Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Welch (1986)
What do we know about insects in Scottish woods
N. Myers, A. Knoll (2001)
The biotic crisis and the future of evolutionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98
A. Buse, J. Good (1993)
The effects of conifer forest design and management on abundance and diversity of rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): implications for conservationBiological Conservation, 64
S. Hopkin (1991)
A Key to the Woodlice of Britain and Ireland
D. Vázquez, D. Simberloff (2003)
Changes in interaction biodiversity induced by an introduced ungulateEcology Letters, 6
R. Whittaker, K. Willis, Richard Field (2001)
Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversityJournal of Biogeography, 28
A. Vanbergen, B. Woodcock, A. Watt, J. Niemelä (2005)
Effect of land‐use heterogeneity on carabid communities at the landscape scaleEcography, 28
J. Humphrey, C. Hawes, A. Peace, R. Ferris-Kaan, M. Jukes (1999)
Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forestsForest Ecology and Management, 113
P. Lavelle (1996)
Diversity of soil fauna and ecosystem function
K. Giller, M. Beare, P. Lavelle, A. Izac, M. Swift (1997)
Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem functionApplied Soil Ecology, 6
J. Dupouey, E. Dambrine, Jean-Denis Laffite, C. Moares (2002)
Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and biodiversityEcology, 83
D. Beaumont, D. Dugan, G. Evans, S. Taylor (1995)
Deer management and tree regeneration in the RSPB reserve at Abernethy ForestScottish forestry
G. Mittelbach, Christopher Steiner, S. Scheiner, K. Gross, H. Reynolds, R. Waide, M. Willig, S. Dodson, L. Gough (2001)
WHAT IS THE OBSERVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIES RICHNESS AND PRODUCTIVITYEcology, 82
E. Cam, J. Nichols, J. Hines, J. Sauer, R. Alpizar-Jara, C. Flather (2002)
DISENTANGLING SAMPLING AND ECOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS UNDERLYING SPECIES-AREA RELATIONSHIPSEcology, 83
C. Ozanne, M. Speight, C. Hambler, H. Evans (2000)
Isolated trees and forest patches: patterns in canopy arthropod abundance and diversity in Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine).Forest Ecology and Management, 137
S. Petit, M. Usher (1998)
Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: the ground beetle communities of woody uncultivated habitatsBiodiversity & Conservation, 7
D. Storch, Arnošt Izling, K. Gaston (2003)
Geometry of the species–area relationship in central European birds: testing the mechanismJournal of Animal Ecology, 72
M. Altieri (1999)
The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystemsAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74
C. Braak, P. Šmilauer (1998)
CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4)
Jörg Tews, U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielbörger, Matthias Wichmann, Monika Schwager, F. Jeltsch (2004)
Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structuresJournal of Biogeography, 31
P. Hyman (1992)
A Review of the Scarce and Threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain
J. Lepš, P. Šmilauer (2003)
Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO: Preface
Colin Johnson (1993)
Provisional atlas of the Cryptophagidae-Atomariinae (Coleoptera) of Britain and Ireland
M. Luff (1998)
Provisional atlas of the ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Britain
T. Ings, S. Hartley (1999)
THE EFFECT OF HABITAT STRUCTURE ON CARABID COMMUNITIES DURING THE REGENERATION OF A NATIVE SCOTTISH FORESTForest Ecology and Management, 119
P. Matson, W. Parton, A. Power, M. Swift (1997)
Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties.Science, 277 5325
Summary 1 Land‐use intensification strongly influences biodiversity by altering habitat heterogeneity, the distribution of habitat types and their extent. This study explores these effects within mixed semi‐natural/agricultural mosaic habitats in Scotland, examining the effect of land‐use intensification on the soil macrofauna at point (m2), landscape (km2) and regional (> 1 km2) scales. 2 The soil macrofauna in six 1‐km2 sampling areas (land‐use units; LUU) were sampled using a combined hand‐sorting and Winkler bag extraction technique. Within each LUU, 16 1‐m2 samples were taken in each of 2 successive years. Each LUU had a mixture of land‐use types, representing an agricultural intensification gradient. 3 The following hypotheses were tested: (i) the study area sustains a number of distinct habitats as defined by soil macrofaunal composition; (ii) a greater number of restricted range species are found in semi‐natural habitats; (iii) local (point) species density is related to habitat type; (iv) overall levels of species richness per habitat at regional scales are related to species‐area effects; and (v) landscape‐level species density is correlated with habitat heterogeneity. 4 Initial analysis revealed five distinct habitat types: Caledonian forest (semi‐natural pine forest), closed canopy woodland (pine plantation and broadleaved woodland), riparian habitats (wet woodland and grassland), pasture (improved grassland) and arable (crop fields). 5 As hypothesized, the Caledonian habitat contained a greater number of restricted‐range species than the other habitats. However, conifer plantations contained more restricted range species than expected, given their anthropogenic origin. Species density per m2 was most strongly affected by habitat type. At the regional level, the size of the species pool was correlated with the size of habitat areas. There were more species overall in LUU with greater habitat heterogeneity. 6 Synthesis and applications. Caledonian pine forests have high species densities and contain species of conservation value. Mixed conifer plantations also appear to have a surprisingly high invertebrate conservation value. In contrast, intensively managed agricultural habitats have low species densities and conservation value. Generally, mixed land‐use areas have higher species densities than single land‐use areas. This emphasizes the need for careful management of forest systems within the matrix of agricultural habitats to maximize landscape diversity.
Journal of Applied Ecology – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.