Habitat associations and community analysis of South Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae)

Abstract

Baited pitfall traps were used to sample the Scarabaeinae dung beetle fauna in six habitats in South Texas. Habitats were defined according to their soil and vegetative cover characteristics. Most of the 19 scarab species collected displayed marked associations with a particular soil type (sand or clay) and (or) cover (shade or open). The result is the existence of distinct communities of coprophagous beetles, which differ in their species composition, species-abundance relations, and efficiency of dung removal. A discussion of the evolution of these habitat associations and the ecological implications for pasture ecosystems is included.

Dung beetle communities: a neotropical-north temperate comparison

“…These temperate numbers are in line with a secondary forest site slightly south, near Baton Rouge, Louisiana where only 12 species were found after sampling monthly for a full year (Radtke et al 2008). Other temperate sites at comparable latitudes in Texas have yielded 8 species in hackberry shrubland, 15 species in live oak/mesquite woodlands, and 16 species in woody shrublands (Nealis 1977;Howden & Scholtz 1986). …”

Effects of dung presence, dung amount and secondary dispersal by dung beetles on the fate of Micropholis guyanensis (Sapotaceae) seeds in Central Amazonia

“…After finding a dung source, dung beetles quickly relocate a portion of dung, mostly by burying it under the soil, either for feeding or for nest building (Halffter & Edmonds 1982, Hanski & Cambefort 1991a). Beneficial consequences of their behaviour include soil fertilization and aeration (Mittal 1993), an increase in the rate of nutrient cycling (Nealis 1977) and a reduced transmission of some parasites of vertebrates (Bergstrom et al 1976). However, a poorly known ecological role that dung beetles play, and one that may be particularly important in tropical rain forests, is seed dispersal.…”

Dung Beetle Assemblage Structure in Tswalu Kalahari Reserve: Responses to a Mosaic of Landscape Types, Vegetation Communities, and Dung Types

“…These include topography and climate (Kirk and Ridsdill-Smith 1986, Davis and Dewhurst 1993, Davis 1997, edaphic characteristics and vegetative physiognomy (Nealis 1977, Cambefort 1982, Davis 1996, dung type (Fincher et al 1970, Davis 1994, Tshikae et al 2008, dropping size (Peck and Howden 1984), and spatial frequency of droppings (Lobo et al 2006). The relative inßuence of these factors varies both with spatial scale and the speciÞc attributes of a geographical region, landscape, or locality .…”

“…Within the deÞned study area ), separation at the subregional scale (warmer/moister Kalahari, cooler Upper Karoo, arid Bushmanland Karoo, and stony karoo patches or arid outlier Kalahari dunes along the Orange River valley) was inßuenced primarily by climatic patterns, either annual temperature or annual rainfall. Separation at local or habitat scale (13 divisions) was inßuenced primarily by edaphic factors, particularly stony versus deep soils, although soil grain size, ranging from sand to clay, may also be highly inßuential (Nealis 1977, Doube 1991, Davis 1996.…”