A presentation by Prof. Fatima Moreira

1. 5/27/2010
Britsh Ecological Society Annual Meeting, University of
Hertfordshire, Hatfield - UK Dung beetles
8 - 10 September 2009
Oral Session 11: Ecosystem Services
Dung beetle communities and ecological services in a
mixed-use Amazon landscape
LOUZADA, J.1, BRAGA, R. 1, KORASAKI, V. 1, BARLOW, J.2
(1 Universidade Federal de Lavras - Brazil 2 Lancaster
Brazil,
University - UK)
Halffter & Favila, 1993
Our research aims to evaluate the effect of land use
intensity, from pastures to primary forests, on dung
beetles and their ecological functions (dung removal,
soil pedoturbation and secondary seed dispersion*). The
dung beetle and functions are sensitive to the use
intensity gradient, and probably ecological services are
missing in intensely used systems.
* + biological control
Functional Guilds of detritus feeding Scarabaeidae
A = Paracoprídeos, B = Telecoprídeos e C = Endocoprídeos. Hanski & Cambefort, 1991
Modified from Halffter & Edmonds (1982) e Hanski & Cambefort
(1991). Roller
Digger
Cattle feces: loss of N volatilization,
source of pests and parasites: heamatophagous flies,
helminthes, etc.
Dung beetles bury the feces of other animals in the soil. In Dung beetle communities and ecological
doing this, they help to fertilize the soil and prevent services in a mixed-use Amazon
pollution and deseases. That is why they are called the
“garbage collectors” of the ecosystems. (“Curumin and landscape
Cunhantã helping soil biodiversity”, 2008).
Ecosystem services on biological, chemical and physical
attributes.
Losey & Vaughan, 2006:
USA: 100 million head of cattle are in production (NASS 2004a,
Júlio Louzada
2004b), and each animal can produce over 9 ton cattle dung
(Fincher 1981), or about 21 cubic meters (BCMAF1990), of solid
Rodrigo Braga
waste per year: Vaneska Korasaki
Jos Barlow
Dung beetle ecosystem services savings: US$ 0,38 billion/year
1

2. 5/27/2010
METHODS
OBJETIVES
To verify how the dung beetle community
structure and their ecological services are
affected b a gradient of land-use i t
ff t d by di t f l d intensity
it
METHODS METHODS
Cocamo´s tribe
Cocamo´
Degraded pasture
areas Ticuna´s tribe
Ticuna´
Fidalgo et al.
Área 2
Área 1
Área 3 Nova Aliança
Guanabara II
Benjamin Constant
4
2
5
6
3 Primary Forest
1
METHODS METHODS
Secondary forest
Agroforestry
2

3. 5/27/2010
METHODS METHODS
Agriculture Pasture
METHODS METHODS
Seed dispersion/dung After the dung beetle services evaluation we sampled the
Biological control dung beetle community using 3 baited pitfalls in each site
Removal/soil pedoturbation
20 g of dung
70 g of dung (pig + 15 sites in primary forest
human)
15 sites in secondary forest
Artificial seeds (small
2-3mm, medium – Access only to 15 sites in agroforestry
0.8-10.1 mm and 15 sites in agriculture
large – 15 – 20 mm ) the flies for 24 h
15 sites in pasture
24 h Incubate for 48 h, and record
the number of maggots produced
Measurements
Baited pitfall trap installation sequence
. Amount dung buried
. Amount soil excavated
. Percentage of seeds disappeared (=dispersed)
Main results Main results
2.0
Primary Forest
Secondary Forest 250
1.5 Agroforestry
Agriculture Soil excaveted
Pasture Dung removed
1.0 200
NMDS Axis 1
0.5
Amou (g)
150
unt
0.0
100
-0.5
-1.0
50
-1.5
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0
NMDS Axis 2 Pr Forest Sec forest Agroforestry Agriculture Pasture
Land use system
Non-metric multidimensional scaling grouping the dung beetle communities
according the community structure (composition and relative abundance)
using a Bray-Curtis similarity index.
Mean soil peduturbation and dung removal per sampling point
3

4. 5/27/2010
Main results Main results
100 200
Large seeds 180
Medium seeds
gots (mean +SD)
80 small seeds 160
140
moved (%)
60 120
Seeds rem
100
Number of magg
40 80
60
20 40
20
0 0
Pr Forest Sec forest Agroforestry Agriculture Pasture Pr Forest Sec Forest Agroforestry Agriculture Pasture
Land use system Land use system
Mean secondary seed dispersion per sampling point Mean potential biological control of flies per sampling point
300
Agriculture
80 Agroforestry
Agriculture
250 Sec forest
Agroforestry
Pri forest
Secondary forest
Pri Forest
Pasture
60 Pasture 200
soil excavated (g)
Dung removed (g)
150
40
100
Main results 50
Main results
20
0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Number of individuals (log Number of individuals (log)
300
80
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agroforestry Agroforestry
250 Sec forest
Secondary forest
Pri Forest Pri forest
60 Pasture Pasture
200
soil excavated (g)
Dung removed (g)
150
40
100
20
50
0
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Number of species (log)
Number of species (log)
Acknowledgments
This work is part of the project Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity (CSM-BGBD),
coordinated by the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of
Thank’s
CIAT (TSBF-CIAT). Financial support is provided by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and implementation support by the
y( ) p pp y
United Nations Environment Programe (UNEP).
4