4.4 Article

Negative effects of urbanisation on the physical condition of an endemic dung beetle from a neotropical hotspot

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 886-895

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/een.12865

关键词

Body condition; energetics; landscape; mites; Scarabaeinae; urban ecology

资金

  1. CONACYT
  2. Programa Nacional de Pos-Doutorado/Capes 351 (PNPD/CAPES, Brazil)
  3. CONACYT [257894]
  4. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brazil) [476135/2013-3, 310340/2016-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Urbanisation causes important losses in biodiversity and ecosystem of animals. To test whether these negative effects are preceded by unhealthy individuals in urban populations, we evaluated the effects of urbanisation on the abundance and physical condition of the dung beetle Dichotomius guaribensis, an endemic species of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. 2. We sampled beetles in nine forest fragments with different urbanisation degrees, embedded in the urban matrix of the city of Joao Pessoa. Besides testing the abundance in each fragment, we quantified four indicators of physical condition in males and females: body size, body mass, energetic condition, and mite load. 3. Females tended to be larger, and to have less lipid mass and more mites than males. Urbanisation had no effect on beetle abundance, but it negatively affected body mass and lipid content in males, but not females, revealing different sensitivities for both sexes. Body size and mite load were not affected by urbanisation in males or females. Fragment size had no effect on beetle abundance and physical condition in both sexes, suggesting that urbanisation has a greater impact than fragment size on beetle individual condition. 4. In this study, we show that individual deterioration precedes population declines in disturbed environments, and our study opens new insights into the proximate causes that leads to the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in urbanised regions.

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

4.4
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