Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 957–970 | Cite as

Edge and land use effects on dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) in Brazilian cerrado vegetation

  • Felipe Martello
  • Fernando Andriolli
  • Thamyrys Bezerra de Souza
  • Pavel Dodonov
  • Milton Cezar Ribeiro
ORIGINAL PAPER
  • 270 Downloads

Abstract

The Edge Influence is one of the most pervasive effects of habitat fragmentation, as many forest remnants in anthropogenic landscapes are within 100 m of edges. Forest remnants may also affect the surrounding anthropogenic matrix, possibly resulting in a matrix–edge–remnant diversity gradient for some species groups. We sampled dung beetles in 15 agricultural landscapes using pitfall traps placed along transects in matrix–edge–remnant gradients. The remnants were a native savanna-like vegetation, the cerrado, and the matrix was composed of three human-dominated environments (sugarcane, eucalyptus, pasture). More species were observed in cerrado remnants than in adjacent land uses. Dung beetles were also more abundant in the cerrado than in the landscape matrix of sugarcane and eucalypt, but not of pasture. Dung beetles were severely affected by anthropogenic land uses, and notwithstanding their high abundance in some land uses such as pasture, the species richness in these areas tended to be smaller than in the cerrado remnants. We also found that the influence of the edge was evident only for abundance, particularly in landscapes with a pasture matrix. However, this land use disrupts the species composition of communities, indicating that communities located in cerrado and pasture have a distinct species composition, and that both communities are affected by edge distance. Thus, anthropogenic land uses may severely affect dung beetles, and this impact can extend to communities located in cerrado remnants as well as to those in matrices, with possible consequences for ecological processes such as decomposition and nutrient cycling.

Keywords

Brazilian savanna Sugarcane Pasture Eucalyptus Akaike’s Information Criterion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Mateus Fernando de Souza for aid in several phases of the research, especially on species identification; Sean Miki Hieda and Carlos Fonseca for field work support; Prof. Fernando Vaz-de-Melo for aid in species identification, and Megan King for proofreading the manuscript. We also thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for funding this research via a grant to FA, as well as the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for support granted to FM and PD. MCR receives research grant from CNPq (process 312045/2013-1) and is continually supported by FAPESP (process 2013/50421-2).

Supplementary material

10841_2016_9928_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)

References

  1. Aidar T, Koller WW, Rodrigues SR, Corrêa AM, Silva JCC, Balta OS, Oliveira JM, Oliveira VL (2000) Besouros coprófagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) coletados em Aquidauana, MS, Brasil. An Soc EntomolBras 29:817–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alarcón DL, Halffter G, Vaz-de Mello FZ (2009) Nesting behavior in Trichilum Harold, 1868 and related genera (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Ateuchini: Scarimina): a primitive process or a loss of nidification? Coleopts Bull 63:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida S, Louzada J, Sperber C, Barlow J (2011) Subtle land-use change and tropical biodiversity: dung beetle communities in cerrado grasslands and exotic pastures. Biotropica 43:704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andresen E, Laurance SGW (2007) Possible indirect effects of mammal hunting on dung beetle assemblages in Panama. Biotropica 39:141–146Google Scholar
  5. Audino LD, Louzada J, Comita L (2014) Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: Is it possible to recover species and functional diversity? Biol Conserv 169:248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker TP, Jordan GJ, Steel EA, Fountain-Jones NM, Wardlaw TJ, Baker SC (2014) Microclimate through space and time: microclimatic variation at the edge of regeneration forests over daily, yearly and decadal time scales. Forest Ecol Manag 334:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banks-Leite C, Ewers RM, Metzger J (2010) Edge effects as the principal cause of area effects on birds in fragmented secondary forest. Oikos 119:918–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbero E, Palestrini C, Rolando A (1999) Dung beetle conservation: effects of habitat and resource selection (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). J Insect Conserv 3:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barragán F, Moreno CE, Escobar F, Halffter G, Navarrete D (2011) Negative impacts of human land use on dung beetle functional diversity. PloS One 6:17976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrera CA, Buffa LM, Valladares G (2015) Do leaf-cutting ants benefit from forest fragmentation? Insights from community and species-specific responses in a fragmented dry forest. Insect Conserv Divers 8:456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barton K (2015) MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.15.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  12. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beiroz, WIS (2012) Resposta da diversidade funcional de Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) aos diferentes usos de solo na Amazônia. Dissertation, Universidade Federal de LavrasGoogle Scholar
  14. Borges PAV, Brown VK (2001) Phytophagous insects and web-building spiders in relation to pasture vegetation complexity. Ecography 24:68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brussaard L, Behan-Pelletier M, Bignel IDE, Brown VK, Didden W, Folgarait P, Fragoso C, Freckman DW, Vadakattu VSR, Hattori T, Hawksworth DV, Klopatek C, Lavelle P, Malloch DW, Rusek J, Söderström B, Tiedje JM, Virginia RA (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. Ambio 26:563–570Google Scholar
  16. Bueno A, Llambí LD (2015) Facilitation and edge effects influence vegetation regeneration in old-fields at the tropical Andean forest line. Appl Veg Sci 18:613–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burnham SK, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a pratical information-theoretic approach, 2 edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2014) P values are only an index to evidence: 20th- vs. 21st-century statistical science. Ecology 95:627–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Butchart SHM et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328(5982):1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Butchart, SHM, Walpole M, Collen b, Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond, REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P,. Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque JF, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié JC, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328(5982):1164–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cambefort Y, Hanski I (1991) Dung beetle population biology. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Priceton Univerity Press, Princeton, pp 36–50Google Scholar
  22. Campbell RE, Harding JS, Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2011) Production land use alters edge response functions in remnant forest invertebrate communities. Ecol Appl 21(8):3147–3161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Campos RC, Hernández MIM (2013) Dung beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae) in Atlantic forest fragments in southern Brazil. Rev Bras Entomol 57:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cooney SA, Schauber EM, Hellgren EC (2015) Comparing permeability of matrix cover types for the marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris). Landscape Ecol 30:1307–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Coutinho LM (1978) O conceito de cerrado. Rev Bras Bot 1:17–23Google Scholar
  26. Dangles O, Carpio C, Woodward G (2012) Size-dependent species removal impairs ecosystem functioning in a large-scale tropical field experiment. Ecology. doi:10.1890/12-0510.1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. De Maria IC, Castro OM, Souza Dias H (1999) Atributos físicos do solo e crescimento radicular de soja em latossolo roxo sob diferentes métodos de preparo do solo. R Bras Ci solo 23:703–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Delgado JN, Arroyo NL, Arevalo JR, Fernandez-Palacios JM (2007) Edge effects of roads on temperature, light, canopy closure, and canopy height in laurel and pine forests (Tenerife, Canary Islands). Landsc Urban Plan 81:328–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Delgado JD, Arroyo NL, Arévalo JR, Fernández-Palacios JM (2013a) Road edge effects on litter invertebrate communities of subtropical forests. J Natl Hist 47:203–236Google Scholar
  30. Delgado JD, Arroyo NL, Arévalo JR, Fernández-Palacios JM (2013b) The responses of leaf litter invertebrates to environmental gradients along road edges in subtropical island forests. Pedobiology 56:137–146Google Scholar
  31. Dennis, RL, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H. (2006). Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodiv Conserv 15(6):1943–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Di Napoli RP, Caceres NC (2012) Absence of edge effects on small mammals in woodland-savannah remnants in Brazil. Commun Ecol 13:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dodonov P, Harper KA, Silva-Matos DM (2013) The role of edge contrast and forest structure in edge influence: vegetation and microclimate at edges n the Brazilian cerrado. Plant Ecol 214:1345–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dodonov P, da Silva DM, Rosatti NB (2014) Understorey vegetation gradient in a Eucalyptus grandis plantation between a savanna and a semideciduous forest. N Z J For Sci 44(1)Google Scholar
  35. Dodonov P, Braga AL, Harper KA, Silva-Matos DM (2016) Edge influence on plant litter biomass in forest and savanna in the Brazilian cerrado. Austral Ecol. (In press)Google Scholar
  36. Doube BM (1990) A functional classification for analysis of the structure of dung beetle assemblages. Ecol Entomol 15:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Driscoll DA, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28:605–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Durães R, Martins WP, Vaz-de-Mellos FZ (2005) Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) assemblages across a natural forest-cerrado ecotone in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Neotrop Entomol 34:721–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2007) Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88:96–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 Google Scholar
  41. FAO (2006) Global forest resources assessment 2005: progress towards sustainable forest management. Forestry Paper 147. (accessed S). United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. (FAO, Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org
  42. Feer F (2008) Responses of dung beetle assemblages to characteristics of rain forest edges. Ecotropica 14:49–62Google Scholar
  43. Feer F, Hingrat Y (2005) Effects of forest fragmentation on a dung beetle community in French Guiana. Conserv Biol 19:1103–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Figueiras BK, Tabarelli M, Leal IR, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Iannuzzi L (2015) Dung beetle persistence in human-modified landscapes: Combining indicator species with anthropogenic land use and fragmentation-related effects. Ecol Indic 55:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fincher GT (1973) Dung beetles as biological control agents for gastrointestinal parasites of livestock. J Parasitol 59:396–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Flechtmann CAH, Rodrigues SR, Couto HTZ (1995) Controle biológico da mosca-dos-chifres (Haematobia irritans irritans) em Selvíria, Mato Grosso do Sul. Comparação entre métodos de coleta de besouros coprófagos (Scarabaeidae). Rev Bras Entomol 39:259–276Google Scholar
  47. Fletcher RJ Jr, Ries L, Battin J, Chalfoun AD (2007) The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined? Can J Zool 85:1017–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Foggo A, Ozanne CMP, Speigh, TMR, Hambler C (2001) Edge effects and tropical forest canopy invertebrates. Plant Ecol 153:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Franklin CMA, Harper KA, Murphy LK (2015) Structural dynamics at boreal forest edges created by a spruce budworm outbreak. Silva Fennica 49, article 1267.Google Scholar
  50. Gardner TA, Barlow J, Sodhi NS, Peres CA (2010) A multi-region assessment of tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Biol Conserv 143(10):2293–2300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gittings T, Giller PS (1998) Resource quality and the colonization and sucession of coprophagous dung beetles. Ecography 21:581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gonçalves CS, Batalha MA (2011) Towards testing the “honeycomb rippling model” in cerrado. Braz J Biol 71:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. González E, Salvo A, Valladares G (2015) Sharing enemies: evidence of forest contribution to natural enemy communities in crops, at different spatial scales. Insect Conserv Diver 8:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gordon RD, Cartwright OL (1974) Survey of food preferences of some North American Canthonini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Entomol News 85:181–185Google Scholar
  55. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song DX, Townnshend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e500052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Halffter G, Aurellano L (2002) Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in a tropical landscape. Biotropica 34:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Halffter G, Edmonds WD (1982) The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. Unesco, Instituto Ecologia, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  58. Halffter G, Mathews EG (1996) The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Folia Entomol Mex 12:1–312Google Scholar
  59. Hansbauer MM, Storch I, Knauer F, Pilz S, Küchenhoff H, Végvári Z, Pimentel RG, Metzger JP (2009) Landscape perception by forest understory birds in the Atlantic Rainforest: black-and-white versus shades of grey. Land Ecol 25:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hanski I, Cambefort Y (1991a) Competition in dung beetle. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University, New Jersey, pp 305–329Google Scholar
  61. Hanski I, Cambefort Y (1991b) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  62. Harper KA, Macdonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts D, Jaiteh MS, Esseen PA (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hernández MIM, Vaz-De-Mello FZ (2009) Seasonal and spatial species richness variation of dung beetle (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae s. str.) in the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil. Rev Bras Entomol 53:607–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Horgan FG (2007) Dung beetles in pasture landscapes of Central America: proliferation of synanthropogenic species and decline of forest specialists. Biodivers Conserv 16:2149–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Klein BC (1989) Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion beetle communities in Central Amazonia. Ecology 70:1715–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Koller WW, Gomes A, Rodrigues SR, Alves RGO (1999) Besouros coprófagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaedae) coletados em Campo Grande. An Soc Entomol Bras 28:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kowal VA, Cartar RV (2012) Edge effects of three anthropogenic disturbances on spider communities in Alberta’s boreal forest. J Insect Conserv 16:613–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Krell FT, Krell-Westerwalbesloh S, Weiß I, Eggleton P, Linsenmair KE (2003) Spatial separation of Afrotropical dung beetle guilds: a trade-off between competitive superiority and energetic constraints (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ecography 26:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Larsen T, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37:322–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL, Bruna EM, Didham RK, Stouffer PC, Gascon C, Bierregaard RO, Laurance SG, Sampaio E (2002) Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv Biol 16:605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Liberal CN, Isidro de Farias ÃM, Meiado MV, Filgueiras BKC, Iannuzzi L (2011) How habitat change and rainfall affect dung beetle diversity in Caatinga, a Brazilian semi-arid ecosystem. J Insect Sci 11:114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Louzada JNC, Lopes FSA (1997) Comunidade de Scarabaeidae copro-necrófago (Coleoptera) de um fragmento de Mata Atlântica. Rev Bras Entomol 41:117–121Google Scholar
  73. Louzada JNC, Silva PRC (2009) Utilization of introduced Brazilian pastures ecosystems by native dung beetles: Diversity patterns and resource use. J Insect Conserv 2:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lugo AE (1997) The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness on degraded lands with tree monocultures. Forest Ecol Manag 99(1–2):9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lyra-Jorge MC, Ribeiro MC, Ciocheti G, Tambosi LR, Pivello VR (2010) Influence of multi-scale landscape structure on the occurrence of carnivorous mammals in a human-modified savanna, Brazil. Eur J Wildl Res 56:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Martin PS, Gheler-Costa C, Lopes PC, Rosalino LM, Verdade LM (2012) Terrestrial non-volant small mammals in agro-silvicultural landscapes of Southeastern Brazil. Forest Ecol Manag 282:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Menéndez R, Webb P, Orwin KH (2016) Complementarity of dung beetle species with different functional behaviours influence dung e soil carbon cycling. Soil Biol Biochem 92:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Meyer ST, Leal IR, Wirth R (2009) Persisting hyper-abundance of leaf-cutting ants (Atta spp.) at the edge of an Atlantic Forest fragment. Biotropica 41:711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Murtaugh PA (2014) In defense of P values. Ecology 95:611–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Nichols E, Larsen T, Spector S, Davis AL, Escobar F, Favila M, Network TSR (2007) Global dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: a quantitative literature review and meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 137:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila ME, Network TSR (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nichols E, Gardner T.A, Peres CA, Spector S, The Sarabaeinae Research Network (2009) Co-declining mammals and dung beetles: an impending ecological cascade. Oikos 118: 481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Noreika N, Kotze DJ (2012) Forest edge contrasts have a predictable effect on spatial distribution of carabid beetles in urban forests. J Insect Conserv 16:867–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Oksanen MJ (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version, 2 (9)Google Scholar
  85. Peck SB, Howden HF (1984) Response of a dung beetle guild to different sizes of dung bait in a Panamanian rainforest. Biotropica 16:235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Peyras M, Vespa NI, Bellocq MI, Zurita GA (2013) Quantifying edge effects: the role of habitat contrast and species specialization. J Insect Conserv 17:807–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pohlman CL, Turton SM, Goosem M (2007) Edge effects of linear canopy openings on tropical rain forest understory microclimate. Biotropica 39:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2013. Document freely available on the internet at: http://www.r-project.org
  89. Ribeiro JF, Walter BMT (2008) As principais fisionomias do bioma Cerrado. In: Sano SM, Almeida SP, Ribeiro JF (eds) Cerrado: ecologia e flora. Embrapa Informação Tecnológicas, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  90. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1141–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ries L, Fletcher Jr RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Roslin T (2000) Dung beetle movements at two spatial scales. Oikos 91:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Roslin T, Viljanen H (2011) Dung beetle populations: structure and consequences. In: Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith TJ (eds) Ecology and evolution of dung beetle. Blackwell, Oxford, p 18Google Scholar
  94. Scheffler P (2005) Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) diversity and community structure across three disturbance regimes in eastern Amazonia. J Trop Ecol 21:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Silva PG, Di Mare R (2012) Escarabeíneos copro-necrófagos (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae) de fragmentos de Mata Atlântica em Silveira Martins, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia, Série Zoologia 102:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Silva PG, Hernández MIM (2015) Spatial patterns of movement of Dung beetle species in a Tropical Forest suggest a new trap spacing for Dung beetle biodiversity studies. PLoS One 10:e0126112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith TJ (2011) Reproductive competition and its impact on the evolution and ecology of dung beetles. In: Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith TJ (eds) Ecology and evolution of dung beetle. Blackwell, Oxford, p 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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 76:1094–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Sparovek G, Barretto A, Klug I, Papp L, Lino J. (2011). A revisão do Código Florestal brasileiro. Novos Estudos CEBRAP 89:111–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Spector S, Ayzama S (2003) Rapid turnover and edge effects in Dung beetle assemblages (Scarabaeidae) at a Bolivian Neotropical Forest - Savanna Ecotone1. Biotropica 35:394–404Google Scholar
  101. Valente RO (2001) Análise da estrutura da paisagem na bacia do rio Corumbataí. M. Sc. Thesis,—Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”. Universidade de São Paulo, PiracicabaGoogle Scholar
  102. Valpine P (2014) The common sense of P values. Ecology 95:617–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Verdú JR, Galante E (2004) Behavioral and morphological adaptations for a low-quality resource in semi-arid environments: dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) associated with the European rabbit (Oryctolagu cuniculus L.). J Nat Hist 38:705–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vulinec K (2002) Dung beetle communities and seed dispersal in primary forest and disturbed land in Amazonia. Biotropica 34:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Whitford WG (1996) The importance of the biodiversity of soil biota in arid ecosystems. Bio Conserv 5:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wiegand K, Saltz D, Ward D (2006) A patch-dynamics approach to savanna dynamics and woody plant encroachment 0 Insights from an arid savanna. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 7:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc 73:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wood SN, Sheipl F (2014) gamm4: Generalized additive mixed models using mgcv and lme4. R package version 0.2–3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gamm4
  109. Zavatini JÁ, Cano H (1993) Variações do ritmo pluvial na bacia do rio Corumbataí—SP. Boletim de Geografia Teorética 23:215–240Google Scholar
  110. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spatial Ecology and Conservation Lab (LEEC), Ecology DepartmentSão Paulo State University, UNESPBela Vista, Rio ClaroBrazil
  2. 2.Post Graduation Program in EcologyNational Institute of Amazon Research – INPAManausBrazil
  3. 3.Applied Ecology and Conservation Lab, Biological Science DepartmentState University of Santa Cruz, UESCIlhéusBrazil

Personalised recommendations