Evaluation of sampling methods for characterisation of post-fire beetle assemblages

Abstract This study evaluates five sampling methods for characterising saproxylic beetle assemblages in a recently burned (18–21 June 2021) boreal forest in southeastern Sweden. We compared species richness and community composition in samples collected using trunk traps, flight-intercept traps, pheromone traps, Malaise traps, and manual searches, deployed in the Finsjöbrännan nature reserve between 2022 and 2024. A total of 2258 beetle specimens were collected, representing 559 species, including 36 red-listed taxa. Flight-intercept traps yielded the highest species richness (331 species) and abundance, while trunk traps were most effective at detecting red-listed species (13.4% of species captured by trunk traps were red-listed). Coverage-based rarefaction indicated that deploying trunk and flight-intercept traps together could detect approximately 89% of the beetle species (by extrapolated richness); however, this two-method combination necessarily spans different succession stages. Notably, 61.1% of the red-listed species were captured exclusively by a single trap type, underscoring the complementary nature of different sampling approaches. Although non-overlapping sampling years may have confounded the comparisons between trap types, these results suggested that methodological choices, combined with temporal factors, may strongly influence biodiversity assessments in post-fire habitats. We provide evidence-based recommendations for effective sampling protocols, emphasising the need for multi-method approaches and temporal consistency in conservation-focused monitoring. Implications for insect conservation: Post-fire forests represent critical habitats for numerous saproxylic beetles, including many species of conservation concern that depend on recently burned wood. Our results demonstrate that no single sampling method adequately captures the full diversity of post-fire beetle assemblages, as red-listed species often occur exclusively in one type of trap. Therefore, conservation monitoring and biodiversity inventories in burned forests should employ a combination of complementary methods—particularly flight-intercept and trunk traps—to maximise species detection. Standardising temporal deployment and ensuring sampling continuity across years are essential for reliable comparisons among fires and regions. Incorporating such multi-method protocols into long-term monitoring will strengthen assessments of post-disturbance recovery and support evidence-based management of fire-dependent insect communities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Insect Conservation
Published
2025-11-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-025-00728-x
Primary Topic
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of sampling methods for characterisation of post-fire beetle assemblages

Olof Persson, Anders Forsman, Markus Franzén
Journal of Insect Conservation
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
article

Evaluation of sampling methods for characterisation of post-fire beetle assemblages

Olof Persson, Anders Forsman, Markus Franzén
article en

Abstract

Abstract This study evaluates five sampling methods for characterising saproxylic beetle assemblages in a recently burned (18–21 June 2021) boreal forest in southeastern Sweden. We compared species richness and community composition in samples collected using trunk traps, flight-intercept traps, pheromone traps, Malaise traps, and manual searches, deployed in the Finsjöbrännan nature reserve between 2022 and 2024. A total of 2258 beetle specimens were collected, representing 559 species, including 36 red-listed taxa. Flight-intercept traps yielded the highest species richness (331 species) and abundance, while trunk traps were most effective at detecting red-listed species (13.4% of species captured by trunk traps were red-listed). Coverage-based rarefaction indicated that deploying trunk and flight-intercept traps together could detect approximately 89% of the beetle species (by extrapolated richness); however, this two-method combination necessarily spans different succession stages. Notably, 61.1% of the red-listed species were captured exclusively by a single trap type, underscoring the complementary nature of different sampling approaches. Although non-overlapping sampling years may have confounded the comparisons between trap types, these results suggested that methodological choices, combined with temporal factors, may strongly influence biodiversity assessments in post-fire habitats. We provide evidence-based recommendations for effective sampling protocols, emphasising the need for multi-method approaches and temporal consistency in conservation-focused monitoring. Implications for insect conservation: Post-fire forests represent critical habitats for numerous saproxylic beetles, including many species of conservation concern that depend on recently burned wood. Our results demonstrate that no single sampling method adequately captures the full diversity of post-fire beetle assemblages, as red-listed species often occur exclusively in one type of trap. Therefore, conservation monitoring and biodiversity inventories in burned forests should employ a combination of complementary methods—particularly flight-intercept and trunk traps—to maximise species detection. Standardising temporal deployment and ensuring sampling continuity across years are essential for reliable comparisons among fires and regions. Incorporating such multi-method protocols into long-term monitoring will strengthen assessments of post-disturbance recovery and support evidence-based management of fire-dependent insect communities.

Journal of Insect ConservationVol. 29(6)
Linköping University (SE), Linnaeus University (SE), Svenska Cellulosa (Sweden) (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.