Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKoivula, Matti
dc.contributor.authorVirta, Tiina
dc.contributor.authorKuitunen, Markku
dc.contributor.authorVallius, Elisa
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-19T09:27:05Z
dc.date.available2019-06-19T09:27:05Z
dc.date.issued2019fi
dc.identifier.citationKoivula, M., Virta, T., Kuitunen, M., & Vallius, E. (2019). Effects of undergrowth removal and edge proximity on ground beetles and vascular plants in urban boreal forests. <em>Journal of Urban Ecology</em>, 5 (1), juz007. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juz007">doi:10.1093/jue/juz007</a>fi
dc.identifier.otherTUTKAID_81631
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/64716
dc.description.abstractUrban forests are regularly managed for human safety and esthetic reasons, but they are crucial habitat for many species. Removals of undergrowth occur commonly in these forests, yet the ecological consequences of these operations are poorly understood. We sampled ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and vascular plants along 20-m edge gradients in Finnish urban forests, in five stands treated 0.5–2.5 years earlier with undergrowth removal and in five untreated stands. We hypothesized that undergrowth removal and edge proximity would benefit opportunistic and open-habitat species, whereas shady-habitat species would be affected negatively. (1) Regarding carabids, diversity and evenness indices, open-habitat species and Carabus nemoralis responded positively, and forest species, Leistus terminatus and Pterostichus oblongopunctatus responded negatively, to the undergrowth removal. Regarding plants, generalists, Maianthemum bifolium, Rubus saxatilis and Sorbus aucuparia responded positively, and forest species, Geranium sylvaticum, Oxalis acetocella and Vaccinium myrtillus responded negatively, to the undergrowth removal. (2) Edge proximity had little effect on both plants and carabids. However, open-habitat carabids were less abundant and less speciose, and the plants Oxalis acetocella, Trientalis europaea and Rubus saxatilis had higher cover, 10–20 m from than right at the edge. (3) Plant (but not carabid) community responded to the undergrowth removal but not to the edge proximity. When managing urban forests, we recommend an avoidance of undergrowth removals at sites that host rare or threatened forest-associated flora and fauna.fi
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Urban Ecology
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.subject.othertaajamametsätfi
dc.subject.othermetsänkäsittelyfi
dc.subject.otheraluskasvillisuusfi
dc.subject.othereliöyhteisötfi
dc.subject.othermaakiitäjäisetfi
dc.subject.otherputkilokasvitfi
dc.subject.otherabundancefi
dc.subject.otherCarabidaefi
dc.subject.othercommunityfi
dc.subject.otheredge effectfi
dc.subject.othermanagementfi
dc.subject.otherspecies richnessfi
dc.titleEffects of undergrowth removal and edge proximity on ground beetles and vascular plants in urban boreal forestsfi
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-201906173259
dc.contributor.laitosBio- ja ympäristötieteiden laitosfi
dc.contributor.laitosThe Department of Biological and Environmental Scienceen
dc.contributor.oppiaineYmpäristötiede ja -teknologia
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.date.updated2019-06-17T15:15:09Z
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.relation.issn2058-5543
dc.relation.numberinseries1
dc.relation.volume5
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© The Author(s) 2019.
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccessfi
dc.format.contentfulltext
dc.rights.urlhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.relation.doi10.1093/jue/juz007


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

CC BY 4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as CC BY 4.0