Monitoring the ecosystem service provided by dung beetles offers benefits over commonly used biodiversity metrics and a traditional trapping method

Journal for Nature Conservation

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 183-188

  Gollan, John R ^a,b   de Bruyn, Lisa Lobry ^b   Reid, Nick ^b   Wilkie, Lance ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bioindicator; Citizen science; Cost effective; Invertebrate; Non destructive; Rapid technique; Scarabaeinae

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BEETLE; BIODIVERSITY; BIOINDICATOR; BIOMONITORING; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIPARIAN VEGETATION; SPECIES RICHNESS; TRAPPING;

AUSTRALIA; NEW SOUTH WALES;

ANIMALIA; COLEOPTERA; INVERTEBRATA; SCARABAEINAE; SUIDAE; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 84875916113     PISSN: 16171381     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2012.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Andersen A.N. Ants as indicators of restoration success following mining: A functional group approach. Conservation outside nature reserves 1997, 319-325. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia. P. Hale, D. Lamb (Eds.).
2. Andersen A.N. Ants as indicators of restoration success at a Uranium mine in tropical Australia. Restoration Ecology 1997, 1(3):156-167.
3. Anonymous Integrated catchment management plan for the hunter catchment 2002 2003, Hunter Catchment Management Trust, New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney, Australia.
4. Ashcroft M.B., Gollan J.R., Faith D.P., Carter G.A., Lassau S.A., Ginn S.A., et al. Using generalised dissimilarity models and many small samples to improve the efficiency of regional and landscape scale invertebrate sampling. Ecological Informatics 2010, 5(2):124-132.
5. Barros F. Ghost crabs as a tool for rapid assessment of human impacts on exposed sandy beaches. Biological Conservation 2001, 97:399-404.
6. Birks J., Messenger J., Braithwaite T., Davison A., Brookes R., Strachen C. Are scats surveys a reliable method for assessing distribution and population status of pine Martens?. Martens and fishers (martes) in human-altered environments an international perspective 2005, 235-252. Springer, United States. D.J. Harrison, A.K. Fuller, G. Proulx (Eds.).
7. Bustamante M.A., Grez A.A., Simonetti J.A. Dung decomposition and associated beetles in a fragmented temperate forest. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 2004, 77:107-120.
8. Bowie M.H., Frampton C.M. A new technique for non-destructive monitoring of soil surface invertebrates for ecological restoration programmes. Ecological Restoration and Management 2004, 5(1):34-42.
9. Churchill T.B., Arthur J.M. Measuring spider richness: Effects of different sampling methods and spatial and temporal scales. Insect Conservation and Diversity 1999, 3(4):287-295.
10. Cox P., Wilkinson S.P., Anderson J.M. Effects of fungal inocula on the decomposition of lignin and structural polysaccharides in Pinus sylvestris litter. Biology and Fertility of Soils 2001, 33:246-251.
11. Davis A.L.V, Scholtz C.H., Dooley P.W., Bham N., Kryger U. Scarabaeine dung beetles as indicators of biodiversity, habitat transformation and pest control chemicals in agro-ecosystems: Review article. South African Journal of Science 2004, 100(9-10):415-424.
12. Digweed S.C., Currie C.R., Carcamo H.A., Spence J.R. Digging out the " digging-in effect" of pitfall traps: Influences depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pedobiologia 1995, 39(6):561-576.
13. Firehock K., West J. A brief history of volunteer biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 1995, 14:197-202.
14. Glen A.S., Dickman C. Monitoring bait removal in vertebrate pest control: A comparison using track identification and remote photography. Wildlife Research 2003, 30:29-33.
15. Gollan J.R., Smith H.M., Bulbert M., Donnelly A.P., Wilkie L. Using spider web types as a substitute for assessing web-building spider biodiversity and the success of habitat restoration. Biodiversity and Conservation 2010, 19(11):3141-3155.
16. Gollan J.R., Lobry de Bruyn L., Reid N., Smith D., Wilkie L. Can ants be used as ecological indicators of restoration progress in dynamic environments? A case study in a revegetated riparian zone. Ecological Indicators 2011, 11:1517-1525.
17. Gollan J.R., Reid C.A.M., Barnes P.B., Wilkie L. The ratio of exotic-to-native dung beetles can indicate habitat quality in riparian restoration. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2011, 4:123-131.
18. Grayson J.E., Chapman M.G., Underwood A.J. The assessment of restoration of habitat in urban wetlands. Landscape Urban Planning 1999, 43:227-236.
19. Greenslade P.J.M. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology 1964, 33(2):301-310.
20. Griffiths B.S., Ritz K., Bardgett R.D., Cook R., Christensen S., Ekelund F., et al. Ecosystem response of pasture soil communities to fumigation-induced microbial diversity reductions: An examination of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship. Oikos 2000, 90:279-294.
21. Harvey M.S. Short-range endemism among the Australian fauna: Some examples from non-marine environments. Invertebrate Systematics 2002, 16:555-570.
22. Hodkinson I.D., Jackson J.K. Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates as bioindicators for environmental monitoring, with particular reference to mountain ecosystems. Environmental Management 2005, 35:649-666.
23. Janzen R.A., Dormaar J.F., McGill W.B. A community-level concept of controls on decomposition processes: Decomposition of barley straw by Phanerochaete chrysosporium or Phlebia radiata in pure or mixed culture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1995, 27:173-179.
24. Kadoya T., Washitani I. An adaptive management scheme for wetland restoration incorporating participatory monitoring into scientific predictions using dragonflies as an indicator taxon. Global Environmental Research 2007, 11:179-185.
