Saproxylic beetle assemblages in artificially created high-stumps of spruce (Picea abies) and birch (Betula pendula ⁄ pubescens) – does the surrounding landscape matter? MARKUS ABRAHAMSSON, 1 MATS JONSELL, 2 MATS NIKLASSON 1 and MATTS LINDBLADH 1 1 Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU – Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden and 2 Department of Ecology, SLU – Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden Abstract. 1. To create high-stumps (snags) is a common conservation action during final felling in Swedish production forests. However, many wood-living beetle species are only found in certain areas with higher overall biodiversity, so called hotspots. It has been argued that it is efficient to concentrate conservation efforts to hotspots. 2. The saproxylic beetle fauna was sampled on ten clearcuts inside hotspots and ten clearcuts outside the hotspots. They were collected with window traps mounted on 2- and 4-year-old spruce and birch high-stumps. We also used environmental data (e.g. tree species composition) to confirm differences between the surroundings of two, the clearcut types. 3. High-stumps on the hotspot clearcuts did not attract more saproxylic beetle species, or red- listed species, than high-stumps outside the hotspots. The environmental data showed that the clearcuts differed in several important aspects, for instance, were there a higher proportion of broadleaved trees around the hotspot compared with the clearcuts outside the hotspots. In a Canonical Correspondence Analysis, the proportion of coniferous and broadleaved forest was an important explanatory variables. The hotspot variable did contribute significantly in explaining the beetle composition on the birch high-stumps, but not on the spruce high-stumps. 4. In general, the study suggests that concentrating high-stumps to hotspot areas will not benefit more species. However, the result indicates birch high-stumps could be prioritised in a biologically rich landscape. The hotspot effect may be more noticeable in the future as the high-stumps decay and their importance for late successional species increase. Keywords. Conservation, dead wood, hotspot, production forest, snags, species diversity, Sweden Introduction During the last decade, much focus in forest conservation has been on dead wood and species associated with dead wood. This substrate is a key feature in natural forests and constitutes a habi- tat where numerous saproxylic (wood-living) organisms live (Grove, 2002). The volumes of dead wood in Swedish produc- tion forests are at least one magnitude lower than that in natural forests (Fridman & Walheim, 2000). On the scale of single stands, studies have shown that lower amount of dead wood support a lower number of saproxylic species (Martikainen et al., 2000; Sippola et al., 2002; Hyva¨ rinen et al. , 2006a). How- ever, stand variables cannot fully explain occurrences of these species because the regional species pool available for colonising a stand varies. These differences in species pool are created by the history of the forest (Nilsson & Baranowski, 1993; Lindbladh et al., 2003) and ⁄ or the amount of suitable habitat in the sur- rounding landscape (Franc et al., 2007). Thus, many rare wood- living beetles species are only found in certain areas, so called hotspots, which often have higher overall biodiversity as a result of lower previous management intensity (Ehnstro¨ m & Walde´n, 1986; Nilsson et al., 2005). It has been argued that it is more effi- cient to concentrate conservation efforts in hotspots rather than distributing the efforts throughout the landscape (Hanski, 2000; Franc et al. , 2007). However, Swedish forestry policy is gauged for the latter. For instance, certification schemes like Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) schemes and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) require that certain con- servation actions are taken during silvicultural operations (Anon, 2000a,b). Examples of actions taken during final felling are the retention of green and dead trees, and the creation of Correspondence: Matts Lindbladh, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU – Swedish University of Agricultural Sci- ences, P.O. Box 49, SE 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden. E-mail: matts. lindbladh@ess.slu.se Insect Conservation and Diversity (2009) 2, 284–294 doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00066.x Ó 2009 The Authors 284 Journal compilation Ó 2009 The Royal Entomological Society