Beetle species richness along the forest productivity gradient in northern Finland

• Published in: Ecography
• Main Authors: Similä, Maarit, Kouki, Jari, Mönkkönen, Mikko, Sippola, Anna‐Liisa
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2002
• Subjects: Northern Finland
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250106.x; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1034%2Fj.1600-0587.2002.250106.x; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250106.x

The occurrence and habitat associations of the majority of invertebrate groups in boreal forests are poorly known, even though these groups represent perhaps over 99% of the animal species diversity in the forests. We studied the beetle (Coleoptera) fauna of four forest site types in northern Finland: in spruce mires, herb rich, mesic and sub‐xeric forests. We sampled beetles in 32 study sites with five window and five pitfall traps in each. We describe the species abundance and diversity patterns within and among forest types and relate these patterns to structural components of the forests. The volume of decaying wood varied from 14 to 93 m 3 ha −1 among sampling sites. The total beetle catch consisted of 100 333 individuals and 435 species. The beetle species richness did not vary according to site fertility but the number of specimens increased with increasing fertility in heath forest sites. The richness of beetle species correlated only weakly with any of the stand structure characteristics at the stand level. Nevertheless, the detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) indicated that different beetle assemblages are characteristic of different forest types. The high level of beta‐diversity in beetles among forest types indicates that focusing exclusively on, for example, key‐biotopes (presumed biodiversity hotspots) when selecting areas to be set aside would result in a situation where a large proportion of species, even of the rare and threatened ones, is not included in this network of protected areas. This suggests that the complementary set of different forest types may be the best general strategy to maintain the overall beetle species diversity in boreal forests.