DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigation of Experimental Methods to Enhance Biodiversity in Plantation Forests

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigation of Experimental Methods to Enhance Biodiversity in Plantation Forests Investigation of experimental methods to enhance biodiversity in plantation forests Iremonger, S.1, Gittings, T.2, Smith, G.F.1, Wilson, M.2, Oxbrough, A.2, Coote, L.1, Pithon, J.2, O’Donoghue, S.1, McKee, A.-M.1, O’Halloran, J.2, Kelly, D.L.1, Giller, P.2, O’Sullivan, A.3, Neville, P.3, Mitchell, F.J.G.1, O’Donnell, V.4, Kelly, T.2 and Dowding, P.1 1 Department of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin 2 Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant Science, University College Cork 3Coillte Teoranta, Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow 4 Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, University College Cork BIOFOREST PROJECT 3.1.3 FINAL REPORT, June 2006 University College, Cork University of Dublin, Trinity College Declaration All results presented in this report are the property of the BIOFOREST Project. They should not be cited or reprinted without the written permission of the authors. BIOFOREST Project 3.1.3 Final Report June 06 1 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................12 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................13 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................13 1.2 SEQUENCE OF PRESENTATION WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT .......................................................................14 2 REVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES TO ENHANCE BIODIVERSITY IN PLANTATION FORESTS THROUGH OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT..............................................................................................15 2.1.1 Introduction. ...............................................................................................................................15 2.1.2 The importance of open space to forest biodiversity ..................................................................15 2.1.3 Strategies enhancing biodiversity...............................................................................................16 2.1.3.1 Creation of gaps......................................................................................................................17 2.1.3.2 Continuous forest cover..........................................................................................................18 2.1.3.3 Patch shape .............................................................................................................................18 2.1.4 Policies on open space for biodiversity in forests. .....................................................................19 3 THE BIOFOREST DATABASE FOR THIS PROJECT .....................................................................23 3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................23 3.2 DATA TYPES........................................................................................................................................23 3.2.1 Base data ....................................................................................................................................23 3.2.2 BIOFOREST Survey Data ..........................................................................................................23 4 TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION............................................................................................................25 4.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................25 4.2 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................25 4.2.1 Study Sites...................................................................................................................................25 4.2.2 Vegetation Sampling...................................................................................................................26 4.2.3 Environmental and Structural Data Sampling ...........................................................................26 4.2.4 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................28 4.3 RESULTS..............................................................................................................................................29 4.3.1 Diversity at Plantation Scale ......................................................................................................29 4.3.2 Diversity Between Open Spaces .................................................................................................30 4.3.2.1 Species Composition ..............................................................................................................30 4.3.2.2 Comparison of Open Space Type ...........................................................................................31 4.3.2.3 Environment and