Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:21:35.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimising design and effort for environmental surveys using dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2016

Claudia Tocco ,
Danielle E.A. Quinn ,
John M. Midgley  and
Martin H. Villet
Claudia Tocco*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology & Entomology, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa Department of Entomology and Arachnology, Albany Museum, Somerset Street, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
Danielle E.A. Quinn
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, B4P 2R6, Canada
John M. Midgley
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology & Entomology, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa Department of Entomology and Arachnology, Albany Museum, Somerset Street, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
Martin H. Villet
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology & Entomology, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In biological monitoring, deploying an effective standardised quantitative sampling method, optimised by trap design and sampling effort, is an essential consideration. To exemplify this using dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae and Aphodiinae) communities, three pitfall trap designs (un-baited (TN), baited at ground level (flat trap, TF), and baited above the trap (hanging trap, TH)), employed with varying levels of sampling effort (number of traps=1, 2, 3 … 10; number of days=1, 2, 3), were evaluated for sampling completeness and efficiency in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Modelling and resampling simulation approaches were used to suggest optimal sampling protocols across environmentally diverse sites. Overall, TF recovered the greatest abundance and species richness of dung beetles, but behavioural guilds showed conflicting trends: endocoprids preferred TH while paracoprids and telocoprids preferred TF. Resampling simulation of trap type and the two components of sampling effort suggested that six TF traps left for three days was most efficient in obtaining a representative sample and allowed differentiation between trap types, allowing the improved efficiency to be recognised. The effect of trap type on non-target specimens, particularly ants, was also investigated. TF and TH caught almost no by-catch, which is ethically desirable.

Type
Biodiversity & Evolution
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 149 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 214 - 226
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Andrew Smith

References

Agosti, D., Schultz, T., and Majer, J.D. 2000. Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.Google Scholar
Andersen, A.N., Hoffmann, B.D., Müller, W.J., and Griffiths, A.D. 2002. Using ants as bioindicators in land management: simplifying assessment of ant community responses. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39: 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristophanous, M. 2010. Does your preservative preserve? A comparison of the efficacy of some pitfall trap solutions in preserving the internal reproductive organs of dung beetles. ZooKeys, 34: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audino, L.D., Louzada, J., and Comita, L. 2014. Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: is it possible to recover species and functional diversity? Biological Conservation, 169: 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, C.M. and Lennon, J.J. 2012. Incorporating uncertainty in predictive species distribution modelling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367: 247–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchholz, S., Schirmel, J., and Siewers, J. 2014. The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats. European Journal of Entomology, 111: 69–74.Google Scholar
Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 345: 101–118.Google ScholarPubMed
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010. Tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan, 18–29 October 2010. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 [accessed 27 May 2016].Google Scholar
Davis, A.L.V. 1994. Associations of Afrotropical Coleoptera (Scarabaeidae: Aphodiidae: Staphylinidae: Hydrophilidae: Histeridae) with dung and decaying matter: implications for selection of fly-control agents for Australia. Journal of Natural History, 28: 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A.L.V. 2002. Dung beetle diversity in South Africa: influential factors, conservation status, data inadequacies and survey design. African Entomology, 10: 53–65.Google Scholar
Davis, A.L.V., Scholtz, C.H., and Deschodt, C. 2008. Multi-scale determinants of dung beetle assemblage structure across abiotic gradients of the Kalahari–Nama Karoo ecotone, South Africa. Journal of Biogeography, 35: 1465–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A.L., Swemmer, A.M., Scholtz, C.H., Deschodt, C.M., and Tshikae, B. 2014. Roles of environmental variables and land usage as drivers of dung beetle assemblage structure in mopane woodland. Austral Ecology, 39: 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d’Orbigny, H. 1913. Synopsis des Onthophagides d’Afrique. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 82: 1–742.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M.C. 1978. The genus Onitis F. of Africa south of the Sahara (Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera). Memoirs van die Nasionale Museum, 10: 1–410.Google Scholar
Fournier, D.A., Skaug, H.J., Ancheta, J., Ianelli, J., Magnusson, A., Maunder, M.N., et al. 2012. AD model builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optimization Methods and Software, 27: 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frolov, A.V. and Scholtz, C.H. 2003. Revision of the Afrotropical dung beetle genus Sarophorus Erichson (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). African Entomology, 11: 183–198.Google Scholar
Halffter, G. and Edmonds, W.D. 1982. The nesting behavior of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological and evolutive approach. Institúto de Ecología, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C.T., Scholtz, C.H., Escobar, F., and Davis, A.L. 2010. How might intensification of farming influence dung beetle diversity (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Maputo Special Reserve (Mozambique)? Journal of Insect Conservation, 14: 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssens, A. 1953. Oniticellini (Coleoptera Lamellicornia). Mémoires du Musée Royal d’Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Deuxième Série, 11: 1–200.Google Scholar
Jay-Robert, P., Errouissi, F., and Lumaret, J.P. 2008. Temporal coexistence of dung-dweller and soil-digger dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) in contrasting Mediterranean habitats. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 98: 303–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange, M., Gossner, M.M., and Weisser, W.W. 2011. Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by‐catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2: 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, T.H. and Forsyth, A. 2005. Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica, 37: 322–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, C.J., Louzada, J., Beiroz, W., and Ewers, R.M. 2013. Optimising bait for pitfall trapping of Amazonian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Public Library of Science One, 8: e73147.Google ScholarPubMed
McGeoch, M., van Rensburg, B., and Botes, A. 2002. The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39: 661–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midega, C.A.O., Khan, Z.R., Van den Berg, J., Ogol, C.K.P.O., Dippenaar‐Schoeman, A.S., Pickett, J.A., et al. 2008. Response of ground‐dwelling arthropods to a “push–pull” habitat management system: spiders as an indicator group. Journal of Applied Entomology, 132: 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Nichols, E., Larsen, T., Spector, S., Davis, A. L., Escobar, F., Favila, M., et al. 2007. Global dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: a quantitative literature review and meta-analysis. Biological Conservation, 137: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O’Hara, B., Stevens, M.H.H., Oksanen, M.J., et al. 2015. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.3.0. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html [accessed 2 November 2015].Google Scholar
Pryke, J.S., Roets, F., and Samways, M.J. 2013. Importance of habitat heterogeneity in remnant patches for conserving dung beetles. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22: 2857–2873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2005. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from: http://www.R-project.org [accessed 2 May 2016].Google Scholar
Roslin, T. 2000. Dung beetle movements at two spatial scales. Oikos, 91: 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scrucca, L. 2004. qcc: an R package for quality control charting and statistical process control. R News, 4: 11–17.Google Scholar
Siewers, J., Schirmel, J., and Buchholz, S. 2014. The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats. European Journal of Entomology, 111: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slade, E.M., Mann, D.J., Villanueva, J.F., and Lewis, O.T. 2007. Experimental evidence for the effects of dung beetle functional group richness and composition on ecosystem function in a tropical forest. Journal of Animal Ecology, 76: 1094–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, S. 2006. Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): an invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 60: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocco, C., Negro, M., Rolando, A., and Palestrini, C. 2013. Does natural reforestation represent a potential threat to dung beetle diversity in the Alps? Journal of Insect Conservation, 17: 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veiga, C.M., Lobo, J.M., and Martín-Piera, F. 1989. Las trampas pitfall con cebo, sus posibilidades en el estudio de las comunidades coprófagas de Scarabaeoidea (Col.). II: Analísis de efectividad. Revue d’Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol, 25: 77–100.Google Scholar
Vulinec, K., Lima, A.P., Carvalho, E.A., and Mellow, D.J. 2008. Dung beetles and long-term habitat fragmentation in Alter do Châo, Amazônia Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science, 1: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. and Chang, W. 2013. An implementation of the grammar of graphics. Package ggplot2 version 0.9.3.1. Springer, New York, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Woodcock, B.A. 2005. Pitfall trapping in ecological studies. In Insect sampling in forest ecosystems. Edited by S.R. Leather. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom. Pp. 37–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., Walker, N.J., Saveliev, A.A., and Smith, G.M. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar