Running title: Parasitoid functional diversity in managed boreal forests.

Diversity of forest management promotes parasitoid functional diversity in boreal forests

Supporting information

1

Appendix S1.

Assessment of change in plant species composition from 2011 to 2013. We performed a

PERMANOVA on Hellinger-transformed plant species composition data, in which we tested the change

in pooled grass species and key shrub species (bilberry, lingonberry and heath) relative abundances

between years 2011 and 2013. Pooled grass species and key shrub species composition (measured in

2013) were not significantly different between years (F1,46 = 1.32, P = 0.2512).

Functional diversity calculation. Gower distance matrices were computed from plant and parasitoid

traits with the gowdis function in the R-package FD (Laliberté et al., 2014), for the calculation of plant

and parasitoid functional diversity and functional dispersion. We weighted parasitoid resource use binary

traits (Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Heteroptera and Diptera) as 1/5 of their original weight,

down-weighting these traits to the same weight of the remainder of traits, as recommended by Laliberté

and Legendre (2010). Distance-based functional diversity was calculated with the R-package hillR

(Daijang, 2018), and it was measured as the effective number of equally abundant and equally distinct

species (functional Hill numbers; 1D(Q); Chiu and Chao, 2014). Functional dispersion was measured as

the mean trait distance of individual species to the centroid of all species in the assemblage and computed

as multivariate dispersion in the principal coordinate analysis trait space (PCoA) (Laliberté and Legendre,

2011). Functional dispersion was calculated using the R-package FD (Laliberté et al., 2014). Diversities

quantified by 1D(Q) and FDis are weighted by species abundances, while 1D(Q) is also weighted by the

average functional distance between two randomly selected individuals (i.e. Raoʼs Quadratic entropy;

Rao, 1982; Botta-Dukát, 2005), and FDis is also weighted by the distance of individual species to the

weighted centroid.

2

Functional diversity null model: to determine if changes in observed 1D(Q) mirror changes in

taxonomic diversity, we used a null model approach, simulating 9999 random community matrices

(holding species richness per assemblage and species frequencies) to generate a null distribution of 1D(Q)

values and test whether observed functional diversity was significantly different than the mean of

simulated values at α = 0.05. The null model was implemented in the R-package vegan (Oksanen et al.,

2018).

Tests of spatial autocorrelation: model residuals from linear models were tested for spatial

autocorrelation by simulating 9999 Moran’s I expected coefficients with the R-package spdep (Bivand et

al., 2018) and comparing them with the observed Moran’s I coefficient. Moran’s I coefficients for each

model did not show spatial autocorrelation (all P > 0.05).

We also tested abundance community data and CWM data for potential spatial autocorrelation by Mantel

tests between detrended data and a Euclidean distance matrix of coordinates of study sites (Borcard et al.,

2011). There was no significant association with geographic distance for parasitoid species abundance

variation (Mantel test: P-value = 0.96), parasitoid dominant species abundance variation (Mantel test: P-

value = 0.95), plant species abundance variation (Mantel test: P-value = 0.59), CWM from parasitoid

traits (Mantel test: P-value = 0.80), and CWM plant trait values (Mantel test: P-value = 0.09), based on

10.000 permutations.

Old-growth forest habitats (FOR-OLD) are spatially clustered within the Patvinsuo National Park

boundary (Hyvärinen et al. 2005), which could have led to habitat effects being confounded with potential

geographic effects for this habitat type. However, FOR-OLD sites from our study area show distinct

features of old-growth Scots pine dominated forests from the middle boreal vegetation zone which made

the possibility of habitat effects being dependent of spatial variation highly unlikely. This features are

evidenced by plant species composition (table S5) and environmental variables (table S7) from old-

growth forests related with the absence of diturbance.

3

Model averaging: Models were fitted for all possible combinations of predictor variables and top models

were ranked based on second order Akaike weights within models with ΔAICc values less than 2. Model

coefficients were averaged assuming that predictors from selected models are included in every top

model, to reduce model selection bias, and relative predictor importance was calculated by summing up

Akaike weights for each top model containing that predictor (Burnham and Anderson, 2002).

Permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) on Tachinidae species composition

All tachinid species were initially included in PERMANOVAS on species composition. Because species

abundance distribution of tachinids was highly skewed (ten species comprising 66% of total abundance),

and to ease interpretation of results, we chose to exclude all singletons and doubletons (24 species,

comprising 41% of total species), and the remaining 35 common species were included into a second set

of PERMANOVAS.

Results from PERMANOVAS on parasitoid species composition are reported from analyses

without singleton and doubleton species, with results from full species analyses qualitatively

identical (results not shown).

4

Table S1. Description of plant traits a) and parasitoid traits b), with data sources for species

traits.

Trait Type Coveraged Descriptiona) Ground vegetation traitsa

Leaf carbon (C) Quantitative 94% (52%) Leaf carbon content per leaf dry mass (mg/g).

Leaf nitrogen (N) Quantitative 97% (79%) Leaf nitrogen content per leaf dry mass (mg/g).

Leaf phosphorous (P)

Quantitative 93% (54%) Leaf phosphorous content per leaf dry mass

(mg/g).

Leaf distribution Nominal 100% (100%) Erosulate/Opposite/Spiral/Hemirosettte/Rosette

Plant woodiness Binary 100% (100%) Herbaceous/Woody

Plant growth form Nominal 100% (100%)

Clubmoss/Fern/Grass/Herb/Horsetail/Sedge/Shrub/Tree

Leaf shape Nominal 100% (100%) Acicular/Broadleaved/Compound/Grass-like

Leaf dry matter content (LDMC)

Quantitative 98% (83%) Leaf dry mass per leaf fresh mass (g/g).

Leaf dry mass (LDM)

Quantitative 95% (79%) Milligrams (mg).

N/P ratio Quantitative 91% (38%) Leaf nitrogen/phosphorous ratio (g/g).

C/N ratio Quantitative 92% (46%) Leaf carbon/ nitrogen ratio (g/g).

Leaf palatability Quantitative 97% (52%) 1 (low) to 10 (high) palatability for deer.

Plant life form (Raunkiær) Nominal 100%

(100%)

Therophyte/Geophyte/Hemicryptophyte/Chamaephyte/Pseudophanerophyte/Hemiphanerophyte/Nanophanerophyte/Macrophanerophyte

Leaf pubescence Nominal 100% (100%)

Absent(Pub.abs)/Sparse(Pub.sparse)/Dense(Pub.dense)

Plant height/width ratio (HW) Nominal 100%

(100%) HW.equal/HW.higher/HW.wider

Plant height (H) Quantitative 98% (90%) Meters (m).

Leaf area (AREA) Quantitative 90% (56%) Square millimeters (mm2).

Specific leaf area (SLA)

Quantitative 92% (73%) Leaf area per leaf dry mass (mm2/mg)

b) Tachinid traitsb

Body sizec Quantitativ 100% Relative body size in reference to the largest

5

e (100%) species,which was scored as 1.0

Host order5 binary traits (yes/no)

99% (98%) each

LEP (Lepidoptera)/ COL (Coleoptera)/HYM (Hymenoptera)/HETEROP (Heteroptera)/DIPT (Diptera)

Specialization Quantitative 99% (98%)

1 (host species in several orders), 2 (host species within one order), 3 (host species within one family), 4 (host species within one genus), 5 (species specific)

Host micro-habitat Nominal 100% (100%) Soil/Low (herb-grass)/Tree-shrub

Host location Binary 100% (100%) Concealed/Exposed

Oviposition strategy Nominal 100%

(100%)Larviparous (Larvi)/Oviparous (Ovi)/ Ovolarviparous (Ovilarv)

Oviposition location Binary 100%

(100%) On host/Vicinity

Gregariousness of larvae Binary 99% (98%) Yes/no

Flight season start (FLS)

Quantitative

100% (100%) 1 (Spring)/2 (early summer)/3 (mid-summer)

Mean flight season length (MFS)

Quantitative

100% (100%) 1 to 4 seasons.

Sources of trait data: Ground vegetationa (Kattge et al., 2011; Bakker, 2013); Tachinidaeb (Mesnil,

1944–1975; Belshaw, 1993; Tschorsnig, and Herting, 1994; Andersen, 1996; Tschorsnig, 2017).

cBody size was measured as biovolume (Siemann et al., 1996), for a maximum of 10 individuals per

species using a calibrated ocular scale under a stereomicroscope, and expressed as average body size for

each species.

dTrait coverage for plants was measured as % of total species percent cover and as the % of species with

recorded traits (in parenthesis). For parasitoids, trait coverage is indicated as % of total species abundance

and as the % of species with recorded traits (in parenthesis).

6

Table S2. Trait values of all species included in the analysis. CAT refers to categorical traits. Description

of traits in table S1. Abbreviations of vascular plant traits: C = Leaf carbon content, N = Leaf nitrogen

content, P = Leaf phosphorous content, L.dist = Leaf distribution, Wood = Plant woodiness, PGF = Plant

growth form, L.shape = Leaf shape, LDMC = Leaf dry matter content, LDM = Leaf dry mass, N:P = N/P

ratio, C:N = C/N ratio, Palat = Leaf palatability, PLF = Plant life form (Raunkiær), Pubesc = Leaf

pubescence, HW = Plant height/width ratio, H = Plant height, AREA = Leaf area, SLA = Specific leaf

area.

Vascular plantsSpecies name C N P L.dist Wood PGF L.shape LDMC LDM N:P C:N Palat PLF Pubesc HW H AREA SLA

(mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) CAT CAT CAT CAT (g/g) (mg) (g/g) (g/g) (1-10) CAT CAT CAT (m) (mm2)(mm2/mg)

Calluna vulgaris 483.90 13.75 1.26 Erosulate woody shrub acicular 0.36 0.09 20.78 32.12 5 Hemiph absent equal 0.38 0.97 13.38

Chamaedaphne calyculata – 12.82 0.89 Erosulate woody shrub broadl – 17.36 16.28 – – Hemiph absent equal 0.45 – 9.85

Empetrum nigrum 574.47 12.00 1.11 Erosulate woody shrub acicular 0.38 1.60 12.48 47.75 1 Hemiph some wider 0.30 4.49 10.03

Linnaea borealis – 8.58 – Erosulate woody shrub broadl 0.25 3.31 – – – Chamaeph dense wider 0.03 – 33.33

Lycopodium annotinum 508.11 10.64 0.94 Erosulate herbac cmoss acicular 0.37 0.23 – 43.07 – Chamaeph absent wider 0.13 – –

Lycopodium clavatum – 8.32 0.87 Erosulate herbac herb acicular 0.38 0.13 – – 1 Chamaeph absent wider 0.12 – –

Orthilia secunda 562.99 16.84 – Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.33 23.20 – – – Chamaeph absent equal 0.11 388.08 18.20

Rhododendron tomentosum – 14.64 1.14 Erosulate woody shrub broadl – 5.11 13.23 30.77 1 Nanoph dense equal 0.81 – 8.98

Vaccinium myrtillus 504.50 17.80 1.07 Erosulate woody shrub broadl 0.36 3.74 15.53 24.95 6 Hemiph absent equal 0.28 110.53 19.01

Vaccinium oxycoccos – 15.33 0.90 Erosulate woody shrub broadl 0.35 1.36 16.97 – – Chamaeph absent wider 0.38 16.41 9.38

Vaccinium uliginosum 512.50 19.84 1.21 Erosulate woody shrub broadl 0.41 10.27 16.35 30.21 4.5 Hemiph absent equal 0.36 129.23 16.32

Vaccinium vitis-idaea 547.06 10.71 0.95 Erosulate woody shrub broadl 0.38 6.13 10.73 44.10 4 Hemiph absent equal 0.14 78.98 8.50

Agrostis capillaris 459.61 18.91 1.76 Hemirosett herbac grass grassl 0.27 7.73 – 9.98 6 Hemicr absent equal 0.28 335.67 38.34

Calamagrostis arundinacea – 21.75 1.15 Hemirosett herbac grass grassl 0.39 11.51 18.91 – 3 Hemicr absent higher 1.13 – –

Calamagrostis epigejos – – – Hemirosett herbac grass grassl 0.36 – – – – Hemicr absent higher – – –

Calamagrostis purpurea – – – Hemirosett herbac grass grassl 0.31 66.98 – – 4.5 Hemicr absent higher 1.12 – –

Carex brunnescens – – – Hemirosett herbac grass grassl – – – – – Hemicr absent equal 0.28 – –

Carex canescens – 14.20 – Rosette herbac sedge grassl 0.25 12.98 – – 3 Hemicr absent equal 0.43 437.45 26.19

Carex globularis – – – Hemirosett herbac sedge grassl 0.35 24.97 – – 2 Geoph absent equal 0.38 – –

Carex leporina – – – Hemirosett herbac sedge grassl 0.34 21.84 – – 5 Hemicr absent equal 0.37 476.00 22.36

Deschampsia flexuosa 450.81 21.77 1.55 Hemirosett herbac grass grassl 0.29 3.06 16.63 19.90 6 Hemicr absent equal 0.11 39.15 17.65

Eriophorum vaginatum – 19.21 1.64 Hemirosett herbac sedge grassl 0.39 48.37 12.71 – 3 Hemicr absent equal 0.41 215.00 7.02

7

Luzula pilosa – – – Hemirosett herbac sedge grassl 0.23 26.47 – – – Hemicr dense higher 0.20 664.00 25.10

Convallaria majalis – 38.20 – Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.21 206.55 – – – Geoph absent equal 0.28 6124.50 26.23

Dryopteris carthusiana – 24.35 – Rosette herbac fern comp 0.25 127.27 – – – Hemicr absent equal 0.68 18468.00 24.85

Epilobium angustifolium 482.20 27.87 3.23 Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.22 192.36 11.52 36.63 5.00 Geoph absent higher 0.60 3550.50 23.80

Equisetum sylvaticum 455.23 20.78 1.98 Erosulate herbac htail acicular 0.28 13.26 – 22.43 – Geoph absent higher 0.34 – 24.41

Gnaphalium sylvaticum – – – Hemirosett herbac herb broadl – – – – – Hemicr some equal 0.30 – –

Goodyera repens – – – Hemirosett herbac herb broadl – – – – – Hemicr absent equal 0.14 – –

Gymnocarpium dryopteris 492.66 22.00 – Erosulate herbac fern comp 0.18 132.25 – – – Geoph absent equal 0.22 7293.83 50.45

Hieracium umbellatum 440.66 25.13 2.44 Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.19 51.63 – 21.72 3.00 Hemicr some higher 0.30 – 19.65

Maianthemum bifolium – 24.90 – Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.24 1699.8 – – – Geoph some higher 0.14 1656.80 35.29

Melampyrum pratense – 24.30 2.39 Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.21 9.58 6.49 – 2.00 Theroph absent higher 0.28 240.00 29.14

Melampyrum sylvaticum 466.90 28.49 – Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.16 8.45 – – – Theroph absent higher 0.26 206.00 31.78

Rubus saxatilis 463.94 22.72 2.01 Erosulate herbac herb comp 0.30 289.98 – 27.61 – Pseudoph dense equal 0.15 6724.00 21.17

Solidago virgaurea 448.36 23.03 – Erosulate herbac herb broadl 0.20 83.82 – 27.04 2.00 Hemicr absent higher 0.11 1717.00 21.13

Taraxacum sp. – – – Erosulate herbac herb broadl – – – – – Hemicr absent higher – – –

Trientalis europaea – – – Erosulate herbac herb broadl – – – – – Chamaeph absent equal – – –

Alnus incana 545.08 34.14 2.65 Erosulate woody tree broadl 0.23 105.13 7.36 19.16 7.50 Macroph some higher 1.47 2683.58 16.10

Betula pendula 492.22 25.91 3.43 Erosulate woody tree broadl 0.36 78.62 14.36 18.25 7.50 Macroph absent higher 0.98 1181.11 13.94

Betula pubescens 464.98 21.55 1.66 Erosulate woody tree broadl 0.36 77.88 6.25 22.51 7.50 Macroph some higher 0.94 1446.00 14.50

Juniperus communis 490.90 13.00 – Opposite woody shrub acicular – – – 40.30 – Macroph absent higher – – –

Picea abies – 15.73 – Spiral woody tree acicular 0.41 – – – 2.00 Macroph absent higher 1.17 – 4.59

Pinus sylvestris 473.90 13.78 – Spiral woody tree acicular 0.52 – – 34.81 5.00 Macroph absent higher 0.62 – 3.99

Populus tremula 475.46 24.38 1.69 Erosulate woody tree broadl 0.40 – – – 7.50 Macroph absent higher 0.61 – –

Salix caprea 476.46 29.78 2.97 Erosulate woody tree broadl 0.33 135.62 12.93 19.18 – Macroph dense higher – 2728.41 15.20

Salix phylicifolia 485.56 24.22 1.73 Erosulate woody shrub broadl 0.36 46.39 – 24.29 – Nanoph some equal 1.00 – 10.53

Sorbus aucuparia 483.98 23.68 1.83 Erosulate woody tree comp 0.35 309.43 17.60 21.41 – Macroph some higher 0.69 742.13 14.12

Abbreviations of parasitoid traits: SIZE = Body size, LEP = Host order: Lepidoptera, COL = Host order:

Coleoptera, HYM = Host order: Hymenopera, HETEROP = Host order: Heteroptera, DIPT = Host order:

Diptera, SPEC = Specialization, HOST-HAB = Host micro-habitat, HOST-LOC = Host location, OVI-

LARV = Oviposition strategy, OVIPOS = Oviposition location, GREG = Gregariousness of larvae, FLS

= Flight season start, MFS = Mean flight season length.

TachinidaeSpecies name SIZE LEP COL HYM HETEROP DIPT SPEC HOST-HAB HOST-LOC OVI-LARV OVIPOS GREG FLS MFS

(mm3) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (1-5) CAT CAT CAT CAT (0,1) (1-4) (1-3)

Campylocheta inepta 21.97 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 2 2

Trixa conspersa 102.95 1 0 0 0 0 5 Soil Concealed Larvi Vicinity No 3 2

Microsoma exiguum 3.99 0 1 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 2

Athrycia impressa 43.52 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 2 2

Athrycia trepida 38.20 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 1 3

Blepharomyia piliceps 15.75 1 0 0 0 0 2 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 1

Eriothrix rufomaculata 32.74 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Concealed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 2 3

Klugia marginata 63.92 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 1

Ramonda prunaria 7.06 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 2 1

8

Ramonda ringdahli 18.88 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 1 1

Admontia blanda 19.95 0 0 0 0 1 3 Soil Concealed Ovi Vicinity Yes 4 1

Belida angelicae 68.83 0 0 1 0 0 5 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 3

Blondelia nigripes 51.94 1 0 1 0 0 1 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 2

Medina collaris 33.40 0 1 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 2

Medina luctuosa 6.99 0 1 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 3

Oswaldia eggeri 81.16 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 1

Oswaldia muscaria 40.47 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 3

Oswaldia spectabilis 56.01 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 1

Staurochaeta albocingulata 22.07 0 0 1 0 0 6 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 2

Trigonospila ludio 27.34 – – – – – – Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host – 3 1

Aplomya confinis 34.38 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 3

Carcelia atricosta 55.01 1 0 0 0 0 2 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 3 2

Carcelia bombylans 97.28 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 2 1

Hubneria affinis 67.08 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 4 1

Nilea hortulana 97.26 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 4

Nilea innoxia 39.00 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 1

Phebellia strigifrons 64.61 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 1

Senometopia pollinosa 65.70 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 4 1

Tlephusa cincinna 55.85 1 0 0 0 0 4 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 4

Paratryphera barbatula 31.79 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 3

Paratryphera bisetosa 19.00 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 1

Exorista fasciata 117.44 1 0 0 0 0 2 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 1

Exorista rustica 71.15 0 0 1 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 3

Exorista nr. tubulosa 62.96 0 0 1 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 2

Parasetigena silvestris 131.58 1 0 0 0 0 5 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 2 1

Allophorocera ferruginea 59.96 0 0 0 0 1 3 Soil Concealed Ovi Vicinity No 3 2

Cyzenis jucunda 34.47 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree shrub Exposed Ovi Vicinity No 1 1

Gonia picea 166.95 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi Vicinity No 1 1

Onychogonia flaviceps 137.82 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi Vicinity No 3 2

Platymya fimbriata 33.38 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Concealed Ovi Vicinity No 2 3

Smidtia amoena 115.54 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 3

Catharosia pygmaea 4.19 0 0 0 1 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 1

Cylindromyia interrupta 20.52 0 0 0 1 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 2

Cylindromyia pusilla 16.15 0 0 0 1 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 1

Phania thoracica 11.58 0 0 0 1 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 1

Appendicia truncata 67.36 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 1 1

Cleonice callida 49.97 0 1 0 0 0 5 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovi On-host No 1 2

Eurithia vivida 105.42 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 2 1

Gymnocheta viridis 72.32 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Concealed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 2 1

Linnaemya haemorrhoidalis 153.33 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 1

Linnaemya rossica 157.12 1 0 0 0 0 3 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host No 3 2

Panzeria rudis 164.36 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 1 2

Lydina aenea 20.15 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Concealed Larvi Vicinity No 3 1

Lypha dubia 25.17 1 0 0 0 0 2 Tree-shrub Exposed Larvi Vicinity No 1 2

Actia nigroscutellata 7.84 1 0 0 0 0 2 Herb-grass Concealed Ovi Vicinity No 1 1

Ceromya silacea 17.74 1 0 0 0 0 5 Herb-grass Exposed Ovi On-host Yes 2 1

Nowickia marklini 261.44 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 2 3

Tachina fera 189.60 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 2 3

Tachina grossa 670.49 1 0 0 0 0 3 Tree-shrub Exposed Ovilarvip Vicinity No 3 2

9

Table S3. Tachinid species abundances in different habitats (sum of observations). Habitat names as in

Fig. 1.

Speciesa FOR-OLD FOR-GRASS FOR-HEATH FOR-DSHRUBCampylocheta inepta (Meigen) 3 1 0 1Trixa conspersa (Harris) 1 0 0 1Microsoma exiguum (Meigen) 0 1 0 4Athrycia impressa (van der Wulp)

0 3 0 6Athrycia trepida (Meigen) 0 2 7 14Blepharomyia piliceps (Zetterstedt)

1 0 0 0Eriothrix rufomaculata (De Geer)

1 57 3 9Klugia marginata (Meigen) 0 0 0 1Ramonda prunaria (Rondani) 0 0 0 1Ramonda ringdahli (Villeneuve) 1 0 0 1Admontia blanda (Fallén) 0 0 1 0Belida angelicae (Meigen) 0 9 1 2Blondelia nigripes (Fallén) 0 0 0 5Medina collaris (Fallén) 1 6 0 5Medina luctuosa (Meigen) 0 29 12 28Oswaldia eggeri (Brauer & Bergenstamm) 0 0 0 1

Oswaldia muscaria (Fallén) 57 10 6 18Oswaldia spectabilis (Meigen) 0 0 0 1Staurochaeta albocingulata (Fallén)

0 3 0 2Trigonospila ludio (Zetterstedt) 3 0 0 0Aplomya confinis (Fallén) 16 22 18 44Carcelia atricosta Herting 3 0 0 1Carcelia bombylans Robineau-Desvoidy

1 0 0 0

10

Hubneria affinis (Fallén) 0 0 0 1

Nilea hortulana (Meigen) 7 7 10 20Nilea innoxia Robineau-Desvoidy

0 0 0 1Phebellia strigifrons (Zetterstedt) 0 1 0 0Senometopia pollinosa Mesnil 0 0 0 1Tlephusa cincinna (Rondani) 0 8 0 8Paratryphera barbatula (Rondani)

17 14 4 23Paratryphera bisetosa (Brauer & Bergenstamm) 9 1 0 1

Exorista fasciata (Fallén) 0 1 1 2Exorista rustica (Fallén) 0 3 0 0Exorista nr. tubulosa Herting 0 4 2 7Parasetigena silvestris (Robineau-Desvoidy)

0 0 0 1

Allophorocera ferruginea (Meigen)

3 3 1 9Cyzenis jucunda (Meigen) 2 0 0 0Gonia picea (Robineau-Desvoidy)

0 1 0 1Onychogonia flaviceps (Zetterstedt)

1 2 2 7Platymya fimbriata (Meigen) 0 13 1 12Smidtia amoena (Meigen) 1 2 2 6Catharosia pygmaea (Fallén) 0 1 0 0Cylindromyia interrupta (Meigen)

0 6 0 15Cylindromyia pusilla (Meigen) 0 0 1 3Phania thoracica Meigen 1 0 0 0Appendicia truncata (Zetterstedt) 0 1 0 1Cleonice callida (Meigen) 0 0 0 3Eurithia vivida (Zetterstedt) 0 3 0 2Gymnocheta viridis (Fallén) 0 1 0 0Linnaemya haemorrhoidalis (Fallén)

1 1 0 0Linnaemya rossica Zimin 1 2 4 3Panzeria rudis (Fallén) 5 0 2 1Lydina aenea (Meigen) 0 4 0 0Lypha dubia (Fallén) 5 2 3 0Actia nigroscutellata Lundbeck 0 0 0 1Ceromya silacea (Meigen) 1 0 0 0Nowickia marklini (Zetterstedt) 2 2 4 2Tachina fera (Linnaeus) 1 3 3 3Tachina grossa (Linnaeus) 0 2 3 5

11

Total abundance 145 231 91 283Total species richness 26 36 22 44

aTachinidae species names follow Pohjoismäki and Kahanpää (2014).

Table S4. Average cover (%) and standard deviation of vascular plant species (tree seedlings included) in

different habitats. Habitat names as in Fig. 1.

Species FOR-OLD FOR-GRASS FOR-HEATH FOR-DSHRUBCalluna vulgaris (L.) Hull 0.346 (0.349) 0.118 (0.176) 9.515 (6.699) 2.400 (2.478)Chamaedaphne calyculata (L.) Moench

0.000 (0.000) 0.045 (0.109) 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.006)

Empetrum nigrum L. 0.050 (0.077) 0.014 (0.026) 0.058 (0.103) 0.652 (1.222)Linnaea borealis L. 0.032 (0.050) 0.012 (0.019) 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.002)Lycopodium annotinum L. 0.036 (0.089) 0.001 (0.003) 0.007 (0.014) 0.008 (0.010)Lycopodium clavatum L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.004) 0.002 (0.004) 0.000 (0.000)Orthilia secunda (L.) House 0.001 (0.003) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.006)Rhododendron tomentosum Harmaja

0.269 (0.620) 0.003 (0.007) 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.003)Vaccinium myrtillus L. 23.572 (9.533) 0.161 (0.087) 0.598 (0.903) 0.835 (0.964)Vaccinium oxycoccos L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.004) 0.001 (0.002)Vaccinium uliginosum L. 0.059 (0.134) 0.174 (0.272) 0.052 (0.037) 1.094 (1.914)Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. 11.974 (6.088) 9.305 (5.481) 3.717 (1.823) 11.230 (4.186)Agrostis capillaris L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.005) 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.002)Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth 0.003 (0.006) 0.852 (1.910) 0.457 (0.909) 0.699 (1.183)

Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth 0.000 (0.000) 0.006 (0.009) 0.178 (0.350) 0.187 (0.353)Calamagrostis purpurea (Trin.) Trin.

0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.003) 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.002)

Carex brunnescens (Pers.) Poir. 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.004) 0.007 (0.009) 0.002 (0.005)Carex canescens L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.003) 0.011 (0.018) 0.002 (0.005)

Carex globularis L. 0.169 (0.415) 1.742 (2.956) 0.302 (0.475) 0.307 (0.825)

Carex leporina L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.005 (0.006) 0.000 (0.000)Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin. 0.384 (0.547) 8.853 (5.237) 2.489 (2.924) 0.810 (0.715)Eriophorum vaginatum L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.011 (0.027) 0.000 (0.000) 0.004 (0.012)Luzula pilosa (L.) Willd. 0.004 (0.011) 0.043 (0.030) 0.007 (0.009) 0.029 (0.030)Convallaria majalis L. 0.004 (0.009) 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.004) 0.003 (0.008)

12

Dryopteris carthusiana (Vill.) H. P. Fuchs 0.000 (0.000) 0.017 (0.025) 0.005 (0.004) 0.004 (0.006)

Epilobium angustifolium L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.922 (0.375) 0.912 (0.211) 0.665 (0.569)Equisetum sylvaticum L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.005 (0.008) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000)Gnaphalium sylvaticum L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.012 (0.021) 0.001 (0.002)Goodyera repens (L.) R. Br. 0.014 (0.019) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000)Gymnocarpium dryopteris (L.) Newman 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.002 (0.003)

Hieracium umbellatum L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.049 (0.099)Maianthemum bifolium (L.) F. W. Schmidt 0.071 (0.104) 0.023 (0.041) 0.013 (0.026) 0.182 (0.258)

Melampyrum pratense L. 0.033 (0.021) 0.054 (0.073) 0.163 (0.280) 0.026 (0.050)Melampyrum sylvaticum L. 0.010 (0.013) 0.007 (0.013) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000)Rubus saxatilis L. 0.06 (0.013) 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.033 (0.094)Solidago virgaurea L. 0.013 (0.033) 0.140 (0.140) 0.268 (0.282) 0.222 (0.359)Taraxacum sp. F. H. Wigg. 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.003) 0.005 (0.004) 0.002 (0.005)Trientalis europaea L. 0.018 (0.044) 0.061 (0.076) 0.000 (0.000) 0.006 (0.011)Alnus incana (L.) Moench 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.003) 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.002)Betula pendula Roth 0.001 (0.003) 0.320 (0.422) 0.702 (0.608) 0.456 (0.341)Betula pubescens Ehrh. 0.001 (0.003) 0.784 (1.447) 0.144 (0.120) 0.070 (0.108)Juniperus communis L. 0.112 (0.124) 0.684 (0.895) 0.028 (0.035) 0.321 (0.787)Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. 0.000 (0.000) 0.078 (0.160) 0.000 (0.000) 0.092 (0.259)Pinus sylvestris L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.246 (0.174) 0.816 (0.370) 0.776 (0.551)Populus tremula L. 0.010 (0.016) 0.847 (1.398) 0.062 (0.094) 0.807 (1.251)Salix caprea L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.001 (0.003) 0.011 (0.005) 0.037 (0.070)Salix phylicifolia L. 0.000 (0.000) 0.033 (0.082) 0.211 (0.402) 0.002 (0.003)Sorbus aucuparia L. 0.030 (0.035) 0.014 (0.015) 0.018 (0.011) 0.019 (0.029)

13

Table S5. Plant species with corresponding indicator value (IV) higher or equal than 50 and Holm

adjusted P-value for the different habitats (P-values < 0.05 in bold).

INDVALa INDVAL.combb

Species Habitatc IV P-value Habitatc IV P-valueCalluna vulgaris H 62 0.0282 H, M 90 0.7052Empetrum nigrum S 65 1.0000 H, F, S 81 1.0000Vaccinium myrtillus F 75 0.0048 H, F, S, G 100 –Vaccinium uliginosum S 59 1.0000 H, S, G 88 1.0000Vaccinium vitis-idaea – – – H, F, S, G 100 –Calamagrostis arundinacea – – – H, S, G 55 1.0000Carex globularis – – – H, G 53 1.0000Carex leporina H 50 0.9180 H 50 1.0000Deschampsia flexuosa G 55 0.0009 H, F, S, G 96 –Luzula pilosa – – – H, S, G 68 1.0000Dryopteris carthusiana – – – H, G 59 1.0000Epilobium angustifolium – – – H, S, G 100 0.0043Goodyera repens F 50 0.9240 F 50 0.9744Maianthemum bifolium – – – F, S 50 1.0000Melampyrum pratense – – – H, F, G 73 1.0000Solidago virgaurea – – – H, S, G 81 0.4444Betula pendula G 67 1.0000 H, S, G 94 0.0043Betula pubescens – – – H, S, G 99 0.0043Juniperus communis – – – H, F, S, G 83 –Pinus sylvestris – – – H, S, G 100 0.0043Populus tremula – – – H, S, G 66 1.0000Salix caprea – – – H, S 65 1.0000Sorbus aucuparia – – – H, F, S, G 71 –

aINDVAL analysis with site-group combinations not considered. bINDVAL analysis with site-group

combinations considered. cHabitat labels as: F (old-growth forests), G (early successional forests rich in

grass), H (early successional forests rich in heath), and S (early successional forests with mixed cover of

ericaceous dwarf shrubs).

14

15

Figure S1. Results of null model analyses showing the observed changes in functional diversity (1D(Q))

in response to habitat. With the exception of two sites, observed changes are not significantly different

from expected values. Grey filled circles represent average expected values from simulations with lines as

95% confidence intervals. Habitat names and symbols as in Fig. 1.

Table S6. Spearman correlation coefficients (rs, below the diagonal) and P-values (above the diagonal)

for all pairwise comparisons of all environmental variables. Bold numbers indicated r s values larger than

0.6.

Variables

Plan

t FD

Plan

t FD

isp

Avg

. flo

wer

.

Con

. Reg

.

Dec

. Reg

.

% H

erb

% G

rass

% S

hrub

Elev

atio

n

Plant FDa 0.32 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.59 0.68 0.03

Plant FDispb 0.21 0.45 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.99

Avg. flowerc 0.43 0.16 0.44 0.07 0.25 0.72 0.97 0.26

Con. Regc 0.44 0.39 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.58 0.26 0.88

Dec. Regd 0.57 0.57 0.37 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.30

% Herbe 0.55 0.72 0.24 0.49 0.54 0.01 <0.01 0.37

% Grassf 0.11 0.81 0.08 0.12 0.56 0.55 0.02 0.55

% Shrubg -0.19 -0.63 0.01 -0.24 -0.29 -0.64 -0.49 0.25

Elevationh 0.44 0.00 0.24 0.03 0.22 0.19 0.13 0.25aPlant FD: Plant functional diversity as functional Hill numbers 1D(Q).bPlant FDisp:: Plant functional dispersion.cAvg. flower: average flower abundance (flowers/m2).dCon. Reg: coniferous regeneration (number of stems/ha).eDec. Reg: deciduous regeneration (number of stems/ha).e % Herb: % cover of herbs.f % Grass: % cover of grasses.g % Shrub: % cover of shrubs.

16

hElevation: meters above sea level.

Table S7. Environmental variables characterizing the 24 study sites. Shown are conditional tests for

model significance, average and standard error for different habitats. Habitats not connected by the same

lowercase letter for each predictor variable are significantly different in each model.

Predictor* FOR-OLD FOR-GRASS FOR-HEATH FOR-DSHRUBPlant FDa 5.03 ± 0.75a 6.11 ± 0.37ab 8.71 ± 1.09bc 8.66 ± 0.59c

Plant FDispb 0.06±0.01a 0.24±0.02b 0.19±0.04b 0.18±0.02b

Avg. Flowerc 17.21±2.74 13.88±4.39 45.98±10.18 27.94±5.84Con. Reg.d 2256.57±965.59a 4412.92±853.03ac 8795.63±1317.80bc 5735.94±985.30ac

Dec. Reg.e 2352.93±721.76 7324.19±1922.83 13945.22±3652.66 8218.25±2606.12% Herbsf 0.17±0.08a 1.23±0.18b 1.38±0.33b 1.20±0.31b

% Grassg 0.56±0.29a 11.51±2.82b 3.45±1.59a 2.05±0.68a

% Shrubh 36.35±3.60a 9.84±2.29b 13.95±2.70b 16.24±2.78b

Elevationi 179.84±5.00 176.32±6.08 169.09±15.46 191.49±9.69% Litterj 42.53±13.58 39.80±6.39 23.77±5.36 30.93±4.65% Charred soilk 0.53±0.34a 15.30±10.44ac 35.55±10.27bc 19.19±6.04bc

Δ Humus depthl 1.78±1.92a 0.72±0.72a 13.80±1.04bc 5.60±2.26ac

% Retentionm 100±0.00a 0.87±0.67b 0.79±0.27bc 6.07±2.16c

Stumps/han 15.00±5.62a 1088.67±127.97b 1053.00±48.06b 935.75±96.06b

*Model fit was calculated by the adjusted R2 (for OLS models) or Cragg and Uhler’s pseudo R2 (for

General least squares (GLS) and negative binomial regression; Long, 1997). Pseudo-R2 in beta regression

as squared correlation of linear predictor and link-transformed response (Zeileis et al., 2016). In GLS

models with power function for modelling heterocedasticity; residual variance is modeled as

var ( ei )=σ2|y i|2 δ, where y i is the prediction of the model for observation i and σ and δ are the scale and

shape parameters (Pinheiro and Bates, 2000).

aGLS model. δ = 0.22, σ = 1.08; F = 7.65, P-value = 0.0013, R2CU = 0.54

bOLS model. F = 13.44, P-value = 4.97e-05, R2adj = 0.62

17

cGLS model. δ = 0.71, σ = 1.42; F = 3.72, P-value = 0.0284, R2CU = 0.51

d(Bakker, 2013). OLS model. F = 5.82, P-value = 0.005, R2adj = 0.39

e(Bakker, 2013). GLS model. δ = 0.95, σ = 1.16; F = 4.75, P-value = 0.0116, R2CU = 0.54

fGLM model (beta regression). χ2 = 19.06, P-value = 0.0003, pseudo-R2 = 0.61

gGLM model (beta regression). χ2 = 30.74, P-value = 9.64e-07, pseudo-R2 = 0.46

hGLM model (beta regression). χ2 = 47.08, P-value = 1.51e-05, pseudo-R2 = 0.59

iOLS model. F = 1.06, P-value = 0.388, R2adj = 0.01

j% Litter: percent cover of litter. GLM model (beta regression). χ2 = 1.68, P-value = 0.6411, pseudo-R2 = 0.07k%Charred soil: percent cover of charred soil. GLM model (beta regression). χ2 = 15.59, P-value = 0.0014, pseudo-R2 = 0.57lΔ Humus depth (Laamanen, 2002): variation in humus depth. GLS model. δ = 0.34, σ = 3.05; F=4.87, P-value= 0.0106, R2

CU=0.58m% Retention: percentage of tree retention. GLM model (beta regression). χ2 = 222.1, P-value= < 2.2e-16, pseudo-R2=0.81nStumps/ha: number of stumps/ha. GLM model (negative binomial regression). χ2 = 144.35, P-value = 1.02e-13, R2

CU = 1.00

18

Table S8. Complete results of averaged models (within 2 AICc units of the model with the lowest AICc)

for species richness (Poisson regression), functional diversity (1D(Q)), standardized effect sizes of 1D(Q),

and functional dispersion (OLS models) of parasitoids. Shown are standardized model estimates and

standard errors, test-values, P-values, and relative importance of predictors. Predictors within each

averaged model are sorted by their relative importance. Significant P-values are indicated in bold. Fit of

each global model is also indicated by the Cragg and Uhler’s pseudo R2.

Variableb Estimate SE Test-valuea P-value Relative importance

Species richnessc

Plant FD 0.165 0.073 2.266 0.0235 1.00 % Grass 0.091 0.073 1.242 0.2141 0.75 Dec. regeneration -0.021 0.054 0.377 0.7061 0.23Functional diversity (1D(Q))d

Plant FD 1.699 0.782 2.173 0.0298 1.00 % Grass 0.082 0.329 0.250 0.8024 0.14 Elevation -0.069 0.341 0.203 0.8395 0.13 Con. Regeneration -0.065 0.345 0.189 0.8501 0.13 % Shrub -0.054 0.288 0.186 0.8523 0.12 Dec. regeneration 0.026 0.328 0.080 0.9365 0.12 Avg. Flower -0.006 0.263 0.022 0.9825 0.11SES of functional diversitye

Plant FD 0.412 0.418 0.985 0.3240 0.61 Dec. regeneration 0.399 0.416 0.959 0.3380 0.60Functional dispersion (FDis)f

None — — — — —

19

at-values for ordinary least square (OLS) models; z-values for generalized linear models. bLabels for

predictors as in table S5. cR2CU = 0.42. dR2

CU = 0.30. eR2CU = 0.43. fR2

CU = -0.01.

20

Figure S2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of dominant tachinid species abundance showing

parasitoid community composition of different forest habitats. Each symbol represents one study site. For

clarity, some species names have been omitted. Labels for retention levels: 0 m 3/ha, clear cut; 10 m3/ha,

10 m3/ha tree retention; 50 m3/ha, 50 m3/ha tree retention; and 100 m3/ha, old-growth forests. Habitat

names as in Fig. 1. Abbreviations for species are: Alloph.ferr, Allophorocera ferruginea; Aplo.conf,

Aplomya confinis; Athry.trep, Athrycia trepida; Beli.angel, Belida angelicae; Blond.nigr, Blondelia

nigripes; Campy.inept, Campylocheta inepta; Carc.atri, Carcelia atricosta; Cleo.call, Cleonice callida;

Cylind.int, Cylindromyia interrupta; Erio.rufo, Eriothrix rufomaculata; Euri.viv, Eurithia vivida;

Exor.rust, Exorista rustica; Exor.tub. Exorista tubulosa; Linna.ross, Linnaemya rossica; Lyd.aen, Lydina

aenea; Lyph. dub, Lypha dubia; Medi.coll, Medina collaris; Nil.hort, Nilea hortulana; Nowick.mark,

Nowickia marklini; Onych.flav, Onychogonia flaviceps; Oswa.musc, Oswaldia muscaria; Panz.rud,

Panzeria rudis; Paratr.barb, Paratryphera barbatula; Paratr.biset, Paratryphera bisetosa; Smidt.amo,

Smidtia amoena; Stauro.albo, Staurochaeta albocingulata; Tach.fer, Tachina fera; Tach.gros, Tachina

grossa; Tleph.cin, Tlephusa cincinna; and Trigon.lud, Trigonospila ludio. Ellipses were drawn for each

habitat type showing standard deviation of points.

21

22

Figure S3. Principal component analysis (PCA) of dominant tachinid species abundance on harvested

sites, showing parasitoid community composition (a) of different retention levels and (b) of different

forest habitats. Retention symbols and habitat names as in Fig. S2. Species abbreviations as in Fig. S2

plus Cylind.pus, Cylindromyia pusilla; Exor.fasc, Exorista fasciata; and Micro.exig, Microsoma

exiguum. Labels for fire treatments in (a): NO, unburnt sites; YES, burnt sites. Ellipses were drawn for

each fire treatment and habitat type showing standard deviation of points.

23

Figure S4. Principal component analyses (PCA) showing (a) plant CWM composition of trait values and

(b) parasitoid CWM composition of trait values on different habitats represented by their convex hulls.

Habitat labels as in Fig. 1 and trait labels as in table S1. In (a) some trait names have been omitted for

greater clarity.

24

Table S9. Conditional F tests and parameters from linear models examining differences in mean values

of parasitoid community weighted trait means (CWM) among habitats. Model fit, shape (δ) and scale (σ)

parameters from general least-square models (GLS), and λ parameters from Box-Cox transformed

response variables are also shown. Parameters and model fit from linear models indicated only when

significant conditional F tests. Significant Holm adjusted P-value is shown (P-values < 0.05) in bold.

Body size. λ = -0.12. F = 3.90, P = 0.024. R2adj = 0.27

Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a -0.576 0.348 -1.656 0.3990FOR-GRASS 0.461 0.492 0.937 0.6474FOR-HEATH 1.833 0.550 3.335 0.0132FOR-DSHRUB 0.465 0.460 1.011 0.6474

Host order Lepidoptera. λ = 0.71. F = 4.15, P = 0.019. R2adj = 0.29

Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a 0.928 0.344 2.701 0.0357FOR-GRASS -1.580 0.486 -3.252 0.0160FOR-HEATH -0.685 0.543 -1.260 0.2222FOR-DSHRUB -1.257 0.455 -2.766 0.0357

Host order Coleoptera. λ = 0.73. F = 5.99, P = 0.004. R2adj = 0.39

Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a -1.126 0.318 -3.544 0.0060FOR-GRASS 1.382 0.449 3.075 0.0120FOR-HEATH 1.241 0.502 2.470 0.0226FOR-DSHRUB 1.721 0.420 4.096 0.0024

Host order Hymenoptera. λ = 0.81. F = 12.84, P = 0.0001. R2adj = 0.61

Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a -1.220 0.256 -4.766 0.0003FOR-GRASS 2.134 0.362 5.894 0.0000FOR-HEATH 0.981 0.405 2.425 0.0249FOR-DSHRUB 1.569 0.339 4.634 0.0004

Host order Heteroptera. λ = 0.95. F = 2.16, P = 0.1248. δ = -1.41, σ = 0.19Host order Diptera. λ = 1.04. F = 0.21, P = 0.889Specialization. λ = -1.6. F = 5.14, P = 0.0085. R2

adj = 0.35Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a -0.943 0.329 -2.865 0.0288FOR-GRASS 1.781 0.465 3.829 0.0040FOR-HEATH 0.726 0.520 1.396 0.1780FOR-DSHRUB 1.128 0.435 2.593 0.0348

Host micro-habitat Low. λ = 1.21. F = 6.4, P = 0.0032. R2adj = 0.41

Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a -1.164 0.313 -3.723 0.0040FOR-GRASS 1.682 0.442 3.804 0.0040FOR-HEATH 1.272 0.494 2.573 0.0181

25

FOR-DSHRUB 1.594 0.414 3.855 0.0040

Host micro-habitat Soil. λ = 0.81. F = 0.15, P = 0.9292Host micro-habitat Shrub. λ = 1.35. F = 6.51, P = 0.003. R2

adj = 0.42Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)a 1.181 0.311 3.793 0.0036FOR-GRASS -1.661 0.440 -3.772 0.0036FOR-HEATH -1.380 0.492 -2.802 0.0110FOR-DSHRUB -1.608 0.412 -3.903 0.0036

Host location Concealed. λ = 0.81. F = 2.41, P = 0.0974Host location Exposed. λ = 2.86. F = 2.30, P = 0.1083Oviposition strategy Larviparous. λ = 1.24. F = 2.17, P = 0.1237. δ = 0.38, σ = 1.20Oviposition strategy Oviparous. λ = 1.43. F = 8.16, P = 0.001. δ = -0.56, σ = 0.42. R2

CU = 0.48Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)b -0.929 0.217 -4.276 0.0012FOR-OLD 1.037 0.634 1.636 0.2350FOR-GRASS 0.710 0.455 1.560 0.2350FOR-DSHRUB 1.477 0.300 4.925 0.0004

Oviposition strategy Ovilarviparous. λ = 1.17. F = 2.87, P = 0.0621Oviposition location On host. λ = 0.74. F = 3.46, P = 0.0357

Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)c 0.676 0.308 2.198 0.0798FOR-OLD -0.534 0.470 -1.136 0.2694FOR-GRASS -1.199 0.470 -2.552 0.0570FOR-HEATH -1.457 0.533 -2.736 0.0508

Oviposition location vicinity. λ = 1.12. F = 3.50, P = 0.0344. R2adj =

0.25Fixed effects Coeff. SE t-value P-Adj.(Intercept)c -0.674 0.307 -2.195 0.0802FOR-OLD 0.520 0.469 1.109 0.2805FOR-GRASS 1.200 0.469 2.560 0.0561FOR-HEATH 1.462 0.532 2.750 0.0492

Gregariousness of larvae. λ = 0.81. F = 2.05, P = 0.1392. δ = -0.39, σ = 0.45Flight season start. λ = 3.95. F = 1.07, P = 0.3821Mean flight season length. λ = 5.7. F = 1.23, P = 0.3264

aOld-growth forests treated as baseline habitat for comparison with other habitats. bEarly successional forests rich in heather are used as reference habitat. cEarly successional forests with mixed cover of ericaceous dwarf shrubs are used as reference habitat.

26

27

28

Figure S5. Examples of Tachinidae species from this study illustrating morphological, taxonomic,

resource use and life-history trait diversity of tachinid parasitoids. (a) Tachina grossa (sub family

Tachininae, tribe Tachinini), the largest European tachinid (15–18 mm), ovolarviparous parasitoid of

Lasiocampidae caterpillars. (b) Staurochaeta albocingulata (Exoristinae, Blondeliini), oviparous

parasitoid species-specific on Monoctenus juniperi larvae (Hymenoptera, Diprionidae). (c) Medina

luctuosa (Exoristinae, Blondeliini), the most abundant tachinid parasitoid on Coleoptera (oviparous on

Chrysomelidae larvae) in our study sites. (d) Belida angelicae (Exoristinae, Blondeliini), one of the most

abundant tachinid parasitoids on Hymenoptera (oviparous on Argidae larvae) in our study sites. (e)

Oswaldia muscaria (Exoristinae, Blondeliini), the most abundant tachinid parasitoid in old-growth forests

in our study sites; an oviparous generalist parasitoid attacking Geometridae and Noctuidae caterpillars. (f)

Eriothrix rufomaculata (Dexiinae, Voriini), the most abundant tachinid parasitoid in young grass forests

in our study sites; an ovolarviparous parasitoid attacking concealed Crambidae caterpillars in grasses. For

all pictures, scale bar represents 1 mm.

29

Table S10. Tachinidae species sampled in thus study, which attack herbivore insects on tree species of

silvicultural importance in Finland (Betula pendula, Betula pubescens. Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris).

Data on herbivore host species of Tachinidae retrieved from Tschorsnig (2017). Data on plant host

species retrieved from Robinson et al. (2010) and Liston (1995). Insect herbivore species names follow

Karsholt and van Nieukerken (2013) for Lepidoptera, and Taeger et al. (2006) for Hymenoptera,

Symphyta. Note: 60% of sampled tachinid species attacking herbivore hosts on shrubs and trees, also

parasitize hosts on tree species of silvicultural importance.

Tachinidae species Herbivore species Tree speciesa

Campylocheta inepta Lepidoptera, DrepanidaeDrepana falcataria (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, GeometridaeCleora cinctaria (Denis & Schiffermüller)Electrophaes corylata (Thunberg)Ematurga atomaria (Linnaeus)Eupithecia indigata (Hübner)Macaria liturata (Clerck)Thera variata (Denis & Schiffermüller)Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeDendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeOrgyia antiqua (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeCeramica pisi (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, SphingidaeSphinx pinastri Linnaeus

Betula sp.

Betula pendulaBetula pubescensBetula sp.Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrisPicea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Betula sp., Picea abies

Betula sp.

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestrisAthrycia impressa Lepidoptera, Erebidae

Arctia caja (Linnaeus) Betula pendula

Athrycia trepida Lepidoptera, GeometridaeAlcis repandata (Denis & Schiffermüller)Ematurga atomaria (Linnaeus)Operophtera brumata (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeCosmotriche lobulina (Denis & Schiffermüller)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeLacanobia contigua (Denis & Schiffermüller)

Betula pendulaBetula sp.Betula pubescens

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Betula pendula

Blepharomyia piliceps Lepidoptera, GeometridaeEmaturga atomaria (Linnaeus)Epirrita autumnata (Borkhausen)

Betula sp.Betula pubescens

30

Ramonda ringdahli Lepidoptera, GeometridaeEpirrita autumnata (Borkhausen)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeMelanchra persicariae (Linnaeus)

Betula pubescens

Betula pendula

Blondelia nigripes Lepidoptera, ErebidaeArctia caja (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, GeometridaeAethalura punctulata (Denis & Schiffermüller)Archiearis parthenias (Linnaeus)Biston betularia (Linnaeus)Bupalus piniaria (Linnaeus)Ematurga atomaria (Linnaeus)Operophtera brumata (Linnaeus)Macaria liturata (Clerck)Opisthograptis luteolata (Linnaeus)Thera obeliscata (Hübner)Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeDendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Eriogaster lanestris (Linnaeus)Macrothylacia rubi (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeOrgyia antiqua (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeAcronicta rumicis (Linnaeus)Autographa gamma (Linnaeus)Ceramica pisi (Linnaeus)Cosmia trapezina (Linnaeus)Panolis flammea (Denis & Schiffermüller)Lepidoptera, NotodontidaePhalera bucephala (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NymphalidaeNymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, SphingidaeSphinx pinastri LinnaeusHymenoptera, DiprionidaeDiprion pini (Linnaeus)Gilpinia polytoma (Hartig)Neodiprion sertifer (Geoffroy)Hymenoptera, TenthredinidaeAmauronematus stenogaster (Förster)Craesus septentrionalis (Linnaeus)

Betula pendula

Betula pendulaBetula pubescensBetula sp.Picea abies, Pinus sylvestrisBetula sp.Betula pubescensPinus sylvestrisBetula pubescensPicea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestrisBetula sp.Betula pendula

Betula sp., Picea abies

Betula pendulaBetula pendulaBetula sp.Betula sp.Pinus sylvestris

Betula sp.

Betula pendula

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Pinus sylvestrisPicea abiesPinus sylvestris

Betula sp.Betula sp.Betula sp.

31

Oswaldia muscaria Lepidoptera, DrepanidaeAchlya flavicornis (Linnaeus)Drepana falcataria (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, GeometridaeEctropis crepuscularia (Denis & Schiffermüller)Lomaspilis marginata (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeCosmia trapezina (Linnaeus)

Betula sp.Betula sp.

Betula sp.Betula pendula

Betula sp.Oswaldia spectabilis Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae

Gynaephora selenitica (Esper) Betula sp.

Carcelia atricosta Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeOrgyia antiqua (Linnaeus)Orgyia recens (Hübner)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeAcronicta psi (Linnaeus)

Betula sp., Picea abiesBetula sp.

Betula sp.Hubneria affinis Lepidoptera, Erebidae

Arctia caja (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeDendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, SaturniidaeSaturnia pavonia (Linnaeus)

Betula pendula

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Betula sp.Nilea hortulana Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae

Calliteara pudibunda (Linnaeus)Gynaephora selenitica (Esper)Orgyia antiqua (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeAcronicta alni (Linnaeus)Acronicta auricoma (Denis & Schiffermüller)Acronicta leporina (Linnaeus)Acronicta psi (Linnaeus)Acronicta rumicis (Linnaeus)Autographa gamma (Linnaeus)Ceramica pisi (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NotodontidaePhalera bucephala (Linnaeus)

Betula pendulaBetula sp.Betula sp., Picea abies

Betula sp.Betula pendulaBetula sp.Betula sp.Betula pendulaBetula pendulaBetula sp.

Betula sp.Nilea innoxia Lepidoptera, Lasiocampidae

Trichiura crataegi (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeAcronicta rumicis (Linnaeus)

Betula sp.

Betula pendulaSenometopia pollinosa Lepidoptera, Geometridae

Abraxas sylvata (Scopoli)Bupalus piniaria (Linnaeus)Macaria liturata (Clerck)Pennithera firmata (Hübner)Thera obeliscata (Hübner)

Betula pubescensPicea abies, Pinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrisPicea abies, Pinus sylvestris

32

Exorista fasciata Lepidoptera, ErebidaeArctia caja (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeDendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Lasiocampa quercus (Linnaeus)Macrothylacia rubi (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeCalliteara abietis (Denis & Schiffermüller)Dicallomera fascelina (Linnaeus)Orgyia antiqua (Linnaeus)Orgyia recens (Hübner)

Betula pendula

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestrisBetula pendulaBetula pendula

Picea abiesBetula sp.Betula sp., Picea abiesBetula sp.

Parasetigena silvestris Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeDendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeCalliteara pudibunda (Linnaeus)Orgyia antiqua (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, SaturniidaeSaturnia pavonia (Linnaeus)

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Betula pendulaBetula sp., Picea abies

Betula sp.Gonia picea Lepidoptera, Noctuidae

Panolis flammea (Denis & Schiffermüller) Pinus sylvestris

Smidtia amoena Lepidoptera, ErebidaeArctia caja (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, GeometridaeBiston betularia (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeGynaephora selenitica (Esper)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaePanolis flammea (Denis & Schiffermüller)

Betula pendula

Betula sp.

Betula sp.

Pinus sylvestrisPanzeria rudis Lepidoptera, Noctuidae

Melanchra persicariae (Linnaeus)Panolis flammea (Denis & Schiffermüller)

Betula pendulaPinus sylvestrisPinus sylvestrisLypha dubia Lepidoptera, Geometridae

Operophtera brumata (Linnaeus)Operophtera fagata (Scharfenberg)

Betula pubescensBetula pendula

Nowickia marklini Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeCosmotriche lobulina (Denis & Schiffermüller)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeCeramica pisi (Linnaeus)

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Betula sp.

33

Tachina fera Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeDendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LymantriidaeCalliteara pudibunda (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, NoctuidaeAutographa gamma (Linnaeus)Ceramica pisi (Linnaeus)Cosmia trapezina (Linnaeus)Lacanobia contigua (Denis & Schiffermüller)Panolis flammea (Denis & Schiffermüller)

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris

Betula pendula

Betula pendulaBetula sp.Betula sp.Betula pendulaPinus sylvestris

Tachina grossa Lepidoptera, EndromidaeEndromis versicolora (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, LasiocampidaeCosmotriche lobulina (Denis & Schiffermüller)Dendrolimus pini (Linnaeus)Lasiocampa quercus (Linnaeus)Macrothylacia rubi (Linnaeus)Lepidoptera, SphingidaeSphinx pinastri Linnaeus

Betula sp.

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestrisPicea abies, Pinus sylvestrisBetula pendulaBetula pendula

Picea abies, Pinus sylvestrisBetula sp. refers to both Betula pendula and Betula pubescens.

34

References for the Supporting Information

Andersen, S., 1996. The Siphonini (Diptera: Tachinidae) of Europe. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica.

33. 148pp. E. J. Brill, Leiden.

Bakker, N.A.K., 2013. How do alternative forest management systems impact natural tree regeneration in

the European northern boreal forest? Masters of Forest Science Thesis. 71 pp. Faculty of Science

and Forestry, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu.

Belshaw, R., 1993. Tachinid flies: Diptera: Tachinidae. . Royal Entomological Society Handbooks for the

identification of British Insects. 10, 4a(i), 169 pp.

Bivand, R., Altman, M., Anselin, L., Assunção, R., Berke, O., Bernat, A., … Yu, D., 2018. spdep: Spatial

Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics and Models. R package, version 0.7-7. https://cran.r-

project.org/web/packages/spdep/index.html (accessed 03 April 2018).

Borcard, D., Gillet, F., Legendre, P. 2011. Numerical Ecology with R. Springer, New York.

Botta-Dukát, Z., 2005. Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple

traits. J. Veg. Sci. 16, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2005.tb02393.x

Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D. R., 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical

information-theoretic approach. Springer. New York.

Chiu, C.-H., Chao, A., 2014. Distance-based functional diversity measures and their decomposition: a

framework based on Hill numbers. PLoS ONE. 9, e100014.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100014

Daijang, L., 2018. hillR: Diversity Through Hill Numbers. R package, version 0.4.0.

https://github.com/daijiang/hillR (accessed 16 October 2018).

Hyvärinen, E., Kouki, J., Martikainen, P., Lappalainen, H., 2005. Short-term effects of controlled burning

and green-tree retention on beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages in managed boreal forests. For. Ecol.

Manage. 212, 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.029

35

Karsholt, O. van Nieukerken, E.J. 2013. Lepidoptera, Moths. Fauna Europaea version 2017.06.

https://fauna-eu.org (accessed 15 May 2019).

Kattge, J., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I.C.., Leadley, P., Bönisch, G., … Wirth, C., 2011. TRY – a

global database of plant traits. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 2905–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-

2486.2011.02451.x

Laamanen, J., 2002. Tulen voimakkuuden vaikutus metsikön pienalaiseen vaihteluun. MSc thesis, 44 pp.

University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland.

Laliberté, E., Legendre, P., 2010. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from

multiple traits. Ecology. 91, 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2244.1

Laliberté, E., Legendre, P., Shipley, B., 2014. FD: Measuring functional diversity (FD) from multiple

traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package, version 1.0-12. https://cran.r-

project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html (accessed 19 August 2018).

Liston, A.D., 1995. Compendium of European sawflies. List of species, modern nomenclature,

distribution, foodplants, and identification literature. Chalastos Forestry, Gottfrieding.

Long, J.S., 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Advance

quantitative technique in the social sciences series 7. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks.

Mesnil, L.P., 1944–1956. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae). Teil 1: Salmaciini, in: Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die

Fliegen der Paläarktischen Region. 64g. BD. X1. 1–554.

Mesnil, L.P., 1956–1965. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae). Teil 2: Phoroceriini, in: Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die

Fliegen der Paläarktischen Region. 64g. BD. X2. 555–879.

Mesnil, L.P., 1966–1975. Larvaevorinae (Tachininae). Teil 3: Larvaevorini, in Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die

Fliegen der Paläarktischen Region. 64g. BD. X3. 881–1435.

Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., … Wagner, H., 2018.

vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package, version 2.5-1.

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html (accessed 14 April 2018).

Pinheiro, J.C., Bates, D.M., 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. Springer-Verlag, New York.

36

Pohjoismäki, J. & Kahanpää, J., 2014. Checklist of the superfamilies Oestridea and Hippoboscoidea of

Finland. Zookeys. 441, 383–408. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.441.7252

Rao, C.R., 1982. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: A unified approach. Theor. Popul. Biol. 21, 24–

43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(82)90004-1

Robinson, G.S., Ackery, P.R., Kitching, I.J., Beccaloni, G.W., Hernández, L.M., 2010. HOSTS - A

database of the world's lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum, London.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosts

Siemann, E., Tilman, D., Haarstad, J., 1996. Insect species diversity abundance and body size

relationships. Nature, 380, 704–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/380704a0

Taeger, A., Blank, S.M.., Liston, A.D., 2006. European sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) – A

species checklist for the countries, in: Blank, S.M., Schmidt, S., Taeger, A. (Eds.), Recent

sawfly research: synthesis and prospects. Goecke & Evers, Keltern, pp. 399–504.

Tschorsnig, H.-P., Herting, B., 1994. Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas:

Bestimmungstabellen und Angaben zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der einzelnen Arten. Stuttg.

Beitr. Naturkd., A. 506, 1–170.

Tschorsnig, H.-P. (2017) Preliminary host catalogue of Paleartic Tachinidae (Diptera). Available from

http://www.nadsdiptera.org/Tach/WorldTachs/CatPalHosts/Home.html

Zeileis, A., Cribari-Neto, F., Gruen, B., Kosmidis, I., Simas, A.B., Rocha, A.V., 2016. betareg: Beta

Regression. R package, version 3.1-0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/betareg/index.html

(accessed 06 August 2018).

37