Management...............................................................................................32 4.3.3 Diversity Within Open Spaces ....................................................................................................33 4.3.3.1 Plot Location...........................................................................................................................33 4.3.3.2 Light and Open Space Size.....................................................................................................34 4.3.3.3 Vegetation Structure ...............................................................................................................35 4.4 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................................37 4.4.1 Light............................................................................................................................................37 4.4.2 Environment and Management...................................................................................................38 4.4.2.1 Soil and Climate .....................................................................................................................38 4.4.2.2 Roadside Features...................................................................................................................39 4.4.2.3 Influence of Past and Present Management............................................................................39 4.4.3 Plantation Scale Factors ............................................................................................................40 4.4.4 Open Space Management for Plant Biodiversity........................................................................40 4.4.5 Further research required ..........................................................................................................41 4.5 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................42 5 EPIPHYTES .............................................................................................................................................43 5.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................43 5.2 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................43 5.2.1 Study sites ...................................................................................................................................43 BIOFOREST Project 3.1.3 Final Report June 06 2 5.2.2 Epiphyte sampling ......................................................................................................................44 5.2.3 Environmental and structural data sampling .............................................................................45 5.2.4 Species Identification..................................................................................................................45 5.2.5 Data analysis ..............................................................................................................................46 5.2.5.1 Biodiversity measures.............................................................................................................46 5.2.5.2 Species composition ...............................................................................................................46 5.3 RESULTS..............................................................................................................................................47 5.3.1 Site Diversity...............................................................................................................................47 5.3.2 Tree Diversity .............................................................................................................................47 5.3.3 Plot Diversity..............................................................................................................................47 5.3.4 Rare species................................................................................................................................47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hoverfly Newsletter 36
    HOVERFLY NUMBER 36 NEWSLETTER AUGUST 2003 ISSN 1358-5029 This edition is being produced in the wake of the second international symposium which was held in Alicante in June. Alan Stubbs has commented below that Spain was, as expected, too dry in mid-June for many hoverflies to be found. It seems to me that the same comment is true for Britain for much of the present season; although I have had a few productive days this year, on the majority of occasions when I have been in the field hoverfly numbers have proved to be sparse as a result of the hot and very dry conditions. The growth of interest on the subject however continues unabated, as anyone who subscribes to the UK hoverfly email exchange group will testify. Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 37 (which is expected to be issued in February 2004) should be sent to me: David Iliff, Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, Email address [email protected], to reach me by 20 December. CONTENTS II International Symposium on the Syrphidae 2 Alan Stubbs Alicante in mid June 7 Stuart Ball & Roger Morris News from the Hoverfly Recording Scheme 9 Andrew Grayson Similarity of hovering males of Eristalis horticola to those of Hybomitra distinguenda 12 Andrew Grayson Platycheirus rosarum in Yorkshire during 2002 12 Andrew Grayson A second specimen of Platycheirus amplus from Yorkshire 13 Roy Merritt A possible explanation for simultaneous hovering by Rhingia campestris 13 Roy Merritt Observations on Rhingia campestris 14 Alan Stubbs Hair colour variation in Heringia verrucula 14 Interesting recent records 15 Alan Stubbs Review: A world review of predatory hoverflies 16 1 II INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE SYRPHIDAE Following the very successful First International Workshop on the Syrphidae at Stuttgart in July 2001 (reviewed in Hoverfly Newsletter No.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation Given at the 3Rd Syrphidae Symposium , Leiden
    , 3rd Syrphidae Symposium Presentation given at the nd to 5th September, 2005 Leiden, The Netherlands, 2 Afforestation in Ireland • Target afforestation rate 20,000 ha/year Effects of afforestation on hoverfly • 70-80% conifers • Little ecological assessment outside (Diptera, Syrphidae) biodiversity designated sites • Effects of afforestation: Tom Gittings, Paul Giller and John O’Halloran BIOFOREST project, Department of Zoology – Loss of open space habitat Ecology and Plant Science, University – Gain of forest habitat College Cork, Lee Maltings, Prospect Row, Cork, Ireland BIOFOREST Project Hoverfly surveys Multidisciplinary research into of biodiversity of • Paired surveys of unplanted and 5 year old plantations (24 pairs of sites) commercial plantation forests in Ireland • Surveys of 3 forest types and 5 age- classes (38 sites) 3 sub-projects: • Surveys of open spaces in 12 forests • Biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites • Biodiversity across the forest cycle • Biodiversity of open spaces in mature forests Study sites Survey methods # # • Malaise trapping ## • 2-4 traps per site # # # # # • Sampling from mid-June - late August, early May - mid July, early May - late # ## # August # ## # ## # ### # ### # ## # # ## # • Macrohabitats recorded using the ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### # #### ## # Syrph The Net habitat classification ## ## # # # # # # # # ## • Selected microhabitat parameters # ## # # # # # # ## # # recorded # ## # # , 3rd Syrphidae Symposium Presentation given at the nd to 5th September, 2005 Leiden, The Netherlands,
    [Show full text]
  • Pierre-Marc Brousseau
    PIERRE-MARC BROUSSEAU IMPACT DE LA DENSITÉ DE CERFS DE VIRGINIE SUR LES COMMUNAUTÉS D'INSECTES DE L'ÎLE D'ANTICOSTI Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval dans le cadre du programme de maîtrise en biologie pour l’obtention du grade de maître ès sciences (M. Sc.) DÉPARTEMENT DE BIOLOGIE FACULTÉ DES SCIENCES ET GÉNIE UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL QUÉBEC 2011 © Pierre-Marc Brousseau, 2011 Résumé Les surabondances de cerfs peuvent nuire à la régénération forestière et modifier les communautés végétales et ainsi avoir un impact sur plusieurs groupes d'arthropodes. Dans cette étude, nous avons utilisé un dispositif répliqué avec trois densités contrôlées de cerfs de Virginie et une densité non contrôlée élevée sur l'île d'Anticosti. Nous y avons évalué l'impact des densités de cerfs sur les communautés de quatre groupes d'insectes représentant un gradient d'association avec les plantes, ainsi que sur les communautés d'arthropodes herbivores, pollinisateurs et prédateurs associées à trois espèces de plantes dont l'abondance varient avec la densité de cerfs. Les résultats montrent que les groupes d'arthropodes les plus directement associés aux plantes sont les plus affectés par le cerf. De plus, l'impact est plus fort si la plante à laquelle ils sont étroitement associés diminue en abondance avec la densité de cerfs. Les insectes ont également démontré une forte capacité de résilience. ii Abstract Deer overabundances can be detrimental to forest regeneration and can modify vegetal communities and consequently, have an indirect impact on many arthropod groups. In this study, we used a replicated exclosure system with three controlled white-tailed deer densities and an uncontrolled high deer density on Anticosti Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface-Active Spiders (Araneae) in Ley and Field Margins
