Data from: Effects of undergrowth removal and edge proximity on ground beetles and vascular plants in urban boreal forests
Urban forests are regularly managed for human safety and aesthetic reasons, but they are crucial habitat for many species. Removals of undergrowth occur commonly in these forests, yet the ecological consequences of these operations are poorly understood. We sampled ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabi...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Dataset |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Dryad
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h15c4sp http://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.h15c4sp |
| Summary: | Urban forests are regularly managed for human safety and aesthetic reasons, but they are crucial habitat for many species. Removals of undergrowth occur commonly in these forests, yet the ecological consequences of these operations are poorly understood. We sampled ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and vascular plants along 20-m edge gradients in Finnish urban forests, in five stands treated 0.5−2.5 years earlier with undergrowth removal and in five untreated stands. We hypothesized that undergrowth removal and edge proximity would benefit opportunistic and open-habitat species, whereas shady-habitat species would be affected negatively. (1) Regarding carabids, diversity and evenness indices, open-habitat species and Carabus nemoralis responded positively, and forest species, Leistus terminatus and Pterostichus oblongopunctatus responded negatively, to the undergrowth removal. Regarding plants, generalists, Maianthemum bifolium, Rubus saxatilis and Sorbus aucuparia responded positively, and forest species, Geranium sylvaticum, Oxalis acetocella and Vaccinium myrtillus responded negatively, to the undergrowth removal. (2) Edge proximity had little effect on both plants and carabids. However, open-habitat carabids were less abundant and less speciose, and the plants Oxalis acetocella, Trientalis europaea and Rubus saxatilis had higher cover, 10−20 m from than right at the edge. (3) Plant (but not carabid) community responded to the undergrowth removal but not to the edge proximity. While managing urban forests, we recommend an avoidance of undergrowth removals at sites that host rare or threatened forest-associated flora and fauna. : Koivula et al. Urban forest fragment carabids and plantsData contain ground beetle and vascular plant data collected from 10 urban forest stands, at three edge distances in each stand: 0, 10 and 20 m from the edge toward interior. Half of the stands had been treated with undergrowth removal. Beetle data are numbers of individuals, and plants are average percent covers, per distance x stand. Data contain numbers of individuals and numbers of species of forest, open-habitat and generalist species, and species-level numbers; column names show species with 4+4 letter abbreviations of their scientific names. Please consult Appendix and Readme file for details.Koivula_JUE-2019_data.csv |
|---|