@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 = {://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 {2160, title = {Dung beetle movements at two spatial scales}, journal = {Oikos}, volume = {91}, number = {2}, year = {2000}, note = {Times Cited: 23Cited Reference Count: 75Cited References: 1996, RURAL BUSINESS REGIS BAGUETTE M, 1994, ECOL ENTOMOL, V19, P1 BALTHASAR V, 1963, MONOGRAPHIE SCARABAE BELL WJ, 1991, SEARCHING BEHAV BISTROM O, 1991, ENTOMOL FENNICA, V2, P53 BROMMER JE, 1999, ECOL ENTOMOL, V24, P125 CHATFIELD C, 1980, INTRO MULTIVARIATE A CLARK JS, 1998, BIOSCIENCE, V48, P13 DOBZHANSKY T, 1943, GENETICS, V28, P304 FERRANDINO FJ, 1993, PHYTOPATHOLOGY, V83, P795 FITT BDL, 1987, J PHYTOPATHOL, V118, P227 FRAMPTON VL, 1942, PHYTOPATHOLOGY, V32, P799 GARNER FH, 1944, CATTLE BRITAIN GITTINGS T, 1994, THESIS NATL U IRELAN GITTINGS T, 1997, ECOGRAPHY, V20, P55 GREGORY PH, 1968, ANNU REV PHYTOPATHOL, V6, P189 GYLLENBERG M, 1997, METAPOPULATION BIOL, P93 HANSKI I, 1977, OECOLOGIA, V28, P203 HANSKI I, 1980, ANIM BEHAV, V28, P953 HANSKI I, 1980, ANN ZOOL FENN, V17, P11 HANSKI I, 1980, ANN ZOOL FENN, V17, P17 HANSKI I, 1980, OIKOS, V34, P293 HANSKI I, 1986, ACTA OECOL-OEC GEN, V7, P171 HANSKI I, 1987, NUTR ECOLOGY INSECTS, P837 HANSKI I, 1990, LIVING PATCHY ENV, P127 HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P75 HANSKI I, 1994, BIOL CONSERV, V68, P167 HANSKI I, 1994, ECOLOGY, V75, P747 HANSKI I, 1994, J ANIM ECOL, V63, P151 HANSKI I, 1997, METAPOPULATION BIOL, P5 HANSKI I, 1999, METAPOPULATION ECOLO HARRISON S, 1988, AM NAT, V132, P360 HARRISON S, 1989, ECOLOGY, V70, P1236 HARRISON S, 1991, BIOL J LINN SOC, V42, P73 HARRISON S, 1994, LARGE SCALE ECOLOGY, P111 HARRISON S, 1997, METAPOPULATION BIOL, P27 HILL JK, 1996, J ANIM ECOL, V65, P725 HOLTER P, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P213 HOSMER DW, 1989, APPL LOGISTIC REGRES HOWE HF, 1986, PLANT ECOL, P185 IBRAHIM KM, 1996, HEREDITY 3, V77, P282 JOHNSON ML, 1990, ANNU REV ECOL SYST, V21, P449 KIYOSAWA S, 1972, ANN PHYTOPATHOL SOC, V38, P41 KOSKELA H, 1977, ANN ZOOL FENN, V14, P204 KOSKLELA, 1979, OIKOS, V33, P419 KOT M, 1996, ECOLOGY, V77, P2027 KUUSSAARI M, 1996, J ANIM ECOL, V65, P791 LANDIN BO, 1961, OPUSC ENTOMOL LUND S, V19, P1 LEWIS MA, 1997, SPATIAL ECOLOGY ROLE, P46 LUMARET PJ, 1990, ATLAS COLEOPTERES SC MATTER SF, 1996, OECOLOGIA, V105, P447 MOLLISON D, 1977, J ROY STAT SOC B MET, V39, P283 NEVE G, 1996, J APPL ECOL, V33, P14 NICHOLS RA, 1994, HEREDITY, V72, P312 NIEMINEN M, 1996, OECOLOGIA, V108, P643 NIEMINEN M, 1998, J ANIM ECOL, V67, P149 NIEMINEN M, 1999, ECOGRAPHY, V22, P697 NILSSON T, 1997, ACTA U UPS ABSTR UPP, P311 NILSSON T, 1997, ECOL ENTOMOL, V22, P82 OTRONEN M, 1983, J ANIM ECOL, V52, P663 RAINIO M, 1966, ANN ZOOL FENN, V3, P88 ROFF D, 1977, J ANIM ECOL, V46, P443 ROSLIN T, 1999, THESIS U HELSINSKI SILFVERBERG H, 1992, ENUMERATIO COLEOPTEO SOUTHWOOD TRE, 1962, BIOL REV, V37, P171 STACEY PB, 1997, METAPOPULATION BIOL, P267 SUTCLIFFE OL, 1997, OECOLOGIA, V109, P229 TAYLOR RAJ, 1978, ECOL ENTOMOL, V3, P63 THOMAS CD, 1997, METAPOPULATION BIOL, P359 TURCHIN P, 1998, QUANTITATIVE ANAL MO UNRUH TR, 1993, CAN ENTOMOL, V125, P55 WAHLBERG N, 1996, SCIENCE, V273, P1536 WHITE E, 1960, ENTOMOL MON MAG, V96, P25 WHITLOCK MC, 1992, AM NAT, V139, P952EnglishArticleOIKOS385RQ}, month = {Nov}, pages = {323-335}, abstract = {To understand the dynamics of spatially structured populations, we need to know the level of movements at different spatial scales. This paper reports on Aphodius dung beetle movements at two scales: movements between dung pats within pastures, and movements between pastures. First, I test an assumption common to many recent models of spatially structured populations - that the probability of an individual moving between habitat patches decreases exponentially with distance. For dung beetles, I find sufficient evidence to reject this assumption. The distribution of dispersal distances was clearly leptokurtic, with more individuals moving short and long distances than expected on the basis of an exponential function. In contrast, the data were well described by a power function. I conclude that dung beetle movements include an element of non-randomness not captured by the simplistic exponential model. The power function offers a promising alternative, but the actual mechanisms behind the pattern need to be clarified. Second, I compare several species of Aphodius to each other. Although these species occur in the same network of habitat patches, their movement patterns are different enough to result in a mixture of different spatial population structures. Movements between pastures were more frequent the larger the species, the more specific its occurrence in relation to pat age, and the more specialized it is on cow dung and open pasture habitats. Within pastures, all species form "patchy" populations, with much movement among individual pats.}, keywords = {APHODIUS SCARABAEIDAE, butterfly, colonization, euphydryas-editha-bayensis, long-distance dispersal, melitaea-cinxia, metapopulation structure, migration, patch size, proclossiana-eunomia lepidoptera, resource utilization}, url = {://000166017800013}, author = {Roslin, T.} }