6533b883fe1ef96bd12dbb8a

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Data from: Choosy beetles: how host trees and southern boreal forest naturalness may determine dead wood beetle communities

subject

description

See methods section of paper for detailed information on dataset and sources; briefly, these .csv files includes numbers of each beetle species captured at all sites used in the project, as well as information about each site and about each species. Data from: Choosy beetles: how host trees and southern boreal forest naturalness may determine dead wood beetle communities Ryan C. Burner, Tone Birkemoe, Jörg G. Stephan, Lukas Drag, Jörg Muller, Otso Ovakainen, Mária Potterf, Olav Skarpaas, Tord Snall, Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson Forest Ecology and Management, 2021 From abstract of paper: Wood-living beetles make up a large proportion of forest biodiversity, and contribute to important ecosystem services, including decomposition. Beetle communities in managed southern boreal forests are less species rich than in natural and near-natural forest stands. In addition, many beetle species rely primarily on specific tree species. Yet, the associations between individual beetle species, forest management category, and tree species are seldom quantified, even for red-listed beetles. We compiled a beetle capture dataset from flight intercept traps placed in Norway spruce (Picea abies), oak (Quercus sp.), and Eurasian aspen (Populus tremulae) trees in 413 sites in mature managed forest, near-natural forest, and clear-cuts in southeastern Norway. We used joint species distribution models to estimate the strength of associations for 368 saproxylic beetle species (including 20 vulnerable, endangered, or critical red-listed species) for each forest management category and tree species. Tree species on which traps were mounted had the largest effect on beetle communities; oaks had the most highly associated beetle species, including most of the red-listed species, followed by Norway spruce and Eurasian aspen. Most beetle species were more likely to be captured in near-natural than in mature managed forest. Our estimated associations were compatible – for many species – with categorical classifications found in several existing databases of saproxylic beetle preferences. These quantitative beetle-habitat associations will improve future analyses that have typically relied on categorical classifications. Our results highlight the need to prioritize conservation of near-natural forests and oak trees in Scandinavia to protect the habitat of many red-listed species in particular. Furthermore, we underline the importance of carefully considering the species of trees on which traps are mounted in order to representatively sample beetle communities in forest stands.