Advertisement

Impacts of an indigenous settlement on the taxonomic and functional structure of dung beetle communities in the Venezuelan Amazon

  • Juanita ChooEmail author
  • Bruce D. Gill
  • Alain F. Zuur
  • Eglee Zent
  • Evan P. Economo
Original Paper
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

In the last 50 years, traditionally nomadic indigenous communities in Amazonia have increasingly adopted more sedentary lifestyles as a result of external influences. Permanent settlements lead to the concentration of disturbances (e.g., forest extraction and hunting) and threaten vulnerable species as well as those that provide important ecosystem services such as dung beetles. Here we evaluated the abundance, taxonomic, and functional structure (composition and diversity) of an ecological indicator group—dung beetles—along a disturbance gradient associated with a permanent settlement of the Jotï people in the Amazonian region of Venezuela. We applied generalized linear model to assess the response of dung beetle abundance to settlement distance and latent variable model to assess the influence of settlement distance on taxonomic diversity and functional structure. We found the abundance of roller-species increased but small-bodied beetles decreased away from the settlement. We found that proximity to the Jotï settlement did not affect metrics of taxonomic and functional diversity of the dung beetle assemblages in general, although functional evenness was lower away from the settlement. In contrast, we found impacts on the functional composition of dung beetles, with significant increase in the community-weighted means for roller species and large-bodied dung beetles away from Jotï settlement. Our findings suggest that the transition from nomadism to a more sedentary lifestyle has not caused widespread collapse in the diversity of dung beetle assemblages surrounding the settlement, however significant trends were observed in species-specific responses to human impact, and these responses were mediated by functional traits.

Keywords

Disturbance Functional diversity Functional evenness Functional trait Jotï Human impact 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Jotï people for their contribution and collaboration on this study and their kind hospitality during our stay with them. We are also grateful to our colleagues at Laboratorio Ecología Humana de IVIC for logistical support. We thank Cong Liu and Nicholas Friedman for their input, Kenneth Dudley for his help with Figure 1, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by the Charles H. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation and the American Philosophical Society. J.C. and E.P.E. were supported by subsidy funding to the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology.

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Auto Control 19:716–723.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen E, Feer F (2005) The role of dung beetles as secondary seed dispersers and their effect on plant regeneration in tropical rainforests. In: Forget P, Lambert J, Hulm P (eds) Seed fate: predation, dispersal, and seedling establishment. CABI Pub, Wallingford, pp 331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen E, Laurance SGW (2007) Possible indirect effects of mammal hunting on dung beetle assemblages in Panama. Biotropica 39:141–146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00239.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow J et al (2018) The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559:517–526.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0301-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barragan F, Moreno CE, Escobar F, Halffter G, Navarrete D (2011) Negative impacts of human land use on dung beetle functional diversity. PLoS ONE 6:e17976.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017976 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10:1251–1262.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010%5b1251:ROTEKA%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blangiardo M, Cameletti M (2015) Spatial and spatio-temporal Bayesian models with R-INLA. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cambefort Y (1991) Dung beetles in tropical savannas. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 156–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caro T (2010) Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapin FS III et al (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35012241 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Choo J, Zent EL, Simpson BB (2009) The importance of traditional ecological knowledge for palm-weevil cultivation in the Venezuelan Amazon. J Ethnobiol 29:113–128.  https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-29.1.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x(2005)034%5b1081:Eodoas%5d2.0.Co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards DP, Tobias JA, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Laurance WF (2014) Maintaining ecosystem function and services in logged tropical forests. Trends Ecol Evol 29:511–520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.07.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Escobar F, Halffter G, Solis A, Halffter V, Navarrete D (2008) Temporal shifts in dung beetle community structure within a protected area of tropical wet forest: a 35-year study and its implications for long-term conservation. J Appl Ecol 45:1584–1592.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01551.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frazer G, Canham C, Lertzman K (1999) Gap Light Analyzer (GLA), Version 2.0: Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users’ manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151–156Google Scholar
  17. Gardner TA, Hernández MIM, Barlow J, Peres CA (2007) Understanding the biodiversity consequences of habitat change: the value of secondary and plantation forests for neotropical dung beetles. J Appl Ecol 45:883–893.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01454.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gill BD (1991) Dung beetles in tropical American forests. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gotelli NJ (2000) Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606–2621.  https://doi.org/10.2307/177478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths HM, Bardgett RD, Louzada J, Barlow J (2016) The value of trophic interactions for ecosystem function: dung beetle communities influence seed burial and seedling recruitment in tropical forests. Proc Biol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1634 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Halffter G, Edmonds WD (1982) The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. Instituto de Ecologia, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1980) Spatial variation in the timing of the seasonal occurrence in Coprophagous beetles. Oikos 34:311–321.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3544290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanski I, Cambefort Y (1991) Resource partitioning. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 330–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (2005) Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hosaka T, Niino M, Kon M, Ochi T, Yamada T, Fletcher CD, Okuda T (2014) Impacts of small-scale clearings due to selective logging on dung beetle communities. Biotropica 46:720–731.  https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber O (1995) Geographical and physical features. In: Berry P, Holst B, Yatskievych K (eds) Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana, vol 1. Introduction. Timber Press, Portland, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  27. Hui FKC, Poisot T (2016) Boral - Bayesian ordination and regression analysis of multivariate abundance data in R. Methods Ecol Evol 7:744–750.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hui FKC, Taskinen S, Pledger S, Foster SD, Warton DI, O’Hara RB (2015) Model-based approaches to unconstrained ordination. Methods Ecol Evol 6:399–411.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jakovac CC, Dutrieux LP, Siti L, Pena-Claros M, Bongers F (2017) Spatial and temporal dynamics of shifting cultivation in the middle-Amazonas river: expansion and intensification. PLoS ONE 12:e0181092.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Janzen DH (1983) Seasonal change in abundance of large nocturnal dung beetles (Scarabaeidae) in a Costa Rican deciduous forest and adjacent horse pasture. Oikos 41:274–283.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3544274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kembel SW et al (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laliberte E, Legendre P (2010) A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91:299–305.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2244.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Laliberté E, Legendre P, Shipley B (2014) FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1.0-12Google Scholar
  34. Larsen TH, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37:322–325.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00042.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laurance WF et al (2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489:290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawton JH et al (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391:72.  https://doi.org/10.1038/34166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levis C et al (2017) Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition. Science 355:925–931.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu C, Guenard B, Blanchard B, Peng YQ, Economo EP (2016) Reorganization of taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic ant biodiversity after conversion to rubber plantation. Ecol Monogr 86:215–227.  https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1464.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. López-Zent E, Zent S (2004) Amazonian Indians as ecological disturbance agents: the Hotï of the Sierra de Maigualida, Venezuelan Guayana. Adv Econ Bot 15:79–112Google Scholar
  40. Louzada JNC (1998) Considerations on the perching behavior of tropical dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Rev Bras Entomol 41:125–128Google Scholar
  41. Luz AC, Paneque-Gálvez J, Guèze M, Pino J, Macía MJ, Orta-Martínez M, Reyes-García V (2017) Continuity and change in hunting behaviour among contemporary indigenous peoples. Biol Conserv 209:17–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mason NWH, Mouillot D, Lee WG, Wilson JB (2005) Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111:112–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13886.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mouillot D, Graham NA, Villeger S, Mason NW, Bellwood DR (2013) A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol Evol 28:167–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nichols ES, Gardner TA (2011) Dung beetles as a candidate study taxon in applied biodiversity conservation research. In: Simmons W, Ridsdill-Smith T (eds) Ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, West Sussex, pp 267–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nichols E, Larsen T, Spector S, Davis AL, Escobar F, Favila M, Vulinec K (2007) Global dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: a quantitative literature review and meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 137:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nichols E et al (2013) Trait-dependent response of dung beetle populations to tropical forest conversion at local and regional scales. Ecology 94:180–189.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0251.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pakeman RJ (2011) Functional diversity indices reveal the impacts of land use intensification on plant community assembly. J Ecol 99:1143–1151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01853.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing (DSC 2003), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  49. R Development Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/
  50. Redford KH, Sanderson SE (2000) Extracting humans from nature. Conserv Biol 14:1362–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00135.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rue H, Martino S (2009) INLA: functions which allow to perform a full Bayesian analysis of structured additive models using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation. http://www.r-inla.org
  52. Scheffler PY (2005) Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) diversity and community structure across three disturbance regimes in eastern Amazonia. J Trop Ecol 21:9–19.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467404001683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6:461–464Google Scholar
  54. Silva PG, Hernández MIM (2014) Local and regional effects on community structure of dung beetles in a mainland-island scenario. PLoS ONE 9:e111883.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111883 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01296.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sowig P (1995) Habitat selection and offspring survival rate in three paracoprid dung beetles: the influence of soil type and soil moisture. Ecography 18:147–154.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1995.tb00335.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stearman A (2000) A pound of flesh: social change and modernization as factors in hunting sustainability among neotropical indigenous societies. In: Robinson J, Bennett E (eds) Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 233–250Google Scholar
  58. Warton DI, Blanchet FG, O’Hara RB, Ovaskainen O, Taskinen S, Walker SC, Hui FKC (2015) So many variables: joint modeling in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 30:766–779.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Watanabe S (2013) A widely applicable bayesian information criterion. J Mach Learn Res 14:867–897Google Scholar
  60. Zent E (2005) The Hunter-self: perforations, prescriptions and primordial beings among the Hodï, Venezuelan Guayana. Tipiti 3:35–76Google Scholar
  61. Zent S, López-Zent E (2004) Ethnobotanical convergence, divergence, and change among the Hoti of the Venezuelan Guayana. Adv Econ Bot 15:37–78Google Scholar
  62. Zent EL, Zent S (2004) Floristic composition, structure, and diversity of four forest plots in the Sierra Maigualida, Venezuelan Guayana. Biodivers Conserv 13:2453–2483.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000048447.40238.f2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zent S, Zent E (2012) Jodï horticultural belief, knowledge and practice: incipient or integral cultivation? Bol Mus Para Emílio Goeldi 7:293–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zuur AF, Ieno EN (2016a) A protocol for conducting and presenting results of regression-type analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 7:636–645.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zuur AF, Ieno EN (2016b) Beginner´s guide to zero-inflated models with R. Highland Statistics Ltd, NewburghGoogle Scholar
  66. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zuur AF, Hilbe JM, Ieno EN (2013) A beginner’s guide to GLM and GLMM with R: a frequentist and Bayesian perspective for ecologists. Highland Statistics Ltd, NewburghGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Saveliev AA (2017) Beginner’s guide to spatial, temporal, and spatial-temporal ecological data analysis with R-INLA. Highland Statistics Ltd, NewburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Technology GroupOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate UniversityOkinawaJapan
  2. 2.Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Agriculture & Agri-Food CanadaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Highland Statistics LtdNewburghUK
  4. 4.Department of Coastal Systems, NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea ResearchUtrecht UniversityDen BurgThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Lab. Ecología HumanaInstituto Venezolano de Investigaciones CientíficasCaracasVenezuela
  6. 6.Biodiversity and Biocomplexity UnitOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate UniversityOkinawaJapan

Personalised recommendations