02278nas a2200229   4500008004100000245008300041210006900124300001200193490000800205520157300213653001501786653001701801653001201818653001501830653001101845653001301856100001601869700002001885700001801905700001601923856010901939       2009                        eng d00aCo-declines in large mammals and dung beetles: an impending ecological cascade0 aCodeclines in large mammals and dung beetles an impending ecolog  a481-4870 v1183 aBiodiversity loss can precipitate extinction cascades and impair ecological processes. These ‘downstream’ effects will be exacerbated if functionally important taxa are tightly linked with species threatened by extinction or population decline. We review the current evidence that such a scenario is currently playing out in the linked declines of persistently hunted<br />
mammal populations and the dung beetles communities (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) that depend on them for adult and larval food resources. Through a close evolutionary association, mammal assemblages have played a fundamental role in structuring extant dung beetle communities. Today many game mammal species’ populations are severely depleted by subsistence or commercial hunting, especially in tropical forest systems. Multiple lines of evidence from temperate and tropical systems indicate that the regional-scale decline or extirpation of medium and large bodied mammal faunas can severely disrupt the diversity and abundance of dung beetle communities through alterations in the composition and availability of dung resources. These observed community disassemblies have significant short- and long-term implications for the maintenance of key ecosystem processes including nutrient recycling and secondary seed dispersal. Identifying the species- and community-level traits that buffer or exacerbate these species and functional responses is essential if we are to develop a better understanding of the cascading ecological consequences of hunting in tropical forests.
10aco-decline10aconservation10adecline10aextinction10amammal10aresource1 aNichols, E.1 aGardner, T., A.1 aPeres, C., A.1 aSpector, S.  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/co-declines-large-mammals-and-dung-beetles-impending-ecological-cascade00431nas a2200133   4500008004100000245008600041210006900127300001200196490000700208653001700215100001500232700001600247856003400263       1978                        eng d00aStability, Abundance, and Niche Width in the Beetle Community Inhabiting Cow Dung0 aStability Abundance and Niche Width in the Beetle Community Inha  a290-2980 v3110aDung beetles1 aHanski, I.1 aKoskela, H.  u<Go to ISI>://A1978GU2910000400442nas a2200109   4500008004100000245008300041210006900124300001200193490000700205100001500212856010500227       1977                        eng d00aAn experiment on dung removal by Aphodius larvae (Scarabaeidae) and earthworms0 aexperiment on dung removal by Aphodius larvae Scarabaeidae and e  a130-1360 v281 aHolter, P.  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/experiment-dung-removal-aphodius-larvae-scarabaeidae-and-earthworms00459nas a2200109   4500008004100000245009400041210006900135300001200204490000700216100001500223856011100238       1979                        eng d00aEffect of dung-beetles (Aphodius spp.) and earthworms on the disappearance of cattle dung0 aEffect of dungbeetles Aphodius spp and earthworms on the disappe  a393-4020 v321 aHolter, P.  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/effect-dung-beetles-aphodius-spp-and-earthworms-disappearance-cattle-dung10594nas a2200145   45000080041000000200013000412450101000542100069001552600059002243000012002834900007002955201008800302100001810390856004010408       1982                        eng d  a0030129900aResource Utilization and Local Coexistence in a Guild of Scarabaeid Dung Beetles (Aphodius spp.)0 aResource Utilization and Local Coexistence in a Guild of Scaraba  bBlackwell Publishing on behalf of Nordic Society Oikos  a213-2270 v393 aResource partitioning in a guild of 13 Aphodius species (adults) from cattle dung was studied along two dimensions in time - season and age of dung pats - and two dimensions in space - distribution of beetles among pats and microdistribution within pats. Moreover, total respiration of the guild in relation to season was roughly estimated. Most data were from one site in northern Zealand, Denmark. The energy requirements of this coprophagous guild varied widely through the season. Even at the time of maximum activity, the beetles assimilated only about 0.2% of the energy in a dung pat; hence there is no evidence of competition for food at normal population densities. Neither did other results indicate within-guild competition, past or present. Features like (1) the contagious distribution of beetles on evenly spaced, identical pats, (2) the positive association between species, and (3) habitat specializations within pats may have evolved as adaptations facilitating intraspecific contacts in populations which are often sparse in relation to chances of mating. /// ÃÂ ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ´ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃ‘ÂÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘ÂÃÂ¾ÃÂ² ÃÂ² ÃÂ³Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¿ÃÂµ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ· 13 ÃÂ²ÃÂ¸ÃÂ´ÃÂ¾ÃÂ² Aphodius (ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¼ÃÂ°ÃÂ³ÃÂ¾) ÃÂ¸ÃÂ· Ã‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ² ÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ¿ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ³ÃÂ¾ Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¾ÃÂ³ÃÂ°Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ³ÃÂ¾ Ã‘ÂÃÂºÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃÂ° ÃÂ¸Ã‘ÂÃ‘ÂÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ´ÃÂ¾ÃÂ²ÃÂ°ÃÂ»ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ² ÃÂ´ÃÂ²Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ²Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ·ÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€¦ - ÃÂ² ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘Ë†ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ ÃÂº Ã‘ÂÃÂµÃÂ·ÃÂ¾ÃÂ½Ã‘Æ’ ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ²ÃÂ¾ÃÂ·Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃ‘Æ’ Ã‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ², ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ² ÃÂ´ÃÂ²Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ°ÃÂ½Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ²ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ·ÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€¦ - ÃÂ² ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘Ë†ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ ÃÂº Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ´ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘Å½ ÃÂ¶Ã‘Æ’ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ² ÃÂ² Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°ÃÂ·ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂºÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ°Ã‘â€¦ Ã‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ² ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ¸Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¸ÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ¾Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ´ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘Å½ ÃÂ² ÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ´ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂ°Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¾ÃÂ´ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¹ ÃÂºÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ¸. ÃÅ¸ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¾ Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ³ÃÂ¾ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ·ÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬Ã‘ÂÃÂ»ÃÂ¸ Ã‘ÂÃ‘Æ’ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¼ÃÂ°Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂµ ÃÂ´Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ÃÂ°ÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ ÃÂ³Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¿Ã‘â€¹ ÃÂ² Ã‘â€šÃÂµÃ‘â€¡ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ Ã‘ÂÃÂµÃÂ·ÃÂ¾ÃÂ½ÃÂ°. ÃÂÃÂ°ÃÂ¸ÃÂ±ÃÂ¾ÃÂ»Ã‘Å’Ã‘Ë†ÃÂµÃÂµ Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ¸Ã‘ÂÃÂ»ÃÂ¾ ÃÂ´ÃÂ°ÃÂ½ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾ÃÂ»Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€¡ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ· ÃÂ¾ÃÂ´ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ³ÃÂ¾ ÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃ‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ¾ÃÂ±ÃÂ¸Ã‘â€šÃÂ°ÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘Â ÃÂ² ÃÂ¡ÃÂµÃÂ²ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¹ Ãâ€”ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂ°ÃÂ½ÃÂ´ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ (Ãâ€ÃÂ°ÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘Â). Ãâ€™ Ã‘â€šÃÂµÃ‘â€¡ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ Ã‘ÂÃÂµÃÂ·ÃÂ¾ÃÂ½ÃÂ° Ã‘ÂÃÂ½ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ³ÃÂ¸Ã‘â€šÃÂ¸Ã‘â€¡ÃÂµÃ‘ÂÃÂºÃÂ¸ÃÂµ ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ±ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¸ ÃÂ³Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¿Ã‘â€¹ ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€žÃÂ°ÃÂ³ÃÂ¾ÃÂ² Ã‘ÂÃÂ¸ÃÂ»Ã‘Å’ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ ÃÂ²ÃÂ°Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Å’ÃÂ¸Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’Ã‘Å½Ã‘â€š. Ãâ€ÃÂ°ÃÂ¶ÃÂµ ÃÂ² ÃÂ¿ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¾ÃÂ´ ÃÂ¼ÃÂ°ÃÂºÃ‘ÂÃÂ¸ÃÂ¼ÃÂ°ÃÂ»Ã‘Å’ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¹ ÃÂ°ÃÂºÃ‘â€šÃÂ¸ÃÂ²ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¸ ÃÂ¶Ã‘Æ’ÃÂºÃÂ¸ ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃ‘ÂÃÂ¸ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¸ÃÂ»ÃÂ¸Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’Ã‘Å½Ã‘â€š ÃÂ¾ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ»ÃÂ¾ 0,2% Ã‘ÂÃÂ½ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ³ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ Ã‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ². ÃÅ¸ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ¼Ã‘Æ’ ÃÂ½ÃÂµÃ‘â€š ÃÂ´ÃÂ¾ÃÂºÃÂ°ÃÂ·ÃÂ°Ã‘â€šÃÂµÃÂ»Ã‘Å’Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ² ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ½ÃÂºÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ·ÃÂ° ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¸Ã‘Ë†Ã‘Æ’ ÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¼ÃÂ°ÃÂ»Ã‘Å’ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¹ ÃÂ¿ÃÂ»ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¸ ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¿Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ»Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸. Ãâ€Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ³ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ·Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ»Ã‘Å’Ã‘â€šÃÂ°Ã‘â€šÃ‘â€¹ Ã‘â€šÃÂ°ÃÂºÃÂ¶ÃÂµ ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾ÃÂºÃÂ°ÃÂ·Ã‘â€¹ÃÂ²ÃÂ°Ã‘Å½Ã‘â€š ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃ‘ÂÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â€šÃ‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ²ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ½ÃÂºÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ²ÃÂ½Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ³Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¿Ã‘â€¹ ÃÂ² ÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¾Ã‘Ë†ÃÂ»ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¼ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ»ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€°ÃÂµÃÂ¼. ÃÂ¢ÃÂ°ÃÂºÃÂ¸ÃÂµ Ã‘â€¡ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬Ã‘â€šÃ‘â€¹, ÃÂºÃÂ°ÃÂº 1. ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ°ÃÂ³ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¾ÃÂ·ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂµ Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ´ÃÂµÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ ÃÂ¶Ã‘Æ’ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ² ÃÂ½ÃÂ° Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°ÃÂ²ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾ Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾ÃÂ»ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¶ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ´ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ¸Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹Ã‘â€¦ ÃÂºÃ‘Æ’Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ°Ã‘â€¦, 2. ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾ÃÂ»ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¶ÃÂ¸Ã‘â€šÃÂµÃÂ»Ã‘Å’ÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹ÃÂµ ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃ‘ÂÃÂ¾Ã‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ°Ã‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ¶ÃÂ´Ã‘Æ’ ÃÂ²ÃÂ¸ÃÂ´ÃÂ°ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ¸ 3. ÃÂ¿Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ°ÃÂ½Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ²ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ½ÃÂ°Ã‘Â Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿ÃÂµÃ‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ°ÃÂ»ÃÂ¸ÃÂ·ÃÂ°Ã‘â€ ÃÂ¸Ã‘Â ÃÂ²ÃÂ½Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ Ã‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘ÂÃÂºÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¼ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾ÃÂ² ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¾ÃÂ³Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€š Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃ‘ÂÃÂ¼ÃÂ°Ã‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ÃÂ²ÃÂ°Ã‘â€šÃ‘Å’Ã‘ÂÃ‘Â ÃÂºÃÂ°ÃÂº ÃÂ°ÃÂ´ÃÂ°ÃÂ¿Ã‘â€šÃÂ°Ã‘â€ ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸, ÃÂ¾ÃÂ±ÃÂ»ÃÂµÃÂ³Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ°Ã‘Å½Ã‘â€°ÃÂ¸ÃÂµ ÃÂ²ÃÂ½Ã‘Æ’Ã‘â€šÃ‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ÃÂ²ÃÂ¸ÃÂ´ÃÂ¾ÃÂ²Ã‘â€¹ÃÂµ ÃÂºÃÂ¾ÃÂ½Ã‘â€šÃÂ°ÃÂºÃ‘â€šÃ‘â€¹ ÃÂ² ÃÂ¿ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¿Ã‘Æ’ÃÂ»Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€ ÃÂ¸Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€¦, ÃÂºÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃÂ¾Ã‘â‚¬Ã‘â€¹ÃÂµ Ã‘â€¡ÃÂ°Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂ¾ Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ°ÃÂ·Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂµÃÂ¶ÃÂµÃÂ½Ã‘â€¹ ÃÂ² ÃÂ¾Ã‘â€šÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘Ë†ÃÂµÃÂ½ÃÂ¸ÃÂ¸ ÃÂ²ÃÂ¾ÃÂ·ÃÂ¼ÃÂ¾ÃÂ¶ÃÂ½ÃÂ¾Ã‘ÂÃ‘â€šÃÂµÃÂ¹ Ã‘ÂÃÂ¿ÃÂ°Ã‘â‚¬ÃÂ¸ÃÂ²ÃÂ°ÃÂ½ÃÂ¸Ã‘Â.1 aHolter, Peter  uhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/354448800433nas a2200109   4500008004100000245014100041210006900182300001200251490000700263100001900270856003400289       1983                        eng d00aSeasonal Change in Abundance of Large Nocturnal Dung Beetles (Scarabaeidae) in a Costa Rican Deciduous Forest and Adjacent Horse Pasture0 aSeasonal Change in Abundance of Large Nocturnal Dung Beetles Sca  a274-2830 v411 aJanzen, D., H.  u<Go to ISI>://A1983RL3580001601193nas a2200157   4500008004100000245013000041210006900171260000800240300001200248490000700260520068100267653001700948100001700965700001900982856003401001       1999                        eng d00aDifferent ways of constructing octaves and their consequences on the prevalence of the bimodal species abundance distribution0 aDifferent ways of constructing octaves and their consequences on  cNov  a321-3260 v873 aSeveral studies on dung beetle communities suggest that their species abundance distribution is bimodal. This bimodality has been explained as a consequence of the mixture of local and non-local species in the communities. In this paper we demonstrate that bimodal distribution in dung beetles is a consequence of the method of octave construction, which increases the number of species present in the first octave. Although we do not rule out the existence of bimodality in species abundance distributions, we suggest that this should be confirmed by large sampling programs done at local and regional levels, and by the correct application of the octave construction method.10aDung beetles1 aLobo, J., M.1 aFavila, M., E.  u<Go to ISI>://00008404840001200393nas a2200121   4500008004100000245008300041210006900124260000800193300001200201490000700213100001700220856003400237       2001                        eng d00aEphemeral resource patches as model systems for diversity-function experiments0 aEphemeral resource patches as model systems for diversityfunctio  cFeb  a363-3660 v921 aFinn, J., A.  u<Go to ISI>://00016756070001902084nas a2200121   4500008004100000245008700041210006900128300001200197490000700209520161700216100002301833856010601856       2001                        eng d00aThe influence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity: how, where, and why?0 ainfluence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity how whe  a514-5260 v933 aThe effect of species diversity on ecosystem productivity is controversial, in large part because field experiments investigat- ing this relationship have been fraught with difficulties. Unfortu- nately, there are few guidelines to aid researchers who must overcome these difficulties and determine whether global species losses seriously threaten the ecological and economic bases of terrestrial ecosystems. In response, I offer a set of hypotheses that describe how diversity might influence productivity in plant communities based on three well-known mechanisms: comple- mentarity, facilitation, and the sampling effect. Emphasis on these mechanisms reveals the sensitivity of any diversity-produc- tivity relationship to ecological context (i.e., where this relation- ship should be found); ecological context includes characteristics of the surrounding environment, temporal and spatial scales of observation, and the intensity of human management. In particu- lar, the legitimacy of the sampling effect as a mechanism of productivity enhancement is dependent upon the degree to which stochastic events influence immigration and extinction processes in a given ecosystem. A mechanistic approach also requires that the three mechanisms be separated and quantified in diversity experiments, and I examine the most appropriate analyses for doing so, focusing on the overyielding technique. Finally, I question why productivity per se is a relevant management concern in non-agricultural systems once relationships among diversity, productivity, and the qualities of the surrounding environment are considered. 1 aFridley, Jason, D.  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/influence-species-diversity-ecosystem-productivity-how-where-and-why01969nas a2200289   4500008004100000245006400041210006300105260000800168300001200176490000700188520117500195653001501370653001901385653002901404653001101433653002801444653002501472653001601497653001001513653001901523653002601542653002401568653001601592100001901608700001801627856003401645       1999                        eng d00aElevation and climatic tolerance: a test using dung beetles0 aElevation and climatic tolerance a test using dung beetles  cSep  a584-5900 v863 aAn increase in the altitudinal range of occurrence of species in an assemblage with increasing elevation has been explained as a consequence of individual organisms having to be able to withstand a broader range of climatic conditions at higher elevations; the climatic variability hypothesis. Here we show that for scarab dung beetles (26 species) across an elevational transect (approx. 2500 In) in southern Africa thermal tolerance range does increase with increasing elevation across individuals and across species. The maximal thermal tolerance range exhibited increases slowly with elevation and the minimum range increases more rapidly. The mechanistic basis of the change appears to be one of rapidly changing critical thermal minimum (CTmin) with elevation and only small changes in critical thermal maximum (CTmax). Of course, even if the pattern of tolerance of species assumed by the climatic variability hypothesis is correct, an increase in altitudinal range with increasing elevation need not necessarily follow. However, although sampling has been limited, there does appear to be an elevational increase in altitudinal range for this species assemblage.10aarthropods10acold-hardiness10acritical thermal maximum10adesert10adrosophila-melanogaster10alatitudinal gradient10alepidoptera10anamib10arapoports rule10atemperature tolerance10atenebrionid beetles10aterrestrial1 aGaston, K., J.1 aChown, S., L.  u<Go to ISI>://00008224820001902147nas a2200133   4500008004100000245008200041210006900123300001400192490000800206520165200214100002101866700001801887856010801905       2008                        eng d00aHabitat fragmentation and the functional efficiency of temperate dung beetles0 aHabitat fragmentation and the functional efficiency of temperate  a1659-16660 v1173 aTo understand how current patterns of habitat loss and fragmentation will ultimately affect ecosystem functioning, we need to match experimental manipulations of community structure with real changes occurring in the landscapes of today. In this study, we examine the consequences of habitat fragmentation on a key function: the decomposition of dung by invertebrates. In a microcosm experiment, we use previous observations of dung beetle assemblage structure in fragmented and intact landscapes to create realistic differences in assemblages of small, dung-dwelling species in the genus Aphodius. We ask whether such differences will affect ecosystem functioning, and how their effects compare to those of removing full functional groups: dung-dwelling Aphodius, tunnelling Geotrupes stercorarius, and/or earthworms. As measured by changes in dung fresh weight, we observe an overriding impact of removing G. stercorarius, with the amount of dung remaining at any one time doubling if the species is excluded. Compared to this major effect, there seem to be less effects of removing Aphodius, ambiguous effects of excluding earthworms, and no detectable effects of relatively minor changes in Aphodius assemblages as induced by current levels of fragmentation. Overall, our results support the general notion that different species contribute highly unevenly to overall ecosystem functioning. Most importantly though, our findings suggest that the functional consequences of habitat loss will depend on taxon-specific responses to landscape modification. Only by addressing these responses may we predict the actual consequences of habitat loss.1 aRosenlew, Helena1 aRoslin, Tomas  uhttps://scarabnet.myspecies.info/habitat-fragmentation-and-functional-efficiency-temperate-dung-beetles02308nas a2200265   4500008004100000245004800041210004800089260000800137300001200145490000700157520157300164653002601737653001401763653001701777653003101794653002801825653002001853653002901873653001401902653001501916653003701931653002501968100001501993856003402008       2000                        eng d00aDung beetle movements at two spatial scales0 aDung beetle movements at two spatial scales  cNov  a323-3350 v913 aTo 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.10aAPHODIUS SCARABAEIDAE10abutterfly10acolonization10aeuphydryas-editha-bayensis10along-distance dispersal10amelitaea-cinxia10ametapopulation structure10amigration10apatch size10aproclossiana-eunomia lepidoptera10aresource utilization1 aRoslin, T.  u<Go to ISI>://000166017800013