| Literature DB >> 34064338 |
Christian von Hoermann1, Tomáš Lackner1, David Sommer2,3, Marco Heurich4,5,6, M Eric Benbow7, Jörg Müller1.
Abstract
In contrast to other necromass, such as leaves, deadwood, or dung, the drivers of insect biodiversity on carcasses are still incompletely understood. For vertebrate scavengers, a richer community was shown for randomly placed carcasses, due to lower competition. Here we tested if scavenging beetles similarly show a higher diversity at randomly placed carcasses compared to easily manageable fixed places. We sampled 12,879 individuals and 92 species of scavenging beetles attracted to 17 randomly and 12 at fixed places exposed and decomposing carcasses of red deer, roe deer, and red foxes compared to control sites in a low range mountain forest. We used rarefaction-extrapolation curves along the Hill-series to weight diversity from rare to dominant species and indicator species analysis to identify differences between placement types, the decay stage, and carrion species. Beetle diversity decreased from fixed to random locations, becoming increasingly pronounced with weighting of dominant species. In addition, we found only two indicator species for exposure location type, both representative of fixed placement locations and both red listed species, namely Omosita depressa and Necrobia violacea. Furthermore, we identified three indicator species of Staphylinidae (Philonthus marginatus and Oxytelus laqueatus) and Scarabaeidae (Melinopterus prodromus) for larger carrion and one geotrupid species Anoplotrupes stercorosus for advanced decomposition stages. Our study shows that necrophilous insect diversity patterns on carcasses over decomposition follow different mechanisms than those of vertebrate scavengers with permanently established carrion islands as important habitats for a diverse and threatened insect fauna.Entities:
Keywords: Coleoptera; carrion; decomposition; forest; indicator species; necrobiome; scavenger; succession; trapping
Year: 2021 PMID: 34064338 PMCID: PMC8147763 DOI: 10.3390/insects12050412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Beetle species with number of individuals (Indiv) in dependency of the exposition type (random sites, fixed locations, and controls).
| Species | Family | Ecology | Indiv (Random) | Indiv (Fixed) | Indiv (Controls) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Histeridae | fac | 165 | 427 | 3 |
|
| Histeridae | fac | 145 | 157 | 6 |
|
| Histeridae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Histeridae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Sphaeritidae | fac | 6 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 68 | 58 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 100 | 70 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 6 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 686 | 614 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 4 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 328 | 268 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 26 | 101 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 439 | 976 | 0 |
|
| Silphidae | obl | 290 | 528 | 0 |
|
| Agyrtidae | fac | 1 | 7 | 0 |
|
| Agyrtidae | obl | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Leiodidae | obl | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Leiodidae | obl | 4 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Leiodidae | obl | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Leiodidae | obl | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 42 | 24 | 2 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 71 | 87 | 1 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 7 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 14 | 5 | 4 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 25 | 4 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 1 | 4 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | guest | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 6 | 10 | 1 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 12 | 7 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 13 | 11 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 266 | 102 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 4 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 3 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 143 | 79 | 1 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 18 | 10 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 137 | 172 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 19 | 17 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | obl | 0 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 4 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 55 | 18 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 32 | 3 | 11 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 471 | 81 | 2 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Staphylinidae | obl | 1 | 2 | 0 |
|
| Lampyridae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Cleridae | obl | 1 | 44 | 0 |
|
| Cleridae | obl | 2 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Dermestidae | obl | 2 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Dermestidae | obl | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Byrrhidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 4 |
|
| Byrrhidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Nitidulidae | obl | 14 | 314 | 0 |
|
| Nitidulidae | guest | 2 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Endomychidae | guest | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Scraptiidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Tenebrionidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Trogidae | obl | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Geotrupidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Geotrupidae | fac | 3625 | 1086 | 41 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 4 | 8 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 45 | 54 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 42 | 10 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 12 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 3 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 1 | 8 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | fac | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Scarabaeidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Scolytidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| Curculionidae | guest | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Curculionidae | guest | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| Curculionidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
| Curculionidae | guest | 0 | 0 | 1 |
In Ecology, “obl” stands for obligatory necrophilous, “fac” stands for facultative necrophilous, and “guest” designates random visitors (non-necrophilous species) at carrion exposition sites.
Figure 1Median abundance of trapped obligate, facultative necrophilous, and guest beetle individuals per plot for each exposition type. The different letters indicate significant differences between exposition types (Poisson-GLMM with Tukey contrasts (p < 0.05); n = number of treatments).
Figure 2Rank–abundance curves of necrophilous beetles at random and fixed locations. Violet triangles, visitors at fixed locations; orange circles, visitors at random sites. The five most abundant species are labeled, respectively. For information regarding beetle families and -ecology (facul-tative necrophilous or obligate necrophilous) refer to Table 1.
Figure 3Individual-based rarefaction and extrapolation of beetle diversity for the two different treatments in combination with carcass succession stages, along with 95% unconditional confidence intervals. Species diversity was estimated for Hill numbers: q = 0 (species richness, left panel), q = 1 (exponential of Shannon’s entropy index, middle panel), and q = 2 (inverse of Simpson’s concentration index, right panel). Symbols represent the total number of reference individuals. Rarefaction curves in solid lines; extrapolation curves in dotted lines. Extensive = random site; intensive = fixed location. Early = fresh, middle = bloated and active decay, and late = advanced decay and dry remains succession stages. In transparent shading, 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4Number of indicator species for different site combinations and their associated site-group matrix used for indicator species analysis. Early = fresh decomposition stage; intermediate = bloated and active decay decomposition stages; late = advanced decay and dry remains decomposition stages.