Next Article in Journal
Forest Fire Prediction with Imbalanced Data Using a Deep Neural Network Method
Next Article in Special Issue
The Polish Provenances of European Larch Overperform the Expected Growth Dynamics Indicated by the Sigmoid Model
Previous Article in Journal
Influences of Shading on Ascorbic Acid Biosynthesis of Blackcurrant (Ribes nigrum L.)
 
 
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 7
10.3390/f13071128
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Heritage Trees as an Important Sanctuary for Saproxylic Beetles in the Central European Landscape: A Case Study from Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic

by
Oto Nakládal
,
Václav Zumr
*,
Jiří Remeš
,
Markéta Macháčová
and
Vítězslava Pešková
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Suchdol, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(7), 1128; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071128
Submission received: 17 June 2022 / Revised: 4 July 2022 / Accepted: 14 July 2022 / Published: 18 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Silviculture Measures Needed to Keep Up with Changes in Forests)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Intensive forest and agroforestry management has greatly reduced the biodiversity of saproxylic organisms. Large trees are one of the most important refuges of saproxylic beetles. These large trees that grow outside and inside the forest are declining in the wider landscape. Heritage trees are one of the essential groups of beneficial trees in the landscape. We investigated saproxylic beetles associated with 35 selected oak heritage trees in Litovelské Pomoraví in the eastern Czech Republic. The study aimed to investigate the distribution of saproxylic beetles on trees growing inside or at the edge of forest stands, or on free-growing heritage trees. The other studied variables were the height, DBH, and light condition (sunny or shady) of heritage trees. The results showed that sunny habitats were the only significant factor found for all saproxylic species. However, the significance of increasing tree trunk dimension was found for the endangered species. Diversity indices q = 0 (species richness) and q = 1 (exponential of Shannon entropy index) were also higher for sunny trees, while solitary trees showed a high Shannon index value despite the low number of samples. Redundancy analysis of saproxylic species showed that the preferred habitats of most species were sunny massive solitary oaks. The results indicated that strictly protected heritage trees scattered in the landscape are crucial sanctuaries for many species—especially in landscapes where there are not enough suitable habitats for saproxylic beetles. Finding, conserving, and protecting these rare types of massive trees in the landscape has a significant impact on the conservation of saproxylic beetle biodiversity.

1. Introduction

Large, aged trees are in decline throughout the landscape [1,2]. The main reason for this is due to the intensive human use of the landscape. Massive trees are valuable from a biological, cultural and aesthetic point of view [3]. One type of massive trees in the landscape is heritage trees, which grow in historically significant places, at road junctions, or have served as landmarks in the landscape [4,5]. These are usually solitary trees of massive dimensions that have reached a very old age and carry large numbers of microhabitats [6,7], much more numerous than trees that grow in a denser spacing [8]. Therefore, they are one of the important factors in the biodiversity of saproxylic beetles [1,9,10]. Saproxylic beetles are the most studied group of forest organisms [11], and at the same time, they are one of the most threatened groups [12,13]. Saproxylic beetles depend on deadwood of all types and sizes and also on other organisms living on deadwood, e.g., mycetophages on tree fungi [14], and also microhabitats, e.g., tree cavities are very important [15,16]. Saproxylic beetles are an essential component in the decomposition of deadwood [17].
Oak (Quercus spp.) is the most frequently occurring of solitary tree species [18]. From this point of view, heritage trees are most often oaks. The most massive and oldest heritage trees in Europe are mainly oaks [5]. Oak is considered the most important tree species for saproxylic beetles [19,20,21]. Massive oak trees, especially free-growing ones, are known to be the only hosts of a number of large or rare species [22,23]. In general, the diversity of saproxylic beetles increases with the amount of deadwood [24]. Standing deadwood hosts more beetles than lying deadwood [25,26], as well as lichens, birds, and bats [27,28]. In general, massive trees are preserved mainly in old game hunting areas, parks, pond dams, and orchards [29], or in agroforestry areas [30], and as prominent features in the landscape, such as heritage trees [5].
These types of landscape management, along with large heritage trees, excel in their natural and cultural value [31], and are often considered the best features for the life and conservation of saproxylic beetles [32]. In recent years, locations with scattered old trees have seen a significant increase in scientific interest [18,30,31,33,34,35,36,37]. Traditional management of scattered massive trees has been abandoned, which naturally leads to a gradual shading of the grounds and a subsequent loss of biodiversity [38,39]. The newly formed environment then fails to meet the demands of sunny-habitat species, which leads to the homogenization of invertebrate communities [40], and, at the same time, brings about the faster death rate of large trees [10] and the failure of other ecosystem functions [41]. Old trees are threatened by felling and by the absence of active support for the future generation of solitary trees [12,13,42,43].
When massive solitary trees are declared heritage trees, law protection in the Czech Republic comes into play. The protection of these heritage trees also has secondary effects from a biodiversity viewpoint. For these reasons, this paper deals with the importance of large heritage trees growing independently in the landscape in connection with beetle biodiversity. Our selected heritage trees are under the management of the conservation authority Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic (Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny České republiky, AOPK). The trees are listed in the detailed database of the AOPK. The aim of this paper was to determine whether the diameter and height of a heritage tree are important elements for saproxylic beetle diversity. We also focused on the consequences of large shade trees and whether heritage trees growing in open countryside host higher numbers of species than trees growing in a forest or at a forest edge. The group we studied included beetles, especially the group of bioindicator saproxylic beetles and endangered species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area lies in the north of Central Moravia, in the Czech Republic. The model area is called Litovelské Pomoraví (49.697° N, 17.135° E). The site is a protected area of 96 km2 established in 1990 to protect the naturally meandering course of the Morava River and the surrounding oak floodplain forests. There are also thermophilous oak forests and oak-hornbeam and beech forests. A natural species composition prevails in the forests. The most frequently occurring soil types are luvisoils and fluvisoils. The location belongs to the warm climate zone T2. The average annual air temperature is 8.4 °C, and the average annual precipitation is 586 mm. Biogeographically, Litovelské Pomoraví can be classified in the Hercynian sub-province part of the province of Central European deciduous forests.

2.2. Studied Groups

Beetles were identified at the lowest taxonomic level (species) in the following families according to [44]. Staphylinidae were the only family not identified at the species level due to the lack of available experts. Individual species were included in the group of saproxylic beetles by [42,45,46]. We organized all saproxylic species according to their functional groups during larval development into the guilds. Types of inhabited microhabitats were classified into three cohorts: (1) wood-bark, (2) wood decay fungus, (3) cavities. The adult saproxylic beetles were separated into flower-visiting species and non-flower-visiting species; see [42]. The species taxonomy corresponded to Zicha O. (ed.) (2022) BioLib. http://www.biolib.cz (accessed on 1 January 2022). The species were classified according to the Red List of Endangered Species of Invertebrates of the Czech Republic [47].

2.3. Method of Collection

Standard window flight interception traps (Figure 1) hung on the trunks of heritage trees (Figure 2 and Figure 3) were used for the collection. Currently, these are the most frequently used traps for monitoring saproxylic beetles [48] and for entomological studies, cf. [49,50,51,52,53,54]. The traps consisted of a roof, plexiglass barrier, funnel, and collection container (Figure 1). When assembled, the passive barrier traps were 95–105 cm tall. A total of 35 traps were set (one trap per tree, south direct). The trapping devices were installed on 15 April 2010. Acetic acid 8% was poured into the containers, serving as a preservative, with a drop of surfactant to disturb the surface tension used. The traps were emptied six times during the season. The contents of the traps were extracted on 7 May, 22 May, 22 June, 18 July, 7 August, and 4 September 2010, when the traps were dismantled. The traps were extracted at 3 to 4-week intervals.

2.4. Study Variables

Heritage trees are one group of large and important trees in the landscape (Figure 4). All of the examined variables were obtained from 35 oak heritage trees in the growth phase (Figure 5). The species of saproxylic beetles and Red List species were selected as dependent variables. A total of four environmental (independent) variables were selected. These included two continuous variables: the diameter of breast height (DBH) of the trunk of the heritage tree (in cm), measured at 1.3 m above the ground (min. = 96, mean = 131, max. = 220), and the height of the tree values obtained from the heritage tree database (min. = 17, mean = 28, max. = 33) measured in 2010. The two categorical variables were: degree of solar exposure (light condition) of the tree (trap): sunny (n = 16) and shady (n = 19). We divided the sites (locations) into three groups: (1) Trees growing inside a closed forest, (2) trees growing on the edge of the forest or in a forest clearing, and (3) trees completely outside the forest. The degree of sun exposure was evaluated by the location of the tree, with sunny trees either growing as a solitaire, near the forest edge, or on it. The shaded trees on which the traps were placed grew in a closed forest.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

We used the stepwise generalized linear model χ2 test (log link function, Poisson distribution) according to the lowest Akaike’s information criterium (AIC) to find important variables, where comparison of individual environmental variables with the total variation was explained by the model in which the variable was omitted. The model was used for two dependent variables—species richness of all saproxylic beetles and endangered species in each sample (number of species per trap over the whole season) to search for important independent variables. The significance of the variables was tested at p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed in the Statistica 13 software (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA).
A group of categorical variables was selected for curves of diversity indices. Rarefaction, an extrapolation approach that estimates the rate of increase in the number of species per number of the samples, was used. We used the iNext program [55] to analyze the species richness and diversity curves. Sample-based rarefaction was used to generate the species richness curve, where the estimated richness profile (200 bootstraps, incidence data) was calculated. Diversity indices were based on [56], with Hill numbers: q = 0 (species richness) and q = 1 (exponential of Shannon entropy index) used. Hill numbers offer some distinct advantages over other diversity indices [56]. The method of non-overlapping confidence intervals was used for the significance of these curves [57].
Ordination diagrams were plotted, showing the preferences of recorded species to variables of heritage trees. Constrained linear redundancy analysis (RDA) with log transformation was used. Two approaches in the form of RDA were used—species individual preferences and richness (number of species) in samples summarized to independent variables, similar to [58]. A test of all canonical axes was computed for all species. Species individual preference diagrams were plotted for the 40 best-fitted species. We summarized the compositional community of sunny and shady variables in heritage trees using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA). All ordination analysis was computed with unrestricted 4999 Monte Carlo permutations. Calculations were performed in the CANOCO 5 program for multivariate statistical analysis using ordination methods [59,60].
A similar analysis of inhabited habitats was performed by Weiss et al. [61]. Nonparametric ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis was used to detect differences between the studied microhabitat groups. The normality of data was checked by the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Dunnett post-hoc test was used to compare differences between groups. Log χ2 linear model tests (Poisson distribution) were fitted as the model for all independent factors. Preference microhabitat guilds were verified by multivariate space using redundancy analysis (RDA) (as in the previous RDA analysis) to find the important variables for the richness of microhabitat guilds as the dependent variable.

3. Results

The dataset of saproxylic beetles included 206 species and 4493 saproxylic individuals (Supplementary Material). Thirty-nine species were Red List species. The most abundant species was Cryptarcha strigata (Fabricius, 1787), with 1103 individuals, which was almost 25% of the recorded saproxylic beetles.

3.1. Species Richness

The highest species richness of saproxylic beetles was on sunny trees, and the diameter and locality of the heritage trees were near to the significance border (Table 1). Species curves indicated higher species richness on sunny trees (q = 0) with a borderline significance. In contrast, the Shannon diversity index (q = 1) showed statistical significance for sunny trees (Figure 6). In terms of management, the curves showed that the solitary tree had a higher onset of species accumulation, and the Shannon index outweighed the other sites despite the extrapolated values (no significance; Figure 7). The visualization of saproxylic species preferences showed a univariate tendency, where the beetles found suitable living conditions—a sunny massive solitary oak tree (RDA analysis; Figure 8). In contrast, endangered species were statistically significantly associated with tree diameter (Table 1). Similarity/dissimilarity of shaded and sunny trees using PCoA showed trees aggregated by insolation had different beetle communities (Figure 9).

3.2. Guilds’ Composition

We found that our groups showed significant differences: KW-H (3; 140) = 99.81; p < 0.001 (Figure 10). The most common group according to inhabited microhabitats was the wood-bark group, while the fewest species were linked with wood-decay fungi and cavities (Figure 10). In the search for variables of heritage trees, the relationship between the sun and fungal groups, and the negative relationship between the cavity-dwelling species and tree height was found (Table 2). The cavity-dwelling species were more dependent on increasing diameter, and the other groups were more dependent on the sunny factor, according to RDA (Figure 11). A total of 33 saproxylic species were recorded (16% of total saproxylic species), who as adults collect food from flowers.

4. Discussion

Our study shows that massive heritage trees are indispensable elements in the landscape for saproxylic beetles. This result is consistent with a number of other studies [38,62]. Although free-growing trees were minimally represented in our study, they nevertheless showed the best values. We can agree with [58] that saproxylic beetles prefer free-growing large trees. These are equally important for other insects, plants, mosses, and also vertebrates, such as birds and bats [9,28]. Window flight interception traps are designed primarily for catching more active and flying species [63], and window traps are useful for comparing forest habitats [64]. Nevertheless, solitary trees that have no deadwood nearby reach the highest species richness of saproxylic beetles [9,58,63]. Further, based on the unattained asymptote of species richness (curves), we conclude that the species richness associated with heritage trees will be higher than that observed. Even so, we assume that the methodology implemented proved correct, as a large number of species with hidden life cycles were also captured, even though the trap allegedly failed to attract only the desired insect species. The life activity of these species is less dispersive, and they rarely leave their cavities [65,66]. For this reason, it is highly likely that these captured species are tied to the heritage tree itself, and the environmental variables identified are undoubtedly critical. Next, we address how—and to what extent—individual variables affect the life of saproxylic beetle species.

4.1. Species of Heritage Trees

The studied tree species are the most common deciduous trees in temperate forests, so these findings are applicable throughout vast regions of Europe. Oak (Quercus spp.) was the only tree species represented in our study; similarly, in many areas of Europe, it is the most frequent solitary and heritage tree species [5,18]. Oak is considered to be the most valuable tree species for saproxylic beetles [67,68]. Oak, as a long-lived tree species and a heritage tree, can often live over 1000 years [5] and thus can form trunks twice as thick as beech, for example [18]. Similarly, for non-saproxylic leaf-eater beetle species, oak is the most bountiful tree species [69], in comparison with the second most common solitary tree species, beech [18]. Beech trees begin to die at the age of 200 [70], and beech wood decomposes twice as fast as oak [71]. Some studies have found higher numbers of saproxylic species on beech than on oak [72]. From the point of view of the spatiotemporal endurance of optimal microhabitats, beech is less suitable than the enduring oak. However, only oak was included in our study, so we cannot confirm these aspects.

4.2. Dimensions of Heritage Trees

As tree diameter increased, we observed a tendency for an increasing number of all saproxylic species. Meanwhile, endangered species were associated with statistical significance only with tree diameter. This is consistent with the findings of [25], who confirmed that bulky standing oaks are more valuable than thinner trees or even lying trunks. Some studies have also confirmed that the number of species increases with the dimensions of deadwood [73,74], and large specimens also host large species of beetles [75]. As the trunk diameter increases, the tree can offer a more diverse mosaic of microhabitats, such as large cavities or various stages of wood decomposition. This is mainly due to the different properties of massive heritage trees compared to trees within a closed canopy in managed stands, which are grown to produce quality raw material for the wood processing industry. Heritage and free-growing trees typically form massive dimensions [76], and consequently, large, often low-lying branches [77] and other microhabitats [7,78]. There is a causal connection between age and the diameter of the trunk. It is an asymptotic approximation to the maximum on the threshold of the tree species senescence. The natural dying of trees is important for species that need the gradual decay of the entire tree where habitat niches develop. Typically, recently dead trunks and branches host the families Buprestidae and Cerambycidae, medium-decayed deadwood hosts, e.g., the family Elateridae, and the advanced phase of wood decomposition—the rotted wood inside the cavities—hosts representatives of the families Scarabaeidae (typically Lucanus, Gnorimus, and Protaetia genera). Excessive safety or nature protection concerns (e.g., where dead heritage trees are non-native species) should not be the reason to destroy these moribund yet beneficial standing heritage trees wherever possible. It must be remembered that each species of saproxylic beetles has specific demands in relation to the dimensions of deadwood. The whole heritage tree offers numerous optimal dimensions, from branches to strong trunks affected by rot. One of the most essential microhabitats of massive trees is cavities, especially for specialist and Red List species [15,79,80]. Generally speaking, the rarest saproxylic species are bound to thick decaying trunks, typical representatives being old-growth relics listed by [81] for Central Europe. For example, we can mention: >60 cm for Rhysodes sulcatus (Fabricius, 1787) [82]; >100 cm for Limoniscus violaceus (P.W.J. Müller, 1821) [23]; >60 cm for Cerambyx cerdo (Linnaeus, 1758) [83].

4.3. Sun Exposure

The effect of the sun exposure of a given heritage tree was found to be the most important predictor of the richness of saproxylic beetles. Beetles are ectothermic animals, and their temperature depends on the ambient temperature. The high biological value of massive trees is strongly correlated with an open canopy and sufficient insolation, and has been confirmed by several studies [9,10,40,80,84]. At a higher temperature, they are more spatially active, and their ongoing development is accelerated. The importance of macroclimatic conditions for saproxylic beetles is in accordance with the findings of, e.g., [50,51,85,86]. Sun exposure also has a positive effect on epigeal beetle species [87,88]. Oaks (Quercus spp.) grow mainly in the warmest parts of Europe (lowlands); therefore, all species of biota have adapted to the same conditions. For this reason, oak saproxylic beetle species respond sensitively and positively to increases in temperature [89] and are therefore strongly affected by an open canopy, as detected in our study, which complies with numerous studies on oak stands and oak trees [19,40,62,80]. This confirms that the phylogenetic development of a tree affects the species associated with it [82,90].

4.4. The Importance of Continuity

The loss of continuity is a significant problem for many animals. In the modern landscape, the continuity of habitats has all but disappeared. Heritage trees can be integral stones in the mosaic of active biodiversity promotion, together with, e.g., active deadwood enrichment [91]. A key bonus of heritage trees is that they can withstand many centuries and maintain suitable microhabitats on each site—even for about 1000 years, in the case of oaks [5]. When forest stands are enriched with deadwood, maintaining continuity is slightly more difficult in terms of wood decomposition [26]. Several authors have studied and compared areas of permanent and non-permanent forest environments, and they also confirm the importance of continuity for saproxylic beetle species [92,93,94], or at least demonstrate its positive additive effect [95].

5. Conclusions for Management

Our study has shown that heritage trees are significant in terms of cultural, heritage, and other notable reasons. They are also a crucial element in the landscape for the biodiversity of a model group of saproxylic beetles. In our study, we observed that sunny, large, solitary heritage trees show high values of species richness. This observed aspect is important for the management of this group of heritage trees. Often these trees are overgrown with dense vegetation, and sunlight is blocked. In this case, the surroundings of heritage trees must be cleared and released from the overgrowing vegetation, and all underplants need to be removed, as documented for example by [38,96]. In some areas, massive removal of unwanted undergrowth is carried out [32]. Another important factor was found to be the size of the tree for endangered species. It is documented that as trunk size increases, microhabitats become more frequent, especially valuable cavities [15,16]. In this case, it is important to monitor suitable trees that could be future heritage trees and provide them with appropriate protection. Perhaps a more important negative factor for many species, and not only for invertebrates, is the “active” protection of heritage trees. This activity consists of pouring concrete into cavities, sailing cavities, and coating cavities—as is often occurring [97,98]. This activity has immeasurable consequences for biodiversity, as species tied to these rare microhabitats will disappear; this should therefore be abandoned as far as possible. Although it was not the aim of the study, it is clear that the concreting of the cavity amounts to a complete destruction of the microhabitat. We recommend actively seeking out and protecting certain trees, without the “active management” of heritage trees, wherever possible, especially a particular group of large trees, regardless of the fact that they do not meet the parameters of a heritage tree, because their importance in the landscape is underestimated [99], and they can also be beneficial in terms of biological pest control [100].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f13071128/s1. Supplementary Material (Caption: Result).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.N. and V.Z.; Methodology, O.N. and V.Z.; Field work, O.N.; Investigation, V.Z. and O.N.; Analyses: V.Z.; Writing—original draft preparation, V.Z., O.N. and J.R.; Writing—review and editing, V.Z., O.N., J.R., M.M. and V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article was prepared with the support of the project IGA 43120/1312/3114 and with the support of The Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, NAZV No. QK21020371, and also support by Nature Conservation Agency (AOPK), which requested the study.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to these experts for help in the determination of some families: Jan Horák (Praha): Scraptiidae, Mordellidae; Pavel Průdek (Brno): Ciidae, Cerylonidae, Cryptophagidae, Latridiidae; Josef Jelínek (Praha): Nitidulidae. We are also grateful to Jitka Šišáková and native speaker Richard Lee Manore (USA), who proofread this paper, and also to the Nature Conservation Agency (AOPK) for permission to conduct the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Laurance, W.F.; Franklin, J.F. Global decline in large old trees. Science 2012, 338, 1305–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pilskog, H.E.; Birkemoe, T.; Evju, M.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Species composition of beetles grouped by host association in hollow oaks reveals management-relevant patterns. J. Insect Conserv. 2020, 24, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fay, N. Environmental arboriculture, tree ecology and veteran tree management. Arboric. J. 2012, 26, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ancient Tree Forum. Ancient Tree Guide No. 4, 2009. What are Ancient, Veteran and other Trees of Special Interest? Available online: http://www.ancienttreeforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ancient-tree-guide-4-definitions.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2020).
  5. Dreslerová, J. Memorial trees in the Czech landscape. J. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 10, 79–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Vuidot, A.; Paillet, Y.; Archaux, F.; Gosselin, F. Influence of tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Winter, S.; Höfler, J.; Michel, A.K.; Böck, A.; Ankerst, D.P. Association of tree and plot characteristics with microhabitat formation in european beech and Douglas-fir forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2015, 134, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Siitonen, J.; Ranius, T. The importance of veteran trees for saproxylic insects. In Europe’s Changing Woods and Forests: From Wildwood to Managed Landscapes; Kirby, K.J., Watkins, C., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; pp. 140–153. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sebek, P.; Vodka, S.; Bogusch, P.; Pech, P.; Tropek, R.; Weiss, M.; Zimova, K.; Cizek, L. Open-grown trees as key habitats for arthropods in temperate woodlands: The diversity, composition, and conservation value of associated communities. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 380, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miklín, J.; Sebek, P.; Hauck, D.; Konvicka, O.; Cizek, L.; Serra-Diaz, J. Past levels of canopy closure affect the occurrence of veteran trees and flagship saproxylic beetles. Divers. Distrib. 2018, 24, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Seibold, S.; Bässler, C.; Brandl, R.; Gossner, M.M.; Thorn, S.; Ulyshen, M.D.; Müller, J. Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity—a review identifying global gaps in knowledge. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 191, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nieto, A.; Alexander, K.N.A. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010; 45p. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cálix, M.; Alexander, K.N.A.; Nieto, A.; Dodelin, B. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles; IUCN: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; p. 19. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe/publications (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  14. Zumr, V.; Remeš, J. Saproxylic beetles as an indicator of forest biodiversity and the influence of forest management on their crucial life attributes: Review. Rep. For. Res.-Zprávy Lesn. Výzkumu 2020, 65, 242–257. [Google Scholar]
