How predictable are the responses of ant and dung beetle assemblages to patch and landscape attributes in fragmented tropical forest landscapes?

  • Maya Rocha-OrtegaEmail author
  • Helí Coronel-Arellano


One of the most effective means of evaluating the effects of habitat loss and landscape configuration is to assess the response of bioindicators. The present study aimed to verify which parameters of ant and dung beetle communities (species richness, abundance, unbiased Shannon diversity, and turnover rates) are most useful for evaluating the relative influence of small forest patches (< 50 ha) and landscape in the tropical rainforest of Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. We recorded a total of 106 species of ants and 30 species of dung beetle. The ant and dung beetle assemblages were related in different ways to patch and landscape attributes. Hypogeic ants were more sensitive to patch attributes, particularly vegetation composition, compared to landscape attributes. Epigeic ant assemblages are likely a disturbance indicator, or the assemblages have already homogenized across the region. Arboreal ant assemblages were particularly sensitive to fragmentation and responded to within-patch vegetation and landscape configuration. Dung beetles were more sensitive to landscape composition than to patch attributes. Given these findings, the biomonitoring of ants and dung beetles should focus on both patch and landscape attributes in fragmented landscapes to maintain the different ecosystem functions provided by them.


Formicidae Los Tuxtlas Scarabaeinae Tree assemblages Stratification strata 



We thank Dr. Rosamond Coates Lutes from Estación de Biología Los Tuxtlas of the National Autonomous University of Mexico for her assistance during the fieldwork. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the anonymous referees and Dr. M. Favila, who contributed toward the first version of this manuscript. We are grateful to Allison Jermain, who kindly reviewed the manuscript and gave useful suggestions. Finally, this work is dedicated in loving memory to Ramón Rocha.


Both M. R.-O. and H. C.-A. received a master’s fellowship from CONACyT for the duration of this study.

Supplementary material

11355_2018_367_MOESM1_ESM.docx (447 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 447 kb)


  1. Agosti D, Alonso L (2000) The ALL protocol: a standard protocol for the collection of ground-dwelling ants. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arellano L, Halffter G (2003) Gamma diversity: derived from and a determinant of alpha diversity and beta diversity. An analysis of three tropical landscapes. Acta Zool Mex 90:27–76Google Scholar
  3. Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Pineda E, Escobar F, Benítez-Malvido J (2008) Value of small patches in the conservation of plant-species diversity in highly fragmented rainforest. Conserv Biol 23:729–739. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Cavender-Bares J, Escobar F et al (2011) Maintenance of tree phylogenetic diversity in a highly fragmented rainforest. J Ecol 100:702–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey D, Schmidt-Entling MH, Eberhart P et al (2010) Effects of habitat amount and isolation on biodiversity in fragmented traditional orchards. J Appl Ecol 47:1003–1013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandão CRF, Silva RR, Feitosa RM (2011) Cerrado ground-dwelling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as indicators of edge effects. Zoologia 28:379–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castillo-Campos G, Laborde J (2004) La vegetación. In: Guevara S, Laborde J, Gabriela S-R (eds) Los Tuxtlas. Instituto de Ecología, Unión Europea, pp 231–265Google Scholar
  9. Del Toro I, Ribbons RR, Pelini SL (2012) The little things that run the world revisited: a review of ant-mediated ecosystem services and disservices (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 17:133–146Google Scholar
  10. Didham RK (2010) The ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). pp 1–39Google Scholar
  11. Dirzo R, García MC (1992) Rates of deforestation in Los Tuxtlas, a Neotropical area in Veracruz, Mexico. Conserv Biol 6:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumbrell AJ, Clark EJ, Frost GA et al (2008) Changes in species diversity following habitat disturbance are dependent on spatial scale: theoretical and empirical evidence. J Appl Ecol 45:1531–1539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estrada A, Coates R (2002) Dung beetles in continuous forest, forest fragments and in an agricultural mosaic habitat island at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 11:1903–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Filgueiras BKC, Iannuzzi L, Leal IR (2011) Habitat fragmentation alters the structure of dung beetle communities in the Atlantic Forest. Biol Conserv 144:362–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald K, Gordon DM (2012) Effects of vegetation cover, presence of a native ant species, and human disturbance on colonization by Argentine ants. Conserv Biol 26:525–538. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gould SF, Mackey BG (2015) Site vegetation characteristics are more important than landscape context in determining bird assemblages in revegetation. Restor Ecol 23:670–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guevara S, Laborde J, Gabriela S-R (2004) Los Tuxtlas. Instituto de Ecología, Unión Europea, El paisaje de la sierraGoogle Scholar
  18. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larsen TH, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. 1. Biotropica 37:322–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leal IR, Filgueiras BKC, Gomes JP et al (2012) Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biodivers Conserv 21:1687–1701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Llausàs A, Nogué J (2012) Indicators of landscape fragmentation: the case for combining ecological indices and the perceptive approach. Ecol Indic 15:85–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Longino JT (2010) Ants of Chiapas. In: LLAMA Proj (Leaf litter arthropods MesoAmerica). Accessed 31 Mar 2013
  24. Marcon E, Hérault B, Baraloto C, Lang G (2012) The decomposition of Shannon’s entropy and a confidence interval for beta diversity. Oikos 121:516–522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsh CJ, Feitosa RM, Louzada J, Ewers RM (2018) Is β-diversity of Amazonian ant and dung beetles communities elevated at rainforest edges? J Biogeogr 45:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGlynn TP (2006) Ants on the move: resource limitation of a litter-nesting ant community in Costa Rica. Biotropica 38:419–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGlynn TP, Alonso-Rodríguez AM, Weaver M (2013) A test of species-energy theory: patch occupancy and colony size in tropical rainforest litter-nesting ants. Oikos 122:1357–1361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell K (2010) Quantitative analysis by the point-centered quarter method. Quant Methods 1–34Google Scholar
  30. Navarrete D, Halffter G (2008) Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes. Biodivers Conserv 17:2869–2898. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neves FS, Braga RF, Espírito-Santo MM, et al (2010) Diversity of arboreal ants in a Brazilian tropical dry forest: effects of seasonality and successional stage. Sociobiology 56:1–18Google Scholar
  32. Nichols E, Gardner TA, Peres CA et al (2009) Co-declining mammals and dung beetles: an impending ecological cascade. Oikos 118:481–487. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paolucci LN, Solar RRC, Sobrinho TG et al (2012) How does small-scale fragmentation affect litter-dwelling ants? The role of isolation. Biodivers Conserv 21:3095–3105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patton DR (1975) A diversity index for quantifying habitat “edge”. Wildl Soc Bull 3:171–173Google Scholar
  35. Perfecto I, Mas A, Dietsch T, Vandermeer J (2003) Conservation of biodiversity in coffee agroecosystems: a tri-taxa comparison in southern Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 12:1239–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perović D, Gámez-Virués S, Börschig C et al (2015) Configurational landscape heterogeneity shapes functional community composition of grassland butterflies. J Appl Ecol 52:505–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Philpott SM, Perfecto I (2008) Behavioral diversity of predatory arboreal ants in coffee agroecosystems. Environ Entomol 37:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piper SD, Catterall CP, Kanowski JJ, Proctor HC (2009) Biodiversity recovery during rainforest reforestation as indicated by rapid assessment of epigeic ants in tropical and subtropical Australia. Austral Ecol 34:1–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna 0:
  40. Rocha-Ortega M, Arnan X, Ribeiro-Neto JD et al (2017) Taxonomic and functional ant diversity along a secondary successional gradient in a tropical forest. Biotropica 50:290–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryder Wilkie KT, Mertl AL, Traniello JF (2010) Species diversity and distribution patterns of the ants of Amazonian Ecuador. PLoS ONE 5:e13146. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Sánchez-de-Jesús HA, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Andresen E, Escobar F (2016) Forest loss and matrix composition are the major drivers shaping dung beetle assemblages in a fragmented rainforest. Landsc Ecol 31:843–854. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siddig AAH, Ellison AM, Ochs A et al (2016) How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators. Ecol Indic 60:223–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA et al (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Verdú JR, Numa C, Hernández-Cuba O (2011) The influence of landscape structure on ants and dung beetles diversity in a Mediterranean savanna—forest ecosystem. Ecol Indic 11:831–839. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson MC, Richard X-YC, Didham RK et al (2016) Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc Ecol 31:219–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary Ecology, The Ecology InstituteNational Autonomous University of MexicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, The Biology InstituteNational Autonomous University of MexicoMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations