The role of local and regional processes in shaping dung beetle communities in tropical forest plantations in Borneo

Abstract

We examine whether rain forest dung beetle species found in plantations in Sabah, northern Borneo, tend to be endemic or geographically widespread. In addition, linear regressions of abundance vs. distance from a major river in primary rain forest are calculated to see if species found in plantation forest show affinity to one specific biotope (riverine vs. interior forest) in their natural habitat. Results show that 14 of the 40 species recorded from plantations are endemic to Borneo. Only edge‐specialist endemic species are found in plantation forest, with no interior‐forest specialists recorded. Data suggest that endemic species that are adapted to more exposed conditions in primary rain forest, such as riverine species, can in some instances tolerate man‐made habitats. Twenty‐nine species (±SE 4.0) per transect are recorded from plantation transects, whereas 44.2 (±1.7 SE) are recorded in primary rain forest. As species richness is much lower in plantations than natural forest, implying loss of biodiversity, we conclude that measures of biogeographic distinctiveness, whereby endemic species confer higher values, may be misleading unless they take into account edge‐affinity. Local‐ as well as regional‐distributional data may therefore be needed to interpret correctly patterns of species assemblages in derived forest ecosystems.

Effect of habitat transformation from grassland to Acacia mangium plantation on dung beetle assemblage in East Kalimantan, Indonesia

“…Moreover, indicator species for the intact natural forests were never or rarely seen in plantations, though many indicator species typically found in grasslands were also observed in plantations. These results were consistent with previous studies that showed lower species richness and lower biomass in plantations compared with primary or intact natural forests, as well as different assemblages between plantations and primary or intact natural forests (Nummelin and Hanski 1989;Estrada et al 1998;Davis et al 2000Davis et al , 2001Estrada and Coates-Estrada 2002;Davis andPhilips 2005, 2009;Barlow et al 2007;Gardner et al 2008b). In these studies, the tree species in the plantations were Pinus caribbaea, Cupressus lusitanica, oil palm, Eucalypus spp., A. mangium, mahogany, Albizia falcataria, and fruit trees-all suitable for planting on wastelands as well as for the present study.…”

“…It should be noted, however, that most of the species found in plantations were similar to those in primary or intact natural forests. Other studies have also reported that assemblages in plantations largely differed from those in primary or intact natural forests (Nummelin and Hanski 1989;Estrada et al 1998;Davis et al 2000Davis et al , 2001Estrada and Coates-Estrada 2002;Davis andPhilips 2005, 2009;Barlow et al 2007;Gardner et al 2008b). Several comparative studies of dung beetle communities between natural forests and clearcuts or pastures have reported that species richness is lower in clearcuts and/or pastures than in natural forests and that assemblages in clearcuts and/or pastures differ largely from those in natural forests (Howden and Nealis 1975;Klein 1989;Scheffler 2005;Hosaka et al 2014).…”

Utilisation of introduced Brazilian pastures ecosystems by native dung beetles: diversity patterns and resource use

“…Dung beetle communities are affected by several local and regional factors (Menédez & Gutierrez, 1996;Davis et al, 2000;Scheffler, 2005). Dung quality and type is an important local factor which affects dung beetle larval survival (Owen et al, 2006), and it is commonly accepted that dung attractiveness in adult beetles varies across dung types (AlHouty & AlMusalam, 1997).…”

Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) diversity in continuous forest, forest fragments and cattle pastures in a landscape of Chiapas, Mexico: the effects of anthropogenic changes

“…The Scarabaeinae have also been widely used as indicator groups (see Nichols et al 2007, including a meta-analysis and a synthesis of 33 publications; Howden and Nealis 1975;Klein 1989;Halffter et al 1992;Estrada et al 1998;Davis et al 2000;Vulinec 2000Vulinec , 2002Andresen 2003;Scheffler 2005;Quintero and Roslin 2005;Shahabuddin et al 2005;Chapman et al 2003;Avendaño-Mendoza et al 2005;Vulinec et al 2006, along with some other references included in our 'Introduction and discussion').…”