Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 3201–3213 | Cite as

Relationship between land uses and diversity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in the southern Atlantic forest of Argentina: which are the key factors?

  • V. C. Giménez Gómez
  • J. R. Verdú
  • C. B. Guerra Alonso
  • G. A. Zurita
Original Paper


The loss of natural habitats is one of the main drivers of biodiversity decline. Anthropogenic land uses preserving biotic and abiotic conditions of the native ecosystem are more suitable to preserve the native biodiversity. In this study, we explored changes in species richness and composition in different land uses of the southern Atlantic forest, considering three independent factors: (1) canopy (presence–absence), (2) type of vegetation (native–exotic) and (3) livestock (presence–absence). We expected a gradient of response in the richness and composition of the native forest dung beetle community, from land uses preserving canopy and native vegetation to open land uses with exotic vegetation. Dung beetles were sampled in protected native forests and four land uses, using two potential food resources: human dung and carrion. The species richness and composition of each habitat, as well as differences in composition and the influence of factors over diversity, were then analyzed. As expected, our results showed that land uses preserving canopy and native vegetation maintain the dung beetle diversity of the native forest. Moreover, while the three factors analyzed influenced dung beetle diversity, canopy cover was the main driver of dung beetle diversity loss. The main conclusion of this study is that the conservation of canopy (either native or exotic) is determinant to preserve highly diverse dung beetle communities and subsequently, the ecological functions performed by this taxon. However, the ecophysiological mechanism behind the response of dung beetles to habitat disturbance is poorly understood.


Cover vegetation Forest habitat Global change Livestock Microclimatic conditions Scarabaeoidea 



We wish to thank Fernando Foletto, Andrés Gómez-Cifuentes, Gisele Jaime, Natalia Vespa and Soledad Soto for their help in the fieldwork. Also, we wish to thank farmers for their hospitality, Fernando Vaz-de-Mello for helping us to examine the taxonomic component in the identification of dung beetles, Santiago José Velazco for the assistance in statistical analysis and Juan Ariel Insaurralde for helping us with the map. Finally, we wish to thank anonymous reviewers who have helped to improve the manuscript. The Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA) Misiones, Argentina, provided logistical support. Financial support was provided by CONICET (Project UE IBS # 22920160100130CO to M. Di Bitteti), UCAR-MAGyP (BIO 23, PIA 10105-14057 to G. Zurita) and ANPCyT (PICT-PRH 2702 to G. Zurita). National Park Administration, the Misiones Ministry of Ecology and Arauco Argentina S.A. provided the necessary permissions to collect dung beetles.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (127 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 127 kb)


