4.7 Article

Relative efficiency of extensive grazing vs. wild ungulates management for dung beetle conservation in a heterogeneous landscape from Southern Europe (Scarabaeinae, Aphodiinae, Geotrupinae)

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 141, 期 11, 页码 2879-2887

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.001

关键词

Dung beetle; Assemblage; Land-use; Pastureland; Southern Europe

资金

  1. French Ministry of Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this paper is to evaluate the relative efficiency of two strategies that favour dung beetles conservation (Scarabaeinae, Aphodiinae, Geotrupinae) in Southern Europe: extensive grazing and wild ungulate management. We conducted a study in the French Cevennes national park/UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve where dung beetles are distributed in a dichotomous sheep (grasslands, shrublands) and deer (clearings, shrublands, forests) droppings dominating abroad landscape. Natural sheep droppings and deer lumps dung beetle assemblages have been sampled two consecutive years during spring, summer and autumn in five representative habitats. This sampling of natural assemblages allowed for the estimation of (i) the density of trophic resource in the habitats, (ii) the regional dung beetle fauna and the distribution of species among the habitats and (iii) the density of beetles in natural droppings and the evenness of assemblages. High diversity, high species density in droppings and high evenness were observed in grazed shrubland, whereas fewer species were observed in deer lumps. our results clearly showed that, while wild ungulates manure is not enough to ensure the conservation of the regional dung beetle species pool, the spatial habitat heterogeneity of grazed shrubland allows the local coexistence of numerous species. Consequently, one may expect that the conservation of European dung beetle fauna, especially Scarabaeinae and several long lifetime species, could be enhanced by extensive grazing. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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