Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:10:28.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BIODIVERSITY OF COLLEMBOLA IN SUGAR MAPLE (ACERACEAE) FORESTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Fernand Therrien ,
Madeleine Chagnon  and
Christian Hébert
Fernand Therrien
Affiliation:
132, rue Legault (Sainte-Rose), Laval, Québec, Canada H7L 2R4
Madeleine Chagnon
Affiliation:
Groupe de recherche en écologie forestière, Université du Québec á Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 2P3
Christian Hébert*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, P.O. BOX 3800, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada G1V 4C7
*
1 Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed (E-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Collembola of 12 sugar maple forests of southern Quebec were surveyed through pit-light trapping and soil core extraction. These two sampling techniques were highly complementary, as pit-light traps are more efficient for sampling epigaeic species while soil core extractions are more efficient for hypogaeic species. A total of 108 species representing 38 genera and seven families was collected. Nine genera and 67 species are new records for the province of Quebec and 12 species are new records for Canada. The distribution of species among the different sites is summarized and taxonomic remarks are provided for 20 problematic species. A low percentage of the Quebec collembolan fauna is shared with Ontario and Newfoundland, which probably reflects an incomplete inventory of the fauna rather than highly different regional patterns in collembolan communities. The use of these two complementary sampling techniques is suggested to improve the inventory of Collembola in future research.

Résumé

Les Collemboles de douze érablières à sucre du sud du Québec ont été inventoriés à l’aide de pièges-fosse lumineux et par prélèvement d’échantillons de sol. Ces deux techniques d’échantillonnage ont montré une grande complémentarité, les pièges-fosse lumineux étant plus efficaces pour recenser les espèces épigées tandis que l’extraction à partir d’échantillons de sol était plus efficace pour les espèces hypogées. Au total, 108 espèces appartenant à 38 genres et à sept familles ont été récoltées. Neuf genres et 67 espèces sont des nouvelles mentions pour la province de Québec et 12 espèces sont des nouvelles mentions pour le Canada. La distribution des espèces dans les sites est résumée et des remarques taxinomiques sont présentées pour 20 espèces problématiques. Le Québec partage un faible pourcentage de sa faune de Collemboles avec l’Ontario et Terre-Neuve, reflétant probablement un inventaire incomplet de cette faune plutôt qu’une répartition géographique particulière. L’utilisation des deux techniques d’échantillonnage complémentaires est suggérée pour améliorer l’inventaire des Collemboles dans de futures recherches.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 131 , Issue 5 , October 1999 , pp. 613 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cassagnau, P., Deharveng, L. 1974. Les espèces européennes du genre Triacanthella (Collemboles). Nouvelle Revue d'Entomologie 4: 165–80Google Scholar
Chagnon, M. 1999. Effets des conditions environnementales du sol sur la biodiversité des communautés de collemboles des érablières du Québec. Thèse de doctorat, Université du Québec à MontréalGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, K.A. 1965. A revision of the Nearctic members of the genus Tomocerus (Collembola: Entomobryidae). Revue d'Écologie et de Biologie du Sol 1: 639–78Google Scholar
Christiansen, K.A., Bellinger, P. 1980. The Collembola of North America north of the Rio Grande. Grinnell: Grinnell CollegeGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, K.A., Bellinger, P. 1998. The Collembola of North America north of the Rio Grande. 2nd ed. Grinnell: Grinnell CollegeGoogle Scholar
Eidt, D.C. 1995. The importance of taxonomy and biosystematics for forestry. Forestry Chronicle 71: 581–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjellberg, A. 1978. New species of the genus Isotoma Bourlet, 1839 from North America (Collembola: Isotomidae). Entomologica Scandinavica 9: 93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjellberg, A. 1980. Identification keys to Norwegian Collembola. Norsk Entomologisk ForeningGoogle Scholar
Fjellberg, A. 1985. Arctic Collembola. I. Alaskan Collembola of the families Poduridae, Hypogastruridae, Odontellidae, Brachystomellidae and Neanuridae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum 21: 1–126Google Scholar
Green, R.N., Trowbridge, R.L., Klinka, K. 1993. Towards a taxonomic classification of humus forms. Forest Science Monographs (Supplement to Forest Science) 39Google Scholar
Grow, A., Christiansen, K. 1976. Chaetotaxy in Folsomia (Collembola: Isotomidae) with special reference to nearctic species. Revue d'Écologie et de Biologie du Sol 13: 611–27Google Scholar
Hågvar, S. 1982. Collembola in Norwegian coniferous forest soils. I. Relations to plant communities and soil fertility. Pedobiologia 24: 255–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobin, L., Coulombe, C. 1992. The Luminoc® insect trap. Forestry Canada, Quebec Region, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Information Leaflet 26EGoogle Scholar
Kopeszki, V. 1993. Effects of fertilization on the mesofauna, especially collembolan, in different forest habitats in the Bohemian Woods. Zoologischer Anzeiger 231: 83–97Google Scholar
Lee, K.E., Foster, R.C. 1991. Soil fauna and soil structure. Australian Journal of Soil Research 29: 745–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linden, D.L., Hendrix, P.F., Coleman, D.C., van Vliet, P.C.J. 1994. Faunal indicators of soil quality. pp. 91–106in Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, Inc.Google Scholar
Marshall, V.G. 1967. Microarthropods from two Quebec woodland humus forms. II. The Collembola. Annals of the Entomological Society of Québec 12: 166–81Google Scholar
Marshall, V.G. 1993. Sustainable forestry and soil fauna diversity. pp. 239–48 in Fenger, M.A., Miller, E.H., Johnson, J.A., Williams, H.R. (Eds.), Our living legacy. Victoria: Royal British Columbia MuseumGoogle Scholar
Murphy, P.W. 1962. Extraction methods for soil animals. I. Dynamic methods with particular reference to funnel processes. pp. 75–114in Murphy, P.W. (Ed.), Progress in soil zoology. London: ButterworthsGoogle Scholar
Puvanendran, D.C., Larson, D.J., Thompson, I.D. 1997. Collembola (Arthropoda) of balsam fir [Abies balsamea (L.)] forests of western Newfoundland. The Canadian Entomologist 129: 505–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusek, J. 1976. New Onychiuridae (Collembola) from Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 54: 19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, H., Marshall, V.G. 1994. Stumps as a habitat for Collembola during succession from clear-cuts to old growth Douglas-fir forests. Pedobiologia 38: 307–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skidmore, R.E. 1995. Checklist of Collembola (Insecta: Apterygota) of Canada and Alaska. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 126: 45–76Google Scholar
Snider, R.J. 1997. New Orchesella species (Collembola: Entomobryidae) from North America. Entomological News 108(5): 372–78Google Scholar
Stork, N.E., Eggleton, P. 1992. Invertebrates as determinants and indicators of soil quality. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7: 38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar