Translocation of keystone species may not mean translocation of keystone effect

  • Peter LindtnerEmail author
  • Matúš Šoltís
  • Vladimír Kubovčík
Short Communication


Keystone species are strongly interactive species with a disproportionately large effect on other species in an ecosystem. They are irreplaceable in a community, because of unique interactions and coevolved relationships within an ecosystem. Ground squirrels are recognised as keystone species in grassland ecosystems. One of the most threatened, the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus), is the host of a few coprophagous scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae), and this relationship represents an example of strongly interrelated species with high dependency on the keystone species. The aims of this case study were to conduct an inventory research of specialised coprophagous fauna associated with the European ground squirrel as keystone species and examine whether translocated colonies of this keystone species fulfil the keystone role also in a new environment. We described keystone effect as the presence of strongly associated coprophagous fauna on the study site. We selected nine relict colonies and three translocated colonies in the Western Carpathians in inventory research of specialised coprophagous fauna associated with the European ground squirrel. We found that all relict colonies and one translocated colony were occupied by strongly associated coprophagous scarab beetles. Investigation in two translocated colonies showed the absence of strongly associated coprophagous scarab beetles, which was explained by geographical isolation. We demonstrate that translocation of keystone species may not mean translocation of the keystone effect into new environment. Our results point out that the decline of ground squirrels may represent a threat for biodiversity in grassland ecosystems, because it affects the ecologically interrelated species, such as specialised coprophagous fauna.


Keystone species Reintroduction European souslik Spermophilus citellus Coprophagous scarab beetles 



