Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Branch Wounding Alters the BVOC Emission Patterns of Ficus Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) Wood Quality after Defoliation by Spruce Budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) in the Boreal Forest of Quebec, Canada
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/f13111929
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

To Conserve or to Control? Endangered Saproxylic Beetles Considered as Forest Pests

by
Angelos Tsikas
and
Paraskevi Karanikola
*
Laboratory of Forest Protection, Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, School of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Democritus University of Thrace, Ath. Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(11), 1929; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111929
Submission received: 28 September 2022 / Revised: 27 October 2022 / Accepted: 12 November 2022 / Published: 16 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Saproxylic beetles are common in all types of forests, but they are more abundant in natural forests. They are mostly recognized as beneficial insects, as they are involved in decomposition and the recycling of nutrients. On the other hand, traditional forestry practices consider them as pests, as they reduce the value of timber. In Europe, 17.9% of saproxylic beetle taxa are considered threatened. The main threats are the reduction, fragmentation, and loss of connectivity of their habitats, mostly as a consequence of forest management. None of the taxa considered as pests are listed as threatened, but many of them are thought to be in decline or their population trend is unknown. Based on European legislation currently in use and the IUCN Red List, along with other regional and national red lists, we propose a simplified decision-making flowchart that should be followed regarding the adoption of different control measures against severe infestations and pest outbreaks. However, the best way to prevent population decline and keep their populations stable is the sustainable management of their habitats.

1. Introduction

Forests cover almost one-third of the global land area and host most of Earth’s terrestrial biodiversity. In Europe, approx. 65% of plant and animal species are located in forest habitats [1]. In particular, arthropods comprise 70%–90% of taxa and dominate the animal biomass in forest ecosystems [2]. Forest biodiversity not only responds to environmental changes but also promotes various ecosystem functions and has a positive relationship with most ecosystem services, which are essential for sustaining human welfare [3,4]. Hence, forest biodiversity can be considered a key forest resource. Despite the fact that old-growth and natural forests are the most valuable for biodiversity [5]—especially for insect biodiversity [6,7]—only a few are left standing, unfragmented, and unaltered [8,9]. On the other hand, it is clear that strictly protected areas alone are insufficient for the achievement of global biodiversity conservation targets [10,11], and conservation management practices must be considered in managed forests as well.
One-third of the world’s forest area is used primarily for timber production [12], and forest management regimes have altered natural forest ecosystems over time at varying intensities, altering forests’ biodiversity. Unlike natural forests, commercial forests—which make up most forests in Europe—are characterized by low biodiversity [13]. Managed commercial forests do not grow as old as natural forests, as they are generally harvested at the point of economic maturity, with yield and market-based criteria as the main considerations. Consequently, later phases of forest succession, with characteristics of late development, degradation, or stand breakdown—development phases that hold a rich diversity of rare niches and species—are either lacking or rare. Therefore, lower biodiversity of canopy trees and other species reduces the ability to provide certain ecosystem services.
Biodiversity in managed forests depends on the continuity of habitats, the variability of site conditions and tree species, and forestry that mimics natural dynamics. Even though forest cover in the European Union has increased in recent decades, major pressures represent a risk to vulnerable forest species and habitats. Pressures from human activities leading to fragmentation and degradation have already caused much decline and homogenization in biodiversity [14,15].
Saproxylic beetles—insects that range widely in size (from <1 mm for families such as Ptiliidae and Ciidae to >150 mm for certain Scarabaeidae and Cerambycidae) and depend on dead and decaying wood, wood-decaying fungi, or other saproxylic organisms for at least a part of their lifecycle [16]—are a classical example of a group that has been adversely affected by forest management practices [17,18]. Saproxylic beetles are common in all types of forests and woodlands worldwide [19,20], but fragmented and degraded habitats [21,22], along with the decline of deadwood in managed forests, have led their populations to a decline in recent years. Saproxylic beetles are considered to be bioindicators for the maturity and ecological stage of their characteristic habitats [23,24,25,26], as they are involved in decomposition processes and the recycling of nutrients in natural ecosystems [27,28], and they interact with other organisms by providing an important food source for birds and mammals [29] and contribute to forest pest control through the action of saproxylic predators on primary xylophagous beetles (i.e., Scolytinae) [30,31]. However, they also include several economically important groups such as bark and ambrosia beetles or wood-boring beetles, which can be major forest pests [32].
Saproxylic beetles can be considered either as beneficial for the forest ecosystem, or as forest pests. Conservation of saproxylic organisms usually requires the designation of protected areas or, at least, substantial changes in forest management practices that result in reduced logging and the preservation of large numbers of dying trees and large amounts of deadwood in forests [24], as well as a conflict with timber production [17]. Furthermore, these conservation measures are not always properly implemented, as can be easily seen from the distribution of rare and threatened deadwood-related species, which are usually absent from managed stands. On the other hand, several species of saproxylic beetles are referred to as “pests” [33]. These species are generally considered to be harmful to trees, as their outbreaks weaken the trees and lead to the development of diseases (e.g., fungal infections), usually resulting in the death of infested trees and/or loss of large forest areas. This group is considered to be one of the most serious problems in timber production and is the reason for many studies aimed at finding methods to prevent or mitigate such outbreaks [34]. Forest management neglects the natural role of these common saproxylic species in forest ecosystems. These organisms are natural elements in the life of trees [35].
The aim of this study is to sum up the current knowledge of the threat status of the saproxylic beetles of Europe, as well as to propose a simplified decision-making flowchart representing a key that should be followed regarding the adoption of different conservation or control measures with respect to saproxylic beetles that are or may be considered as pests.

2. The IUCN Red List

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global extinction risk status of animal, fungus, and plant species [36]. It is considered to be a critical indicator of the world’s biodiversity health [37]. The relative threat of extinction of each individual taxon is determined by applying the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Species assessed under the categories critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), and vulnerable (VU) are considered to be threatened and face the highest risk of extinction [36]. The different criteria (A–E) are derived from a wide review aimed at detecting risk factors across the broad range of organisms and the diverse life histories that they exhibit, based on their population size, geographic range, and decline (Table 1).
Insects comprise more than half of all described animal species and are widely recognized as a considerable proportion of all biodiversity on the planet [38,39], yet the majority of insect taxa are understudied, publicly misunderstood, and face numerous environmental threats [40,41]. Beetles alone may represent almost 40% of all arthropod species [17], but the global status of the IUCN assessment is known for only 1500 species (source: IUCN Red List on 22 September 2022). Among these species, 19.6% are threatened, 33.8% are listed as least concern (LC), and 38.7% are assessed as data-deficient (DD) [42]. There are 19 extinct species globally, while the trend is declining for 193 species and unknown for 1144 [36].
Of the 193 extant beetle families, 122 (63%) contain saproxylic members [19,43,44], but the total number of species worldwide remains far from known [45]. It is considered that there are at least twice as many species of saproxylic beetles as there are terrestrial vertebrates [46], but probably many more. Around 56% of all forest beetle species in a region of Germany were considered to be saproxylic [47]. Given the fact that many saproxylic beetle species are considered to be cryptic and, therefore, difficult to sample [48], global species numbers might be underestimated due to cryptic diversity [38,49].
Knowledge about these species is quite extensive due to many studies [50], including recent revisions at various taxonomic levels [51]. Hence, many species have well-known distribution and population demography, reproductive biology, and ecology, including relationships with the environment and other organisms [52,53]. The current IUCN European Red List provides an assessment for 693 species of saproxylic beetles [54]. In 2008, following a two-year project, a total of 436 species were assessed [54]. In 2017, an additional 257 species were assessed, which represents only a preliminary approach to this topic, since there are more than 3500 species of saproxylic beetles in Europe [29]. Overall, 17.9% of species are considered to be threatened in Europe (Table 2). From the total of 93 species classified as endangered, 5 are considered to be CR, while the majority are considered to be EN. Almost all of them depend on forest trees as their habitats, with two species considered to be predators of other saproxylic species. Five of them—Boros schneideri (Coleoptera: Boridae), Buprestis splendens (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), Pseudogaurotina excellens (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Limoniscus violaceus (Coleoptera: Elateridae) and Propomacrus cypriacus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)—were included in Annex II of the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC as animal species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation. In addition, 89 taxa are listed as near-threatened (NT).
These values assume that a similar relative proportion of the data-deficient (DD) species are likely to be threatened and provide the best estimation of the proportion of threatened species [36]. For almost one-quarter of the species in Europe (168 species—24.4%), there was not enough scientific information to evaluate their risk of extinction, and they were assessed as DD.

3. Major Threats

The main reasons that have led to the decline of saproxylic beetles’ populations are reduction in their habitats’ area [21] are fragmentation and the loss of connectivity between habitats [22,137], along with the decline of deadwood in forests, in terms of both quantity [138] and quality [139]. In particular, the absence of large-diameter deadwood in managed forests and changes in disturbance dynamics (such as the prevention of forest fires and the removal of trees from storm-damaged areas) can be seen as major factors driving many saproxylic species to the edge of extinction.
Generally, for forest insects, several studies indicate that the number of species does not differ much between managed and unmanaged forest stands, whereas the population levels of certain species differ markedly [140]. Saproxylic beetles are less abundant in mature stands [25,141,142] versus much older ones [143], and early successional stands are richer in primary saproxylics and/or bark dwellers [144]. Hence, saproxylic beetles can be naturally abundant in unmanaged forests, but are mostly rare in long-managed forests and, especially, in monocultures. Despite the fact that some intensively managed forests (e.g., coppice forests) can have high conservation value [145], forest management is the most important driver of saproxylic beetles’ diversity and is considered to be their main threat, since they demonstrate sensitivity to timber-harvest practices [146,147]. Forest management practices that drastically reduce the quantity and quality of deadwood available, or alter the habitat structure—usually based on clear felling with site preparation and subsequent planting or seeding, followed by a few thinning operations during the rotation cycle—can be a major threat to these communities [18,138,148,149].
Deadwood plays a major role in forest ecosystems, as it stores carbon, nutrients, and water, influences soil’s development and regeneration by reducing erosion, and acts as a reservoir of biodiversity by retaining complex trophic chains and providing microhabitats that host a broad diversity of organisms, including saproxylic species [16,20,29,44,138,150,151]. It has been estimated that deadwood-related biodiversity alone represents about 30% of the global forest biodiversity [152], reaching 50% in groups such as beetles [153]. Depending on the forest type, deadwood quantities ranging from 20 m3/ha to 50 m3/ha have been identified as a threshold to maintain the majority of saproxylic species, while very demanding species require more than 100 m3/ha [154]. Even though all of the deadwood is important, the size of the deadwood seems to be relevant, since the larger the size of the debris, the higher the environmental suitability for saproxylic insects [20]. This is because a larger diameter and, therefore, a greater volume—or a combination of a large diameter with a significant length—can increase the heterogeneity of available microhabitats and, therefore, the number of potential ecological niches, allowing the more specialized organisms to occupy the same space at the same time [29]. In addition, large fragments take longer to decompose and maintain a more stable microclimate within them, while fragments with greater surface area and volume can support more diversified and consistent fungal communities, to which numerous species of saproxylic insects are linked [20,29]. However, studies have evidenced that high-quality and abundant decaying parts of still-living trees, such as relatively small wood from the dead branches of still-standing trees, can also host peculiarly rich saproxylic fauna—sometimes even richer than that of large fallen trees and logs [29].
Sun exposure is known as an important factor for saproxylic insect species, and many species are primarily associated with Sun-exposed environments [155,156,157]. However, the importance of Sun-exposed sites may have been overestimated, since invertebrates tend to be more active in Sun-exposed conditions [158]. Species adapted to Sun-exposed deadwood may be particularly vulnerable [147]. Thus, for saproxylic beetles, high stem densities in managed forests can be inappropriate, while shade and low temperatures may render deadwood unsuitable as a habitat [159].
Given the fact that most of these species have low dispersal capability [150,160], spatial and temporal breaks in habitat continuity can lead to population declines and extinctions. Habitat heterogeneity is widely recognized as an important factor driving saproxylic beetles’ assemblage, and maintaining their habitats’ continuity is crucial [161].
The prevention of forest fires can also affect saproxylic beetles’ populations. Fire rapidly changes the species composition [162] and functional diversity of saproxylic beetles [163] and increases their species richness [164]. Fire also supports open-habitat-associated species, including most rare saproxylic species [165,166], as it contributes to the increasing amount of deadwood [167]. However, fire itself, e.g., the burning of rough hillsides to refresh the pastures for grazing and to suppress scrub development, can result in the early death of trees and suppress natural regeneration, which can pose a threat to isolated and vulnerable populations of beetles such as B. splendens in the Mediterranean, while fire suppression is a major threat to many boreal beetles, which need the resulting burnt wood [53].

