Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-s4m2s Total loading time: 0.222 Render date: 2021-10-24T10:39:04.322Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Niche separation in coprophagous beetles: a comparison of two multivariate approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. Sowig
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Institut für Biologie I (Zoologie), Hauptstrasse 1, D-79104 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany


Coprophagous beetles (endocoprid and paracoprid Scarabaeidae, Hydrophilidae, and Staphylinidae) were extracted from 698 sheep droppings from a pasture in southwest Germany. To quantify the pairwise niche overlap of these species, pairwise discriminant function analysis was used to calculate the overlap of the discriminant distributions in a four-dimensional niche space. Niche separation was studied considering the following four factors: season (month) and macrohabitat when and where the dropping was deposited, dropping size, and water content of the dropping. Multiple discriminant function analysis was used to describe the distribution of species in a space defined by four discriminant functions. The first discriminant function was mostly influenced by the factor ‘season’. The importance of different factors for niche separation in different functional groupings of dung beetles is compared with results from the literature. Advantages and disadvantages of pairwise and multiple discriminant function analysis, and univariate evaluation methods are compared. The following problems and restrictions of discriminant function analyses are emphasized: (i) the usage of non-numerical variables; (ii) the calculation of niche breadths; (iii) failures, when bimodally distributed variables are considered; and (iv) the ecological interpretation of statistical significances.

Original Articles
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)


Abrams, P.A., Roughgarden, J., Giller, P. & Den Boer, P.J. (1986) The competitive exclusion principle, Other views and a reply. TREE 1, 131133.Google ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, W.D. & Shorrocks, B. (1981) Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource, a simulation model. Journal of Animal Ecology 50, 461471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baz, A. (1988) Seleccion de macrohabitat por algunas species y analisis de una communidad de escarabeidos coprofagos (Coleoptera) de Macizo de Ayllon (Sistema central, Espana). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 24, 203210.Google Scholar
Caswell, H. (1978) Predator-mediated coexistence, a non-equilibrium model. American Naturalist 112, 127154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, M.L. (1968) On the methods of resource division in grassland bird comununities. American Naturalist 102, 107148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, M.L. (1973) Character convergence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 189212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, R.K. & Futuyma, D. (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 52, 567576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, J.H. (1971) On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and in rain forest trees, pp. 298310in Den Boer, P.J. & Gradwell, G.R. (Eds) Dynamics of populations. Proceedings of the Advanced Study Institute in Dynamics.Google Scholar
Den Boer, P.J. (1980) Exclusion or coexistence and the taxonomic or ecological relationship between species. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30, 278306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Boer, P.J. (1986) The present status of the competitive exclusion principle. TREE 1, 2528.Google ScholarPubMed
Doube, B.M. (1983) The habitat preference of some bovine dung beetles (Col. Scarabaeinae) in Huhluwe Game Reserve, South Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research 73, 357372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doube, B.M. & MacQueen, A. (1991) Establishment of exotic dung beetles in Queensland, The role of habitat specificity. Entomophaga 36, 353360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, P.S. & Doube, B.M. (1989) Experimental analysis of interand intraspecific competition in dung beetle communities. Journal of Annual Ecology 58, 129142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, P.S. & Doube, B.M. (1994) Spatial and temporal co-occurrence of competitors in Southern African dung beetle communities. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 629643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R.H. (1971) A multivariate statistical approach to the Hutchinsonian niche, bivalve molluscs of central Canada. Ecology 52, 543556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hafez, M. (1939) Some ecological observations on the insect fauna of dung. Bulletin de la Société Fouad 1er d'Entomologie 23, 241387.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. (1978) Some comments on the measurement of niche metrics. Ecology 59, 168174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. (1983) Coexistence of competitors in patchy environment. Ecology 64, 493500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. & Koskela, H. (1977) Niche relations among dung-inhabiting beetles. Oecologia 28, 203231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I. & Koskela, H. (1979) Resource partitioning in six guilds of dung-inhabiting beetles (Coleoptera). Annales Entomologici Fennici 45, 112.Google Scholar
Harner, E.J. & Whitmore, R. (1977) Multivariate measures of niche overlap using discriminant analysis. Theoretical Population Biology 12, 2136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, P. & Silvertown, J. (1983) Can theoretical ecology keep a competitive edge? New Scientist (1983), 760763.Google Scholar
Holter, P. (1975) Energy budget of a natural population of Aphodius rufipes larvae (Scarabaeidae). Oikos 26, 177186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holter, P. (1982) Resource utilization and local coexistence in a guild of scarabaeid dung beetles (Aphodius sp.). Oikos 9, 213227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H.S. (1966) Measurement of ‘overlap’ in comparative ecological studies. American Naturalist 100, 419424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H.S. & MacArthur, R.H. (1972) Competition among fugitive species in a harlequin environment. Ecology 53, 749752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlbert, S.L. (1978) The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology 59, 6777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G.E. (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbour Symposium of Quantiative Biology 22, 415427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, F.C. & McCulloch, C.E. (1990) Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics, Panacea or Pandora's box? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21, 129166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskela, H. (1972) Habitat selection of dung-inhabiting staphylinids (Coleoptera) in relation to age of the dung. Annales Zoologici Fennici 9, 156171.Google Scholar
Landin, B.O. (1961) Ecological studies on dung-beetles (Col. Scarabaeidae). Opuscula Entomologica Supplement 19, 1227.Google Scholar
Levins, R. (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Loreau, M. (1990) The Colwell-Futuyma method for measuring niche breadth and overlap, a critique. Oikos 58, 251253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumaret, J.P. & Kirk, A. (1987) Ecology of dung beetles in the French Mediterranean region (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Acta Zoologica Mexicana Nueva Seria 2, 4155.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. & Levins, R. (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist 101, 377385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, C.O. (1943) Cattle droppings as ecological units. Ecological Monographs 13, 276298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, I. (1954) An efficient method of collecting dung beetles. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 30, 208.Google Scholar
Peck, S.B. & Howden, H.F. (1984) Response of a dung beetle guild to different sizes of dung bait in a Panamanian rainforest. Biotropica 16, 235238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petraitis, P.S. (1979) Likelihood measures of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 60, 703710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainio, M. (1966) Abundance and phenology of some coprophagous beetles in different kinds of dung. Annales Zoologici Fennici 3, 8898.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R.E. & Lau, M. (1980) Bias and dispersion of overlap indices, results of some Monte Carlo simulations. Ecology 61, 10191024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotenberry, J.T. & Wiens, J.A. (1980) Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation, a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61, 12281250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sale, P.F. (1974) Overlap in resource use, and interspecific competition. Oecologia 17, 245256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, G. (1935) Beiträge zur Biologie der Aphodiinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung 96, 293350.Google Scholar
Schulte, F. (1985) Eidonomie, Ethökologie und Larvalsystematik dungbewohnender Cercyon-Species (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Entomologica Generalis 11, 4755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, P.K. & Puri, M.L. (1968) On a class of multivariate multisample rank order tests, II, Test for homogeneity of dispersion matrices. Sankhya, The Indian Journal of Statistics 30, 122.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, B. (1990) Coexistence in a patchy environment, pp. 91106in Shorrocks, B. & Swingland, I.R. (Eds) Living in a patchy environment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, E.P. & Zaret, T.M. (1982) Bias in estimating niche overlap. Ecology 63, 12481253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowig, P., Himmelsbach, W., Himmelsbach, R. & Wahl, P. (1994) Die Bedeutung des Standortes und der Bewirtschaftung von Viehweiden für die Struktur von Gemeinschaften coprophager Käfer (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 3, 261269.Google Scholar
Vance, R.R. (1985) The stable coexistence of two competitors for one resource. American Naturalist 126, 7286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B.K. & Titus, K. (1988) Assessment of sampling stability in ecological applications of discriminant analysis. Ecology 69, 12751285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Niche separation in coprophagous beetles: a comparison of two multivariate approaches
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Niche separation in coprophagous beetles: a comparison of two multivariate approaches
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Niche separation in coprophagous beetles: a comparison of two multivariate approaches
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *