Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 591–605 | Cite as

Effects of remnant primary forests on ant and dung beetle species diversity in a secondary forest in Sarawak, Malaysia

  • Keiko Kishimoto-Yamada
  • Fujio Hyodo
  • Masayuki Matsuoka
  • Yoshiaki Hashimoto
  • Masahiro Kon
  • Teruo Ochi
  • Seiki Yamane
  • Reiichiro Ishii
  • Takao Itioka


Tropical landscape structures have been transformed into mosaic structures consisting of small patches of primary and secondary forests, and areas of other land use. Diversity of insect assemblages is often higher in primary forests than in surrounding secondary forests. However, little is known about how the primary forests affect diversity in surrounding secondary forests in a landscape. In Sarawak, Malaysia, the typical landscape in areas from which lowland tropical rainforests had originally spread consists mainly of primary and secondary forests, with small areas of cultivation. In this study, we examined how the proportion of remnant primary forests in a landscape affects species diversity and species composition of ants and dung beetles in Macaranga-dominated secondary forests. The proportions were quantified based on remote-sensing data at various spatial scales, ranging from 100- to 5,000-m radius from each of the target forests. We found that the proportions of remnant primary forests within a 100-m radius had a significant positive effect on ant species diversity, and those within 100-, 300-, and 500-m radii significantly affected species compositions. However, the proportions of remnant primary forests had no significant relationship with dung beetle diversity, while those within 100- and 1,000-m radii had significant effects on species composition. The different responses to the remnant primary forests are likely to be related to differences in the movement and dispersal traits between the two taxa.


Arthropods Borneo Land use Remote-sensing SE Asia Tropical landscape 


  1. Andersen AN, Sparling GP (1997) Ants as indicators of restoration success: relationship with soil microbial biomass in the Australian seasonal tropics. Restor Ecol 5:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chust G, Pretus JL, Ducrot D, Ventura D (2004) Scale dependency of insect assemblages in response to landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 19:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dauber J, Bengtsson J, Lenoir L (2006) Evaluating effects of habitat loss and land-use continuity on ant species richness in seminatural grassland remnants. Conserv Biol 20:1150–1160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis AJ, Sutton SL (1997) A dung beetle that feeds on fig: implications for the measurement of species rarity. J Trop Ecol 13:759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliott NC, Kieckhefer RW, Lee JH, French BW (1998) Influence of within-field and landscape factors on aphid predator populations in wheat. Landsc Ecol 14:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R, Meritt D Jr (1994) Non flying mammals and landscape changes in the tropical rain forest region of Los Tlixtlas, Mexico. Ecography 17:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Estrada A, Anzures A, Coates-Estrada R (1999) Tropical rain forest fragmentation, howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata), and dung beetles at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Am J Primatol 48:253–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fonseca GAB (1989) Small mammal species diversity in brazilian tropical primary and secondary forests of different sizes. Revta Bras Zool 6:381–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner TA, Hernandez 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
  11. Ghazoul J, Sheil D (2010) Tropical rain forest ecology, diversity, and conservation. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanski I (1980) Movement patterns in dung beetles and in the dung fly. Anim Behav 28:953–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonsen ID, Fahrig L (1997) Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landsc Ecol 12:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kishimoto-Yamada K, Itioka T, Nakagawa M, Momose K, Nakashizuka T (2011) Phytophagous scarabaeid diversity in swidden cultivation landscapes in Sarawak, Malaysia. Raffles B Zool 59:285–293Google Scholar
  16. Koh LP, Ghazoul J, Butler RA, Laurance WF, Sodhi NS, Mateo-Vega J, Bradshaw CJA (2010) Wash and spin cycle threats to tropical biodiversity. Biotropica 42:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumagai T, Saitoh TM, Sato Y, Takahashi H, Manfroi OJ, Morooka T, Kuraji K, Suzuki M, Yasunari T, Komatsu H (2005) Annual water balance and seasonality of evapotranspiration in a Bornean tropical rainforest. Agric For Meteorol 128:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumagai T, Yoshifuji N, Tanaka N, Suzuki M, Kume T (2009) Comparison of soil moisture dynamics between a tropical rain forest and a tropical seasonal forest in Southeast Asia: impact of seasonal and year-to-year variations in rainfall. Water Resour Res 45:W04413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee JSH, Lee IQW, Lim SLH, Huijbregts J, Sodhi NS (2009) Changes in dung beetle communities along a gradient of tropical forest disturbance in South-East Asia. J Trop Ecol 25:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leyequien E, Verrelst J, Slot M, Schaepman-Strub G, Heitkonig IMA, Skidmore A (2007) Capturing the fugitive: applying remote sensing to terrestrial animal distribution and diversity. Int J Appl Earth Observ 9:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lucey JM, Hill JK (2012) Spillover of insects from rain forest into adjacent oil palm plantations. Biotropica 44:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mezger D, Pfeiffer M (2011) Partitioning the impact of abiotic factors and spatial patterns on species richness and community structure of ground ant assemblages in four Bornean rainforests. Ecography 34:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amequita S, Favila ME (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oksanen J (2010) Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. Accessed 1 June 2010
  26. Otronen M, Hanski I (1983) Movement patterns in Sphaeridium: differences between species, sexes, and feeding and breeding individuals. J Anim Ecol 52:663–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peeters C, Molet M (2010) Colonial reproduction and life histories. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 159–176Google Scholar
  28. Roland J, Taylor PD (1997) Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386:710–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth DS, Perfecto I, Rathcke B (1994) The effects of management-systems on ground-foraging ant diversity in Costa-Rica. Ecol Appl 4:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santos-Heredia C, Andresen E, Zarate DA (2010) Secondary seed dispersal by dung beetles in a Colombian rain forest: effects of dung type and defecation pattern on seed fate. J Trop Ecol 26:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schulze CH, Waltert M, Kessler PJA, Pitopang R, Shahabuddin VD, Muhlenberg M, Gradstein SR, Leuschner C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical land-use systems: comparing plants, birds, and insects. Ecol Appl 14:1321–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shahabuddin VD, Schulze CH, Tscharntke T (2005) Changes of dung beetle communities from rainforests towards agroforestry systems and annual cultures in Sulawesi (Indonesia). Biodivers Conserv 14:863–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shahabuddin VD, Hidayat P, Manuwoto S, Noerdjito WA, Tscharntke T, Schulze CH (2010) Diversity and body size of dung beetles attracted to different dung types along a tropical land-use gradient in Sulawesi, Indonesia. J Trop Ecol 26:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suni SS, Gordon DM (2010) Fine-scale genetic structure and dispersal distance in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex barbatus. Heredity 104:168–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Türke M, Fiala B, Linsenmair KE, Feldhaar H (2010) Estimation of dispersal distances of the obligately plant-associated ant Crematogaster decamera. Ecol Entomol 35:662–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Underwood EC, Fisher BL (2006) The role of ants in conservation monitoring: if, when, and how. Biol Conserv 132:166–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ursula CB, Peter H, Gregor W, Iris L, Markus H (2004) Multi-resolution, object-oriented fuzzy analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS J Photogramm 58:239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verdu JR, Numa C, Hernandez-Cuba O (2011) The influence of landscape structure on ants and dung beetles diversity in a Mediterranean savanna-forest ecosystem. Ecol Indic 11:831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment. Trends Ecol Evol 20:553–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright SJ, Muller-Landau HC (2006) The future of tropical forest species. Biotropica 38:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keiko Kishimoto-Yamada
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fujio Hyodo
    • 3
  • Masayuki Matsuoka
    • 4
  • Yoshiaki Hashimoto
    • 5
  • Masahiro Kon
    • 6
  • Teruo Ochi
    • 7
  • Seiki Yamane
    • 8
  • Reiichiro Ishii
    • 9
  • Takao Itioka
    • 10
  1. 1.Research Institute for Humanity and NatureKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotional of Science, Graduate School of Arts and SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Research Core for Interdisciplinary SciencesOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan
  4. 4.Faculty of AgricultureKochi UniversityKochiJapan
  5. 5.University of Hyogo/Museum of Nature and Human ActivitiesHyogoJapan
  6. 6.KyotoJapan
  7. 7.OsakaJapan
  8. 8.Graduate School of Science and EngineeringKagoshima UniversityKagoshimaJapan
  9. 9.Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyYokohamaJapan
  10. 10.Graduate School of Human and Environmental StudiesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations