David and Goliath – a story of bark beetles

Bark beetles (Scolytinae) are small beetles a few millimeters in size. Their larva develop under tree bark eating the phloem, xylem, and cambium layers. Certain species cause extensive forest damage by killing healthy trees, while others only impact weakened individuals. The eating patterns (called galleries) and the trees’ defensive reactions cause disturbances in the nutrient and water cycling within the trunks. The trees literally dry to death.

Bark beetles can be detected by the gallery patterns they leave on tree trunks. These patterns are species-specific, and often very beautiful. The patterns can be used to recognize infestations and begin warding off the worst damage. Then again, the gallery patterns cannot be seen until the tree bark falls off.

Bark beetles also have a secret weapon: wood-staining fungi. This group of fungi includes several species that damage wood or cause serious diseases to trees. Bark beetles and wood-staining fungi have developed various relationships such as the ambrosia beetles that spread certain fungi species into their galleries to farm them for food. Wood-staining fungi benefit from the bark beetles transporting them to new trees, and have developed exceptionally sticky spores that attach to adult beetles as they are preparing to disperse. Bark beetles also benefit: the fungi weaken new tree individuals, giving adult bark beetles the opportunity to infest and lay their eggs in these trees.

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_wood-staining-fungi

A possible wood-staining fungus is spreading beneath the bark of a birch infested by the birch bark beetle. ©Stella Thompson

It’s hard to believe that tiny beetles and even more minuscule fungi can kill gigantic trees. Situations where a bark beetle or fungi spreads to a new geographical region among lumber are particularly devastating. The new host trees have no immunity or defense mechanisms against this new organism and the alien species spreads like wildfire.

Dutch elm disease is a prime example of this. Ophiostoma ulmi, a fungus killing elm shoots spread from Asia initially to Europe and then, fueled by the post-World War I reconstruction boom, from Europe to North America in lumber. European elm species coped with the disease slightly better than their North American cousins. European elms also died, but the spread of the disease around Europe took several decades and finally the outbreak waned. 10–40% of the elms died, depending on the country in question. The situation was very different in North America. The American elm (Ulmus americana), a very popular urban and ornamental tree, formed large forests in the eastern areas of the continent. It narrowly escaped extinction through active eradication and education measures such as campaigns forbidding the transportation of firewood outside infected states. Unfortunately, a new, much more virulent fungus (Ophiostoma nova-ulmi) causing Dutch elm disease spread to Europe and North America during the 1940s. This fungus has caused the near annihilation of elms from several European countries. As of yet Finland has mostly been spared by the disease, but this may change with a warming climate that allows beetles belonging to the Scolytus genus that carry Dutch elm disease to overwinter in more northern regions. These beetles are already found on the northern coast of Estonia and in the Stockholm area of Sweden. The birch bark beetle (Scolytus ratzeburgi), commonly found in Finland, does not spread Dutch elm disease as it has specialized in solely utilizing birch trees.

However, the birch bark beetle spreads the Ophiostoma karelicum -fungus. Trappings

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_birchbarkbeetle

The presence of birch bark beetles can be detected by their unique eating patterns. ©Stella Thompson

conducted during 2008 and 2009 for a study carried out in Norway, Finland, and Russia revealed the prevalence of O. karelicum: every single birch bark beetle individual carried the fungus, which was also found in each of the beetle’s galleries that were searched. The life cycle and ecology of O. karelicum is very similar to the fungi spreading Dutch elm disease, and the commonness of the fungus and the birch bark beetle means a very high risk of the disease spreading to e.g. North America. The birch species native to North America would most probably have no resistance to the disease.

On the other hand, pitch canker (Gibberella circinata) is a fungus spread by bark beetles, originating in North America, which has now spread to Europe where it causes pine mortality. The Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), native to e.g. Finland, is especially susceptible, but the disease has not spread as far north as Scandinavia yet.

To make these dynamics even more complicated, several mite species have also been shown to transport or act as the primary hosts of wood-staining fungi. These mites are in turn spread by bark beetles. The relationships and interactions between these three organisms are still poorly understood.

The disease resistance of tree species can be increased through cultivation. American elm cultivars more resistant to Dutch elm disease have been found, and their disease resistance has been further enhanced through cultivation. These cultivars are most probably the reason that elm forests still exist today in North America, although the age and size composition of these forests has changed considerably with the death of the old and large trees. Biological and chemical disease control is also a possibility: fungicides can be injected into live trees to stop the spread of specific diseases. Six fungicides combating Dutch elm disease are currently on the market in the US.

Similar control measures can most probably be developed against O. karelicum. However, widespread injection campaigns are difficult to implement. In the US, Dutch elm disease is mainly controlled by injecting individual ornamental or urban trees. Injection control as an effective eradication measure requires more development before it becomes a feasible tool for preventing damage caused by alien species.

Advertisements

Drones conquer biological research

For centuries, biologists have been known for their good fieldwork competence and persistence in data collection. But new technology has now arrived to weaken the strong constitution of biologists, though fortunately not our persistence.

Drones a.k.a. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (= UAV) have been a hot topic for a while now. Previously talk has mainly concentrated on how drones can be used to deliver mail or pizza, or even used for military purposes. But recently researchers have also begun acknowledging the possibilities that drones offer.

Drones or UAVs are remote-controlled or autopiloted to fly a certain route. © Mia Vehkaoja

Drones or UAVs are remote-controlled or autopiloted to fly a certain route. © Mia Vehkaoja

Drones are, as their more professional name implies, unmanned light aircrafts that usually resemble either planes or helicopters. They are either remote-controlled or can be programmed to automatically fly a predetermined route. UAVs can be used to collect aerial photographs and videos, from which orthophotos and terrain and 3D models can be produced. The National Land Survey of Finland uses laser scanning photos that deliver an accuracy of 50 cm, whereas aerial photographs from drones can provide an accuracy of 1–10 cm. With such accuracies we can almost identify and count individual plant specimens.

An aerial photograph of a beaver wetland taken with a drone. © Antti Nykänen

An aerial photograph of a beaver wetland taken with a drone. © Antti Nykänen

Drone orthophotos make it possible for example to calculate the vegetation and open water cover percentages of a water system, and define the vegetation categories of an area. UAV-produced photos open up new horizons for defining vegetation classes. These classes have previously been categorized pretty roughly e.g. tree stand, bushes and brushwood. But now we can identify vegetation to the family or even genus level.

An orthophoto produced from the aerial photos taken with a drone. © Antti Nykänen

An orthophoto produced from the aerial photos taken with a drone. © Antti Nykänen

UAVs can also be utilized in game animal calculations. For example, they are an easier and faster way to calculate the ducks or geese in a certain area. On the other hand, they also make it possible to observe the nests of raptors from the air, which is considerably safer and faster (no tree-climbing involved) for the researcher, and a stress-free method for the bird. Heat cameras can additionally be attached onto the drone, making it possible to calculate the mammals, such as deer, in dense canopy landscapes. USA and Germany have already used drones to calculate mammal populations. UAVs are best suited for at least hare-sized animals.

Drones are here to stay and their use in research will increase and diversify in the future.  Researchers just need to hold on to their seats and let their imaginations fly.

Vanishing wigeons and fading horsetails

Over 20 years ago Finnish and Swedish duck researchers began the “Northern Project” and conducted vegetation measurements on 60 Finnish and Swedish lakes while also counting their duck populations. The study lakes were located from southern Sweden and Finland to Lapland in both countries. Researchers found that the water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile) grew abundantly on many of the study lakes. Breeding Eurasian wigeons (Anas penelope) were also abundant according to the study.

The water horsetail prefers eutrophic lakes and wetlands. Horsetails are an ancient plant group that has existed for over 100 million years. They are thus living fossils.

Wigeons also utilize eutrophic lakes during the breeding season. Adults are vegetarians, but wigeon ducklings also consume invertebrates, a common trait in young birds.

Wigeon brood foraging within water horsetails at Lofoten. © Sari Holopainen

Wigeon brood foraging within water horsetails at Lofoten. © Sari Holopainen

The vegetation mappings and duck surveys connected to the Northern Project were repeated in 2013–2014. The researchers wished to find reasons for the deep decline in breeding wigeon numbers. They observed that wigeons had disappeared from several lakes where they were found on 20 years ago. When the habitat use of wigeon pairs was studied, the pairs were observed to particularly prefer lakes with water horsetails. In Evo, southern Finland, the feeding habitats of wigeon broods were followed over a period of 20 years. Broods were found to forage significantly more often within water horsetails than in other vegetation.

Wigeons therefore prefer lakes with water horsetail present throughout their breeding season. However, the long-term research by the Northern Project has shown that water horsetail has declined and even disappeared from many lakes in Sweden and Finland: this is a large-scale phenomenon. The wigeon is suspected to suffer due to vanishing water horsetail populations. Also, Finnish pair surveys in addition to reproduction monitoring show negative trends for the wigeon.

Health water horsetail at Lofoten © Sari Holopainen

Health water horsetail at Lofoten © Sari Holopainen

The reasons behind diminishing water horsetail numbers are not known. Impact from alien species can be suspected locally. Glyceria maxima, an alien species in Finland, appears to be growing in areas were water horsetail has traditionally grown. Grazing by the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) could also be a reason, but the species does not occur in southern Sweden. The whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) could be another potential grazer, and the species’ populations have rapidly increased during the last decades. But these species can only have local effects, which do no not apply to the whole study area. Researchers cannot exclude other possible explanations, for example diseases or changes in water ecosystems. Despite water horsetail having commonly existed in boreal lakes, their influence in the water ecosystem is poorly understood. This study suggests that the water horsetail has an important role, and its disappearance will be reflected in the food web.

 

Read more: Pöysä, H., Elmberg, J., Gunnarsson, G., Holopainen, S., Nummi, P. & Sjöberg, K. Habitat associations and habitat change: seeking explanation for population decline in breeding wigeon Anas penelope. Hydrobiologia.  

Crawlers and fliers – how to study forest insects

Studying insects is interesting yet challenging. Determining individuals to the species level

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_birchbarkbeetle

The presence of birch bark beetles can be detected by their unique eating patterns. ©Stella Thompson

nearly always requires capturing them first, although some species, such as the birch bark beetle (Scolytus ratzeburgi), can be identified by the unique pattern they leave on tree trunks. However, it is almost always necessary to use various types of traps to capture individuals if identifying the insect species present at a certain site is the main objective of a study. For example, butterflies are trapped during the night using light traps, and the occurrence of certain protected species can be confirmed using feromone traps that use synthetic lures as bait. Traps can be dug into the ground, lifted high up into tree canopies, or attached to the insides of hollow tree trunks.

As my PhD research I am assessing how beavers affect forest beetle populations. I have several research questions:  do beaver-induced flood zones have different beetle species assemblages than other areas, do the increased moisture and sunlight conditions in the flood zone affect species assemblage, and do beaver areas advance or hinder potential forest pest or protected species. My research combines a game species with widespread effects on its surroundings and forest beetles, several species of which have become scarce and require protection. Beaver-induced flooding and the species’ habit of felling tree trunks may locally disturb forest owners, but my study is looking into whether beavers’ actions facilitate or disturb forest pests. Combining game and insect research is cool, and generates new information on which to base decision-making for future protection measures, beaver population management, and even for using beavers as a natural tool for restoring degraded wetlands and forests.

Window traps are widely used for determining the insect assemblages of sites. Window traps cannot be used to capture specific insect groups, because all sorts of invertebrates ranging from flies to pseudoscorpions and wasps to beetles creep or fly into them. Window traps are very simple: the trap is attached to a tree trunk or set to hang between two trees. Insects crawl or fly into the plastic plexiglas frame and then fall through the funnel into a liquid-filled container at the bottom. The container is filled halfway with water, dishwashing fluid, and salt. The dishwashing fluid prevents the insects from regaining flight, consequently drowning them. The salt helps preserve the insects until the trap is emptied out, which happens about once a month. I have 120 traps spread out at several sites, so every summer I collect about 600 samples.

Unfortunately other creatures may sometimes end up caught in the window traps. So far I have inadvertently captured a few common lizards and a bat. This is always disappointing, because an individual dying for nothing does not advance research or science in any way. In the same way it is frustrating if you unintentionally set up a trap on a tree trunk that an ant colony uses as its route. Hundreds or even thousands of ants may drown in the window trap. As my own study focuses on beetles, I cannot utilize the ants in any way. At least this does not happen very often.

After the trap container has been emptied the gathered sample is sifted through using tweezers and a microscope, to separate the insect groups that I am interest in. Next the individuals are determined to the necessary level. Sometimes determining the family level is enough, but if making conservation decisions or gaining new information on certain species is the goal, it is usually necessary to determine individual insects to the species level. How this is done depends on the order in question, e.g. beetles are often recognized by their ankles and genitals.

Occasionally you come across data deficient species, i.e. species that are not well known or understood. Species, genera, and families are determined using identification keys, which are sometimes incomplete. For example, currently the best key for identifying Finnish rove beetles is in German, and for several families the most complete keys are in Russian. So I’m currently kind of happy that I studied German in middle and high school. I guess next I should begin uncovering the secrets of Russian vocabulary.

Let’s ban lead shot!

The use of lead shot and sinks is a global phenomenon. Only the past decades has

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_blog_hazel grouse

Grouse species also suffer from the harmful effects of lead shot. ©Stella Thompson

increased our understanding of the negative effects that toxic lead shot inflicts on ecosystems. As an example, birds die of lead poisoning after eating lead shot. They mistake the ammunition for sand or grit, which they use to aid their digestion. The birds’ gizzards and stomach acids dissolve the shot, causing lead to accumulate in their bones. As little as two lead shots is enough to directly cause the death of a mallard-sized animal.

During the 1980s, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted a study on the effects of lead exposure on water birds such as waterfowl. Diving ducks were found to be most susceptible, but lead shot was also commonly found in dabbling ducks, geese, and swans. Long-term monitoring by the USFWS also uncovered negative effects on bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) populations, and since then, several studies have found harmful effects to numerous animal groups around the world, e.g. bears, deer, predatory birds, doves, loons, and frogs. International studies also associate lead shot with increased lead concentrations in people who regularly consume game.

A federal ban on using lead shot for waterfowl hunting was issued in 1991 in the US. Since then, 34 states have decreed tighter state-wide bans, e.g. California completely banned the use of lead shots in the home ranges of the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), and by July 2019 California will completely ban lead shot in all forms of hunting, the first state to do so.

But what is the European Union’s game plan concerning lead shot? A total ban has been proposed, but the motion is currently only a thought, and we are still miles away from actual progress. Several countries in the EU have issued various types of bans, e.g. the lead shot has been prohibited in wildfowl hunting in Finland since 1996. The US also seems far from a federal ban.

So what’s the big deal, why are we not stepping up and pushing forward?

Not everyone has been satisfied with the disappearance of affordable, high quality, and gun-safe lead shot. The lead shot ban has caused a great deal of debate and criticism over the years. Many are hoping to weaken the ban in waterfowl hunting to only concern certain shallow wetlands or very important rest areas along migration routes. Those opposing the ban have based their arguments on several propositions formed in the 1990s, which have since been scientifically proven incorrect:

 

Claim 1: Lead shot is not dangerous, because it is believed to rapidly sink to the bottom of wetlands, where waterfowl cannot reach it.

