| Literature DB >> 33808282 |
Vinicio Carrión-Paladines1, Andreas Fries2, Andrés Muñoz1, Eddy Castillo3, Roberto García-Ruiz4, Diego Marín-Armijos1.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of land-use change (L-UCH) on dung beetle community structure (Scarabaeinae) in a disturbed dry ecosystem in southern Ecuador. Five different L-UCH classes were analyzed by capturing the dung beetle species at each site using 120 pitfall traps in total. To determine dung beetle abundance and diversity at each L-UCH, a general linear model (GLM) and a redundancy analysis (RDA) were applied, which correlated environmental and edaphic conditions to the community structure. Furthermore, changes in dung-producing vertebrate fauna were examined, which varied significantly between the different L-UCH classes due to the specific anthropogenic use or level of ecosystem disturbance. The results indicated that soil organic matter, pH, potassium, and phosphorus (RDA: component 1), as well as temperature and altitude (RDA: component 2) significantly affect the abundance of beetles (GLM: p value < 0.001), besides the food availability (dung). The highest abundance and diversity (Simpson's index > 0.4, Shannon-Wiener index > 1.10) was found in highly disturbed sites, where soils were generally more compacted, but with a greater food supply due to the introduced farm animals. At highly disturbed sites, the species Canthon balteatus, Dichotomius problematicus, and Onthphagus confuses were found specifically, which makes them useful as bio-indicators for disturbed dry forest ecosystems in southern Ecuador.Entities:
Keywords: Scarabaeinae; dung removal; land-use change; seasonally dry forest (SDF)
Year: 2021 PMID: 33808282 PMCID: PMC8066223 DOI: 10.3390/insects12040306
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Figure 1Digital elevation model (DEM) of continental Ecuador (left) and study area (right). Below: different land-use changes (L-UCH) classes analyzed in this study, where (a) CoAS = coffee in an old agroforestry system; (b) SDF = disturbed seasonally dry forest; (c) OCA = organic crop area; (d) GLd = grassland; and (e) CyAS = coffee in a young agroforestry system.
Altitude of the different L-UCH classes and mean air temperature at each site during the whole study period (May 2019–February 2020).
| L-UCH | Altitude (m a.s.l.) | Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|
| Coffee in an old agroforestry system (CoAS) | 1404 | 22.1 |
| Seasonally dry forest disturbed (SDF) | 1525 | 21.6 |
| Organic crop area (OCA) | 1558 | 22.1 |
| Grassland (GLd) | 1861 | 22.4 |
| Coffee in a young agroforestry system (CyAS) | 1959 | 20.6 |
Average values of physical properties of the soil for the different L-UCH classes, including their standard deviations (15 repetitions for each L-UCH class). The different letters mean significant difference (p < 0.05, HSD Tukey).
| Land Use Pattern | Bulk Density | Sand | Silt | Clay | Textural Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g cm−3) | % | % | % | ||
| CoAS | 0.80 ± 0.1 a | 69.2 ± 3.1 a | 16.0 ± 3.5 b | 14.8 ± 6.4 a | Loam-sandy soil |
| SDF | 0.71 ± 0.1 a | 77.2 ± 6.1 a | 11.3 ± 3.1 ab | 11.4 ± 5.3 a | Loam-sandy soil |
| OCA | 0.92 ± 0.1 ab | 74.6 ± 2.0 a | 12.7 ± 1.2 ab | 12.8 ± 1.2 a | Loam-sandy soil |
| GLd | 1.12 ± 0.1 b | 75.8 ± 2.0 a | 7.3 ± 1.2 a | 16.2 ± 0.0 a | Loam-sandy soil |
| CyAS | 1.05 ± 0.1 b | 70.5 ± 3.1 a | 11.3 ± 4.21 ab | 18.2 ± 2.0 a | Loam-sandy soil |
Average values of chemical properties of the soil for the different L-UCH classes, including their standard deviations (15 repetitions for each L-UCH class). The different letters mean significant difference (p < 0.05, HSD Tukey). SOM: soil organic matter. TN: total nitrogen. SOC: soil organic carbon.
| Land Use Pattern | pH | SOM | TN | SOC | C/N Ratio | P | k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | (mg/kg) | (cmol/kg) | |||
| CoAS | 6.03 ± 0.5 b | 6.7± 2,9 b | 0.34 ± 0.15 b | 3.9 ± 1.73 b | 11.5 ± 0.2 a | 31.8 ± 39.5 ab | 0.66± 0.5 ab |
| SDF | 6.0 ± 0.6 b | 4.5 ± 0.9 ab | 0.23 ± 0.05 ab | 2.6 ± 0.56 ab | 11.3 ± 0.2 a | 37.6 ± 60.8 ab | 0.54 ± 0.4 ab |
| OCA | 6.7 ± 0.4 b | 3.7± 1.5 ab | 0.18 ± 0.07 ab | 2.2 ± 0.89 ab | 11.6 ± 0.1 a | 87.5 ± 34.6 b | 1.32± 0.7 b |
| GLd | 5.2 ± 0.3 a | 2.3± 0.7 a | 0.11 ± 0.04 a | 1.3 ± 0.44 a | 11.8 ± 0.8 a | 4.6 ± 0.7 a | 0.13± 0.1 a |
| CyAS | 5.01 ± 0.2 a | 2.1± 0.8 a | 0.11 ± 0.04 a | 1.2 ± 0.46 a | 11.4 ± 0.6 a | 4.3 ± 1.3 a | 0.18± 0.2 a |
Dung beetle species and the average number of individuals trapped in the different L-UCH classes, including the standard deviations (24 pitfall traps in each L-UCH class). The different letters mean significant difference (p < 0.05, HSD Tukey).
| Species | Land Uses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoAS | SDF | OCA | GLd | CyAS | ||
| 0.08 ± 0.3 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.04 ± 0.2 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.248 | |
| 1.0 ± 0.4 b | 0.3 ± 0.6 b | 5.5 ± 2.0 ab | 5.4 ± 1.9 ab | 24.4 ± 7.9 a | 0.000 | |
| 1.2 ± 0.6b | 4.5 ± 1.7 ab | 5.7 ± 1.9 ab | 6.4 ± 1.8 ab | 9.9 ± 4.4 a | 0.000 | |
| 0.0 ± 0.0 b | 0.0 ± 0.0 b | 0.0 ± 0.0 b | 0.0 ± 0.0 b | 0.2 ± 0.0 a | 0.002 | |
| 4.7 ± 2.8 a | 0.3 ± 0.5 b | 2.3 ± 1.3 ab | 1.1 ± 0.4 ab | 5.2 ± 2.3 a | 0.000 | |
| 6.1 ± 2.0 b | 0.5 ± 0.7 a | 1.7 ± 2.4 ab | 0.0 ± 0.2 a | 1.6 ± 0.8 ab | 0.000 | |
| 0.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.1 ± 0.3 a | 0.2 ± 0.2 a | 0.056 | |
| Total number of species found | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | --- |
| Shannon_H´ | 1.1 ± 0.2 b | 1.1 ± 0.1 b | 1.0 ± 0.2 b | 0.9 ± 0.1 b | 0.4 ± 0.4 a | 0.000 |
| Simpson | 0.4 ± 0.1 ab | 0.8 ± 0.3 b | 0.3 ± 0.0 a | 0.4 ± 0.0 ab | 0,4 ± 0.4 ab | 0.000 |
Figure 2Extrapolation curves of the assemblages of Scarabaeinae sampled for five land uses, Ecuador.
Main vertebrates (native and domestic) inhabiting the different L-UCH classes and use of manure types. Mean values (X) close to 1 indicate frequent occurrence of these types of animal, while values around 0 indicate absence or less frequent occurrence of these types of animal.
| Type of Vertebrate/Uses of Manure | CoAS | SDF | OCA | GLd | CyAS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | Ca (ind./ha) | X | Ca (ind./ha) | X | Ca (ind./ha) | X | Ca (ind./ha) | X | Ca (ind./ha) | |
| Native vertebrates | ||||||||||
| Anteater | 0.3 | Nd | 1.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.3 | Nd |
| Deer | 0.4 | Nd | 1.0 | Nd | 0.1 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.1 | Nd |
| Skunk | 0.0 | Nd | 1.0 | Nd | 0.1 | Nd | 0.1 | Nd | 0.3 | Nd |
| Opossum | 0.1 | Nd | 1.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd |
| Squirrels | 0.4 | Nd | 0.4 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd | 0.0 | Nd |
| Exotic vertebrates | ||||||||||
| Goats | 0.4 | 5 ind/1 hectare/1 month | 1.0 | 5 ind./hectare/1 months | 0.0 | 0.4 | 3 ind/hectare/1 month | 0.0 | ||
| Cows | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2 ind./hectare/1 months | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1 ind/hectare/1 month | 0.8 | 1 ind/hectare/1 month | ||
| Donkeys | 0.0 | 0.1 | 2 ind./hectare/1 months | 0.4 | 4 ind/1 hectare/1 month | 0.8 | 5 ind/1 hectare/1 month | 0.0 | ||
| Horses | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2 ind./hectare/1 months | 0.3 | 4 ind/1 hectare/1 month | 0.9 | 5 ind/1 hectare/1 month | 0.6 | 1 ind/hectare/1 month | |
| Uses of manure | CoAS | SDF | OCA | GLd | CyAS | |||||
| X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| Do you apply dung from domestic animals directly to the soil? | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.8 | |||||
| Do you use organic fertilizers? | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | |||||
| Do you use human feces? | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.8 | |||||
X = Average of farmers’ responses; Ca = Approximate animal load; Nd = No data.
Figure 3Dung beetle species found in different L-UCH classes in a disturbed tropical dry forest (TDF) ecosystem in southern Ecuador. (a). Canthon balteatus; (b). Dichotomius problematicus; (c). Onthophagus confusus; (d). Aphodius sp1; (e). Onoreidium ohausi; (f). Onthophagus curvicornis; (g). Phanaeus achilles.
Effects of abiotic, edaphic properties, and type factors of L-UCH on the total abundance of Scarabaeinae species.
| Response Variable | Explanatory Variable | Error Standard | Z-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total abundance | Abiotic factors | |||
| Altitude | 0.000 | 20.584 | <0.001 | |
| Temperature | 0.027 | 21.320 | <0.001 | |
| Edaphic properties | ||||
| Bd | 0.146 | 15.870 | <0.001 | |
| pH | 0.037 | −15.880 | <0.001 | |
| SOM | 0.015 | −14.480 | <0.001 | |
| N | 0.293 | −13.980 | <0.001 | |
| P | 0.001 | −10.480 | <0.001 | |
| K | 0.054 | −10.850 | <0.001 | |
| C | 0.026 | −14.430 | <0.001 | |
| C/N ratio | 0.140 | −1.343 | 0.179 | |
| Land Uses | ||||
| CoAS | 0.055 | 72.466 | <0.001 | |
| CyAS | 0.064 | 16.323 | <0.001 | |
| GLd | 0.078 | 0.078 | 0.938 | |
| OCA | 0.075 | 2.488 | 0.013 | |
| SDFi | 0.097 | −7.493 | <0.001 |
Figure 4Scores of the soil and environmental variables (a), land uses (b), and dung beetle species (c) of the redundancy analysis (components: RDA 1 and RDA 2). Note the different scales of RDA 1 and RDA 2.