全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用：99美元
投递稿件

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2013 

Optimising Bait for Pitfall Trapping of Amazonian Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae)

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073147

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

The accurate sampling of communities is vital to any investigation of ecological processes and biodiversity. Dung beetles have emerged as a widely used focal taxon in environmental studies and can be sampled quickly and inexpensively using baited pitfalls. Although there is now a wealth of available data on dung beetle communities from around the world, there is a lack of standardisation between sampling protocols for accurately sampling dung beetle communities. In particular, bait choice is often led by the idiosyncrasies of the researcher, logistic problems and the dung sources available, which leads to difficulties for inter-study comparisons. In general, human dung is the preferred choice, however, it is often in short supply, which can severely limit sampling effort. By contrast, pigs may produce up to 20 times the volume. We tested the ability of human and pig dung to attract a primary forest dung beetle assemblage, as well as three mixes of the two baits in different proportions. Analyses focussed on the comparability of sampling with pig or human-pig dung mixes with studies that have sampled using human dung. There were no significant differences between richness and abundance sampled by each bait. The assemblages sampled were remarkably consistent across baits, and ordination analyses showed that the assemblages sampled by mixed dung baits were not significantly different from that captured by pure human dung, with the assemblages sampled by 10% and 90% pig mixes structurally most similar to assemblages sampled by human dung. We suggest that a 10:90 human:pig ratio, or similar, is an ideal compromise between sampling efficiency, inter-study comparability and the availability of large quantities of bait for sampling Amazonian dung beetles. Assessing the comparability of assemblage samples collected using different baits represents an important step to facilitating large-scale meta-analyses of dung beetle assemblages collected using non-standard methodology.

 References

[1]  Spector S, Ayzama S (2003) Rapid turnover and edge effects in dung beetle assemblages (Scarabaeidae) at a Bolivian neotropical forest–savanna ecotone. Biotropica 35: 394–404. Available: http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=？get-abstract&doi=10.1646/02102. Accessed 17 November 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2003.tb00593.x.
[2]  McGeoch MA, van Rensburg BJ, Botes A (2002) The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 39: 661–672. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00743.x.
[3]  Gardner TA, Nichols ES (2011) Dung beetles in applied biodiversity and conservation research. In: LW SimmonsTJ Ridsdill-Smith. Ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. pp. 267–290.
[4]  Gardner TA, Barlow J, Araujo IS, Avila-Pires TC, Bonaldo AB et al. (2008) The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 11: 139–150. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18031？554. Accessed 17 July 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01133.x. PubMed: 18031554.
[5]  Spector S, Forsyth A (1998) Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing tropics. In: GM MaceA. BalmfordJR Ginsberg. Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 181–209.
[6]  Nichols E, Larsen TH, Spector S, Davis AJ, Escobar F et al. (2007) Global dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: a quantitative literature review and meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 137: 1–19. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/？pii/S0006320707000560. Accessed 25 July 2011. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.023.
[7]  Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen TH, Amezquita S et al. (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141: 1461–1474. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/？pii/S0006320708001420. Accessed 8 March 2012. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.011.
[8]  Andresen E (2002) Dung beetles in a Central Amazonian rainforest and their ecological role as secondary seed dispersers. Ecol Entomol 27: 257–270. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00408.x.
[9]  Braga RF, Korasaki V, Audino LD, Louzada JNC (2012) Are Dung Beetles Driving Dung-Fly Abundance in Traditional Agricultural Areas in the Amazon? Ecosystems 15: 1173–1181. Available: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.100？7/s10021-012-9576-5. Accessed 8 November 2012. doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9576-5.
[10]  Slade EM, Mann DJ, Villanueva JF, Lewis OT (2007) Experimental evidence for the effects of dung beetle functional group richness and composition on ecosystem function in a tropical forest. J Anim Ecol 76: 1094–1104. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17922？706. Accessed 1 August 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01296.x. PubMed: 17922706.
[11]  Slade EM, Mann DJ, Lewis OT (2011) Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biol Conserv 144: 166–174. Available: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/？pii/S0006320710003642. Accessed 18 July 2012. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.011.
[12]  Halffter G, Matthews EG (1966) The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Sociedad Mexicana de Entomologia. Available: http://repositorio.fciencias.unam.mx:808？0/xmlui/handle/123456789/62087. Accessed 9 August 2012.
[13]  Doube BM (1990) A functional classification for analysis of the structure of dung beetle assemblages. Ecol Entomol 15: 371–383. Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2311？.1990.tb00820.x. Accessed 9 August 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1990.tb00820.x.
[14]  Vulinec K (2002) Dung beetle communities and seed dispersal in primary forest and disturbed land in Amazonia dung beetle communities and seed dispersal in primary forest. Biotropica 34: 297–309. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2002.tb00541.x.
[15]  Larsen TH, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37: 322–325. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00042.x.
[16]  Spector S (2006) Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): an invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. Coleopt Bull 60: 71–83. doi:10.1649/0010-065X(2006)60.
[17]  Louzada JNC, Carvalho E, Silva PR (2009) Utilisation of introduced Brazilian pastures ecosystems by native dung beetles: diversity patterns and resource use. Insects Conserv Divers 2: 45–52. Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1752-4598？.2008.00038.x. Accessed 17 August 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2008.00038.x.
[18]  Errouissi F, Haloti S, Jay-robert P, Janati-idrissi A, Lumaret J (2004) Effects of the attractiveness for dung beetles of dung pat origin and size along a climatic gradient. Environ Conserv 33: 45–53.
[19]  Davis ALV, Scholtz CH, Kryger U, Deschodt CM, Strümpher WP (2010) Dung beetle assemblage structure in Tswalu Kalahari Reserve: responses to a mosaic of landscape types, vegetation communities, and dung types. Environ Entomol 39: 811–820. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20550？793. Accessed 15 August 2012. doi:10.1603/EN09256. PubMed: 20550793.
[20]  Dormont L, Rapior S, McKey DB, Lumaret J-P (2006) Influence of dung volatiles on the process of resource selection by coprophagous beetles. Chemoecology 17: 23–30. Available: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.100？7/s00049-006-0355-7. Accessed 17 August 2012.
[21]  Gittings T, Giller PS (1998) Resource quality and the colonisation and succession of coprophagous dung beetles. Ecography 21: 581–592. Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0587？.1998.tb00550.x. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00550.x.
[22]  Estrada A, Halffter G, Coates-Estrada R, Meritt DA Jr (1993) Dung beetles attracted to mammalian herbivore (Alouatta palliata) and omnivore (Nasua narica) dung in the tropical rain forest of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. J Trop Ecol 9: 45–54. doi:10.1017/S0266467400006933.
[23]  Vernes K, Pope LC, Hill CJ, B？rlocher F (2005) Seasonality, dung specificity and competition in dung beetle assemblages in the Australian Wet Tropics, north-eastern Australia. J Trop Ecol 21: 1–8. Available: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstra？ct_S026646740400224X. Accessed 17 August 2012. doi:10.1017/S026646740400224X.
[24]  Howden HF, Nealis VG (1975) Effects of clearing in a tropical rain forest on the composition of the coprophagous scarab beetle fauna (Coleoptera). Biotropica 7: 77–83. doi:10.2307/2989750.
[25]  Hill CJ (1996) Habitat specificity and food preferences of an assemblage of tropical Australian dung beetles. J Trop Ecol 12: 449–460. Available: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstra？ct_S026646740000969X. Accessed 19 August 2012. doi:10.1017/S026646740000969X.
[26]  Horgan FG (2008) Dung beetle assemblages in forests and pastures of El Salvador: a functional comparison. Biodivers Conserv 17: 2961–2978. Available: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.100？7/s10531-008-9408-2. Accessed 17 August 2012. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9408-2.
[27]  Noriega JA (2012) Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) Attracted to Lagothrix lagotricha (Humboldt) and Alouatta seniculus (Linnaeus) (Primates: Atelidae) Dung in a Colombian Amazon Forest. Psyche J Entomol: 2012: 1–6. Available: . http://www.hindawi.com/journals/psyche/2？012/437589/ . Accessed 30 May 2013.
[28]  Larsen TH, Lopera A, Forsyth A (2006) Extreme trophic and habitat specialization by Peruvian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Coleopt Bull 60: 315–324. Available: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1649/00？10-065X (2006)60[315:ETAHSB]2.0.CO;2 doi:10.1649/0010-065X(2006)60[315:ETAHSB]2.0？.CO;2.
[29]  Martín-Piera F, Lobo JM (1996) A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities. Miscellania Zool Barc. 19: 13–31.
[30]  Peck SB, Howden HF (1984) Response of a dung beetle guild to different sizes of dung bait in a Panamanian rainforest. Biotropica 16: 235–238. doi:10.2307/2388057.
[31]  Horgan FG (2005) Aggregated distribution of resources creates competition refuges for rainforest dung beetles. Ecography 5: 603–618.
[32]  Shahabuddin , Hidayat P, Manuwoto S, Noerdjito WA, Tscharntke T et al. (2010) Diversity and body size of dung beetles attracted to different dung types along a tropical land-use gradient in Sulawesi, Indonesia. J Trop Ecol 26: 53–65. Available: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstra？ct_S0266467409990423. Accessed 7 August 2012. doi:10.1017/S0266467409990423.
[33]  Gill BD (1991) Dung beetles in tropical American forests. In: I. HanskiY. Cambefort. Dung beetle ecology. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 211–229.
[34]  Boonrotpong S, Sotthibandhu S, Pholpunthin C (2004) Species composition of dung beetles in the primary and secondary forests at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary. Science Asia 30: 59–65. doi:10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2004.30.059.
[35]  Davis ALV, Philips TK (2005) Effect of deforestation on a Southwest Ghana dung beetle assemblage (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) at the periphery of Ankasa Conservation Area. Environ Entomol 34: 1081–1088. doi:10.1603/0046-225X(2005)034[1081:EODOAS]2？.0.CO;2.
[36]  Brumm MC, Sutton AL, Jones DD (1980) Effect of season and pig size on swine waste production. Transactions pf the American Society Of Agricultural Engineers 23: 165–168.
[37]  Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R, Dadda AA, Cammarano P (1998) Dung and carrion beetles in tropical rain forest fragments and agricultural habitats at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. J Trop Ecol 14: 577–593. Available: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstra？ct_S0266467498000418. Accessed 21 August 2012. doi:10.1017/S0266467498000418.
[38]  Gardner TA, Hernández MIM, Barlow J, Peres CA (2008) Understanding the biodiversity consequences of habitat change: the value of secondary and plantation forests for neotropical dung beetles. J Appl Ecol 45: 883–893. Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2664？.2008.01454.x. Accessed 13 June 2011.
[39]  Barlow J, Gardner TA, Louzada J, Peres CA (2010) Measuring the conservation value of tropical primary forests: the effect of occasional species on estimates of biodiversity uniqueness. PLOS ONE 5: e9609. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article？render.fcgi?artid=2834753&tool=pmcentrez？&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 29 February 2012. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009609. PubMed: 20231897.
[40]  Feer F, Pincebourde S (2005) Diel flight activity and ecological segregation within an assemblage of tropical forest dung and carrion beetles. J Trop Ecol 21: 21–30. Available: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstra？ct_S0266467404002056. Accessed 15 August 2012. doi:10.1017/S0266467404002056.
[41]  Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[42]  Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129: 271–280. Available: http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?？genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s0044201007？16. Accessed 18 July 2012. doi:10.1007/s004420100716.
[43]  Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011). Numerical Ecol R.. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7976-6.
[44]  Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecol 18: 117–143. Available: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1442-9993？.1993.tb00438.x. Accessed 13 July 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x.
[45]  R Development Core Team (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available: http://www.r-project.org.
[46]  Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR et al. (2012) vegan: Community Ecology Package. Available: http://cran-r-project.org/package=vegan.
[47]  Edmonds WD, Zidek J (2010) A taxonomic review of the neotropical genus Coprophanaeus Olsoufieff, 1924 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Insecta Mundi 0129: 1–111.
[48]  Viljanen H, Wirta H, Montreuil O, Rahagalala P, Johnson S et al. (2010) Structure of local communities of endemic dung beetles in Madagascar. J Trop Ecol 26: 481–496. doi:10.1017/S0266467410000325.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133