Adaptive monitoring in action—what drives arthropod diversity and composition in central European beech forests?
-
Published:2024-04-24
Issue:5
Volume:196
Page:
-
ISSN:0167-6369
-
Container-title:Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Environ Monit Assess
Author:
Keye ConstanzeORCID, Schmidt MarcusORCID, Roschak ChristianORCID, Dorow Wolfgang H. O.ORCID, Hartung ViktorORCID, Pauls Steffen U.ORCID, Schneider AlexanderORCID, Ammer ChristianORCID, Zeller LauraORCID, Meyer PeterORCID
Abstract
AbstractRecent studies suggest that arthropod diversity in German forests is declining. Currently, different national programs are being developed to monitor arthropod trends and to unravel the effects of forest management on biodiversity in forests. To establish effective long-term monitoring programs, a set of drivers of arthropod diversity and composition as well as suitable species groups have to be identified. To aid in answering these questions, we investigated arthropod data collected in four Hessian forest reserves (FR) in the 1990s. To fully utilize this data set, we combined it with results from a retrospective structural sampling design applied at the original trap locations in central European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forests. As expected, the importance of the different forest structural, vegetation, and site attributes differed largely between the investigated arthropod groups: beetles, spiders, Aculeata, and true bugs. Measures related to light availability and temperature such as canopy cover or potential radiation were important to all groups affecting either richness, composition, or both. Spiders and true bugs were affected by the broadest range of explanatory variables, which makes them a good choice for monitoring general trends. For targeted monitoring focused on forestry-related effects on biodiversity, rove and ground beetles seem more suitable. Both groups were driven by a narrower, more management-related set of variables. Most importantly, our study approach shows that it is possible to utilize older biodiversity survey data. Although, in our case, there are strong restrictions due to the long time between species and structural attribute sampling.
Funder
German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture Nordwestdeutsche Forstliche Versuchsanstalt
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference100 articles.
1. Aggemyr, E., Auffret, A. G., Jädergård, L., & Cousins, S. A. (2018). Species richness and composition differ in response to landscape and biogeography. Landscape Ecology, 33, 2273–2284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0742-9 2. Ammer, C., Fichtner, A., Fischer, A., Gossner, M. M., Meyer, P., Seidl, R., Thomas, F. M., Annighöfer, P., Kreyling, J., Ohse, B., Berger, U., Feldmann, E., Häberle, K. H., Heer, K., Heinrichs, S., Huth, F., Krämer-Klement, K., Mölder, A., Müller, M., & Wagner, S. (2018). Key ecological research questions for Central European forests. Basic and Applied Ecology, 32, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2018.07.006 3. Archaux, F. (2011). On methods of biodiversity data collection and monitoring. Revue Science Eaux & Territoires, 3, 70–75. http://www.set-revue.fr/methods-biodiversity-data-collection-and-monitoring. 4. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (methodological), 57, 289–300. 5. Beygelzimer, A., Kakadet, S., Langford, J., Arya, S., Mount, D., & Li, S. (2019). FNN: Fast nearest neighbor search algorithms and applications. R package. 1.1.3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/FNN/index.html
|
|