Results/Conclusions Under “unconstrained” null model, 28% of the species pairwise tests (among 22 species that occur in ≥ 5% of stands) were significantly aggregated (46 pairs) or segregated (22 pairs). The habitat-constrained null models indicated that 72% of the significant aggregated associations were attributed to habitat variables, with tree size/dbh (proxy for resource) alone accounting for 39%; and additional 15% shared with tree type or burn severity. Habitat variables explained 60% of the segregated associations, with tree-type alone accounting for 23% of the associations, and additional 22% shared with the other habitat variables. In addition, 17 of the non-significant pairs were significantly aggregated, but were confounded by segregating effect of tree (11), burn (3) and dbh (3). Results of species-habitat associations corroborated these findings. 41% of the segregated and 28% of the aggregated associations could not be explained by habitat variables, and might be attributed to interspecific interactions. In addition, five segregated pairs were revealed within tree-constrained models. We conclude that while habitat is the principal factor for fine-scale co-occurrence patterns of Saproxylic beetles, there is also strong evidence for interspecific interactions. We suggest habitat-constrained null models could form a basis to distinguish importance of habitat effects from interspecific interactions for community assembly.