Landscape Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 631–641

Community structure of dung beetles in Amazonian savannas: role of fire disturbance, vegetation and landscape structure

  • Julio Louzada
  • Albertina P. Lima
  • Rodrigo Matavelli
  • Ludimila Zambaldi
  • Jos Barlow
Research Article


Understanding the relative influence of environmental and spatial variables in driving variation in species diversity and composition is an important and growing area of ecological research. We examined how fire, local vegetation structure and landscape configuration interact to influence dung beetle communities in Amazonian savannas, using both hierarchical partitioning and variance partitioning techniques to quantify independent effects. We captured a total of 3,334 dung beetles from 15 species at 22 savanna plots in 2003. The species accumulation curve was close to reaching an asymptote at a regional scale, but curves were variable at the plot level where total abundance ranged from 17 to 410 individuals. Most plots were dominated by just three species that accounted for 87.7% of all individuals sampled. Hierarchical partitioning revealed the strong independent and positive effect of percentage forest cover in the surrounding landscape on total dung beetle abundance and species richness, and richness of uncommon species and the tunneler guild. Forest cover also had a negative effect on community evenness. None of the variables that related to fire affected community metrics. The minimal direct influence of fire was supported by variance partitioning: partialling out the influence of spatial position and vegetation removed all of the individual explanation attributable to fire, whereas 8% of the variance was explained by vegetation and 28% was explained by spatial variables (when partialling out effects of the other two variables). Space-fire and vegetation-fire joint effects explained 14 and 10% of the dung beetle community variability, respectively. These results suggest that much of the variation in dung beetle assemblages in savannas can be attributed to the spatial location of sites, forest cover (which increased the occurrence of uncommon species), and the indirect effects of fires on vegetation (that was also dependent on spatial location). Our study also highlights the utility of partitioning techniques for examining the importance of environment variables such as fire that can be strongly influenced by spatial location.


Tropical ecosystem Partial redundancy analysis Hierarchical partitioning Spatial variation Beta diversity 


  1. Ab’Saber A (1982) The paleoclimate and paleoecology of Brazilian Amazonia. In: Prance GT (ed) Biological diversification in the tropics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 41–59Google Scholar
  2. Albernaz AL, Magnusson WE (1999) Home-range size of the bare-ear marmoset (Callithrix argentata) at Alter do Chao, central Amazonia, Brazil. Int J Primatol 20:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida S, Louzada J (2009) Community structure of Scarabaeinae (Scarabaeidae: Coleoptera) in Brazilian savanna phytophysiognomies and its importance for conservation. Neotrop Entomol 38:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen AN (1991) Responses of ground—foraging ant communities to three experimental fire regimes in a savanna forest of tropical Australia. Biotropica 23:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andresen E (2005) Effects of season and vegetation type on community organization of dung beetles in a tropical dry forest. Biotropica 37:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arias-Gonzalez JE, Legendre P, Rodriguez-Zaragoza FA (2008) Scaling up beta diversity on Caribbean coral reefs. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa RI, Fearnside PM (2005) Fire frequency and area burned in the Roraima savannas of Brazilian Amazonia. For Ecol Manag 204:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barlow J, Peres CA (2006) Effects of single and recurrent wildfires on fruit production and large vertebrate abundance in a central Amazonian forest. Biodivers Conserv 15:985–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Behling H (2001) Late quaternary environmental changes in the Lagoa da Curuca region (eastern Amazonia, Brazil) and evidence of Podocarpus in the Amazon lowland. Veg Hist Archaeobot 10:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bigarella J, Andrade-Lima D (1982) Paleoenviromental changes in Brazil. In: Prance G (ed) Biological diversification in the tropics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 27–40Google Scholar
  11. Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bond WJ, Woodward F, Midgley G (2004) The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New Phytol 165:525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borcard D, Legendre P (1994) Environmental control and spatial structure in ecological communities: an example using oribatid mites (Acari, Oribatei). Environ Ecol Stat 1:37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borcard D, Legendre P (2002) All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol Modell 153:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borcard D, Legendre P, Avois-Jacquet C, Tuomisto H (2004) Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple scales. Ecology 85:1826–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cintra R, Sanaiotti TM (2005) Fire effects on the composition of a bird community in an Amazonian savanna (Brazil). Braz J Biol 65:683–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond (B) 345:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis ALV, Van Arde RJ, Scholtz CH, Delport JH (2002) Increasing representation of localized dung beetles across a chronosequence of regenerating vegetation and natural dune forest in South Africa. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis ALV, van Aarde RJ, Scholtz CH, Delport JH (2003) Convergence between dung beetle assemblages of a post-mining vegetational chronosequence and unmined dune forest. Restor Ecol 11:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol Modell 196:483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eiten G (1978) Delimitation of the Cerrado concept. Vegetatio 36:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Escobar F, Halffter G, Arellano L (2007) From forest to pasture: an evaluation of the influence of environment and biogeography on the structure of beetle (Scarabaeinae) assemblages along three altitudinal gradients in the Neotropical region. Ecography 30:193–208Google Scholar
  25. Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R (2002) Dung beetles in continous forest, forest fragments and in an agricultural mosiac habitat island at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 11:1903–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farji-Brener A, Corley JC, Bettineli J (2002) The effects of fire on ant communities in north-western Patagonia: the importance of habitat structure and regional context. Divers Distrib 8:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ford SH, Ferguson JWH, van Jaarsveld AS (2003) Coleopteran assemblages in afromontane grasslands reflect fine-scale variation in vegetation. Environ Entomol 32:797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gardner T, Hernández MMI, Barlow J, Peres C (2008) The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for a neotropical dung beetle fauna. J Appl Ecol 45:883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halffter G, Arellano L (2002) Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in a tropical landscape. Biotropica 34:144–154Google Scholar
  31. Halffter G, Edmonds WD (1982) The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. Instituto de Ecología, México, DFGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) (1991) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey CA, Gonzalez J, Somarriba E (2006) Dung beetle and terrestrial mammal diversity in forests, indigenous agroforestry systems and plantain monocultures in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Biodivers Conserv 15:555–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones MM, Tuomisto H, Borcard D, Legendre P, Clark DB, Olivas PC (2008) Explaining variation in tropical plant community composition: influence of environmental and spatial data quality. Oecologia 155:593–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Klein B (1989) Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion beetle communities in central Amazonia. Ecology 70:1715–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lande R (1996) Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Legendre P, Dale MRT, Fortin MJ, Casgrain P, Gurevitch