After initiating the partial lead shot ban in 1991, the USFWS began long-term monitoring of its affects. Lead shot –induced mortality in mallards dropped by 64% in the six years following the ban. And this is a dabbling duck species, which according to studies should not even suffer the most from lead poisoning. The impacts that the ban has had on diving duck populations, which find their nutrition from the bottom mud layer of wetlands, or on small duck species are probably even more pronounced. Lead poisoning additionally causes e.g. reproductive problems, which can lead to long-term population declines even without directly killing all individuals. For example, a French research group found that female teals carry shot in their gizzards more frequently than males do, wherefore females had worse survival rates than males. A study in the US relates 17–46% of the mortality of loons directly to lead shot, while the same estimates for swans and bald eagles are 31% and 12%, respectively. The lead shot ban is estimated to annually save 1.4 million waterfowl in the States alone. In Canada, the lead concentrations found in the bones of water birds lessened by 50–70% following a ban. An although loons are not hunted as game, their population declines due to lead shot and sinks should be taken in to consideration when considering the fate of toxic lead shot.

wetland-ecology-group_university-of-helsinki_blog_teal_mallard

Both teal and mallards suffer from lead poisoning, which besides causing death also causes behavioural abnormalities. This makes individuals more susceptible to hunting. ©Veli-Matti Väänänen.

Claim 2: Alternative shot types (mainly steel, vismuth, and zinc) are inefficient and expensive.

A 2015 study in the US compared the effectiveness of lead shot and two types of steel shot in the hunting of mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). No differences were found in aim, the number of injured escapees, hunter satisfaction, or realized quarry numbers. Necropsies of shot doves revealed no differences in the numbers of through-body shots or average strike depths. Steel shot was therefore found to be accurate enough for dove hunting. A poll study found nearly 80% of US hunters to prefer steel to lead shot, or at least consider the two equally effective. Initially the steel shot sold in several countries tried to mimic the qualities of lead shot. The resulting low muzzle velocities and large ammunition size led to poor hunting success. Higher quality steel shot is currently widely available, but the damage caused by poor shot quality was immediate, and is the only reason why steel shot still carries a bad reputation. Many people tested steel shot once or twice, and returned to illegally using lead shot despite the bans.

Steel shot was additionally about four times as expensive as lead shot when the ban was issued in the US, but rising demand has caused their prices to drop significantly. The same would probably occur in many European countries, where demand to increase.

 

Claim 3: Hunting with alternative ammunition increases the numbers of wounded animals. This has been suggested to happen because of the ineffectiveness of non-lead shot and hunters being unaccustomed to lighter weight ammunition.

The USFWS annually conducts a poll inventorying e.g. the numbers of total hunted quarry and injured escapees. During the 1950s and ‘60s, the number of injured escapees was about 20%, but initially grew to about 24% after the partial led shot ban. However, a few years later numbers dropped down to initial levels, as hunters became used to the new shot. During the last years the level has dropped to 14%. The study conducted on mourning dove hunting success also did not reveal any differences in the numbers of injured escapees. So if European hunters are still performing worse after lead shot bans in their countries, they should perhaps consider looking in the mirror and wondering what’s wrong with their aim.

 

Claim 4: The lead shot ban has decreased realized duck quarries, e.g. because hunting and hunting success have lessened.

To date, there is no scientific proof to back either of these claims. But on the contrary, waterfowl populations have decreased markedly during this same time period due to disagreeable habitat change. Could this, by any chance, be the actual reason for diminishing quarry sizes? Especially as assessments and research show that hunters have in fact not obeyed the lead shot ban very widely. For example, 90% of Finnish hunters are still estimated to use lead shot in waterfowl hunting. About 70% of the ducks shot in Britain carry lead shot in their bodies. This means that the use of steel shot cannot have decreased duck quarries, because steel shot simply isn’t being used.

However, one actual problem is that steel shot cannot be used in certain older shotguns. This has probably slightly lessened the duck hunting enthusiasm of some elderly hunters.

 

Unfortunately, the European Commission wants to focus on only lessening the amounts of lead found in wetlands. The EU has ratified the UN’s Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, so we should be rid of lead shots within three years. Therefore it is fairly questionable that a total ban is currently not being discussed in more detail. A few EU nations, e.g. Denmark and Holland, have executed a total ban, thus preventing the use of lead shot in any forms of hunting. Nothing appears to be happening in the US either. Despite the encouraging results on the number of lead poisoning incidents dropping dramatically, the effectiveness of partial bans is just too weak. An overview from 2015 by the University of Oxford estimates that 50 000 to 100 000 birds die annually from lead poisoning in Britain alone. According to the Finnish Food Safety Authority and the Finnish Museum of Natural History, every third white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) death is directly related to lead poisoning. Partial bans are ineffective and their execution cannot be properly monitored. A total ban would also create pressure to develop shot that would work well with older shotguns. Now is the time to finally completely ban lead shots.

 

Additional information

on lead poisoning occurring in several bird species

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00119051

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/

 

on the mourning dove study

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.504/full

 

on the effects of lead on teals

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707001346

What if species conservation leads to conflict?

The rise of nature conservation during the last century was a response to the weak environmental situation. Many animal species were declining, and conservationists strove to save them from extinction. Protection has worked for several species and population numbers have grown. This is obviously a good thing for the species, but can conservation offer an answer, if protection leads to conflict?

© Sari Holopainen

Barnacle geese have damaged e.g. Helsinki university research fields © Sari Holopainen

Big bird conflicts

Geese were the first group that I encountered this problem with. Many geese species have been strictly conserved due to population decreases. For some species conservation has worked so well that population increases have exceeded the tolerance limits of farmers. I read a text discussing the flexibility of conservation and management: if conservation targets are achieved, are we able to modify conservation-based management, if this is possible?  Geese-induced crop damages in particular have increased, and now geese also cause problems in cities. The populations of whooper swans and cranes have also increased in Finland, and they have caused crop damage. The conflicts between birds and farmers have been solved by paying farmers compensations, but other arrangements should also be utilized in the long term. One method is to attract for example cranes to certain fields, where they do not cause uncontrollable damage. When it comes to game species, the relationship between conservation and hunting should be considered. For example, legalizing the hunting of barnacle geese has been suggested in Finland, but is currently not realized. On the contrary, barnacle geese can be hunted to prevent crop damages in neighboring Estonia.

Eider breeding is in trouble © Sari Holopainen

Eider breeding is in trouble © Sari Holopainen

Even a protected predator eats meat

The dilemma becomes especially difficult when the protection of one species leads to a conflict in the protection of another species. Such a situation can evolve for example between a prey and its predator. Saving the white-tailed eagle from extinction in Finland is one of the great success stories of Finnish nature conservation. However, according to new research, eagles are one reason why eider populations have declined in the Finnish archipelago. Due to predation some islands have effectively lost their entire nesting eider populations. Eagles also utilize eider broods swimming at sea. However, the effect of the eagle is not so simple: on the other hand eagles control the American mink, which is an extremely harmful alien species destroying eider nests. In addition to eagles, eiders are also threatened by the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea and ecosystem changes connected to salt rate changes. If the eider population continues to decline, managers must evaluate the hunting possibilities of this traditional game species, although it might be not enough to solve the complicated problems facing the species.

A conflict situation has also appeared between the wolf and Finnish forest reindeer, both endangered species. There are only two populations of forest reindeers in Finland occurring in Kainuu and Suomenselkä. The growth of the Kainuu population has ceased after an increase of the wolf population in the area. Calf production has dropped, some of the traditional production areas are now empty, and the most important reason for the death of collared female forest reindeer is wolves. But as with the eider, changes have also occurred in the environment of the forest reindeers. Due to forest industry, forests are becoming younger, which has a positive effect on the moose, thus supporting dense wolf populations. As a result the forest reindeer suffers:  younger forests are not an optimal habitat for the species, and they suffer more from predation because moose is the more common species.

Calf mortality is observed to be worryingly high in Kainuu forest reindeer population. Calf  in Korkeasaari Zoo in Helsinki © Sari Holopainen

Calf mortality is observed to be worryingly high in Kainuu forest reindeer population. Calf in Korkeasaari Zoo in Helsinki © Sari Holopainen

Trees form a forest

These are good examples of how the protection of one species can be surrounded by complicated ecological impacts, not even to mention human dimensions. These connections should be considered when planning conservation. The question becomes especially timely if protection is successful. The conversation around conservation issues (at least for me) fairly often appears as straightforward, where risks and threats are recognized, but these complicated impacts could be more underlined. What to do if one species begins threatening another, or when a population increase causes damages? Are we able to understand the entire situation and work with the whole palette of tools available to reach the best conclusion, or do we just slide into polarized debate with no constructive solutions to offer? One example of such creative management issues occurs in Finland, where wolf hunting is currently allowed to increase the value of the wolf as a game animal. Concurrently it is hoped that attitudes towards the wolf will become better and wolf poaching will decrease. We are currently waiting for the results of this experiment.

The beaver – our wetland rescuer

The beavers (Castor canadensis and Castor fiber) have recovered from near extinction, and come to the rescue of wetland biodiversity. Two major processes drive boreal wetland loss: the near extinction of beavers, and extensive draining (if we exclude the effects of the ever-expanding human population). Beaver dams have produced over 500 square kilometers of wetlands in Europe during the past 70 years.

 

The wetland creation of beavers begins with the flood. As floodwaters rise into the surrounding forest, soil and vegetation are washed into the water system. The amount of organic carbon increases in the wetland during the first three impoundment years, after which they gradually begin reverting back to initial levels. The increase in organic carbon facilitates the entire wetland food web in stages, beginning with plankton and invertebrates, and ending in frogs, birds and mammals.

The previous shoreline is very evident from an aerial photograph. Also the beaver flooded area shows clearly. © Antti Nykänen

The previous shoreline is very evident from an aerial photograph. Also the beaver flooded area shows clearly. © Antti Nykänen

Beaver-created wetlands truly become frog paradises. The wide shallow water area creates suitable spawning and rearing places. The shallow water warms up rapidly, and accelerates hatching and tadpole development. Beaver-created wetlands also ensure ample nutrition. The organic carbon increase raises the amounts of tadpole nutrition (plankton and protozoans) in the wetland, along with the nutriment of adult frogs (invertebrates). Furthermore, the abundant vegetation creates hiding places against predators for both tadpoles and adult frogs.

Beaver-created wetlands are perfect rearing places for frogs. The warm water accelerates hatching and the abundant aquatic vegetation gives cover against predators. © Mia Vehkaoja

Beaver-created wetlands are perfect rearing places for frogs. The warm water accelerates hatching and the abundant aquatic vegetation gives cover against predators. © Mia Vehkaoja

The flood and beaver foraging kill trees in the riparian zone. Deadwood is currently considered a vanishing resource. Finnish forests have an average 10 cubic meters of deadwood per hectare, whereas beavers produce over seven times more of the substrate into a landscape. Beaver-produced deadwood is additionally very versatile. Wind, fire and other natural disturbances mainly create two types of deadwood: coarse snags and downed logs. Beavers, on the other hand, produce both snags and downed logs of varying width, along with moderately rare deciduous deadwood. The more diverse the deadwood assortment is, the richer the deadwood-dependent species composition that develops in the landscape.

Beaver-created wetlands produce  especially standing deadwood. © Mia Vehkaoja

Beaver-created wetlands produce especially standing deadwood. © Mia Vehkaoja

Deadwood-dependent species are one of the most endangered species groups in the world. The group includes e.g. lichens, beetles and fungi. Currently there are 400 000 to a million deadwood-dependent species in the world. Over 7000 of these inhabit Finland. Pin lichens are lichens that often prefer snags as their living environment. Beaver actions produce large amounts of snags, which lead to diverse pin lichen communities. Snags standing in water provide suitable living conditions for pin lichens; a constant supply of water is available from the moist wood, and the supply of light is additionally limitless in the open and sunny beaver wetlands.

 

The return of beavers has helped the survival of many wetland and deadwood-associated species in Finland, Europe and North America. Only 1000 beavers inhabited Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Now over a million beavers live in Europe. I argue that this increase has been a crucial factor benefitting the survival and recovery of wetland biodiversity. Finland and the other EU member states still have plenty of work to do to achieve the goals of the EU Water Framework Directive. Both the chemical conditions and the biodiversity of wetlands / inland waters affect the biological condition and quality of wetlands.

 

The whole research published here