25. Kadoya T., Ishii H.S., Kikuchi R., Suda S., Washitani I. Using monitoring data gathered by volunteers to predict the potential distribution of the invasive alien bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Biological Conservation 2009, 142:1011-1017.
26. King J.R., Porter S.D. Evaluation of sampling methods and species richness estimators for ants in upland ecosystems in Florida. Environmental Entomology 2005, 34(6):1566-1578.
27. Kuehn E., Feldmann R., Harpke A. Getting the public involved in butterfly conservation: Lessons learned from a new monitoring scheme in Germany. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 2008, 54:89-103.
28. Larsen T.H., Forsyth A. Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 2005, 37:322-325.
29. Lavell P., Decaën T., Aubert A., Barot S., Blouin M., Bureau F., et al. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Biology 2006, 42:S3-S15.
30. Lim G.S., Balke M., Meier R. Determining species boundaries in a world full of rarity: Singletons, species delimitation methods. Systematic Biology 2011, 60:1-5.
31. Lobry de Bruyn L. Defining soil macrofauna composition and activity for biopedological studies: A case study on two soils in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Australian Journal of Soil Research 1993, 31:83-95.
32. Lobry de Bruyn L. Ant composition and activity in naturally-vegetated and farmland environment on contrasting soils at Kellerberrin, Western Australia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1993, 25(8):1043-1056.
33. Lomov B., Keith D.A., Hochuli D.F. Linking ecological function to species composition in ecological restoration: Seed removal by ants in recreated woodland. Austral Ecology 2009, 34:751-760.
34. Loreau M. Microbial diversity, producer-decomposer interactions and ecosystem processes: A theoretical model. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 2001, 268:303-309.
35. Luff M.L. Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia 1975, 19:345-357.
36. Majer J.D., Orabi G., Bisevac L. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) pass the bioindicator scorecard. Myrmecological News 2007, 10:69-76.
37. Murphy D.D., Weiss S.B. A long-term monitoring plan for a threatened butterfly. Conservation Biology 1988, 2(4):367-374.
38. Nakamura A., Proctor H., Catterall C.P. Using soil and litter arthropods to assess the state of rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration 2003, 4:S20-S28.
39. Oliver I., Beattie A.J. Designing a cost-effective invertebrate survey: A test of methods for rapid assessment of biodiversity. Ecological Applications 1996, 6:594-607.
40. Ormerod S.J. Restoration in applied ecology: Editor's introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 2003, 40:44-50.
41. Pavelka M.S.M., McGoogan K.C., Staffean T.S. Population size and characteristics of Alouatta pigra before and after a major hurricane. International Journal of Primatology 2007, 28(4):919-929.
42. Peake T. Hunter bushland resources kit 2003, Tocal, NSW, Hunter Catchment Management Trust, Southwood Press, Sydney, Australia.
43. Pickett S.T.A. Long-term studies in ecology: Approaches and alternatives 1989, Springer-Verlag, New York.
44. Richter V., Freegard C. Dry pitfall trapping for vertebrates and invertebrates. Resource Condition Monitoring - Significant Native Species & Ecological Communities Project 2009, Department of Environment and Conservation's Animal Ethics Committee/Department of Environment and Conservation/The Government of Western Australia, Available online at: http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/index.php (last accessed 27.09.12).
45. Rosenberg D.M., Danks H.V., Lehmkuhl D.M. Importance of insects in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Management 1986, 10:773-783.
46. Sabu K., Shiju R.T. Efficacy of pitfall trapping, Winkler and Berlese extraction methods for measuring ground-dwelling arthropods in moist-deciduous forests in the Western Ghats. Journal of Insect Science 2010, 10(98):1-17.
47. Samways M.J. Insect conservation: A synthetic management approach. Annual Review of Entomology 2007, 52:465-487.
48. Schlick-Steiner B.C., Steiner F.M., Moder K., Bruckner A., Christian E. Assessing ant assemblages: Pitfall trapping versus nest counting (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect Sociaux 2006, 53:274-281.
49. Setala H., McClean M.A. Decomposition rate of organic substrates in relation to the species diversity of soil saprophytic fungi. Oecologia 2004, 139:98-107.
50. Spence J.R., Niemelä J.K. Sampling Carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: The madness of the method. Canadian Entomologist 1994, 126(3):881-894.
51. Thompson A.A., Mapstone B.D. Observer effects and training in underwater visual surveys of reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1997, 154:53-63.
52. Tinnov A.V., Scheu S. Facilitative interactions rather than resource partitioning drive diversity-functioning relationships in laboratory fungal communities. Ecology Letters 2005, 8:618-625.
53. Topping C.J., Sunderland K.D. Limitation to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology 1992, 29:485-491.
54. Vos P., Meelis E., Ter Keurs W.J. A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2000, 61:317-344.
55. Whipple S.D., Hoback W.W. A comparison of dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) attraction to native and exotic mammal dung. Environmental Entomology 2012, 41(2):238-244.
56. Willett T.R. Spiders and other arthropods as indicators in old-growth versus logged redwood stands. Restoration Ecology 2001, 9:410-420.
57. Woodcock B.A., Lawson C.S., Mann D., McDonald J.A.W. Effects of grazing management on beetle and plant assemblages during re-creation of a flood-plain meadow. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2006, 3-4:225-234.