  1. Alvarado F, Escobar F, Williams DR, Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Escobar-Hernández F (2018) The role of livestock intensification and landscape structure in maintaining tropical biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 55:185–194CrossRefGoogle 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 PM, Lambert JE, Hulme PE, Vander Wall SB (eds) Predation, dispersal and seedling establishment. CABI International, Wallingford, pp 331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano L, León-Cortés J, Halffter G (2008) Response of dung beetle assemblages to landscape structure in remnant natural and modified habitats in southern Mexico. Insect Conserv Diver 1:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audino I, 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
  5. Bogoni JA, Graipel ME, Volkmer de Castilho P, Moreli Fantacini F, Villanova Kuhnen V, Ribeiro Luiz M, Bernardes Maccarini T, Marcon CB, Pimentel Teixeira CS, Tortato MA, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Hernández MIM (2016) Contributions of the mammal community, habitat structure, and spatial distance to dung beetle community structure. Biodivers Conserv 25:1661–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campanello PI, Montti L, Goldstein G, Mac Donagh P (2009) Reduced impact logging and post-harvesting forest management in the Atlantic Forest: alternative approaches to enhance canopy tree growth and regeneration and to reduce the impact of invasive species. In: Grossberg SP (ed) forest management. Nova Science, New York, pp 39–59Google Scholar
  7. Chao A, Ma KH, Hsieh TC (2016) iNEXT (iNterpolation and EXTrapolation) Online: software for interpolation and extrapolation of species diversity. Program and user’s guide.
  8. Chown SL (2001) Physiological variation in insects: hierarchical levels and implications. J Insect Physiol 47:649–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6. User manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  11. Culot L, Bovy E, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Guevara R, Galetti M (2013) Selective defaunation affects dung beetle communities in continuous Atlantic rainforest. Biol Conserv 163:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Da Silva PG, Hernández MIM (2016) Spatial variation of dung beetle assemblages associated with forest structure in remnants of southern Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Rev Bras Entomol 60:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies KF, Margules CR (1998) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence. J Anim Ecol 67:460–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis ALV, Chown SL, McGeoch MA, Scholtz CH (2000) A comparative analysis of metabolic rate in six Scarabaeus species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from southern Africa: further caveats when inferring adaptation. J Insect Physiol 46:553–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis ALV, Van Aarde 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
  16. Davis ALV, Frolov AV, Scholtz CH (2008) The African dung beetle genera. Protea Book Publishers, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  17. Dinghi PA, Sánchez MV, Cantil LF, Sarzetti LC, Genise JF (2013) Leaf-litter brood chambers in dichotomius (luederwaldtinia) carbonarius (mannerheim, 1829) (coleoptera: scarabaeidae): a novel behavior for dung beetles. Coleopt Bull 67:388–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dinno A (2017) Conover.test: conover-iman test of multiple comparisons using rank sums. R package version 1.1.4. Accessed 2nd Dec 2017
  19. Dirzo R, Raven PH (2003) Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duncan FD, Byrne MJ (2000) Discontinuous gas exchange in dung beetles: patterns and ecological implications. Oecologia 122:452–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Filgueiras B, Tabarelli M, Leal I, Vaz-De-Mello FZ, Iannuzzi L (2015) Dung beetle persistence in human-modified landscapes: combining indicator species with anthropogenic land uses and fragmentation- related effects. Ecol Indic 55:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Filloy J, Zurita GA, Corbelli J, Bellocq MI (2010) On the similarity among bird communities: testing the influence of distance and land use. Acta Oecol 36:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gardner TA, Hernández MIM, Barlow J, Peres CA (2008) Understanding the biodiversity consequences of habitat change: the value of secondary and plantation forests for neotropical dung beetles. J Appl Ecol 45:883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giménez Gómez VC, Verdú JR, Gómez-Cifuentes A, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Zurita GA (2018) Influence of land use on the trophic niche overlap of dung beetles in the semideciduous Atlantic forest of Argentina. Insect Conserv Divers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gómez-Cifuentes A, Munevar A, Gimenez VC, Gatti MG, Zurita GA (2017) Influence of land use on the taxonomic and functional diversity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in the southern Atlantic forest of Argentina. J Insect Conserv 21:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halffter G, Arellano L (2002) Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in a tropical landscape. Biotropica 34:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Halffter G, Halffter V (2009) Why and where coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) eat seed, fruits or vegetable detritus. Bol SEA 45:1–22Google Scholar
  28. Halffter G, Matthews EG (1966) The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Folia Entomol Mex 14:1–312Google Scholar
  29. Halffter G, Favila ME, Halffter V (1992) A comparative study of the structure of the scarab guild in Mexican tropical rain forests and derived ecosystems. Folia Entomol Mex 84:131–156Google Scholar
  30. Hanski I, Cambefort Y (1991) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 153:607–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hernández MIM, Barreto PSCS, Costa VH, Creao-Duarte J, Favila ME (2014) Response of a dung beetle assemblage along a reforestation gradient in Restinga forest. J Insect Conserv 18:539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hewavithana DK, Wijesinghe MR, Dangalle CD, Dharmarathna HAS (2016) Habitat and dung preferences of scarab beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae: a case study in a tropical monsoon forest in Sri Lanka. Int J Trop Insect Sci 36:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holter P, Scholtz CH, Stenseng L (2009) Desert detritivory: nutritional ecology of a dung beetle (Pachysoma glentoni) subsisting on plant litter in arid South African sand dunes. J Arid Environ 73:1090–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Izquierdo AE, De Angelo CD, Aide TM (2008) Thirty years of human demography and land use change in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina: an evaluation of the forest transition model. Ecol Soc 13:3.
  36. Larsen TH, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetles biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37:322–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lobo JM, Lumaret JP, Jay-Robert P (1998) Sampling dung beetles in the French Mediterranean area: effects of abiotic factors and farm practices. Pedobiologia 42:252–266Google Scholar
  38. Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Thomsen JB, Da Fonseca GAB, Olivieri S (1998) Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conserv Biol 12:516–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Monteith GB, Storey RI (1981) The biology of Cephalodesmius, a genus of dung beetles which synthesizes “dung” from plant material (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Mem Queensl Mus 20:253–277Google Scholar
  40. Myers N, Knoll AH (2001) The biotic crisis and the future of evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5389–5392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent YJ (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Neita JC, Escobar F (2012) The potential value of agroforestry to dung beetle diversity in the wet tropical forests of the Pacific lowlands of Colombia. Agrofor Syst 85:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila ME (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nichols E, Uriarte M, Bunker DE, Favila ME, Slade EM, Vulinec K (2013) Trait-dependent response of dung beetle populations to tropical forest conversion at local and regional scales. Ecology 94:180–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Novacek MJ, Cleland EE (2001) The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5466–5470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ocampo FC, Hawks DC (2006) Molecular phylogenetics and evolution of the food relocation behaviour of the dung beetle tribe Euraniini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Invertebr Syst 20:557–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHM, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2017) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-3. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  49. Oliveira-Filho AT, Fontes IAM (2000) Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic forests in Southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate. Biotropica 32:793–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Osberg DC, Doube BM, Hanrahan SA (1993) Habitat specificity in African dung beetles: the effect of soil type on dung burial by two species of ball-rolling dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Trop Zool 6:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peyras M, Vespa N, Bellocq M, Zurita G (2012) Quantifying edge effects: the role of habitat contrast and species specialization. J Insect Conserv 17:807–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Philips K, Pretorius E, Scholtz C (2004) A phylogenetic analysis of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae: Scarabaeidae): unrolling an evolutionary history. Invertebr Taxon 18:53–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pineda E, Moreno C, Escobar F, Halffter G (2005) Frog, bat and dung beetle diversity in the cloud forest and coffee agroecosystems of Veracruz, Mexico. Conserv Biol 19:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quintero I, Roslin T (2005) Rapid recovery of dung beetle communities following habitat fragmentation in central Amazonia. Ecology 12:3303–3311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Development Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  56. Sánchez-de-Jesús H, 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 31:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheffler PY (2005) Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) diversity and community structure across three disturbance regimes in eastern Amazonia. J Trop Ecol 21:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scholtz CH, Harrison JG, Grebennikov VV (2004) Dung beetle (Scarabaeus (Pachysoma)) biology and immature stages: reversal to ancestral states under desert conditions (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Biol J Linnean Soc 83:453–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Spector S (2006) Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleopteran: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): an invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. Coleopt Bull 60:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tonelli M, Verdú JR, Zunino M (2017) Effects of grazing intensity and the use of veterinary medical products on dung beetle biodiversity in the sub-mountainous landscape of Central Italy. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2358v1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tshikae BP, Davis ALV, Scholtz CH (2013) Species richness e energy relationships and dung beetle diversity across an aridity and trophic resource gradient. Acta Oecol 49:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tuff KT, Tuff T, Davies KF (2016) A framework for integrating thermal biology into fragmentation research. Ecol Lett 19:361–374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Verdú JR, Moreno CE, Sánchez-Rojas G, Numa C, Galante E, Halffter G (2007) Grazing promotes dung beetle diversity in the xeric landscape of a Mexican biosphere reserve. Biol Conserv 140:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Verdú JR, Lobo MJ, Sánchez-Piñero F, Gallego B, Numa C, Lumaret JP, Cortez V, Ortiz A, Tonelli M, García-Teba Rey A, Rodriguez A, Durán J (2017) Ivermectin residues disrupt dung beetle diversity, soil properties and ecosystem functioning: an interdisciplinary field study. Sci Total Environ 618:219–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Vulinec K (2002) Dung beetle communities and seed dispersal in primary forest and disturbed land in Amazonia. Biotropica 34:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zaninovich SC, Fontana JL, Gatti MG (2016) Atlantic forest replacement by non-native tree plantations: comparing aboveground necromass between native forest and pine plantation ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 363:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zurita GA, Bellocq MI (2012) Bird assemblages in anthropogenic habitats: identifying a suitability gradient for native species in the Atlantic forest. Biotropica 44:412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Universidad Nacional de Misiones – CONICETPuerto IguazúArgentina
  2. 2.I.U.I. CIBIO, Universidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias ForestalesUniversidad Nacional de MisionesEldoradoArgentina

Personalised recommendations