Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2026 Aug 24;97(3):28. doi: 10.1007/s10493-026-01174-3

Mesostigmata mite assemblages in stands developed on former agricultural land

Jacek Malica 1,✉, Cezary K Urbanowski 1, Emilia Pers-Kamczyc 2, Szymon Nowaczyński 3, Jacek Kamczyc 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13503501  PMID: 42635831

Abstract

Afforestation of post-agricultural land plays a crucial role in restoring forest soil properties and initiating secondary succession processes driven by soil biota. In this study, we compared Mesostigmata communities in even-aged (21 y./o.) stands of Alnus glutinosa, Betula pendula, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris, and Tilia cordata established on a former agricultural lands, and adjacent fallow field as a reference habitat, located near the Żelazny Most tailings storage facility (Lubin Forest District, Poland). Soil sampling was conducted on 18 study sites (5 tree species and fallow field × 3 plots) using steel corer (0–15 cm depth), consisting of 90 samples (5 samples from each plot). In total, 592 mesostigmatid mites representing 39 taxa and 15 families were recorded. Community structure differed among habitats, with Alnus glutinosa supporting the highest abundance and diversity, while Tilia cordata exhibited the lowest values. Deciduous stands generally hosted richer and more abundant assemblages than coniferous stands and the fallow field. The occurrence of both widespread generalists and highly specialized species highlights clear habitat differentiation and varying degrees of ecological specialization, reflecting differences in soil restoration processes among tree species.

Keywords: Afforestation, Habitat differentiation, Soil fauna, Soil restoration, Tailings storage facility, Tree species effects

Introduction

In Europe afforest ation is used as part of its climate policy, treating it as a cost-effective tool for CO₂ sequestration that complements emission reduction efforts in sectors such as energy and industry. Economic analyses show that increasing forest cover, together with appropriate timber management practices (e.g., harvesting rotation and wood utilization), can significantly reduce the overall costs of achieving climate targets (Austin et al. 2020). However, the effectiveness of this strategy depends on its integration with other policy instruments and long-term forest management planning (Michetti and Rosa 2012). Afforestation of former agricultural land is one of the fundamental tasks of contemporary forest management (Fayet et al. 2022; Malica et al. 2022). Establishing stands in deforested areas that have been used for agricultural purposes for a long time is a highly demanding task and must be based on the appropriate selection of the stand’s species composition (Gorzelak 1996). The first generation of trees growing on such areas plays a key role in their restoration and in re-establishing the characteristics typical of forest soils. These include, among others, a lower pH, higher organic matter content, and an increased carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (Gorzelak 1996; Krawczyk 2014; Rosenzweig et al. 2016). This process is accompanied by the secondary succession of other organisms characteristic of forest habitats (Dunger et al. 2001; Ge et al.., 2019; Háněl 2008). The proper course of soil restoration is also driven by fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and soil microarthropods, which regulate the decomposition of dead organic matter (Biró et al. 1993; Huhta et al. 1991; Malica et al. 2024a, b; Neher et al. 2003; Neher and Barbercheck 2019; Urbanowski et al. 2021). Different tree species modify the properties of post-agricultural soils in distinct ways, influencing parameters such as pH, nutrient availability, and litter characteristics (Thomaes et al. 2012). Oak stands are often associated with higher pH and calcium accumulation, while pine stands tends to promote lower pH and different C/N dynamics (Malica et al. 2022). Consequently, the success and trajectory of land restoration strongly depend on tree species selection, as tree species shape organic matter turnover rates and long-term soil chemical development, thereby directing ecosystem recovery processes (Malica et al. 2024a, b).

In the present study, the response of the soil environment to the afforestation of post-agricultural land with different tree species was characterised using mites of the order Mesostigmata. Due to their position mainly as predators at the highest levels of the soil food webs and their high sensitivity to ecosystem changes, they are effective bioindicators (Walter and Proctor, 2013). Additionally, the structure of Mesostigmata assemblages is linked to the physicochemical properties of the soil, such as soil pH, soil water conditions, organic matter content and content of elements (Kamczyc et al., 2018, 2023; Malica et al. 2025). As numerous predators inhabiting both the litter layer and mineral soil, they regulate abundance of other soil organisms and thus indirectly reflect changes in their own abundance, which is sensitive to changes in soil environmental conditions (Kamczyc et al. 2017; Koehler 1997). Therefore, soil mites of the order Mesostigmata are considered good bioindicators of forest restoration on post-agricultural land (Delcourt et al. 2023; Malica et al. 2024a, b). Differences in abundance, species richness, and species diversity indicated variation in the effects of particular tree species on the soil environment, as well as on the rate and direction of secondary succession of mites (Delcourt et al. 2023).

Thus the main goal was to analyse Mesostigmata mite communities inhabiting even-aged Alnus glutinosa L., Betula pendula Roth., Picea abies (L.) H. Karst, Pinus sylvestris L., and Tilia cordata Mill. stands growing on rusty soils, and adjacent fallow field. We formulated the following hypotheses: (1) Mesostigmata mite assemblages differ among forest stands and the fallow field, with forest stands showing more advanced successional characteristics, including higher mite abundance, species richness, diversity, and a higher proportion of specialist taxa compared to the fallow field, reflecting increased habitat stability and development following reforestation (Crotty 2020; Insfrán Ortiz et al. 2023). (2) Differences among tree stands will be more strongly reflected in mite species composition and diversity-based metrics (species richness and diversity) than in total abundance. Mesostigmata community structure will significantly differentiate the studied stands, enabling the identification of stands representing more advanced successional stages and better post-reforestation conditions, thereby confirming their bioindicator value (Meehan et al. 2019; Malica et al. 2022).

