Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:50:20.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Insights into dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) distribution along an elevational gradient in a tepui table-top mountain in the Brazilian Amazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2023

Renato Portela Salomão
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Avenida André Araújo, 2936, CEP 69060-000, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
Bert Kohlmann
Affiliation:
BioAlfa Barcoding Project, Santo Domingo, Heredia, Costa Rica
Célio Vandré Raia Mendes
Affiliation:
Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, R. Baraúnas, 351, CEP 58429-500, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil
Fernando Vaz-de-Mello
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Avenida Fernando Corrêa de Costa, 2367, CEP 78060-900, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil
André Felipe Araujo Lira*
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Sítio Olho D'água da Bica, Zona Rural, CEP 58175-000, Cuité, Paraíba, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: André Felipe Araujo Lira; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Elevational gradients are excellent models to understand species distribution across sites with marked shifts in environmental conditions. In northern South America, tepuis are table-top mountains with elevations above 1000 m and high biodiversity and endemism levels. In this study, we assessed the effect of elevation on dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) assemblage structure (species richness, abundance, and biomass) in Tepequém, a tepui located in northern Brazil. Dung beetles were sampled with pitfall traps within seven elevational bands from 250 to 850 m. A total of 83 individuals from 14 species were collected, Oxysternon festivum (Linnaeus, 1758) and an unidentified Onthophagus species being the most abundant. Elevation did not affect beetle species richness and biomass. However, species composition from 750 to 850 m differed statistically from that recorded at lower elevations. Our results suggest that beetle assemblages possess a bimodal distribution along an altitudinal gradient on the Tepequém. The contrasting vegetation structure of tepuis between highlands (shrubland savannah vegetation) and lowlands (tropical rainforest) explains the different composition of the assemblages. This study should be considered as a starting point in improving our understanding of the dung beetle diversity of tepuis, which present a unique singular relationship between elevation and species diversity.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Entomological Society of Canada

Introduction

Mountains comprise ecosystems that show rapid spatial changes in abiotic conditions (e.g., temperature, rainfall, and humidity) across their extension (Lara et al. Reference Lara, Fernandes and Gonçalves-Alvim2002; Rahbek et al. Reference Rahbek, Borregaard, Colwell, Dalsgaard, Holt and Morueta-Holme2019; Alvarado et al. Reference Alvarado, Salomão, Hernández-Rivera and Lira2020). A general climatic trend occurs in tropical mountains, in which the increase in elevation is followed by a reduction of air temperature and an increase in solar radiation (Körner Reference Körner2007; Rahbek et al. Reference Rahbek, Borregaard, Colwell, Dalsgaard, Holt and Morueta-Holme2019). Following such climatic shifts, marked changes in vegetation physiognomies are observed throughout elevation in mountainous landscapes (Mark et al. Reference Mark, Dickinson and Hofstede2000; Pôrto et al. Reference Pôrto, Cabral and Tabarelli2004; Nogué et al. Reference Nogué, Rull and Vegas-Vilarrúbia2013). Consequently, relationships between species diversity and elevation have been broadly studied, drawing different patterns depending on the evolutionary processes and biogeographic context of the mountain (e.g., Lomolino Reference Lomolino2001; Rahbek et al. Reference Rahbek, Borregaard, Colwell, Dalsgaard, Holt and Morueta-Holme2019; Kohlmann et al. Reference Kohlmann, Arriaga-Jiménez and Salomão2021). Diversity peaks often are observed at intermediate elevational intervals or show a marked decrease in diversity with increasing elevation (Escobar et al. Reference Escobar, Lobo and Halffter2005; MacCain and Grythes Reference MacCain and Grythes2010; Alvarado et al. Reference Alvarado, Salomão, Hernández-Rivera and Lira2020). Understanding how biodiversity responds to different elevations in mountains enables better understanding of the connection between community dynamics and the biogeographical context in the different ecosystems.

The “Pantepui” biogeographic province (Rull et al. Reference Rull, Huber, Vegas-Vilarrúbia, Señaris, Rull, Huber, Vegas-Vilarrúbia and Señaris2019) of northern South America is formed by an archipelago of about 50 sandstone plateaus (Désamoré et al. Reference Désamoré, Vanderpoorten, Laenen, Gradstein and Kok2010). The tepuis, as these plateaus called, are flat-topped, nearly vertical escarpments varying between 1200 and 3000 m in elevation and between 0.2 and 1096.3 km2 in area (McDiarmid and Donnelly Reference McDiarmid, Donnelly, Donnelly, Crother, Guyer, Wake and White2005). They rise from the surrounding tropical rainforest and are covered at the top by savannas, thus representing remote sky islands with unique flora and fauna. Geologically, the tepuis are part of Precambrian Guiana Shield, representing the remains of the erosion of the Roraima Formation. Tepuis are resistant, quartzite mesas with summit temperatures ranging from 8 to 20 °C on average over the year, depending on elevation, and precipitation ranging from 2000 and 4000 mm per year with a subtle dry season (Olson et al. Reference Olson, Dinerstein, Wikramanayake, Burgess, Powell and Underwood2001). As in other mountainous ecosystems, a marked change in vegetation occurs across the elevational bands of tepuis (Prance Reference Prance1996; Nogué et al. Reference Nogué, Rull and Vegas-Vilarrúbia2013; Oliveira-Filho et al. Reference Oliveira-Filho, Dexter, Pennington, Simon, Bueno and Neves2021). High endemism has been reported for the flora (25% in vascular plants) and fauna (68.5% in amphibians and reptiles) of single tepui (Berry and Riina Reference Berry and Riina2005; McDiarmid and Donnelly Reference McDiarmid, Donnelly, Donnelly, Crother, Guyer, Wake and White2005). For this reason, tepuis are important biodiversity reservoirs in the Neotropics, harbouring many rare and poorly known species (Barbosa-Silva et al. Reference Barbosa-Silva, Bueno, Labiak, Nadruz, Martinelli and Forzza2020).

Among the different animal groups used to assess species distribution through elevational effects on biological communities, dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) are an excellent model for ecological studies (Spector Reference Spector2006). Dung beetles are copro–necrophagous insects, with more than 6800 species described worldwide (Schoolmeesters Reference Schoolmeesters2023), most of which inhabit tropical ecosystems (Hanski and Cambefort Reference Hanski and Cambefort1991; Scholtz et al. Reference Scholtz, Davis and Kryger2009). Reflecting such high diversity, species within this family often have disparate habitat distributions and finely grained environmental requirements (Hanski and Cambefort Reference Hanski and Cambefort1991; Larsen et al. Reference Larsen, Lopera and Forsyth2006; Scholtz et al. Reference Scholtz, Davis and Kryger2009; Macedo et al. Reference Macedo, Audino, Korasaki and Louzada2020). A standardised sampling approach has made dung beetles a successful focal taxon used as bioindicators (Halffter and Favila Reference Halffter and Favila1993; Spector Reference Spector2006; Nichols et al. Reference Nichols, Larsen, Spector, Davis, Escobar, Favila and Vulinec2007; Otavo et al. Reference Otavo, Parrado-Rosselli and Noriega2013). The environmental requirements of dung beetle species are reflected in their distribution in mountainous landscapes, with species presenting contrasting patterns of elevational distribution depending on the species’ life histories (Noriega et al. Reference Noriega, March-Salas, Castillo, García-Q, Hortal and Santos2021a). Confirming what is known for other groups, dung beetle diversity tends to present a hump-shaped pattern, with high species richness at intermediate elevations (Escobar et al. Reference Escobar, Lobo and Halffter2005; da Silva et al. Reference da Silva, Lobo, Hensen, Vaz-de-Mello and Hernández2018; Noriega and Realpe Reference Noriega and Realpe2018; Alvarado et al. Reference Alvarado, Salomão, Hernández-Rivera and Lira2020) or decreasing species richness as elevation increases (Noriega et al. Reference Noriega, Solis, Escobar and Realpe2007; Alvarado et al. Reference Alvarado, Escobar and Montero-Muñoz2014; Espinoza and Noriega Reference Espinoza and Noriega2018; Salomão et al. Reference Salomão, Arriaga-Jiménez and Kohlmann2021a).

Few studies on dung beetles have been undertaken in the northernmost Amazonian region of Brazil (e.g., Andrade et al. Reference Andrade, Barlow, Louzada, Vaz-de-Mello, Silveira and Cochrane2014; Pacheco and Vaz-de-Mello Reference Pacheco and Vaz-de-Mello2015; França et al. Reference França, Korasaki, Louzada and Vaz-de-Mello2016; Génier and Cupello Reference Génier and Cupello2018; Noriega et al. Reference Noriega, Santos, Calatayud, Chozas and Hortal2021b), and none have focussed on studying the fauna of tepuis. The present study aimed to assess the elevational distribution of dung beetles from a tepui located in the Brazilian Amazon. To attain this objective, we compared dung beetle assemblage structure (i.e., species richness, abundance, and biomass) across different elevational bands in the Tepequém tepui. We hypothesised that assemblage structure changes through the tepui’s different elevation strata. The highlands of these mountains comprise dry and open-canopy vegetation, which contrasts with the dominant closed-canopy ombrophilous forest of the lowlands (Prance Reference Prance1996; Nogué et al. Reference Nogué, Rull and Vegas-Vilarrúbia2013). Given that open-canopy environments are more restrictive for tropical dung beetles than closed-canopy environments are (Nichols et al. Reference Nichols, Larsen, Spector, Davis, Escobar, Favila and Vulinec2007), we expected that elevational increases would entail an impoverished assemblage with lower species richness, abundance, and biomass.

Material and methods

Study area

The study was performed in Tepequém, a tepui located in northern Roraima (3° 45' N, 61° 41' W), the northernmost state of Brazil (Fig. 1A). Tepequém has approximately 5500 ha in its table-top mountain area and is geomorphologically comprised of erosive scarps, steep slopes, and valleys (Rodríguez-Zorro et al. Reference Rodríguez-Zorro, Costa and Behling2017). The base of the mountain ranges across approximately 200 m of elevation, and its summit reaches approximately 1100 m. At the mountain’s base and lower elevations between 250 and 700 m, the vegetation consists of a mosaic of ombrophilous tropical forest (Fig. 1B) and anthropogenic habitats (e.g., pasturelands). Towards the summit (above 700 m), the ombrophilous tropical forest is replaced by savannah vegetation (Prance Reference Prance1996), with rupestrian grassland and shrublands (Fig. 1C). The region’s climate is tropical humid (Am), according to Köppen’s classification, with a mean annual temperature of 28 °C and a mean annual rainfall of 1600 mm (Barbosa and Miranda Reference Barbosa, Miranda, Barbosa, Xand and Costa e Souza2004). The rainy season of Tepequém occurs from March to September (mean monthly precipitation: 254 mm; Climate Data 2023).

Fig. 1. A, Tepequém tepui in Roraima state, Brazil. Physiognomies found at: B, higher elevation (above 700 m): savannah vegetation; and C, lower elevation (250–700 m): ombrophilous tropical forest.

Dung beetle trapping

We collected dung beetles in October 2021, which represents the beginning of the region’s dry season (October–February; Climate Data 2023). Sampling was performed every 100 m from 250 to 850 m at seven sites (i.e., elevational bands). To collect dung beetles, four pitfall traps baited with human excrement were installed within each elevational band, and each trap was spaced 5 m from one another. The number and spacing of traps were selected to maximise the number of beetles that could be sampled in each sampling site – an approach commonly used in ecological studies with dung beetles (e.g., Lobo et al. Reference Lobo, Hortal and Cabrero-Sañudo2006; Fletchmann et al. Reference Fletchmann, Tabet and Quintero2009; Filgueiras et al. Reference Filgueiras, Iannuzzi and Leal2011; Salomão et al. Reference Salomão, Cerqueira, Gomes, González-Tokman, Maia and Iannuzzi2021b). Pitfall traps consisted of cylindrical plastic receptacles (20 cm diameter × 15 cm height) buried at the ground surface. Inside the traps, a 250-mL solution of water, salt, and detergent was used to kill and preserve collected specimens. Above each plastic receptacle, a small plastic cup, in which approximately 50 g of human excrement was placed, was set to attract the beetles. Each trap was covered with a plastic lid to prevent rainwater and leaf litter from entering.

Beetles were collected over 24 hours after the traps were set. Specimens were identified to the lowest level possible according to taxonomic keys (e.g., Génier Reference Génier2009; Edmonds and Zídek Reference Edmonds and Zidek2010; Vaz-de-Mello et al. Reference Vaz-de-Mello, Edmonds, Ocampo and Schoolmeesters2011; González-Alvarado and Vaz-de-Mello Reference González-Alvarado and Vaz-de-Mello2014, Reference González-Alvarado and Vaz-de-Mello2021; Pacheco and Vaz-de-Mello Reference Pacheco and Vaz-de-Mello2015) and using the reference materials of the entomological collection of Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (Manaus, Brazil) and the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (Cuiabá, Brazil). Species not identified to species level were morphotyped. Voucher specimens were deposited in the entomological collection of Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (Mato Grosso, Brazil).

Following the approaches of previous ecological studies, beetle body size was used as a proxy for biomass (see Hunt and Simmons Reference Hunt and Simmons2000; Graf et al. Reference Graf, Reid, Aukema and Lindgren2012). We measured pronotum width, which recently has been used as an indicator of body size (Salomão et al. Reference Salomão, González-Tokman, Dáttilo, López-Acosta and Favila2018; Servín-Pastor et al. Reference Servín-Pastor, Salomão, Caselín-Cuevas, Córdoba-Aguilar, Favila and Jacome-Hernández2020). Pronotum width was estimated from digital photographs taken at Google Pixel 2m using the Leica Application Suite software, version 3.4.0 (https://www.leica-microsystems.com/products/microscope-software/p/leica-las-x-ls/). All individuals collected in this study were measured.

Data analysis

To help ensure that our sampling collected a representative diversity of dung beetles at the Tepequém tepui, we calculated sampling coverage. We followed the methodology proposed by Chao and Jost (Reference Chao and Jost2012), which is based on the number of individuals collected of each species in the assemblage. We performed sampling coverage for each elevational band and for all elevational bands combined. To calculate sampling coverage, we used the software iNEXT (Hsieh et al. Reference Hsieh, Ma and Chao2016).

We used generalised linear models and linear models to analyse how beetle species richness, abundance, and body size (total and mean body size) changed across the elevational bands. Elevation was the independent variable, and dung beetle species richness, species abundance, and total and mean body size (i.e., the sum of the body size of all the specimens of each species and the mean body size of all beetles collected in each elevational band) were the dependent variables. The mean body size variable allows us to understand the effect of elevation on body size only, and total body size measures elevational effect on body size and on the complete biomass of each species – that is, on the balance between their body size and abundance. This interaction is important because sometimes a species may change its mean body size across an ecological spectrum but may retain a stable population biomass by increasing its abundance and vice versa. We used generalised linear models with negative binomial distribution in the species richness, species abundance, and mean biomass models, given the overdispersion found in the model (residual deviance/residual df > 2), and we used linear models in the total biomass model. Data distribution was observed by using quantile–quantile plots. The presence of outliers was observed with Cook’s distance. Statistical analyses were conducted following Zuur et al. (Reference Zuur, Ieno, Walker, Saveliev and Smith2009) and Crawley (Reference Crawley2013) and were done in R, version 4.1.3 (R Development Core Team 2022).

We used a Bray–Curtis similarity index to explore the similarities of dung beetle assemblage structure among elevational bands. Subsequently, we analysed the significance of elevation groupings based on resemblance indices through a similarity profile permutation test performed in Primer, version 6.0 (Clarke and Gorley Reference Clarke and Gorley2006). For the similarity profile permutation test, each elevational band (i.e., set of four pitfall traps) was used as a sampling unit.

Results

We collected 83 beetles belonging to 14 species and seven genera (Table 1). Oxysternon festivum (Linnaeus, 1758) and an unidentified Onthophagus species were the most abundant species, representing 23 and 17% of the total beetles sampled, respectively. Deltochilum guildingii (Westwood, 1835) and an unidentified Deltochilum species each were singletons, and Coprophanaeus dardanus (MacLeay, 1819), an unidentified Dichotomius species, and Dichotomius apicalis (Luederwaldt, 1931) each were represented by two specimens. When considering each elevational band separately, sampling coverage ranged from 62.7 (450 m) to 100% (550, 750, and 850 m); when considering all elevational bands together, we obtained 92.8% sampling coverage of dung beetle species from the Tepequém tepui (Table 1).

Table 1. Dung beetles collected and species sampling coverage at different elevational bands in the Tepequém tepui, Roraima, Brazil.

Mean body size = pronotum width × 10.

The body size of species ranged from 2.98 mm (Eurysternus atrosericus Génier, 2009) to 14.63 mm (Oxysternon festivum (Linnaeus, 1758)). Species richness per elevational band ranged between one (850 m) and 11 species (650 m), whereas abundance ranged from five (350 m) to 39 beetles (650 m). Species richness, species abundance, and total and mean body size were unaffected by elevation (Table 2).

Table 2. Generalised linear models and linear models for the effects of elevation on dung beetle species richness and abundance and total and mean body size in seven elevational bands located in the Tepequém tepui, Roraima, Brazil.

Three species were widely recorded (Dichotomius boreus (Olivier, 1789), an unidentified Onthophagus species, and O. festivum) and collected in more than half of the sampling sites. In contrast, seven species were recorded from only one elevational band (five at 650 m). Regarding vegetation physiognomies, only two species were captured in the savannah vegetation (an unidentified Canthon species and Dichotomius nisus (Olivier, 1789)), corresponding to 750 and 850 m (Table 1). Except for those two species, all the others were recorded in humid tropical forests, which occurred between 250 and 650 m elevation (Table 1). The 750 and 850 m elevation bands were grouped according to the dung beetle assemblage structure, and all the other elevations were clustered in another statistically distinct group (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Heatmap of the distribution of dung beetle species throughout the elevational bands of the Tepequém tepui, Roraima, Brazil. The dendrogram shows the grouping of elevational bands according to the Bray–Curtis similarity index, and dashed lines represent statistical groupings according to the similarity profile permutation test (P < 0.05).

Discussion

Mountain ecosystems are critical models for understanding how biodiversity changes according to climatic gradients (Rahbek et al. Reference Rahbek, Borregaard, Colwell, Dalsgaard, Holt and Morueta-Holme2019; Salomão et al. Reference Salomão, Arriaga-Jiménez and Kohlmann2021a). Contrary to previous studies in Amazonian mountainous ecosystems (e.g., Celi et al. Reference Celi, Terneus, Torres and Ortega2004; Espinoza and Noriega Reference Espinoza and Noriega2018), we did not find elevational effects on dung beetle species richness, abundance, or biomass in the present study. Nevertheless, our findings may be analysed to consider the current landscape scenario in the studied tepui. Gold mining activities and livestock expansion in the Tepequém region have led to deforestation in recent years (Almeida-Filho and Shimabukuro Reference Almeida-Filho and Shimabukuro2010; Barros et al. Reference Barros, Melo, Senwo, Evald, Siqueira, Bardales and Nunes2018). Among our study sites, lower tropical rainforest elevation (i.e., below 700 m) had heterogeneous conservation levels: our sampling areas comprised secondary forests or small primary forest fragments. Because the elevational effects on dung beetle diversity are still not clearly understood in tepui landscapes, the results presented herein should be analysed carefully and consider that anthropogenic effects may have decreased the diversity at the lower elevation and that forest disturbance is one of the most important forces driving dung beetle ecological dynamics (e.g., Filgueiras et al. Reference Filgueiras, Iannuzzi and Leal2011; Braga et al. Reference Braga, Korasaki, Andresen and Louzada2013; Alvarado et al. Reference Alvarado, Salomão, Hernández-Rivera and Lira2020).

Our study showed a marked difference between the dung beetle assemblage sampled from the highlands (> 700 m) and those sampled from the lowlands and intermediate elevations. Of the 14 species we sampled, only two (D. nisus and an unidentified Canthon species) were found in the highlands, and both were recorded exclusively at those elevations. The Tepequém tepui comprises two marked vegetation structures, one from the lowlands and intermediate elevation (tropical rainforest) and one from the highlands (savannah, rupestrian grassland; Prance Reference Prance1996; Campos et al. Reference Campos, Schaefer, Pontara, Xavier, Júnior, Corrêa and Villa2022), and according to our samples, dung beetle species composition appears to respond to this bimodal vegetational pattern. Interestingly, D. nisus, a broadly distributed species in Brazilian open vegetation (e.g., the Cerrado savanna and Caatinga dry forest, Brazil; Cassenote et al. Reference Cassenote, Valois, Maldaner and Vaz-de-Mello2020), was recorded in the highlands. Conversely, the species from the lower elevation are all commonly found in Amazon rainforests (Quintero and Halffter Reference Quintero and Halffter2009; Cupello and Vaz-de-Mello Reference Cupello and Vaz-de-Mello2013; Ratcliffe Reference Ratcliffe2013; Harada et al. Reference Harada, Araújo, Overal and Silva2020). The contrasting highland–lowland tepuis vegetation structure resembles those observed in other similar tropical elevational gradients, such as the brejos de altitude – the elevational enclaves of rainforest inserted in Caatinga dry forests in Brazil (e.g., Pôrto et al. Reference Pôrto, Cabral and Tabarelli2004; Silva Reference Silva2011; Salomão et al. Reference Salomão, Lira, Foerster and Vaz-de-Mello2022). Wherever abrupt habitat shifts occur along elevational gradients, the species located in the highlands will likely differ from those inhabiting the lowlands.

