida). Environment and Heritage Research and Development Series. No. 97/10. Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast. MCPFE, 2007. State of Europe’s Forests 2007. The MCPFE report of Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. MCPFE Liason Unit Vienna. Mitchell, F., 1995. The dynamics of Irish post-glacial forests. In: Pilcher, R., Mac an tSaoir, S. (Eds.), Woods, Trees and Forests in Ireland. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. Mullen, K., O’Halloran, J., Breen, J., Giller, P., Pithon, J., Kelly, T., 2008. Distribution and composition of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities across theplantation forest cycle—Implications for management. For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 624–632. Norris, K.C., 1999. Quantifying change through time in spider assemblages: sampling methods, indices and sources of error. J. Insect Conserv. 3, 309–325. Oxbrough, A., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Smith, G.F., 2005. Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For. Ecol. Manage. 212, 171–183. Oxbrough, A.G., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Kelly, T.C., 2006. The initial effects of afforestation on the ground-dwelling spider fauna of Irish peatlands and grasslands. For. Ecol. Manage. 237, 478–491. Oxbrough, A.G., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Kelly, T.C., 2007. Biodiversity of the ground-dwelling spider fauna of afforestation habitats. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120, 433–441. Pearce, J.L., Venier, L.A., 2006. The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as bioindicators of sustainable forest management: a review. Ecol. Indicators 6, 780–793. Poole, A., Gormally, M., Sheehy Skeffington, M., 2003. The flora and Carabid beetle fauna of a mature and regenerating semi-natural oak woodland in south-east Ireland. For. Ecol. Manage. 177, 207–220. Relys, V., Koponen, S., Dapkus, D., 2002. Annual differences and species turnover in peat bog spider communities. J. Arachnol. 30, 416–424. Richter, C., 1970. Aerial dispersal in relation to habitat in eight wolf spider species (Pardosa: Araneae: Lycosidae). Oecologia 5, 200–214. Roberts, M., 1993. The Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland (compact edition). Part One. Harley Books, Colchester. Salmon, S., Artuso, N., Frizzera, L., Zampedri, R., 2008. Relationships between soil fauna communities and humus forms: response to forest dynamics and solar radiation. Soil Biol Biochem. 40, 1707–1715. Sanders, D., Nickel, H., Gr{\"u}tzner, T., Platner, C., 2008. Habitat structure mediates top-down effects of spiders and ants on herbivores. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9, 152–160. Schowalter, T.D., 1995. Canopy arthropod communities in relation to forest age and alternative harvest practices in western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 78, 115–125. Siira-Pietik{\"a}inen, A., Haimi, J., 2009. Changes in soil fauna 10 years after forest harvestings: comparison between clear felling and green-tree retention methods. For. Ecol. Manage. 258, 332–338. Siira-Pietikainen, A., Haimi, J., Siitonen, J., 2003. Short-term responses of soil macroarthropod community to clear felling and alternative forest regeneration methods. For. Ecol. Manage. 172, 339–353. Taboada, A., Kotze, D.J., T{\'a}rrega, R., Salgado, J.M., 2008. Carabids of differently aged reforested pinewoods and a natural pine forest in a historically modified landscape. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9, 161–171. Thiele, H., 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. A study on Habitat Selection by Adaptations in Physiology and Behaviour. Springer Verlag, Germany. Uetz, G., 1979. The influence of variation in litter habitats on spider communities. Oecologia 40, 29–42. Uetz, G., 1991. Habitat structure and spider foraging. In: Bell, S., McCoy, E., Mushinsky, H. (Eds.), Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman and Hall, London. Wagner, J.D., Toft, S., Wise, D.H., 2003. Spatial stratification in litter depth by forestfloor spiders. J. Arachnol. 31, 28–39. Yousefpour, R., Hanewinkel, M., 2009. Modelling of forest conversion planning with an adaptive simulation-optimization approach and simultaneous consideration of the values of timber, carbon and biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1711–1722. Yu, X.-D., Luo, T.-H., Zhou, H.-Z., 2008. Distribution of carabid beetlesamong40-yearold regenerating plantations and 100-year-old naturally regenerated forests in Southwestern China. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 2617–2625. Zandersen, M., Termansen, M., Jensen, F.S., 2007. Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. J. For. Econ. 13, 103–128. Zar, J., 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ziesche, T.M., Roth, M., 2008. Influence of environmental parameters on small-scale distribution of soil-dwelling spiders in forests: what makes the difference, tree species or microhabitat? For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 738–752.",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.023",
language = "English",
volume = "259",
pages = "2111--2121",
journal = "Forest Ecology and Management",
issn = "0378-1127",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10",

}

Ground-dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations. / Oxbrough, Anne; Irwin, Sandra; Kelly, Thomas C.; O'Halloran, John.

In: Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 259, No. 10, 2010, p. 2111-2121.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ground-dwelling invertebrates in reforested conifer plantations

AU - Oxbrough, Anne

AU - Irwin, Sandra

AU - Kelly, Thomas C.

AU - O'Halloran, John

N1 - Babel, U., 1977. Influence of High Densities of Fine Roots of Norway spruce on Processes in Humus Covers. Ecol. Bull. 25, 584–586. Barbaro, L., Pontcharraud, L., Vetillard, F., Guyon, D., Herveacute, J., 2005. Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12, 110–121. Brainard, J., Bateman, I.J., Lovett, A.A., 2009. The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain’s woodlands. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1257–1267. Buddle, C.M., Langor, D.W., Pohl, G.R., Spence, J.R., 2006. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: Implications for emulation of natural disturbance in forest management. Biol. Conserv. 128, 346–357. Buddle, C.M., Spence, J.R., Langor, D.W., 2000. Succession of boreal forest spider assemblages following wildfire and harvesting. Ecography 23, 424–436. Buse, A., Good, J.E.G., 1993. The effects of conifer forest design and management on abundance and diversity of rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 64, 67–76. Castro, A., Wise, D., 2009. Influence of fine woody debris on spider diversity and community structure in forest leaf litter. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3705–3731. Chamberlain, P.M., McNamara, N.P., Chaplow, J., Stott, A.W., Black, H.I.J., 2006. Translocation of surface litter carbon into soil by collembola. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 2655–2664. COFORD, 2009. Forestry 2030. National Council for Forest Research and Development, Dublin. Cole, L.J., McCracken, D.I., Downie, I.S., Dennis, P., Foster, G.N., Waterhouse, T., Murphy, K.J., Griffin, A.L., Kennedy, M.P., 2005. Comparing the effects of farming practices on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages of Scottish farmland. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 441–460. Cooper, A., McCann, T., Ridge, D., 2008. Vegetation development in second rotation Irish conifer plantations. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 962–972. Day, K.R., Carthy, J., 1988. Changes in Carabid communities accompanying a rotation of Sitka spruce. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 24, 407–415. Division of Forest Policy, 2004. The Danish National Forest Programme in an International Perspective. Ministry of Environment. Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen. Ferris, R., Peace, A.J., Humphrey, J.W., Broome, A.C., 2000. Relationships between vegetation, site type and stand structure in coniferous plantations in Britain. For. Ecol. Manage. 136, 35–51. Forest Service, 2000. Forest Biodiversity Guidelines. Forest Service. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland. Forest Service, 2003. Forestry Schemes Manual. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland. Forest Service, 2007. National Forest Industry: Republic of Ireland Results. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ireland. Forestry Commission, 2004. The UK Forestry Standard: The Government’s Approach to Sustainable Forest Management. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Forest Service, UK. Forsythe, T., 2000. Ground Beetles. Naturalists Handbook, vol. 8. The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd, Slough. Gotelli, N.J., Colwell, R.K., 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 4, 379–391. Gunnarsson, B., 1996. Bird predation and vegetation structure affecting spruceliving arthropods in a temperate forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 389–397. Harvey, P., Nellist, D., Telfer, M., 2002. Provisional Atlas of British spiders (Arachnida, Araneae), vols. 1 and 2. Biological Records Centre, Huntingdon. Holden, N.M., Brereton, A.J., Fealy, R., Sweeney, J., 2003. Possible change in Irish climate and its impact on barley and potato yields. Agric. For. Meteorol. 116, 181–196. Ings, T., Hartley, S., 1999. The effect of habitat structure on carabid communities during the regeneration of a native Scottish forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 119, 123–136. Jonsell, M., Hansson, J., Wedmo, L., 2007. Diversity of saproxylic beetle species in logging residues in Sweden - Comparisons between tree species and diameters. Biol. Conserv. 138, 89–99. Jukes, M.R., Peace, A.J., Ferris, R., 2001. Carabid beetle communities associated with coniferous plantations in Britain: the influence of site, ground vegetation and stand structure. For. Ecol. Manage. 148, 271–286. Kattan, G.H., Correa, D., Escobar, F., Medina, C., 2006. Leaf-litter arthropods in restored forests in the Colombian Andes: a comparison between secondary forest and tree plantations. Rest. Ecol. 14, 95–102. Kevan, P.G., 1999. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity and diversity. Agric. Ecosyst Environ. 74, 373–393. Luff, M., 2007. RES Handbook Volume 4 Part 2: The Carabidae (Ground Beetles) of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council, Shropshire, UK. Magurran, A., 2008. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Marcos, J.A., Marcos, E., Taboada, A., Tarrega, R., 2007. Comparison of community structure and soil characteristics in different aged Pinus sylvestris plantations and a natural pine forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 247, 35–42. Matveinen-Huju, K., Koivula, M., Niemelä, J., Rauha, A.M., 2009. Short-term effects of retention felling at mire sites on boreal spiders and Carabid beetles. For. Ecol. Manage. 258, 2388–2398. McCune, B., Grace, J., 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Oregon. McFerran, D., 1997. Northern Ireland Species Inventory: spiders (Arachnida). Environment and Heritage Research and Development Series. No. 97/10. Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast. MCPFE, 2007. State of Europe’s Forests 2007. The MCPFE report of Sustainable Forest Management in Europe. MCPFE Liason Unit Vienna. Mitchell, F., 1995. The dynamics of Irish post-glacial forests. In: Pilcher, R., Mac an tSaoir, S. (Eds.), Woods, Trees and Forests in Ireland. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. Mullen, K., O’Halloran, J., Breen, J., Giller, P., Pithon, J., Kelly, T., 2008. Distribution and composition of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities across theplantation forest cycle—Implications for management. For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 624–632. Norris, K.C., 1999. Quantifying change through time in spider assemblages: sampling methods, indices and sources of error. J. Insect Conserv. 