Materials and methods

Study area, sampling and extraction

This study was conducted in a managed forest in the Lubin Forest District (SW Poland) near the Żelazny Most tailings storage facility, with the studied stand located 1,800 m from its edge (51.482115 °N, 16.180908 °E). Due to the immediate proximity of the tailings storage facility, the surrounding forests are subjected to significant industrial pressure (Gurwin et al. 2024). The climate of the region is temperate. Mean annual temperature reaches 8.8 °C and mean annual precipitation reaches 533 mm (Jakubczyk 2019). At the beginning of the study, we established research plots which meet the following criteria: (1) they were established on former agricultural land; (2) they are located on the same soil type; (3) the stands are of the same age; and (4) agricultural field is present in the vicinity.

Finally, we established 18 study sites (6 habitats × 3 plots each) in 21 y./o. alder (Alnus glutinosa), silver birch (Betula pendula), Norway spruce (Picea abies), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), and small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) forests and fallow field as control plot (Fig. 1). All the stands studied formed a single, contiguous forest complex, adjacent to the fallow field under study. In an alder stand, the ground vegetation was dominated by Urtica dioica L., whereas in a birch stand and on the fallow field, the ground layer was dominated by grasses such as Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth. The total afforested study area covered 2.62 ha, with each stand occupying approximately 0.40 ha. A fallow field adjacent to the forest stands was included as a control habitat. Samples were collected at a distance greater than the stand height to minimize edge effects. The site represents post-arable land left fallow for more than one growing season after wheat cultivation. All plots were located on Cambisols. — acc. to IUSS Working Group WRB, (2022). Plots within each habitat were spaced at a minimum distance of 15 m from one another to avoid spatial autocorrelation. From each plot, five soil cores were collected using a metal corer (ø = 5 cm, depth 0–15 cm), resulting in a total of 90 soil samples (6 habitats × 15 samples per habitat) on October 14, 2022.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Studyplots on post-agricultural lands (October, 2022) in the Lubin Forest District: A– Alnus glutinosa stand, B– Betula pendula stand, C– Picea abies stand, D– Pinus sylvestris stand, E – Tilia cordata stand, F – fallow field (control)

Soil samples were transported to the laboratory in a portable cooler and processed using a Berlese-Tullgren apparatus, which consisted of a funnel, a 40 W light bulb, a 2 mm mesh strainer, and containers filled with 75% ethanol. Soil fauna were extracted from the samples for at least seven days, until the samples were completely dry. Mesostigmatid mites were selected from the ethanol solution under a stereomicroscope and mounted in Hoyer’s medium on microscope slides. Mite classification was conducted using a Zeiss Axio Scope.A1 microscope. All mites were classified to species level, or to a higher taxonomic unit when species-level identification was not possible, following standard identification keys (Gwiazdowicz 2007; Karg 1971, 1993; Masan 2003; Micherdziński 1969).

Data analysis

Abundance, species richness, and diversity were calculated per sample. Mean values and standard errors (SE) were computed for each metric across habitat types. Abundance was defined as the number of individuals per sample. Species richness corresponded to the total number of distinct taxa per sample. Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) was calculated using the vegan package (diversity(comm, index = “shannon”)), integrating species richness and evenness: H’ = - Σpi × ln(pi), where pi is the proportion of individuals of the ith species. Species richness was calculated with specnumber(comm).

Differences in abundance, richness, and diversity across habitat types were assessed using One -Way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test (TukeyHSD()) for pairwise comparisons. Species–habitat interactions were visualized with bipartite web plots (plotweb(), specieslevel()), and Species Specificity Index (SSI) quantified habitat specialization (0 = ubiquitous, 1 = restricted). To estimate true species richness accounting for rare taxa, the Chao1 estimator was applied using thevegan andiNEXT packages. This non-parametric method provides observed richness (the actual number of species recorded in the samples), as well as asymptotic richness estimate (Chao1; the estimated true number of species, accounting for singletons and doubletons). The comparison of observed and estimated richness was used to evaluate sampling completeness and potential underrepresentation of rare taxa across habitat types. All analyses were conducted in R (R version 4.1.2; R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; available online: https://www.r-project.org/; iNext: Hsieh et al. 2016; vegan: Oksanenet al. 2019.)

Results

In the conducted study, 592 mesostigmatid mites were collected and classified to 15 families and 39 taxa. The most abundant family across all samples was Parasitidae, represented by 118 individuals (19.93% of all mites), while the most abundant species was Oodinychus ovalis (Kramer), with 94 individuals recorded.

Habitat type had a significant effect on abundance, species richness, and diversity, with all ANOVA models showing highly significant differences among groups (p < 0.001) (Appendix A, Table 1). Overall, deciduous stands, particularly Alnus glutinosa, hosted more abundant and diverse mesostigmatid mite assemblages compared to conifers and open field habitats. Mesostigmatid mite communities varied notably among tree habitat types. Alnus glutinosa stand has the highest mean abundance (16.00 ± 4.95), species richness (6.53 ± 0.67), and diversity (1.55 ± 0.10), whereas Tilia cordata stand exhibited the lowest values across allmite assemblages characteristics (abundance: 1.27 ± 0.55; richness: 1.13 ± 0.35; diversity:0.27 ± 0.10). Intermediate values were observed for Betula pendula stand, fallow field, Picea abies, and Pinus sylvestris stands, with mean abundances ranging from 3.53 to 6.87, species richness from 2.33 to 3.93, and diversity from0.69 to1.15 (Fig. 2; Table 1).

