Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:01:41.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional diversity and seasonal activity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) on native grasslands in southern Alberta, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

N. Kadiri ,
J.-P. Lumaret  and
K.D. Floate
N. Kadiri*
Affiliation:
Département Biologie-Ecologie-Environnement, Laboratoire de Zoogéographie, UMR 5175 CEFE, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3, Route de Mende, 34199 Montpellier cedex 5, France Lethbridge Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, CanadaAB T1J 4B1
J.-P. Lumaret
Affiliation:
Département Biologie-Ecologie-Environnement, Laboratoire de Zoogéographie, UMR 5175 CEFE, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3, Route de Mende, 34199 Montpellier cedex 5, France
K.D. Floate
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, CanadaAB T1J 4B1
*
Corresponding author (e-mail: nassera.kadiri@univ-montp3.fr).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To characterise their functional diversity and seasonal activity, dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) were collected with baited pitfall traps at three sites for three years on a native grassland in southern Alberta, Canada. The total collection of 125 820 beetles comprised 12 species of which eight were of European origin. For each combination of site and year, assemblages were dominated by two or three core species of European origin that represented 70–95% of total beetles and more than 75% of total biomass, but only 10–30% of species richness. Core species consistently included Onthophagus nuchicornis (Linnaeus) and occasionally Chilothorax distinctus (Müller) and Colobopterus erraticus (Linnaeus). Coexistence of these core species appears to be facilitated by differences in their size, seasonal activity, and life history traits.

Résumé

Afin de caractériser leur diversité fonctionnelle et l'activité saisonnière, des coléoptères coprophages (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) ont été collectés avec des pièges standards appâtés sur trois sites pendant trois ans dans la prairie naturelle de Purple Springs dans le sud de l'Alberta, Canada. 125 820 coléoptères ont été collectés, répartis en 12 espèces, dont huit d'origine européenne. Pour chaque combinaison de site et d'année, les assemblages d'espèces étaient dominés à chaque fois par seulement deux à trois espèces, toutes d'origine européenne, formant un noyau fonctionnel rassemblant 70 à 95% du total des individus et plus de 75% de la biomasse totale, mais seulement 10 à 30% de la richesse spécifique. Les noyaux fonctionnels incluaient systématiquement Onthophagus nuchicornis (Linnaeus), avec parfois Chilothorax distinctus (Müller) et Colobopterus erraticus (Linnaeus). La coexistence entre les espèces dominantes est facilitée par des différences de taille, ou de phénologie et de traits d'histoire de vie en cas de taille comparable.

Type
Behaviour & Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 146 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 291 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Keith Summerville

References

Anderson, J.R., Merritt, R.W., Loomis, E.C. 1984. The insect-free cattle dropping and its relationship to increased dung fouling of rangeland pastures. Journal of Economic Entomology, 77: 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, R.R. 1985. A checklist, distributional record, and annotated bibliography of the insects associated with bovine droppings on pastures in America north of Mexico. Supplement to the Southwestern Entomologist, 9: 1–55.Google Scholar
Blume, R.R.Aga, A. 1978. Onthophagus gazella: progress of experimental releases in south Texas. Folia Entomológica Mexicana, 39–40: 190–191.Google Scholar
Bond, W.J. 1993. Keystone species. In Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Edited by E.D. Schulze and H.A. Mooney. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, Pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
Bornemissza, G.F. 1976. The Australian dung beetle project, 1965–1975. Australian Meat Research Committee Review, 30: 1–30.Google Scholar
Brown, W.J. 1927. An annotated list of the coprophagous Scarabaeidae known to occur in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 7: 24–28.Google Scholar
Brown, W.J. 1940. Notes on the American distribution of some species of Coleoptera common to the European and North America continents. The Canadian Entomologist, 72: 65–78.Google Scholar
Brown, W.J. 1950. The extralimital distribution of some species of Coleoptera. The Canadian Entomologist, 82: 197–205.Google Scholar
Brown, W.J. 1967. Notes on the extralimital distribution of some species of Coleoptera. The Canadian Entomologist, 99: 85–93.Google Scholar
Cambefort, Y.Hanski, I. 1991. Dung beetle population biology. In Dung beetle ecology. Edited by I. Hanski and Y. Cambefort. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, United States of America. Pp. 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetner, S.and the Agroclimatic Atlas Working Group. 2003. Agroclimatic Atlas of Alberta, 1971 to 2000. AF. Agdex 071-1. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Cottee-Jones, H.E.W.Whittaker, R.J. 2012. The keystone species concept: a critical appraisal. Frontiers of Biogeography, 4: 117–127.Google Scholar
Doube, B.M., Macqueen, A., Ridsdill-Smith, T.J., Weir, T.A. 1991. Native and introduced dung beetles in Australia. In Dung beetle ecology. Edited by I. Hanski and Y. Cambefort. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, United States of America. Pp. 255–278.Google Scholar
Environment Canada. 2013. Canadian climate normals 1971–2000. [online]. Available from www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html? [accessed 18 February 2013].Google Scholar
Fiene, J.G., Connior, M.B., Androw, R., Baldwin, B., McKay, T. 2011. Surveys of Arkansas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae and Geotrupidae): phenologies, mass occurrences, state and distributional records. The American Midland Naturalist, 165: 319–337.Google Scholar
Fincher, G.T. 1981. The potential value of dung beetles in pasture ecosystems. Journal of Georgia Entomological Society, 16: 301–316.Google Scholar
Fincher, G.T. 1986. Importation, colonization, and release of dung-burying scarabs. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America, 62: 69–76.Google Scholar
Floate, K.D. 1998. Off-target effects of ivermectin on insects and on dung degradation in southern Alberta, Canada. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 88: 25–35.Google Scholar
Floate, K.D. 2011. Arthropods in cattle dung on Canada's grasslands. In Arthropods of Canadian grasslands (volume 2): inhabitants of a changing landscape. Edited by K.D. Floate. Biological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Pp. 71–88.Google Scholar
Floate, K.D.Gill, B.D. 1998. Seasonal activity of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) associated with cattle dung in southern Alberta and their geographic distribution in Canada. The Canadian Entomologist, 130: 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floate, K.D.Kadiri, N. 2013. Dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) associated with cattle dung on native grasslands of southern Alberta, Canada. The Canadian Entomologist, 145: 647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittings, T.Giller, P.S. 1998. Resource quality and the colonisation and succession of coprophagous dung beetles. Ecography, 21: 581–592.Google Scholar
Gordon, R.D. 1983. Studies on the genus Aphodius of the United States and Canada (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). VII. Food and habitat; distribution; key to eastern species. Proceedings of Entomological Society of Washington, 85: 633–652.Google Scholar
Halffter, G.Matthews, E.G. 1966. The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Folia Entomológica Mexicana, 12–14: 1–312.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos, 38: 210–221.Google Scholar
Hanski, I.Cambefort, I. 1991. Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.Google Scholar
Holter, P. 1974. Food utilization of dung-eating Aphodius larvae (Scarabaeidae). Oikos, 25: 71–79.Google Scholar
Holter, P. 2000. Particle feeding in Aphodius dung beetles (Scarabaeidae): old hypotheses and new experimental evidence. Functional Ecology, 14: 631–637.Google Scholar
Horgan, F.G. 2001. Burial of bovine dung by coprophagous beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from horse and cow grazing sites in El Salvador. European Journal of Soil Biology, 37: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janati-Idrissi, A., Kadiri, N., Lumaret, J.P. 1999. Le partage du temps et de l'espace entre les guildes de Coléoptères coprophages dans le Moyen-Atlas (Maroc). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.), 35 (Suppl.), 213–221.Google Scholar
Kadiri, N. 1993. Effets des activités sylvo-pastorales sur la structure et la dynamique des communautés de Scarabéides coprophages en région méditerranéenne. Ph.D. dissertation, Faculté Sciences et Techniques de Saint-Jérôme, Aix-Marseille 3, France.Google Scholar
Kadiri, N., Lobo, J.M., Lumaret, J.P. 1997. Conséquences de l'interaction entre préférences pour l'habitat et quantité de ressources trophiques sur les communautés d'insectes coprophages (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Acta Œcologica, 18: 107–119.Google Scholar
Kessler, H., Balsbaugh, E.U., McDaniel, B. 1974. Faunistic comparison of adult Coleoptera recovered from cattle and sheep manure in east-central South Dakota. Entomological News, 85: 67–71.Google Scholar
Kirk, A.A. 1992. Utilisation de la lutte biologique en écologie appliquée: contrôle d'insectes et de mauvaises herbes dans des situations de déséquilibre. Ph.D. dissertation, Faculté Sciences et Techniques de Saint-Jérôme, Aix-Marseille 3, France.Google Scholar
Legner, E.F. 1986. The requirement for reassessment of interactions among dung beetles, symbovine flies and natural enemies. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America, 61: 120–131.Google Scholar
Lobo, J.M. 1993. Estimation of dung beetle biomass (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). European Journal of Entomology, 90: 235–238.Google Scholar
Lobo, J.M. 1994. A southern distribution for the introduced dung beetle Aphodius (Otophorus) haemorrhoidalis (L., 1758). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 102: 385–386.Google Scholar
Lobo, J.M. 2000. Species diversity and composition of dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) assemblages in North America. The Canadian Entomologist, 132: 307–321.Google Scholar
Lobo, J.M., Martin-Piera, F., Veiga, M. 1988. Las trampas pitfall con cebo, sus posibilidades en el estudio de las comunidades coprofagas de Scarabaeoidea (Col.) I. Caractericas determinantes de su capacidad de captura. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol, 25: 77–100.Google Scholar
Lumaret, J.P. 1983. Structure des peuplements de Scarabaeidae en région méditerranéenne française: relations entre les conditions écologiques et quelques paramètres biologiques des espèces. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 88: 481–495.Google Scholar
Lumaret, J.P.Kadiri, N. 1995. The influence of the first wave of colonizing insects on cattle dung dispersal. Pedobiologia, 39: 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumaret, J.P., Kadiri, N., Bertrand, M. 1992. Changes in resources: consequences for the dynamics of dung beetle communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29: 349–356.Google Scholar
Lumaret, J.P.Kirk, A. 1987. Ecology of dung beetles in the French Mediterranean region. Acta Zoologica Mexicana (Nueva serie), 24: 1–55.Google Scholar
Lumaret, J.P.Stiernet, N. 1991. Montane dung beetles. In Dung beetle ecology. Edited by I. Hanski and Y. Cambefort. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, United States of America. Pp. 242–254.Google Scholar
Natural Regions Committee. 2006. Natural regions and subregions of Alberta. Pub. No. T/852, Compiled by D.J. Downing and W.W. Pettapiece. Government of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Nealis, V.G. 1977. Habitat associations and community analysis of south Texas dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55: 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridsdill-Smith, T.J.Matthiessen, J. 1984. Field assessments of the impact of night-flying dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) on the bush fly, Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera, Muscidae), in south-western Australia. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 74: 191–194.Google Scholar
Ridsdill-Smith, T.J.Matthiessen, J. 1988. Bush fly, Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera, Muscidae), control in relation to seasonal abundance of Scarabaeinae dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in south-western Australia. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 78: 633–639.Google Scholar
Rojewski, C. 1983. Observations on the nesting behaviour of Aphodius erraticus (L.) (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 53: 271–279.Google Scholar
Rounds, R.J.Floate, K.D. 2012. Diversity and seasonal phenology of coprophagous beetles at Lake City, Michigan, USA, with a new state record for Onthophagus taurus (Schreber) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 66: 169–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seamans, H.L. 1934. An insect weather prophet. Annual Report of the Quebec Society for the Protection of Plants, 132/134: 111–117.Google Scholar
Stiernet, N.Lumaret, J.P. 1993. Organisation des peuplements de Scarabéides coprophages de Vanoise (Insectes Coléoptères). In Sciences naturelles et montagnes, Actes 116 e Congrès national des Sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Chambéry-Annecy 1991. Edited by R. Deloince. Les Editions du CTHS (publisher), Paris, France. Pp. 225–239.Google Scholar
Tiberg, K.Floate, K.D. 2011. Where went the dung-breeding insects of the American bison (Bison bison)? The Canadian Entomologist, 143: 470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, R.Strong, L. 1987. Environmental consequences of treating cattle with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. Nature, 327: 418–421.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.S. 1975. The adequacy of body size as a niche difference. The American Naturalist, 109: 769–784.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.W. 1932. Coleoptera and Diptera collected from a New Jersey sheep pasture. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 40: 77–93.Google Scholar