OJF  Vol.4 No.2 , February 2014
The Saproxylic Activity Index: A New Tool for the Rapid Assessment of Deadwood Species during Forest Restoration
Abstract: Restoring deadwood habitat is vital in order to recreate fully functioning forest ecosystems. Letting this process occur naturally can take in excess of one hundred years, thus management practises typically try to accelerate this via the artificial addition of deadwood. Since the species which rely on deadwood often have poor dispersal abilities, restoring deadwood habitat rarely results in the full restoration of the saproxylic fauna. Furthermore, standard deadwood monitoring protocol only records the amount and type of substrate available and is not capable of determining whether saproxylic insects have been restored. Full species inventories are time-consuming, costly and require great expertise. We present a rapid biodiversity assessment tool which we believe is the first protocol for measuring saproxylic activity which is accessible to non-specialists. Utilising the exit bore holes which saproxylics create on deadwood can provide an indication of the density, richness and diversity of species present; we call this the Saproxylic Activity Index. We show that this index can detect differences in the activity of insects between substrates. As saproxylic insects provide important ecosystem functions, such as aiding in the decay of deadwood and recycling nutrients, a measure of their activity levels may indicate the rate of restoration of these ecosystem processes. We believe that further exploration of this method provides an exciting opportunity for the functional restoration of saproxylic fauna to become incorporated into mainstream forest management.  
Cite this paper: Burns, M. , Smith, M. , Slade, E. & Ennos, R. (2014). The Saproxylic Activity Index: A New Tool for the Rapid Assessment of Deadwood Species during Forest Restoration. Open Journal of Forestry, 4, 144-150. doi: 10.4236/ojf.2014.42020.

[1]   Abate, T. (1992). Environmental rapid assessment programs have appeals and critics. BioScience, 42, 486-489.

[2]   Angelstam, P., & Doenz-Breuss, M. (2004). Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale—An evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecological Bulletins, 51, 305-332.

[3]   Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C. et al. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A metaanalysis. Science, 325, 1121-1124.

[4]   Cardoso, P., Erwin, T. L. et al. (2011). The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biological Conservation, 144, 2647-2655.

[5]   Cromsigt, J., van Rensburg, S. J. et al. (2009). Monitoring large herbivore diversity at different scales: Comparing direct and indirect methods. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 1219-1231.

[6]   Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B. et al. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 149-172.

[7]   Ehnstrohm, B., &Axelsson, R. (2002). Insect marks in bark and wood. Uppsala: Art Databanken.

[8]   Fay, N., & De Berker, N. (1996). Veteran trees inititiative, specialist survey method. Peterborough: English Nature.

[9]   Ferris, R., & Humphrey, J. (1999). A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry, 72, 313-328.

[10]   Gollan, J. R., Smith, H. M. et al. (2010). Using spider web types as a substitute for assessing web-building spider biodiversity and the success of habitat restoration. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 3141-3155.

[11]   Grove, S., & Stork N. (1999). The conservation of saproxylic insects in tropical forests: A research agenda. Journal of Insect Conservation, 3, 67-74.

[12]   Grove, S. J. (2002). Saproxylic insect ecology and the sustainable management of forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 1-23.

[13]   Hagan, J. M., & Grove, S. L. (1999). Coarse woody debris. Journal of Forestry, 97, 6-11.

[14]   Harrington, L. A., Harrington, A. L. et al. (2008). Estimating the relative abundance of American mink Mustela vison on lowland rivers: Evaluation and comparison of two techniques. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54, 79-87.

[15]   Harvey, D. J., Hawes, C. J. et al. (2011). Development of non-invasive monitoring methods for larvae and adults of the stag beetle, Lucanus cervus. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4, 4-14.

[16]   Hespenheide, H. A. (1976). Patterns in use of single plant hosts by wood-boring beetles. Oikos, 27, 161-164.

[17]   Hodge, S. J., & Peterken, G. F. (1998). Deadwood in British forests: Priorities and a strategy. Forestry, 71, 99-112.

[18]   Hol, K., & Smith, M. (2002). Ancient wood pasture in Scotland: Classification and management principles. Edinburgh, MB: Scottish Natural Heritage.

[19]   Hopkins, G. W., & Freckleton, R. P. (2002). Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation, 5, 245-249.

[20]   Horak, J., Chobot, K. et al. (2012). Hanging on by the tips of the tarsi: A review of the plight of the critically endangered saproxylic beetle in European forests. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 101-108.

[21]   Humphrey, J. W. (2005). Benefits to biodiversity from developing oldgrowth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: A review and recommendations. Forestry, 78, 33-53.

[22]   Jansson, N., Bergman, K. O. et al. (2009). An indicator system for identification of sites of high conservation value for saproxylic oak (Quercus spp.) beetles in southern Sweden. Journal of Insect Conservation, 13, 399-412.

[23]   Johnston, T. G. (2002). Dalkeith old wood. Scottish Forestry, 56, 105-111.

[24]   Jonsell, M., Weslien, J. et al. (1998). Substrate requirements of redlisted saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 749-764.

[25]   Kaartinen, R., Hardwick, B. et al. (2013). Using citizen scientists to measure an ecosystem service nationwide. Ecology, 94, 2645-2652.

[26]   Kelsey, R. G., & Joseph, G. (2001). Attraction of Scolytus unispinosus bark beetles to ethanol in water-stressed Douglas-fir branches. Forest Ecology and Management, 144, 229-238.

[27]   Kim, K. C. (1993). Biodiversity, conservation and inventory—Why insects matter. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2, 191-214.

[28]   Kuhn, E., Feldmann, R. et al. (2008). Getting the public involved in butterfly conservation: Lessons learned from a new monitoring scheme in Germany. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 54, 89-103.

[29]   Laing, S. E., Buckland, S. T. et al. (2003). Dung and nest surveys: Estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 1102-1111.

[30]   Larkin, P. A., & Elbourn C. A. (1964). Some observation on fauna of dead wood in live oak trees. Oikos, 15, 79-92.

[31]   Lassauce, A., Paillet, Y. et al. (2011). Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecological Indicators, 11, 1027-1039.

[32]   Lovell, S., Hamer, M. et al. (2009). An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 3295-3307.

[33]   Lozano, C., Kidd, N. A. C. et al. (1997). Effects of parasitoid spatial heterogeneity, sex ratio and mutual interference on the interaction between the olive bark beetle Phloeotribus scarabaeoides (Col., Scolytidae) and the pteromalid parasitoid Cheiropachus quadrum (Hym., Pteromalidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 121, 521-528.

[34]   Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

[35]   Patton, R. F. (1990). Diseases of forest trees. In R. A. Young, & R. L. Giese (Eds.), Introduction to forest science (pp. 169-194). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

[36]   Peterken, G. F. (1996). Natural woodland. Ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[37]   R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

[38]   Ranius, T., & Jansson, N. (2000). The influence of forest regrowth, original canopy cover and tree size on saproxylic beetles associated with old oaks. Biological Conservation, 95, 85-94.

[39]   Ranius, T., & Jansson, N. (2002). A comparison of three methods to survey saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 1759-1771.

[40]   Ranius, T., & Nilsson, S. G. (1997). Habitat of Osmoderma eremita Scop. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), a beetle living in hollow trees. Journal of Insect Conservation, 1, 193-204.

[41]   Reynolds, J. C., Short, M. J. et al. (2004). Development of population control strategies for mink Mustela vison, using floating rafts as monitors and trap sites. Biological Conservation, 120, 533-543.

[42]   Rondeux, J., & Sanchez, C. (2010). Review of indicators and field methods for monitoring biodiversity within national forest inventories. Core variable: Deadwood. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 164, 617-630.

[43]   Ruiz-Jaen, M. C., & Aide, T. M. (2005). Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restoration Ecology, 13, 569-577.

[44]   Schlick-Steiner, B. C., Steiner, F. M. et al. (2006). Assessing ant assemblages: Pitfall trapping versus nest counting (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux, 53, 274-281.

[45]   Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 467-471.

[46]   Slade, E. M., Merckx, T. et al. (2013). Life-history traits and landscape characteristics predict macro-moth responses to forest fragmentation. Ecology, 94, 1519-1530.

[47]   Speight, M. C. D. (1989). Life in dead trees—A neglected part of Europe wildlife heritage. Environmental Conservation, 16, 354-356.

[48]   Speight, M. C. D. (1989). Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and environment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

[49]   Speight, M. R. (2005). Sampling insects from trees: Shoots, stems, and trunks. In Leather, S. R. (Ed.), Insect sampling in forest ecosystems (pp. 77-115). Oxford: Blackwell.

[50]   Suding, K. N. (2011). Toward an era of restoration in ecology: Successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 42, 465-487.

[51]   Swift, M. J. (1977). The roles of fungi and animals in the immobilization and release of nutrient elements from decomposing branch wood. Ecological Bulletins, 25, 193-202.

[52]   Ulyshen, M. D. (2013). Strengthening the case for saproxylic arthropod conservation: A call for ecosystem services research. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6, 393-395.

[53]   Ulyshen, M. D., & Wagner, T. L. (2013). Quantifying arthropod contributions to wood decay. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 345-352.

[54]   Wallenius, T., Niskanen, L. et al. (2010). Loss of habitats, naturalness and species diversity in Eurasian forest landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 10, 1093-1101.

[55]   Webbon, C. C., Baker, P. J. et al. (2004). Faecal density counts for monitoring changes in red fox numbers in rural Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 768-779.