  15. Müller, J.; Jarzabek-Müller, A.; Bussler, H.; Gossner, M.M. Hollow beech trees identified as keystone structures for saproxylic beetles by analyses of functional and phylogenetic diversity. Anim. Conserv. 2014, 17, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Henneberg, B.; Bauer, S.; Birkenbach, M.; Mertl, V.; Steinbauer, M.J.; Feldhaar, H.; Obermaier, E. influence of tree hollow characteristics and forest structure on saproxylic beetle diversity in tree hollows in managed forests in a regional comparison. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 17973–17999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Seibold, S.; Rammer, W.; Hothorn, T.; Seidl, R.; Ulyshen, M.D.; Lorz, J.; Cadotte, M.W.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Adhikari, Y.P.; Aragón, R.; et al. The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition. Nature 2021, 597, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hartel, T.; Hanspach, J.; Moga, C.I.; Holban, L.; Szapanyos, Á.; Tamás, R.; Hováth, C.; Réti, K.-O. Abundance of large old trees in wood-pastures of Transylvania (Romania). Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Vodka, S.; Konvicka, M.; Cizek, L. habitat preferences of oak-feeding xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: Implications for forest history and management. J. Insect Conserv. 2009, 13, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alexander, K. Ancient trees, grazing landscapes and the conservation of deadwood and wood decay invertebrates. In Trees, Forested Landscapes and Grazing Animals; Rotherham, I.D., Ed.; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2013; pp. 330–337. [Google Scholar]
  21. Milberg, P.; Bergman, K.-O.; Johansson, H.; Jansson, N.R.; Leather, S.; Ribera, I. 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]
  22. Albert, J.; Platek, M.; Cizek, L. Vertical stratification and microhabitat selection by the Great Capricorn Beetle (Cerambyx cerdo) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in open-grown, veteran oaks. Eur. J. Entomol. 2012, 109, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gouix, N.; Sebek, P.; Valladares, L.; Brustel, H.; Brin, A.; Leather, S.R.; Müller, J. Habitat requirements of the violet click beetle (Limoniscus violaceus), an endangered umbrella species of basal hollow trees. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2015, 8, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. 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]
  25. Bouget, C.; Nusillard, B.; Pineau, X.; Ricou, C. Effect of deadwood position on saproxylic beetles in temperate forests and conservation interest of oak snags. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2012, 5, 264–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. Christensen, M.; Hahn, K.; Mountford, E.P.; Ódor, P.; Standovár, T.; Rozenbergar, D.; Diaci, J.; Wijdeven, S.; Meyer, P.; Winter, S.; et al. Dead wood in european beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 210, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ettwein, A.; Korner, P.; Lanz, M.; Lachat, T.; Kokko, H.; Pasinelli, G. Habitat Selection of an old-growth forest specialist in managed forests. Anim. Conserv. 2020, 23, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Horák, J. Insect ecology and veteran trees. J. Insect Conserv. 2017, 21, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Parisi, F.; Lombardi, F.; Marziliano Pasquale, A.; Russo, D.; De Cristofaro, A.; Marchetti, M.; Tognetti, R. Diversity of saproxylic beetle communities in chestnut agroforestry systems. IForest—Biogeosci. For. 2020, 13, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Plieninger, T.; Hartel, T.; Martín-López, B.; Beaufoy, G.; Bergmeier, E.; Kirby, K.; Montero, M.J.; Moreno, G.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Van Uytvanck, J. Wood-pastures of europe: Geographic coverage, social-ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 190, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mertlik, J. Review of the saproxylic click-beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in Eastern Bohemia(Czech Republic), with special emphasis on species of the oak forests. Elateridarium 2017, 11, 17–110. [Google Scholar]
  33. Plieninger, T. Monitoring Directions And Rates Of Change In trees outside forests through multitemporal analysis of map sequences. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 566–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Bartus, P.; Baráz, C.; Malatinszky, Á. Landscape Changes in a 19th century wood pasture and grazing forest. Hung. Geogr. Bull. 2018, 67, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Plieninger, T.; Schleyer, C.; Mantel, M.; Hostert, P. Is there a forest transition outside forests? trajectories of farm trees and effects on ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape in eastern germany. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Plieninger, T.; Levers, C.; Mantel, M.; Costa, A.; Schaich, H.; Kuemmerle, T.; Vadrevu, K.P. Patterns and drivers of scattered tree loss in agricultural landscapes: Orchard meadows in germany (1968–2009). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Plieninger, T.; Muñoz-Rojas, J.; Buck, L.E.; Scherr, S.J. Agroforestry for sustainable landscape management. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ranius, T.; Jansson, N. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 95, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Miklín, J.; Čížek, L. Erasing A European biodiversity hot-spot: Open woodlands, veteran trees and mature forests succumb to forestry intensification, succession, and logging in a unesco biosphere reserve. J. Nat. Conserv. 2014, 22, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Horák, J.; Pavlíček, J.; Kout, J.; Halda, J.P. Winners and losers in the wilderness: Response of biodiversity to the abandonment of ancient forest pastures. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 3019–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforest Syst. 2009, 76, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Seibold, S.; Brandl, R.; Buse, J.; Hothorn, T.; Schmidl, J.; Thorn, S.; Müller, J. Association of extinction risk of saproxylic beetles with ecological degradation of forests in europe. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mölder, A.; Schmidt, M.; Plieninger, T.; Meyer, P. Habitat-tree protection concepts over 200 years. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 1444–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bouget, C.; Larrieu, L.; Brin, A. Key features for saproxylic beetle diversity derived from rapid habitat assessment in temperate forests. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schmidl, J.; Bußler, H. Ökologische Gilden xylobionter Käfer Deutschlands. Nat. Landsch. 2004, 36, 202–218. [Google Scholar]
  46. Biodiversity Map. 2022. National Biodiversity Information Network. Available online: https://baza.biomap.pl (accessed on 16 April 2022).
  47. Hejda, R.; Farkač, J.; Chobot, K. Red List of Threatened Species of the Czech Republic; Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny České republiky: Praha, Czech Republic, 2017; Volume 36, pp. 1–612. ISBN 978-80-88076-53-7. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schlaghamerský, J. Monitoring saproxylických brouků: Od sběru dat po jejich interpretaci. In Brouci Vázaní na Dřeviny = Beetles Associated with Trees; Horák, J., Ed.; Sborník referátů; Česká lesnická společnost: Pardubice: Praha, Czech Republic, 2008; pp. 58–62. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lachat, T.; Wermelinger, B.; Gossner, M.M.; Bussler, H.; Isacsson, G.; Müller, J. Saproxylic beetles as indicator species for dead-wood amount and temperature in european beech forests. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 23, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Müller, J.; Brustel, H.; Brin, A.; Bussler, H.; Bouget, C.; Obermaier, E.; Heidinger, I.M.M.; Lachat, T.; Förster, B.; Horak, J.; et al. Increasing temperature may compensate for lower amounts of dead wood in driving richness of saproxylic beetles. Ecography 2015, 38, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Seibold, S.; Bässler, C.; Brandl, R.; Büche, B.; Szallies, A.; Thorn, S.; Ulyshen, M.D.; Müller, J.; Baraloto, C. 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]
  52. Doerfler, I.; Cadotte, M.W.; Weisser, W.W.; Müller, J.; Gossner, M.M.; Heibl, C.; Bässler, C.; Thorn, S.; Seibold, S.; Nichols, E. Restoration-oriented forest management affects community assembly patterns of deadwood-dependent organisms. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2429–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Doerfler, I.; Gossner, M.M.; Müller, J.; Seibold, S.; Weisser, W.W. Deadwood enrichment combining integrative and segregative conservation elements enhances biodiversity of multiple taxa in managed forests. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 228, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Leidinger, J.; Weisser, W.W.; Kienlein, S.; Blaschke, M.; Jung, K.; Kozak, J.; Fischer, A.; Mosandl, R.; Michler, B.; Ehrhardt, M.; et al. Formerly managed forest reserves complement integrative management for biodiversity conservation in temperate european forests. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 242, 108437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chao, A.; Ma, K.H.; Hsieh, T.C. iNEXT (iNterpolation and EXTrapolation). Software for Interpolation and Extrapolation of Species Diversity. Program and User’s Guide. 2016. Available online: http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/ (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  56. Chao, A.; Gotelli, N.J.; Hsieh, T.C.; Sander, E.L.; Ma, K.H.; Colwell, R.K.; Ellison, A.M. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 2014, 84, 45–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Schenker, N.; Gentleman, J.F. On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Am. Stat. 2001, 55, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Horák, J.; Vodka, S.; Kout, J.; Halda, J.P.; Bogusch, P.; Pech, P. Biodiversity Of Most dead wood-dependent organisms in thermophilic temperate oak woodlands thrives on diversity of open landscape structures. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 315, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lepš, J.; Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using Canoco; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Šmilauer, P.; Lepš, J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO 5; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Weiss, M.; Kozel, P.; Zapletal, M.; Hauck, D.; Prochazka, J.; Benes, J.; Cizek, L.; Sebek, P. The effect of coppicing on insect biodiversity. small-scale mosaics of successional stages drive community turnover. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 483, 118774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Koch Widerberg, M.; Ranius, T.; Drobyshev, I.; Nilsson, U.; Lindbladh, M. Increased openness around retained oaks increases species richness of saproxylic beetles. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 3035–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Horák, J.; Rébl, K. The species richness of click beetles in ancient pasture woodland benefits from a high level of sun exposure. J. Insect Conserv. 2013, 17, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alinvi, O.; Ball, J.P.; Danell, K.; Hjältén, J.; Pettersson, R.B. Sampling saproxylic beetle assemblages in dead wood logs: Comparing window and eclector traps to traditional bark sieving and a refinement. J. Insect Conserv. 2007, 11, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mertlik, J. Faunistics of Ischnodes sanguinicollis (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in the Czechia and Slovakia. Elateridarium 2019, 13, 49–74. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mertlik, J. Faunistics of Crepidophorus mutilates (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Elateridarium 2014, 8, 36–56. Available online: http://www.elateridae.com/elateridarium/page.php?idcl=224 (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  67. Čížek, L. Metodika na Ochranu Saproxylického Hmyzu; Studie pro AOPK: Praha, Czech Republic, 2010; p. 40. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stokland, J.N.; Siitonen, J.; Jonsson, B.G. Biodiversity in Dead Wood; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; p. 509. [Google Scholar]
  69. Leidinger, J.; Seibold, S.; Weisser, W.W.; Lange, M.; Schall, P.; Türke, M.; Gossner, M.M. Effects of forest management on herbivorous insects in temperate europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 437, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Emborg, J.; Christensen, M.; Heillmann-Clausen, J. The structural dynamics of Suserup Skov, a near-natural temperate deciduous forest in Denmark. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 126, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rock, J.; Badeck, F.-W.; Harmon, M.E. Estimating decomposition rate constants for european tree species from literature sources. Eur. J. For. Res. 2008, 127, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Irmler, U.; Arp, H.; Nötzold, R. Species richness of saproxylic beetles in woodlands is affected by dispersion ability of species, age and stand size. J. Insect Conserv. 2010, 14, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. 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]
