Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: Is it possible to recover species and functional diversity?

Audino, Lívia Dorneles; Louzada, Júlio; Comita, Liza S.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.023

Cited by 179 publications

(199 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

154

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) are well-represented insects in tropical regions and have been used in biodiversity monitoring studies (Nichols et al, 2007(Nichols et al, , 2013Audino et al, 2014;Campos and Hernández, 2015). These beetles are very sensitive to habitat alterations and have distinct organization patterns when studied in tropical forest fragments (Klein, 1989;Filgueiras et al, 2011) or in areas that have deteriorated due to human activities (Gardner et al, 2008;Barlow et al, 2010a;Korasaki et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dung beetle persistence in human-modified landscapes: Combining indicator species with anthropogenic land use and fragmentation-related effects

Filgueiras

Tabarelli

Leal

et al. 2015

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dung beetle persistence in human-modified landscapes: Combining indicator species with anthropogenic land use and fragmentation-related effects

Filgueiras

Tabarelli

Leal

et al. 2015

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…During ecological succession in a given planted forest, the redundancy of functions, a relatively under researched phenomena, can generate scenarios where, even with high species richness, the absence of a species that executes a specific function can keep the entire ecosystem in a low productivity bias (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981). So, the recovery of biodiversity should be addressed not just by recovering species diversity, but by using the ''Functional Diversity'' approach (Diaz and Cabido 2001;Petchey and Gaston 2002;Ren et al 2007;Aerts and Honnay 2011;Audino et al 2014) that focuses mainly on the recovery of the resistance and resilience of several ecosystem processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The restoration of termite diversity in different reforestated forests

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we compare the richness, abundance and guild composition between two different reforestations in the meridional part of the Amazon. We test the hypothesis that the termite community is affected by the identity of the tree species used in reforestation. More precisely, we test whether the reforestation of a native species of fig (Ficus sp) is more efficient in restoring biodiversity than reforestation of exotic teak trees (Tectona grandis). We sampled the termite community in these reforested areas and three other different ''control'' areas: active pastures, abandoned pastures (secondary forests) and mature pristine forest. We found that the distance of reforestation from the nearest primary forest had no effect on termite biodiversity, at the scale studied. But, as expected, richness and the abundance were higher in the mature forest, intermediate in reforestation areas, and lower in secondary forest and pastures. In fact, the only studied habitat with biodiversity comparable to the mature forest was the fig plantations. The guild composition in reforested areas was also similar to that of the mature forest. The diversity and abundance of humivorous termites was particularly pronounced in the reforestation areas compared with pasture or secondary forests. The humivorous guild provides important functional services, since its action makes nitrogen and other nutrients available to the plants along ecological succession. Our results show that reforestation is a valuable strategy in restoring termite diversity and recovering the ecosystem services they provide.

show abstract

“… AFspecies registered in Atlantic Forest samples Cspecies registered in Cerrado samples “–”uncertain/without identification, based on Almeida et al (2011), Campos & Hernández (2013) and Audino, Louzada & Comita (2014), Costa et al, 2016, unpublished data …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the environmental factors measured in this study, the most important was canopy cover. This variable is often reported in scientific literature as a proxy for habitat quality and resource availability for dung beetles (Halffter & Matthews, 1966; Halffter, 1991; Halffter & Arellano, 2002; Louzada et al, 2010; Audino, Louzada & Comita, 2014). Although soil and vegetation parameters can influence dung beetle communities (Gries et al, 2012; Farias et al, 2015), because they can affect larvae survival (Osberg, Doube & Hanrahan, 1994; Davis et al, 2010), the present work found LH and SS not liable for determining dung beetle community structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variegated tropical landscapes conserve diverse dung beetle communities

Costa

Oliveira

Maciel

et al. 2017

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundConserving biodiversity in tropical landscapes is a major challenge to scientists and conservationists. Current rates of deforestation, fragmentation, and land use intensification are producing variegated landscapes with undetermined values for the conservation of biological communities and ecosystem functioning. Here, we investigate the importance of tropical variegated landscapes to biodiversity conservation, using dung beetle as focal taxa.MethodsThe study was carried out in 12 variegated landscapes where dung beetles were sampled using six pitfall traps, 30 m apart from each other, along a transect in each studied landscape use and cover classes—LUCC (forest fragment and corridor, coffee plantation, and pasture). We baited each pitfall trap with 30 g of human feces and left open for a 48 h period. We also measured three environmental variables reflecting structural differences among the studied classes: canopy cover, local vegetation heterogeneity and soil sand content.ResultsWe collected 52 species and 2,695 individuals of dung beetles. We observed significant differences in the mean species richness, abundance and biomass among classes, with forest fragments presenting the highest values, forest corridors and coffee plantations presenting intermediate values, and pastures the lowest values. Regarding community structure, we also found significant differences among classes. Canopy cover was the only variable explaining variation in dung beetle species richness, abundance, biomass, and community structure. The relative importance of spatial turnover was greater than nestedness-resultant component in all studied landscapes.DiscussionThis study evaluated the ecological patterns of dung beetle communities in variegated tropical landscapes highlighting the importance of these landscapes for conservation of tropical biodiversity. However, we encourage variegation for the management of landscapes that have already been fragmented or as a complementary initiative of current conservation practices (e.g., protection of natural habitats and establishment of reserves).

show abstract

Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: Is it possible to recover species and functional diversity?

Cited by 179 publications

References 49 publications

Dung beetle persistence in human-modified landscapes: Combining indicator species with anthropogenic land use and fragmentation-related effects

Dung beetle persistence in human-modified landscapes: Combining indicator species with anthropogenic land use and fragmentation-related effects

The restoration of termite diversity in different reforestated forests

Variegated tropical landscapes conserve diverse dung beetle communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About