3, 309–325. Oxbrough, A., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Smith, G.F., 2005. Structural indicators of spider communities across the forest plantation cycle. For. Ecol. Manage. 212, 171–183. Oxbrough, A.G., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Kelly, T.C., 2006. The initial effects of afforestation on the ground-dwelling spider fauna of Irish peatlands and grasslands. For. Ecol. Manage. 237, 478–491. Oxbrough, A.G., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Giller, P.S., Kelly, T.C., 2007. Biodiversity of the ground-dwelling spider fauna of afforestation habitats. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120, 433–441. Pearce, J.L., Venier, L.A., 2006. The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as bioindicators of sustainable forest management: a review. Ecol. Indicators 6, 780–793. Poole, A., Gormally, M., Sheehy Skeffington, M., 2003. The flora and Carabid beetle fauna of a mature and regenerating semi-natural oak woodland in south-east Ireland. For. Ecol. Manage. 177, 207–220. Relys, V., Koponen, S., Dapkus, D., 2002. Annual differences and species turnover in peat bog spider communities. J. Arachnol. 30, 416–424. Richter, C., 1970. Aerial dispersal in relation to habitat in eight wolf spider species (Pardosa: Araneae: Lycosidae). Oecologia 5, 200–214. Roberts, M., 1993. The Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland (compact edition). Part One. Harley Books, Colchester. Salmon, S., Artuso, N., Frizzera, L., Zampedri, R., 2008. Relationships between soil fauna communities and humus forms: response to forest dynamics and solar radiation. Soil Biol Biochem. 40, 1707–1715. Sanders, D., Nickel, H., Grützner, T., Platner, C., 2008. Habitat structure mediates top-down effects of spiders and ants on herbivores. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9, 152–160. Schowalter, T.D., 1995. Canopy arthropod communities in relation to forest age and alternative harvest practices in western Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 78, 115–125. Siira-Pietikäinen, A., Haimi, J., 2009. Changes in soil fauna 10 years after forest harvestings: comparison between clear felling and green-tree retention methods. For. Ecol. Manage. 258, 332–338. Siira-Pietikainen, A., Haimi, J., Siitonen, J., 2003. Short-term responses of soil macroarthropod community to clear felling and alternative forest regeneration methods. For. Ecol. Manage. 172, 339–353. Taboada, A., Kotze, D.J., Tárrega, R., Salgado, J.M., 2008. Carabids of differently aged reforested pinewoods and a natural pine forest in a historically modified landscape. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9, 161–171. Thiele, H., 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments. A study on Habitat Selection by Adaptations in Physiology and Behaviour. Springer Verlag, Germany. Uetz, G., 1979. The influence of variation in litter habitats on spider communities. Oecologia 40, 29–42. Uetz, G., 1991. Habitat structure and spider foraging. In: Bell, S., McCoy, E., Mushinsky, H. (Eds.), Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman and Hall, London. Wagner, J.D., Toft, S., Wise, D.H., 2003. Spatial stratification in litter depth by forestfloor spiders. J. Arachnol. 31, 28–39. Yousefpour, R., Hanewinkel, M., 2009. Modelling of forest conversion planning with an adaptive simulation-optimization approach and simultaneous consideration of the values of timber, carbon and biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1711–1722. Yu, X.-D., Luo, T.-H., Zhou, H.-Z., 2008. Distribution of carabid beetlesamong40-yearold regenerating plantations and 100-year-old naturally regenerated forests in Southwestern China. For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 2617–2625. Zandersen, M., Termansen, M., Jensen, F.S., 2007. Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. J. For. Econ. 13, 103–128. Zar, J., 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ziesche, T.M., Roth, M., 2008. Influence of environmental parameters on small-scale distribution of soil-dwelling spiders in forests: what makes the difference, tree species or microhabitat? For. Ecol. Manage. 255, 738–752.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Plantation forests are an important part of the forest estate in many countries. In Ireland, they cover around 9% of the land area and many that are commercially mature are now being felled and reforested. The potential biodiversity value of such second rotation forests has yet to be determined, yet this may be particularly significant in Ireland where cover of semi-natural woodland is only 1%. Invertebrates are a vital component of forest biodiversity, functioning as decomposers and pollinators, herbivores, predators and prey. Spiders and Carabid beetles are often used in biodiversity assessment as they are easily captured using pitfall traps, are taxonomically well known and respond to changes in habitat structure. This study aimed to examine spider and Carabid beetle diversity in second rotation Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) plantations at different stages of the forest cycle (5, 8–12, 20–30, 35–50 years), and compare the spiders captured in second rotation forests with those from first rotation. Spider and beetle diversity was influenced by stand structural development in second rotation plantations with numbers of forest-associated species increasing over the forest cycle. Overall, spider richness declined over the forest cycle and this was related to decreasing cover of field layer vegetation and fewer open-associated species. In contrast, total beetle richness increased and became more specialised over the forest cycle which may be related to slower colonisation of disturbed areas by beetles in comparison with spiders, and fewer open specialists at the early stages of second rotation. Spider assemblages were distinguished between rotations. This may be related to differing habitat conditions in second rotation forests including dryer soils with lower pH, differing vegetation complexity and presence of brush piles. Few of the forest species accumulated during first rotation were retained and the early stages of second rotation forest cycle was characterised by a generalist open fauna. Nonetheless, as the forest cycle progressed the spider assemblages between rotations became more similar. Current forest policy supports retaining over-mature trees and creating a mosaic of different aged stands within a plantation. Such measures may provide refuge for forest species after clearfell. In countries where forest fragments exist in a landscape dominated by agriculture, consideration should be given to the capacity of mature forest adjacent to felled stands to support forest species, and to the configuration of over-mature areas retained after felling.

AB - Plantation forests are an important part of the forest estate in many countries. In Ireland, they cover around 9% of the land area and many that are commercially mature are now being felled and reforested. The potential biodiversity value of such second rotation forests has yet to be determined, yet this may be particularly significant in Ireland where cover of semi-natural woodland is only 1%. Invertebrates are a vital component of forest biodiversity, functioning as decomposers and pollinators, herbivores, predators and prey. Spiders and Carabid beetles are often used in biodiversity assessment as they are easily captured using pitfall traps, are taxonomically well known and respond to changes in habitat structure. This study aimed to examine spider and Carabid beetle diversity in second rotation Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) plantations at different stages of the forest cycle (5, 8–12, 20–30, 35–50 years), and compare the spiders captured in second rotation forests with those from first rotation. Spider and beetle diversity was influenced by stand structural development in second rotation plantations with numbers of forest-associated species increasing over the forest cycle. Overall, spider richness declined over the forest cycle and this was related to decreasing cover of field layer vegetation and fewer open-associated species. In contrast, total beetle richness increased and became more specialised over the forest cycle which may be related to slower colonisation of disturbed areas by beetles in comparison with spiders, and fewer open specialists at the early stages of second rotation. Spider assemblages were distinguished between rotations. This may be related to differing habitat conditions in second rotation forests including dryer soils with lower pH, differing vegetation complexity and presence of brush piles. Few of the forest species accumulated during first rotation were retained and the early stages of second rotation forest cycle was characterised by a generalist open fauna. Nonetheless, as the forest cycle progressed the spider assemblages between rotations became more similar. Current forest policy supports retaining over-mature trees and creating a mosaic of different aged stands within a plantation. Such measures may provide refuge for forest species after clearfell. In countries where forest fragments exist in a landscape dominated by agriculture, consideration should be given to the capacity of mature forest adjacent to felled stands to support forest species, and to the configuration of over-mature areas retained after felling.

U2 - 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.023

DO - 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.023

M3 - Article

VL - 259

SP - 2111

EP - 2121

JO - Forest Ecology and Management

JF - Forest Ecology and Management

SN - 0378-1127

IS - 10

ER -