4. Saproxylic Insects as Forest Pests

Despite the fact that saproxylic beetles are considered to be pest species according to traditional forestry practices because they reduce the value of timber, as well as being indicators of forest degradation [20], none of the 93 species assessed as endangered have been reported to damage timber quality or production. On the contrary, many saproxylic beetles considered to be pests have been assessed as NT, LC, or DD. The NT category is assigned when a species does not qualify for one of the threatened categories but is likely to be assigned as such in the near future [168].
The global category may not be the same as a national or regional category for a particular taxon, and population trends may differ between particular regions. For example, the great Capricorn beetle Cerambyx cerdo (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)—a saproxylic beetle known to colonize young or healthy living trees [60,169] and become harmful [170,171,172]—was listed as VU under criteria A1c + 2c in the assessment of 1996 [173], but in the assessment of the Mediterranean region in 2015 it was listed as LC [174]. The European stag beetle Lucanus cervus (Coleoptera, Lucanidae), known to damage mostly logged trees, is listed as NT because although this species is widely distributed in Europe, it is in significant decline in the north and central parts of its range, and future trends of European forests will pose serious threats, making the species close to qualifying for VU [175,176]. Both are incorporated in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive, which imposes the obligation to determine the status of the species, to monitor it, and to establish special protected areas within the Natura 2000 network, but not in commercial forests. Re-evaluation of taxa against the criteria should be conducted at appropriate intervals, especially for taxa listed as NT or DD, as well as for threatened taxa whose status is known or suspected to be deteriorating [36]. Ceruchus chrysomelinus (Coleoptera, Lucanidae), listed as NT, has a very specific habitat type that is already highly fragmented and subject to continuing significant decline. Although this species has a relatively wide distribution, its area of occupancy (AOO) is small as it is only found in a very specific type of habitat. The AOO of this species has not been quantified, but it may not be much greater than 2000 km2. The rate of loss of suitable habitat has not been quantified, but it is significant, and it may potentially increase in the coming years [177].
Data on the population trends of many species are extremely poor at present, and increased efforts are needed in monitoring European saproxylic beetles. In Europe, 12.9% (89 species) of saproxylic beetle populations are thought to be in decline; for half of the species (345 species), the population trend is unknown, while 14.8% of these (51 species) are threatened [41]. Since further assessments for the taxa assessed as DD or NE have to be made, as long as the decline of the current populations continues due to habitat destruction [178,179], the number of threatened taxa considered as pests will increase in the future.
To prevent persecution of saproxylic beetles that are considered to be pests, the use of semiochemicals [180,181] and endotherapeutic treatments (i.e., injection of systemic insecticides into the trunks) [172], are considered to be environmentally friendly forest sanitation methods, since they allow the manipulation of insects to alter their distribution and abundance in forest habitats to meet both forestry and conservation goals [182]. However, the best way to prevent saproxylic beetles’ loss and conserve their populations with minimal impacts on timber production is the sustainable management of their habitats [183].

5. To Conserve or to Control?

To answer the question of whether to conserve or to control a saproxylic beetle species, a decision-making approach must be chosen. First, we must consider whether the infested area covers the Natura 2000 network or not (Figure 1). Based on the Habitats Directive, if an area or site is included in the Natura 2000 network, intervention measures negatively affecting conservation and biodiversity cannot be adopted. Otherwise, the adoption of pest control actions can be considered, depending on the evaluation of the presence of threatened and endangered species and on the damage to timber production.
Secondly, we must check whether the species considered as a pest is listed in the IUCN Red List or any other regional red list or national red book. National and regional red lists are high-priority, and taxa listed in a regional or a national list considered to be threatened must be conserved, even if they are listed as NT or LC globally. For example, C. chrysomelinus is listed as NT in the IUCN Red List globally, but is ranked on the red lists of many European countries among strongly threatened species (e.g., [184,185,186,187]), so it must be conserved in these countries regardless of the damage it causes.
If a taxon is listed as LC or NT globally and regionally and exhibits population outbreaks in commercial forests, then we can control it. If it is endangered, it depends on the criteria. Taxa listed as CR must be conserved in both natural and commercial forests. For example, if Trichoferus bergeri (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) becomes a pest for carobs in the future, we must continue our conservation actions, since it is critically endangered, endemic, and its host plants are not threatened. Therefore, protecting their habitat, retaining old-growth trees, and increasing coarse wood debris must be the management methods to be included in commercial forests, regardless of the damage caused to timber production. For taxa listed as EN or VU, the conservation or control approach depends on the criteria under which the taxon is considered to be threatened. Taxa listed as threatened under criterion A (population size reduction) or under criterion B (the size of the geographic distribution range of the species—the most common criterion in saproxylic beetles) can be controlled if their population outbreaks have negative impacts on timber quality and/or quantity, since their overall population is not expected to decline due to our control methods. For example, if an oak forest has severe damages from Necydalis ulmi (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)—a saproxylic beetle that prefers living trees with hollows—and reduced timber production, we can control the population, since it is listed VU under criterion B. Instead, for taxa listed as threatened under criterion C (small population and decline) and, especially, under criterion D (very small or restricted population), we must conserve the population regardless of the damage caused to timber production. Most of these taxa are endemic in Europe or to a specific country or an isolated island (e.g., Neopiciella sicula in Crete and Ampedus corsicus in Corsica), and a consideration for enlisting in a national red list is encouraged. Criterion E (quantitative analysis) has not applied to any saproxylic beetle taxon so far.

6. Forest Management Practices for Conserving Saproxylic Beetles’ Communities

The conservation and restoration of forest ecosystems is one of the major critical tasks for the protection of global ecosystems [188]. Even though nature reserves are included among the IUCN categories of protected areas aiming at the conservation of biodiversity [189], putting commercial forests under protection does not restore the biodiversity of saproxylic organisms to levels comparable to those of unmanaged natural forests [190].
The best way to prevent saproxylic beetles’ loss and conserve their populations is the sustainable management of their habitats [183], with alternative, close-to-nature silvicultural methods that are important for increasing biodiversity in commercial forests [13]. Forest management can be crucial in creating ideal habitats for saproxylic beetles, such as high stumps [155,191] and on logging residues [192], supporting a wide spectrum of saproxylic species. In extensively managed forests, the cutting of trees should be implemented to create artificial stumps and deadwood islands [144].
The most important part in conserving saproxylic beetles’ populations is the maintenance of deadwood in the forests, which is sensitive to habitat modifications and management practices [193,194,195,196]. In commercial forests, deadwood is under-represented compared to natural forests, with different allocation to size and decomposition classes, and follows different production and decomposition dynamics [197]. Deadwood management, also known as morticulture [198], with a wide variety of types of deadwood, should cater for saproxylic insects. Saproxylic insects use dead and decaying wood as a habitat or as a breeding substrate, often at a particular stage of decay. This results in a limited time window within which a habitat may be colonized [44,138,199,200,201]. At the landscape level, the bottom line is that management should retain sufficient elements of natural forest dynamics to maintain the ecological processes in which mature the timber habitat is involved. Large branches and other decaying parts of trees must be left on the ground because they have a high ‘‘attractive power’’ to egg-laying females as fresh deadwood [128], due to the major importance of small-diameter deadwood for saproxylic beetles’ populations [202,203,204,205], influenced by both forest management and canopy cover, and it is highly recommended to forbid the collection of deadwood for fuelwood by the local residents [206]. In general, forest managers have to leave small-diameter debris, larger branches, and trunks on the ground, increase the number of snags as “habitat trees”, and ensure the continued coexistence of different types of deadwood [144].
Although many saproxylic insects have been classified as specific to host tree genera—and some even as monophagous to a single tree species—the evidence is often weak [192,207,208]. Earlier research concluded that almost 30% of the invertebrates found in Q. robur were considered to be monophagous [209]. However, host specificity seems to be rare at the tree species level, although it is common at higher plant taxonomic levels [210]. In addition, the degree of host specificity in an assemblage decreases with increasing wood decay [20,209,211], since most saproxylic beetles tend to prefer the early and medium stages of wood decay [18,103,205].
Since heterogeneity of the habitats is directly correlated with trees’ age, silviculture practices must transform from even-aged to uneven-aged practices. Uneven-aged silviculture has the capacity to maintain almost similar (or at least better than even-aged approaches) beetle composition to unmanaged forests [212]. Selective felling and retention are preferred over the clear-cut practices that are usually applied in even-aged stands for maintaining species that are normally found in forests with old-growth characteristics, such as saproxylic beetles [213,214,215]. Retention can be a useful tool to maximize both forest production and saproxylic beetles’ conservation. Despite the fact that the benefits of standard retention on saproxylic beetles are small, since overall species richness peaks within a few years from felling and then declines rapidly to the pretreatment level [163], late-stage xylophages remain abundant for at least 10 years [216]. Retention levels per se have minor effects on saproxylic beetles [217,218], which can be beneficial for pest management. In Finland, high levels of retention were found to protect pine saplings from pine weevil (Hylobius spp.) attacks, through providing alternative food sources [219,220].
Mixed forests provide increased tree diversity and higher structural complexity of mixtures, which are associated with improved habitat conditions for many species [221,222,223] but can also provide better production and economic outcomes than monocultures [224,225,226]. Increasing tree species diversity is likely to result in more complex forest structure and composition, thus providing more habitats for predators and parasitoids that may regulate pest populations through top-down biotic interactions [4]. One of the key management issues for saproxylic insects is the maintenance of ecological continuity in space (connectivity) and in time, since many studies indicate that spatial and temporal continuity of deadwood is more important than the amount or variety of deadwood at any particular time and place [160,227,228,229].
Overall habitat heterogeneity is an important factor, both at small scale as well as at landscape scale. While uneven-aged forest management maximizes within-stand heterogeneity, it was found that applying this system at the landscape scale can lead to overall lower biodiversity compared to an even-aged shelter wood system, which ensures a higher dissimilarity of environmental conditions and resources among forest stands [230]. Hence, a management target should be to increase the number and width of openings and prolong the rotation times to ensure deadwood in intermediate or later stages of decay [144]. Factors such as canopy openness and the structural heterogeneity of stands found in uneven-aged mixed forests are major drivers of saproxylic beetle diversity [147]. High stem densities in managed forests can be inappropriate in general, but canopy closure can provide suitable environmental conditions for active dispersal of many saproxylic beetles [231]. However, given the fact that Sun exposure is crucial for maintaining forest biodiversity, and that exposure generally declines with increasing forest layers, the forest layers and species richness have been found to have negative relationships at the local scale [232]. The preservation or restoration of high forests with closed canopies and increased structural heterogeneity is important for saproxylic beetle conservation [206]. Patch-scale mixtures may allow for more Sun-exposed microsites to develop and may be more favorable for the diversity of saproxylic insect species [233]. Sufficient trees or patches should be retained to allow for some landscape-level temporal and spatial habitat continuity [20,234]. Because of the ephemeral nature of their habitat, saproxylic species often have good dispersal abilities [235,236], and the spatial scale at which mixtures are created is unlikely to have an effect on the probability of colonization per se. Habitat fragmentation occurs for saproxylic beetles on a local scale—specifically, when the distances between deadwood pieces become too large—and high deadwood connectivity should be achieved throughout the whole forest area to support them [160], since the contribution of patch-scale mixtures to saproxylic beetles’ diversity is nullified in the absence of adequate coarse woody debris [237].
In some rare cases, where there is no possible way to protect the species in nature in a particular place [238], it is possible to preserve or repopulate the species in the wild or maintain them in zoological and botanical gardens [239]. To avoid loss of the population of these species when the inhabited tree is felled and has to be replaced or destroyed, the only option for the larvae is their relocation in the laboratory and rearing by artificial feeding, followed by their reintroduction [240]. Reintroduction is also the only option in regions where species are regionally extinct as a result of a history of forest fragmentation and intensive use [20].

7. Conclusions

Even though saproxylic beetles are considered to be forest pests, none of the taxa of Europe listed as threatened in the IUCN Red List seem to have a negative impact on timber production. Most of them have minor impacts on timber production, while some species are predators of other saproxylic beetles or even pests, contributing to forest pest control. Species considered to be pest species according to traditional forestry practices—such as the great Capricorn beetle or the European stag beetle—were recently excluded from the European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles, mainly because their unstable taxonomy strongly hindered data collection and conservation monitoring. However, given the fact that many taxa have not been assessed for the IUCN Red List, along with population and habitat decline, this status is expected to alter in the future.
The decision-making flowchart suggested in this paper can be utilized at both global and regional levels, where conservation goals may differ. It may also be a useful tool in the future, when assessment of unevaluated taxa and re-evaluation of NT- and DD-listed taxa will update the status of the current red list.
However, the best way to prevent saproxylic beetles’ loss and conserve their populations in commercial forests is the sustainable management of their habitats, with alternative, close-to-nature silvicultural methods. Forest management has to adopt sustainable practices to conserve their habitats and, hence, their populations, as well as to maximize timber production. By adopting those practices, no population outbreaks should occur in the future, and their populations should remain stable.

Author Contributions

Writing—review and editing, A.T. and P.K.; supervision, P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

This study (review) was based on the data provided in the publications cited in the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mazur, A.; Witkowski, R.; Kuźmiński, R.; Jaszczak, R.; Turski, M.; Kwaśna, H.; Łakomy, P.; Szmyt, J.; Adamowicz, K.; Łabędzki, A. The structure of saproxylic beetle assemblages in view of coarse woody debris resources in pine stands of Western Poland. Forests 2021, 12, 1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sharkey, M.J. The all taxa biological inventory of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Fla. Entomol. 2001, 84, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, J.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M.; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A.; et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Barbaro, L.; Castagneyrol, B.; Forrester, D.I.; Gardiner, B.; González-Olabarria, J.R.; Lyver, P.O.B.; Meurisse, N.; Oxbrough, A.; Taki, H.; et al. Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 26, 3005–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. EEA. European Forest Ecosystems—State and Trends; EEA Report No 5/2016; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sundukov, Y.N.; Makarov, K.V. The ground beetles of the tribus Trechini (Carabidae) on the Southern Kuril Islands. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2021, 6, 15–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Egorov, L.v.; Ruchin, A.B.; Semenov, V.B.; Semionenkov, O.I.; Semishin, G.B. Checklist of the Coleoptera of Mordovia State Nature Reserve, Russia. Zookeys 2020, 962, 13–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Haddad, N.M.; Brudvig, L.A.; Clobert, J.; Davies, K.F.; Gonzalez, A.; Holt, R.D.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Sexton, J.O.; Austin, M.P.; Collins, C.D.; et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1500052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Curtis, P.G.; Slay, C.M.; Harris, N.L.; Tyukavina, A.; Hansen, M.C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 2018, 361, 1108–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hayes, T.; Ostrom, E. Conserving the world’s forests: Are protected areas the only way? Indiana Law Rev. 2003, 38, 595–618. [Google Scholar]
  11. Laurance, W.F.; Carolina Useche, D.; Rendeiro, J.; Kalka, M.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Sloan, S.P.; Laurance, S.G.; Campbell, M.; Abernethy, K.; Alvarez, P.; et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 2012, 489, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-92-5-132974-0. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zumr, V.; Remeš, J.; Pulkrab, K. How to increase biodiversity of saproxylic beetles in commercial stands through integrated forest management in Central Europe. Forests 2021, 12, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Hill, S.L.L.; Contu, S.; Lysenko, I.; Senior, R.A.; Börger, L.; Bennett, D.J.; Choimes, A.; Collen, B.; et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015, 520, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Van der Plas, F.; Manning, P.; Soliveres, S.; Allan, E.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Verheyen, K.; Wirth, C.; Zavala, M.A.; Ampoorter, E.; Baeten, L.; et al. Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 3557–3562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Speight, M.C.D. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. In Nature and Environment Series; Council of Europe: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  17. Grove, S.J.; Stork, N.E. An inordinate fondness for beetles. Invertebr Syst. 2000, 14, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Jonsson, B.; Kruys, N.; Ranius, T. Ecology of species living on dead wood–lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fenn. 2005, 39, 289–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gimmel, M.L.; Ferro, M.L. General overview of saproxylic Coleoptera. In Saproxylic Insects, Zoological Monographs; Ulyshen, M.D., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 51–128. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grove, S.J. Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2002, 33, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Axelsson, A.-L.; Östlund, L. Retrospective gap analysis in a Swedish boreal forest landscape using historical data. For. Ecol. Manage. 2001, 147, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Komonen, A.; Penttilä, R.; Lindgren, M.; Hanski, I. Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus. Oikos 2000, 90, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bussler, H.; Müller, J.; Dorka, V. European Natural Heritage: The saproxylic beetles in the proposed National Park Defileul Jiului. Analele ICAS 2005, 48, 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Davies, Z.G.; Tyler, C.; Stewart, G.B.; Pullin, A.S. Are current management recommendations for saproxylic invertebrates effective? A systematic review. Biodiv. Conserv. 2008, 17, 209–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Della Rocca, F.; Stefanelli, S.; Pasquaretta, C.; Campanaro, A.; Bogliani, G. Effect of deadwood management on saproxylic beetle richness in the floodplain forests of Northern Italy: Some measures for deadwood sustainable use. J. Insect. Conserv. 2014, 18, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bače, R.; Svoboda, M. Management Mrtvého Dřeva v Hospodářských Lesích: Certifikovaná Metodika.; Výzkumný ústav lesního hospodářství a myslivosti, v.v.i.: Strnady, Czechia, 2016; ISBN 9788074171185. [Google Scholar]
  27. Laaksonen, M.; Peuhu, E.; Várkonyi, G.; Siitonen, J. Effects of habitat quality and landscape structure on saproxylic species dwelling in boreal spruce-swamp forests. Oikos 2008, 117, 1098–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siitonen, J. Threatened saproxylic species. In Biodiversity in Dead Wood; Stokland, J.N., Siitonen, J., Jonsson, B.G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 356–379. [Google Scholar]
  29. Carpaneto, G.M.; Baviera, C.; Biscaccianti, A.B.; Brandmayr, P.; Mazzei, A.; Mason, F.; Battistoni, A.; Teofili, C.; Rondinini, C.; Fattorini, S.; et al. A Red List of Italian saproxylic beetles: Taxonomic overview, ecological features and conservation issues (Coleoptera). Fragm. Entomol. 2015, 47, 53–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jonsson, B.G.; Siitonen, J.; Stokland, J.N. The value and future of saproxylic diversity. In Biodiversity in Dead Wood; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 402–412. [Google Scholar]
  31. Williams, D.T.; Straw, N.; Fielding, N.; Jukes, M.; Price, J. The influence of forest management systems on the abundance and diversity of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in commercial plantations of Sitka spruce. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 398, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ulyshen, M.D.; Šobotník, J. An introduction to the diversity, ecology, and conservation of saproxylic insects. In Saproxylic Insects. Zoological Monographs; Ulyshen, M.D., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  33. De Groot, M.; Diaci, J.; Ogris, N. Forest management history is an important factor in bark beetle outbreaks: Lessons for the future. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 433, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Klapwijk, M.J.; Bylund, H.; Schroeder, M.; Björkman, C. Forest management and natural biocontrol of insect pests. Forestry 2016, 89, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Müller, J.; Bußler, H.; Goßner, M.; Rettelbach, T.; Duelli, P. The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a National Park: From pest to keystone species. Biodiv. Conserv. 2008, 17, 2979–3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, 2nd ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2012; ISBN 9782831714356. [Google Scholar]
  37. Stork, N.E. How many species of insects and other terrestrial Arthropods are there on Earth? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Tihelka, E.; Cai, C.; Giacomelli, M.; Lozano-Fernandez, J.; Rota-Stabelli, O.; Huang, D.; Engel, M.S.; Donoghue, P.C.J.; Pisani, D. The evolution of insect biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, R1299–R1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Samways, M.J. Insect conservation: A synthetic management approach. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 465–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Cardoso, P.; Erwin, T.L.; Borges, P.A.V.; New, T.R. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2647–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Calix, M.; Alexander, K.N.A.; Nieto, A.; Dodelin, B.; Soldati, F.; Telnov, D.; Vazquez-Albalate, X.; Aleksandrowicz, O.; Audisio, P.; Istrate, P. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles; IUCN: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47296 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  42. McKenna, D.D.; Shin, S.; Ahrens, D.; Balke, M.; Beza-Beza, C.; Clarke, D.J.; Donath, A.; Escalona, H.E.; Friedrich, F.; Letsch, H.; et al. The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 24729–24737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Cai, C.; Tihelka, E.; Giacomelli, M.; Lawrence, J.F.; Ślipiński, A.; Kundrata, R.; Yamamoto, S.; Thayer, M.K.; Newton, A.F.; Leschen, R.A.B.; et al. Integrated phylogenomics and fossil data illuminate the evolution of beetles. R Soc. Open Sci. 2022, 9, 211771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Stokland, J.N.; Siitonen, J.; Jonsson, B.G. Biodiversity in Dead Wood; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; ISBN 9780521888738. [Google Scholar]
  45. Parker, S.P. Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms; McGraw-Hill Book: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  46. Köhler, F. Totholzkäfer in Naturwaldzellen des Nördlichen Rheinlandsvergleichende Studien zur Totholzkäferfauna Deutschlands und Deutschen Naturwaldforschung; Landesanst. für Ökologie, Bodenordnung und Forsten [u.a.]: Recklinghausen, Germany, 2000; ISBN 9783891740316. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bouget, C.; Brustel, H.; Brin, A.; Noblecourt, T. Sampling Saproxylic Beetles with Window Flight Traps: Methodological Insights. Rev Écol (Terre Vie); Société Nationale de Protection de la Nature: Paris, France, 2008; pp. 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  48. Adis, J. Thirty million Arthropod species-too many or too few? J. Trop Ecol. 1990, 6, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Horák, J.; Chobot, K.; Horáková, J. Hanging on by the tips of the tarsi: A review of the plight of the Critically Endangered saproxylic beetle in European forests. J. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 20, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Knížek, M.; Beaver, R. Taxonomy and systematics of bark and ambrosia beetles. In Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in Europe, a Synthesis; Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Gregoire, J.C., Evans, H.F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  51. Evans, H.F.; Moraal, L.G.; Pajares, J.A. Biology, ecology and economic importance of Buprestidae and Cerambycidae. In Bark and Wood Boring Insects in Living Trees in Europe, a Synthesis; Lieutier, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Gregoire, J.C., Evans, H.F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 447–474. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schowalter, T.D. Ecology and management of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Southern pine forests. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2012, 3, A1–A7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Nieto, A.; Alexander, K.N.A. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Gutowski, J.M.; Sućko, K.; Zub, K.; Bohdan, A. Habitat preferences of Boros schneideri (Coleoptera: Boridae) in the natural tree stands of the Białowieża forest. J. Insect Sci. 2014, 14, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Borowski, J.; Węgrzynowicz, P. World Catalogue of Bostrichidae (Coleoptera); Wydawnictwo Mantis: Olsztyn, Poland, 2007; ISBN 8392618211. [Google Scholar]
  56. Luce, J.M. Buprestis splendens (Fabricius 1774, 1758). In Proceedings of the Background Information on Invertebrates of the Habitat Directive and the Bern Convention; Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, France, 1996; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cherepanov, A.I.; Violovich, N.A.; Kothekar, V.S. Cerambycidae of Northern Asia. Volume 1. Prioninae, Disteniinae, Lepturinae, Aseminae; Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sláma, M.E.F. Tesaříkovití-Cerambycidae Eské Republiky a Slovenské Republiky: (Brouci-Coleoptera): Výskyt, Bionomie, Hospodářský Význam, Ochrana; Sláma: Krhanice, Czech Republic, 1998; 383p. [Google Scholar]
  59. Buse, J.; Verdugo, A.; Bartolozzi, L.; Galante, E.; Mendez, M. Anaglyptus luteofasciatus. IUCN Red List. Threat Species. 2016, e.T157814A43959301. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157814/43959301 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  60. Bense, U. Longhorn Beetles: Illustrated key to the Cerambycidae and Vesperidae of Europe; Margraf: Weikersheim, Germany, 1995; ISBN 3823611534. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sama, G. Atlas of the Cerambycidae of Europe and the Mediterranean Area; Vit Kabourek: Zlín, Czech Republic, 2002; Volume 1, ISBN 8086447073. [Google Scholar]
  62. Verdugo, A. Los Cerambícidos de Andalucía (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae); MonográficoSociedad Andaluza de Entomología: Cordoba, Spain, 2004; Volume 1, pp. 5–149. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wełnicki, M.; Przewoźny, M. The first record of Ergates gaillardoti Chevrolat, 1854 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from Greek islands. Biocosme MÉSogÉEn Nice 2007, 24, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  64. Holzschuh, C. Zwanzig Neue Bockkafer Aus Europa Und Asien.(Cerambycidae, Col.). Koleopterol. Rundsch. 1981, 55, 91–112. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sama, G.; Rapuzzi, P. Una nuova checklist dei Cerambycidae d’Italia. Quad. Stud. Not. St. Nat. Romagn 2011, 32, 121–164. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kovács, T.; Hegyessy, M.; Medvegy, M. Foodplant data of longhorn beetles from Europe (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Folia Hist. Nat. Musei Matra. 1999, 23, 333–339. [Google Scholar]
  67. Peña, C.F.G.; Noguera, E.V.; de Sousa Zuzarte, A.J. Nuevo catálogo de los Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) de la Península Ibérica, Islas Baleares e Islas Atlánticas: Canarias, Açores y Madeira; Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa: Aragon, Spain, 2007; Volume 12, pp. 1–211. ISBN 8493280798. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sama, G.; Buse, J.; Orbach, E.; Friedman, A.L.L.; Rittner, O.; Chikatunov, V. A new catalogue of the Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of Israel with notes on their distribution and host plants. Munis Entomol. Zool. 2010, 5, 1–51. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sama, G. Description de Grammoptera baudii n. sp. de Chipre et de Delagrangeus schurmanni n. sp. des Îles Canaries.(Co. Cerambycidae). Biocosme MÉSogÉEn 1985, 2, 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sanchez, F.C. Drymochares cylindraceus (Fairmaire, 1849) en la Península Ibérica: Contribución al conocimiento de Su Biología (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Heteropterus Rev. Entomol. 2001, 1, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  71. Berger, P.; Villiers, A. Coléoptères Cerambycidae de la Faune de France Continentale et de Corse: Actualisation de L’ouvrage d’André Villiers, 1978; Association Roussillonnaise d’Entomologie: Perpignan, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  72. Danilevsky, M.L. Longicorn Beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycoidea) of Russia and Adjacent Countries. Part 1; HSC: Moscow, Russia, 2014; ISBN 9785600007307. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sama, G. Descrizione Di nuovi Cerambycidae dell’isola di Cipro. Lambillionea 1992, 92, 297–307. [Google Scholar]
  74. Svacha, P. Cerambycoid larvae of Europe and Soviet Union (Coleoptera, Cerambycoidea). Part III. Acta Univ. Carol. (Biol.) 1989, 32, 1–205. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sama, G.; Schurmann, P. Coleotteri Cerambicidi di Sicilia. Animalia 1980, 7, 189–230. [Google Scholar]
  76. Nardi, G.; Mico, E. Isotomus barbarae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015. e.T157783A5145967. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157783/5145967 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  77. Buse, J.; Verdugo, A.; Bartolozzi, L.; Mendez, M.; Galante, E. Isotomus jarmilae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016. e.T157864A43996816. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157864/43996816 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  78. Rejzek, M.; Vlásak, J. Larval nutrition and female oviposition preferences of Necydalis ulmi Chevrolat, 1838 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Biocosme MesogÉEn 1999, 16, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sparacio, I. Coleotteri di Sicilia (Vol. III); L ‘Epos editore: Palermo, Italy, 1999; pp. 1–192. [Google Scholar]
  80. Cherepanov, A.I. Cerambycidae of Northern Asia. v. 1: Prioninae, Disteniinae, Lepturinae, Aseminae.-v. 2: Cerambycinae.-v. 3, Pt. 1–3: Lamiinae; Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bílý, S.; Mehl, O. Longhorn Beetles-Coleoptera, Cerambycidae-of Fennoscandia and Denmark; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1989; Volume 22, ISBN 9004086978. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zamoroka, A.M.; Panin, R.Y. Recent records of rare and new for Ukrainian Carpathians species of longhorn beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) with notes on their distribution. Munis Entomol. Zool. 2011, 6, 155–165. [Google Scholar]
  83. Berger, P. Un voyage entomologique en Crète (7.–13. VI. 1981). Biocosme Mesogeen 1987, 4, 233–248. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kovács, T. Magyarországi Cincérek Tápnövény-És Lelőhelyadatai II. (Coleopteera: Cerambycidae). Folia Hist. Nat. Musei Matra. 1997, 22, 247–255. [Google Scholar]
  85. Kovács, T.; Muskovits, J.; Hegyessy, G. Magyarországi Cincérek Tápnövény-És Lelőhelydatai III. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Folia Hist. Nat. Musei Matra. 2000, 24, 205–220. [Google Scholar]
  86. Von Demelt, C. Bockkäfer, oder Cerambycidae. 1: Biologie mitteleuropäischer Bockkäfer (Col. Cerambycidae) unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung der Larven; G. Fischer: Jena, Germany, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  87. Rapuzzi, P.; Sama, G. Revision of the Purpuricenus interscapillatus species-group and allied taxa (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Fragm Entomol. 2013, 45, 143–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Rapuzzi, P.; Sama, G. Cerambycidae nuovi o interessanti per la fauna di Sicilia. Quad. Studi Not. Stor. Nat. Romagna 2006, 23, 157–172. [Google Scholar]
  89. Sama, G.; Löbl, I. Cerambycinae. In Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Vol. 6, Chrysomeloidea; Löbl, I., Smetana, A., Eds.; Apollo Books: Stenstrup, Denmark, 2010; Volume 6, pp. 143–207. [Google Scholar]
  90. Urbano, J.M.; Navarro, J.; Llinares, A. Stenurella vaucheri (Bedel, 1900)(Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) reaparece en Cádiz (Andalucía, Península Ibérica). BoletÍN Soc. Andal. Entomol. íA 2013, 22, 67–75. [Google Scholar]
  91. Valladares, L.; Cocquempot, C.; Calmont, B.; Burnel, L.; Willm, J.; Barnouin, T. Mise à jour de l’aire de répartition de Stictoleptura (Stictoleptura) erythroptera (Hagenbach, 1822) en France (Coleoptera Cerambycidae). L’Entomologiste 2015, 71, 325–330. [Google Scholar]
  92. Villiers, A. Faune de l’Empire Français: V Coléoptères Cérambycides de l’Afrique du Nord; Office de la Recherche Scientifique coloniale: Paris, France, 1946. [Google Scholar]
  93. Brustel, H. Biological value of French forests assessed with saproxylic beetles: A way to conserve this natural heritage. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium and Workshop on the Conservation of Saproxylic Beetles, Riga, Latvia, 7–11 July 2004. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ratti, E. Note faunistiche ed ecologiche sui Cucuidi italiani (Coleoptera Cucujidae). Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Venezia 2000, 50, 103–129. [Google Scholar]
  95. Avci, M.; Sarikaya, O.; Üniversitesi, B.T.; Jansson, N.; Coskun, M. The beetle fauna on old oaks (Quercus spp.) in Kasnak forest east of Isparta in Turkey. In Proceedings of the The Oak-Ecology, History Management and Planning II, Isparta, Turkey, 1–3 June 2010; p. 37. [Google Scholar]
  96. Pettersson, R.; Schmidl, J.; Petrakis, P. Ampedus assingi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2010. e.T157555A5094896. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157555/5094896 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  97. Laibner, S. Elateridae of the Czech and Slovak Republics; Ing. Vit Kabourek: Zlin, Czech Republic, 2000; ISBN 809014666X. [Google Scholar]
  98. Leseigneur, L. Coléoptères Elateridae de la faune de France Continentale et de Corse. Publ. SociÉTÉ LinnÉEnne Lyon 1972, 41, 3–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mendel, H.; Owen, J.A. Limoniscus violaceus (Muller)(Col.: Elateridae), the violet click beetle in Britain. Entomologist 1990, 109, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  100. Platia, G. Coleoptera: Elateridae (Fauna d’Italia); Calderini: Bologna, Italy, 1994; Volume 33, ISBN 9788870196788. [Google Scholar]
  101. Cate, P.G. Family Elateridae. In Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Elateroidae-Derodontoidae- Bostrichoidae-Lymexyloidae-Cleroidae-Cucujoidae; Löbl, I., Smetana, A., Eds.; Apollo Books: Stenstrup, Denmark, 2007; pp. 89–209. [Google Scholar]
  102. Dajoz, R. Répartition géographique et Abondance des espèces du genre Triplax Herbst (Coléoptères, Erotylidae). L’Entomologiste 1985, 41, 133–141. [Google Scholar]
  103. Alexander, K.N.A. The Invertebrates of Living and Decaying Timber in Britain and Ireland—A Provisional Annotated Ahecklist; English Nature Research Reports 467; English Nature: Peterborough, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  104. Muona, J. Review of the phylogeny, classification and biology of the family Eucnemidae (Coleoptera). Entomol. Scand. 1993, 44, 1–133. [Google Scholar]
  105. De la Rosa, J.J. Algunas citas interesantes de Eucnémidos de la Península Ibérica (Coleptera: Eucnemidae). BoletÍN Soc. EntomolÓGica Aragonesa 2008, 1, 367–369. [Google Scholar]
  106. Bartolozzi, L.; Sprecher-Uebersax, E. Family Lucanidae Latreille, 1804. In Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Vol. 3. Scarabaeoidea–Scirtoidea–Dascilloidea-Buprestoidea–Byrrhoidea; Löbl, I., Smetana, A., Eds.; Apollo Books: Stenstrup, Denmark, 2006; pp. 63–77. [Google Scholar]
  107. Franciscolo, M.E. Fauna D’Italia. Coleoptera Lucanidae. XXXV, I-XI+ 1–228; Calderini: Bologna, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  108. Brustel, H.; Gouix, N. Coléoptères Rhysodidae en France: Données complémentaires pour Rhysodes sulcatus (F., 1787) et incitation à la eecherche d’Omoglymmius (ss) germari (Ganglbauer, 1892). L’Entomologiste 2011, 67, 321–325. [Google Scholar]
  109. Audisio, P.; Nardi, G.; Micó Balaguer, E. Osmoderma cristinae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017. e.T157875A44091395. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157875/44091395 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  110. Nardi, G.; Mico, E. Osmoderma italica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015. e.T164917A5938262. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/164917/5938262 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  111. Nieto, A.; Dodelin, B.; Petrakis, P.; Büche, B. Osmoderma lassallei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2010. e.T157575A5098836. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157575/5098836 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  112. Alexis, R.; Makris, C. Propomacrus cypriacus sp. n. from Cyprus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Euchirinae). Biocosme Mesogeen 2002, 18, 103–108. [Google Scholar]
  113. Miessen, G. Quelques Scarabaeoidea intéressants. Lambillionea 2009, 109, 463–466. [Google Scholar]
  114. Echevarría-León, E.; Torres-Vila, L.M.; Cáceres, Y.; Mendiola-Diaz, F.J.; Bonal, R.; López-Calvo, R. Corología de Protaetia (Eupotosia) affinis (Andersch, 1797) y P.(E.) mirifica (Mulsant, 1842) (Coleoptera: Cetoniidae) en Extremadura y la Península Ibérica. BoletÍN SAE No 2019, 29, 136–156. [Google Scholar]
  115. Carpaneto, G.M.; Piattella, E.; Valerio, L. Insecta Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea. In Checklist and Distribution of the Italian Fauna; Ruffo, S., Stoch, F., Eds.; Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona: Verona, Italy, 2005; pp. 193–197. [Google Scholar]
  116. Novák, V.; Jansson, N.; Chiari, S.; Zauli, A.; Audisio, P.; Carpaneto, G.M. A new species of Allecula (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Alleculinae) from Cork Oak stands of Italy. Zootaxa 2012, 3483, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  117. Castro Tovar, A.; Luis Torres, J.; Baena, M. The genus Alphitophagus Stephens, 1832 from Spain (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Zool. Baetica 2012, 23, 73–85. [Google Scholar]
  118. Pons, G.X.; Palmer, M. Fauna Endèmica de les Illes Balears; Institut d’Estudis Baleàrics: Conselleria d’Obres Públiques, Ordenació del Territori i Medi Ambient. Direcció General de Medi Ambient: Societat d’Història Natural de les Balears: Palma, Spain, 1996; ISBN 8487026567. [Google Scholar]
  119. Viñolas, A. Alphitophagus xaxarsi (Reitter, 1914) a la Península Ibérica (Tenebrionidae: Diaperinae). Butll Inst. Catalana Hist. Nat. 2010, 76, 166–168. [Google Scholar]
  120. Español, C.F. Los Ulomini (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) de la fauna Espanola. Mem. rÉGionales Acad. Ciencas Y Artes Barc. 1979, 44, 413–432. [Google Scholar]
  121. Español, F. El Género Coelometopus Sol.(Col. Tenebrionidae). Arch. Inst. Aclim. óN Almer. íA 1963, 12, 49–53. [Google Scholar]
  122. Soldati, F.; Soldati, L. Les Corticeus Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 de la faune de France. Bull. Rutilans 2010, 13, 3. [Google Scholar]
  123. Novák, V. Beetles of the Family Tenebrionidae of Central Europe; Academia: Praha, Czech, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  124. Soldati, F.; Soldati, L. Description de Corticeus vanmeeri n. sp., espèce nouvelle des Pyrénées Occidentales Françaises et clé de détermination des espèces du genre Corticeus Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 en France (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). Rev. l’Assoc. Roussillon. d’Entomologie 2014, 23, 114–122. [Google Scholar]
  125. Iwan, D.; Kubisz, D.; Tykarski, P. Coleoptera Poloniae: Tenebrionoidea (Tenebrionidae, Boridae). Critical Checklist, Distribution in Poland and Meta-Analysis; University of Warsaw–Faculty of Biology, Natura optima dux Foundation: Warszawa, Poland, 2012; pp. 1–480. [Google Scholar]
  126. Koch, K. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie, 1; Goecke & Evers Verlag: Krefeld, Germany, 1989; 440p. [Google Scholar]
  127. Soldati, F.; Alexander, K.; Audisio, P.; Dodelin, B.; Legakis, A.; Liberto, A.; Makris, C.; Vazquez, X. Iphthiminus italicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017. e.T86883519A87313927. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  128. De Zan, L.R.; Bellotti, F.; D’Amato, D.; Carpaneto, G.M. Saproxylic beetles in three relict beech forests of Central Italy: Analysis of environmental parameters and implications for forest management. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 328, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Atay, E.; Jansson, N.; Gürkan, T. Saproxylic beetles on old hollow oaks (Quercus spp.) in a small isolated area in Southern Turkey: (Insecta: Coleoptera). Zool. Middle East 2012, 57, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Majzlan, O. Vybrané Druhy Hmyzu (Coleoptera) Prírodnej Rezervácie Ľutovský Drieňovec v Južnej Časti Strážovských Vrchov (Selected insect species (Coleoptera) of the Ľutovský Drieňovec Nature Reserve in Southern part of the Strážovské Vrchy Mts.). Rosalia 2008, 19, 93–112. [Google Scholar]
  131. Burakowski, B.; Mroczkowski, M.; Stefańska, J. Chrząszcze, Cucujoidea. Część XXIII. Kat. Fauny Pol. 1987, 23, 1–278. [Google Scholar]
  132. Müller, J.; Bußler, H.; Bense, U.; Brustel, H.; Flechtner, G.; Fowles, A.; Kahlen, M.; Möller, G.; Mühle, H.; Schmidl, J. Urwald relict species–saproxylic beetles indicating structural qualities and habitat tradition. Wald. Online 2005, 2, 106–113. [Google Scholar]
  133. Holzer, E. Erstnachweise Und Wiederfunde Für Die Käferfauna Der Steiermark (VIII) (Coleoptera). Joannea Zool. 2004, 6, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  134. Kofler, A. Zur Kenntnis Der Käferfauna Osttirols (Teredilia, Heteromera) (Coleoptera: Lyctidae Bis Tenebrionidae). Carinthia II 2008, 198, 449–480. [Google Scholar]
  135. Nardi, G.; Mico, E. Leipaspis lauricola. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015. e.T157874A5164149. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157874/5164149 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  136. Bahillo, P.; Mico, E. Leipaspis pinicola. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015. e.T157579A5099579. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157579/5099579 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  137. Siitonen, J.; Saaristo, L. Habitat requirements and conservation of Pytho kolwensis, a beetle species of old-growth boreal forest. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 94, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Siitonen, J. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol. Bull. 2001, 49, 11–41. [Google Scholar]
  139. Fridman, J.; Walheim, M. Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 131, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Weslien, J.; Martin Schroeder, L. Population levels of bark beetles and associated insects in managed and unmanaged spruce stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 115, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Mazzei, A.; Bonacci, T.; Horák, J.; Brandmayr, P. The role of topography, stand and habitat features for management and biodiversity of a prominent forest hotspot of the Mediterranean Basin: Saproxylic beetles as possible indicators. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 410, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Langor, D.W.; Hammond, H.E.J.; Spence, J.R.; Jacobs, J.; Cobb, T.P. Saproxylic insect assemblages in Canadian forests: Diversity, ecology and conservation. Can. Entomol. 2008, 140, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Lassauce, A.; Larrieu, L.; Paillet, Y.; Lieutier, F.; Bouget, C. The effects of forest age on saproxylic beetle biodiversity: Implications of shortened and extended rotation lengths in a French oak high forest. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2013, 6, 396–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Amori, G.; Mazzei, A.; Storino, P.; Urso, S.; Luzzi, G.; Aloise, G.; Gangale, C.; Ouzounov, D.; Luiselli, L.; Pizzolotto, R.; et al. Forest management and conservation of faunal diversity in Italy: A review. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2021, 155, 1226–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Vacik, H.; Zlatanov, T.; Trajkov, P.; Dekanic, S.; Lexer, M.J. Role of coppice forests in maintaining forest biodiversity. Silva Balc. 2009, 10, 35–45. [Google Scholar]
  146. Similä, M.; Kouki, J.; Martikainen, P.; Uotila, A. Conservation of beetles in boreal pine forests: The effects of forest age and naturalness on species assemblages. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 106, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Seibold, S.; Bässler, C.; Brandl, R.; Büche, B.; Szallies, A.; Thorn, S.; Ulyshen, M.D.; Müller, J. Microclimate and habitat heterogeneity as the major drivers of beetle diversity in dead wood. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 934–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Morrissey, R.C.; Jenkins, M.A.; Saunders, M.R. Accumulation and connectivity of coarse woody debris in partial harvest and unmanaged relict forests. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Winter, S.; Flade, M.; Schumacher, H.; Kerstan, E.; Möller, G. The importance of near-natural stand structures for the biocoenosis of lowland beech forests. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 2005, 79, 127–144. [Google Scholar]
  150. Warren, M.S.; Key, R.S. Woodlands: Past, present and potential for insects. In The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats; Collins, N.M., Thomas., J.A., Eds.; 15th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society; Academic Press: London, UK, 1991; pp. 155–211. [Google Scholar]
  151. Scaccini, D. Habitat and microhabitat suitability for Italian Platycerus species (Coleoptera: Lucanidae): Elevation, slope aspect and deadwood features. Scand J. For. Res. 2022, 37, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Vallauri, D.; Dodelin, B.; André, J. Bois Mort et à Cavités: Une Clé Pour Des Forêts Vivantes; Tec & Doc Lavoisier: Cachan, France, 2005; ISBN 2743007974. [Google Scholar]
  153. Bütler, R.; Lachat, T.; Schlaepfer, R. Saproxylische Arten in Der Schweiz: Ökologisches Potenzial und Hotspots| Saproxylic species in Switzerland: Ecological potential and hotspots. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 2006, 157, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Müller, J.; Bütler, R. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: A baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 981–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Lindhe, A.; Lindelöw, Å.; Åsenblad, N. Saproxylic beetles in standing dead wood density in relation to substrate sun-exposure and diameter. Biodiv. Conserv. 2005, 14, 3033–3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kouki, J.; Löfman, S.; Martikainen, P.; Rouvinen, S.; Uotila, A. Forest fragmentation in Fennoscandia: Linking habitat requirements of wood-associated threatened species to landscape and habitat changes. Scand J. For. Res. 2001, 16, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Johansson, T.; Gibb, H.; Hjältén, J.; Dynesius, M. Soil humidity, potential solar radiation and altitude affect boreal beetle assemblages in dead wood. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 209, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Jonsell, M.; Nittérus, K.; Stighäll, K. Saproxylic beetles in natural and man-made deciduous high stumps retained for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 118, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Lindhe, A.; Jeppsson, T.; Ehnström, B. Longhorn beetles in Sweden-changes in distribution and abundance over the last two hundred years. Entomol. Tidskr. 2010, 131, 241–508. [Google Scholar]
  160. Schiegg, K. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 2000, 7, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ramírez-Hernández, A.; Micó, E.; Galante, E. Temporal variation in saproxylic beetle assemblages in a Mediterranean ecosystem. J. Insect. Conserv. 2014, 18, 993–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Hägglund, R.; Hjältén, J. Substrate specific restoration promotes saproxylic beetle diversity in boreal forest set-asides. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 425, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Heikkala, O.; Martikainen, P.; Kouki, J. Decadal effects of emulating natural disturbances in forest management on saproxylic beetle assemblages. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 194, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hjältén, J.; Hägglund, R.; Löfroth, T.; Roberge, J.M.; Dynesius, M.; Olsson, J. Forest restoration by burning and gap cutting of voluntary set-asides yield distinct immediate effects on saproxylic beetles. Biodiv. Conserv. 2017, 26, 1623–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Hyvärinen, E.; Kouki, J.; Martikainen, P. Fire and green-tree retention in conservation of red-listed and rare deadwood-dependent beetles in Finnish boreal forests. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 1710–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Toivanen, T.; Kotiaho, J.S. Burning of logged sites to protect beetles in managed boreal forests. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1562–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Komonen, A.; Kuntsi, S.; Toivanen, T.; Kotiaho, J.S. Fast but ephemeral effects of ecological restoration on forest beetle community. Biodiv. Conserv. 2014, 23, 1485–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Pilgrim, J.D.; Lamoreux, J.F.; Hoffmann, M.; Brooks, T.M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Buse, J.; Schröder, B.; Assmann, T. Modelling habitat and spatial distribution of an endangered longhorn beetle–a case study for saproxylic insect conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 137, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Torres-Vila, L.; Mendiola-Diaz, F.J.; Sánchez-González, A. Dispersal differences of a pest and a protected Cerambyx species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in oak open woodlands: A mark-recapture comparative study. Ecol. Entomol. 2017, 42, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Torres-Vila, L.M.; Zugasti-Martínez, C.; Mendiola-Díaz, F.J.; De-Juan-Murillo, J.M.; Sánchez-González, Á.; Conejo-Rodríguez, Y.; Ponce-Escudero, F.; Fernández-Moreno, F. Larval assemblages of large saproxylic Cerambycids in Iberian oak forests: Wood quality and host preference shape resource partitioning. Popul. Ecol. 2017, 59, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Mannu, R.; Torres-Vila, L.M.; Olivieri, M.; Lentini, A. When a threatened species becomes a threat: A key to reading the Habitats Directive based on occurrence and distribution of Cerambyx cerdo L. in Mediterranean urban and peri-urban areas. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2021, 14, 730–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cerambyx cerdo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 1996. e.T4166A10503380. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/4166/10503380 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  174. Buse, J.; Verdugo, A.; Bartolozzi, L.; Mendez, M.; Galante, E. Cerambyx cerdo. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016. e.T4166A43965534. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/4166/43965534 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  175. Nieto, A.; Mannerkoski, I.; Pettersson, R.; Mason, F.; Méndez, M.; Schmidl, J. Lucanus cervus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2010. e.T157554A5094499. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157554/5094499 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  176. Kuźmiński, R.; Chrzanowski, A.; Mazur, A.; Rutkowski, P.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J. Distribution and habitat preferences of the stag beetle Lucanus cervus (L.) in Forested Areas of Poland. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Mannerkoski, I.; Hyvärinen, E.; Alexander, K.; Büche, B.; Campanaro, A. Ceruchus chrysomelinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2010. e.T157641A5114760. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/157641/5114760 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  178. Foit, J.; Kašák, J.; Nevoral, J. Habitat requirements of the endangered longhorn beetle Aegosoma scabricorne (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): A possible umbrella species for saproxylic beetles in European lowland forests. J. Insect. Conserv. 2016, 20, 837–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Fattorini, S. Beetle species–area relationships and extinction rates in protected areas. Insects 2020, 11, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Howse, P.E.; Stevens, I.D.R.; Jones, O.T. Insect Pheromones and their Use in Pest Management; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; ISBN 978-0-412-44410-4. [Google Scholar]
  181. Cook, S.M.; Khan, Z.R.; Pickett, J.A. The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Mirea, M.; Manolache, S.; Pioarca-Ciocanea, C.; Nita, A.; Miu, I.; Popescu, V.; Brodie, B.; Dragomir, M.; Militaru, I.; Chiriac, S.; et al. Conservation of saproxylic beetles in the Carpathians. Res. Ideas Outcomes 2021, 7, e63874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Horák, J.; Chumanová, E.; Hilszczański, J. Saproxylic beetle thrives on the openness in management: A case study on the ecological requirements of Cucujus cinnaberinus from Central Europe. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2012, 5, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Westling, A. Rödlistade Arter i Sverige 2015; Artdata-banken: Uppsala, Sweden, 2015; ISBN 9187853108. [Google Scholar]
  185. Hejda, R.; Farkač, J.; Chobot, K. Červený Seznam Ohrožených Druhů České Republiky: Bezobratli: Red List of Threatened Species of Czech Republic: Invertebrates. Příroda 2017, 36, 1–611. [Google Scholar]
