Dung beetles and their ecological functions in three agroforestry systems in the Lacandona rainforest of Mexico

  • Carolina Santos-Heredia
  • Ellen Andresen
  • Diego A. Zárate
  • Federico Escobar
Original Paper
  • 47 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forest and plantation biodiversity

Abstract

There is growing interest in evaluating the impact that management intensity of agroecosystems has on animal communities and their ecological functions. Dung beetles are a highly used focal taxon for assessing the effects of anthropogenic disturbances and management practices on biodiversity. In the Lacandona rainforest region in southern Mexico, we quantified several metrics of the dung beetle community (number of species, number of individuals, total biomass, mean beetle size) and four of their ecological functions (dung removal, soil excavation, seed dispersal, seed exhumation) in conserved rainforest and three agroforestry systems with different management intensities: rustic cocoa, polyculture cocoa, and rubber monoculture. We also assessed the correlation between dung removal and the other functions, as well as the relationships between functions and community metrics. Land-use type affected the dung beetle communities as well as their functions, with negative effects on response variables in the most intensely managed agroecosystems (polyculture cocoa and rubber). Rustic cocoa had values similar to those of the conserved forest for all functions and community metrics, except the mean number of species per trap. Dung removal was correlated with the other ecological functions. The mean number of species per trap was significantly associated with all four functions. In our study region rustic cocoa plantations favor the maintenance of a high proportion of dung beetle species and maintain their ecological functions. Our findings corroborate that agroecosystems with less intense management may contribute to buffering the effects of landscape homogenization caused by more intensely managed agroecosystems, such as rubber plantations.

Keywords

Agroecosystem Anthropogenic landscape Biodiversity conservation Rubber Scarabaeinae Shade cocoa 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to SEMARNAT and CONANP for issuing the necessary permits (SGPA/DGVS/03075/13; Oficio No. REBIMA/009/12) and facilitating access to the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve. For assistance in the field, we thank Rafael Lombera, Miguel Miranda, Isaías Lombera, and Isidro López Lira. We thank one associate editor, three anonymous reviewers and Mary Ann Hall for thoughtful comments and editorial corrections that helped us improve the manuscript. We thank Pedro Luna for his valuable help and advice in data analyses. We are thankful to CONACyT for providing a graduate study fellowship to CS-H (245258) and the Industrial University of Santander’s for a post-doctoral fellowship to CS-H. Research was funded through grants to EA by CONACyT (SEP-CONACyT 2010-152884) and DGAPA-UNAM (PAPIIT, IN-207711).

Author contributions

CS-H, EA and FE formulated the research idea. CS-H and EA designed the experiments, with contributions from FE. CS-H and DAZ conducted all fieldwork. CS-H, EA and FE analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1542_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (150 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 150 kb)

References

  1. Alkorta I, Albizu I, Garbisu C (2003) Biodiversity and agroecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 12:2521–2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri MA (2004) Globally important indigenous agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS): Extent, significance, and implications for development. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen E (2002) Dung beetles in a Central Amazonian rainforest and their ecological role as secondary seed dispersers. Ecol Entomol 27:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano L, Favila ME, Huerta C (2005) Diversity of dung and carrion beetles in a disturbed Mexican tropical montane cloud forest and on shade coffee plantations. Biodivers Conserv 14:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audino LD, 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
  6. Bang HS, Lee JH, Kwon OS, Na YE, Jang YS, Kim WH (2005) Effects of paracoprid dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) on the growth of pasture herbage and on the underlying soil. Appl Soil Ecol 29:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H, Dai B, Grothendieck G, Green P (2017) Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1–14Google Scholar
  8. Braga RF, Korasaki V, Andresen E, Louzada J (2013) Dung beetle community and functions along a habitat-disturbance gradient in the Amazon: a rapid assessment of ecological functions associated to biodiversity. PLoS ONE 8:e57786CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Broström G (2017) Generalized linear models with clustering description binomial and poisson regression for clustered data, fixed and random effects with bootstrapping. R package version 1.0.2Google Scholar
  10. Chao A, Jost L (2012) Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology 93:2533–2547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuarón AD (2000) Effects of land-cover changes on mammals in a Neotropical region: a modeling approach. Conserv Biol 14:1676–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dangles O, Carpio C, Woodward G (2012) Size-dependent species removal impairs ecosystem functioning in a large-scale tropical field experiment. Ecology 93:2615–2625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. De Jong BH, Ochoa-Gaona S, Castillo-Santiago MA, Ramírez-Marcial N, Cairns MA (2000) Carbon flux and patterns of land-use/land-cover change in the Selva Lacandona: Mexico. Ambio 29:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Rosario-Martinez H, Fox J, R Core Team (2015) Post-hoc interaction analysis. Description analysis of terms in linear, generalized and mixed linear models, on the basis of multiple comparisons of factor contrasts. R package version 0.2-1Google Scholar
  16. Edwards FA, Finan J, Graham LK, Larsen TH, Wilcove DS, Hsu WW, Chey VK, Hamer KC (2017) The impact of logging roads on dung beetle assemblages in a tropical rainforest reserve. Biol Conserv 205:85–92CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Estrada A, Raboy BE, Oliveira LC (2012) Agroecosystems and primate conservation in the tropics: a review. Am J Primatol 74:696–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox J, Weisberg S, Adler D, et al (2013) Companion to applied regression. R package version 2.1-5Google Scholar
  19. França F, Louzada J, Korasaki V, Griffiths H, Silveira JM, Barlow J (2016) Do space-for-time assessments underestimate the impacts of logging on tropical biodiversity? An Amazonian case study using dung beetles. J Appl Ecol 53:1098–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank K, Hülsmann M, Assmann T, Schmitt T, Blüthgen N (2017) Land use affects dung beetle communities and their ecosystem service in forests and grasslands. Agr Ecosyst Environ 243:114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner TA, Barlow J, Araujo IS et al (2008) The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 11:139–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gill B (1991) Dung beetles in tropical American forests. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 211–229Google Scholar
  23. Giraldo C, Escobar F, Chara JD, Calle Z (2011) The adoption of silvopastoral systems promotes the recovery of ecological processes regulated by dung beetles in the Colombian Andes. Insect Conserv Divers 4:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray CL, Slade EM, Mann DJ, Lewis OT (2014) Do riparian reserves support dung beetle biodiversity and ecosystem services in oil palm-dominated tropical landscapes? Ecol Evol 4:1049–1060CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregory N, Gómez A, Maria T, Oliveira FDS, Nichols E (2014) Big dung beetles dig deeper: trait-based consequences for faecal parasite transmission. Int J Parasitol 45:101–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffiths HM, Louzada J, Bardgett RD, Beiroz W, França F, Tregidgo D, Barlow J (2015) Biodiversity and environmental context predict dung beetle-mediated seed dispersal in a tropical forest field experiment. Ecology 96:1607–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffiths HM, Bardgett RD, Louzada J, Barlow J (2016) The value of trophic interactions for ecosystem function: dung beetle communities influence seed burial and seedling recruitment in tropical forests. Proc R Soc B 283:20161634.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1634 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Häger A, Otárola MF, Stuhlmacher MF, Castillo RA, Arias AC (2015) Effects of management and landscape composition on the diversity and structure of tree species assemblages in coffee agroforests. Agr Ecosyst Environ 199:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halffter G, Arellano L (2002) Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in a tropical landscape. Biotropica 34:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halffter G, Edmonds WD (1982) The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae). An ecological and evolutive approach. Instituto de Ecología A.C, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  31. Holdridge R (1967) Life zone ecology. Tropical Science Center, San JoséGoogle Scholar
  32. Horgan FG (2005) Effects of deforestation on diversity, biomass and function of dung beetles on the eastern slopes of the Peruvian Andes. For Ecol Manage 216:117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hosaka T, Niino M, Kon M, Ochi T, Yamada T, Fletcher C, Okuda T (2014) Effects of logging road networks on the ecological functions of dung beetles in Peninsular Malaysia. For Ecol Manage 326:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P, Heiberger RM, Schuetzenmeister A, Scheibe S (2017) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. R package version 1.4-7Google Scholar
  35. Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A (2016) iNEXT: iNterpolation and EXTrapolation for species diversity. R package version 2.0.12. http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/blog/software-download/
  36. Johnson MD, Kellermann JL, Stercho AM (2010) Pest reduction services by birds in shade and sun coffee in Jamaica. Anim Conserv 13:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kudavidanage EP, Qie L, Lee JSH (2012) Linking biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of dung beetles in South and Southeast Asian tropical rainforests. Raffles Bull Zool 25:141–154Google Scholar
  38. Laurance WF, Useche DC (2009) Environmental synergisms and extinctions of tropical species. Conserv Biol 23:1427–1437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lefcheck JS, Byrnes JEK, Isbell F et al (2015) Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat Commun 6:6936.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7936 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Manning P, Slade EM, Beynon SA, Lewis OT (2016) Functionally rich dung beetle assemblages are required to provide multiple ecosystem services. Agr Ecosyst Environ 218:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Menéndez R, Webb P, Orwin KH (2016) Complementarity of dung beetle species with different fuctional behaviours influence dung-soil carbon cycling. Soil Biol Biochem 92:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montoya-Molina S, Giraldo-Echeverri C, Montoya-Lerma J, Chará J, Escobar F, Calle Z (2016) Land sharing versus land sparing in the dry Caribbean lowlands: a dung beetles’ perspective. Appl Soil Ecol 98:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 8:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nichols ES, Gardner TA (2011) Dung beetles as a candidate study taxon in applied biodiversity conservation research. In: Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith TJ (eds) Ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Wiley, Chichester, pp 267–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nichols E, Larsen T, Spector S, Davis AL, Escobar F, Favila M, Vulinec K (2007) Dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: a quantitative literature review and meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 137:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila ME, Network TSR (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nichols E, Uriarte M, Peres CA, Louzada J, Braga RF, Schiffler G, Whaldener E, Spector SH (2013) Human-induced trophic cascades along the fecal detritus pathway. PLoS ONE 8:e75819CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Noriega JA, Hortal J, Azcárate FM et al (2017) Research trends in ecosystem services provided by insects. Basic Appl Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.006 Google Scholar
  50. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B (2007) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.8-5. http://cran.r-project.org/
  51. Otieno NE, Gichuki N, Farwig N, Kiboi S (2011) The role of farm structure on bird assemblages around a Kenyan tropical rainforest. Afr J Ecol 49:410–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Penttilä A, Slade EM, Simojoki A, Riutta T, Minkkinen K, Roslin T (2013) Quantifying beetle-mediated effects on gas fluxes from dung pats. PLoS ONE 8:e71454CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: a new paradigm. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1134:173–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pineda E, Moreno C, Escobar F, Halffter G (2005) Biodiversity in cloud forest and shade coffee: analysis of three indicator groups. Conserv Biol 19:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ponce Santizo G (2008) Dispersión secundaria de semillas defecadas por monos en hábitats con diferentes niveles de perturbación. Dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  56. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation or Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/
  57. Ripley B, Venables B, Bates DM, Hornik K, Gebhardt A, Firth D (2017) Support functions and datasets for Venables and Ripley’s MASS. R package version 7.3-47Google Scholar
  58. 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. Lands Ecol 31:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Santos-Heredia C, Andresen E (2014) Upward movement of buried seeds: another ecological role of dung beetles promoting seedling establishment. J Trop Ecol 30:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 76:1094–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Slade EM, Mann DJ, Lewis OT (2011) Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biol Conserv 144:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slade EM, Riutta T, Roslin T, Tuomisto HL (2016a) The role of dung beetles in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cattle farming. Sci Rep 6:18140CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Slade EM, Roslin T, Santalahti M, Bell T (2016b) Disentangling the ‘brown world’ faecal–detritus interaction web: dung beetle effects on soil microbial properties. Oikos 125:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tisovec KC, Cassano CR, Boubli JP, Pardini R (2014) Mixed-species groups of marmosets and tamarins across a gradient of agroforestry intensification. Biotropica 46:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA, Buchori D, Faust H, Hertel D, Hölscher D, Juhrbandt J, Kessler M, Perfecto I, Scherber C, Schroth G, Veldkamp E, Wanger T (2011) Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes – A review. J App Ecol 48:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vandermeer JH, Perfecto I (2007) The agricultural matrix and a future paradigm for conservation. Conserv Biol 21:274–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Vandermeer JH, Perfecto I, Philpott SM, Chappell MJ (2008) Reenfocando la conservación en el paisaje: La importancia de la matriz. In: Harvey CA, Saénz JC (eds) Evaluación y conservación de biodiversidad en paisajes fragmentados en Mesoamérica. INBio, Santo Domingo de Heredia, pp 75–104Google Scholar
  68. Williams-Guillén K, Perfecto I (2010) Effects of agricultural intensification on the assemblage of leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae) in a coffee landscape in Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 42:605–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zárate DA, Andresen E, Estrada A, Serio-Silva JC (2014) Black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) activity, foraging and seed dispersal patterns in shaded cocoa plantations versus rainforest in southern Mexico. Am J Primatol 76:890–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Zermeño-Hernández I, Pingarroni A, Martínez-Ramos M (2016) Agricultural land-use diversity and forest regeneration potential in human-modified tropical landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 230:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escuela de BiologíaUniversidad Industrial de SantanderBucaramangaColombia
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y SustentabilidadUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMexico
  3. 3.Centro de Investigación La SuizaCorporación Colombiana de Investigación AgropecuariaRionegro-SantanderColombia
  4. 4.Red de EcoetologíaInstituto de Ecología, A.C.XalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations