Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:06:16.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SPECIES DIVERSITY AND COMPOSITION OF DUNG BEETLE (COLEOPTERA: SCARABAEOIDEA) ASSEMBLAGES IN NORTH AMERICA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Jorge M. Lobo
Jorge M. Lobo*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, c/ José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006, Madrid, España
*
1 E-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data from 18 studies carried out on dung beetles from temperate North America (north of 25 ° latitude) are compared to verify the existence of some geographical pattern in the variation of three parameters: (1) species number, (2) taxonomic composition, and (3) number of introduced species. Southern localities are characterized by a larger number of species and a significantly higher number of scarabaeine species than northern localities (only southern communities located inside the Chihuahuan desert do not conform to this pattern). To explain the latitudinal pattern in faunistic composition and number of species, historical factors are postulated. Foreign species of the tribe Aphodiini seem to be more frequent in the northern localities where more aphodiine native species occur. In contrast, foreign species of the subfamily Scarabaeinae are not more frequent in the southern localities with a greater number of native scarabaeine species. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the more diverse assemblages of native dung beetle are more resistant to invasion by foreign species.

Résumé

Ce travail met en relation la richesse en espèce, la composition taxonomique, ainsi que le nombre des espèces introduites dans les communautés de Scarabaeidae coprophages d’Amérique du Nord. L’objetif était de verifier l’existence d’une règle de la variation géographique de ces differents paramètres en traitant les informations de dix-huit études réalisées dans les régions au dessus des 25 ° de latitude. L’analyse des donnés montre que les régions méridionales se caractérisent par une plus grande richesse et un nombre d’espèces de la sous-famille Scarabaeinae plus élevé que les regions septentrionales. Seules les régions méridionales situées à l’intérieur du désert de Chihuahua ne suivent pas cette règle. On suggère que les facteurs historiques peuvent expliquer cette variation latitudinale en composition faunistique et nombre d’espèces. La présence d’espèces introduites d’Aphodiini paraît être plus fréquente dans les localités plus septentrionales, lesquelles contiennent le plus grand nombre d’espèces indigènes. Au contraire, la présence des espèces de Scarabaeinae introduites n’est pas plus fréquente dans les localités méridionales, là où les espèces indigènes sont plus nombreuses. Ces résultats appuient l’hypothèse selon laquelle les communautés indigènes de Scarabaeidae coprophages d’Amérique du Nord les plus riches sont plus résistantes à l’invasion par des espèces introduites.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 132 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 307 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2000

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.)

References

Beerling, D.J., Woodward, F.I. 1996. Palaeo-ecological perspectives on plant responses to global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 20–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, R.R. 1970. Insects associated with bovine droppings in Kerr and Bexar counties, Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology 63: 1023–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, R.R. 1972. Additional insects associated with bovine droppings in Kerr and Bexar counties, Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology 65: 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, R.R., Aga, A. 1978. Onthophagus gazella: progress of experimental releases in south Texas. Folia Entomológica Mexicana 39–40: 190–1Google Scholar
Bordat, P., Paulian, R., Pittino, R. 1990. Faune de Madagascar. Insectes. Coléopterès Aphodiinae. Museum National Histoire Naturelle (Paris) 74: 1–255Google Scholar
Cambefort, Y. 1991. Biogeography and evolution. pp. 51–67in Hanski, I., Cambefort, Y. (Eds.), Dung beetle ecology. Oxford: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervenka, V.J., Moon, R.D. 1991. Arthropods associated with fresh cattle dung pats in Minnesota. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 64: 131–45Google Scholar
Dajoz, R. 1994. Les Coléoptères coprophages du sud-est de L'Arizona (États-Unis). Composition spécifique, biogéographie et structure des peuplements. Annales de la Sociéte Entomologique de France 30: 159–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellacasa, M. 1987. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 66: 3–455Google Scholar
Dellacasa, M. 1988. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Adenda et Corrigenda (first note). Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 67: 291–316Google Scholar
Dellacasa, M. 1991. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Adenda et Corrigenda (second note). Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 70: 3–57Google Scholar
Dellacasa, M. 1995. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Adenda et Corrigenda (third note). Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 74: 159–232Google Scholar
Dellacasa, G., Gordon, R.D. 1994. North American genus-group taxa of Aphodiini and their species (Coleoptera, Aphodiidae). Frustula Entomologica 27: 157–74Google Scholar
Dellacasa, G., Gordon, R.D. 1997. Nearctic and Neotropical genus-group taxa of Aphodiini and their type species. Annali del Museo Civico di storia Naturale “G. Doria” 91: 355–82Google Scholar
Edmonds, W.D. 1994. Revision of Phanaeus Macleay, a New World genus of Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). Serial Publications of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 443: 1–105Google Scholar
Farrell, B.D., Mitter, C., Futuyma, D.J. 1992. Diversification at the insect–plant interface. BioScience 42: 34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincher, G.T. 1986. Importation, colonization, and release of dung-burying scarabs. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America 62: 69–76Google Scholar
Floate, K.D., Gill, B.D. 1998. Seasonal activity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) associated with cattle dung in southern Alberta and their geographic distribution in Canada. The Canadian Entomologist 130: 131–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Williams, P.H. 1996. Spatial patterns in taxonomic diversity. pp. 202–29 in Gaston, K.J. (Ed.), Biodiversity. A biology of numbers and difference. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Gordon, R.D. 1983. Studies on the genus Aphodius of the United States and Canada (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). VII. Food and habitat; distribution; key to eastern species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 85: 633–52Google Scholar
Halffter, G. 1964. La entomofauna americana, ideas acerca de su origen y distribución. Folia Entomológica Mexicana 6: 1–108Google Scholar
Halffter, G. 1976. Distribución de los insectos en la Zona de Transición Mexicana. Relaciones con la entomofauna Norteamericana. Folia Entomológica Mexicana 35: 1–64Google Scholar
Halffter, G., Martínez, A. 1977. Revisión monográfica de los Canthonina americanos, IV parte. Clave para géneros y subgéneros. Folia Entomológica Mexicana 38: 29–107Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 1986. Individual behaviour, population dynamics and community structure of Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Europe. Acta Oecologica, Oecologia Generalis 7: 171–87Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 1991. North temperate dung beetles. pp. 75–96in Hanski, I., Cambefort, Y. (Eds.), Dung beetle ecology. Oxford: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I., Cambefort, Y. 1991. Species richness. pp. 350–65 in Hanski, I., Cambefort, Y. (Eds.), Dung beetle ecology. Oxford: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, R. 1990. Dynamic biogeography. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, R. 1997. Impact of biogeography on a population-biological paradigm shift. Journal of Biogeography 24: 541–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howden, H.F., Cartwright, O.L. 1963. Scarab beetles of the genus Onthophagus Latreille North of Mexico (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the United States National Museum 114: 1–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howden, H.F., Scholtz, C.H. 1986. Changes in a Texas dung beetle community between 1975 and 1985 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 40: 313–16Google Scholar
Hurlbert, S.H. 1971. The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay-Robert, P., Lobo, J.M., Lumaret, J.P. 1997. Elevational turnover and species richness variation in European montane dung beetle assemblages. Arctic & Alpine Research 29: 196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, H., Balsbaugh, E.U. 1972. Succession of adult Coleoptera in bovine manure in East Central South Dakota. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 65: 1333–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, H., Balsbaugh, E.U., McDaniel, B. 1974. Faunistic comparison of adult Coleoptera recovered from cattle and sheep manure in east-central South Dakota. Entomological News 84: 67–71Google Scholar
Kohlmann, B. 1984. Biosistemática de las especies norteamericanas del género Ateuchus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Folia Entomologica Mexicana 60: 3–81Google Scholar
Kruskal, J.B. and Wish, M. 1978. Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills: Sage PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, R.E., Ricklefs, R.E. 1993. Continental comparisons of temperate-zone tree species diversity. pp. 294–314in Ricklefs, R.E., Schluter, D. (Eds.), Species diversity in ecological communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Legner, E.F. 1986. The requirement for reassessment of interactions among dung beetles, symbovine flies, and natural enemies. pp. 120–31 in Patterson, R.S., Rutz, D.A. (Eds.), Biological control of muscoid flies. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America 61Google Scholar
Lobo, J.M. 1996. Diversity, biogeographical considerations and spatial structure of a recently invaded dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) community in the Chihuahuan desert. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5: 342–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobo, J.M., Lumaret, J.P., Jay-Robert, P. 1998. Sampling dung beetles in the French Mediterranean area: effects of abiotic factors and farm practices. Pedobiologia 42: 252–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, D.M. 1993. Biological invasions: lessons for Ecology. TREE 8: 133–7Google ScholarPubMed
Lubchenco, J., Olson, A.N., Brubaker, L.B., Carpenter, S.R., Holland, M.M., Hubbell, S.P., Levin, S.A., MacMahon, J.A., Matson, P.A., Melillo, J.M., Mooney, H.A., Peterson, C.H., Pulliam, H.R., Real, L.A., Regal, P.J., Risser, P.G. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology 72: 371–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, J.A., Reynolds, J.F. 1988. Statistical ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Lumaret, J.P., Bertrand, M., Kadiri, N. 1992. Changes in resources: consequences for the dynamics of dung beetle communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 339–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macqueen, A., Beirne, B.P. 1974. Insects and mites associated with fresh cattle dung in the southern interior of British Columbia. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 71: 5–9Google Scholar
Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. London: Croom HelmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín-Piera, F., Lobo, J.M. 1996. A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities. Miscellània Zoològica 19: 13–31Google Scholar
Martín-Piera, F., Veiga, C.M., Lobo, J.M. 1992. Ecology and biogeography of dung-beetle communities (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) in an Iberian mountain range. Journal of Biogeography 19: 677–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, E.G. 1962. A revision of the genus Copris Muller of the Western Hemisphere (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Entomologica Americana 41: 1–139Google Scholar
Merritt, R.W., Anderson, J.R. 1977. The effects of different pasture and rangeland ecosystems on the annual dynamics of insects in cattle droppings. Hilgardia 45: 31–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, C.O. 1943. Cattle droppings as ecological units. Ecological Monographs 13: 275–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mönkkönen, M., Welsh, D.A. 1994. A biogeographical hypothesis on the effects of human caused landscape changes on the forest bird communities of Europe and North America. Annales Zoologici Fennici 31: 61–70Google Scholar
Nealis, V.G. 1977. Habitat associations and community analysis of South Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 55: 138–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peitzmeier, B.A., Campbell, J.B., Thomas, G.D. 1992. Insect fauna of bovine dung in Northeastern Nebraska and their possible effect on the face fly Musca autumnalis (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 65: 267–74Google Scholar
Poorbaugh, J.H., Anderson, J.R., Burger, J.F. 1968. The insect inhabitants of undisturbed cattle droppings in northern California. California Vector Views 15: 17–36Google Scholar
Sanders, D.P., Dobson, R.C. 1966. The insect complex associated with bovine manure in Indiana. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 59: 955–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenly, K. 1983. Arthropods associated with bovine and equine dung in an ungrazed Chihuahuan desert ecosystem. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 76: 790–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholtz, C.H. 1990. Phylogenetic trends in the Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera). Journal of Natural History 24: 1027–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Statsoft Inc. 1999. Statistica for Windows. Computer program manual. Tulsa: Statsoft Inc.Google Scholar
Valiela, I. 1969. The arthropod fauna of bovine dung in Central New York and sources on its natural history. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 77: 210–20Google Scholar
Zunino, M., Halffter, G. 1997. Sobre Onthophagus Latreille, 1802 Americanos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Elytron 11: 157–78Google Scholar