Next Article in Journal
Seasonal Occurrence and Relative Abundance of Marine Fish Larval Families over Healthy and Degraded Seagrass Beds in Coastal Kenya
Previous Article in Journal
Detection and Monitoring of Riverine Dragonfly of Community Interest (Insecta: Odonata): Proposal for a Standardised Protocol Based on Exuviae Collection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/d14090729
diversity-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

Can Larix sp. Mill. Provide Suitable Habitats for Insects and Lichens Associated with Stems of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in Northern Europe?

by
Jūratė Lynikienė
1,*,
Artūras Gedminas
1,
Adas Marčiulynas
1,
Diana Marčiulynienė
1 and
Audrius Menkis
2
1
Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Liepu ̨str. 1, Kaunas District, LT-53101 Girionys, Lithuania
2
Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Uppsala BioCenter, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7026, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(9), 729; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090729
Submission received: 12 July 2022 / Revised: 31 August 2022 / Accepted: 2 September 2022 / Published: 4 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Arthropod Biodiversity: Ecological and Functional Aspects)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recent observations suggest that climate change affects the growth conditions and range of tree species distribution in Europe. This may also have a major effect on communities of different organisms associated with these tree species. We aimed to determine whether Larix sp. could provide suitable habitats to insects and lichens associated with P. abies to conserve their biodiversity under climate change. The study sites were 10 Larix sp. and 10 P. abies forest stands in Lithuania. Both living and dead trees were included. Sticky traps, bark sheets, and exit hole methods were used for the assessment of insects. Independent plots on tree stems were established for the assessment of lichens. There were 76 and 67 different insect species on dead and living P. abies, respectively, using sticky traps. Similarly, there were 64 and 68 on dead and living Larix sp., respectively. The overall community of xylophagous insects consisted of nine and eight species, which were detected using the bark sheet and exit hole methods, respectively. The bark area colonized by lichens was 34.3% on dead P. abies and 63.2% on dead Larix sp., and 40.4% on living P. abies and 78.0% on living Larix sp. Taken together, the results demonstrate that native P. abies and introduced Larix sp. support similar diversity of stem-associated insect and lichen species.

1. Introduction

The ongoing process of climate change can be expected to have profound consequences for European forests, especially if species-specific climatic thresholds are surpassed. Prominent climatic changes, which are primarily affecting tree productivity, are mainly associated with increased droughts [1]. Droughts, especially in combination with different biotic factors, such as attacks by pests and pathogens, are known to make trees weaker or even cause mortality [1]. Consequently, the distributional range of different tree species and the composition of European forests can be expected to change in the future [2,3,4]. In north temperate and boreal European forests, the most economically, ecologically, and spatially important and abundant tree species are Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris, L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies, (L.) H. Karst.), which are regionally experiencing increased mortality rates [2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12].
Picea abies is one of the most canonical tree species in the forest ecosystems of Eurasia. The area of its natural distribution is vast and ranges from western Siberia to Fennoscandia and the mountain ranges of central Europe [13]. It grows under a wide range of climatic conditions and tolerates a cool and wet climate. It predominantly grows on fertile soils and is a relatively shade-tolerant tree species, forming pure or mixed forest stands with different tree species [14,15]. As it produces valuable timber and its stands are relatively easy to manage, P. abies has been extensively planted both within and outside the natural range of distribution, resulting in a considerable increase in its stands during the last century [14]. However, observations suggest that climate change is one of the most important factors leading to growth disturbances of P. abies throughout its distribution range [15,16,17]. A relatively shallow root system makes the tree species prone to both drought stress [8,18] and wind damage [19,20,21]. In addition, in the past decades, P. abies has been increasingly damaged over vast areas by the European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus L., Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Outbreaks of I. typographus are frequently triggered by major storms and/or severe droughts [13,22,23,24]. Such disturbances can be expected to increase in the future, particularly at the edge of the current distribution range of P. abies, as the effects of climate change are likely to be most pronounced in these areas [25]. Consequently, the observed and predicted vulnerability of P. abies to abiotic and biotic damage requires special attention [13,26,27]. Indeed, different alternatives and solutions on how to mitigate the negative effects of climate change should be carefully considered [28].
Several studies provide valuable insights into the cultivation of some introduced coniferous tree species as an alternative to P. abies. In Western and Northern Europe, several exotic tree species within Pinaceae, namely, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Doug. ex. Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata D. Don.), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière), presently constitute important portions of forested ecosystems [29,30]. Larch (Larix sp.) trees have also been considered as an alternative to P. abies, as it grows successfully in similar habitats to P. abies [31]. In addition, Larix sp. grows naturally in many areas of the northern hemisphere, being one of the components in boreal and mountain subalpine forests.
In Lithuania, P. abies constitutes ca. 21% of the forest area and is of great economic and ecological importance. However, as this area is close to the south-eastern edge of the natural distribution of P. abies in Europe, it is increasingly subjected to abiotic and biotic damage. In Lithuania, Larix sp. was introduced early in the 19th century as an exotic tree species. Nowadays, it is planted in monocultures or in mixed forest stands [32] but occupies only ca. 900 ha of forest area [33]. In comparison to P. abies, Larix generally possesses faster growth, more durable wood, and higher adaptability to different environmental conditions, which is partly due to the deep root system, making trees more resistant to windthrows and droughts [34]. Larix is an early successional tree species, and after disturbances such as large-scale windfall, it is able to establish on Picea sites [35]. Larix is a much more light-demanding tree species as compared to P. abies. Additionally, it requires large openings for regeneration and juvenile growth, while P. abies can regenerate in much smaller gaps or under the canopy [36]. Forest managers have attempted to cultivate several different Larix species in forest stands (L. leptolepis, L. decidua, and L. polonica), but L. decidua ssp. Polonica Ostenf et. Syrach shows the best growth rate (apart from its hybrids). Moreover, its productivity is significantly higher as compared to other coniferous tree species [37]. However, the productivity of Larix sp. can be reduced by insect pests, some of which are also able to damage P. abies or P. sylvestris [38].
The large-scale planting of introduced tree species instead of native species requires an evidence-based evaluation [30]. In addition to the productivity and adaptability or resilience to climate change, other factors, such as impacts on native flora and fauna communities, should be considered. Indigenous tree species are commonly associated with and/or provide habitats for a variety of different organisms, such as fungi, lichens, or insects. These organisms can be associated with their hosts [39]. Changes in the native forest structure and composition could lead to disturbances in the diversity and composition of these organisms and thus may affect the functioning of forest ecosystems.
Insects represent a key component in forest ecosystems [39], as they are involved in food web interactions (as herbivores, saprophages, predators, and parasites), ecosystem processes (such as pollination, energy flow, biogeochemical cycling, or ecological succession), and eco-evolutionary processes [40,41]. Epiphytic lichens are also an important component of forest biodiversity associated with coniferous forests in Europe [42]. Several studies have highlighted the importance of lichen diversity as an indicator of environmental change, which is based on their response to air pollution [43,44], climatic conditions [45,46,47], and forest structure and dynamics [48,49,50]. The specific association between certain epiphytic lichens and host trees was demonstrated by Roper [51], and this is probably due to differences in the structure and acidity of the bark, thereby leading to sharp differences in lichen cover and diversity between different tree species. Although Larix sp. is often considered as an alternative tree species to P. abies for the future, the comparative analysis of insect and epiphytic lichen diversity on the stems of these tree species is generally lacking.
The aim of the present study was to determine whether Larix sp. could provide suitable habitats to insects and lichens associated with P. abies to conserve their biodiversity under climate change.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site and Observation

The study sites were in P. abies and Larix sp. forest stands at 10 different locations in Lithuania (Figure 1 and Table 1).
The identification of larch species is problematic due to their frequent hybridization [52,53], so in this study, they are referred to as Larix sp. At each site, there was one P. abies and one Larix sp. stand, which were within a radius of 200 m, so they were within the same geographical area and exposed to similar climatic conditions. The topography was similar in these areas. Information on the stand and site characteristics is in Table 1.
Study sites were selected based on forest inventory data from the State Forest Cadastre database. The criteria used for the selection of each study site were: (i) P. abies or Larix sp. trees were the prevailing species at the site; (ii) similar soil type [54]; and (iii) similar vegetation type [55]. Most of the study sites were characterized by soils of moderate fertility and normal humidity and by an oxalidosa vegetation type (Table 1).
At each P. abies or Larix sp. study site, up to five healthy-looking and up to five dead trees (dead trees were not always available) were randomly selected and used for the assessment of insects and lichens, which was carried out in 2018 and 2019.

2.2. Assessment of Insects Associated with Tree Stems

Three different methods were used for the assessment of insects: (i) using sticky traps, which were used to capture insects occurring on the surfaces of living and dead P. abies and Larix sp. trees, (ii) recording signs of xylophagous insects under the bark of dead trees, and (iii) recording exit holes of xylophagous insects on the bark of dead trees. For the capture of insects on the surface of tree stems [56], two sticky traps, which were made of 20 × 20 cm polyethylene sheets treated with non-drying glue (Pestifix, “Flora”, Talinn, Estonia), were attached to each of the five living and five dead P. abies standing tree stems. Both traps were placed at the same height of ca. 1.5 m above the ground to prevent interference from grasses and shrubs. Sticky traps on living and dead Larix sp. tree stems were established in the same way. The assessment of insects using sticky traps was carried out between May and August 2019. During this period, sticky traps with trapped insects were collected once a month and replaced with new ones, which resulted in three time points (June, July, and August). Collected sticky traps were transported to the laboratory the same day and stored at 5 °C until the identification of insect species using a binocular Zeiss Stemi 2000-C microscope (Oberkochen, Germany) and morphological insect identification keys [57,58,59,60,61,62]. Many insects were identified to the species level, while others were identified to the order, family, or genus level. Several insects remained unidentified, which was largely because they were missing body parts or were heavily covered by glue from sticky traps, thereby making reliable identification impossible. After the identification of insect species, accidentally trapped insects, i.e., species specifically associated with the tree crowns or non-target species, the development and feeding of which are not dependent on tree stems, were excluded from further analyses. However, predators and parasites of insects associated with tree stems were included in analyses.
Xylophagous insects, which are wood- and bark-boring insects, were assessed on dead P. abies and Larix sp. trees, and the signs and areas of their activity under the bark, i.e., larval tunnels, pupal chambers, and adult holes in the wood, were recorded. This was carried out once in August 2019 by removing a 20 × 20 cm bark sheet at a height of ca. 1.5 m above the ground [56]. In each study site, one bark sheet was removed from each of the five dead trees of each tree species, resulting in a total of 0.4 m2 bark area in each site. The area of removed bark was photographed, signs of insect activity were analyzed in the laboratory, and insect species were identified.
For the assessment of exit holes of adult insects and the identification of their species, five dead trees of P. abies and Larix sp. per study site were visually inspected in August 2018. On each tree stem (1–1.5 m above the ground), insect exit holes were recorded on five plots, each 0.01 m2 in size, and were situated along the stem and from four different geographical directions (N, S, E, and W), resulting in a 0.2 m2 area per tree in total. This method was adopted from Asta et al. [63]. The number of exit holes was recorded for each insect species separately. Insect species for which exit holes were clearly species-specific, e.g., Ips typograhus and Pityogenes chalcographus, were identified to the species level, while others were identified to the family or genus level.

2.3. Assessment of Epiphytic Lichens

Epiphytic lichens were assessed at the same study sites in August 2018 (Figure 1 and Table 1). In each P. abies or Larix sp. study site, five healthy and five dead trees were selected. The selected trees were ca. 18–20 cm in diameter at a height of 1.3 m above the ground, stem inclination was not more than 20°, trees were without wounds on the stem, and bark structure and bark thickness were similar for all trees of each tree species. For the assessment of lichens, on each tree, four independent plots, each 10 × 10 cm in size and each facing a different geographical direction (N, S, E, or W), were established at ca. 1.5 m above the ground [63]. All lichen species present within each plot and the area covered by each of them were recorded. Most of the lichen specimens were identified to the species, genus, or family level, but several species remained unidentified.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Differences in the richness of insect or lichen taxa between dead or living trees of P. abies and Larix sp. were compared by nonparametric chi-square test [64], taking into account the Bonferroni correction. The Shannon diversity index, qualitative Sorensen similarity index, and nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) in Canoco 5 [65,66,67] were used to characterize the diversity and composition of insect and lichen communities. The nonparametric Mann–Whitney test in Minitab v.19.2 (Minitab® Inc., Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA) was used to test if the Shannon diversity index among different samples differed significantly or not. ANOVA in Minitab was used to evaluate whether the bark area colonized by lichens differed among different tree species.

3. Results

3.1. Insects

In total, there were 20,226 insects trapped using sticky traps (Table 2). When all sites were taken together, on dead P. abies, there were 76 different insect species identified among 10,858 (53.3%) insects trapped, while on dead Larix sp., there were 64 different species identified among 1017 (5%) insects trapped.
Consequently, the chi-square test showed that the richness of insect species was significantly higher on dead Larix sp. than on dead P. abies (p < 0.0001). Similarly, on living P. abies, there were 67 different insect species among 7420 (36.7%) insects trapped, while on living Larix sp., there were 68 different species among 931 (4.6%) insects trapped. The richness of insect species was significantly higher on living Larix sp. than on living P. abies (p < 0.0001).
Many insect species were shared between dead trees and between living trees of both tree species. Among the 95 insect species identified, 5 were unique to living P. abies, and 4 were unique to living Larix sp. trees. Similarly, two insect species were unique to dead P. abies, and five were unique to dead Larix sp. (Figure 2).
Consequently, the Sørensen similarity index of insect communities was moderate when compared between dead trees of both tree species and living trees of both tree species (Table 2). The Mann–Whitney test showed that the Shannon diversity index of insect communities was similar between dead trees (p > 0.05) and between living trees (p > 0.05) when compared between P. abies and Larix sp., respectively. NMDS showed that insect communities on living P. abies and living Larix sp. were partially overlapping (Figure 3a). By contrast, insect communities on dead P. abies and dead Larix sp. were separated along the diagonal (Figure 3a). However, NMDS showed that there was a partial overlap between insect communities on living P. abies and dead Larix sp. (Figure 3a). Assessments that were conducted in June, July, and August showed that there were only minor variations in the abundance of dominant insect species on both living and dead P. abies and Larix sp. (Table 3). The most common insect species on P. abies were Crypturgus pusillus, Ichneomonidae sp., and Eucnemidae sp. 1, while on Larix sp., they were Ichneomonidae sp., Eucnemidae sp. 1, and Eucnemidae sp. 2 (Table 3). All insect species detected using sticky traps are in Table S1.
The overall community of xylophagous insects consisted of nine species detected using bark sheets and eight species detected using the exit hole method (Table 4). When all sites were taken together, the colonized bark area was 39.0% on dead P. abies and 47.3% on Larix sp. trees. Consequently, the chi-square test showed that the bark area colonized was significantly higher on dead Larix sp. trees than on P. abies (p < 0.0001). The number of exit holes of xylophagous insects was 2509 (75.4%) on dead P. abies and 819 (24.6%) on Larix sp. The number of exit holes was significantly higher on P. abies than on Larix sp. trees (p < 0.0001) (Table 4). More importantly, communities of xylophagous insects detected using bark sheet and exit hole methods were similar when compared between P. abies and Larix sp. (Figure 3b,c). In support, the Sørensen similarity index was 0.80, showing high species similarity between all dead P. abies and Larix sp. trees using both methods (Table 4). The Mann–Whitney test showed that the Shannon diversity index of xylophagous insect communities was similar using bark sheet (p > 0.05) and exit hole methods (p > 0.05) when a comparison was made between dead P. abies and Larix sp., respectively.
However, the species composition of xylophagous insects was quite different when compared between bark sheet and exit hole methods (Table 5). The most common xylophagous insects detected using bark sheets on P. abies were Polygraphus poligraphus (31.0%), Molorchus sp. (27.7%), and Callidium sp. (18.0%), while those on Larix sp. were Callidium sp. (35.7%), Cerambycidae sp. (27.2%), and Rhagium sp. (17.5%) (Table 5). The most common xylophagous insects detected using the exit hole method on P. abies were Pityogenes chalcographus (44.2%), Hylurgops palliatus (25.5%), and Trypodendron lineatum (16.6%), while on Larix sp., they were Buprestidae sp. (28.6%), Scolytinae sp. (22.6%), and Cerambycidae sp. (22.0%) (Table 5).

3.2. Lichens

The overall lichen community detected in the present study consisted of twelve species, among which eight were on dead P. abies, ten were on dead Larix sp., ten were on living P. abies, and eleven were on living Larix sp. (Table 6). The bark area colonized by lichens was 34.3% on dead P. abies and 63.2% on dead Larix sp., and 40.4% on living P. abies and 78.0% on living Larix sp. (Table 6).
ANOVA showed that the bark area colonized by lichens was significantly larger on dead and living Larix sp. trees than on corresponding P. abies trees (p < 0.0001). The Mann–Whitney test showed that the Shannon diversity index of lichen communities was similar between living P. abies and Larix sp. trees (p > 0.05) and between dead P. abies and Larix sp. trees (p > 0.05) (Table 6).
The most abundant lichen species was Lepraria sp., which composed 69.9% of the total bark area colonized by lichens. The relative abundance of this species was 60.4% and 59.9% on dead and living P. abies, respectively, and 76.4% and 71.4% on dead and living Larix sp., respectively (Table 7). The other most common lichen species detected on dead and living P. abies were Phlyctis argena (13.6% and 19.9%, respectively) and Lecidea elaeochroma (6.7% and 7.7%, respectively), while those on dead and living Larix sp. were Hypogimnia physodes (14.3% and 6.5%, respectively) and Unidentified sp. 1 (4.3% and 6.7%, respectively). Unidentified sp. 2, with a relative abundance of 7.0%, was detected only on living Larix sp. trees (Table 7).
NMDS showed that lichen communities associated with dead and living trees of P. abies and Larix sp. were largely the same and thus overlapping (Figure 4). In agreement, the Sørensen similarity index of lichen communities was 0.86 between P. abies and Larix sp. trees, showing a high species similarity (all study sites combined) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

The results demonstrate that the two coniferous tree species, namely, native P. abies and introduced Larix sp., support a similar diversity of stem-associated insect and lichen communities, but the species composition was only partially overlapping (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 and Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). Consistently, for both insects and lichens, the Sørensen similarity index ranged from moderate to high, while the Shannon diversity index was similar between the two tree species. Therefore, Larix sp. has the potential to provide suitable habitats for some insect and lichen species associated with stems of P. abies. However, other organisms associated with these tree species should also be considered, as the replacement of native tree species by introduced ones is a drastic event and may affect biodiversity at both local and regional scales [68]. In addition, different groups of organisms may respond to introduced tree species, i.e., to a new habitat, in different ways [69]. Several studies have evaluated the effect of introduced trees on a particular group of organisms, e.g., plants [70], insects [29,30,71,72], or birds [73,74]. Nevertheless, similar studies that simultaneously assessed different groups of organisms are scarce but can be particularly valuable [75], especially if a number of factors, such as the age of forest stands, microclimate conditions, the type of forest management, or the volume of deadwood, are taken into consideration [76,77,78,79], as these may also have a strong impact on associated biodiversity [80].

4.1. Insects

In the present study, the use of different assessment methods (sticky traps, bark sheets, and exit holes) provided a comprehensive comparison of the diversity and composition of stem-associated insects (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 and Figure 3), thereby allowing the overall insect diversity to be estimated [39,81,82]. Among these methods, sticky traps represent one of the most commonly used types of passive traps [83], but additional methods are often needed, as these may provide valuable complementary information [84,85]. However, to increase the accuracy of species identification, additional methods such as DNA sequencing may be needed, as for several insects trapped, the species identity could not be established using morphological methods (Table 3). Nevertheless, sticky traps allowed the collection of important and host-tree-specific insect species but, in some cases, also resulted in unspecific individuals, e.g., Dalopius marginatus L., Conoderus sp. (Coleoptera: Elateridae), Formica rufa L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Myrmica sp. (Hymenoptera: Myrmicidae), or Malthodes sp. (Coleoptera: Cantharidae) (Table 3). Although the latter insects are abundant in the Palaearctic and Nearctic regions and play important roles in forest ecosystems [86], they are not specifically associated with P. abies or Larix sp. Beetles dominated insect communities in sticky traps, among which two species of aggressive bark beetles, i.e., Polygraphus poligraphus and Pityogenes chalcographus, which regularly attack and can kill living trees, were detected (Table 3). Interestingly, P. poligraphus and P. chalcographus are among the phloeophagous insect species, which are known to be specifically associated with the genus Picea [87], but in the present study, these were detected on both P. abies and Larix sp. (Table 3). Similarly, on both tree species, there were also several secondary bark beetle species, which are deadwood-dependent and colonize trees following attacks by aggressive bark beetles. These included Crypturgus pusillus, Hadrobregmus pertinax, Anobium rufipes, and Trypodendron lineatum (Table 3). Among these, C. pusillus is known to be a P. abies-dependent species that colonizes trees following attacks by I. typographus [87,88].
Interactions between xylophagous insects and their predators are common in nature and may have a direct effect on the health and sustainability of forest stands [89]. Several predators were detected, among which probably the most interesting was Nemozoma elongatum (Coleoptera: Trogossitidae), as it is one of the most important predators of P. chalcographus [90]. However, N. elongatum was captured in low abundance and only on dead and living P. abies (Table 3), even though its trapping coincided with the flying period (June–July) of P. chalcographus [91]. Zahradník and Zahradníková [92], using pheromone baited traps, showed a strong positive correlation between the abundance of P. chalcographus (1–4%) and N. elongatum (up to 60%). Among other predatory insects captured on P. abies and Larix sp. tree stems were Thanasimus formicarius, Tillus elongatus, Glischrochilus hortensis, and Anthribus nebulosus (Table 3). Thanasimus formicarius and Glischrochilus hortensis are predators of many different bark beetle species from the subfamily Scolytinae, including I. typographus [89,93,94,95,96]. Tillus elongatus is also a predator of bark beetles, attacking them in larval tunnels [97]. Anthribus nebulosus is a predator of soft-scale insects from the family Coccidae [98]. Despite the detection, the relative abundance of predator insects was low, and in many cases, the host insects were absent, suggesting that their trapping could be accidental. The use of sticky traps also revealed the presence of Tetropium gabrieli on Larix sp. trees (Table S1), which is an important secondary pest of Larix sp. in Europe and was detected for the first time in Lithuania [99]. Among the deadwood-dependent insects, there were two species from the family Eucnemidae, which were trapped on both P. abies and Larix sp. (Table 3). Larvae of these insects develop in the wood of dead or dying deciduous or coniferous trees [85,100]. Eucnemidae may play an important role in the interactions between trees, fungi, and forest regeneration and can be used as an indicator species of forest biodiversity [101].
Many previous studies have shown that deadwood is one of the most important substrates in forests and supports a high diversity of xylophagous insects [88,102,103,104]. Indeed, deadwood as a substrate is required for many species of beetles, bees, wasps, ants, flies, mosquitoes, and other invertebrates [100,105,106,107,108,109,110]. It may serve as a resource for feeding, breeding, overwintering, or refuge [39,88,111,112]. In the present study, xylophagous insects detected in dead trees of P. abies and Larix sp. using bark sheet and exit hole methods were rather different as compared to those detected using sticky traps (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5), thereby repeatedly showing that all of these methods complemented each other. However, the diversity of xylophagous insects detected using bark sheet and exit hole methods was generally limited (Table 4). In comparison, other studies have shown a much higher diversity of xylophagous insect species associated with deadwood of P. abies. For example, there were 47 insect species reported by Jonsell and Weslien [113] and 66 species reported by Seedre [87]. The lower diversity of xylophagous insects could be due to specific stand characteristics, i.e., middle-aged monocultures with routine and intensive forest management and a relatively low occurrence of dead trees (Table 1). Intensive forest management was also shown to have a negative impact on the diversity of xylophagous insects [114]. In addition, the diversity and composition of xylophagous insects may also depend on other factors, such as tree species, degree of decay, and the cause of tree death [115].
Although on P. abies and Larix sp., the diversity and composition of xylophagous insects were similar (Figure 3b,c), the use of bark sheet and exit hole methods showed certain specificity, which can probably be attributed to the biology and ecology of specific insect species. For example, adults of P. chalcographus and H. palliatus make numerous exit holes on tree stems, but their larvae are relatively small and colonize a relatively small area as compared to large larvae of Callidium sp., which was detected using the bark sheet method (Table 5). Furthermore, Trypodendron lineatum was abundantly detected on both tree species, but only using the exit hole method (Table 5). Galleries of T. lineatum are found ca. 7 cm deep in the wood and are undetectable using the bark sheet method [116]. Similarly, Sirex juvencus was detected on both P. abies and Larix sp. using the exit hole method, as its larvae occur ca. 15–30 cm deep in the wood and leave no signs of activity under the bark [117]. Siricidae woodwasps make circular and smooth-edged exit holes of ca. 4–10 mm in diameter, making identification of the species relatively easy [118,119]. Despite the importance of the conservation of many xylophagous insect species and the promotion of deadwood habitats, the risk of bark beetle outbreaks should also be considered [120]. Bark beetle species such as I. typographus, P. polygraphus, or P. chalcographus, which usually colonize weakened and/or dying trees, can cause extensive damage [121]. In the present study, these were mainly associated with P. abies, suggesting that Larix sp. under the given conditions was less susceptible to their attack (Table 5). However, it was shown that Larix sp. can be vulnerable to attacks by bark beetles of the genus Ips, including I. typographus and I. cembrae [34,122]. Therefore, slight differences in the composition of xylophagous insects between Larix sp. and P. abies trees can probably be explained by certain host specificity. Xylophagous beetles colonizing fresh wood or dying trees need to overcome the tree resistance in the form of chemical barriers [123] and, therefore, are much more host-adapted than those of later decomposition stages [102]. Interestingly, Muller et al. [124] showed a low ranking of Larix decidua as the host, which was due to a generally lower number of herbivorous species, including saproxylic beetles, colonizing this tree species as compared to other coniferous tree species, e.g., P. abies.

4.2. Lichens

In the present study, the diversity of epiphytic lichens was generally low on both P. abies and Larix sp. trees (Table 6 and Table 7). By contrast, Giordani et al. [50] reported a relatively high diversity of lichen species in mixed P. abies forests, but this diversity was similar between P. abies and Larix decidua trees. It is known that epiphytic lichens can be sensitive to several abiotic factors, such as light [125], temperature and annual precipitation [45,46,47,126], pH value and nutrient availability on the tree bark [42], and air pollution [43,44]. Forest structure and dynamics are among other determinants of the diversity of epiphytic lichens [48,49,127,128]. In addition, the diversity and biomass of epiphytic lichens appear to be higher in unmanaged old-growth forests than in managed ones [128]. Indeed, Marmor et al. [125] showed that on P. abies, the diversity of lichen species significantly increases with the age of trees. In the present study, similarly to insect species (see above), specific characteristics of P. abies and Larix sp. stands (Table 1) were likely among the main determinants of the low diversity of epiphytic lichens.
In agreement with results of the present study, Hauck [42] and Marmor et al. [125] showed that Lepraria sp. and H. physodes were among the most dominant lichen species on P. abies in boreal forests of Europe. Interestingly, both lichen species showed a higher preference for dead or living Larix sp. than for corresponding P. abies (Table 7). By contrast, P. argena showed a higher preference for dead or living P. abies than for corresponding Larix sp. (Table 7). Several studies have emphasized the effect of the tree species on the diversity and composition of lichen communities, e.g., [129,130]. This effect appears to be mainly due to species-specific differences in chemical and physical traits of the bark, e.g., [129,131]. Bark pH, which is usually between 3.0 and 4.0 for different conifer tree species [42], is among the principal factors that determine the occurrence and abundance of epiphytic lichens [132]. As the pH of the bark for both P. abies and Larix sp. was shown to be similar [133,134], this has likely led to the overlap of lichen communities associated with dead or living P. abies and Larix sp. (Figure 4). Consequently, the detected lichen species appear to be generalists, i.e., adapted to different tree species, as they only showed a preference for a particular tree species to a small extent. On the other hand, the larger bark area colonized by lichens on dead and living Larix sp. than on corresponding P. abies (Table 6) shows that the growth of lichens is faster on the former tree species.
In summary, the results revealed that P. abies and Larix sp. share a large number of stem-associated insect and lichen species. As climate change can be expected to have a strong negative effect on P. abies in the area, its gradual replacement by Larix sp. is likely to provide appropriate habitats for investigated insects and lichens, thereby supporting forest biodiversity. However, the possibility should not be excluded that some wood-boring insect species will not be able to jump between host tree species and may be lost if the mortality of P. abies drastically increases in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d14090729/s1. Table S1: Relative abundance (%) of insect species detected using sticky traps on dead and living trees of Picea abies and Larix sp. S1–S10 and L1–L10 denote different study sites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M. (Audrius Menkis); methodology, A.G. and J.L.; software, A.M. (Audrius Menkis) and A.M. (Adas Marčiulynas); validation, A.M. (Audrius Menkis) and J.L.; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation, A.G., J.L., A.M. (Adas Marčiulynas), and D.M.; resources, A.G.; data curation, A.G. and J.L; writing—original draft preparation, J.L. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); writing—review and editing, J.L. and A.M. (Audrius Menkis); visualization, A.M. (Adas Marčiulynas); supervision, A.M. (Audrius Menkis); project administration, D.M.; funding acquisition, A.M. (Audrius Menkis). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Social Fund (project no. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0039) under a grant agreement with the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be supplied by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Vytautas Tamutis for his help with the identification of insect species.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Buras, A.; Menzel, A. Projecting Tree Species Composition Changes of European Forests for 2061–2090 Under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 Scenarios. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rigling, A.; Bigler, C.; Eilmann, B.; Feldmeyer-Christe, E.; Gimmi, U.; Ginzler, C.; Graf, U.; Mayer, P.; Vacchiano, G.; Weber, P.; et al. Driving factors of a vegetation shift from Scots pine to pubescent oak in dry Alpine forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fekete, I.; Lajtha, K.; Kotroczó, Z.; Várbíró, G.; Varga, C.; Tóth, J.A.; Demeter, I.; Veperdi, G.; Berki, I. Long-term effects of climate change on carbon storage and tree species composition in a dry deciduous forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 3154–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Scherrer, D.; Massy, S.; Meier, S.; Vittoz, P.; Guisan, A. Assessing and predicting shifts in mountain forest composition across 25 years of climate change. Divers Distrib. 2017, 23, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bigler, C.; Bräker, O.U.; Bugmann, H.; Dobbertin, M.; Rigling, A. Drought as an inciting mortality factor in Scots pine stands of the Valais, Switzerland. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kohler, M.; Sohn, J.; Nägele, G.; Bauhus, J. Can drought tolerance of Norway spruce (Picea abies) be increased through thinning? Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 1109–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lévesque, M.; Saurer, M.; Siegwolf, R.; Eilmann, B.; Brang, P.; Bugmann, H.; Rigling, A. Drought response of five conifer species under contrasting water availability suggests high vulnerability of Norway spruce and European larch. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 3184–3199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zang, C.; Hartl-Meier, C.; Dittmar, C.; Rothe, A.; Menzel, A. Patterns of drought tolerance in major European temperate forest trees: Climatic drivers and levels of variability. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 3767–3779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Huang, W.; Fonti, P.; Larsen, J.B.; Ræbild, A.; Callesen, I.; Pedersen, N.B.; Hansen, J.K. Projecting tree-growth responses into future climate: A study case from a Danish-wide common garden. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 247, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Martínez-Sancho, E.; Dorado-Liñán, I.; Hacke, U.G.; Seidel, H.; Menzel, A. Contrasting hydraulic architectures of Scots pine and sessile oak at their southernmost distribution limits. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Rehschuh, R.; Mette, T.; Menzel, A.; Buras, A. Soil properties affect the drought susceptibility of Norway spruce. Dendrochronologia 2017, 45, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Buras, A.; Schunk, C.; Zeiträg, C.; Herrmann, C.; Kaiser, L.; Lemme, H.; Straub, C.; Taeger, S.; Gößwein, S.; Klemmt, H.J. Are Scots pine forest edges particularly prone to drought-induced mortality? Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 25001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Honkaniemi, J.; Rammer, W.; Seidl, R. Norway spruce at the trailing edge: The effect of landscape configuration and composition on climate resilience. Landscape Ecol. 2020, 35, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Johann, E.; Agnoletti, M.; Axelsson, A.L.; Bürgi, M.; Östlund, L.; Rochel, X.; Schmidt, U.E.; Schuler, A.; Skovsgaard, J.P.; Winiwater, V. History of secondary Norway Spruce forests in Europe. In Norway Spruce Conversion Options and Consequences; Hansen, J., Klimo, E., Spiecker, H., Eds.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 25–62. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jandl, R. Climate-induced challenges of Norway spruce in Northern Austria. Trees For. People 2020, 1, 100008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schlyter, P.; Stjernquist, I.; Bärring, L.; Jönsson, A.M.; Nilsson, C. Assessment of the impacts of climate change and weather extremes on boreal forests in northern Europe, focusing on Norway spruce. Clim. Res. 2006, 31, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hanewinkel, M.; Cullmann, D.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Nabuurs, G.J.; Zimmermann, N.E. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pretzsch, H.; Schütze, G.; Uhl, E. Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed versus pure forests: Evidence of stress release by inter-specific facilitation. Plant Biol. 2013, 15, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zeng, H.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J.; Peltola, H.; Kellomaki, S. The effects of forest structure on the risk of wind damage at a landscape level in a boreal forest ecosystem. Ann. For. Sci. 2010, 67, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Seidl, R.; Rammer, W.; Blennow, K. Simulating wind disturbance impacts on forest landscapes: Tree-level heterogeneity matters. Environ. Model Softw. 2014, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peltola, H.; Kellomäki, S.; Väisänen, H.; Ikonen, V.P. A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to singletrees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch. Can. J. For. Res. 1999, 29, 647–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Seidl, R.; Spies, T.A.; Peterson, D.L.; Stephens, S.L.; Hicke, J.A. Searching for resilience: Addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Stadelmann, G.; Bugmann, H.; Wermelinger, B.; Bigler, C. Spatial interactions between storm damage and subsequent infestations by the European spruce bark beetle. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 318, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lausch, A.; Heurich, M.; Fahse, L. Spatio-temporal infestation patterns of Ips typographus (L.) in the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 31, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jacob, D.; Petersen, J.; Eggert, B.; Alias, A.; Christensen, O.B.; Bouwer, L.M.; Braun, A.; Colette, A.; De·que, M.; Georgievski, G.; et al. EURO-CORDEX: New high-resolution climate change projections for European impact research. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 563–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hlásny, T.; Barka, I.; Roessiger, J.; Kulla, L.; Trombik, J.; Sarvašová, Z.; Bucha, T.; Kovalčík, M.; Čihák, T. Conversion of Norway spruce forests in the face of climate change: A case study in Central Europe. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2017, 136, 1013–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Seidl, R.; Vigl, F.; Rössler, G.; Neumann, M.; Rammer, W. Assessing the resilience of Norway spruce forests through a model-based reanalysis of thinning trials. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 388, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walentowski, H.; Falk, W.; Mette, T.; Kunz, J.; Bräuning, A.; Meinardus, C.; Zang, C.; Sutcliffe, L.; Luschner, C. Assessing future suitability of tree species under climate change by multiple methods: A case study in southern Germany. Ann. For. Res. 2017, 60, 101–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Goßner, M.; Ammer, U. The effects of Douglas-fir on tree-specific arthropod communities in mixed species stands with European beech and Norway spruce. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2006, 125, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gossner, M.M. Introduced tree species in central Europe—Consequences for arthropod communities and species interactions. In Introduced Tree Species in European Forests: Opportunities and Challenges; Krumm, F., Vitková, L., Eds.; European Forest Institute: Freiburg, Germany, 2016; pp. 264–282. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lepage, B.; Basinger, J. The evolutionary history of the genus Larix (Pinaceae). In General Technical Report—Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Proceedings of the Ecology and Management of Larix Forests: A Look Ahead, Whitefish, MT, USA, 5–9 October 1992; Schmidt, W.C., McDonald, K.J., Eds.; No.INT-GTR-319; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; Volume 5, pp. 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  32. Danusevičius, J. Maumedžių veisimo patirtis ir perspektyvos Lietuvoje. Mūsų Girios 2006, 8, 8–10. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  33. Lithuanian Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2017. Available online: http://www.amvmt.lt/images/veikla/stat/miskustatistika/2017/01%20Misku%20ukio%20statistika%202017_m.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2022).
  34. Da Ronch, F.; Caudullo, G.; Tinner, W.; de Rigo, D. Larix decidua and other larches in Europe: Distribution, habitat, usage and threats. In European Atlas of Forest Tree Species; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., Houston Durrant, T., Mauri, A., Eds.; Publications Office of the EU: Luxembourg, 2016; pp. 108–110. Available online: https://boris.unibe.ch/80793/1/Larix_decidua.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2022).
  35. Liu, Q.J. Structure and dynamics of the subalpine coniferous forest on Changbai mountain, China. Plant Ecol. 1997, 132, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zielonka, T.; Holeska, J.; Malcher, P. Disturbance events in a mixed spruce-larch forest in the Tatra Mts., Western Carpathians—A Tentative reconstruction. Baltic Forestry 2009, 15, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gradeckas, A.; Malinauskas, A. Miško Želdynu Veisimo Biologiniai Ir Ekologiniai Veiksniai Bei Patirtis Lietuvoje; Lututė: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2005; p. 404. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  38. Žiogas, A.; Juronis, V.; Snieškienė, V. Pathological condition of Larix in Lithuania. In Insects and Fungi in Storm Areas; Proceedings of the IUFRO Working Party 7.03.10; Forest Research Institute: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2009; pp. 115–117. [Google Scholar]
  39. Salman, I.N.A.; Ferrante, M.; Möller, D.M.; Gavish-Regev, E.; Lubin, Y. Trunk Refugia: A Simple, Inexpensive Method for Sampling Tree Trunk Arthropods. J. Insect Sci. 2020, 20, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Price, P.W.; Denno, R.F.; Eubanks, M.D.; Finke, D.L.; Kaplan, I. Insect Ecology: Behaviour, Populations and Communities; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Liebhold, A.M. Ecology of forest insect invasions. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3141–3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hauck, M. Site factors controlling epiphytic lichen abundance in northern coniferous forests. Flora 2011, 206, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cislaghi, C.; Nimis, P.L. Lichens, air pollution and lung cancer. Nature 1997, 387, 463–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Giordani, P. Is the diversity of epiphytic lichens a reliable indicator of air pollution? A case study from Italy. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 146, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jovan, S.; McCune, B. Regional variation in epiphytic macrolichen communities in northern and central California forests. Bryologist 2004, 107, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Geiser, L.H.; Neitlich, P.N. Air pollution and climate gradients in western Oregon and Washington indicated by epiphytic macrolichens. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 145, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Giordani, P.; Incerti, G. The influence of climate on the distribution of lichens: A case study in a borderline area (Liguria, NW Italy). Plant Ecol. 2008, 195, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hedenås, H.; Ericson, L. Epiphytic macrolichens as conservation indicators: Successional sequence in Populus tremula stands. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 93, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Johansson, P. Consequences of disturbance on epiphytic lichens in boreal and near boreal forests. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1933–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Giordani, P.; Brunialti, G.; Bacaro, G.; Nascimbene, J. Functional traits of epiphytic lichens as potential indicators of environmental conditions in forest ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roper, T. Lichen Abundance and Diversity in Relation to Host Tree Species and Lakeshore Proximity. Conspec. Boreal. 2018, 3, 8. [Google Scholar]
  52. Navasaitis, M. Dendrologija, 2nd ed.; Margi Raštai: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2008; pp. 169–183. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  53. Scheepers, D.; Eloy, M.C.; Briquet, M. Identification of larch species (Larix decidua, Larix kaempferi and Larix X eurolepis) and estimation of hybrid fraction in seed lots by RAPD fingerprints. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 100, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vaičys, M. Miško dirvožemiu klasifikacija. In Lietuvos Dirvožemiai; Mokslas: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2001; pp. 1040–1043. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  55. Karazija, S. Miško Tipologija. In Miško Ekologija; Padaiga, V., Stravinskienė, V., Eds.; Enciklopedija: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2008; pp. 220–254. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  56. Nageleisen, L.M.; Bouget, C. Forest insect studies: Methods and techniques, key considerations for standardization. In An Overview of the Reflections of the Entomological Forest Inventories Working Group (Inv. Ent. For.); ONF: Paris, France, 2009; p. 144. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tamutis, V.; Aleseev, V. A survey of Lepturinae Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the south- eastern Baltic region (Lithuania and the Kaliningrad Region). Biologia 2020, 66, 169–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tamutis, V.; Tamutė, B.; Ferenca, R. A catalogue of Lithuanian beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera). ZooKeys 2011, 121, 1–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Barrios, H.; Borovec, R.; Bouchard, P.; Caldara, R.; Colonnelli, E.; Gültekin, L.; Hlaváč, P.; Korotyaev, B.; Lyal, C.H.; et al. Cooperative Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Curculionoidea. Monogr. Electrónicas SEA 2017, 8, 5–547. Available online: https://www.biotaxa.org (accessed on 21 February 2022).
  60. Ivinskis, P. Lietuvos drugiai; Annotated Catalogue; Petro ofsetas: Vilsnius, Lithuania, 2004; p. 379. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  61. Zubrik, M.; Kunca, A.; Novotny, J. Atlas Poškodni Lesnych Drevin Hmyz a Huby; Národné lesnícke centrum–Lesnícky výskumný ústav: Zvolen Slovakia, 2008; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pileckis, S. Lietuvos vabalai; Mokslo Ir Enciklopedijų Leidykla: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1996; p. 303. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  63. Asta, J.; Erhardt, W.; Ferretti, M.; Fornasier, F.; Kirschbaum, U.; Nimis, P.I.; Purvis, O.W.; Pirintsos, S.; Scheidegger, C.; van Haluwyn, C.; et al. Mapping lichen diversity as an indicator of environmental quality. In Monitoring with Lichens—Monitoring Lichens; Nimis, P.L., Scheidegger, C., Wolseley, P.A., Eds.; Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 273–279. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 3rd ed.; W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  65. Magurran, A.E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1988; p. 192. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. ter Braak, C.J.F.; Smilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination, Version 4; Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1998; p. 351. [Google Scholar]
  68. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Ecroyd, C.E.; Langer, E.R. Biodiversity in New Zealand plantation forests: Policy trends, incentives, and the state of our knowledge. N. Z. J. For. 2001, 46, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rymer, L. Pine plantations in Australia as habitat for native animals. Environ. Conserv. 1981, 8, 95–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Michelsen, A.; Lisanework, N.; Friis, I.; Holst, N. Comparisons of understory vegetation and soil fertility in plantations and adjacent natural forests in the Ethiopian highlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 1996, 33, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sinclair, J.E.; New, T.R. Pine plantations in southern eastern Australia support highly impoverished ant assemblages. J. Insect Conserv. 2004, 8, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Corley, J.; Sackmann, P.; Rusch, V.; Bettinelli, J.; Paritsis, J. Effects of pine silviculture on the ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Patagonian steppe. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 222, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Clout, M.N.; Gaze, P.D. Effects of plantations forestry on birds in New Zealand. J. Appl. Ecol. 1984, 21, 795–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Carlson, A. A comparison of birds inhabiting pine plantation and indigenous forest patches in a tropical mountain area. Biol. Conserv. 1986, 35, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Paritsis, J.; Aizen, M.A. Effects of exotic conifer plantations on the biodiversity of understory plants, epigeal beetles and birds in Nothofagus dombeyi forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 1575–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Djupström, L.B.; Weslien, J.; Schroeder, L.M. Dead wood and saproxylic beetles in set-aside and non-set-aside forests in a boreal region. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 3340–3350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J.; Ehnström, B. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodivers Conserv. 1998, 7, 749–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Siitonen, J. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol. Bull. 2001, 49, 11–41. [Google Scholar]
  79. Jonsell, M.; Nittérus, K.; Stighäll, K. Saproxylic beetles in natural and man-made deciduous high stumps retained for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 118, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lassauce, A.; Lieutier, F.; Bouget, C. Wood-fuel 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]
  81. Erwin, T.L. Tropical forests: Their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Coleopt. Bull. 1982, 36, 74–75. [Google Scholar]
  82. Basset, Y.; Cizek, L.; Cuénoud, P.; Didham, R.K.; Guilhaumon, F.; Missa, O.; Novotny, V.; Ødegaard, F.; Roslin, T.; Schmidl, J.; et al. Arthropod diversity in a tropical forest. Science 2012, 338, 1481–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Bar-Ness, Y.D.; McQuillan, P.B.; Whitman, M.; Junker, R.R.; Cracknell, M.; Barrows, A. Sampling Forest canopy arthropod biodiversity with three novel minimal-cost trap designs. Aust. J. Entomol. 2012, 51, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hyvärinen, E.; Kouki, J.; Martikainen, P. A comparison of three trapping methods used to survey forest dwelling Coleoptera. Eur. J. Entomol. 2006, 103, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hilszczañski, J.; Plewa, R.; Jaworski, T.; Sierpiñski, A. Microrhagus pyrenaeus Bonvouloir, 1872—A false click beetle new for the fauna of Poland with faunistic and ecological data on Eucnemidae (Coleoptera, Elateroidea). Spixiana 2015, 38, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  86. Fanti, F.; Michalski, A.R. An unusual fossil Malthodes with long elytra (Insecta Coleoptera Cantharidae). G. Ital. Di Entomol. 2018, 15, 127–132. [Google Scholar]
  87. Seedre, M. Saproxylic Beetles in Artificially Created High Stumps of Spruce and Birch Three Years after Cutting. Master’s Thesis, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Alnarp, Sweden, 2005. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/6066983/ (accessed on 18 February 2022).
  88. Wermelinger, B.; Duelli, P.; Obrist, M.K. Dynamics of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in windthrow areas in alpine spruce forests. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 2002, 77, 133–148. [Google Scholar]
  89. Marini, L.; Lindelöw, Å.; Jönsson, A.M.; Wulff, S.; Schroeder, L.M. Population dynamics of the spruce bark beetle: A long-term study. Oikos 2013, 122, 1768–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Baier, P. Untersuchungen zur abundanzdynamischen Relevanz der Beifange von Nemusuma eluzzgatum (L.) (Col., Ostomidae) in C H A L C O P R A X ~ bekoderten Flugbarrierefallen fur Pityogenes chalcographus (L.) (Col., Scolytidae). J. Appl. Ent. 1994, 117, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Belova, O.; Milišauskas, Z.; Padaiga, V.; Valenta, V.; Vasiliauskas, A.; Zolubas, P.; Žiogas, A. Miško Apsaugos Vadovas, 1st ed.; Lututė: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2000; p. 351. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  92. Zahradník, P.; Zahradníková, M. The relationships between Pityogenes chalcographus and Nemozoma elongatum in clear-cuts with different types of management. Plant Protect. Sci. 2020, 56, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Skrzecz, I.; Bulka, M. Insect assemblages in Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] stumps in the Eastern Sudetes. Folia For. Pol. 2010, 52, 98–107. [Google Scholar]
  94. Akkuzu, E.; Sariyildiz, T.; Kucuk, M.; Duman, A. Ips typographus (L.) and Thanasimus formicarius (L.) populations influenced by aspect and slope position in Artvin-Hatila valley national park, Turkey. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 877–882. [Google Scholar]
  95. Warzee, N.; Gregoire, J.C. Thanasimus formicarius (Coleoptera: Cleridae): Why a Large Range of Prey for a Specialized Predator? In Proceedings of the Forest Insect Population Dynamics and Host Influences, International Symposium of IUFRO, Kanazawa, Japan, 14–19 September 2003; pp. 16–18. [Google Scholar]
  96. Kenis, M.; Wermelinger, B.; Gregoire, J.C. Research on parasitoids and predators of Scolytidae—A review. In Bark and Wood Insects in Living Trees in Europe, a Synthesis; Lieutuer, F., Day, K.R., Battisti, A., Gregoire., J.C., Evans, H.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 237–290. [Google Scholar]
  97. Ranius, T.; Jansson, N. The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy co ver and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 95, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dervišević, M.; Graora, D. The life cycle and efficacy of Anthribus nebulosus Forster. in reducing soft scale populations in Belgrade. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2019, 28, 1981–1985. [Google Scholar]
  99. Lynikienė, J.; Tamutis, V.; Gedminas, A.; Marčiulynas, A.; Menkis, A. First Report of the Larch Longhorn (Tetropium gabrieli Weise, Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Spondylidinae) on Larix sp. in Lithuania. Insects 2021, 12, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Speight, M.C.D. Saproxylic Invertebrates and Their Conservation; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 1989; p. 78. [Google Scholar]
  101. Muona, J. A revision of the Nearctic Eucnemidae. Acta Zool. Fenn. 2000, 212, 1–106. [Google Scholar]
  102. Stokland, J.N.; Siitonen, J.; Jansson, B.G. Biodiversity in Dead Wood, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; p. 521. [Google Scholar]
  103. Seibold, S.; Bassler, C.; Baldrian, P.; Reinhard, L.; Thorn, S.; Ulyshen, M.; Weiss, I.; Muller, J. Dead-wood addition promotes non-saproxylic epigeal arthropods, but effects are mediated by canopy openness. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 204, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ulyshen, M.D.; Šobotník, J. An Introduction to the Diversity, Ecology, and Conservation of Saproxylic Insects. In Saproxylic Insects; Ulyshen, M., Ed.; Zoological Monographs; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Albrecht, L. Die Bedeutung des toten Holzes im Wald. Forstwiss. Cent. Bl. 1991, 110, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Glück, E.; Spelda, J. Sukzession der Destruentencoenosen von Sturmwurfflächen. Veröffentlichungen Proj. Angew. Okol. 1996, 16, 367–377. [Google Scholar]
  107. Irmler, U.; Heller, K.; Warning, J. Age and tree species as factors influencing the populations of insects living in dead wood (Coleoptera, Diptera: Sciaridae, Mycetophilidae). Pedobiologia 1996, 40, 134–148. [Google Scholar]
  108. Økland, B.; Bakke, A.; Hågvar, S.; Kvamme, T. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multi-scaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodivers Conserv. 1996, 5, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Köhler, F. Totholzkäfer in Naturwaldzellen des nördlichen Rheinlands. LÖBF-Schr.reihe Landesanst. Ökol. Bodenordn. Forsten Nord. Westfal. 2000, 18, 352. Available online: https://katalog.slub-dresd (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  110. Schiegg, K. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 2000, 7, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Balfour, H.H.; Edelman, J.C.K.; Cook, F.E.; Barton, W.I.; Buzicky, A.W.; Siem, R.A.; Bauer, H. Isolates of California encephalitis (La Crosse) virus from field-collected eggs and larvae of Aedes triseriatus: Identification of the overwintering site of California encephalitis. J. Infect. Dis. 1975, 131, 712–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Pekár, S. Some observations on overwintering of spiders (Araneae) in two contrasting orchards in the Czech Republic. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 73, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J. Felled or standing retained wood—It makes a difference for saproxylic beetles. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 175, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Grove, S.L. Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2002, 33, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Langor, D.; Hammond, H.; Spence, J.; Jacobs, J.; Cobb, T. Saproxylic insect assemblages in Canadian forests: Diversity, ecology, and conservation. Can. Entomol. 2008, 140, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lindgren, B.S. Trypodendron lineatum (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) breeding in bigleaf maple. Acer. Macrophyllum. J. Entomol. Soc. B. C. 1986, 83, 44. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201302689267 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  117. Hanson, H.S. Ecological Notes on the Sirex Wood Wasps and their Parasites. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1939, 30, 27–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Schnaider, Z. Atlas Uszkodzen Drzew i Krzewow Powodowanych Przez Owady i Pajęczaki; Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa, Poland, 1976; p. 74. [Google Scholar]
  119. Unger, A.; Schniewind, A.P.; Unger, W. Conservation of Wood Artifacts: A Handbook; Herrmann, B., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 80–81. [Google Scholar]
  120. Simila, M.; Kouki, J.; Martikainen, P. Saproxylic beetles in managed and seminatural Scots pine forests: Quality of dead wood matters. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 174, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Weslien, J.; Schroeder, L.M. Population levels of bark beetles and associate insects in managed and unmanaged spruce stand. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 115, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Jankowiak, R.; Rossa, R.; Miśta, K. Survey of fungal species vectored by Ips cembrae to European larch trees in Raciborskie forests (Poland). Czech Mycol. 2007, 59, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wagner, M.R.; Clancy, K.M.; Lieutier, F.D.P.T. Mechanisms and Deployment of Resistance in Trees to Insects; Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; p. 339. [Google Scholar]
  124. Müller, J.; Wende, B.; Strobl, C.; Eugster, M.; Gallenberger, I.; Floren, A.; Gossner, M.M. Forest management and regional tree composition drive the host preference of saproxylic beetle communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Marmor, L.; Tõrra, T.; Saag, L.; Randlane, T. Species Richness of Epiphytic Lichens in Coniferous Forests: The Effect of Canopy Openness. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 2012, 49, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Green, G.A.; Nash, T.H.; Lange, O.L. Physiological ecology of carbon dioxide exchange. In Lichen Biology; Nash, T.H., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008; pp. 152–181. [Google Scholar]
  127. Nascimbene, J.; Marini, L.; Motta, R.; Nimis, P.L. Influence of tree age, tree size and crown structure on lichen communities in mature Alpine spruce forests. Biodivers Conserv. 2009, 18, 1509–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nascimbene, J.; Marini, L.; Nimis, P.L. Epiphytic lichen diversity in old-growth and managed Picea abies stands in Alpine spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Jüriado, I.; Liira, J.; Paal, J.; Suija, A. Tree and stand level variables influencing diversity of lichens on temperate broad-leaved trees in boreo-nemoral floodplain forests. Biodivers Conserv. 2009, 18, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Király, I.; Nascimbene, J.; Tinya, F.; Ódor, P. Factors influencing epiphytic bryophyte and lichen species richness at different spatial scales in managed temperate forests. Biodivers Conserv. 2013, 22, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Fritz, Ö.; Heilmann-Clausen, J. Rot holes create key microhabitats for epiphytic lichens and bryophytes on beech (Fagus sylvatica). Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 1008–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Hauck, M.; Javkhlan, S. Epiphytic lichen diversity and its dependence on bark chemistry in the northern Mongolian dark taiga. Flora Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2009, 204, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hauck, M.; Spribille, T. The significance of precipitation and substrate chemistry for epiphytic lichen diversity in spruce-fir forests of the Salish Mountains, northwestern Montana. Flora Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2005, 6, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Schmull, M.; Hauck, M.; Vann, D.R.; Johnson, A.H.; Runge, M. Site factors determining epiphytic lichen distribution in a dieback-affected spruce-fir forest on Whiteface Mountain, New York: Stemflow chemistry. Can. J. Bot. 2002, 80, 1131–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 14 00729 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of Lithuania showing the distribution of study sites. Gray color in the circle indicates Larix sp. stands (L1–L10), and white color represents P. abies stands (S1–S10).
Figure 1. Map of Lithuania showing the distribution of study sites. Gray color in the circle indicates Larix sp. stands (L1–L10), and white color represents P. abies stands (S1–S10).
Diversity 14 00729 g001
Diversity 14 00729 g002 550
Figure 2. Venn diagram showing the species richness and overlap of insect species collected using sticky traps. The data from different study sites are combined. Different colors show: blue—living Picea abies; pink—dead P. abies; green—living Larix sp.; and yellow—dead Larix sp.
Figure 2. Venn diagram showing the species richness and overlap of insect species collected using sticky traps. The data from different study sites are combined. Different colors show: blue—living Picea abies; pink—dead P. abies; green—living Larix sp.; and yellow—dead Larix sp.
Diversity 14 00729 g002
Diversity 14 00729 g003 550
Figure 3. Ordination diagram based on nonmetric multidimensional scaling of insect communities detected in association with Picea abies and Larix sp. trees. Insects were assessed using: (a) sticky traps attached to the surface of dead and living trees (47.1% variation explained on axis 1 and 31.9% explained on axis2, (b) bark sheets removed from dead trees (52.7% on axis 1 and 31.8% on axis 2), and (c) insect exit holes recorded on dead trees (47.2% on axis 1 and 28.5% on axis 2).
Figure 3. Ordination diagram based on nonmetric multidimensional scaling of insect communities detected in association with Picea abies and Larix sp. trees. Insects were assessed using: (a) sticky traps attached to the surface of dead and living trees (47.1% variation explained on axis 1 and 31.9% explained on axis2, (b) bark sheets removed from dead trees (52.7% on axis 1 and 31.8% on axis 2), and (c) insect exit holes recorded on dead trees (47.2% on axis 1 and 28.5% on axis 2).
Diversity 14 00729 g003
Diversity 14 00729 g004 550
Figure 4. Ordination diagram based on nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of lichen communities on dead and living trees of Picea abies and Larix sp. In NMDS, 44.2% variation was explained on axis 1, and 34.5% was explained on axis 2.
Figure 4. Ordination diagram based on nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of lichen communities on dead and living trees of Picea abies and Larix sp. In NMDS, 44.2% variation was explained on axis 1, and 34.5% was explained on axis 2.
Diversity 14 00729 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of investigated Picea abies and Larix sp. stands. Information is based on forest inventory data obtained from the State Forest Cadastre as of 1 December 2020.
Table 1. Characteristics of investigated Picea abies and Larix sp. stands. Information is based on forest inventory data obtained from the State Forest Cadastre as of 1 December 2020.
Site *Geographical PositionAge
(y)		Mean Height (m)Mean Diameter (cm)Stocking LevelForest Site Type **Forest Vegetation Type ***Tree Species
Composition (%) ****
S154°33′18.88″ N, 23°53′14.53″ E4721.723.51.3Ncsox100S
L154°33′19.82″ N, 23°53′17.18″ E4728.134.30.9Ncsox100L
S254°51′36.84″ N, 24°4′25.17″ E5725.229.00.9Ncpox40S 20L 20Q 10T 10B
L254°51′37.18″ N, 24°4′29.02″ E3728.533.70.8Ncpox90L10T
S355°17′10.6″ N, 23°26′11.7″ E5523.626.00.9Ldshox100S
L355°17′10.56″ N, 23°26′23.63″ E5029.143.50.7Ldpaeg100L
S455°3′19.44″ N, 23°31′8.07″ E6724.626.20.8Ncpox80S 10P 10S
L455°3′18.74″ N, 23°31′4.2 ″ E7235.942.80.8Nclox90L 10P
S555°55′53.91″ N, 25°36′33.16″ E3519.024.00.6Ldpoxn80S 20Q
L555°57′51.93″ N, 25°37′7.89″ E8028.034.00.6Ldpaeg70L 20Pt 10B
S655°30′46.23″ N, 25°5′33.21″ E5019.018.00.9Nclox50S 30P 20T
L655°30′46.9″ N, 25°5′35.92″ E5525.024.00.9Lclox50P 30L 20S
S755°15′4.99″N, 24°48′58.27″ E3817.519.40.6Nclox90S 10P
L755°15′53.53″ N, 24°48′50.76″ E3824.729.40.9Nclox100 L
S854°48′57.86″ N, 23°25′24.43″ E6625.527.91.0Nblm80S 20P
L854°49′24.5″ N, 23°25′29.83″ E6632.732.20.8Nclox80L 20P
S954°0′24.82″ N, 23°44′31.7″ E8425.428.00.7Nblv60S 10P 10S 20S
L954°0′20.68″ N, 23°38′7.07″ E5932.238.60.6Nclox100L
S1055°23′12.67″ N, 24°7′10.42″ E5824.420.51.2Ndshox90S 10B
L1055°23′14.38″ N, 24°7′13.74″ E5826.429.20.7Ndshox90L 10B
* S1–S10: Picea abies stands; L1–L10: Larix sp. stands as in Figure 1. ** N: Normal humidity; L: temporarily waterlogged mineral soils; b: low fertility; c: moderate fertility; d: high fertility; l: light soil texture; p: two-layered soil structure with a light fraction on a heavy fraction or vice versa; s: heavy soil texture [54]. *** v: vacciniosa; m: myrtilliosa; ox: oxalidosa; hox: hepatico-oxalidosa; oxn: oxalido-nemorosa; aeg: aegopodiosa [55]. **** S: Picea abies; L: Larix sp.; P: Pinus sylvestris; Q: Quercus robur; B: Betula pendula; T: Tilia cordata; Pt: Populus tremula. In each stand, tree species composition is based on the volume.
Table
Table 2. Diversity of insects detected in sticky traps at different Picea abies and Larix sp. study sites.
Table 2. Diversity of insects detected in sticky traps at different Picea abies and Larix sp. study sites.
SiteTree StateTree SpeciesRelative Abundance, % (No. of Insects)Richness, % (No. of Insect Species)Shannon HSørensen
Cs *
S1/L1LivePicea0.4 (74)22.1 (21)2.340.44
Larix0.3 (69)15.8 (15)2.16
DeadPicea0.3 (63)24.2 (23)2.53-
Larix---
Total1.0 (206)40.0 (38)2.350.48
S2/L2LivePicea0.5 (109)25.3 (24)2.460.36
Larix0.2 (32)15.8 (15)2.33
DeadPicea29.1 (5885)25.3 (24)0.070.42
Larix0.1 (16)9.5 (9)1.85
Total29.9 (6042)43.2 (41)0.220.50
S3/L3LivePicea0.4 (82)18.9 (18)2.140.39
Larix1.1 (221)18.9 (18)1.86
DeadPicea0.71 (144)27.4 (26)2.320.40
Larix1.6 (325)25.3 (24)1.63
Total3.8 (772)48.4 (46)2.240.54
S4/L4LivePicea0.5 (102)29.5 (28)2.810.46
Larix0.4 (91)21.1 (20)2.16
DeadPicea4.5 (918)34.7 (33)0.860.57
Larix0.3 (64)24.2 (23)2.52
Total5.8 (1175)56.8 (54)1.680.60
S5/L5LivePicea0.6 (127)18.9 (18)2.060.46
Larix0.5 (99)22.1 (21)2.58
DeadPicea1.4 (286)28.4 (27)2.21-
Larix---
Total2.5 (512)44.2 (42)2.660.41
S6/L6LivePicea0.6 (120)23.2 (22)1.760.41
Larix0.4 (78)17.9 (17)1.94
DeadPicea0.9 (194)29.5 (28)2.480.46
Larix0.7 (146)25.3 (24)2.01
Total2.7 (538)53.7 (51)2.490.56
S7/L7LivePicea31.5 (6369)30.5 (29)0.250.49
Larix0.6 (122)25.3 (24)2.22
DeadPicea1.2 (241)30.5 (29)2.320.46
Larix0.8 (165)29.5 (28)2.24
Total34.1 (6897)62.1 (59)0.640.54
