Diversity and composition of carabids during a forestry cycle

By T. Magura, B. Tóthmérész, Z. Elek. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2004

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Forest management effects on carabid beetle communities in coniferous and broadleaved forests: implications for conservation (2008, background): “…of environmental parameters: soil pH, leaf-litter cover, soil moisture, soil organic matter content and ground vegetation cover, all of which have been found to influence ground beetle communities (Butterfield et al., 1995; Ings & Hartley, 1999; Jukes et al., 2001; Magura et al., 2002, 2003, 2005).”
Evaluation of mature conifer plantations as secondary habitat for epigeic forest arthropods (Coleoptera: Carabidae; Araneae) (2005, methodology): “25 (McCune and Mefford, 1995). Environmental variables were not measured; therefore direct analyses were not carried out. For the groups of sample units that were found by cluster analysis, the known habitat requirements of species were used for a characterization of the zoocoenoses. Therefore, the ”
Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape (2008, background): “Although harvesting can be locally destructive, it is not necessarily detrimental to landscape-level species persistence if a spatial mosaic of different successional forest stages can be maintained within the landscape (Butterfield 1997; Magura et al. 2003; Pawson 2006).”