    Norw. J. Entomol. 51, 57–66. 2004 Surface-active spiders (Araneae) in ley and field margins Reidun Pommeresche Pommeresche, R. 2004. Surface-active spiders (Araneae) in ley and field margins. Norw. J. Entomol. 51, 57-66. Surface-active spiders were sampled from a ley and two adjacent field margins on a dairy farm in western Norway, using pitfall traps from April to June 2001. Altogether, 1153 specimens, represent- ing 33 species, were found. In total, 10 species were found in the ley, 16 species in the edge of the ley, 22 species in the field margin “ley/forest” and 16 species in the field margin “ley/stream”. Erigone atra, Bathyphantes gracilis, Savignia frontata and Collinsia inerrans were the most abun- dant species in the ley. C. inerrans was not found in the field margins. This species is previously recorded only a few times in Norway. Diplocephalus latifrons, Tapinocyba insecta, Dicymbium tibiale, Bathyphantes nigrinus and Diplostyla concolor were most abundant in the field margin “ley/ forest”. D. latifrons, D. tibiale and Pardosa amentata were most abundant in the field margin “ley/ stream”, followed by E. atra and B. gracilis. The present results were compared to results from ley and pasture on another farm in the region, recorded in 2000. A Detrended Correspondence Analyses (DCA) of the data sets showed that the spider fauna from the leys were more similar, independent of location, than the fauna in ley and field margins on the same locality. The interactions between cultivated fields and field margins according to spider species composition, dominance pattern and habitat preferences are discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverfly Visitors to the Flowers of Caltha in the Far East Region of Russia
    Egyptian Journal of Biology, 2009, Vol. 11, pp 71-83 Printed in Egypt. Egyptian British Biological Society (EBB Soc) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The potential for using flower-visiting insects for assessing site quality: hoverfly visitors to the flowers of Caltha in the Far East region of Russia Valeri Mutin 1*, Francis Gilbert 2 & Denis Gritzkevich 3 1 Department of Biology, Amurskii Humanitarian-Pedagogical State University, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Khabarovsky Krai, 681000 Russia 2 School of Biology, University Park, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. 3 Department of Ecology, Komsomolsk-na-Amure State Technical University, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Khabarovsky Krai, 681013 Russia Abstract Hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) assemblages visiting Caltha palustris in 12 sites in the Far East were analysed using partitioning of Simpson diversity and Canonical Coordinates Analysis (CCA). 154 species of hoverfly were recorded as visitors to Caltha, an extraordinarily high species richness. The main environmental gradient affecting syrphid communities identified by CCA was human disturbance and variables correlated with it. CCA is proposed as the first step in a method of site assessment. Keywords: Syrphidae, site assessment for conservation, multivariate analysis Introduction It is widely agreed amongst practising ecologists that a reliable quantitative measure of habitat quality is badly needed, both for short-term decision making and for long-term monitoring. Many planning and conservation decisions are taken on the basis of very sketchy qualitative information about how valuable any particular habitat is for wildlife; in addition, managers of nature reserves need quantitative tools for monitoring changes in quality. Insects are very useful for rapid quantitative surveys because they can be easily sampled, are numerous enough to provide good estimates of abundance and community structure, and have varied life histories which respond to different elements of the habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverfly Newsletter 67
    Dipterists Forum Hoverfly Newsletter Number 67 Spring 2020 ISSN 1358-5029 . On 21 January 2020 I shall be attending a lecture at the University of Gloucester by Adam Hart entitled “The Insect Apocalypse” the subject of which will of course be one that matters to all of us. Spreading awareness of the jeopardy that insects are now facing can only be a good thing, as is the excellent number of articles that, despite this situation, readers have submitted for inclusion in this newsletter. The editorial of Hoverfly Newsletter No. 66 covered two subjects that are followed up in the current issue. One of these was the diminishing UK participation in the international Syrphidae symposia in recent years, but I am pleased to say that Jon Heal, who attended the most recent one, has addressed this matter below. Also the publication of two new illustrated hoverfly guides, from the Netherlands and Canada, were announced. Both are reviewed by Roger Morris in this newsletter. The Dutch book has already proved its value in my local area, by providing the confirmation that we now have Xanthogramma stackelbergi in Gloucestershire (taken at Pope’s Hill in June by John Phillips). Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 68 (which is expected to be issued with the Autumn 2020 Dipterists Forum Bulletin) should be sent to me: David Iliff, Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, (telephone 01242 674398), email:[email protected], to reach me by 20 June 2020. The hoverfly illustrated at the top right of this page is a male Leucozona laternaria.
    [Show full text]
  • Syrphidae (Diptera) of Northern Ontario and Akimiski Island, Nunavut: New Diversity Records, Trap Analysis, and DNA Barcoding
