Skip to main content
Log in

The matrix affects trackway corridor suitability for an arenicolous specialist beetle

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In conserving regional insect diversity dispersal corridors are advocated to counteract fragmentation and for resilience to climate change. However, influences of corridor design and management on their function are poorly understood. Effects of contrasting matrix structure on the suitability and function of trackways as corridors for dispersal of an arenicolous carabid beetle, Harpalus rufipalpis (Sturm), was studied within a plantation landscape using mark-release-recapture. A total of 1,120 marked H. rufipalpis were released into four trackways: two “open” trackways surrounded by pine plantations aged 13–16 years and two “shaded” trackways surrounded by plantations aged 26–37 years. Dispersal was monitored by a grid of pitfall transects placed across trackways at intervals of four meters, extending 44 m north and south of the release point. Numbers of resident and marked recaptured H. rufipalpis, their average daily movement rates and numbers of recaptures in the north and south direction were compared between open and shaded trackways using 238 recaptures. The surrounding matrix affected trackway suitability with greater abundance of resident beetles found in open trackways; however H. rufipalpis was also naturally present in shaded trackways. H. rufipalpis were more active in low quality shaded corridors as inferred from the greater number of recaptures and from greater daily movement rates. Corridor edge permeability differed between trackway types, with more individuals leaving the corridor to enter the matrix in the less suitable shaded trackways. Thus matrix type affected the potential habitat suitability and conduit function of trackway corridors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baars MA (1979) Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44:125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker M, Nur N, Geupel GR (1995) Correcting biased estimates of dispersal and survival due to limited study area—theory and an application using wren tits. Condor 97(3):663–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AF (2003) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation, 2nd edn. IUCN, Gland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berggren A, Birath B, Kindvall O (2002) Effect of corridors and habitat edges on dispersal behavior, movement rates, and movement angles in Roesel’s bush-cricket (Metrioptera roeseli). Conserv Biol 16(6):1562–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertoncelj I (2009) Spatial dynamics of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblage in a forest and open habitat mosaic landscape. Dissertation, University of East Anglia, Norwich

  • Bertoncelj I, Dolman PM (2012) Conservation potential for heathland carabid fauna of linear trackways within a plantation forest. Insect Conserv Divers. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00222.x

  • Braden AW, Lopez RR, Roberts CW, Silvy NJ, Owen CB, Frank PA (2008) Florida key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium underpass use and movements along a highway corridor. Wildl Biol 14(1):155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormont A, Malinowska AH, Kostenko O, Radchuk V, Hemerik L, WallisDeVries MF, Verboom J (2011) Effect of local weather on butterfly flight behaviour, movement, and colonization: significance for dispersal under climate change. Biodivers Conserv 20:483–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerr VA, Barrett T, Doerr ED (2011) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolman PM, Sutherland WJ (1992) The ecological changes of Breckland grass heaths and the consequences of management. J Appl Ecol 29(2):402–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolman PM, Panter CJ, Mossman HL (2012) The biodiversity audit approach challenges regional priorities and identifies a mismatch in conservation. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02174.x

  • Eycott AE, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM (2006) Ecological patterns of plant diversity in a plantation forest managed by clearfelling. J Appl Ecol 43(6):1160–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell L (1993) Lowland heathland: the extent of habitat change. English Nature Series No. 12. English Nature, Peterborough

  • Fried JH, Levey DJ, Hogsette JA (2005) Habitat corridors function as both drift fences and movement conduits for dispersing flies. Oecologia 143(4):645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis. Can J Zool 80:24–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9(2):612–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Tewksbury JJ (2005) Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecol Appl 15(1):250–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2012) Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Version 2.14

  • Henein K, Merriam G (1990) The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landsc Ecol 4(2/3):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess GR, Fischer RA (2001) Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 55(3):195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH, Brotherton PNM, Brown VK, Elphick C, Fitter AH, Forshaw J, Haddow RW, Hilborne S, Leafe RN, Mace GM, Southgate MP, Sutherland WJ, Tew TE, Varley J, Wynne GR (2010) Making space for nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra

  • Lin Y-C (2005) Spatio-temporal dynamics of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a mosaic forested landscape. Dissertation, University of East Anglia, Norwich

  • Lin Y-C, James R, Dolman PM (2007) Conservation of heathland ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae): the value of lowland coniferous plantations. Biodivers Conserv 16:1337–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luff ML (1998) Provisional atlas of the ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Britain. Biological Records Centre, Huntingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Luff ML (2007) The Carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. handbooks for the identification of British insects, 2nd edn. Royal Entomological Society, St Albans

  • Mader HJ (1984) Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol Conserv 29(1):81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ (2004) Drainage ditches facilitate frog movements in a hostile landscape. Landsc Ecol 20(5):579–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen SE, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB (2004) Grizzly bears and forestry I. Selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta, Canada. For Ecol Manag 199(1):51–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedley SM, Bertoncelj I, Dolman PM (2012) The value of the trackway system within a lowland plantation forest for ground-active spiders. J Insect Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10841-012-9491-2

  • Pryke SR, Samways MJ (2001) Width of grassland linkages for the conservation of butterflies in South African afforested areas. Biol Conserv 101:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1999) Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47(10):677–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider C (2003) The influence of spatial scale on quantifying insect dispersal: an analysis of butterfly data. Ecol Entomol 28(2):252–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlman DW (1992) Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conserv Biol 6(4):493–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderström B, Hedblom M (2007) Comparing movement of four butterfly species in experimental grassland strips. J Insect Conserv 11:333–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effects of habitat geometry on territorial defense costs—intruder pressure in bounded habitats. Am Zool 27(2):307–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson GP, Sahlin U, Brage B, Larsson MC (2011) Should I stay or should I go? Modelling dispersal strategies in saproxylic insects based on pheromone capture and radio telemetry: a case study on the threatened hermit beetle Osmoderma eremita. Biodivers Conserv 20:2883–2902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32(8):1353–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman F, Breitenmoser U (2007) Potential distribution and population size of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in the Jura Mountains and possible corridors to adjacent ranges. Wildl Biol 13(4):406–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the UEA Lord Zuckerman Scholarship and assisted by the Forestry Commission. We would also like to thank Robert James and Ying Chi Lin for all their help and advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irena Bertoncelj.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bertoncelj, I., Dolman, P.M. The matrix affects trackway corridor suitability for an arenicolous specialist beetle. J Insect Conserv 17, 503–510 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9533-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9533-9

Keywords

Navigation