Cited by 307Coleoptera Taxonomy and DistributionEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies

Species decline—but why? Explanations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe

Kotze, D. Johan, O'Hara, Robert B.·2003·Oecologia

Abstract

We investigated some of the causes of ground beetle decline using atlas data from Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, countries in which natural environments have all but disappeared. We used ordinal regression to identify characteristics that are significantly correlated with the decline of carabid beetle species over the last 50-100 years, using a stepwise selection procedure to select the optimal model according to the Akaike Information Criterion. The results showed that large-bodied carabid populations have declined more than smaller ones, possibly because of their lower reproductive output and lower powers of dispersal. Habitat specialist populations (i.e. species with small niche breadths) have also decreased more than habitat generalist populations. Species with both long- and short-winged individuals have been less prone to decline than those that are exclusively either short-winged or long-winged. Dimorphic species may survive better in highly altered environments because long-winged individuals are good at dispersing between suitable habitats and short-winged individuals are good at surviving and reproducing in these newly colonised habitats. Finally, populations of large carabids associated with coastal, woodland or riparian habitat types were less prone to decline than populations of large carabids associated with various, open or grassland habitat types. The pattern is reversed for carabid species smaller than 8 mm in size. These results are explained in the context of habitat restoration and destruction in these highly modified western European countries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00442-002-1174-3

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other studies have documented declines in arthropod abundance across a broad range of geography, habitats, and taxa.

    “Other studies have also documented declines in arthropod abundance across a broad range of geography, habitats, and taxa (10–12, 54, 55, 56–58).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kotze, D. J., & O'Hara, R. B.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Kotze, D. Johan
Venue
Oecologia
Published
2003-02-11
Volume
135
Issue
1
Pages
138-148
ISSN
  • 0029-8549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1939
OpenAlex
W1980694553
Cited by
307
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 12
FWCI
9.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oecologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Coleoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
ground beetles, species decline, body size, habitat specialization, niche breadth, wing polymorphism, dispersal, habitat restoration, habitat loss, habitat change
MeSH terms
Animals, Coleoptera, Body Constitution, Environment, Europe, Biological Evolution, Female, Male, Population Dynamics, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Wings, Animal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review