    Syrphidae (Diptera) of northern Ontario and Akimiski Island, Nunavut: new diversity records, trap analysis, and DNA barcoding A Thesis Submitted to the Committee of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Arts and Science TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario, Canada © Copyright by Kathryn A. Vezsenyi 2019 Environmental and Life Sciences M.Sc Graduate Program May 2019 ABSTRACT Syrphidae (Diptera) of northern Ontario and Akimiski Island, Nunavut: new diversity records, trap analysis, and DNA barcoding Kathryn A. Vezsenyi Syrphids, also known as hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) are a diverse and widespread family of flies. Here, we report on their distributions from a previously understudied region, the far north of Ontario, as well as Akimiski Island, Nunavut. I used samples collected through a variety of projects to update known range and provincial records for over a hundred species, bringing into clearer focus the distribution of syrphids throughout this region. I also analysed a previously un-tested trap type for collecting syrphids (Nzi trap), and report on results of DNA analysis for a handful of individuals, which yielded a potential new species. KEYWORDS Syrphidae, Diptera, insects, northern Ontario, Akimiski Island, diversity, insect traps, long term study, range extension, new species, DNA barcoding ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is written in dedication to my co-supervisor David Beresford, without whom none of this would have been possible. You have spent many long hours helping me with my data, my writing, and overall, my life. Your tireless, unwavering belief in me is one of the things that got me to where I am today, and has helped me grow as a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverflies Family: Syrphidae
    Birmingham & Black Country SPECIES ATLAS SERIES Hoverflies Family: Syrphidae Andy Slater Produced by EcoRecord Introduction Hoverflies are members of the Syrphidae family in the very large insect order Diptera ('true flies'). There are around 283 species of hoverfly found in the British Isles, and 176 of these have been recorded in Birmingham and the Black Country. This atlas contains tetrad maps of all of the species recorded in our area based on records held on the EcoRecord database. The records cover the period up to the end of 2019. Myathropa florea Cover image: Chrysotoxum festivum All illustrations and photos by Andy Slater All maps contain Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database right 2020 Hoverflies Hoverflies are amongst the most colourful and charismatic insects that you might spot in your garden. They truly can be considered the gardener’s fiend as not only are they important pollinators but the larva of many species also help to control aphids! Great places to spot hoverflies are in flowery meadows on flowers such as knapweed, buttercup, hogweed or yarrow or in gardens on plants such as Canadian goldenrod, hebe or buddleia. Quite a few species are instantly recognisable while the appearance of some other species might make you doubt that it is even a hoverfly… Mimicry Many hoverfly species are excellent mimics of bees and wasps, imitating not only their colouring, but also often their shape and behaviour. Sometimes they do this to fool the bees and wasps so they can enter their nests to lay their eggs. Most species however are probably trying to fool potential predators into thinking that they are a hazardous species with a sting or foul taste, even though they are in fact harmless and perfectly edible.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera, Sy Ae)
    Ce nt re fo r Eco logy & Hydrology N AT U RA L ENVIRO N M EN T RESEA RC H CO U N C IL Provisional atlas of British hover les (Diptera, Sy ae) _ Stuart G Ball & Roger K A Morris _ J O I N T NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE NERC Co pyright 2000 Printed in 2000 by CRL Digital Limited ISBN I 870393 54 6 The Centre for Eco logy an d Hydrolo gy (CEI-0 is one of the Centres an d Surveys of the Natu ral Environme nt Research Council (NERC). Established in 1994, CEH is a multi-disciplinary , environmental research organisation w ith som e 600 staff an d w ell-equipp ed labo ratories and field facilities at n ine sites throughout the United Kingdom . Up u ntil Ap ril 2000, CEM co m prise d of fou r comp o nent NERC Institutes - the Institute of Hydrology (IH), the Institute of Freshw ater Eco logy (WE), the Institute of Terrestrial Eco logy (ITE), and the Institute of Virology an d Environmental Micro b iology (IVEM). From the beginning of Ap dl 2000, CEH has operated as a single institute, and the ind ividual Institute nam es have ceased to be used . CEH's mission is to "advance th e science of ecology, env ironme ntal microbiology and hyd rology th rough h igh q uality and inte rnat ionall) recognised research lead ing to better understanding and quantifia ttion of the p hysical, chem ical and b iolo gical p rocesses relating to land an d freshwater an d living organisms within the se environments".
