3.9 Article

Response of carrion beetles Nicrophorus olidus and Oxelytrum discicolle (Coleoptera: Silphidae) to active and passive restoration in a cloud forest landscape in Mexico

期刊

REVISTA MEXICANA DE BIODIVERSIDAD
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

INST BIOLOGIA, UNIV NACIONAL AUTONOMA MEXICO
DOI: 10.22201/ib.20078706e.2023.94.5162

关键词

Abundance; Population dynamics; Restoration success; Fauna recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the recovery of beetle populations in a tropical forest under different restoration strategies. The results showed that passive restoration favored the abundance of Oxelytrum discicolle beetles, while active restoration favored the abundance of Nicrophorus olidus beetles. Seasonal variations and environmental factors also influenced the beetle populations.
Active and passive restoration are strategies used to recover forest landscapes. Few studies have assessed wildlife recovery by comparing different restoration strategies of the same age in a tropical landscape. In this study, we compared the abundance and occurrence frequency of the carrion beetles, Nicrophorus olidus and Oxelytrum discicolle, between a 23-year-old forest under passive restoration (RP), a 23-year-old forest under active restoration (RA), a cattle pasture, and a cloud forest. We analyzed how beetle populations vary between climatic seasons, and examined the relationship of 10 environmental variables to beetle response. Nicrophorus olidus was more abundant in RA and O. discicolle in RP. The abundance of both species varied between seasons. The response of N. olidus to restoration was related to canopy cover and cover of the fern Pteridium arachnoideum. The abundance of O. discicolle was not related to any variable. Each restoration strategy offers environmental conditions that differentially influenced the species, despite the fact they belong to the same guild. We emphasize the importance of restoring landscapes with complementary strategies that contribute to recovering different species populations.

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

3.9
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