This study was funded by the Slovak Scientific Grant Agency (VEGA 1/0286/17).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies of human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Brock RE, Kelt DA (2004) Keystone effects of the endangered Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). Biol Conserv 116(1):131–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brtek V (1974) Die Verbreitung des Ziesels (Citellus citellus L.) im slowakischen Gebiet des Karpatenbogens und einige okologische Bemerkungen dazu. Biológia 29:393–399Google Scholar
  3. Caro TM (2010) Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpaneto GM, Mazziotta AT, Pittino R, Luiselli LM (2011) Exploring co-extinction correlates: the effects of habitat, biogeography and anthropogenic factors on ground squirrels–dung beetles associations. Biodivers Conserv 20:3059–3076. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciechanowski M, Kubic W, Rynkiewicz A, Zwolicki A (2011) Reintroduction of beavers Castor fiber may improve habitat quality for vespertilionid bats foraging in small river valleys. Eur J Wildl Res 57:737–747. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortés-Avizanda A, Colomer MÀ, Margalida A, Ceballos O, Donázar JA (2015) Modeling the consequences of the demise and potential recovery of a keystone-species: wild rabbits and avian scavengers in Mediterranean landscapes. Sci Rep 5:17033. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Davic RD (2003) Linking keystone species and functional groups: a new operational definition of the keystone species concept. Conserv Ecol 7:r11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson AD, Parmenter RR, Gosz JR (1999) Responses of small mammals and vegetation to a reintroduction of Gunnison’s prairie dogs. J Mammal 80(4):1311–1324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson AD, Detling JK, Brown JH (2012) Ecological roles and conservation challenges of social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world’s grasslands. Front Ecol Environ 10:477–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson AD, Hunter EA, Erz J, Lightfoot DC, McCarthy AM, Mueller JK, Shoemaker KT (2018) Reintroducing a keystone burrowing rodent to restore an arid North American grassland: challenges and successes. Restor Ecol 26(5):909–920. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egorov LV (1997) The bobacs (Marmota bobac Müll.) beetles-coprobionts and nidicols in Chuvashia. In: Holarctic marmots as a factor of biodiversity. Abstracts of the 3d International Conference on Marmots (Cheboksary, Russia, 25-30 August 1997), Moscow. p. 139Google Scholar
  12. Fulgham KM, Koprowski JL (2016) Kangaroo rat foraging in proximity to a colony of reintroduced black-tailed prairie dogs. Southwest Nat 61(3):194–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gharakhloo MM, Ziani S (2009) Occurrence of scarab beetles inside rodent burrows in some parts of Iran. Zool Middle East 46:95–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hale SL, Koprowski JL (2018) Ecosystem-level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review. Restor Ecol 26(3):439–445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heske EJ, Brown JH, Guo Q (1993) Effects of kangaroo rat exclusion on vegetation structure and plant species diversity in the Chihuahuan Desert. Oecologia 95(4):520–524. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Heywood VH (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingegnoli V (2002) Landscape ecology: a widening foundation. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janák M, Marhoul P, Matějů J (2013) Action plan for the conservation of the European ground squirrel Spermophilus citellus in the European Union. European Commission, Brussel Google Scholar
  19. Jordán F (2009) Keystone species and food webs. Philos Trans R Soc B 364(1524):1733–1741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotliar NB (2000) Application of the new keystone-species concept to prairie dogs: how well does it work? Conserv Biol 14(6):1715–1721. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law A, Jones KC, Willby NJ (2014) Medium vs. short-term effects of herbivory by Eurasian beaver on aquatic vegetation. Aquat Bot 116:27–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindtner P, Ujházy K, Svitok M, Kubovčík V (2018) The European ground squirrel increases diversity and structural complexity of grasslands in the Western Carpathians. Mammal Res 63(2):223–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Löbbová D, Hapl E (2014) Conservation of European ground squirrel (Mammalia: Rodentia) in Slovakia: results of current reintroduction programme. Slovak Raptor J 8(2):105–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowry R (2018) VassarStats: website for statistical computation. Accessed 6 July 2018
  25. Martínez-Estévez L, Balvanera P, Pacheco J, Ceballos G (2013) Prairie dog decline reduces the supply of ecosystem services and leads to desertification of semiarid grasslands. PLoS One 8(10):e75229. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Matĕjů J, Rícanová Š, Ambros M, Kala B, Hapl E, Mateju K (2010) Reintroduction of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Central Europe (Rodenia: Sciuridae). Lynx (Praha) 41:175–191Google Scholar
  27. Petchey OL, Eklöf A, Borrvall C, Ebenman B (2008) Trophically unique species are vulnerable to cascading extinction. Am Nat 171(5):568–579. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Plein M, Bode M, Moir ML, Vesk PA (2016) Translocation strategies for multiple species depend on interspecific interaction type. Ecol Appl 26(4):1186–1197. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills LS, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46(8):609–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Puttock A, Graham HA, Cunliffe AM (2017) Eurasian beaver activity increases water storage, attenuates flow and mitigates diffuse pollution from intensively-managed grasslands. Sci Total Environ 576:430–443. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramos-Lara N, Koprowski JL, Kryštufek B, Hoffmann IE (2014) Spermophilus citellus. Mamm Species 46:71–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryerson DE, Parmenter RR (2001) Vegetation change following removal of keystone herbivores from desert grasslands in New Mexico. J Veg Sci 12(2):167–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stringer AP, Gaywood MJ (2016) The impacts of beavers Castor spp. on biodiversity and the ecological basis for their reintroduction to Scotland, UK. Mammal Rev 46(4):270–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Underwood JG, Van Pelt WE (2000) A proposal to reestablish the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) to southern Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Draft Technical Report, Phoenix, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilmers CC, Crabtree RL, Smith D, Murphy KM, Getz WM (2003) Trophic facilitation by introduced top predators: grey wolf subsidies to scavengers in Yellowstone National Park. J Anim Ecol 72(6):909–916. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zunino M, Halffter G (2007) The association of Onthophagus Latreille, 1802 beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) with vertebrate burrows and caves. Elytron 21:17–55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and General Ecology, Faculty of Ecology and Environmental SciencesTechnical University in ZvolenZvolenSlovakia

Personalised recommendations