4.7 Article

Grazing promotes dung beetle diversity in the xeric landscape of a Mexican Biosphere Reserve

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 140, 期 3-4, 页码 308-317

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.015

关键词

alpha and beta diversity; indicator species; land mosaics; aphodiinae; Scarabaeidae; Barranca de Metztitlan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze the impact of grazing on dung beetle diversity at the Barranca de Metztitlan Biosphere Reserve, a xeric ecosystem in central Mexico with a long history of use by humans. We compared the community structure, as well as the alpha and beta diversity between two cover conditions (open and closed vegetation) that represent the impact of grazing within a habitat, and between habitat types (submountainous and crassicaule scrublands). From 576 samples we collected 75,605 dung beetles belonging to 20 taxa. While mean species richness and diversity were different between habitat types, cumulative species richness was not. The effects of grazing on vegetation structure influenced the cumulative species richness and diversity of dung beetles in the submountainous scrubland, where grazing has created land mosaics of a grassland matrix with scrubland patches. This was not the case in the crassicaule scrubland where the impact of grazing is not as evident. Beta diversity significantly responds to the effects of grazing on habitat conditions. We discuss the ecological factors that may promote these responses by landscape diversity components. We also identify the species that could act as useful indicators to monitor the effect of land management on biodiversity. Our results indicate cattle farming maintains a diversified land mosaic, and these areas support more diverse dung beetle ensembles than homogeneous areas of closed, shrubby vegetation cover. Thus, controlled grazing activity could certainly favour the conservation of dung beetle biodiversity and improve ecosystem functioning by maintaining dung decomposition rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据