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of Laivadalen, a Palsa Bog in Northern Sweden, with Notes on Possible Bio-Indicator Species
    Ent. Tidskr. 134 (2013) Hoverflies of a palsa bog Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of Laivadalen, a palsa bog in northern Sweden, with notes on possible bio-indicator species JEROEN VAN STEENIS & FRIEDA S. ZUIDHOFF van Steenis, J. & Zuidhoff, F.S.: Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of Laivadalen, a palsa bog in northern Sweden, with notes on possible bio-indicator species. [Blomflugor (Diptera: Syrphidae) i Laivadalen, en palsmyr i norra Sverige, med förslag på indikatorarter.] – Entomologisk Tidskrift 134(4): 181-192. Uppsala, Sweden 2013. ISSN 0013-886x. Palsa bogs are known for their unique flora and fauna and its special geomorphological fea- tures. During a PhD research on palsa growth and decay in Northern Sweden a palsa bog in Laivadalen was investigated from 1996-2001 by the second author. The first author studied the Syrphid fauna of the palsa bog. This paper deals with the geomorphology, vegetation, climate and Syrphid fauna of the investigated palsa bog. In total 33 Syrphid species have been collected, of which nine species have been depicted as possible bio-indicator species for palsa bogs. For each of these nine species a short discussion is given. Two additional species are discussed as they are mentioned from palsa bogs for the first time. J. van Steenis, Hof der Toekomst 48, 3823 HX, Amersfoort, the Netherlands, j.van.steenis@ xmsnet.nl. F.S. Zuidhoff, Hof der Toekomst 48, 3823 HX, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. fs.zuidhoff@ xmsnet.nl Palsa bogs (Fig. 1) are unique geomorphologi- versity observed on palsa bogs, stimulated by the cal features inhabited by unique flora and fauna various and changing micro-habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Nihonella Gen. Nov., a New Troglophilic Genus of Dwarf Spiders from Japan
    European Journal of Taxonomy 733: 1–18 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2021.733.1215 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2021 · Ballarin F. & Yamasaki T. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Research article urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3675D40A-5DE0-49CE-9795-F4FCF13B17CB Nihonella gen. nov., a new troglophilic genus of dwarf spiders from Japan with a discussion on its phylogenetic position within the subfamily Erigoninae (Araneae, Linyphiidae) Francesco BALLARIN 1, * & Takeshi YAMASAKI 2 1 Systematic Zoology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1-1 Minami-Osawa, Hachioji-shi, 192-0397, Tokyo, Japan. 1 Department of Zoology, Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, I-37129, Verona, Italy. 2 Institute of Nature and Environmental Sciences, University of Hyogo/Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo, Yayoigaoka 6, Sanda-shi, 669-1546, Hyogo, Japan. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1417-2519 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2419-188X 1 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:54F6F9C7-0385-48D4-AB09-52692BD05B53 2 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:804886B5-C951-490C-95C4-D2CA7F4F94D7 Abstract. A new monospecifi c genus belonging to the family Linyphiidae Blackwell, 1859, Nihonella gen. nov., is described using an integrative taxonomic approach based on the species N. chika gen. et sp. nov. The new genus is endemic to Western Honshu, Japan, and it shows distinctive genitalic and somatic characters of other genera of the subfamily Erigoninae Emerton, 1882. Nihonella gen. nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Density Cattle Grazing Enhances Arthropod Diversity of Abandobned Wetland
    Zahn et al: Low density cattle grazing enhances arthropod diversity of abandobned wetland - 73 - LOW DENSITY CATTLE GRAZING ENHANCES ARTHROPOD DIVERSITY OF ABANDONED WETLAND A. ZAHN1 *-A. JUEN2- M. TRAUGOTT2 & A. LANG3 1Bund Naturschutz, Kreisgruppe Mühldorf, Graslitzerstr. 35, D-84478 Waldkraiburg Tel. 0049 8638-3701Fax: 0049 8638-3701 2 Institut of Ecology, Mountain Agriculture Research Unit, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 25, 6020 Innsbruck 3Institute of Environmental Geosciences, University of Basel, Bernouillistr. 30, CH-4055 Basel Tel. 0041 61 267 0477 Fax: 0041 61 267 0479 e-mail: [email protected] (Received 4th Febr 2007 ; accepted 23th May 2007) Abstract. We studied the impact of low-density grazing on arthropod diversity in a small wetland (7 ha) in South Germany. The location was abandoned for 20 years, and was then grazed by Galloway for 4 to 5 years. The study site included the following habitat types: open land, a stand of alder (Alnus glutinosa), a stand of willows (Salix spec) and alder and a brookside. We counted higher species numbers on grazed than on neighbouring abandoned areas in ground beetles, rove beetles and spiders. Grazing explained a considerable amount of the variance of the species composition, and species typical for grazed plots could be identified. We found higher frequencies of insects during winter in Cirsium stems from grazed than from ungrazed areas. Grasshoppers and katydids (Saltatoria) of the grazed open land showed a general trend of increasing species number during the study period. Our findings show that low density grazing by cattle can favour habitat diversity even in small areas which enhances species numbers.
    [Show full text]