  74. Macagno, A.; Hardersen, S.; Nardi, G.; Lo Giudice, G.; Mason, F. Measuring saproxylic beetle diversity in small and medium diameter dead wood: The “grab-and-go” method. Eur. J. Entomol. 2015, 112, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Brin, A.; Bouget, C.; Brustel, H.; Jactel, H. Diameter of downed woody debris does matter for saproxylic beetle assemblages in temperate oak and pine forests. J. Insect Conserv. 2011, 15, 653–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Miklín, J.; Hauck, D.; Konvička, O.; Cizek, L. Veteran trees and saproxylic insects in the floodplains of lower morava and dyje rivers, czech republic. J. Maps 2017, 13, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Pilskog, H.E.; Birkemoe, T.; Framstad, E.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Effect of habitat size, quality, and isolation on functional groups of beetles in hollow oaks. J. Insect Sci. 2016, 16, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Winter, S.; Möller, G.C. Microhabitats in lowland beech forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 1251–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J.; Ehnström, B. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers. Conserv. 1998, 7, 749–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Parmain, G.; Bouget, C.; Didham, R.; Jonsell, M. Large solitary oaks as keystone structures for saproxylic beetles in european agricultural landscapes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2018, 11, 100–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Eckelt, A.; Müller, J.; Bense, U.; Brustel, H.; Bußler, H.; Chittaro, Y.; Cizek, L.; Frei, A.; Holzer, E.; Kadej, M.; et al. “Primeval forest relict beetles” of central europe: A set of 168 umbrella species for the protection of primeval forest remnants. J. Insect Conserv. 2018, 22, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kostanjsek, F.; Sebek, P.; Baranova, B.; Seric Jelaska, L.; Riedl, V.; Cizek, L.; Didham, R.; Müller, J. Size Matters! Habitat preferences of the wrinkled bark beetle, rhysodes sulcatus, the relict species of european primeval forests. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2018, 11, 545–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Buse, J.; Ranius, T.; Assmann, T. An endangered long horn beetle associated with old oaks and its possible role as an ecosystem engineer. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lettenmaier, L.; Seibold, S.; Bässler, C.; Brandl, R.; Gruppe, A.; Müller, J.; Hagge, J. Beetle diversity is higher in sunny forests due to higher microclimatic heterogeneity in deadwood. Oecologia 2022, 198, 825–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Vogel, S.; Gossner, M.M.; Mergner, U.; Müller, J.; Thorn, S.; Cheng, L. Optimizing enrichment of deadwood for biodiversity by varying sun exposure and tree species: An experimental approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2075–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Uhl, B.; Krah, F.-S.; Baldrian, P.; Brandl, R.; Hagge, J.; Müller, J.; Thorn, S.; Vojtech, T.; Bässler, C. Snags, Logs, Stumps, and microclimate as tools optimizing deadwood enrichment for forest biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 270, 109569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Podrázský, V.; Remeš, J.; Farkač, J. Složení společenstev střevlíkovitých brouků (Coleoptera: Carabidae) v lesních porostech s různou druhovou strukturou a systémem hospodaření. Zprávy Lesnického Výzkumu 2010, 55, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  88. Lange, M.; Türke, M.; Pašalić, E.; Boch, S.; Hessenmöller, D.; Müller, J.; Prati, D.; Socher, S.A.; Fischer, M.; Weisser, W.W.; et al. Effects of forest management on ground-dwelling beetles (coleoptera; carabidae, staphylinidae) in central europe are mainly mediated by changes in forest structure. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 329, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gough, L.A.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Milberg, P.; Pilskog, H.E.; Jansson, N.; Jonsell, M.; Birkemoe, T. Specialists in ancient trees are more affected by climate than generalists. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 5632–5641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Gossner, M.M.; Wende, B.; Levick, S.; Schall, P.; Floren, A.; Linsenmair, K.E.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Schulze, E.-D.; Weisser, W.W. Deadwood enrichment in european forests–which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity? Biol. Conserv. 2016, 201, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Roth, N.; Doerfler, I.; Bässler, C.; Blaschke, M.; Bussler, H.; Gossner, M.M.; Heideroth, A.; Thorn, S.; Weisser, W.W.; Müller, J.; et al. Decadal effects of landscape-wide enrichment of dead wood on saproxylic organisms in beech forests of different historic management intensity. Divers. Distrib. 2019, 25, 430–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Schiegg, K. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Écoscience 2000, 7, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Schiegg, K. Are the saproxylic beetle species characteristic of high dead wood connectivity? Ecography 2000, 23, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Brin, A.; Valladares, L.; Ladet, S.; Bouget, C. Effects of forest continuity on flying saproxylic beetle assemblages in small woodlots embedded in agricultural landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Janssen, P.; Fuhr, M.; Cateau, E.; Nusillard, B.; Bouget, C. Forest continuity acts congruently with stand maturity in structuring the functional composition of saproxylic beetles. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 205, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Alexander, K.N.A.; Green, E.E.; Key, R. The management of over mature tree populations for nature conservation the basic guidelines. In Pollard and Veteran Tree Management II; Read, H.J., Ed.; Corporation of London: London, UK, 1996; Burnham Beeches. [Google Scholar]
  97. Frič, j. Ošetření Starých Stromů; Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd: Praha, Czech Republic, 1953. [Google Scholar]
  98. Bartonička, T.; Kašák, J.; Koutný, T.; Kutal, M. Inventarizace vybraných skupin živočichů v parcích města Olomouce. In Studie Posouzení Vlivu Kácení Dřevin na Lokální Populace; Hnutí Duha: Olomouc, Czech Republic, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  99. Cholewińska, O.; Keczyński, A.; Kusińska, B.; Jaroszewicz, B. Species Identity of Large Trees Affects the Composition and the Spatial Structure of Adjacent Trees. Forests 2021, 12, 1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wetherbee, R.; Birkemoe, T.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. Veteran Trees Are a Source of Natural Enemies. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 118485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forests 13 01128 g001 550
Figure 1. Window flight interception traps.
Figure 1. Window flight interception traps.
Forests 13 01128 g001
Forests 13 01128 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest-interior growing heritage oak tree.
Figure 2. Forest-interior growing heritage oak tree.
Forests 13 01128 g002
Forests 13 01128 g003 550
Figure 3. Free-growing heritage oak tree.
Figure 3. Free-growing heritage oak tree.
Forests 13 01128 g003
Forests 13 01128 g004 550
Figure 4. Significant trees according to Ancient Tree Forum [4].
Figure 4. Significant trees according to Ancient Tree Forum [4].
Forests 13 01128 g004
Forests 13 01128 g005 550
Figure 5. The course of tree growth according to Ancient Tree Forum [4] with the selected studied phase of the growth framed.
Figure 5. The course of tree growth according to Ancient Tree Forum [4] with the selected studied phase of the growth framed.
Forests 13 01128 g005
Forests 13 01128 g006 550
Figure 6. Sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves within light condition sites showing Hill numbers q = 0 (species richness) and q = 1 (exponential of Shannon entropy index). Color-shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. Solid symbols represent the total number of study samples.
Figure 6. Sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves within light condition sites showing Hill numbers q = 0 (species richness) and q = 1 (exponential of Shannon entropy index). Color-shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. Solid symbols represent the total number of study samples.
Forests 13 01128 g006
Forests 13 01128 g007 550
Figure 7. Sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves within growing location of tree sites showing Hill numbers q = 0 (species richness) and q = 1 (exponential of Shannon entropy index). Color-shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. Solid symbols represent the total number of study samples.
Figure 7. Sample-size-based rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves within growing location of tree sites showing Hill numbers q = 0 (species richness) and q = 1 (exponential of Shannon entropy index). Color-shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. Solid symbols represent the total number of study samples.
Forests 13 01128 g007
Forests 13 01128 g008 550
Figure 8. Both diagrams: relationship between species preferences and species richness by samples (the size of each circle indicates the species richness of the samples—absolute number of species in the trap) for heritage tree variables by RDA (pF = 1.4; p = 0.040). Explained by axes; axis 1—8.85%; axis 2—4.43%). Solid symbols are categorical variables and arrows of DBH and height are continuous variables.
Figure 8. Both diagrams: relationship between species preferences and species richness by samples (the size of each circle indicates the species richness of the samples—absolute number of species in the trap) for heritage tree variables by RDA (pF = 1.4; p = 0.040). Explained by axes; axis 1—8.85%; axis 2—4.43%). Solid symbols are categorical variables and arrows of DBH and height are continuous variables.
Forests 13 01128 g008
Forests 13 01128 g009 550
Figure 9. PCoA summarized the beetle species similarity/dissimilarity by independent factor. Yellow circle—sunny trees and black triangle—shady trees.
Figure 9. PCoA summarized the beetle species similarity/dissimilarity by independent factor. Yellow circle—sunny trees and black triangle—shady trees.
Forests 13 01128 g009
Forests 13 01128 g010 550
Figure 10. Distribution of species according to groups: wood-bark specialists; fungi specialists; cavity specialists; adult flower visitors. Error bars are standard deviation and solid point is mean (mean ± SD). Letters above error bars indicate differences by Dunnett post-hoc test (MS = 14.679, df = 136.00).
Figure 10. Distribution of species according to groups: wood-bark specialists; fungi specialists; cavity specialists; adult flower visitors. Error bars are standard deviation and solid point is mean (mean ± SD). Letters above error bars indicate differences by Dunnett post-hoc test (MS = 14.679, df = 136.00).
Forests 13 01128 g010
Forests 13 01128 g011 550
Figure 11. Microhabitat guilds and their preferences for variables in heritage trees by RDA (pF = 1.2; p = 0.282). Explained by axes; axis 1—10.34%; axis 2—6.25%. Solid symbols are categorical variables and arrows of DBH and height are continuous variables.
Figure 11. Microhabitat guilds and their preferences for variables in heritage trees by RDA (pF = 1.2; p = 0.282). Explained by axes; axis 1—10.34%; axis 2—6.25%. Solid symbols are categorical variables and arrows of DBH and height are continuous variables.
Forests 13 01128 g011
Table
Table 1. Species richness of saproxylic beetles in the study location. Stepwise (the lowest AIC) generalized linear model (Poisson distribution) was used. Results of whole model are with the name of dependent variables and estimate of variables in model are shown below. Value (+) corresponded to positive result of variable. Omitted variables during the process of stepwise model are marked (−). Statistically significant effects are marked in bold.
Table 1. Species richness of saproxylic beetles in the study location. Stepwise (the lowest AIC) generalized linear model (Poisson distribution) was used. Results of whole model are with the name of dependent variables and estimate of variables in model are shown below. Value (+) corresponded to positive result of variable. Omitted variables during the process of stepwise model are marked (−). Statistically significant effects are marked in bold.
All Saproxylic Species (AIC 265.56; χ2 10.25; p = 0.036)Endangered Species (AIC 172.00; χ2 5.20; p = 0.023)
VariablesValueχ2pValueχ2p
Height −− −−
Diameter 2.040.153+5.200.023
Locality 5.610.060 −−
Light condition (sunny)+5.620.018 −−
Table
Table 2. Species guild richness of saproxylic beetles in the study location (log χ2 linear model, Poisson distribution). Value (+) corresponded to positive response of variable and (−) negative response. Statistically significant effects are marked in bold.
Table 2. Species guild richness of saproxylic beetles in the study location (log χ2 linear model, Poisson distribution). Value (+) corresponded to positive response of variable and (−) negative response. Statistically significant effects are marked in bold.
Wood-Bark Fungi Cavity Flower-Visitor
Valueχ2p-ValueValueχ2p-ValueValueχ2p-ValueValueχ2p-Value
Diameter 0.770.380 1.210.271 1.340.246 1.010.315
Height 0.260.608 0.050.830−5.160.023 0.230.634
Location 3.060.217 3.230.198 3.240.199 1.930.381
Light condition (sunny) 2.610.106+6.720.009 0.000.997 1.350.244
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nakládal, O.; Zumr, V.; Remeš, J.; Macháčová, M.; Pešková, V. Heritage Trees as an Important Sanctuary for Saproxylic Beetles in the Central European Landscape: A Case Study from Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic. Forests 2022, 13, 1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071128

AMA Style

Nakládal O, Zumr V, Remeš J, Macháčová M, Pešková V. Heritage Trees as an Important Sanctuary for Saproxylic Beetles in the Central European Landscape: A Case Study from Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic. Forests. 2022; 13(7):1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071128

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nakládal, Oto, Václav Zumr, Jiří Remeš, Markéta Macháčová, and Vítězslava Pešková. 2022. "Heritage Trees as an Important Sanctuary for Saproxylic Beetles in the Central European Landscape: A Case Study from Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic" Forests 13, no. 7: 1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071128

APA Style

Nakládal, O., Zumr, V., Remeš, J., Macháčová, M., & Pešková, V. (2022). Heritage Trees as an Important Sanctuary for Saproxylic Beetles in the Central European Landscape: A Case Study from Litovelské Pomoraví, Czech Republic. Forests, 13(7), 1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071128

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