@article {1750,
	title = {Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes},
	journal = {Ecological Applications},
	volume = {16},
	number = {5},
	year = {2006},
	note = {Times Cited: 0 disease ecology, parasite transmission, scarbaeinae, ecological function},
	month = {Oct},
	pages = {1986-1999},
	abstract = {As tropical regions are converted to agriculture, conservation of biodiversity will depend not only on the maintenance of protected forest areas, but also on the scope for conservation within the agricultural matrix in which they are embedded. Tree cover typically retained in agricultural landscapes in the neotropics may provide resources and habitats for animals, but little is known about the extent to which it contributes to conservation of animal species. Here, we explore the animal diversity associated with different forms of tree cover for birds, bats, butterflies, and dung beetles in a pastoral landscape in Nicaragua. We measured species richness and abundance of these four animal taxa in riparian and secondary forest, forest fallows, live fences, and pastures with high and low tree cover. We recorded over 20000 individuals of 189 species including 14 endangered bird species. Mean abundance and species richness of birds and bats, but not dung beetles or butterflies, were significantly different among forms of tree cover. Species richness of bats and birds was positively correlated with tree species richness. While the greatest numbers of bird species were associated with riparian and secondary forest, forest fallows, and pastures with > 15\% tree cover, the greatest numbers of bat species were found in live fences and riparian forest: Species assemblages of all animal taxa were different among tree cover types, so that maintaining a diversity of forms of tree cover led to conservation of more animal species in the landscape as a whole. Overall, the findings indicate that retaining tree cover within agricultural landscapes can help conserve animal diversity, but that conservation efforts need to target forms of tree cover that conserve the taxa that are of interest locally. Preventing the degradation of remaining forest fragments is a priority, but encouraging farmers to maintain tree cover in pastures and along boundaries may also make an important contribution to animal conservation.},
	keywords = {agricultural matrix, and dung beetle diversity, bat, BAT SPECIES RICHNESS, biodiversity assessment, bird, butterfly, farming systems, fences, forest fragments, live, N, Nicaragua, riparian forests, species richness, trees in pastures, tropical rain-forest},
	isbn = {1051-0761},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000241362400032 },
	author = {Harvey, C. A. and Medina, A. and Sanchez, D. M. and Vilchez, S. and Hernandez, B. and Saenz, J. C. and Maes, J. M. and Casanoves, F. and Sinclair, F. L.}
}
@article {2112,
	title = {Primary dispersal of seeds by primates and secondary dispersal by dung beetles in Tikal, Guatemala},
	journal = {Biotropica},
	volume = {38},
	number = {3},
	year = {2006},
	month = {May},
	pages = {390-397},
	abstract = {We linked primary dispersal by spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) and howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra) to post-dispersal seed fate by studying the effects of dung type and defecation pattern on secondary seed dispersal by dung beetles. First, we described the defecation patterns for both primate species. Howler monkeys generally defecated in groups (88\% of observed defecations), with each individual producing on average 31 g of dung, resulting in a large area of the forest floor (31 m(2)) covered by large amounts of dung (clumped spatial pattern). Spider monkeys generally (96\% of observed defecations) defecated individually, each individual producing an average of 11 g of dung, resulting in a small area of the forest floor (2 m(2)) covered by small amounts of dung (scattered spatial pattern). Secondly, we captured dung beetles using as bait the dung of both primate species, to detect differences in the assemblages of these secondary seed dispersers attracted to the dung of both primates. More individual dung beetles, but not more species, were attracted to howler monkey dung than to spider monkey dung. Finally, we assessed experimentally (using plastic beads as seed mimics) how dung type (Ateles vs. Alouatta) and defecation pattern (scattered vs. clumped) affect secondary seed dispersal by dung beetles. We found that post-dispersal seed fate was affected by dung type, with more seeds being buried when present in howler monkey dung, than in spider monkey dung, but was not affected by defecation pattern. It is important to consider post-dispersal processes, such as secondary seed dispersal by dung beetles, when comparing species of primary dispersers.},
	keywords = {alouatta-palliata, Ateles, CEBUS-CAPUCINUS, DEFECATION, GERMINATION literature review function service seed dispersal mammal value, howler monkeys, los-tuxtlas, Mexico, patterns, Scarabaeidae, tropical rain-forest},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000236766500014 },
	author = {Ponce-Santizo, G. and Andresen, E. and Cano, E. and Cuaron, A. D.}
}