J (2004) Effects of spatial structures on the results of field experiments. Ecology 85:3202–3214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR (2005) Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol Monogr 75:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonard R, Legendre P, Jean M, Bouchard A (2008) Using the landscape morphometric context to resolve spatial patterns of submerged macrophyte communities in a fluvial lake. Landscape Ecol 23:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindenmayer ADB, MacGregor AC, Welsh AB, Donnelly CA, Crane MA, Michael DA, Montague-Drake RA, Cunningham RBA, Brown DA, Fortescue C, Dexter NC, Hudson MC, Gill AMA (2008) Contrasting mammal responses to vegetation type and fire. Wildl Res 35:395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Louzada J, Carvalho-Silva P (2009) Utilization of introduced Brazilian pastures ecosystems by native dung beetles: diversity patterns and resource use. Insect Divers Conserv 2:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Louzada J, Schiffler G (1996) Efeitos do fogo sobre a composição e estrutura da comunidade de Scarabaeidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) na restinga da Ilha de Guriri, norte do ES. In: Miranda H, Saito C, Dias B (eds) Impactos de queimadas em áreas de cerrado e restinga. Editora UNB, Brasília, pp 161–169Google Scholar
  44. Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between—and reconciliation of—‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Magnusson WE, Lima AP, Albernaz ALKM, Sanaiotti TMS, Guillaumet JL (2008) Composição florística e cobertura vegetal das savanas na região de Alter do Chão, Santarém—PA. Revista Brasileira de Batânica 31:165–177Google Scholar
  47. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  48. Matavelli RA, Louzada J (2008) Invasion of intra-Amazonian savannas by the dung beetle Digintonthophagus gazella (Fabricius, 1787) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Acta Amazonica 38:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Menendez R, Gutierrez D (2004) Shifts in habitat associations of dung beetles in northern Spain: climate change implications. Ecoscience 11:329–337Google Scholar
  50. Michel N, Burel F, Legendre P, Butet A (2007) Role of habitat and landscape in structuring small mammal assemblages in hedgerow networks of contrasted farming landscapes in Brittany, France. Landscape Ecol 22:1241–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Milhomem MS, De Mello FZV, Diniz IR (2003) Collection techniques of dung beetle in the Cerrado, Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 38:1249–1256Google Scholar
  52. 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 137:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila M, Network TSR (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services of Scarabaeine dung beetles: a review. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nichols E, Gardner T, Spector S, Bell K, Philips TK, Peres CA (2009) Co-declines in large mammals and dung beetles: an impending ecological cascade. Oikos 118:481–487Google Scholar
  55. Parr C, Bond W, Robertson H (2002) A preliminary study of the effect of fire on ants (Formicidae) in a South African savanna. Afr Entomol 10:10Google Scholar
  56. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pires JM (1973) Tipos de vegetação da Amazônia. Publicações Avulsas do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi 20:179–202Google Scholar
  58. Quintero I, Roslin T (2005) Rapid recovery of dung beetle communities following habitat fragmentation in Central Amazonia. Ecology 86:3303–3311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In: Computing RFFS (ed), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  60. Sampaio R (2007) Efeitos de longo prazo da perda do habitat e da caça sobre mamíferos de médio e grande porte na Amazônia Central. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Amazonas e Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaGoogle Scholar
  61. Sanaiotti TM, Magnusson WE (1995) Effects of annual fires on the production of fleshy fruits eaten by birds in a Brazilian Amazonian savanna. J Trop Ecol 11:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanaiotti TM, Martinelli LA, Victoria RL, Trumbore SE, Camargo PB (2002) Past vegetation changes in Amazon savannas determined using carbon isotopes of soil organic matter. Biotropica 34:2–16Google Scholar
  63. Sowig P (1995) Habitat selection and offspring survival rate in three paracoprid dung beetles: the influence of soil type and soil moisture. Ecography 18:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taki H, Kevan PG, Ascher JS (2007) Landscape effects of forest loss in a pollination system. Landscape Ecol 22:1575–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vasconcelos HL, Leite MF, Vilhena JMS, Lima AP, Magnusson WE (2008) Ant diversity in an Amazonian savanna: relationship with vegetation structure, disturbance by fire, and dominant ants. Aust Ecol 33:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vieira L, Louzada J, Spector S (2008) Effects of degradation and replacement of southern brazilian coastal sandy vegetation on the dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Biotropica 40:719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vulinec K, Lima AP, Carvalho-Jr E, Mellow DJ (2008) Long-term habitat fragmentation and dung beetles in Alter do Chão, Amazônia, Brazil. Conserv Sci 1:111–121Google Scholar
  68. Williams S, Marsh H, Winter J (2002) Spatial scale, species diversity, and habitat structure: small mammals in Australian tropical rain forest. Ecology 83:1317–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio Louzada
    • 1
    • 2
  • Albertina P. Lima
    • 3
  • Rodrigo Matavelli
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ludimila Zambaldi
    • 1
  • Jos Barlow
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA)LavrasBrazil
  2. 2.Lancaster Environment CentreLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.Coodenação de Pesquisas em EcologiaInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaManausBrazil

Personalised recommendations