Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Research ArticleResearch Article

Effect of Oak Barren Restoration on Carabidae (Coleoptera) within a Kame-Kettle Bog System

David J. Kriska, Harry J. Lee and Robert A. Krebs
Ecological Restoration, March 2020, 38 (1) 24-31; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.38.1.24
David J. Kriska
Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 1 Wade Oval Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44106.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harry J. Lee
In memorium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert A. Krebs
(corresponding author), Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH, 44115, .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: r.krebs{at}csuohio.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. ↵
    1. Addison J.A.,
    2. Barber K.N.
    1997. Response of soil invertebrates to clearcutting and partial cutting in a boreal mixed wood forest in northern Ontario. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre Information report GLCX-1.
  2. ↵
    1. Anderson M.J.
    2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Ball G.E.,
    2. Bousquet Y.
    2001. Carabidae Latreille, 1810. Pages 32–132 in Arnett R.H., Thomas M.C. (eds), American Beetles, Volume I: Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  4. ↵
    1. Beaudry S.,
    2. Duchesne L.C.,
    3. Côté B.
    1997. Short-term effects of three forestry practices on carabid assemblages in a jack pine forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27:2065–2071.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Bergmann D.J.,
    2. Brandenburg D.,
    3. Petit S.,
    4. Gabel M.
    2012. Habitat preferences of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) species in the northern Black Hills of South Dakota. Environmental Entomology 41:1069–1076.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Boetzl F.A.,
    2. Ries E.,
    3. Schneider G.,
    4. Krauss J.
    2018. It’s a matter of design—how pitfall trap design affects trap samples and possible predictions. PeerJ 6:e5078.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Bousquet Y.
    2010. Illustrated Identification Guide to Adults and Larvae of Northeastern North American Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Moscow, Russia: Pensoft Publishers.
  8. ↵
    1. Bousquet Y.
    2012. Catalogue of Geadephaga (Coleoptera: Adephaga) of America, north of Mexico. ZooKeys 245:1–1722.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Browne R.,
    2. Maveety S.,
    3. Cooper L.,
    4. Riley K.
    2014. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) species composition in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Southeastern Naturalist 13:407–422.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Buchholz S.,
    2. Hannig K.,
    3. Möller M.,
    4. Schirmel J.
    2018. Reducing management intensity and isolation as promising tools to enhance ground-dwelling arthropod diversity in urban grasslands. Urban Ecosystems 21:1139–1149.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Chen J.,
    2. Franklin J.F.,
    3. Spies T.A.
    1993. Contrasting microclimates among clearcut, edge, and interior of old-growth Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 63:219–237.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Chen J.,
    2. Franklin J.F.,
    3. Spies T.A.
    1995. Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-Fir forests. Ecological Applications 5:74–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. De Cáceres M.,
    2. Legendre P.
    2009. Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90:3566–3574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Déri E.,
    2. Magura T.,
    3. Horváth R.,
    4. Kisfali M.,
    5. Ruff G.,
    6. Lengyel S.,
    7. Tóthmérész B.
    2011. Measuring the short-term success of grassland restoration: the use of habitat affinity indices in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 19:520–528.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Digweed S.C.,
    2. Currie C.R.,
    3. Carcamo H.A.,
    4. Spence J.R.
    1995. Digging out the “digging-in effect” of pitfall traps: Influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pedobiologia 39:561–576.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Discover Life
    . 2018. www.discoverlife.org.
  17. ↵
    1. Duchesne L.C.,
    2. Lautenschlager R.A.,
    3. Bell F.W.
    1999. Effects of clear-cutting and plant competition control methods on Carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in northwestern Ontario. Environmental Monitoring Assessments 56:87–96.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Dufrene M.,
    2. Legendre P.
    1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345–366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Gallé R.,
    2. Happe A.K.,
    3. Baillod A.B.,
    4. Tscharntke T.,
    5. Batáry P.
    2019. Landscape configuration, organic management, and within-field position drive functional diversity of spiders and carabids. Journal of Applied Ecology 56:63–72.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Gandhi K.J.K.,
    2. Gilmore D.W.,
    3. Katovich S.A.,
    4. Mattson W.J.,
    5. Zasada J.C.,
    6. Seybold S.J.
    2008. Catastrophic windstorm and fuel-reduction treatments alter ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in a North American sub-boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1104–1123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Gandhi K.J.K.,
    2. Epstein M.E.,
    3. Koehle J.J.,
    4. Purrington F.F.
    2011. A quarter of a century succession of epigaeic beetle assemblages in remnant habitats in an urbanized matrix (Coleoptera: Carabidae). ZooKeys 147:667–689.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Jiquan C.,
    2. Franklin J.F.,
    3. Spies T.A.
    1988. Microclimatic pattern and basic biological responses at the clearcut edges of old growth Douglas-fir stands. Northwest Environmental Journal 7:222–233.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Koivula M.,
    2. Puntilla P.,
    3. Haila Y.,
    4. Niemelä J.
    1999. Leaf litter and the small-scale distribution of Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the boreal forest. Ecography 22:424–435.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Kotze D.J.,
    2. Brandmayr P.,
    3. Casale A.,
    4. Dauffy-Richard E.,
    5. Dekoninck W.,
    6. Koivula M.J.,
    7. et al.
    2011. Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe—from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation. ZooKeys 100:55–148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Kriska D.J.,
    2. Krebs R.A.
    2019. Response by three plant indicator groups of upland habitat to manipulation of a Black Oak (Quercus velutina) Sand Barren. Natural Areas Journal 39:442–451.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Langor D.,
    2. Niemelä J.K.,
    3. Spence J.R.
    1990. Effects of forestry on Carabidae assemblages of lodgepole pine forest in Western Alberta: Paper presented to the Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of Alberta. Banff, Alberta, October 1–5. www.entsocalberta.ca/procesa1990.pdf.
  27. ↵
    1. Larochelle A.,
    2. Larivière M.C.
    2003. A Natural History of the Ground-Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America North of Mexico. Sofia, Bulgaria: Pensoft.
  28. ↵
    1. Lindenmayer D.B.,
    2. Margules C.R.,
    3. Botkin D.B.
    2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14:941–950.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Liu Y.,
    2. Axmacher J.C.,
    3. Wang C.,
    4. Li L.,
    5. Yu Z.
    2012. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages of restored semi-natural habitats and intensively cultivated fields in northern China. Restoration Ecology 20:234–239.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Lovei G.L.,
    2. Sunderland K.D.
    1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41:231–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Martay B.,
    2. Robertshaw T.,
    3. Doberski J.,
    4. Thomas A.
    2014. Does dispersal limit beetle re-colonization of restored fenland? A case study using direct measurements of dispersal and genetic analysis. Restoration Ecology 22:590–597.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Natureserve
    . 2019. NatureServe Web Service. Arlington, VA. U.S.A. services.natureserve.org. (Accessed September 2019).
  33. ↵
    1. Neumann J.L.,
    2. Holloway G.J.,
    3. Hoodless A.,
    4. Griffiths G.H.
    2017. The legacy of 20th century landscape change on today’s woodland carabid communities. Diversity and Distributions 23:1447–1458.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Niemelä J.
    2001. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) indicating habitat fragmentation: a review. European Journal of Entomology 98:127–132.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Niemelä J.,
    2. Kotze D.J.
    2009. Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 92:65–71.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Niemelä J.,
    2. Haila Y.,
    3. Halme E.,
    4. Pajunen T.,
    5. Punttila P.
    1992. Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. Journal of Biogeography 19:173–181.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Niemelä J.,
    2. Langor D.,
    3. Spence J.R.
    1993. Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground-beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conservation Biology 7:551–561.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Nowacki G.J.,
    2. Abrams M.D.
    2008. The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. BioScience 58:123–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Nuzzo V.A.
    1986. Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: Pre-settlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6:6–36.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Oksanen J.,
    2. Blanchet F.G.,
    3. Friendly M.,
    4. Kindt R.,
    5. Legendre P.,
    6. McGlinn D.,
    7. et al.
    2018. vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-3. URL: CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
  41. ↵
    1. Pearce J.L.,
    2. Venier L.A.
    2006. The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as bioindicators of sustainable forest management: A review. Ecological Indicators 6:780–793.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Pearce J.L.,
    2. Venier L.A.,
    3. McKee J.,
    4. Pedlar J.,
    5. McKenney D.
    2003. Influence of habitat and microhabitat on carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in four stand types. Canadian Entomology 135:337–357.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Pilotto F.,
    2. Tonkin J.D.,
    3. Januschke K.,
    4. Lorenz A.W.,
    5. Jourdan J.,
    6. Sundermann A.,
    7. et al.
    2018. Diverging response patterns of terrestrial and aquatic species to hydromorphological restoration. Conservation Biology 33:132–141.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Ponder F. Jr.
    2004. Soil compaction affects growth of young shortleaf pine following litter removal and weed control in the Missouri Ozarks. Pages 225–264 in Yaussy D., Hix D.M., Goebel P.C., Long R.P. (eds), Proceedings of the 14th central hardwood forest conference. Gen Tech Rep NE-316. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, Northeastern Research Station.
  45. ↵
    1. R Core Team
    (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org, version 3.6.1.
  46. ↵
    1. Rainio J.,
    2. Niemelä J.
    2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:487–506.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Riley K.N.,
    2. Browne R.A.
    2011. Changes in ground beetle diversity and community composition in age structured forests (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147:601–621.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Spence J.R.,
    2. Niemelä J.K.
    1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Canadian Entomologist 126:881–894.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Tsafack N.,
    2. Rebaudo F.,
    3. Wang H.,
    4. Nagy D.D.,
    5. Xie Y.,
    6. Wang X.,
    7. et al.
    2019. Carabid community structure in northern China grassland ecosystems: Effects of local habitat on species richness, species composition and functional diversity. PeerJ 6:e6197.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Wikars L.O.
    1995. Clear-cutting before burning prevents establishment of the fire-adapted Agonum quadripunctatum (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici 32:375–384.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Willand J.E.,
    2. Wodika B.R.,
    3. Palmer J.,
    4. Jenkins S.E.,
    5. McCravy K.W.
    2011. Diversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in relation to habitat type in West-Central Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 166:266–282.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Work T.T.,
    2. Koivula M.,
    3. Klimaszewski J.,
    4. Langor D.,
    5. Spence J.,
    6. Sweeney J.,
    7. et al.
    2008. Evaluation of carabid beetles as indicators of forest change in Canada. Canadian Entomologist 140:393–414.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 38 (1)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 38, Issue 1
1 Mar 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect of Oak Barren Restoration on Carabidae (Coleoptera) within a Kame-Kettle Bog System
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
Effect of Oak Barren Restoration on Carabidae (Coleoptera) within a Kame-Kettle Bog System
David J. Kriska, Harry J. Lee, Robert A. Krebs
Ecological Restoration Mar 2020, 38 (1) 24-31; DOI: 10.3368/er.38.1.24

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effect of Oak Barren Restoration on Carabidae (Coleoptera) within a Kame-Kettle Bog System
David J. Kriska, Harry J. Lee, Robert A. Krebs
Ecological Restoration Mar 2020, 38 (1) 24-31; DOI: 10.3368/er.38.1.24
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating Restoration Techniques for Degraded Steppe Rangelands
  • Restoring Frequent Fire Results in Habitat Improvement for Bison but Minimal Early Reduction of Woody Encroachment
  • Species Interactions Critical to Restoration Success in an Urban Living Shoreline
Show more Research Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • canopy
  • diversity
  • fire
  • glacial kames
  • xeric
UW Press logo

© 2026 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire