Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Wide corridors with much environmental heterogeneity best conserve high dung beetle and ant diversity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape ecological networks (ENs) consist of landscape-scale conservation corridors that connect areas of high natural value within a production mosaic with protected areas (PAs). In South Africa, ENs have been implemented on a large spatial scale to offset the negative impacts of plantation forestry on indigenous grasslands. We focus on corridor width as a factor for conserving dung beetle and ant diversity within an EN. We also investigate the importance of natural environmental heterogeneity (elevation, vegetation type) and habitat quality (soil hardness, invasive alien plant density). We sampled dung beetles and ants in 30 corridors of different sizes, and at ten sites in a nearby PA. In addition, we also analysed dung beetles according to their feeding guild. Tunnelling dung beetle species richness increased with corridor width. Rolling dung beetle species richness was higher in the PA than in the corridors of the EN. The dung beetle assemblage within the EN differed from that within the PA. Corridors of various widths differed in ant composition but not in species richness. Furthermore, the PA and the EN differed in environmental variables, which contributed to differences in dung beetle species richness and assemblage composition. Within the EN, environmental heterogeneity across the landscape was more important than corridor width for driving species diversity of both dung beetles and ants. When planning future ENs, wide corridors (>280 m) that encompass as much natural heterogeneity across the landscape as possible will best conserve the range of local insect species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen AN (1995) A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. J Biogeogr 22:15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ (2006) Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton PS, Manning AD, Gibb H, Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham SA (2009) Conserving ground-dwelling beetles in an endangered woodland community: multi-scale effects on assemblage diversity. Biol Conserv 142:1701–1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AF (1999) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland

  • Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpaneto GM, Mazziotta A, Valerio L (2007) Inferring species decline from collection records: rolling dung beetles in Italy (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Divers Distrib 13:903–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough Y, Kruess A, Tscharntke T (2007) Organic versus conventional arable systems: functional grouping helps understand staphylinid responses. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:285–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crous CJ, Samways MJ, Pryke JS (2013) Exploring the mesofilter as a novel operational scale in conservation planning. J Appl Ecol 50:205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’hondt B, Bossuyt B, Hoffman M, Bonte D (2008) Dung beetles as secondary seed disperser in a temperate grassland. Basic Appl Ecol 9:542–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damschen EI, Haddad NM, Orrock JL, Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ (2006) Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales. Science 313:1284–1286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dauber J, Bengtsson JAN, Lenoir L (2006) Evaluating effects of habitat loss and land-use continuity on ant species richness in seminatural grassland remnants. Conserv Biol 20:1150–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis ALV (1994) Compositional differences between dung beetle (Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae s. str.) assemblages in winter and summer rainfall climates. Afr Entomol 2:45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis ALV (1996a) Seasonal dung beetle activity and dung dispersal in selected South African habitats: implications for pasture improvement in Australia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 58:157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis ALV (1996b) Community organization of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): differences in body size and functional group structure between habitats. Afr J Ecol 34:258–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis ALV, Scholtz CH, Chown SL (1999) Species turnover, community boundaries and biogeographical of dung beetle assemblages across an altitudinal gradient in South Africa. J Biogeogr 26:1039–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis ALV, Frolov AV, Scholtz CH (2008) The African dung beetle genera. Protera Book House, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • de Andrade RB, Barlow J, Louzada J, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Silveira JM, Cochrane MA (2014) Tropical forest fires and biodiversity: dung beetle community and biomass responses in a northern Brazilian Amazon forest. J Insect Conserv 18:1097–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, Mcpherson JM, Arau MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, Davies RG, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Kissling WD, Ohlemu R, Peres-Neto PR, Schurr FM, Wilson R (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2010) Global Forest Resource Assessment 2010. Forestry paper 163

  • Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Tewksbury JJ (2005) Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecol Appl 15:250–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halffter G, Edmonds WD (1982) The nesting behaviour of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). An ecological and evolutive approach. Publication of the Institute of Ecology, Mexico

  • Hanski I, Cambefort Y (1991) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess GR, Fischer RA (2001) Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 55:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives CD, Hose GC, Nipperess DA, Taylor MP (2011) The influence of riparian corridor width on ant and plant assemblages in northern Sydney, Australia. Urban Ecosyst 14:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RHG (1995) Nature conservation planning in Europe: developing ecological networks. Landsc Urban Plan 32:169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joubert L, Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2014) Annual burning drives plant communities in remnant grassland ecological networks in an afforested landscape. S Afr J Bot 92:126–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kormann U, Scherber C, Tscharntke T, Klein N, Larbig M, Valente JJ, Hadley AS, Betts GB (2016) Corridors restore animal-mediated pollination in fragmented tropical forest landscapes. Proc R Soc B 283:20152347

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen TH, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:538–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL, Bruna EM, Didham RK, Stouffer PC, Glascon C, Bierregaard RO, Laurance SG, Sampaio E (2002) Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv Biol 16:605–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobo JM, Lumaret J, Jay-Robert P (2001) Diversity, distinctiveness and conservation status of the Mediterranean coastal dung beetle assemblage in the Regional Natural Park of the Camargue (France). Divers Distrib 7:257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald MA (2003) The role of corridors in biodiversity conservation in production forest landscapes: a literature review. Tasforest 14:41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • McGill BJ, Dornela MD, Gotelli NJ, Magurran AE (2015) Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend in the Anthropocene. Trend Ecol Evolut 30:104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucina L, Hoare DB, Lotter MC, du Preez PJ, Rutherford MC, Scott-Shaw CR, Bredenkamp GJ, Powrie LW, Scott L, Camp KGT, Cilliers SS, Bezuidenhout H, Mostert TH, Siebert SJ, Winter PJD, Burrows JE, Dobson L, Ward RA, Stalmans M, Oliver EGH, Siebert F, Schmidt E, Kobisi K, Kose L (2006) Grassland biome. In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC (eds) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SANBI, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Muggeo VMR (2003) Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat Med 22:3055–3071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munyai TC, Foord SH (2012) Ants on a mountain: spatial, environmental and habitat associations along an altitudinal transect in a centre of endemism. J Insect Conserv 16:677–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neke KS, Du Plessis MA (2004) The threat of transformation: quantifying the vulnerability of grasslands in South Africa. Conserv Biol 18:466–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark WD (1993) The role and design of wildlife corridors with examples from Tanzania. Ambio 22:500–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezqutia S, Favila M (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols E, Uriarte M, Bunker DE, Favila ME, Slade EM, Vulinec K, Larsen T, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Louzada J, Naeem S, Spector SH (2013) Trait-dependent response of dung beetle populations to tropical forest conversion at local and regional scales. Ecology 94:180–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens HH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2016). Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.15-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Pryke SR, Samways MJ (2001) Width of grasslands linkages for the conservation of butterflies in South African afforested areas. Biol Conserv 101:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2010) Significant variables for the conservation of mountain invertebrates. J Insect Conserv 14:247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2012a) Conservation management of complex natural forest and plantation edge effects. Landsc Ecol 27:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2012b) Ecological networks act as extensions of protected areas for arthropod biodiversity conservation. J Appl Ecol 49:591–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2015) Conserving natural heterogeneity is crucial for designing effective ecological networks. Landsc Ecol 30:595–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org

  • Richardson DM (1998) Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv Biol 12:18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson TC, Baker AC, Murray BR (2009) Differences in leaf-litter invertebrate assemblages between radiate pine plantations and neighbouring native eucalypt woodland. Austral Ecol 34:368–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ, Pryke JS (2016) Large-scale ecological networks do work in an ecologically complex biodiversity hotspot. Ambio 45:161–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savadogo P, Sawadogo L, Tiveau D (2007) Effect of grazing intensity and prescribed fire on soil physical and hydrological properties and pasture yield in the savannah woodlands of Burkina Faso. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:80–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 76:1094–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sowig P (1995) Habitat selection and offspring survival rate in three paracoprid dung beetles: the influence of soil type and soil moisture. Ecography 18:147–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector S (2006) Scarabaeinae dung beetles (Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae:Scarabaeinae): an invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. Coleopt Bull 60:71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoner KJL, Joern A (2004) Landscape versus local habitat influences to insect communities from tallgrass prairie remnants. Ecol Appl 14:1306–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toms JD, Lesperance ML (2003) Piecewise regression: a tool for identifying ecological thresholds. Ecology 84:2034–2041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood AC, Fisher BL (2006) The role of ants in conservation monitoring: if, when, and how. Biol Conserv 132:166–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM (2012) Three centuries of managing introduced conifers in South Africa: benefits, impacts, changing perceptions and conflict resolution. J Environ Manag 106:56–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vessby K (2001) Habitat and weather affect reproduction and size of the dung beetle Aphodius fossor. Ecol Entomol 26:430–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock BA (2005) Pitfall trapping in ecological studies. In: Leather SR (ed) Insect sampling in forest ecosystems. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 37–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yaacobi G, Ziv Y, Rosenzweig ML (2007) Effects of interactive scale-dependent variables on beetle diversity patterns in a semi-arid agricultural landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:687–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and Mondi South Africa for insect collection permits and permission to sample on their holdings as well as for accommodation in the field (Permit nr: OP 2175/2013 and OP 2177/2013). We thank O. van Schalkwyk and I. van Vuuren for field assistance and F. Roets and R. Gaigher for assistance with arthropod identification. Funding for this work was from the Department of Science and Technology/National Research Foundation through the Green Landscapes Programme at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, and Mondi Group.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    J. van Schalkwyk, J. S. Pryke & M. J. Samways

Authors
  1. J. van Schalkwyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. S. Pryke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. Samways
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. van Schalkwyk.

Additional information

Communicated by Eckehard G. Brockerhoff.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 156 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 165 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Schalkwyk, J., Pryke, J.S. & Samways, M.J. Wide corridors with much environmental heterogeneity best conserve high dung beetle and ant diversity. Biodivers Conserv 26, 1243–1256 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1299-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1299-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation