@article {1783, title = {Aggregation and coexistence of dung beetles in montane rain forest in deforested siters in central Peru}, journal = {Journal of Tropical Ecology}, volume = {22}, year = {2006}, pages = {359-370}, abstract = {The {\textquoteleft}aggregation model of coexistence{\textquoteright} predicts that a strong and independent aggregation of species across ephemeral resource patches promotes species coexistence and maintains diversity. This study examines the role of aggregation in maintaining tropical dung beetle diversity and the effects of deforestation on aggregation patterns and diversity loss. Using clusters of pitfall traps, dung beetle aggregation was quantified in natural and disturbed habitat at nested temporal and spatial scales in central Peru. The results indicate that dung was colonized by a greater number of species, many of which were large, leading to a higher total beetle biomass in forest habitat than in deforested, farm habitat. Beetles were intraspecifically aggregated at each spatial scale examined. Habitat-type (forest/deforested) had no effect on the intensity of intra- or interspecific aggregation. Analyses of aggregation patterns revealed that dung beetle assemblages in forest habitat were generally saturated whereas in deforested habitat they were unsaturated. In general, interspecific aggregation was too weak relative to intraspecific aggregation to explain the high diversity of species in forest habitat. Other mechanisms, including resource partitioning are likely to play a greater role in maintaining the diversity of dung beetle assemblages in the region. These results also indicate that the loss of species from disturbed habitat has not been due to a breakdown in the aggregation mechanism. }, keywords = {Aggregation model, biodiversity, biomass, coexistence, community structure, deforestation, habitat change, Peru, Scarabaeidae, species richness}, author = {Horgan, Finbarr G} } @article {1680, title = {The diversity of soil communities, the {\textquoteright}poor man{\textquoteright}s tropical rainforest{\textquoteright}}, journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation}, volume = {5}, number = {2}, year = {1996}, note = {Times Cited: 46Cited Reference Count: 125Cited References: ABBOTT I, 1980, SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM, V12, P455 ANDERSON JM, 1978, J ANIM ECOL, V47, P787 ANDERSON JM, 1978, OECOLOGIA, V32, P341 ANDERSON JM, 1974, OECOLOGIA BERLIN, V14, P111 ANDERSON JM, 1975, PROGR SOIL ZOOLOGY, P51 ARNETT RH, 1990, SYSTEMATICS N AM INS, P165 ASKIDIS MD, 1991, PEDOBIOL, V35, P53 BAATH E, 1980, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V20, P85 BEHANPELLETIER VM, 1992, CAN BIODIV, V2, P5 BEHANPELLETIER VM, 1993, MEM ENTOMOL SOC CAN, V165, P11 BEHANPELLETIER VM, 1983, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V20, P221 BERNARD EC, 1992, BIOL FERT SOILS, V14, P99 BLACKITH RE, 1975, P R IR ACAD B, V75, P345 BONGERS T, 1990, OECOLOGIA, V83, P14 BROCKIE RE, 1986, OECOLOGIA, V70, P24 BROWN JH, 1988, ANAL BIOGEOGRAPHY IN, P57 CLARKE RD, 1968, ECOLOGY, V49, P1152 CONNELL JH, 1978, SCIENCE, V199, P1302 CORNELL HV, 1992, J ANIM ECOL, V61, P1 CULVER DC, 1974, ECOLOGY, V55, P974 CURRIE DJ, 1991, AM NAT, V137, P27 CURRY JP, 1978, SCI P R DUBLIN SOC A, V6, P131 DANGERFIELD JM, 1990, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V34, P141 DAVID J, 1993, PEDOBIOL, V27, P49 DAVIDSON DW, 1985, AM NAT, V125, P500 DEGOEDE RGM, 1994, APPL SOIL ECOL, V1, P29 DEGOEDE RGM, 1993, FUND APPL NEMATOL, V16, P501 DENNISON DF, 1984, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V26, P45 DOUBE BM, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY DOUBE BM, 1990, ECOL ENTOMOL, V15, P371 DOUBE BM, 1988, ECOL ENTOMOL, V13, P251 DOUBE BM, 1986, MIS PUB ENT SOC AM, V61, P132 DOUBE BM, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P255 ETTEMA CH, 1993, BIOL FERT SOILS, V16, P79 FENCHEL T, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P281 FRECKMAN DW, 1993, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V45, P239 GASTON K, 1994, RARITY GHILAROV MS, 1977, ECOL B STOCKHOLM, V25, P593 GILLER PS, 1984, COMMUNITY STRUCTURE GILLER PS, 1994, J ANIM ECOL, V63, P629 GILLER PS, 1989, J ANIM ECOL, V58, P129 GILLER PS, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P519 GITTINGS T, 1994, THESIS NATIONAL U IR GRASSLE JF, 1994, AQUATIC ECOLOGY SCAL, P499 GREENSLADE P, 1980, 7TH P INT SOIL ZOOL, P491 HAGVAR S, 1990, BIOL FERT SOILS, V9, P178 HAGVAR S, 1982, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V24, P255 HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P5 HANSKI I, 1987, ECOL ENTOMOL, V12, P257 HAYES AJ, 1966, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V6, P281 HERMOSILLA W, 1982, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V19, P225 HOLTER P, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P213 HOUSE GJ, 1989, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V18, P302 HUHTA V, 1979, ANN ZOOL FENN, V16, P223 HUSTON MA, 1994, BIOL DIVERSITY COEXI HUTCHINSON GE, 1961, AM NAT, V95, P137 HUTCHINSON GE, 1953, P ACAD NAT SCI PHILA, V105, P1 IRMLER U, 1979, OECOLOGIA, V43, P1 IVES AR, 1988, ANN ZOOL FENN, V25, P75 IVES AR, 1991, ECOL MONOGR, V61, P75 JACKSON RM, 1966, STUDIES BIOL, V2 KACZMAREK M, 1975, EKOL POLSKA, V23, P265 KING KL, 1976, J APPL ECOL, V13, P731 KNEIDEL KA, 1984, AM MIDL NAT, V111, P57 KRISHNAMOORTHY R, 1985, J SOIL BIOL ECOL, V5, P33 LAVELLE P, 1989, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V33, P283 LEADLEYBROWN A, 1978, ECOLOGY SOIL ORG LEBRUN P, 1979, RECENT ADV ACAROLOGY, V1, P603 LEVINGS SC, 1983, ECOL MONOGR, V53, P435 LEVINS R, 1979, AM NAT, V114, P765 LONGSTAFF BC, 1976, CAN J ZOOL, V54, P948 LUXTON M, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P293 LUXTON M, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P340 LYNCH JF, 1988, AM MIDL NAT, V119, P31 LYNCH JF, 1980, ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOG, V5, P353 MANDELBROT BB, 1983, FRACTAL GEOMETRY NAT MARSHALL V, 1982, B ENT SOC CAN S, V14 MAY RM, 1974, THEOR POPUL BIOL, V5, P297 MEHLHOP P, 1983, ECOL ENTOMOL, V8, P69 MILLS JT, 1971, J ECON ENTOMOL, V64, P398 NEHER DA, 1994, APPL SOIL ECOL, V1, P17 NESTEL D, 1993, BIODIVERS CONSERV, V2, P70 PAINE RT, 1966, AM NAT, V100, P5 PARMELEE RW, 1993, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V12, P1477 PARR TW, 1980, THESIS U YORK UK PETERSEN H, 1971, ENTOMOLOGISKE MEDDEL, V39, P97 PETERSEN H, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P295 PETERSEN H, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P306 PETERSEN H, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P330 PIANKA ER, 1978, EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY PRIMACK RB, 1992, BIOSCIENCE, V42, P818 PROCTER DLC, 1990, J NEMATOL, V22, P1 RIDSDILLSMITH TJ, 1982, ENTOMOL EXP APPL, V32, P80 SCHAEFER M, 1990, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V34, P299 SCHOENER TW, 1983, AM NAT, V122, P240 SCHOENER TW, 1974, SCIENCE, V185, P27 SHORROCKS B, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P29 SIEPEL H, 1990, BIOL FERT SOILS, V9, P139 SILVA SI, 1989, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V33, P333 SMITH VR, 1990, OECOLOGIA, V85, P14 SPARKES K, 1982, THESIS U YORK UK STANTON NL, 1979, ECOLOGY, V60, P295 STEVENS GC, 1989, AM NAT, V133, P240 SUGIHARA G, 1990, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V5, P79 TEUBEN A, 1992, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V36, P79 THOMAS RH, 1988, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V31, P113 TRUMBO ST, 1990, ECOL ENTOMOL, V15, P347 USHER MB, 1975, BIOTROPICA, V7, P217 USHER MB, 1977, J ENVIRON MANAGE, V5, P151 USHER MB, 1982, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V23, P126 USHER MB, 1979, POPULATION DYNAMICS, P359 USHER MB, 1988, REV ZOOL AFR, V102, P285 USHER MB, 1976, ROLE TERRESTRIAL AQU, P61 USHER MB, 1985, SPEC PUBL BRIT ECOL, V4, P243 VEGTER JJ, 1983, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V25, P253 VILLALOBOS FJ, 1990, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V27, P73 WEIL R, 1979, SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM, V11, P666 WHITFORD WG, 1992, GLOBAL WARMING BIOL, P124 WILLIAMSON M, 1988, ANAL BIOGEOGRAPHY, P91 WILSON DS, 1984, ECOL ENTOMOL, V9, P205 WILSON EO, 1992, DIVERSITY LIFE WOLDA H, 1987, ORG COMMUNITIES PAST, P69 WOOD TG, 1976, ROLE TERRESTRIAL AQU, P145 YEATES GW, 1987, BIOL FERT SOILS, V5, P225EnglishReviewTW705BIODIVERS CONSERV}, month = {Feb}, pages = {135-168}, abstract = {This paper reviews the various factors that facilitate the high biodiversity of soil communities, concentrating on soil animals. It considers the problems facing soil ecologists in the study of soil communities and identifies the important role such communities play in terrestrial ecosystems. The review also considers diversity and abundance patterns. A range of factors are identified that may contribute to the biodiversity of soil and their role is reviewed. These include diversity of food resources and trophic specialization, habitat favourableness, habitat heterogeneity in space and time, scale and spatial extent of the habitat, niche dynamics and resource partitioning, productivity, disturbance and aggregation. Biodiversity of soil organisms appears high, largely attributable to the nested set of ecological worlds in the soil - the relationship between the range of size groupings of soil organisms relative to the spatial heterogeneity perceived by these various groups - that provide a large {\textquoteright}area for life{\textquoteright} for the micro- and mesofauna. The role of aggregation and how it relates to the spatial scale under consideration and to species interactions amongst soil animals is largely unknown at present. The role of disturbance is equivocal and man{\textquoteright}s activities more often than not seem to lead to a reduced biodiversity of soil communities. This paper also identifies areas where further work is desirable to improve our understanding of the structure and functioning of soil communities.}, keywords = {biodiversity, burying beetles silphidae, coexistence, community ecology, competition, composition, Disturbance, Dung, ecological communities, forest, heterogeneity, maturity index, resource partitioning, soil communities, species, succe, temporal patterns}, url = {://A1996TW70500002}, author = {Giller, P. S.} } @article {2161, title = {Large-scale spatial ecology of dung beetles}, journal = {Ecography}, volume = {24}, number = {5}, year = {2001}, note = {EnglishArticleOCTECOGRAPHY}, pages = {511-524}, abstract = {Recent modelling work shows that the composition of local communities can be influenced by the configuration of the surrounding landscape, but many of these models assume that all community members display the same type of extinction- colonization dynamics. I use Aphodius dung beetles to test the hypothesis that interspecific differences in habitat selection and dispersal capacity may translate into differences in spatial population dynamics, even among closely related species coexisting on the same resource. If this is true, then groups of species with different. characteristics would show different responses to landscape configuration. I first divided the area of Finland into a grid, and used collection records to describe regional variation in the Aphodius fauna of open cattle pastures. I then sampled dung beetles on 131 cattle farms, to examine whether the subset of species found on each farm was related to the density of pastures in the surrounding grid square. Finally, I used historical records to analyze changes in dung beetle communities during the last century, when there was great loss of pasture. Overall, I found no relationship between landscape characteristics and the total proportion of the regional species pool that was found on each farm. However, the distribution of species among guilds with different habitat specificity did related to the configuration of the landscape, and the pattern was most pronounced in a specialists species with limited dispersal. Associations between community structure and landscape configuration were superimposed on two much larger and stronger patterns: a large-scale latitudinal gradient in regional species richness, and a decelerating gain of species to local communities with an increasing regional species pool. I conclude that ecological variation among community members is a crucial factor in the analysis of local community composition, and that local species richness should always be conditioned on regional richness.}, keywords = {abundance, assemblages, coexistence, communities, FINLAND, gradients, LATITUDINAL, METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS, PLANT-SPECIES RICHNESS, REGIONAL DIVERSITY, Scarabaeidae}, author = {Roslin, T.} }