Some important caveats need to be considered when interpreting the patterns observed in our study: these include our limited sampling effort and the relatively small elevational range comprised in the Tepequém tepui. Although we used four pitfall traps per elevational band to improve our sampling efficiency, we had a limited period during which traps were kept active in the field (24 hours). Pitfall traps are usually left to remain active during 48 hours in the field (e.g., Liberal et al. Reference Liberal, Farias, Meiado, Filgueiras and Iannuzzi2011; Medina and Lopes Reference Medina and Lopes2014), but studies that use pitfall traps for only 24-hour periods also present solid results encompassing dung beetle diversity dynamics (e.g., Lobo et al. Reference Lobo, Lumarett and Jay-Robert2001; Barraza et al. Reference Barraza, Montes, Martínez and Deloya2010; Braga et al. Reference Braga, Korasaki, Andresen and Louzada2013). Even with an acceptable 24-hour period of pitfall traps, we collected only a relatively low number of beetles (mean of approximately three beetles per pitfall trap) and a relatively low sampling coverage in the elevational bands of 250 m and 450 m. Any analysis of our data must consider that some tropical ecosystems may present a marked dung beetle seasonal activity (e.g., Hanski and Cambefort Reference Hanski and Cambefort1991; Scholtz et al. Reference Scholtz, Davis and Kryger2009; Liberal et al. Reference Liberal, Farias, Meiado, Filgueiras and Iannuzzi2011). In this sense, one hypothesis for the present study is that sampling during the beginning of the dry season in this region may have biased our results, especially for the highlands (above 700 m), which have a drier vegetation physiognomy. Dry tropical ecosystems (e.g., Caatinga dry forest) are more prone to seasonal fluctuations in beetle activity compared to more humid ecosystems (e.g., Atlantic rainforest; see Liberal et al. Reference Liberal, Farias, Meiado, Filgueiras and Iannuzzi2011; Iannuzzi et al. Reference Iannuzzi, Salomão, Costa and Liberal2016). Although it has been argued that Neotropical studies on dung beetles as currently carried out apply an excessive sampling effort (Rivera and Favila Reference Rivera and Favila2022), we believe that installing more traps and presenting a broader spatial and temporal distribution in the tepui mountains could present clearer trends regarding beetle elevational distribution.

Regarding the limited vertical range of the Tepequém tepui, it is important to understand this spatial limitation as a consequence of the close elevation between our sampling units (i.e., 100 m among each sampling site). Studies encompassing elevational dynamics on dung beetle diversity in the Neotropics often consider elevational intervals ranging from 200 to 400 m (e.g., Escobar et al. Reference Escobar, Lobo and Halffter2005, Reference Escobar, Halffter and Arellano2007; Alvarado et al. Reference Alvarado, Salomão, Hernández-Rivera and Lira2020; Kohlmann et al. Reference Kohlmann, Arriaga-Jiménez and Salomão2021). Our sampling design considered an elevational gradient, but seven elevational bands spaced 100 m apart may be excessive for the limited vertical space of Tepequém tepui. We believe our reduced spacing among the elevational bands may have led to a spatial overlap and, in consequence, a sub-estimation of the elevation effects on dung beetle species richness, abundance, and biomass.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to focus on dung beetle diversity in a tepui. Previous dung beetle studies in the region focused on lowland fauna (França et al. Reference França, Korasaki, Louzada and Vaz-de-Mello2016; Choo et al. Reference Choo, Gill, Zuur, Zent and Economo2019) or gathered nonstandardised information encompassing larger areas in the region (Pacheco and Vaz-de-Mello Reference Pacheco and Vaz-de-Mello2015; Génier and Cupello Reference Génier and Cupello2018). Considering such data scarcity and the biological relevance of the tepuis, we recommend that future studies perform intense biodiversity inventories at the different elevations of these mountains, focusing efforts on the tepuis’ summits. Although the Tepequém tepui did not present a clear relationship between elevation, diversity, and biomass, we observed a marked difference in dung beetle assemblages related to vegetation physiognomy, which is itself related to elevation. These table-top mountains may serve as good models for studying ecological dynamics (e.g., the effect of the area of the tepuis on diversity) and biogeographical hypotheses (e.g., the “Lost World” hypothesis; Rull Reference Rull2004). We therefore believe that this study should be considered a starting point in improving our understanding of the dung beetle diversity of the tepuis.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Estância Ecológica Sesc Tepequém for providing logistic support. R.P.S. was supported by a Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA) postdoctoral fellowship from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. A.F.A.L. was funded by the Fundação de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado da Paraíba (FAPESQ) and by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) through a postdoctoral scholarship (PDCTR-300104/2022-7).

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Subject Editor: Andrew Smith

References

Almeida-Filho, R. and Shimabukuro, Y.E. 2010. Detecting areas disturbed by gold mining activities through JERS-1 SAR images, Roraima State, Brazilian Amazon. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21: 33573362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarado, F., Escobar, F., and Montero-Muñoz, J. 2014. Diversity and biogeographical makeup of the dung beetle communities inhabiting two mountains in the Mexican Transition Zone. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 14: 105114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarado, F., Salomão, R.P., Hernández-Rivera, A., and Lira, A.F.A. 2020. Different responses of dung beetle diversity and feeding guilds from natural and disturbed habitats across a subtropical elevational gradient. Acta Oecologica, 104: 103533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, R.B., Barlow, J., Louzada, J., Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z., Silveira, J., and Cochrane, M.A. 2014. Tropical forest fires and biodiversity: dung beetle community and biomass responses in a northern Brazilian Amazon forest. Journal of Insect Conservation, 18: 10971104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, R.I. and Miranda, I.S. 2004. Fitofisionomias e diversidade vegetal das savanas de Roraima [Phytophysiology from the vegetal diversity of the savannas of Roraima]. In Savanas de Roraima: etnoecologia, biodiversidade e potencialidades agrossilvipastoris [Savannas of Roraima: ethnoecology, biodiversity from the potentialities of agroforestry]. Edited by Barbosa, R.I., Xand, H.A.M., and Costa e Souza, E.M.. Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos, Boa Vista, Brazil. Pp. 6178.Google Scholar
Barbosa-Silva, R.G., Bueno, M.L., Labiak, P.H., Nadruz, M.A., Martinelli, C.G., and Forzza, R.C. 2020. The Pantepui in the Brazilian Amazon: vascular flora of Serra do Aracá, a cradle of diversity, richness and endemism. The Botanical Review, 86: 359375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barraza, J.M., Montes, J.F., Martínez, N.H., and Deloya, C. 2010. Assemblage of coprophagous beetles (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) of tropical dry forest in Bahía Concha, Santa Marta (Colombia). Revista Colombiana de Entomología, 36: 285291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, L.S., Melo, V.F., Senwo, Z.N., Evald, A., Siqueira, R.H.S., Bardales, R.M., and Nunes, T.K.O. 2018. Effects of management practices and land use on biological and enzymatic attributes of an agricultural area. Journal of Agricultural Science, 10: 110122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, P.E. and Riina, R. 2005. Insights into the diversity of the Pantepui flora and the biogeographic complexity of the Guayana Shield. Biologiske Skrifter, 55: 145167.Google Scholar
Braga, R.F., Korasaki, V., Andresen, E., and 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: e57786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campos, P.V., Schaefer, C.E.G.R., Pontara, V., Xavier, M.V.B., Júnior, J.F.V., Corrêa, G.R., and Villa, P.M. 2022. Local-scale environmental filtering shape plant taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity in an isolated Amazonian tepui (Tepequém table mountain). Evolutionary Ecology, 36: 5573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassenote, S., Valois, M.C., Maldaner, M.E., and Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z. 2020. Taxonomic revision of Dichotomius (Selenocopris) nisus (Olivier, 1719) and Dichotomius (Selenocopris) superbus (Felsche, 1901). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 64: 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celi, J., Terneus, E., Torres, J., and Ortega, M. 2004. Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) diversity in an altitudinal gradient in the Cutucú range, Morona Santiago, Ecuadorian Amazon. Lyonia, 7: 3752.Google Scholar
Chao, A. and Jost, L. 2012. Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology, 93: 25332547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choo, J., Gill, B.D., Zuur, A.F., Zent, E., and Economo, E.P. 2019. Impacts of an Indigenous settlement on the taxonomic and functional structure of dung beetle communities in the Venezuelan Amazon. Biodiversity and Conservation, 29: 207228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. 2006. Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. Primer-e, Plymouth, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Climate Data. 2023. Dados climáticos para cidades mundiais [Climate dice for world wars; online]. Available from https://pt.climate-data.org/search/?q=Amajari [accessed 7 February 2023].Google Scholar
Crawley, M. 2013. The R book. Second edition. Wiley & Sons, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Cupello, M. and Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z. 2013. New evidence for the validity of Coprophanaeus (C.) terrali Arnaud, 2002 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Phanaeini), a dung beetle from Brazil. Zootaxa, 3717: 359368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
da Silva, P.G., Lobo, J.M., Hensen, M.C., Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z., and Hernández, M.I.M. 2018. Turnover and nestedness in subtropical dung beetle assemblages along an elevational gradient. Diversity and Distribution, 24: 12771290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Désamoré, A., Vanderpoorten, A., Laenen, B., Gradstein, S.R., and Kok, P.J.R. 2010. Biogeography of the Lost World (Pantepui region, northeastern South America): insights from bryophytes. Phytotaxa, 9: 254265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, W.D. and Zidek, J. 2010. A taxonomic review of the Neotropical genus Coprophanaeus Olsoufieff, 1924 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Insecta Mundi, 129: 1111.Google Scholar
Escobar, F., Halffter, G., and Arellano, L. 2007. From forest to pasture: an evaluation of the influence of environment and biogeography on the structure of beetle (Scarabaeinae) assemblages along three elevational gradients in the Neotropical region. Ecography, 30: 193208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, F., Lobo, J.M., and Halffter, G. 2005. Altitudinal variation of dung beetle (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) assemblages in the Colombian Andes. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 14: 327337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinoza, V.R. and Noriega, J.A. 2018. Diversity of the dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in an altitudinal gradient in the east slope of Los Andes, Napo Province, Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity, 4: 145151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filgueiras, B.K.C., Iannuzzi, L., and Leal, I.R. 2011. Habitat fragmentation alters the structure of dung beetle communities in the Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation, 144: 362369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletchmann, C.A.H., Tabet, V.G., and Quintero, I. 2009. Influence of carrion smell and rebaiting time on the efficiency of pitfall traps to dung beetle sampling. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 132: 211217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
França, F.M., Korasaki, V., Louzada, J., and Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z. 2016. First report on dung beetles in intra-Amazonian savannahs in Roraima, Brazil. Biota Neotropica, 16: e0034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Génier, F. 2009. Le genre Eurysternus Dalman, 1824 (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Oniticellini): révision taxonomique et clés de détermination illustrées [The genus Eurysternus Dalman, 1824 (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Oniticellini): taxonomic revision and illustrated identification keys]. Pensoft, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Génier, F. and Cupello, M. 2018. Canthidium alvarezi Martínez and Halffter, 1986: a remarkable Ateuchus Weber, 1801 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Insecta Mundi, 646: 14.Google Scholar
González-Alvarado, A. and Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z. 2014. Taxonomic review of the subgenus Hybomidium Shipp, 1897 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Deltochilum). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 40: 431476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Alvarado, A. and Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z. 2021. Towards a comprehensive taxonomic revision of the Neotropical dung beetle subgenus, Deltochilum (Deltohyboma) Lane, 1946 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): division into species-groups. PLOS One, 16: e0244657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graf, M., Reid, M.L., Aukema, B.H., and Lindgren, B.S. 2012. Association of tree diameter with body size and lipid content of mountain pine beetles. The Canadian Entomologist, 1441: 467477. https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2012.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halffter, G. and Favila, M.E. 1993. The Scarabaeinae (Insecta: Coleoptera): an animal group for analyzing, inventorying and monitoring biodiversity in tropical rainforest and modified landscapes. Biology International, 27: 1521.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. and Cambefort, Y. 1991. The dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harada, L.M., Araújo, I.S., Overal, W.L., and Silva, F.A.B. 2020. Comparison of dung beetle communities (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) in oil palm plantations and native forest in the eastern Amazon, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 64: e2019102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, T.C., Ma, K.H., and Chao, A. 2016. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7: 14511456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. and Simmons, L.W. 2000. Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus . Evolution, 54: 936941.Google ScholarPubMed
Iannuzzi, L., Salomão, R.P., Costa, F.C., and Liberal, C.N. 2016. Environmental patterns and daily activity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil. Entomotropica, 31: 196207.Google Scholar
Kohlmann, B., Arriaga-Jiménez, A., and Salomão, R.P. 2021. Rapoport’s Rule and the effect of the last glaciation upon elevational range size: an analysis using a dung beetle model (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Onthophagus) in Mexican tropical mountains. The Holocene, 32: 208219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körner, C. 2007. The use of ‘altitude’ in ecological research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22: 569574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lara, A.C.F., Fernandes, G.W., and Gonçalves-Alvim, S.J. 2002. Tests of hypotheses on patterns of gall distribution along an altitudinal gradient. Tropical Zoology, 15: 219232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, T.H., Lopera, A., and Forsyth, A. 2006. Extreme trophic and habitat specialization by Peruvian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 60: 315324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberal, C.N., Farias, A.M.I., Meiado, M.V., Filgueiras, B.K.C., and Iannuzzi, L. 2011. How habitat change and rainfall affect dung beetle diversity in Caatinga, a Brazilian semi-arid ecosystem. Journal of Insect Science, 11: 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobo, J.M., Hortal, J., and Cabrero-Sañudo, F.J. 2006. Regional and local influence of grazing activity on the diversity of a semi-arid dung beetle community. Diversity and Distribution, 12: 111123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobo, J.M., Lumarett, J., and 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). Diversity and Distribution, 7: 257270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomolino, M.V. 2001. Elevation gradients of species-density: historical and prospective views. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 10: 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCain, C.M. and Grythes, J. 2010. Elevational gradients in species richness. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Macedo, R., Audino, L.D., Korasaki, V., and Louzada, J. 2020. Conversion of Cerrado savannas into exotic pastures: the relative importance of vegetation and food resources for dung beetle assemblages. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 288: 106709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, A.F., Dickinson, K.J.M., and Hofstede, R.G.M. 2000. Alpine vegetation, plant distribution, life forms, and environments in a perhumid New Zealand region: oceanic and tropical high mountain affinities. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 32: 240254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDiarmid, R.W. and Donnelly, M.A. 2005. The herpetofauna of the Guayana Highlands: amphibians and reptiles of the Lost World. In Ecology and evolution in the tropics: a herpetological perspective. Edited by Donnelly, M., Crother, B.I., Guyer, C., Wake, M.H., and White, M.E.. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America. Pp. 461560.Google Scholar
Medina, A.M. and Lopes, P.P. 2014. Resource utilization and temporal segregation of Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) community in a Caatinga fragment. Neotropical Entomology, 43: 127133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, E., Larsen, T., Spector, S., Davis, A.L., Escobar, F., Favila, M., and Vulinec, K. 2007. Global dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: a quantitative literature review and meta-analysis. Biological Conservation, 137: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nogué, S., Rull, V., and Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T. 2013. Elevational gradients in the Neotropical table mountains: patterns of endemism and implications for conservation. Diversity and Distributions, 19: 676687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noriega, J.A., March-Salas, M., Castillo, S., García-Q, H., Hortal, J., and Santos, A.M.C. 2021a. Human perturbations reduce dung beetle diversity and dung removal ecosystem function. Biotropica, 53: 753766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noriega, J.A. and Realpe, E. 2018. Altitudinal turnover of species in a Neotropical peripheral mountain system: a case study with dung beetles (Coleoptera: Aphodiinae and Scarabaeinae). Environmental Entomology, 47: 13761387.Google Scholar
Noriega, J.A., Santos, A.M.C., Calatayud, J., Chozas, S., and Hortal, J. 2021b. Short- and long-term temporal changes in the assemblage structure of Amazonian dung beetles. Oecologia, 195: 719736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noriega, J.A., Solis, C., Escobar, F., and Realpe, E. 2007. Escarabajos coprófagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) de la província de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta [Coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from the province of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta]. Biota Colombiana, 8: 7786.Google Scholar
Oliveira-Filho, A.T., Dexter, K.G., Pennington, R.T., Simon, M.F., Bueno, M.L., and Neves, D.M. 2021. On the floristic identity of Amazonian vegetation types. Biotropica, 53: 767777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience, 51: 933938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otavo, S.E., Parrado-Rosselli, A., and Noriega, J.A. 2013. Scarabaeoidea superfamily (Insecta: Coleoptera) as a bioindicator element of anthropogenic disturbance in an Amazon national park. Revista de Biología Tropical, 61: 735752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, T.L. and Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z. 2015. Dung beetles of the tribe Phanaeini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) from Roraima state, northern Brazil: checklist and key to species. Biota Neotropica, 15: e20140145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pôrto, K.C., Cabral, J.J.P., and Tabarelli, M. 2004. Brejos de altitude em Pernambuco e Paraíba: história natural, ecologia e conservação [Altitude swamps in Pernambuco and Paraíba: natural history, ecology and conservation]. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
Prance, G.T. 1996. Islands in Amazonia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 351: 823833.Google Scholar
Quintero, I. and Halffter, G. 2009. Temporal changes in a community of dung beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) resulting from the modification and fragmentation of tropical rain forest. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, 25: 625649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2022. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rahbek, C., Borregaard, M.K., Colwell, R.K., Dalsgaard, B., Holt, B.G., Morueta-Holme, N., et al. 2019. Humboldt’s enigma: what causes global patterns of mountain biodiversity? Science, 365: 11081113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliffe, B.C. 2013. The dung- and carrion-feeding scarabs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) of an Amazonian blackwater rainforest: results of a continuous, 56-week, baited-pitfall trap study. The Coleopterists Bulletin, 67: 481520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, J.D. and Favila, M.E. 2022. Good news! Sampling intensity needed for accurate assessments of dung beetle diversity may be lower in the Neotropics. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10: 999488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Zorro, P.A., Costa, M.L., and Behling, H. 2017. Mid-Holocene vegetation dynamics with an early expansion of Mauritia flexuosa palm trees inferred from the Serra do Tepequém in the savannas of Roraima State in Amazonia, northwestern Brazil. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 26: 455468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rull, V. 2004. Biogeography of the ‘Lost World’: a palaeoecological perspective. Earth-Science Reviews, 67: 125137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rull, V., Huber, O., Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T., and Señaris, C. 2019. Definition and characterization of the Pantepui biogeographical province. In Biodiveristy of Pantepui: the pristine “Lost World” of the Neotropical Guiana Highlands. Edited by Rull, V., Huber, O., Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T., and Señaris, C.. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom. Pp. 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomão, R.P., Arriaga-Jiménez, A., and Kohlmann, B. 2021a. The relationship between altitudinal gradients, diversity, and body size in a dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae: Onthophagus) model system. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 99: 3343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomão, R.P., Cerqueira, L.V.M.P., Gomes, A.A.C., González-Tokman, D., Maia, A.C.D., and Iannuzzi, L. 2021b. Dung or carrion? Sex and age determine resource attraction in dung beetles. Ecological Entomology, 47: 5262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomão, R.P., González-Tokman, D., Dáttilo, W., López-Acosta, J.C., and Favila, M.E. 2018. Landscape structure and composition define the body condition of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in a fragmented tropical rainforest. Ecological Indicators, 88: 144151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomão, R.P., Lira, A.F.A., Foerster, S.Í.A., and Vaz-de-Mello, F. 2022. Dung beetle assemblage (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) from an altitudinal enclave of rainforest surrounded by a seasonally tropical dry forest in the Neotropics. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 42: 5562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholtz, C.H., Davis, A.L.V., and Kryger, U. 2009. Evolutionary biology and conservation of dung beetles. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Schoolmeesters, P. 2023. World Scarabaeidae database. In Catalogue of life checklist (version 2023-01-03). Edited by O. Bánki, Y. Roskov, M. Döring, G. Ower, L. Vandepitte, D. Hobern, et al. Available from https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/dataset/1027 [accessed 12 February 2023].Google Scholar
Servín-Pastor, M., Salomão, R.P., Caselín-Cuevas, F., Córdoba-Aguilar, A., Favila, M.E., Jacome-Hernández, A., et al. 2020. Malnutrition and parasitism shape ecosystem services provided by dung beetles. Ecological Indicators, 121: 107205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, F.A.B. 2011. First record of Coprophanaeus bellicosus (Olivier) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) in a ‘brejo de altitude’ forest in northeastern Brazil: a historical biogeographical approach. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 55: 615–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, S. 2006. Scarabaeinae dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): an invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. The Coleopterists Society Monograph, 5: 7183.Google Scholar
Vaz-de-Mello, F., Edmonds, W.D., Ocampo, F.C., and Schoolmeesters, P. 2011. A multilingual key to the genera and subgenera of the subfamily Scarabaeinae of the New World (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Zootaxa, 2854: 173.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, New York, New York, United States of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. A, Tepequém tepui in Roraima state, Brazil. Physiognomies found at: B, higher elevation (above 700 m): savannah vegetation; and C, lower elevation (250–700 m): ombrophilous tropical forest.

Figure 1

Table 1. Dung beetles collected and species sampling coverage at different elevational bands in the Tepequém tepui, Roraima, Brazil.

Figure 2

Table 2. Generalised linear models and linear models for the effects of elevation on dung beetle species richness and abundance and total and mean body size in seven elevational bands located in the Tepequém tepui, Roraima, Brazil.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Heatmap of the distribution of dung beetle species throughout the elevational bands of the Tepequém tepui, Roraima, Brazil. The dendrogram shows the grouping of elevational bands according to the Bray–Curtis similarity index, and dashed lines represent statistical groupings according to the similarity profile permutation test (P < 0.05).