Land-use systems (LUS), placed in originally forested areas, represent different degrees of opportunity for species conservation. In this study, we examined the dung beetle communities in order to identify the conservation value of different LUS: primary forest, old secondary forest, young secondary forest, agroforestry, agriculture and pasture in Western Amazon. The LUS were sampled in two campaigns during the highest precipitation period and dryest period. The primary forest has a high number of total and exclusive species. Large beetles show a continuous decreasing in richness and abundance from primary forest to pastures, while small ones are not sensible to intermediate systems (secondary forest to agriculture) in terms of species richness and exhibit a increase in abundance at agroforest and agriculture when contrasted to secondary forest and pasture The beetle community composition was not sensible to secondary forest recovering time. Secondary forests and agroforestry stood out as harboring many species shared with primary forests. Cloud-point dispersion (average dissimilarity) increased from primary forest towards LUS’s submitted to more intense use. The higher sampling points similarity observed in primary forest might be the result of the relative stability of this system, given that environmental impacts might increase variability in community structure and beta diversity. Increase in beta diversity as expressed by greater dispersion of sites in multivariate space suggests that these areas are dependent on nearby species pools, possibly primary forests, and harbor a higher spatial heterogeneity in species composition. This high variability can overestimate the importance of occasional species, thus biasing the actual value of alternative LUS for biodiversity conservation.
DOI
10.1007/s10531-013-0487-3
Publication Year
2013
Publication Site
Biodiversity and Conservation
Journal Volume
22
Page Numbers
1485–1499
Family
Scarabaeidae
General topic
Biodiversity/Biogeography
Specific topic
habitat disturbance
community structure
survey
Abstract Note