Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Published
Effect of post-harvest forestry residue management practices on the diversity of epigeal coleopterans
Efecto de prácticas de manejo de residuos post cosecha sobre la diversidad de coleópteros epigeos
Keywords:
Insects, Pinus radiata, Diversity, Richness, Abundance (en)Insectos, Pinus radiata, Diversidad, Riqueza, Abundancia (es)
Downloads
The aim of this work was to study the effect of post-harvest forestry residue management practices on the epigeal coleopterans diversity and abundance in a 1-yr old Pinus radiata plantation. Approximately 25-yr old P. radiata plantation was available, which was harvested by clear-cutting at the beginning of 2010 in Constitución, central Chile. Three post harvest residue management treatments were installed in a fully randomized design in blocks: 1) a control, where residues were intact left; 2) residue removed (> 2.5 cm diameter); and3) burned. The coleopterans were sampled in spring and summer, using linear transects with pitfall traps. The abundance and richness, and diversity index of coleopterans were determined. A total of 23 species of 13 families were obtained. Both in the spring and summer, the treatment with residues left registered significantly greater abundance and species richness. In the residue management, the practices of intact leaving residue should be considered as the least impacting on diversity and abundance of epigeal coleopterans and is recommended for creating refugee areas to promote diversity of beetles in this area of study.
El objetivo de este trabajo fue estudiar el efecto de prácticas de manejo de residuos de post-cosecha en plantaciones de un año de Pinus radiata sobre la diversidad y abundancia de coleópteros epigeos. El estudio se realizó en Constitución, Chile central, donde existía una plantación de P. radiata de cerca de 25 años, que se cosechó con el método de tala rasa a comienzos de 2010. Se consideraron tres tratamientos de post-cosecha con un diseño completamente aleatorio en bloques: 1) uno control, con los residuos intactos; 2) con extracción de residuos (> 2,5 cm de diámetro); y 3) con quema. Los coleópteros se muestrearon en primavera y verano mediante transectos lineales con trampas de caída. Se determinó la abundancia y riqueza, y un índice de diversidad de coleópteros epigeos. Se obtuvieron un total de 23 especies de 13 familias. En primavera y verano, el tratamiento con residuos dejados intactos tuvo una abundancia y riqueza de especies significativamente mayor. Cuando se apliquen tratamientos de post-cosecha la práctica de dejar los residuos intactos debería ser considerada como la de menos impacto sobre la diversidad y abundancia de coleópteros epigeos y ser recomendada por crear áreas de refugio para promover la diversidad de coleópteros en esta área de estudio.
Downloads
References
Amigo J, San Martín J y García L. 2000. Estudio fitosociológico de los bosques de Nothofagus glauca (Phil.) Krasser del Centro-Sur de Chile. Phytocoenologia 30:193-222.
Artigas J. 1994. Entomología económica: Insectos de interés agrícola, forestal, médico y veterinario (nativos, introducidos y susceptibles de ser introducidos). Vol 2. Ediciones Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 943 p.
Best L, Bergin T and Freemark K. 2001. Influence of landscape composition on bird use of rowcrop fields. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 442-449. doi: 10.2307/3803096
Bonham K, Mesibov R and Bashford R. 2002. Diversity and abundance of some ground-dwelling invertebrates in plantation vs. native forests in Tasmania, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 158: 237-247. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00717-9
Briones R y Jerez V. 2007. Efecto de la edad de la plantación de Pinus radiata en la abundancia de Ceroglossus chilensis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) en la Región del Bíobío, Chile. Bosque 28: 207-214.
Clapp R. 2001. Tree farming and forest conservation in Chile: Do replacement forests leave any originals behind? Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 14: 341-356. doi: 10.1080/08941920119176
Coates F, Lunt I and Tremblay R. 2006. Effects of disturbance on population dynamics of the threatened orchid Prasophyllum correctum D.L. Jones and implications for grassland management in the south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 129: 59-69. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.037
Coddington J, Griswold C, Silva D, Peñaranda E and Scott S. 1991. Designing and testing samplings protocols to estimate biodiversity in tropical ecosistems. pp. 44-60. In: Duddley E. (ed.). The unity of evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology. Dioscorides Press, Portland OR. 1048 p. doi: 10.2307/2413587
Colwell R and Coddington J. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 345: 101-118. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1994.0091.
Correa P y Roa A. 2005. Relaciones tróficas entre Oncifelis guigna, Lycalopex culpaeus, Lycalopex griseus y Tyto alba en un ambiente fragmentado de la zona central de Chile. Mastozoología Neotropical 12: 57-60.
Covarrubias R. y Contreras A. 2004. Variación en los microartrópodos del suelo, por manejos forestales de raleo selectivo y cortes en hoyos de luz. Bosque 25: 103-116.
Didham R. 1997. An overview of invertebrate responses to forest fragmentation. pp. 303-320 In: Watt AD, Stork NE and Hunter MD (eds.). Forest and insects. Chapman and Hall, London.
Escobar F. 2000. Diversidad de coleópteros coprófagos (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) en un mosaico de hábitats en la Reserva Natural Nukak, Guaviare, Colombia. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 79: 103-121
Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 487-515. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
Fischer J and Lindenmayer D. 2002. Small patches can be valuable for biodiversity conservation: two case studies on birds in southern Australia. Biological Conservation 106: 129-136. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00241-5
Grez A, Moreno P y Elgueta M. 2003. Coleópteros (Insecta: Coleoptera) epigeos asociados al bosque maulino y plantaciones de pino aledañas. Revista Chilena de Entomología 29: 9-18.
INFOR (Instituto Forestal). 2011. Anuario Forestal 2011. Boletín Estadístico No. 132. INFOR, Santiago, Chile. 136 p.
Jactél H, Brockerhoff E and Duelli P. 2005. A test of the biodiversity - stability theory: meta-analysis of tree species diversity effects on the insect pest infestations, and re-examination of responsible factors. pp. 235-262. In: M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Körner, E.D. Schulze. Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems Ecological studies 176. DEU: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/3-540-26599-6_12
Julio G. 2005. Fundamentos del manejo del fuego. Quinta edición. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 329 p.
Keller I, Excoffier L and Largiadèr C. 2005. Estimation of effective population size and detection of a recent population decline coinciding with habitat fragmentation in a ground beetle. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 90-100.
Koivula M. 2011. Useful model organisms, indicators, or both? Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) reflecting environmental conditions. ZooKeys 100: 287–317. doi:10.3897/zookeys.100.1533
Langor D and Spence J. 2006. Arthropods as ecological indicators of sustainability in Canadian forests. The Forestry Chronicle 82: 344-350.
Luebert F y Pliscoff P. 2006. Sinopsis bioclimática y vegetacional de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile. 316 p.
Magurran A. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. 256 p.
Moreno C. 2001a. Métodos para medir la biodiversidad. Vol. I, Zaragoza, España, M&T-Manuales y Tesis SEA. 86 p.
Moreno P. 2001b. Efecto de la fragmentación del bosque maulino sobre la composición, abundancia y distribución de tamaños corporales de coleópteros epigeos. Memoria Médico Veterinario. Santiago, Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias. 71 p.
Péfuar J y Pérez R. 1995. Zoogeografía y variación espacial y temporal de algunos vertebrados epígeos de la zona xerófila de la cuenca media del río Chama, Mérida, Venezuela. Ecotrópicos 8(12):15-38.
Peralta M. 1976. Uso, clasificación y conservación de suelos. Ministerio de Agricultura, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero, Santiago, Chile. 340 p.
Paritsis J, Aizen MA. 2008. Effects of exotic conifer plantations on the biodiversity of understory plants, epigeal beetles and birds in Nothofagus dombeyi forests. Forest Ecology Managemet 255: 575–1583. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.11.015
Price P, Denno R, Eubanks M, Finke D and Kaplan I. 2011. Insect ecology. Behavior, population, and communities. Cambridge University Press, New York. 801 p.
Roe J, Gibson J and Kingsbury B. 2006. Beyond the wetland border: Estimating the impact of roads for two species of wáter snakes. Biological Conservation 130: 161-168. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.010
Roberge JM, Stenbacka F. 2014. Assemblages of epigaeic beetles and understory vegetation differ between stand of an introduced pine and its native congener in boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 318: 239-249. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.01.026
Sackmann P, Corley J, Villalobos J. 2008. La importancia del manejo de las plantaciones de pinos en la conservación de la diversidad de insectos epígeos. pp. 1-15. In: Villacide J, Coreley J. (Eds). Manejo integrado de Plagas. Laboratorio de Ecología de Insectos. Ediciones Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuario, Bariloche, Argentina.
Simonetti J. 1998. Áreas silvestres protegidas: ¿protegidas y protectoras? pp. 123-131. In: Díaz-Pineda F, De Miguel J y Casado M (eds.). Diversidad biológica y cultura rural en la gestión ambiental del desarrollo. Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Madrid.
Simonetti J. 2006. Conservación de biodiversidad en ambientes fragmentados: El caso del bosque Maulino. pp. 213-228. En: Grez A, Simonetti J y Bustamante R (eds.). Biodiversidad en ambientes fragmentados de Chile: patrones y procesos a diferentes escalas. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile.
Simonetti J, Grez A y Bustamante R. 2002. El valor de la matriz en la conservación ambiental. Revista Ambiente y Desarrollo 18: 116-118.
Smith S. 1990. The greening of the forest: forest pest management into the 21st century. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 121: 49-60.
Spooner P. 2005. Response of Acacia species to disturbance by roadworks in roadside environments in southern New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 122: 231-242. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.012
Steffan-Dewenter I. 2003. Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conservation Biology 17: 1036-1044. doi: 10.1046/j.15231739.2003.01575.x
Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C, Thies C and Tscharntke T. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83: 1421-1432. doi: 0.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1421:SDEOLC]2.0.CO;2
Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A and Thies C. 2002. Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecological Applications 12: 354-363. doi: 0.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0354:COSHFT]2.0.CO;2
Work T, Klimaszewski J, Thiffault E, Bourdon C, Paré D, Bousquet Y, Venier L, Titus B. 2013. Initial responses of rove and ground beetles (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Carabidae) to removal of logging residues following clearcut harvesting in the boreal forest of Quebec, Canada. ZooKeys 258: 31-52. doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.258.4174
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal allows the author(s) to maintain the exploitation rights (copyright) of their articles without restrictions. The author(s) accept the distribution of their articles on the web and in paper support (25 copies per issue) under open access at local, regional, and international levels. The full paper will be included and disseminated through the Portal of Journals and Institutional Repository of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, and in all the specialized databases that the journal considers pertinent for its indexation, to provide visibility and positioning to the article. All articles must comply with Colombian and international legislation, related to copyright.
Author Commitments
The author(s) undertake to assign the rights of printing and reprinting of the material published to the journal Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín. Any quotation of the articles published in the journal should be made given the respective credits to the journal and its content. In case content duplication of the journal or its partial or total publication in another language, there must be written permission of the Director.
Content Responsibility
The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and the journal are not necessarily responsible or in solidarity with the concepts issued in the published articles, whose responsibility will be entirely the author or the authors.