  186. Monnerat, C.; Barbalat, S.; Lachat, T.; Gonseth, Y. Liste Rouge des Coléoptères Buprestidés, Cérambycidés, Cétoniidés et Lucanidés: Espèces Menacées En Suisse; Office Fédéral de L’environnement (OFEV): Bern, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  187. Audisio, P.; Baviera, C.; Carpaneto, G.M.; Biscaccianti, A.B.; Battistoni, A.; Teofili, C.; Rondinini, C. Lista Rossa IUCN dei Coleotteri Saproxilici Italiani; Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare: Rome, Italy, 2014; 132p. [Google Scholar]
  188. Chazdon, R.L.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Lamb, D.; Laestadius, L.; Calmon, M.; Kumar, C. A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Dudley, N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2008; ISBN 2831710863. [Google Scholar]
  190. Olenici, N.; Fodor, E. The diversity of saproxylic beetles’ community from the Natural Reserve Voievodeasa forest, North-Eastern Romania. Ann. For. Res. 2021, 64, 31–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Lindhe, A.; Lindelöw, Å. Cut high stumps of spruce, birch, aspen and oak as breeding substrates for saproxylic beetles. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 203, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Jonsell, M.; Hansson, J.; Wedmo, L. Diversity of saproxylic beetle species in logging residues in Sweden–comparisons between tree species and diameters. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 138, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Lassauce, A.; Paillet, Y.; Jactel, H.; Bouget, C. Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Kunttu, P.; Junninen, K.; Kouki, J. Dead wood as an indicator of forest naturalness: A comparison of methods. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 353, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Von Albrecht, L. Die Bedeutung Des Toten Holzes im Wald. Forstwiss. Cent. Ver. Mit Tharandter Forstl. Jahrb. 1991, 110, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Radu, S. The ecological role of deadwood in natural forests. In Nature Conservation: Concept and Practice; Gafta, D., Akeroyd, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 137–141. [Google Scholar]
  197. Jonsson, B.G.; Siitonen, J. Dead wood and sustainable forest management. In Biodiversity in Dead Wood; Stokland, J.N., Siitonen, J., Jonsson, B.G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 302–337. [Google Scholar]
  198. Harmon, M.E. Moving towards a new paradigm for woody detritus management. Ecol. Bull. 2001, 49, 269–278. [Google Scholar]
  199. Schuck, A.; Meyer, P.; Menke, N.; Lier, M.; Lindner, M. Forest biodiversity indicator. In Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe–from Ideas to Operationality; Marchetti, M., Ed.; European Forest Institute Procceedings: Joensuu, Finland, 2005; Volume 51, pp. 49–77. [Google Scholar]
  200. Saint-Germain, M.; Drapeau, P.M.; Buddle, C. Host-use patterns of saproxylic phloeophagous and xylophagous Coleoptera adults and larvae along the decay gradient in standing dead black spruce and aspen. Ecography 2007, 30, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Kašák, J.; Mazalová, M.; Šipoš, J.; Foit, J.; Hučín, M.; Kuras, T. Habitat preferences of Ceruchus chrysomelinus, an endangered relict beetle of the Natural Central European Montane Forests. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2019, 12, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Schiegg, K. Saproxylic insect diversity of beech: Limbs are richer than trunks. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 149, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Jonsell, M. Saproxylic beetle species in logging residues: Which are they and which residues do they use? Nor. J. Entomol. 2008, 55, 109. [Google Scholar]
  204. Hedin, J.; Isacsson, G.; Jonsell, M.; Komonen, A. Forest fuel piles as ecological traps for saproxylic beetles in oak. Scand J. For. Res. 2008, 23, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Lassauce, A.; Lieutier, F.; Bouget, C. Woodfuel harvesting and biodiversity conservation in temperate forests: Effects of logging residue characteristics on saproxylic beetle assemblages. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 147, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Hardersen, S.; Macagno, A.L.M.; Chiari, S.; Audisio, P.; Gasparini, P.; lo Giudice, G.; Nardi, G.; Mason, F. Forest management, canopy cover and geographical distance affect saproxylic beetle communities of small-diameter beech deadwood. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 467, 118152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Milberg, P.; Bergman, K.O.; Johansson, H.; Jansson, N. Low host-tree preferences among saproxylic beetles: A comparison of four deciduous species. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2014, 7, 508–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Irmler, U.; Heller, K.; Warning, J. Age and tree species as factors influencing the populations of insects living in dead wood (Coleoptera, Diptera: Sciaridae, Mycetophilidae). Pedobiologia 1996, 40, 134–148. [Google Scholar]
  209. Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J.; Ehnström, B. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiv. Conserv. 1998, 7, 749–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Tavakilian, G.; Berkov, A.; Meurer-Grimes, B.; Mori, S. Neotropical tree species and their faunas of xylophagous longicorns (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in French Guiana. Bot. Rev. 1997, 63, 303–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Wu, J.; Yu, X.; Zhou, H. The saproxylic beetle assemblage associated with different host trees in southwest China. Insect. Sci. 2008, 15, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Joelsson, K.; Hjältén, J.; Work, T.; Gibb, H.; Roberge, J.-M.; Löfroth, T. Uneven-aged silviculture can reduce negative effects of forest management on beetles. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 391, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Peltonen, M.; Heliövaara, K. Incidence of Xylechinus pilosus and Cryphalus saltuarius (Scolytidae) in forest-clearcut edges. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 103, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Gibb, H.; Pettersson, R.B.; Hjältén, J.; Hilszczański, J.; Ball, J.P.; Johansson, T.; Atlegrim, O.; Danell, K. Conservation-oriented forestry and early successional saproxylic beetles: Responses of functional groups to manipulated dead wood substrates. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 129, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Olsson, J.; Johansson, T.; Jonsson, B.G.; Hjältén, J.; Edman, M.; Ericson, L. Landscape and substrate properties affect species richness and community composition of saproxylic beetles. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 286, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Koivula, M.; Vanha-Majamaa, I. Experimental evidence on biodiversity impacts of variable retention forestry, prescribed burning, and deadwood manipulation in Fennoscandia. Ecol. Proc. 2020, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  217. Toivanen, T.; Kotiaho, J.S. Mimicking natural disturbances of boreal forests: The effects of controlled burning and creating dead wood on beetle diversity. Biodiv. Conserv. 2007, 16, 3193–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Heikkala, O.; Seibold, S.; Koivula, M.; Martikainen, P.; Müller, J.; Thorn, S.; Kouki, J. Retention forestry and prescribed burning result in functionally different saproxylic beetle assemblages than clear-cutting. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 359, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Pitkänen, A.; Kouki, J.; Viiri, H.; Martikainen, P. Effects of controlled forest burning and intensity of timber harvesting on the occurrence of pine weevils, Hylobius spp., in regeneration areas. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Pitkänen, A.; Törmänen, K.; Kouki, J.; Järvinen, E.; Viiri, H. Effects of green tree retention, prescribed burning and soil treatment on pine weevil (Hylobius abietis and Hylobius pinastri) damage to planted Scots pine seedlings. Agric. For. Entomol. 2005, 7, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Cavard, X.; Macdonald, S.E.; Bergeron, Y.; Chen, H.Y.H. Importance of mixedwoods for biodiversity conservation: Evidence for understory plants, songbirds, soil fauna, and ectomycorrhizae in northern forests. Environ. Rev. 2011, 19, 142–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Ampoorter, E.; Barbaro, L.; Jactel, H.; Baeten, L.; Boberg, J.; Carnol, M.; Castagneyrol, B.; Charbonnier, Y.; Dawud, S.M.; Deconchat, M. Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest-associated taxa in Europe. Oikos 2020, 129, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  223. Felton, A.; Lindbladh, M.; Brunet, J.; Fritz, Ö. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in Northern Europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Huang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Castro-Izaguirre, N.; Baruffol, M.; Brezzi, M.; Lang, A.; Li, Y.; Härdtle, W.; von Oheimb, G.; Yang, X. Impacts of species richness on productivity in a large-scale subtropical forest experiment. Science 2018, 362, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  225. Jonsson, M.; Bengtsson, J.; Gamfeldt, L.; Moen, J.; Snäll, T. Levels of forest ecosystem services depend on specific mixtures of commercial tree species. Nat. Plants 2019, 5, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Pretzsch, H.; Forrester, D.I.; Bauhus, J. Mixed-Species Forests: Ecology and Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; p. 653. [Google Scholar]
  227. Similä, M.; Kouki, J.; Martikainen, P. Saproxylic beetles in managed and seminatural Scots pine forests: Quality of dead wood matters. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 174, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Gustafsson, L.; Kouki, J. Spatial and temporal scales relevant for conservation of dead-wood associated species: Current status and perspectives. Biodiv. Conserv. 2014, 23, 513–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Schiegg, K. Are there saproxylic beetle species characteristic of high dead wood connectivity? Ecography 2000, 23, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Schall, P.; Heinrichs, S.; Ammer, C.; Ayasse, M.; Boch, S.; Buscot, F.; Fischer, M.; Goldmann, K.; Overmann, J.; Schulze, E. Can multi-taxa diversity in European beech forest landscapes be Increased by combining different management systems? J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1363–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Brin, A.; Brustel, H. Saproxylic beetles’ response to cork-oak forests heterogeneity in the Massif Des Maures (France). Rev. Écol. 2006, 61, 327–342. [Google Scholar]
  232. Jörg, M.; Simon, T.; Roland, B.; Khosro, S.-T.; Barimani, H.v.; Sebastian, S.; Ulyshen, M.D.; Gossner, M.M. Protecting the forests while allowing removal of damaged trees may imperil saproxylic insect biodiversity in the hyrcanian beech forests of Iran. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Felton, A.; Felton, A.M.; Wam, H.K.; Witzell, J.; Wallgren, M.; Löf, M.; Sonesson, J.; Lindbladh, M.; Björkman, C.; Blennow, K.; et al. Forest biodiversity and ecosystem services from spruce-birch mixtures: The potential importance of tree spatial arrangement. Environ. Chall. 2022, 6, 100407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Martikainen, P. Conservation of threatened saproxylic beetles: Significance of retained aspen Populus tremula on clearcut areas. Ecol. Bull. 2001, 49, 205–218. [Google Scholar]
  235. Komonen, A.; Müller, J. Dispersal ecology of deadwood organisms and connectivity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 32, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Jonsell, M. Effects on biodiversity of forest fuel extraction, governed by processes working on a large scale. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 726–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Jonsson, B.G.; Ekström, M.; Esseen, P.-A.; Grafström, A.; Ståhl, G.; Westerlund, B. Dead wood availability in managed Swedish forests–policy outcomes and implications for biodiversity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 376, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  238. Conway, W. Wild and zoo animal interactive management and habitat conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 1995, 4, 573–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Kolter, L.; Zimmermann, W. Social behaviour of Przewalski horses (Equus p. przewalskii) in the Cologne zoo and its consequences for management and housing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1988, 21, 117–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Bonacci, T.; Rovito, M.; Horák, J.; Brandmayr, P. Artificial feeding and laboratory rearing of endangered saproxylic beetles as a tool for insect conservation. J. Insect Sci. 2020, 20, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 13 01929 g001 550
Figure 1. Simplified decision-making flowchart based on European legislation and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species for the application of control measures against saproxylic beetles that are or may be considered as pests.
Figure 1. Simplified decision-making flowchart based on European legislation and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species for the application of control measures against saproxylic beetles that are or may be considered as pests.
Forests 13 01929 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary of the five criteria (A–E) used to evaluate whether a taxon belongs in an IUCN Red List Threatened Category (i.e., CR, EN, or VU) [36].
Table 1. Summary of the five criteria (A–E) used to evaluate whether a taxon belongs in an IUCN Red List Threatened Category (i.e., CR, EN, or VU) [36].
Criterion A. Population Size Reduction
CRENVU
A1≥90%≥70%≥50%
A2, A3, and A4≥80%≥50%≥30%
A1. Population reduction in the past; causes are reversible, understood, and have ceased(a) Direct observation
(b) Index of abundance
A2. Population reduction in the past; causes are not reversible or understood, or have ceased(c) Decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO), and/or habitat quality
A3. Population reduction in the future
A4. Population reduction in the past and the future; causes are not reversible or understood, or have ceased(d) Actual or potential levels of exploitation
(e) Introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors, etc.
Criterion B. Geographic Range
CRENVU
B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO)<100 km2<5000 km2<20,000 km2
B2. Area of occupancy (AOO)<10 km2<500 km2<2000 km2
(a) Severely fragmented or number of locations=1≤5≤10
(b) Continuing decline in (i) EOO; (ii) AOO; (iii) area, extent, and/or quality of the habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals
(c) Extreme fluctuations in (i) EOO; (ii) AOO; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations; (iv) number of mature individuals
Criterion C. Small Population Size and Decline
CRENVU
Number of mature individuals<250<2500<10,000
C1. Observed, estimated, or projected continuing decline25% in 3 years or 1 generation20% in 5 years or 2 generations10% in 10 years or 3 generations
C2. Observed, estimated, projected, or inferred continuing decline
(a) (i) Number of mature individuals in each subpopulation≤50≤250≤1000
(a) (ii) Percentage of mature individuals in one subpopulation90%–100%95%–100%100%
(b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals
Criterion D. Very Small or Restricted Population
CRENVU
D. Number of mature individuals<50<250D.1 < 1000
D2. Restricted AOO or number of locations with a plausible future threat that could drive the taxon to CR or EX in a very short time--D2. AOO < 20 km2 or number of locations ≤5
Criterion E. Quantitative Analysis
CRENVU
Indicating the probability of extinction in the wild≥50% in 10 years or 3 generations≥20% in 20 years or 5 generations≥10% in 100 years
Table
Table 2. Saproxylic beetles listed as threatened in Europe and their habitat/host plants; (*) indicates the taxa included in Annex II of the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC as animal species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation.
Table 2. Saproxylic beetles listed as threatened in Europe and their habitat/host plants; (*) indicates the taxa included in Annex II of the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC as animal species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation.
SpeciesFamilyIUCN Red
List Category
(Europe)		IUCN Red
List Criteria
(Europe)		Habitat/Host Plants
Boros schneideri (Panzer, 1795)BoridaeVU *A2acVarious conifers mostly and various broadleaves [55]
Xylomedes cornifrons (Baudi, 1874)BostrichidaeVUB2ab (iii)Various conifers [56]
Buprestis splendens (Fabricius, 1775) BuprestidaeEN *B2ab (iii, iv)Pinus spp., rarely Picea abies [57]
Acmaeops angusticollis (Gebler, 1833)CerambycidaeENB1a + 2ab (iii)Pinus spp., rarely P. abies [58]
Acmaeops smaragdula (Fabricius, 1792)CerambycidaeENB2ab (i, ii, iv)Picea spp., Pinus spp., Larix spp., Abies spp. [58]
Akimerus schaefferi (Laicharting, 1784) CerambycidaeENB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv)Quercus spp. [59]
Anaglyptus luteofasciatus (Pic, 1905)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Abies spp. [60]
Anaglyptus praecellens (Holzschuh, 1981)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii, v) + 2ab (iii, v)Quercus coccifera, Berberis cretica, Crataegus spp. [61]
Anisarthron barbipes (Schrank, 1845)CerambycidaeVUA3cVarius broadleaves [61,62]
Calchaenesthes sexmaculata (Reiche, 1861)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii)Quercus spp. [63]
Callergates gaillardoti (Chevrolat, 1854)CerambycidaeENB1ab (ii, iii) + 2ab (ii, iii)P. halepensis, P. brutia [64]
Chlorophorus convexifrons (Holzschuh, 1981)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Isotis tinctoria [65]
Clytus clavicornis (Reiche, 1860)CerambycidaeVUB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Various broadleaves [29]
Clytus triangulimacula (Costa, 1847)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (iii)Not known [66]
Cornumutila lineata (Letzner, 1844)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii)Various conifers [58,67]
Crotchiella brachyptera (Israelson, 1985)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Laurus azorica, Vitis vinifera, Ilex spp. [68]
Delagrangeus angustissimus (Pic, 1892)CerambycidaeVUD2Cupressus sempervirens, Thuya spp., Juniperus spp. [69]
Delagrangeus schurmanni (Sama, 1985)CerambycidaeVUD2Juniperus spp. [70]
Drymochares cylindraceus (Fairmaire, 1849)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii, iv)Cytisus oromediterraneus [68,71], Quercus spp. [66]
Drymochares truquii (Mulsant, 1847)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii)Corylus avellana, occasionally Fagus sylvatica,
Alnus spp., Ostrya carpinifolia [72]
Enoploderes sanguineus (Faldermann, 1837)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii)Populus spp., Salix spp. [73]
Glaphyra bassettii (Sama, 1992)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii, v) + 2ab (iii, v)Cedrus brevifolia [74]
Grammoptera viridipennis (Pic, 1893)CerambycidaeVUB1ab (iii, iv) + 2ab (iii, iv)Various broadleaves [75,76]
Isotomus barbarae (Sama, 1977)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (iii)O. carpinifolia [77]
Isotomus jarmilae (Slama, 1982)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Q. coccifera [78]
Necydalis ulmi (Chevrolat, 1838)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (ii, iii, iv)Various broadleaves [79]
Neopiciella sicula (Ganglbauer, 1886)CerambycidaeVUD2Acer campestre, F. sylvatica [61] Quercus spp. [80]
Nivellia extensa (Gebler, 1833)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii)Abies spp., Larix spp. [81]
Nivellia sanguinosa (Gyllenhal, 1827)CerambycidaeENB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv, v)Various broadleaves [75,81]
Nothorhina muricata (Dalman, 1817)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv, v)P. sylvestis, P. maritima, P. uncinate [72]
Pachyta lamed (Linnaeus, 1758)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv, v)Picea spp., Pinus spp. [82], Larix spp. [81]
Paracorymbia tesserula (Charpentier, 1825)CerambycidaeENB2ab (ii, iii, iv)Fagus spp. [83]
Pedostrangalia ariadne (Daniel, 1904)CerambycidaeVUD2Platanus orientalis [84]
Pedostrangalia revestita (Linnaeus, 1767)CerambycidaeVUA3ceVarious broadleaves [61,62,67,72,75,85,86]
Pseudogaurotina excellens (Brancsik, 1874)CerambycidaeEN*B2ab (ii, iii, iv)Lonicera nigra [67,75] Lonicera tatarica [87]
Pseudosphegesthes bergeri (Slama, 1982)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Q. coccifera [61]
Purpuricenus nudicollis (Demelt, 1968)CerambycidaeENB1ab (iii)Maquis, forests and orchards [88]
Ropalopus ungaricus (Herbst, 1784)CerambycidaeENB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv)Various broadleaves [61]
Schurmannia sicula (Sama, 1978)CerambycidaeCRB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Acer spp. [62], Q. ilex [89]
Stenopterus atricornis (Pic, 1891)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (iii)Various broadleaves [90]
Stenurella vaucheri (Bedel, 1900)CerambycidaeCRB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii); DQ. canariensis [91]
Stictoleptura erythroptera (Hagenbach, 1822)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv)Various broadleaves [61,68,92]
Stictoleptura oblongomaculata (Buquet, 1840)CerambycidaeENB2ab (iii)Q. suber [93] Q. ilex [76]
Stictoleptura rufa (Brullé, 1832)CerambycidaeVUB2ab (iii)Quercus spp. [73]
Trichoferus bergeri (Holzschuh, 1982)CerambycidaeCRB1ab (iii, iv)Ceratonia siliqua, Quercus spp., Ficus spp. [61,90]
Cerophytum elateroides (Latreille, 1804)CerophytidaeVUB2ab (iii, iv)Various broadleaves [94]
Cucujus haematodes (Erichson, 1845)CucujidaeENB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv)Abies spp., Pinus spp. [95]
Adelocera pygmaea (Baudi 1871)ElateridaeENB1ab (ii, iii) + 2ab (ii, iii)Quercus spp. [96]
Ampedus assingi (Schimmel, 1996)ElateridaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)P. brutia, P. nigra [97]
Ampedus brunnicornis (Germar, 1844)ElateridaeVUB2ab (iii)Quercus spp., Populus spp., Aesculus hippocastanum [98]
Ampedus corsicus (Reitter, 1918)ElateridaeVUD2Various broadleaves [99]
Ampedus hjorti (Rye, 1905)ElateridaeVUA4cQuercus spp. [98]
Ampedus quadrisignatus (Gyllenhal, 1817)ElateridaeENB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv, v)Quercus spp. [98]
Ischnodes sanguinicollis (Panzer, 1793)ElateridaeVUB2ab (iii, iv)Various broadleaves [98]
Limoniscus violaceus (Müller, 1821)ElateridaeEN*B2ab (i, ii, iii, iv)Fagus spp., rarely Quercus spp. [99] Fraxinus spp. [100]
Podeonius acuticornis (Germar, 1824)ElateridaeENB2ab (iii)Quercus spp., Ulmus spp., Fagus spp. [98]
Stenagostus sardiniensis (Reitter, 1914)ElateridaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Unknown [101]
Tetrigus cyprius (Baudi, 1871)ElateridaeENB2ab (iii)C. siliqua [102]
Triplax emgei (Reitter, 1885)ErotylidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)A. cephalonica [103]
Triplax lacordairii (Crotch, 1870)ErotylidaeENB2ab (ii, iii)Various broadleaves [104]
Hylochares cruentatus (Gyllenhal, 1808)EucnemidaeENB2ab (iii)P. tremula, Salix spp. [105]
Melasis fermini (Sánchez-Ruiz & de la Rosa, 2003)EucnemidaeVUD2A. glutinosa [106]
Dorcus alexisi (Muret & Drumont, 1999)LucanidaeENB1ab (iii)Various broadleaves [107]
Dorcus musimon (Gené, 1836)LucanidaeVUB2ab (iii)Quercus spp. [108]
Clinidium canaliculatum (Costa, 1839)RhysodidaeVUB2ab (ii, iii)Q. frainetto, A. cephalonica [109]
Gnorimus decempunctatus (Helfer, 1834)ScarabaeidaeENB2ab (ii, iii)Fagus spp., Quercus spp. [29]
Osmoderma cristinae (Sparacio, 1994)ScarabaeidaeENB1ab (i, ii, iii) + 2ab (i, ii, iii)Various broadleaves [110]
Osmoderma italic (Sparacio, 2000)ScarabaeidaeENB2ab (iii)Various broadleaves [111]
Osmoderma lassallei (Baraud & Tauzin, 1991)ScarabaeidaeENB2ab (ii, iii)Various broadleaves [112]
Propomacrus cypriacus (Alexis & Makris, 2002)ScarabaeidaeCR*B2ab (iii)Q. infectoria [113], C. siliqua [113] P. dulcis [114]
Protaetia mirifica (Mulsant, 1842)ScarabaeidaeVUB2ab (ii, iii, iv)Quercus spp. [115]
Protaetia sardea (Gory & Percheron, 1833)ScarabaeidaeVUB2ab (ii, iii)Shrubby forest-pasture [116]
Allecula suberina (Novák, 2012)TenebrionidaeENB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Quercus spp. [117]
Alphitophagus carteianus (Castro Tovar, Torres and Baena, 2012)TenebrionidaeVUD2Q. suber, Populus nigra [118]
Alphitophagus xaxarsi (Reitter, 1914)TenebrionidaeVUB1ab (iii, iv) + 2ab (iii, iv)P. halepensis [119] C. siliqua [120]
Clamoris crenatus (Mulsant, 1854)TenebrionidaeVUB2ab (iii)P. pinaster [121]
Coelometopus cobosi (Español, 1964)TenebrionidaeVUD2Q. suber [122]
Corticeus bicoloroides (Roubal, 1933)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (iii)Various broadleaves [123]
Corticeus fraxini (Kugelann, 1794)TenebrionidaeVUB2ab (ii, iii)Various conifers mostly [123],
various broadleaves rarely [122]
Corticeus suberis (Lucas, 1846)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (ii, iii)Various broadleaves [122]
Corticeus vanmeeri (F. Soldati & L. Soldati, 2014)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (iii)Abies pectinata [124]
Corticeus versipellis (Baudi, 1876)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (i, ii, iii, iv)Ulmus spp. [125]
Hymenorus doublieri (Mulsant, 1851)TenebrionidaeVUB2ab (i, ii, iii)Pinus spp. [126]
Iphthiminus italicus (Truqui, 1857)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (iii)Quercus spp., F. sylvatica, Populus spp.,
A. cephalonica, P. halepensis [127]
Mycetochara flavipennis (Reitter, 1908)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (ii, iii, iv)Fagus spp. [128]
Mycetochara graciliformis (Reitter, 1899)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (iii, iv)Quercus spp. [129]
Mycetochara melandryina (Roubal, 1934)TenebrionidaeCRB1ab (iii) + 2ab (iii)Unknown [130]
Mycetochara roubali (Maran, 1935)TenebrionidaeVUB2ab (iii, iv)F. sylvatica, Tilia spp., Alnus spp., Corylus spp. [131]
Platydema dejeanii (Laporte de Castelnau & Brullé, 1831)TenebrionidaeVUB2ab (iii)Various broadleaves [132]
Prionychus lugens (Küster, 1850)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (iii, iv)Various broadleaves, rarely conifers [79]
Upinella aterrima (Rosenhauer, 1847)TenebrionidaeENB2ab (ii, iii)Quercus spp. [126], F. sylvatica [133], Juglans regia [134]
Leipaspis lauricola (Wollaston, 1862)TrogossitidaeVUD2Laurus nobilis (predator) [135]
Leipaspis pinicola (Wollaston, 1862)TrogossitidaeENB2ab (iii)Pinus spp. (predator) [136]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tsikas, A.; Karanikola, P. To Conserve or to Control? Endangered Saproxylic Beetles Considered as Forest Pests. Forests 2022, 13, 1929. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111929

AMA Style

Tsikas A, Karanikola P. To Conserve or to Control? Endangered Saproxylic Beetles Considered as Forest Pests. Forests. 2022; 13(11):1929. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111929

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tsikas, Angelos, and Paraskevi Karanikola. 2022. "To Conserve or to Control? Endangered Saproxylic Beetles Considered as Forest Pests" Forests 13, no. 11: 1929. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111929

APA Style

Tsikas, A., & Karanikola, P. (2022). To Conserve or to Control? Endangered Saproxylic Beetles Considered as Forest Pests. Forests, 13(11), 1929. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111929

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop