When ‘Open’ and ‘regrown’ were pooled to ‘non-Park’ and compared to ‘Park’ nine species showed significant association and 155 no association (Table 5). Among the significantly associated species, three were living in hollows (Table 5) and all these three were mainly found in ‘Park’. Table 5 The species with significant association to one of the

(site-) ‘types’ according to IndVal analyses, either as compared between all three site types (Park/Open/Regrown) or compared between ‘Park’ or Galunisertib cell line ‘non-Park’. Also the percentage of sites in which they occurred within ‘Park’ or ‘non-Park’ are shown. Wood types are defined as: w wood and bark, h hollows. For ‘Park’ n = 8, ‘Open’ n = 8 and ‘regrown’ n = 11 Species Wood type Test with three types Test with two types % sites w. occurrence Maxgrp IndVal P Maxgrp IndVa P Park non-Park Euglenes oculatus h Open 66.0 0.001 Non-park 47.4 0.048 0 47.4 Trichoceble memnonia w Park 56.8 0.004 Park 60 0.002 62.5 5.3

Stenichnus godarti w Open 55.0 0.004 Non-park 47.4 0.049 0 47.4 Rhizophagus parvulus w Regrown 54.5 0.005 – – n.s 0 31.6 Gabrius splendidulus w Regrown 55.2 0.007 – – n.s. 0 42.1 Prionocyphon serricornis h Park 49.5 0.012 Park 55.6 0.007 62.5 21.1 Trichoceble floralis w Open 45.6 0.024 – – n.s. 37.5 36.8 Cryptophagus confusus h Park 43.0 0.027 Park 51.6 0.012 62.5 10.5 Schizotus pectinicornis w Regrown 36.4 0.027 – – n.s. 0 21.0 Orthocis festivus w Regrown 36.4 0.028 – – n.s. 0 21.0 Synchita humeralis w Regrown 45.7 0.031 Non-park 52.6 0.027 0 52.6 Phloeopara corticalis w Open 37.5 0.038 – – n.s. 0 15.8 Calambus bipustulatus w Open 40.0 0.040 – – n.s. Lapatinib datasheet 12.5 21.0 Hylesinus fraxini w Park 34.0 0.045 Park 35.4 0.019 37.5 5.3 Cryptophagus populi w Open 37.3 0.045 – – n.s. 0 42.1 Hapalaraea melanocep. w – – n.s. Park 38 0.042 50.0 10.5 Mycetophagus HSP90 multipun. w – – n.s. Park 35 0.049 37.5 5.3 Discussion For saproxylic beetle species living in tree hollows and for red-listed saproxylic beetles species, species numbers did not differ between parks and the more natural sites. Also for species associated with wood and bark rather high numbers were found in the ‘Park’ sites, but their numbers were significantly lower than in the ‘Open’ sites. This shows that the old trees in parks harbour a rich fauna in spite of the more intensive management. The removal of wood from parks probably explains the significantly lower number of species associated with wood and bark. However, even among them, the red-listed species showed no such pattern, indicating that they could be living within the dead wood still attached to the living parts of old park trees. Although the ordination revealed the species composition in ‘Park’ sites to be significantly different from other sites, few species discriminated between the two types of sites.