TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of brood parasitism on host reproductive success: evidence from larval interactions among dung beetles JF - Oecologia Y1 - 2003 A1 - Gonzalez-Megias, A. A1 - Sanchez-Pinero, F. SP - 195 EP - 202 KW - abundance KW - aphodius ater KW - assemblage KW - cleptoparasite KW - COLEOPTERA KW - community KW - coprophagous beetles KW - desert ecology KW - hymenoptera KW - intraspecific competition KW - kleptoparasitism KW - Larval mortality KW - resource utilization KW - Scarabaeidae AB - This paper investigates the effect of brood parasitism in a dung beetle assemblage in an arid region of Spain. The study was conducted during the spring season (March-May 1994-1998) using mesh cylinders buried into the ground, filled with sand and with sheep dung on top. We quantified the proportion of nests containing larvae of parasitic beetles and their effect on host larvae survival. Experiments on the effect of parasitic larvae on host-larvae survival were conducted by placing scarab brood masses (raised from captive scarabs in the laboratory) in containers with and without aphodiid larvae. During the spring, dung desiccation is rapid, preventing aphodiids nesting in the dung, and forcing these species to adopt brood parasitism as a nesting strategy. Parasitic aphodiids were found in 12-47% of scarab nests of three species. The incidence of brood parasitization was positively related with the number of brood masses contained in the nests, being also higher in the most abundant species. Field data and experiments showed that brood parasites significantly reduced host larvae survival from 74.8% in non-parasitized nests to 8.8% in parasitized nests. Because different rates of nest parasitization and mortality were caused by parasites, brood parasitism had a differential effect on different host species. Thus, brood, parasitism constitutes an important mortality factor reducing the reproductive success of the host species and potentially affecting the beetle abundance in the area. VL - 134 UR - ://000180822900005 N1 - Times Cited: 0Cited Reference Count: 57Cited References: BEGON M, 1995, ECOLOGY INDIVIDUALS BORNEMISSZA GF, 1971, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V11, P1 BORNEMISSZA GF, 1969, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V9, P223 CAMBEFORT Y, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P156 CHAPMAN TA, 1869, ENTOMOL MONTH MAG, V5, P273 CLOUDSLEYTHOMPS.JL, 1991, ECOPHYSIOLOGY DESERT CLUTTONBROCK TH, 1991, EVOLUTION PARENTAL C DAVIS ALV, 1996, AFR J ECOL, V34, P258 DAY RW, 1989, ECOL MONOGR, V59, P433 DELLACASSA G, 1983, B MUS REG SCI NAT TO, V1, P1 DOUBE BM, 1990, ECOL ENTOMOL, V15, P371 GILLER PS, 1989, J ANIM ECOL, V58, P129 GITTINGS T, 1997, ECOGRAPHY, V20, P55 GITTINGS T, 1999, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V43, P439 GONZALEZMEGIAS A, 1999, THESIS U GRANADA GRA HALFFTER G, 1966, FOLIA ENTOMOL MEXICO, V12, P1 HALFFTER G, 1982, NESTING BEHAV DUNG B HAMMOND PM, 1976, COLEOPT B, V30, P245 HANSKI I, 1980, ANN ENTOMOL FENN, V46, P57 HIRSCHBERGER P, 1996, ECOL ENTOMOL, V21, P352 HIRSCHBERGER P, 1998, OECOLOGIA, V116, P136 HOLTER P, 1979, ECOL ENTOMOL, V4, P317 HOLTER P, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P213 HOWDEN HF, 1955, J TENNESSEE ACAD SCI, V30, P64 HOWDEN HF, 1963, P US NAT MUS, V114, P1 KLEMPERER HG, 1980, ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOG, V5, P143 KREBS JR, 1993, INTRO BEHAV ECOLOGY LANDIN BO, 1961, OPUSC ENTOMOL LUND S, V19, P1 LUMARET JP, 1987, ACTA ZOOL MEX, V24, P1 LUMARET JP, 1989, B ECOLOGIE, V20, P51 MARTINPIERA F, 1993, ACTA ZOOLOGICA MEXIC, V57, P15 MARTINPIERA F, 1984, EOS, V60, P101 MUNSTERSWENDSEN M, 2000, ECOL ENTOMOL, V25, P63 NOYMEIR I, 1979, ISRAEL J BOT, V28, P1 PAULIAN R, 1982, ENCY ENTOMOLOGY, V43 PETANIDOU T, 1995, BIOL J LINN SOC, V55, P261 PITTINO R, 1986, GIORNALE ITALIANO EN, V3, P1 POLIS GA, 1991, AM NAT, V138, P123 RASA OAE, 1996, NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, V83, P575 RICE WR, 1989, EVOLUTION, V43, P223 ROSENHEIM JA, 1989, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V25, P335 ROTHSTEIN SI, 1998, PARASITIC BIRDS THEI ROUGON D, 1982, B SOC ENTOMOL FR, V87, P272 ROUGON D, 1980, CR ACAD SCI D NAT, V291, P417 ROUGON D, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P230 ROUGON D, 1980, REV ECOL BIOL SOL, V17, P379 SANCHEZPINERO F, 1994, THESIS U GRANADA GRA SMITH JN, 2000, ECOLOGY MANAGEMENT C SPOFFORD M, 1986, J NAT HIST, V26, P993 STEVENSON BG, 1985, COLEOPTERISTS B, V39, P215 TALLAMY DW, 1984, BIOSCIENCE, V34, P20 TORCHIO PF, 1992, ANN ENTOMOL SOC AM, V85, P713 TORCHIO PF, 1972, MELANDERIA, V10, P1 TRINE CL, 1998, PARASITIC BIRDS THEI, P273 TRUMBO ST, 1990, ECOL ENTOMOL, V15, P347 VOLLRATH F, 1984, STRATEGIES EXPLOTATI, P61 ZAR JH, 1996, BIOSTATISTICAL ANALEnglishArticle642UHOECOLOGIA ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Experimental investigations of colonisation by north temperate dung beetles of different types of domestic herbivore dung JF - Applied Soil Ecology Y1 - 2002 A1 - Finn, J. A. A1 - Giller, P. S. SP - 1 EP - 13 KW - abundance KW - aphodius KW - assemblage KW - cattle dung KW - COLEOPTERA KW - colonisation KW - disappearance KW - dung beetle KW - Onthophagus KW - resource KW - resource utilization KW - Scarabaeidae KW - Scarabaeoidea KW - seasonal-changes KW - utilisation AB - Field experiments investigated the colonisation by a north temperate dung beetle community (Aphodius, Geotrupes and Sphaeridium species) of artificial, standardised (11) dung pats from native herbivore species (cow, horse and sheep). An additional experiment compared the colonisation by dung beetles of five different types of cow dung. These experiments did not examine naturally occurring dung pats, but used experimental dung pats to examine the ability of north temperate dung beetles to discriminate among different dung types. A small number of laboratory experiments investigated pat residence times (PRT) and larval production across different dung types. There were significant differences in the biomass and abundance of dung beetle colonisation across different dung types. Sheep dung tended to have highest abundances of beetles, but there was evidence of species-specific differences in dung beetle colonisation of the different kinds of dung. In two out of three comparisons, laboratory experiments provided evidence that adult PRT were significantly different among different kinds of dung. In each of three laboratory experiments, larval production was significantly higher in sheep than cow dung pats of the same size. The relevance of these findings to the interpretation of what constitutes a dung type preference is discussed. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. VL - 20 UR - ://000177123900001 N1 - Times Cited: 1Cited Reference Count: 33Cited References: ASCHENBORN HH, 1989, ENTOMOL EXP APPL, V53, P73 BARBERO E, 1999, J INSECT CONSERVATIO, V3, P75 BISTROM O, 1991, ENTOMOL FENNICA, V2, P53 BREYMEYER A, 1975, B ACAD POLONAISE SB, V23, P173 DADOUR IR, 1996, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V25, P1026 DANIEL WW, 1978, APPL NONPARAMETRIC S EDWARDS PB, 1991, FUNCT ECOL, V5, P617 FINN JA, 1998, APPL SOIL ECOL, V10, P27 FINN JA, 2000, ECOGRAPHY, V23, P301 FINN JA, 1999, ECOL ENTOMOL, V24, P24 FINN JA, 1998, THESIS NATL U IRELAN, P199 GITTINGS T, 1998, ECOGRAPHY, V21, P581 GITTINGS T, 1997, ECOGRAPHY, V20, P55 GITTINGS T, 1994, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V38, P455 GITTINGS T, 1994, THESIS NATL U IRELAN, P323 GREENHAM PM, 1972, J ANIM ECOL, V41, P153 HANSKI I, 1991, DUNG BEETLE ECOLOGY, P75 HIMMELSBACH W, 1993, THESIS FREIBURG HIRSCHBERGER P, 1994, PEDOBIOLOGIA, V38, P375 HOLTER P, 1983, EARTHWORM ECOLOGY, P49 HOLTER P, 1979, ECOL ENTOMOL, V4, P317 HOLTER P, 1982, OIKOS, V39, P213 HOLTER P, 1979, OIKOS, V32, P393 KIELY J, 1984, SOIL SURVEY B FORAS, V38 LUMARET JP, 1993, J APPL ECOL, V30, P428 MACQUEEN A, 1986, J AUST ENTOMOL SOC, V25, P23 OLECHOWICZ E, 1974, ECOL POL, V22, P589 PALMER WA, 1983, PROT ECOL, V5, P153 RAINIO M, 1966, ANN ZOOL FENN, V3, P88 RASSI P, 1991, 30 MIN ENV, P328 RIDSDILLSMITH TJ, 1986, B ENTOMOL RES, V76, P63 SOWIG P, 1994, ZOOL JB SYST, V121, P171 TYNDALEBISCOE M, 1981, B ENTOMOL RES, V71, P137EnglishArticle578NGAPPL SOIL ECOL ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dung beetle movements at two spatial scales JF - Oikos Y1 - 2000 A1 - Roslin, T. SP - 323 EP - 335 KW - APHODIUS SCARABAEIDAE KW - butterfly KW - colonization KW - euphydryas-editha-bayensis KW - long-distance dispersal KW - melitaea-cinxia KW - metapopulation structure KW - migration KW - patch size KW - proclossiana-eunomia lepidoptera KW - resource utilization AB - 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. VL - 91 UR - ://000166017800013 N1 - 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 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Distribution and abundance of dung beetles in fragmented landscapes JF - Oecologia Y1 - 2001 A1 - Roslin, T. A1 - Koivunen, A. SP - 69 EP - 77 KW - aphodius KW - APHODIUS SCARABAEIDAE KW - assemblage KW - COLEOPTERA KW - community KW - diversity KW - dynamics KW - europe mammals KW - habitat loss KW - metapopulation KW - patchy KW - population KW - resource utilization KW - serpentine KW - spatial population structure KW - stability AB - Related species utilising similar resources are often assumed to show similar spatial population structures and dynamics. This paper reports substantial ecological variation within a set of Aphodius dung beetles occurring in the same patchily distributed resource, livestock dung in pastures. We show how variation in habitat and resource selectivity, in the rate of movements between pastures, and in the distribution of local population sizes all contribute to interspecific differences in spatial population structures. Local dung beetle assemblages are compared between two landscapes with different densities of pastures. In one of the landscapes, we contrast the abundances and regional distributions of Aphodius before and after 15 years of rapid habitat loss. Different species show very dissimilar responses to changes in the structure of the landscape. Our results suggest that generalist Aphodius species, and specialist species with high dispersal powers, occur as large "patchy" populations in the landscape. In contrast? a strict pasture specialist species with limited dispersal powers (A. pusillus) forms classical metapopulations. At the community level, interspecific differences in spatial population structures make the local community composition a function of the structure of the surrounding landscape. VL - 127 UR - ://000167629200008 N1 - digital & hard copy copy ER -