| Abstract: | Intensive forest management has caused loss and fragmentation of old‐growth forests and reduced the amount of dead wood throughout northwest Europe. Changes in habitat availability are reflected in occurrence patterns of habitat‐specialist species only after a certain time lag. Here we analyse the responses of wood‐decomposing fungi and saproxylic beetles inhabiting patches of spruce‐swamp forest to habitat quality, loss and isolation at three different spatial scales in eastern Finland and adjacent Russian Karelia, where forestry has been very marginal until recently. Both rare specialist species and common generalist species were included in the study to reveal whether their occurrence patterns differ. Variables describing habitat quality (density and continuity of host trees, patch area) turned out significant in explaining species' incidences (proportion of occupied host trees) in only a few cases, probably because of the relatively high quality of all study patches. Despite this fact, and consistent with our hypothesis, incidences of all the eight specialist species were higher in Russia than Finland, and the difference was significant in the two most strict habitat specialists, Pytho kolwensis and Phlebia centrifuga. In contrast, incidences of three out of four generalist species were higher in Finland than in Russia, and the difference was significant in Rhagium inquisitor. In a subset of 21 patches in Finland, we used a metapopulation model to predict the probability of each patch to be currently occupied by a species given the known spatiotemporal distribution of suitable forest stands during the last 50 years. The degree of isolation alone explained significantly the incidences of five species. However, including habitat variables into the models altered some of the effects. Moreover, inconsistent with our hypothesis, isolation appeared to also negatively affect some very common generalist species. Inclusion of these species in the study disclosed that apparently significant effects of spatiotemporal isolation should be interpreted cautiously. |
