J. For. Sci., 2015, 61(7):306-314 | DOI: 10.17221/72/2014-JFS

Comparison of Myriapoda in beech and spruce forestsOriginal Paper

E. Kula, M. Lazorík
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic

Pitfall traps were used to capture 3,550 individuals and 34 species of Myriapoda in five pairs of Norway spruce and beech stands in the Moravskoslezské Beskydy Mts. (Czech Republic). Differences in the occurrence of Chilopoda, Diplopoda and Isopoda on sites with spruce and beech were determined by F-test. Diplopoda and Isopoda preferred beech stands and Chilopoda spruce stands. The species Protracheoniscus politus (Koch) (Isopoda) indicated a positive relation to beech stands. Among Diplopoda, a strong linkage to beech was seen in Glomeris hexasticha (Brandt), while Julus scandinavius (Latzel), Hassea flavescens (Latzel) and Brachyiulus bagnalli (Curtis) tended to prefer the spruce forest environment. The highest variability was found in Chilopoda, of which the species dominating in beech stands are Cryptops parisi (Brölemann), Strigamia acuminata (Leach) and Strigamia transsilvanica (Verhoeff), while Geophilus flavus (DeGeer) and Geophilus insculptus (Attems) prevail in spruce stands. A wide spectrum of captured species of the order Lithobiomorpha differentiate in their relation to spruce [Lithobius forficatus (L.), L. cyrtopus Latzel, L. erythrocephalus C.L. Koch, L. tenebrosus Meinert, L. austriacus (Verhoeff), L. biunguiculatus (Loksa)] and beech [Lithobius microps (Meinert), L. mutabilis L. Koch, L. burzenlandicus Verhoeff, L. micropodus (Matic) and L. nodulipes Latzel]. Based on the findings, we can confirm increased incidence in beech forests, although the result is not unambiguous. Therefore, it is necessary to admit that the factor of the main tree species within a stand cannot be used as the single criterion and needs to be supplemented with additional conditions of the natural environment.

Keywords: Chilopoda; Diplopoda; Isopoda; Norway spruce; Beskydy Mts.

Published: July 31, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kula E, Lazorík M. Comparison of Myriapoda in beech and spruce forests. J. For. Sci. 2015;61(7):306-314. doi: 10.17221/72/2014-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Albert A.M. (1982): Species spectrum and dispersion patterns of chilopods in three Solling habitats. Pedobiologia, 23: 337-347. Go to original source...
    2. Auerbach S.I. (1951): The centipedes of the Chicago area with special reference to their ecology. Ecological Monographs, 21: 97-124. Go to original source...
    3. Barber M.G. (2004): Millipedes (Diplopoda) and Centipedes (Chilopoda) (Myriapoda) as predators of terrestrial Gastropods. In: Barber M.G. (ed.): Natural Enemies of Terrestrial Molluscs: 405-425. Go to original source...
    4. Bardgett R.D., Wardle D.A. (2010): Aboveground-belowground Linkages: Biotic Interactions, Ecosystem Processes and Global Change. New York, Oxford University Press: 301.
    5. Blackburn J., Farrow M., Arthur W. (2002): Factors influencing the distribution, abundance and diversity of geophilomorph and lithobiomorph centipedes. Journal of Zoology, 256: 221-232. Go to original source...
    6. Blagodatskaya E.V., Anderson T.H. (1998): Interactive effects of pH and substrate quality on the fungal-to-bacterial ratio and qCO2 of microbial communities in forest soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30: 1269-1274. Go to original source...
    7. Blower J.G. (1955): Millipedes and centipedes as soil animals. In: Kevan D.K.M. (ed.): Soil Zoology. London, Butterworths Scientific Publications: 138-151.
    8. Blower J.G. (1985): Millipedes. Linnean Society Synopses of the British Fauna, No. 35. London, Linnaean Society: 242. Go to original source...
    9. Bornebusch C.H. (1930): The Fauna of the Forest Soil. Det forstlige Forsogsvaesen i Danmark, 11. Copenhagen, Lynge & Søn: 1-225.
    10. Craston P.S., Trueman J.W.H. (1997): 'Indicator' taxa in invertebrate biodiversity assessment. Memorial Museum Victoria, 56: 267-274. Go to original source...
    11. David J.F., Ponge J.F., Delecour F. (1993): The saprophagous macrofauna of different types of humus in beech forests of the Ardenne (Belgium). Pedobiologia, 37: 49-56. Go to original source...
    12. Frankeberger Z. (1959): Stejnonožci suchozemští - Oniscoidea. Fauna ČSR, 14. Praha, NČSAV: 216.
    13. Fründ H.C. (1983): Untersuchungen zur Koexistenz verschiedener Chilopodenarten im Waldboden. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Würzburg, University of Würzburg: 164.
    14. Funke W. (1971): Food and energy turnover of leaf-eating insects and their influence on primary production. Ecology Studies, 2: 81-93. Go to original source...
    15. Gallet C., Lebreton P. (1995): Evolution of phenolic patterns in plants and associated litters and humus of a mountain forest ecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 27: 157-166. Go to original source...
    16. Grgic T., Kos I. (2003): Centipede diversity in patches of different development phases in an unevenly-aged beech forest stand in Slovenia. African Invertebrates, 44: 237-252.
    17. Hanski I.A. (1998): Metapopulation dynamics. Nature, 396: 41-49. Go to original source...
    18. Hopkin S.P., Read H.J. (1992): The biology of millipedes. New York, Oxford University Press: 223. Go to original source...
    19. Kazda M., Pichler M. (1998): Priority assessment for conversion of Norway spruce forests through introduction of broadleaf species. Forest Ecology Management, 102: 245-258. Go to original source...
    20. Lang J. (1954): Mnohonožky - Diplopoda. Praha, Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd: 183.
    21. Lorenz K., Preston C.M., Raspe S., Morrison J.K., Feger K.H. (2000): Litter decomposition and humus characteristics in Canadian and German spruce ecosystems: information from tannin analysis and C-13 CPMAS NMR. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32: 779-792. Go to original source...
    22. Maraun M., Scheu S. (1995): Measurement of the microbial biomass in three different litter layers of a beechwood: influence of fragmentation and glucose concentration. Biology Fertility Soils, 19: 155-158. Go to original source...
    23. Nihlgård B. (1971): Pedological influence of spruce planted on former beech forest soils in Scania, South Sweden. Oikos, 22: 302-314. Go to original source...
    24. Poser T. (1990): The influence of litter manipulation on the centipedes of a beach wood. In: Minelli A. (ed.): Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Myriapodology. Brill, Leiden, July 19-24, 1987: 235-245. Go to original source...
    25. Rejšek K. (1991): Acid phosphomonoasterase activity of ectomycorrhizal roots in norway spruce pure stand exposed to pollution. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 23: 667-671. Go to original source...
    26. Schafer M. (1990): The soil fauna of a beech forest on limestone: trophic structure and energy budget. Oecologia, 82: 128-136. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Schafer M., Schauermann J. (1990): The soil fauna of beech forests: comparison between a mull and a moder soil. Pedobiologia, 34: 299-314. Go to original source...
    28. Schatzmann E. (1990): Weighting of habitat types for estimation of habitat overlap-application to a collection of Swiss centipedes. In: Minelli A. (ed.): Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Myriapodology. Brill, Leiden, July 19-24, 1987: 299-309. Go to original source...
    29. Scheu S., Sprengel T. (1989): Die Rolle der endogäischen Regenwürmer im Ökosystem Kalkbuchenwald und ihre Wechselwirkung mit saprophagen Makroarthropoden. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie, 17: 237-243.
    30. Scheu S. (1992): Automated measurement of the respiratory response of soil microcompartments: active microbial biomass in earthworm faeces. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24: 1113-1118. Go to original source...
    31. Schue S., Albers D., Alphei J., Buryn R., Klages U., Migge S., Platner C., Salamon J.A. (2003): The soil fauna community in pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce of different age: trophic structure and structuring forces. Oikos, 101: 225-238. Go to original source...
    32. Ter Braak C.J.F., Smilauer P. (2002): CANOCO Reference Manual and Canodraw for Windows Users Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination Version 4.5. Ithaca, Wageningen: 500.
    33. Tuf I.H., Tufová J. (2008): Proposal of ecological classification of centipede, millipede and terrestrial isopod faunas for evaluation of habitat quality in Czech Republic. Časopis Slezského Muzea Opava (A), 57: 37-44.
    34. Ulrich B. (1987): Stability, elasticity, and resilience of terrestrial ecosystems with respect to matter balance. In: Schulze E.D., Zwölfer H. (eds): Potentials and limitations of ecosystem analysis. Ecological Studies, 61: 11-49. Go to original source...
    35. Ulrich B., Sumner M.E. (1991): Soil Acidity. Berlin, Springer. In: Ulrich B., Mayer R., Khanna P.K., Seekamp G., Fassbender H.W. (1976): Input, output und interner Umsatz von chemischen Elementen bei einem Buchen- und einem Fichtenbestand. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie, Göttingen. The Hague, Dr. W. Junk Publ.: 17-28. Go to original source...
    36. Ulrich B. (1994): Nutrient and acid-base budget of Central European forest ecosystems. In: Godbold D.L., Hüttermann A. (eds): Effects of Acid Rain on Forest Processes. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 1-50.
    37. Neuhauser E.F., Hartenstein R. (1978): Phenolic content and palatability of leaves and wood to soil isopods and diplopods. Pedobiologia, 18: 99-109. Go to original source...
    38. Scheu S., Poser G. (1996): The soil macrofauna (Diplopoda, Isopoda, Lumbricidae and Chilopoda) near tree trunks in a beechwood on limestone: indications for stemflow induced changes in community structure. Applied Soil Ecology, 3: 115-125. Go to original source...
    39. Wigley T.B., Roberts T.H. (1994): Forest management and wildlife in forested wetlands of the southern Appalachians. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 77: 445-456. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content