Spatiotemporal changes of beetle communities across a tree diversity gradient

99 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.

Is forest diversity driving ecosystem function and service (2010, methodology): “The following literature was used: biota community property: [14,15 ,16–23,27 ,29], resistance to herbivory [25,26,27 ,28,29], invasion resistance [24], production [30,32 ,33,34 ,35,40,43], survival [32 ,34 ,40] recruitment [25,40], litter production [31,44], root biomass [22,45], soil C [46], eleme”
Defying the curse of ignorance: perspectives in insect macroecology and conservation biogeography (2010, background): “Others, such as Malo and Baonza (2002), Sobek et al. (2009) and Brandle et al. (2008) also tested similar pairs of diversity gradients to look for coupled explanations based on extrinsic (climate) and intrinsic (biotic) effects.”
Deadwood enrichment in European forests – Which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity? (2016, unknown): “In contrast, previous non-experimental studies in Central European forests have found positive linearrelationshipsbetween tree species diversity andthe diversity of herbivorous beetles and true bugs (up to 11 tree species, see Sobek et al., 2009a; Sobek et al., 2009b).”