S8/L8LivePicea0.5 (110)28.4 (27)2.570.59
Larix0.3 (54)17.9 (17)2.25
DeadPicea8.4 (1705)36.8 (35)1.050.56
Larix0.4 (82)20.0 (19)2.49
Total9.6 (1951)51.6 (49)1.530.60
S9/L9LivePicea1.0 (207)25.3 (24)2.100.58
Larix0.5 (95)25.3 (24)2.38
DeadPicea6.0 (1222)35.8 (34)0.990.39
Larix0.6 (117)23.2 (22)2.39
Total8.1 (1641)55.8 (53)1.740.52
S10/L10LivePicea0.6 (120)28.4 (27)2.710.55
Larix0.3 (70)17.9 (17)2.00
DeadPicea1.0 (200)33.7 (32)2.680.57
Larix0.5 (102)25.3 (24)2.68
Total2.4 (492)53.7 (51)2.840.57
All sitesLive Picea36.7 (7420)70.5 (67)
Live Larix4.6 (931)71.6 (68)
Dead Picea53.7 (10,858)80 (76)
Dead Larix5.0 (1017)67.4 (64)
All total100 (20,226)100 (95)
* Sørensen similarity index in rows Total shows the comparison between all Picea abies and all Larix sp. trees within adjacent study sites, e.g., S2 and L2.
Table
Table 3. Relative abundance (%) of the 20 most common insect species trapped using sticky traps. All study sites are combined.
Table 3. Relative abundance (%) of the 20 most common insect species trapped using sticky traps. All study sites are combined.
Order/FamilySpeciesPicea abies TreesLarix sp. Trees
JuneJulyAugustTotalJuneJulyAugustTotal
D *L **DLDLDLDLDLDLDL
Coleoptera/CurculionidaeCrypturgus pusillus Erich.91.680.069.887.059.2-83.882.7--0.3---0.2-
Hymenoptera/IchneomonidaeIchneomonidae sp.1.93.16.95.18.022.83.65.023.226.224.829.130.028.124.627.8
Coleoptera/EucnemidaeEucnemidae sp. 11.23.92.11.31.23.91.42.125.923.231.918.85.45.627.019.0
Coleoptera/EucnemidaeEucnemidae sp. 20.73.22.61.51.86.31.32.14.913.97.514.84.18.26.113.7
Coleoptera/ElateridaeDalopius marginatus L.0.72.9----0.40.819.011.5----7.84.5
Coleoptera/AnobiidaeHadrobregmus pertinax L.0.2-3.80.1--1.20.11.7-5.01.8--3.20.9
Coleoptera/ElateridaeConoderus sp.--2.70.51.72.80.90.40.50.63.43.17.31.22.61.9
Coleoptera/CleridaeTillus elongatus L.0.10.61.20.70.3-0.40.72.91.95.95.5-0.54.13.5
Coleoptera/CleridaeThanasimus formicarius L.0.40.61.70.51.80.70.90.51.51.71.00.5--1.10.9
Coleoptera/AnthribidaeAnthribus nebulosus Forst.0.10.60.50.62.015.30.31.01.10.30.61.87.410.31.42.2
Coleoptera/PtinidaeAnobium rufipes Fabr.0.10.31.50.30.32.50.50.4-2.33.3---1.60.9
Coleoptera/ScolytidaePolygraphus poligraphus L.0.2-0.00.112.11.00.70.10.8-0.2-0.61.10.50.1
Hymenoptera/FormicidaeFormica rufa L.0.10.70.10.31.816.00.20.8-0.8-0.30.64.10.10.9
Coleoptera/ScolytidaeTrypodendron lineatum Ol.0.80.40.2-0.30.70.60.11.60.3-0.23.24.51.00.7
Coleoptera/CantharidaeMalthodes sp.-0.30.20.30.60.80.10.30.31.41.23.11.8-0.92.1
Coleoptera/Scolytidae Pityogenes chalcographus L.0.10.11.40.1--0.50.1-0.3-----0.1
Coleoptera/NitidulidaeGlischrochilus hortensis Geoffr.0.20.20.3--0.30.20.11.30.90.80.3--0.90.5
Coleoptera/TrogossitidaeNemozoma elongatum L.2.20.10.6-0.3-0.30.1--------
Coleoptera/DermestidaeMegatoma undata L.0.10.10.50.1--0.20.10.51.20.2---0.30.5
Hymenoptera/MyrmicidaeMyrmica sp.--0.20.10.55.50.10.2---0.91.33.90.10.9
Total of 20 species98.797.296.498.991.978.697.797.985.186.586.380.061.867.583.581.1
* D: dead trees; ** L: living trees.
Table
Table 4. Diversity of xylophagous insects detected using bark sheet and exit hole methods on dead Picea abies and Larix sp.
Table 4. Diversity of xylophagous insects detected using bark sheet and exit hole methods on dead Picea abies and Larix sp.
SiteTree SpeciesBark SheetsExit Holes
Richness, % (No. of Insect Species)Bark Area Colonized, %Shannon HSørensen CsRichness, % (No. of Insect Species)Amount, % (No. of Exit Holes)Shannon HSørensen Cs
S1/L1Picea44.4 (4)54.21.03-62.5 (5)3.3 (109)0.79-
Larix------
Total44.4 (4)54.2-62.5 (5)3.3 (109)-
S2/L2Picea22.2 (2)18.30.560.6750.0 (4)0.9 (3)10.841.00
Larix44.4 (4)49.20.2350.0 (4)3.2 (108)0.91
Total44.4 (4)40.00.5850.0 (4)4.2 (139)1.08
S3/L3Picea22.2 (2)35.70.690.6750.0 (4)2.9 (96)0.950.33
Larix11.1 (1)58.00.0025.0 (2)0.3 (10)0.33
Total22.2 (2)45.00.5762.5 (5)3.2 (106)1.18
S4/L4Picea44.4 (4)42.50.970.0075.0 (6)8.2 (273)1.460.44
Larix22.2 (2)75.00.6437.5 (3)1.6 (53)1.08
Total66.7 (6)49.01.4887.5 (7)9.8 (326)1.64
S5/L5Picea44.4 (4)55.01.27-50.0 (4)3.0 (100)0.60-
Larix------
Total44.4 (4)55.0-50.0 (4)3.0 (100)-
S6/L6Picea55.6 (5)13.81.100.5762.5 (5)9.0 (300)1.130.50
Larix22.2 (2)38.00.6037.5 (3)3.2 (108)0.77
Total55.6 (5)23.11.0175.0 (6)12.3 (408)1.34
S7/L7Picea22.2 (2)71.00.590.4062.5 (5)18.3 (609)0.830.60
Larix33.3 (3)69.01.0862.5 (5)1.8 (60)1.33
Total44.4 (4)70.01.2487.5 (7)20.1 (669)1.09
S8/L8Picea22.2 (2)23.50.520.0087.5 (7)10.0 (333)0.810.73
Larix11.1 (1)20.00.0050.0 (4)3.2 (106)0.79
Total33.3 (3)22.00.9887.5 (7)13.2 (439)0.93
S9/L9Picea44.4 (4)53.31.000.3387.5 (7)16.7 (556)1.350.55
Larix22.2 (2)59.00.6350.0 (4)7.3 (242)0.72
Total55.6 (5)55.91.43100 (8)24.0 (798)1.72
S10/L10Picea22.2 (2)31.40.660.8037.5 (3)3.1 (102)0.850.40
Larix33.3 (3)29.20.4325.0 (2)3.3 (111)0.48
Total33.3 (3)30.41.0750.0 (4)3.4 (113)1.21
All sitesPicea88.9 (8)39.01.650.80100 (8)75.4 (2509)1.440.80
Larix77.8 (7)47.31.5587.5 (7)24.6 (819)1.61
All total100 (9)42.21.94100 (8)100 (3328)1.77
Table
Table 5. Relative abundance (%) of xylophagous insects colonizing dead wood of Picea abies and/or Larix sp. detected using bark sheet and exit holes methods.
Table 5. Relative abundance (%) of xylophagous insects colonizing dead wood of Picea abies and/or Larix sp. detected using bark sheet and exit holes methods.
Order/FamilyInsect SpeciesBark SheetsExit Holes
Picea abiesLarix sp.Picea abiesLarix sp.
Coleoptera/CerambycidaeCallidium sp. Fabr.18.035.7--
Coleoptera/CerambycidaeCerambycidae sp. Latr0.227.24.322.0
Coleoptera/CurculionidaeIps typographus L.11.0-7.1-
Coleoptera/CerambycidaeMolorchus sp. Fabr.27.75.6--
Coleoptera/CurculionidaePolygraphus poligraphus L.31.0---
Coleoptera/CurculionidaeRhagium sp. Fabr.7.017.5--
Coleoptera/CurculionidaeScolytinae sp. Latr. 3.82.91.222.6
Hymenoptera/SiricidaeSiricidae sp. Fabr.1.20.3--
Coleoptera/CerambycidaeTetropium sp. Kirby-10.8--
Coleoptera/CurculionidaePityogenes chalcographus L.--44.26.3
Coleoptera/CurculionidaeTrypodendron lineatum Oliv.--16.617.8
Coleoptera/BuprestidaeBuprestidae sp. Leach--0.928.6
Coleoptera/CurculionidaeHylurgops palliatus Gyll. --25.5-
Hymenoptera/SiricidaeSirex juvencus L.--0.22.7
Table
Table 6. Diversity and occurrence of epiphytic lichens on the bark of dead and living Picea abies and Larix sp. trees.
Table 6. Diversity and occurrence of epiphytic lichens on the bark of dead and living Picea abies and Larix sp. trees.
SiteTree StateTree SpeciesRichness, % (No. of Lichen Species)Bark Area Colonized, %Shannon HSørensen Cs *
S1/L1LivePicea66.6 (8)89.51.180.71
Larix50.0 (6)71.21.25
DeadPicea66.6 (8)95.51.06-
Larix---
Total75.0 (9)85.81.310.80
S2/L2LivePicea58.3 (7)51.81.610.62
Larix50.0 (6)28.51.35
DeadPicea58.3 (7)40.41.440.73
Larix33.3 (4)26.81.09
Total75.0 (9)47.71.540.62
S3/L3LivePicea8.3 (1)20.00.000.20
Larix75.0 (9)77.21.52
DeadPicea----
Larix33.3 (4)86.11.11
Total75.0 (9)50.21.440.20
S4/L4LivePicea50.0 (6)37.31.170.62
Larix58.3 (7)81.11.13
DeadPicea16.7 (2)17.80.530.29
Larix41.7 (5)49.50.85
Total83.3 (10)48.71.170.57
S5/L5LivePicea16.7 (2)19.00.650.36
Larix75.0 (9)83.21.13
DeadPicea41.7 (5)40.21.00-
Larix---
Total75.0 (9)49.61.320.71
S6/L6LivePicea25.0 (3)26.01.030.75
Larix41.7 (5)84.90.67
DeadPicea8.3 (1)5.00.000.29
Larix50.0 (6)89.20.82
Total50.0 (6)54.20.960.80
S7/L7LivePicea66.7 (8)58.31.130.80
Larix58.3 (7)71.70.70
DeadPicea8.3 (1)12.00.000.00
Larix16.7 (2)31.00.14
Total75.0 (9)44.41.110.80
S8/L8LivePicea58.3 (7)46.80.960.71
Larix58.3 (7)57.41.42
DeadPicea58.3 (7)55.91.340.75
Larix75.0 (9)49.21.36
Total83.3 (10)52.51.420.75
S9/L9LivePicea8.3 (1)17.00.000.40
Larix33.3 (4)80.91.21
DeadPicea25.0 (3)28.70.580.67
Larix25.0 (3)90.10.86
Total50.0 (6)59.91.100.25
S10/L10LivePicea66.7 (8)24.81.390.80
Larix58.3 (7)4.81.17
DeadPicea41.7 (5)22.51.280.33
Larix8.3 (1)68.00.00
Total75.0 (9)56.31.160.80
All sitesLive Picea83.3 (10)40.41.420.86
Live Larix91.7 (11)78.01.48
Dead Picea66.7 (8)34.31.380.89
Dead Larix83.3 (10)63.21.11
All Total100 (12)54.81.450.86
* Sørensen similarity index in rows “Total” shows the comparison between all Picea abies and all Larix sp. trees within adjacent study sites, e.g., S2 and L2.
Table
Table 7. Relative abundance (%) of epiphytic lichen species on colonized dead and living P. abies and Larix sp. trees. Different sampling sites are combined.
Table 7. Relative abundance (%) of epiphytic lichen species on colonized dead and living P. abies and Larix sp. trees. Different sampling sites are combined.
FamilyLichen SpeciesPicea abiesLarix sp.Total
DeadLivingDeadLiving
StereocaulaceaeLepraria sp. Ach.60.459.976.471.469.9
ParmeliaceaeHypogimnia physodes (L.) Nyl.3.34.814.36.58.1
PhlyctidaceaePhlyctis argena Spreng.13.619.91.91.95.8
UnknownUnidentified sp. 14.15.14.36.55.4
LecanoraceaeLecidea elaeochroma Ach.6.77.71.42.43.4
UnknownUnidentified sp. 2---7.03.2
ParmeliaceaeParmelia sulcate Taylor.5.51.00.91.31.6
UnknownUnidentified sp. 34.81.10.20.30.9
PhysciaceaePhyscia stellaris (L.) Nyl.1.60.20.31.00.8
TeloschistaceaeXanthoria parietina (L.) Th.Fr.-0.30.11.20.6
UnknownUnidentified sp. 4--0.10.60.3
UnknownUnidentified sp. 5-0.1 0.0
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lynikienė, J.; Gedminas, A.; Marčiulynas, A.; Marčiulynienė, D.; Menkis, A. Can Larix sp. Mill. Provide Suitable Habitats for Insects and Lichens Associated with Stems of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in Northern Europe? Diversity 2022, 14, 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090729

AMA Style

Lynikienė J, Gedminas A, Marčiulynas A, Marčiulynienė D, Menkis A. Can Larix sp. Mill. Provide Suitable Habitats for Insects and Lichens Associated with Stems of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in Northern Europe? Diversity. 2022; 14(9):729. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090729

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lynikienė, Jūratė, Artūras Gedminas, Adas Marčiulynas, Diana Marčiulynienė, and Audrius Menkis. 2022. "Can Larix sp. Mill. Provide Suitable Habitats for Insects and Lichens Associated with Stems of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in Northern Europe?" Diversity 14, no. 9: 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090729

APA Style

Lynikienė, J., Gedminas, A., Marčiulynas, A., Marčiulynienė, D., & Menkis, A. (2022). Can Larix sp. Mill. Provide Suitable Habitats for Insects and Lichens Associated with Stems of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. in Northern Europe? Diversity, 14(9), 729. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090729

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