Table 1.

Pairwise comparisons of mite abundance, species richness, and diversity among studied habitats based on Tukey’s HSD post hoc test, showing estimated differences, 95% confidence intervals (LCL–UCL), p-values. Abbreviations of variants: Ag – Alnus glutinosa, Bp – Betula pendula, F – Fallow field, Pa – Picea abies, Ps – Pinus sylvestris, Tc – Tilia cordata

Parameter Comparison Difference 95% CI (LCL–UCL) p-value
Abundance Ag – Bp 10.93 5.55–16.32 < 0.001
Ag – F 9.13 3.75–14.52 < 0.001
Ag – Pa 12.47 7.08–17.85 < 0.001
Ag – Ps 9.27 3.88–14.65 < 0.001
Ag – Tc 14.73 9.35–20.12 < 0.001
F – Tc 5.60 0.22–10.98 0.0366
Ps – Tc 5.47 0.08–10.85 0.0444
Species richness Ag – Bp 3.53 1.29–5.78 < 0.001
Ag – F 3.40 1.15–5.65 < 0.001
Ag – Pa 4.20 1.95–6.45 < 0.001
Ag – Ps 2.60 0.35–4.85 0.0137
Ag – Tc 5.40 3.15–7.65 < 0.001
Ps – Tc 2.80 0.55–5.05 0.0061
Species diversity Ag – Bp 0.68 0.06–1.30 0.0226
Ag – F 0.73 0.11–1.34 0.0122
Ag – Pa 0.85 0.24–1.47 0.0017
Ag – Tc 1.27 0.65–1.89 < 0.001
Ps – Tc 0.88 0.26–1.50 0.0011
Open in a new tab

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Meanabundance (A), species richness (B) anddiversity (C) of Mesostigmata mite communities. White dots indicate mean values, black dots are outliers, black lines are medians and while bars indicate interquartile range. Letters above the bars indicate post-hoc test results; bars sharing the same letters are not significantly different from each other. Abbreviations: Ag – Alnus glutinosa, Bp – Betula pendula, F – Fallow field, Pa – Picea abies, Ps – Pinus sylvestris, Tc – Tilia cordata

The habitat distribution and specificity of mesostigmatid mite families varied markedly among studied stands. Parasitidae and Uropodidae occurred in all surveyed habitats (proportion of habitats = 1.0), with Parasitidae showing the highest species-level specialization index (d’ = 1.71) and moderate Species Specificity Index (SSI = 0.28), while Uropodidae had a lower d’ (0.47) and SSI (0.097). Families such as Laelapidae, Trachytidae, Veigaiidae, and Zerconidae were present in most habitats (proportion = 0.83), with Laelapidae exhibiting particularly high habitat association (d’ = 1.09) and SSI (0.42). Other families, including Epicriidae, Eviphididae, Macrochelidae, Phytoseiidae, Rhodacaridae, and Trematuridae, showed intermediate habitat occurrence (proportion 0.33–0.50) and moderate d’ and SSI values. Pachylaelapidae and Urodinychidae were the most specialized, occurring in only a single habitat each (proportion = 0.17) with low to moderate specificity indices (d’ = 0.021 and 0.010, respectively). Overall, Parasitidae and Laelapidae were generalist families widely distributed across habitats, whereas Pachylaelapidae and Urodinychidae were highly habitat-specific. The most abundant family in the Alnus glutinosa stand was Trematuridae (26.3% of all individuals in this stand). In the case of Betula pendula, Pinus sylvestris, and Tilia cordata stands, it was Parasitidae. In the Picea abies stand and on the fallow field, it was Laelapidae (Fig. 3; Table 2).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Co-occurrence network for bipartite relationships between mesostigmatid mite family (upper boxes) and habitat (lower boxes). Boxes are proportional to total mite abundance, whereas ribbon width is proportional to the co-occurrence

Table 2.

Abundance of Mesostigmata mites at the family level in different habitats studied. The values represent the total number of individuals recorded across all samples

No. Family Alnus glutinosa Betula pendula Fallow field Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Tilia cordata Total
1 Ascidae 39 15 36 6 6 2 104
2 Epicriidae 1 2 - - - - 3
3 Eviphididae 3 - - - 1 - 4
4 Laelapidae 3 5 39 16 7 - 70
5 Macrochelidae 2 - - 1 - - 3
6 Pachylaelapidae - - - 1 - - 1
7 Parasitidae 38 18 5 15 34 8 118
8 Phytoseiidae - - 7 - 3 - 10
9 Rhodacaridae 7 1 5 - - - 13
10 Trachytidae 11 2 - 1 11 2 27
11 Trematuridae 63 1 - - - 1 65
12 Urodinychidae 2 - - - - - 2
13 Uropodidae 14 9 3 1 1 3 31
14 Veigaiidae 24 6 8 - 8 2 48
15 Zerconidae 33 17 - 12 30 1 93
Total 240 76 103 53 101 19 592
Open in a new tab

Overall, the data highlight a clear distinction between habitat specialists and generalists among the mesostigmatid mites (Fig. 4; Table 3). Oodinychus ovalis was the most abundant species in Alnus glutinosa stand, Paragamasus vagabundus (Karg) in Betula pendula and Pinus sylvestris stands, whereas Leptogamasus suecicus Trägårdh was most abundant in Picea abies and Tilia cordata stands (Appendix A, Table 2). Among the studied mesostigmatid mites, clear differences in habitat specialization were observed. A group of specialist species occurred exclusively in a single habitat, including Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese), Cheiroseius borealis (Berlese), Geholaspis mandibularis (Berlese), Hypoaspis praesternalis Willmann, Laelaspis astronomica (Koch), Leioseius elongatus Evans, Pachyseius humeralis Berlese, Porrhostaspis lunulata Müller, Prozercon kochi Sellnick, Trachytes pauperior Berlese, Urodiaspis tecta Kramer, Veigaia cerva Kramer, and V. planicola (Berlese), all of which exhibit a Species Specificity Index (SSI) of 1, indicating strong habitat specialization. In contrast, generalist species such as Olodiscus minima (Kramer) (all habitats, SSI = 0.41), Leptogamasus suecicus, Paragamasus vagabundus, Trachytes aegrota (Koch), and Veigaia nemorensis (habitat proportion 0.83, SSI 0.34–0.49) were widely distributed across multiple habitats. Species occurring in an intermediate number of habitats showed moderate specificity (SSI 0.35–0.74), indicating partial habitat preference (Appendix A, Table 3).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Co-occurrence network for bipartite relationships between mesostigmatid mite taxa (upper boxes) and collection Habitat (lower boxes). Boxes are proportional to total mite abundance, whereas ribbon width is proportional to the co-occurrence. For abbreviations of mite taxa see Table 2 in Appendix A

Table 3.

Results of one-way ANOVA testing the effect of tree species on abundance, species richness, and diversity. Significant differences among tree groups were detected for all response variables (p < 0.001)

Variable Factor Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(> F) Significance
Abundance tree 5 1930 385.9 15.11 1.45e-10 ***
Residuals 84 2146 25.6 — — —
Species richness tree 5 248.9 49.77 11.2 2.76e-08 ***
Residuals 84 373.5 4.45 — — —
Diversity tree 5 13.88 2.777 8.217 2.36e-06 ***
Residuals 84 28.39 0.3379 — — —
Open in a new tab

The rarefaction and extrapolation analysis revealed that species richness increases with the number of individuals, but the rate of increase gradually levels off. The highest estimated richness is observed for Alnus glutinosa stand, while other species (e.g., Betula pendula and Pinus sylvestris) reach lower values and plateau more quickly. This suggests that sampling is nearly complete for most mite taxa, although additional sampling for Alnus glutinosa stand may still reveal more mite species (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Rarefaction and extrapolation curves showing species diversity as a function of the number of individuals sampled among different habitats (The estimated richness of mite taxa in a community based on the Chao etimates, type = 1). Shaded areas indicate confidence intervals

Discussion

Based on all analyzed parameters of Mesostigmata mite assemblages, Alnus glutinosa stands appear to provide the most favorable conditions for these organisms. Mite communities inhabiting these stands were the most abundant and the most diverse in terms of species richness. Statistically, only Pinus sylvestris stand did not differ significantly in community diversity from Alnus glutinosa stand. Concurrently, the lowest values of abundance, species richness, and diversity were observed in Tilia cordata stand, indicating that they were the least colonized by the studied mites. Considering that the fallow field (control) exhibited intermediate values of these parameters, the first hypothesis was not supported. According to this hypothesis, a treeless area with poor vegetation cover was expected to harbor the most impoverished Mesostigmata mite communities. Similarly, the second hypothesis was rejected, as differences in abundance, species richness, and diversity were comparable among the studied habitats.

Bazargaliyeva et al. (2024) demonstrated that Alnus glutinosa stands are associated with strongly moist habitats and a relatively diverse floristic composition, although in some regions the species occurs locally rarely and its distribution is declining due to anthropogenic pressures and limited natural regeneration. On former arable lands, Alnus glutinosa quickly improves soil conditions through its symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, leading to increased soil fertility. Its easily decomposable, nitrogen-rich litter intensifies the activity of the soil biota, accelerating nutrient cycling and the release of nutrients. Additionally, the abundance of soil organisms (e.g., earthworms) increases, improving soil structure and aeration. As a result, soils under alder become more nutrient-rich, biologically active, and favorable for further plant succession (Fremstad 1983; Zitzer and Dawson 1992). In black alder stands developing on post-agricultural soils, the herb layer is characterized by a mix of species typical of wet habitats and fast-growing, competitive plants that take advantage of fertile soil, such as common nettle (Urtica dioica L.) and grasses. The recovery of the forest herb layer is faster in areas that are wet, fertile, and located close to old forests, which provide sources of seeds and young plants (Orczewska 2010). Finally, abundant understory vegetation promotes soil fauna because it provides litter and organic matter that serve as food and shelter for soil organisms, while also improving soil moisture, structure, and microhabitat conditions (Frouz 2008).

Linden (Tilia spp.) in deciduous forests has a moderate effect on the soil – improving its chemistry mainly in the surface layer, but in mixed stands this effect is weakly visible. However, when linden dominates the canopy, it strongly shades the understory, leading to a decline in plant species diversity and a shift toward shade-tolerant species, thereby reducing the functional diversity of the ecosystem (Langenbruch et al. 2012). Linden leaves decompose relatively quickly, but their effect on the soil is mostly superficial, which may not promote significant changes in the soil environment or the accumulation of litter that could potentially be colonized by larger aggregations of mites (De Jaegere et al. 2016; Urbanowski et al. 2021). This may explain the low abundance, species richness, and diversity of Mesostigmata mites in the studied small-leaved linden (Tilia cordata) stand.

The most dominant family in the Alnus glutinosa stand, Trematuridae, belongs to the suborder Uropodina and primarily inhabits forest habitats rich in dead organic matter. They prefer moderately moist forest litter and decayed wood (Błoszyk 2008). It is worth noting that the family Zerconidae was absent only from the fallow field, further confirming its role as a bioindicator of forest habitats (Malica et al. 2024a, b). In contrast, species belonging to Laelapidae and Ascidae were relatively abundant in the fallow field, with their high proportion being characteristic of agrocenoses (Malica et al. 2025).

Two species (Trachytes aegrota and Leptogamasus suecicus) were recorded in all habitats except the fallow field, which may indicate their potential use as bioindicators of the very early stage of forest succession on post-agricultural land. Trachytes aegrota is a common, eurytopic species within the Uropodina, associated both with dead-wood microhabitats and the litter of various types of deciduous forests (especially beech and oak), and occurring in moist pine forests, as well as in post-industrial areas (Napierała et al. 2009; Skorupski et al. 2013). In comparison, other Uropodina such as Trachytes pauperior and Urodiaspis tecta were recorded only in stand of Alnus glutinosa, whereas Olodiscus minima was found in all investigated habitats. Another species occurring in forest stands but not in the fallow field was Leptogamasus suecicus, which is generally also described from degraded and agricultural soils (Niedbała et al. 1982; Skorupski et al. 2013).

Due to the potential of black alder (Alnus glutinosa) to create favorable soil habitat conditions, special attention should be paid to this species when determining the tree species composition of afforestation on post-agricultural lands. However, its specific habitat requirements must also be taken into account. At the same time, caution is advised when establishingpure stands of small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata), due to the potential limitations they may impose on the rate of succession of certain soil organisms. The diverse effects of different tree species on this process suggest the need to create mixed-species stands on post-agricultural lands.

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by funding from the Department of Game Management and Forest Protection, Poznań University of Life Sciences.

Appendix A

Table 4.

Abundance of Mesostigmata mites taxa in different forest habitats in Lubin Forest District. The values represent the total number of individuals recorded across all samples

No. Taxa Abbr. Alnus glutinosa Betula pendula Fallow field Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Tilia cordata Total Proportional abundance (%)
1 Amblyseius spp. Amb_spp - - 7 - 3 - 10 1.69
2 Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese, 1892) Arc_sem - - - 6 - - 6 1.01
3 Asca aphidioides (Linneaus, 1758) Asc_aph 35 15 - - 6 1 57 9.63
4 Asca bicornis (Canestrini and Fanzago, 1877) Asc_bic 3 - 34 - - - 37 6.25
5 Cheiroseius borealis (Berlese, 1904) Che_bor - - 1 - - - 1 0.17
6 Epicriopsis horridus Kramer, 1876 Epi_hor 1 2 - - - - 3 0.51
7 Eviphis ostrinus (C.L.Koch, 1836) Evi_ost 3 - - - 1 - 4 0.68
8 Gamasellodes bicolor (Berlese, 1918) Gam_bic 1 - - - - 1 2 0.34
9 Geholaspis mandibularis (Berlese, 1904) Geh_man 2 - - - - - 2 0.34
10 Geholaspis spp. Geh_spp - - - 1 - - 1 0.17
11 Hypoaspis aculeifer (Canestrini, 1884) Hyp_acu - 5 5 10 7 - 27 4.56
12 Hypoaspis praesternalis Willmann, 1949 Hyp_pra - - 19 - - - 19 3.21
13 Hypoaspis vacua (Michael, 1891) Hyp_sp - - - 6 - - 6 1.01
14 Hypoaspis spp. Hyp_vac 3 - 6 - - - 9 1.52
15 Laelaspis astronomica (C.L.Koch, 1839) Lae_ast - - 9 - - - 9 1.52
16 Leioseius elongatus Evans, 1958 Lei_elo - - 1 - - - 1 0.17
17 Leptogamasus suecicus Trägårdh, 1936 Lep_sue 4 1 - 7 2 6 20 3.38
18 Olodiscus minima (Kramer, 1882) Olo_min 14 9 3 1 1 3 31 5.24
19 Oodinychus ovalis (C.L. Koch, 1839) Ood_ova 63 1 - - - 1 65 10.98
20 Pachyseius humeralis Berlese, 1910 Pac_hum - - - 1 - - 1 0.17
21 Paragamasus conus (Karg 1971) Par_con - - - - 4 1 5 0.84
22 Paragamasus jugincola (Athias-Henriot,1967) Par_jug 24 1 4 2 6 - 37 6.25
23 Paragamasus spp. Par_spp 3 - 1 2 5 - 11 1.86
24 Paragamasus vagabundus (Karg, 1968) Par_vag 6 16 - 4 17 1 44 7.43
25 Porrhostaspis lunulata Müller, 1859 Por_lun 1 - - - - - 1 0.17
26 Prozercon kochi Sellnick, 1943 Pro_koc 4 - - - - - 4 0.68
27 Prozercon traegardhi (Halbert, 1923) Pro_tra 4 2 - 4 3 - 13 2.20
28 Rhodacarus coronatus Berlese, 1920 Rho_cor 1 - 3 - - - 4 0.68
29 Rhodacarus mandibularis Berlese, 1920 Rho_man - 1 - - - - 1 0.17
30 Rhodacarellus silesiacus Willmann, 1936 Rho_sil 6 - 2 - - - 8 1.35
31 Trachytes aegrota (C.L.Koch, 1841) Tra_aeg 8 2 - 1 11 2 24 4.05
32 Trachytes pauperior (Berlese, 1914) Tra_pau 3 - - - - - 3 0.51
33 Urodiaspis tecta Kramer, 1876 Uro_tec 2 - - - - - 2 0.34
34 Veigaia cerva (Kramer, 1876) Vei_cer 2 - - - - - 2 0.34
35 Veigaia nemorensis (C.L.Koch, 1839) Vei_nem 22 6 2 - 8 2 40 6.76
36 Veigaia planicola (Berlese, 1892) Vei_pla - - 6 - - - 6 1.01
37 Zercon peltatus C.L. Koch, 1836 Zer_pel 2 4 - - 12 1 19 3.21
38 Zercon triangularis C.L. Koch, 1836 Zer_tri 19 10 - 1 14 - 44 7.43
39 Zercon vacuus C.L. Koch, 1839 Zer_vac 4 1 - 7 1 - 13 2.20
Total 240 76 103 53 101 19 592 100
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

Number of habitats, proportion of occupied habitats, dispersion index (d), and species specificity index for individual mite species

No. Species Abbr. Number of habitats Proportion of habitats Index d Species Specificity Index
1 Amblyseius spp. Amb_spp 2 0.333 0.273 0.704
2 Arctoseius semiscissus (Berlese, 1892) Arc_sem 1 0.167 0.518 1.000
3 Asca aphidioides (Linneaus, 1758) Asc_aph 4 0.667 0.163 0.591
4 Asca bicornis (Canestrini and Fanzago, 1877) Asc_bic 2 0.333 0.504 0.906
5 Cheiroseius borealis (Berlese, 1904) Che_bor 1 0.167 0.154 1.000
6 Epicriopsis horridus Kramer, 1876 Epi_hor 2 0.333 0.134 0.683
7 Eviphis ostrinus (C.L.Koch, 1836) Evi_ost 2 0.333 0.068 0.742
8 Gamasellodes bicolor (Berlese, 1918) Gam_bic 2 0.333 0.167 0.633
9 Geholaspis mandibularis (Berlese, 1904) Geh_man 1 0.167 0.053 1.000
10 Geholaspis spp. Geh_spp 1 0.167 0.276 1.000
11 Hypoaspis aculeifer (Canestrini, 1884) Hyp_acu 4 0.667 0.230 0.357
12 Hypoaspis praesternalis Willmann, 1949 Hyp_pra 1 0.167 0.507 1.000
13 Hypoaspis vacua (Michael, 1891) Hyp_spe 1 0.167 0.518 1.000
14 Hypoaspis spp. Hyp_vac 2 0.333 0.188 0.683
15 Laelaspis astronomica (C.L.Koch, 1839) Lae_ast 1 0.167 0.410 1.000
16 Leioseius elongatus Evans, 1958 Lei_elo 1 0.167 0.154 1.000
17 Leptogamasus suecicus Trägårdh, 1936 Lep_sue 5 0.833 0.265 0.344
18 Olodiscus minima (Kramer, 1882) Olo_min 6 1.000 0.084 0.413
19 Oodinychus ovalis (C.L. Koch, 1839) Ood_ova 3 0.500 0.362 0.963
20 Pachyseius humeralis Berlese, 1910 Pac_hum 1 0.167 0.276 1.000
21 Paragamasus conus (Karg 1971) Par_con 2 0.333 0.315 0.785
22 Paragamasus jugincola (Athias-Henriot,1967) Par_jun 5 0.833 0.063 0.596
23 Paragamasus spp. Par_spp 4 0.667 0.093 0.432
24 Paragamasus vagabundus (Karg, 1968) Par_vag 5 0.833 0.207 0.413
25 Porrhostaspis lunulata Müller, 1859 Por_lun 1 0.167 0.000 1.000
26 Prozercon kochi Sellnick, 1943 Pro_koc 1 0.167 0.141 1.000
27 Prozercon traegardhi (Halbert, 1923) Pro_tra 4 0.667 0.096 0.346
28 Rhodacarus coronatus Berlese, 1920 Rho_cor 2 0.333 0.156 0.742
29 Rhodacarus mandibularis Berlese, 1920 Rho_man 1 0.167 0.210 1.000
30 Rhodacarellus silesiacus Willmann, 1936 Rho_sil 2 0.333 0.116 0.742
31 Trachytes aegrota (C.L.Koch, 1841) Tra_aeg 5 0.833 0.124 0.452
32 Trachytes pauperior (Berlese, 1914) Tra_pau 1 0.167 0.108 1.000
33 Urodiaspis tecta Kramer, 1876 Uro_tec 1 0.167 0.053 1.000
34 Veigaia cerva (Kramer, 1876) Vei_cer 1 0.167 0.053 1.000
35 Veigaia nemorensis (C.L.Koch, 1839) Vei_nem 5 0.833 0.067 0.494
36 Veigaia planicola (Berlese, 1892) Vei_pla 1 0.167 0.371 1.000
37 Zercon peltatus C.L. Koch, 1836 Zer_pel 4 0.667 0.235 0.590
38 Zercon triangularis C.L. Koch, 1836 Zer_tri 4 0.667 0.124 0.456
39 Zercon vacuus C.L. Koch, 1839 Zer_vac 4 0.667 0.199 0.525
Open in a new tab

Author contributions

J.M. contributed to conceptualization, performed analyses, and wrote the manuscript.C.K.U. contributed to the creation of figures and graphical materials.E.P.K. wrote the manuscript.S.N. was responsible for sampling and sample preparation.J.K. contributed to conceptualization and investigation; wrote the manuscript.All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Data availability

We declare all data is being provided within this manuscript.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Jacek Malica, Email: jacek.malica@up.poznan.pl.

Jacek Kamczyc, Email: jacek.kamczyc@up.poznan.pl.

References

  1. Austin KG, Baker JS, Sohngen BL, Wade CM, Daigneault A, Ohrel SB, Ragnauth S, Bean A (2020) The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nat Commun 11, 5946 (2020). 10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Bazargaliyeva A, Kurmanbayeva M, Admanova G, Sarzhigitova A, Koblanova S, Utaubayeva A, Gataulina G, Kaisagaliyeva G, Bissenov U, Alzhanova B (2024) Geobotanical characteristics of plant communities with participation of rare species Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Braz J Biol 84:e281672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Biró B, Vörös I, Köves-Péchy K, Szegi J (1993) Symbiont effect of rhizobium bacteria and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on Pisum sativum in recultivated mine spoils. Geomicrobiol J 11(3–4):275–284. 10.1080/01490459309377957 [Google Scholar]
  4. Błoszyk J (2008) Fauna of Poland—characteristics and checklist of species. Museum and Institute of Zoology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, 61–64
  5. Crotty FV (2020) Soil Organisms Within Arable Habitats. W C. Hurford, P. Wilson, and J. Storkey (Red.), The Changing Status of Arable Habitats in Europe: A Nature Conservation Review (s. 123–138). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-030-59875-4_9
  6. De Jaegere T, Hein S, Claessens H (2016) A review of the characteristics of small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) and their implications for silviculture in a changing climate. Forests 7(3):56. 10.3390/f7030056 [Google Scholar]
  7. Delcourt N, Dupuy N, Rébufa C, Aupic-Samain A, Foli L, Farnet-Da Silva AM (2023) Rapid assessment of land use legacy effect on forest soils: a case study on microarthropods used as indicators in Mediterranean post-agricultural forests. Forests 14(11):2223. 10.3390/f14112223 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunger W, Wanner M, Hauser H, Hohberg K, Schulz HJ, Schwalbe T, Seifert B, Vogel J, Voigtländer K, Zimdars B, Zulka KP (2001) Development of soil fauna at mine sites during 46 years after afforestation. Pedobiologia. 10.1078/0031-4056-00083 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fayet CM, Reilly KH, Van Ham C, Verburg PH (2022) What is the future of abandoned agricultural lands? A systematic review of alternative trajectories in Europe. Land Use Policy 112:105833. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105833 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fremstad E (1983) Role of black alder (Alnus glutinosa) in vegetation dynamics in West Norway. Nord J Bot. 10.1111/j.1756-1051.1983.tb01954.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Frouz J (2008) The effect of litter type and macrofauna community on litter decomposition and organic matter accumulation in post-mining sites. Biologia. 10.2478/s11756-008-0031-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ge B, Cui J, Zhang D, Liu Q, Jiang S, Tang B, Yang L, Zhou C (2019) Succession of soil macro-faunal biodiversity in forests converted from croplands after long-term coastal reclamation. Soil Tillage Res 186:165–171. 10.1016/j.still.2018.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gorzelak A (1996) Ekologiczne uwarunkowania kształtowania lasów na gruntach porolnych. Sylwan 140(05):Artyku–05 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gurwin J, Wcisło M, Staśko S, Buczyński S, Modelska M, Olichwer T, Tarka R (2024) Hydrodynamic Model of the Area of the Żelazny Most Mining Waste Storage Facility to Reconstruct the Migration of Saline Groundwater. Water 16(17):2431 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gwiazdowicz DJ (2007) Ascid mites (Acari, Mesostigmata) from selected forest ecosystems and microhabitats in Poland. Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej im. Augusta Cieszkowskiego [Google Scholar]
  16. Háněl L (2008) Nematode assemblages indicate soil restoration on colliery spoils afforested by planting different tree species and by natural succession. Appl Soil Ecol 40(1):86–99. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A (2016) iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol Evol 7:1451–1456. 10.1111/2041-210X.12613 [Google Scholar]
  18. Huhta V, Haimi J, Setälä H (1991) Role of the fauna in soil processes: Techniques using simulated forest floor. Agric Ecosyst Environ 34(1):223–229. 10.1016/0167-8809(91)90109-B. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modern Techniques in Soil Ecology Relevant to Organic Matter Breakdown, Nutrient Cycling and Soil Biological Processes [Google Scholar]
  19. Insfrán Ortiz A, Rey Benayas JM, Cayuela Delgado L (2023) Agroforestry improves soil fauna abundance and composition in the Atlantic Forest of Paraguay. Agroforest Syst 97(8):1447–1463. 10.1007/s10457-023-00869-5 [Google Scholar]
  20. IUSS Working Group WRB (2022) World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps, 4th edition. International Union of SoilSciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria [Google Scholar]
  21. Jakubczyk T (2019) Analysis of distribution of precipitation duration and amounts in Legnica in the period of 1966–2015. J Water Land Dev. 10.2478/jwld-2019-0029 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kamczyc J, Urbanowski C, Pers-Kamczyc E (2017) Mite communities (Acari: Mesostigmata) in young and mature coniferous forests after surface wildfire. Exp Appl Acarol. 10.1007/s10493-017-0148-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Karg W (1971) Acari (Acarina) Milben, Unterordnung Anactinochaeta (Parasitiformes). Die freilebenden Gamasina (Gamasides). Raubmilben, Die Tierwelt Deutschlands 59. Gustav Fischer Verlag [Google Scholar]
  24. Karg W (1993) Acari (Acarina) Milben Parasitiformes (Anactinochaeta), Cohors Gamasina Leach Raubmmilben. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands. T. 59. VEB Gustav Fischer Ver Lag
  25. Koehler HH (1997) Mesostigmata (Gamasina, Uropodina), efficient predators in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Biodiversity in Agriculture - for a Sustainable Future, 62(2), Artykuł 2. 10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01141-3
  26. Krawczyk R (2014) Afforestation and secondary succession. 10.2478/frp-2014-0039
  27. Langenbruch C, Helfrich M, Flessa H (2012) Effects of beech (Fagus sylvatica), ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and lime (Tilia spec.) on soil chemical properties in a mixed deciduous forest. Plant Soil 352(1):389–403. 10.1007/s11104-011-1004-7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Malica J, Urbanowski CK, Rączka G, Skorupski M, Pers-Kamczyc E, Kamczyc J (2022) Soil Environment and Fauna Communities in Europe after Afforestation of Post-Agricultural Lands—A. Rev Forests 13(10):Artyku–10. 10.3390/f13101713 [Google Scholar]
  29. Malica J, Urbanowski CK, Turczański K, Rączka G, Andrzejewska A, Skorupski M, Kamczyc J (2024a) Environmental role of different-aged pine and oak stands growing on post‐agricultural and forest lands in forming the Mesostigmata mites communities. Land Degrad Dev. 10.1002/ldr.5265 [Google Scholar]
  30. Malica J, Rączka G, Turczański K, Andrzejewska A, Skorupski M, Urbanowski CK, Kamczyc J (2024b) Impact of land use history and soil properties on soil mite communities (Acari, Mesostigmata) inhabiting stands growing on post-agricultural land. Land Degrad Dev 35(5):1776–1791 [Google Scholar]
  31. Malica J, Urbanowski CK, Kamczyc J, Tama AY, Skorupski M, Podrázský V (2025) Effects of Humac and Alginite fertilization on mite communities (Acari, Mesostigmata) under post-agricultural land conditions. Forests 16(10):1596. 10.3390/f16101596 [Google Scholar]
  32. Masan P (2003) Identification key to Central European species of Trachytes (Acari: Uropodina) with redescriptions, ecology and distribution of Slovak species. European Journal of Entomology, 100(3), Artykuł 3. 10.14411/eje.2003.066
  33. Meehan ML, Song Z, Lumley LM, Cobb TP, Proctor H (2019) Soil mites as bioindicators of disturbance in the boreal forest in northern Alberta, Canada: Testing taxonomic sufficiency at multiple taxonomic levels. Ecol Ind 102:349–365 [Google Scholar]
  34. Micherdziński W (1969) Die Familie Parasitidae Oudemans. 1901 (Acarina, Mesostigmata). PWN [Google Scholar]
  35. Michetti M, Rosa R (2012) Afforestation and timber management compliance strategies in climate policy. A computable general equilibrium analysis. Ecol Econ 77:139–148 [Google Scholar]
  36. Napierała A, Błoszyk J, Bruin J (2009) Communities of uropodine mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) in selected oak-hornbeam forests of the Wielkopolska region (Poland). Experimental and Applied Acarology, 49(4), Artykuł 4. 10.1007/s10493-009-9262-2 [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Neher DA, Barbercheck ME (2019) Soil Microarthropods and Soil Health: Intersection of Decomposition and Pest Suppression in Agroecosystems. Insects 10(12):414. 10.3390/insects10120414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Neher DA, Barbercheck ME, El-Allaf SM, Anas O (2003) Effects of disturbance and ecosystem on decomposition. Applied Soil Ecology, 23(2), Artykuł 2. 10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00043-X
  39. Niedbała W, Błaszak C, Błoszyk J, Kaliszewski M, Kaźmierski A (1982) Soils mites (Acari) of Warsaw and Mazovia. Memorabilia Zool 36:235–252 [Google Scholar]
  40. Oksanen J, Blanchet GF, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2019) vegan: Community Ecology Package (R package version 2.5-6) https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html
  41. Orczewska A (2010) Odtwarzanie się roślinności runa we wtórnych lasach olszowych powstałych na gruntach porolnych w południowo-zachodniej Polsce. Acta Botanica Silesiaca, 05. http://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.dl-catalog-b1ef351c-8311-42e1-9b5f-9947fa5bf228
  42. Rosenzweig ST, Carson MA, Baer SG, Blair JM (2016) Changes in soil properties, microbial biomass, and fluxes of C and N in soil following post-agricultural grassland restoration. Appl Soil Ecol 100:186–194. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Skorupski M, Horodecki P, Jagodziński AM (2013) Mite species of Mesostigmata order (Arachnida, Acari) in industrial and postindustrial areas of Poland. Nauka Przyroda Technologie 7(1):Artyku–1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomaes A, De Keersmaeker L, Van Calster H, De Schrijver A, Vandekerkhove K, Verstraeten G, Verheyen K (2012) Diverging effects of two contrasting tree species on soil and herb layer development in a chronosequence of post-agricultural forest. For Ecol Manage 278:90–100 [Google Scholar]
  45. Urbanowski CK, Horodecki P, Kamczyc J, Skorupski M, Jagodziński AM (2021) Does litter decomposition affect mite communities (Acari, Mesostigmata)? A five-year litterbag experiment with 14 tree species in mixed forest stands growing on a post-industrial area. Geoderma 391:114963. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.114963 [Google Scholar]
  46. Walter D, Proctor H (2013) Mites: Ecology, evolution & behaviour: Life at a microscale: Second edition. 10.1007/978-94-007-7164-2
  47. Zitzer SF, Dawson JO (1992) Soil properties and actinorhizal vegetation influence nodulation of Alnus glutinosa and Elaeagnus angustifolia by Frankia. Plant Soil 140(2):197–204. 10.1007/BF00010597 [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

We declare all data is being provided within this manuscript.

Articles from Experimental & Applied Acarology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES