Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 565–576 | Cite as

Is microclimate-driven turnover of dung beetle assemblage structure in regenerating coastal vegetation a precursor to re-establishment of a forest fauna?

  • Adrian L. V. Davis
  • Rudi J. van Aarde
  • Clarke H. Scholtz
  • Robert A. R. Guldemond
  • Johan Fourie
  • Christian M. Deschodt


We questioned the capability of post-mining rehabilitation and successional changes in coastal vegetation to achieve restoration of dune forest, dung beetle assemblages in the Maputaland Centre of Endemism, South Africa. A repeat 2010 study of structural turnover between dung beetle assemblages across a 33 year successional sere of rehabilitating vegetation and old-growth forest (>73 years) produced comparable results to an earlier study across the 23 year chronosequence of 2000. Despite overlap, three structural patterns along the 33 year chronosequence were associated with specific stages of vegetation succession and their characteristic microclimates as in 2000. Although species biased to unshaded habitat dominated the earliest succession, there was rapid re-establishment of dominance by shade-associated forest species. In concert with progression from unshaded, post-mining vegetation to strongly shaded, early successional, Acacia shrub-woodland, there was an initial increase in similarity of the dung beetle fauna (species-poor, low abundance) to that in strongly-shaded forest (also species-poor, low abundance). However, in concert with decreasing shade cover in late successional woodland, the dung beetle fauna became species-rich with high abundance so that the early successional trajectory of increasing similarity to forest fauna either levelled off to a plateau (species in 2000; abundance in 2010) or declined (species in 2010, abundance in 2000). It remains to be seen if gaps forming in the oldest Acacia woodland permit forest tree saplings of the exposed understorey to recreate a forest canopy that would be tracked by dung beetles to re-establish a typically species-poor, deep shade, forest assemblage with low abundance.


Acacia karroo woodland Chronosequence Dung beetle Dune forest Patchiness Restoration Richards Bay Scarabaeinae Succession 



Dr. Matthew Grainger, Alida de Flamingh, Carol Hoole, Cher Lawrence, Tamara Lee, Pieter Olivier, and Laura Owens assisted with the field surveys. Staff and postgraduate members of the University of Pretoria, Scarab Research Unit assisted in sorting samples, particularly Dr. Catherine Sole, Dr. Power Tshikae, Dr. Cornel du Toit, Dr. Suko Mlambo, Werner Strümpher, Angelika Switala, and Rentia Tukker. The study was funded through grants to RJvA from Richards Bay Minerals, the Department of Trade and Industry (THRIP), and the National Research Foundation (NRF).

Supplementary material

10841_2012_9542_MOESM1_ESM.doc (686 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 686 kb)


  1. Aide TM, Zimmerman JK, Pascarella JB, Rivera L, Marcano-Veda H (2000) Forest regeneration in a chronosequence of tropical abandoned pastures: implications for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 8:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cambefort Y (1982) Les coléoptères Scarabaeidae s. str. de Lamto (Côte d’Ivoire): structure des peuplements et rôle dans l’écosystème. Ann Soc Entomol Fr 18:433–459Google Scholar
  3. Davis ALV (1994) Associations of Afrotropical Coleoptera (Scarabaeidae, Aphodiidae, Staphylinidae, Hydrophilidae, Histeridae) with dung and decaying matter: implications for selection of fly-control agents for Australia. J Nat Hist 28:383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis ALV (1996) Habitat associations in a South African, summer rainfall, dung beetle community (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Aphodiidae, Staphylinidae, Histeridae, Hydrophilidae). Pedobiologia 40:260–280Google Scholar
  5. 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. Global Ecol Biogeogr 11:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis ALV, van Aarde RJ, Scholtz CH, Delport JH (2003) Convergence between dung beetle assemblages of a post-mining chronosequence and unmined dune forest. Restor Ecol 11:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferreira SM, van Aarde RJ (1997) The chronosequence of rehabilitating stands of coastal dune forest: do small mammals confirm it? S Afr J Sci 93:211–214Google Scholar
  8. Gourlay ID, Smith JP, Barnes RD (1996) Wood production in a natural stand of Acacia karroo in Zimbabwe. Forest Ecol Manage 88:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grainger MJ, van Aarde RJ (2012a) Is succession-based management of coastal dune forest restoration valid? Ecol Restor 30:200–208Google Scholar
  10. Grainger MJ, van Aarde RJ (2012b) The role of canopy gaps in the regeneration of coastal dune forests. Afr J Ecol doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2012.01348.x
  11. Grainger MJ, van Aarde RJ, Wassenaar TD (2011) Landscape composition influences the restoration of subtropical coastal dune forest. Restor Ecol 19:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guariguata MR, Ostertag R (2001) Neotropical secondary forest succession: changes in structural and functional characteristics. Forest Ecol Manage 148:185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hopp PW, Ottermanns R, Caron E, Mayer S, Roß-Nickoll M (2010) Recovery of litter inhabiting beetle assemblages during forest regeneration in the Atlantic forest of Southern Brazil. Insect Conserv Divers 3:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes RF, Kauffman JB, Jaramillo VJ (1999) Biomass, carbon, and nutrient dynamics of secondary forests in a humid tropical region of Mexico. Ecology 80:1892–1907Google Scholar
  15. Kritzinger JJ, van Aarde RJ (1998) The bird communities of rehabilitating coastal dunes at Richards Bay, KwaZulu-Natal. S Afr J Sci 94:71–78Google Scholar
  16. Larsen TH, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37:322–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Legendre L, Legendre P (1983) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Liebsch D, Marques MCM, Goldenberg R (2008) How long does the Atlantic rain forest take to recover after a disturbance? Changes in species composition and ecological features during secondary succession. Biol Conserve 141:1717–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lobo JM, Hortal J, Cabrero-Sañudo FJ (2006) Regional and local influence of grazing activity on the diversity of a semi-arid dung beetle community. Divers Distrib 12:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lumaret JP, Kadiri N, Bertrand M (1992) Changes in resources: consequences for the dynamics of dung beetle communities. J Appl Ecol 29:349–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Majer JD, Brennan KEC, Moir ML (2007) Invertebrates and the restoration of a forest ecosystem: 30 years of research following bauxite mining in Western Australia. Restor Ecol 15:S104–S115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nealis VG (1977) Habitat associations and community analysis of south Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Can J Zool 55:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Osho JSA (1996) Modelling the tree population dynamics of the most abundant species in a Nigerian tropical rain forest. Ecol Model 89:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quintero I, Roslin T (2005) Rapid recovery of dung beetle communities following habitat fragmentation in central Amazonia. Ecology 86:3303–3311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Redi BH, van Aarde RJ, Wassenaar TD (2005) Coastal dune forest development and the regeneration of millipede communities. Restor Ecol 13:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowe–Rowe DT (1994) The ungulates of Natal. Natal Parks Board, PietermaritzburgGoogle Scholar
  27. Sole CL, Scholtz CH (2010) Did dung beetles arise in Africa? A phylogenetic hypothesis based on five gene regions. Mol Phylogenet Evol 56:631–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. StatSoft Inc (2011) Statistica 10. StatSoft Inc., 230 East 14th Street, Tulsa, OK 74104, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Taki H, Yamaura Y, Okochi I, Inoue T, Okabe K, Makino S (2010) Effects of reforestation age on moth assemblages in plantations and naturally regenerated forests. Insect Conserv Divers 3:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Townsend CR (2007) Ecological applications: towards a sustainable world. Wiley-Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Tshikae BP, Davis ALV, Scholtz CH (2008) Trophic associations of a dung beetle assemblage (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) in a woodland savanna of Botswana. Environ Entomol 37:431–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Aarde RJ, Ferreira SM, Kritzinger JJ, van Dyk PJ, Vogt M, Wassenaar TD (1996a) An evaluation of habitat rehabilitation on coastal dune forests in northern Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Restor Ecol 4:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Aarde RJ, Ferreira SM, Kritzinger JJ (1996b) Successional changes in rehabilitating coastal dune communities in northern KwaZulu/Natal, South Africa. Landscape Urban Plan 34:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Aarde RJ, Ferreira SM, Kritzinger JJ (1996c) Millipede communities in rehabilitating coastal dune forests in northern KwaZulu/Natal, South Africa. J Zool 238:703–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Wyk AE (1996) Biodiversity of the Maputaland centre. In: van der Maesen LJG, van der Burgt XM, van Medenbach de Rooy JM (eds) The biodiversity of African plants. In: Proceedings XIVth AETFAT Congress, 22–27 August 1994, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 198–207Google Scholar
  36. Wang GH (2002) Plant traits and soil chemical variables during a secondary vegetation succession in abandoned fields on the Loess Plateau. Acta Bot Sin 44:990–998Google Scholar
  37. Wassenaar TD, van Aarde RJ, Pimm SL, Ferreira SM (2005) Community convergence in disturbed sub-tropical dune forest. Ecology 86:655–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wassenaar TD, Ferreira SM, van Aarde RJ (2007) Flagging aberrant sites and assemblages in restoration projects. Restor Ecol 15:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weisser PJ, Marques F (1979) Gross vegetation changes in the dune area between Richards Bay and the Mfolozi River, 1937–1974. Bothalia 12:711–721Google Scholar
  40. Wherry RJ (1984) Contributions to correlational analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian L. V. Davis
    • 1
  • Rudi J. van Aarde
    • 2
  • Clarke H. Scholtz
    • 1
  • Robert A. R. Guldemond
    • 2
  • Johan Fourie
    • 2
  • Christian M. Deschodt
    • 1
  1. 1.Scarab Research Unit, Department of Zoology & EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaHatfieldSouth Africa
  2. 2.Conservation Ecology Research Unit, Department of Zoology & EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaHatfieldSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations