↓ Skip to main content

Linking functional group richness and ecosystem functions of dung beetles: an experimental quantification

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Linking functional group richness and ecosystem functions of dung beetles: an experimental quantification
Published in
Oecologia, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00442-016-3756-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Milotić, Stijn Quidé, Thomas Van Loo, Maurice Hoffmann

Abstract

Dung beetles form an insect group that fulfils important functions in terrestrial ecosystems throughout the world. These include nutrient cycling through dung removal, soil bioturbation, plant growth, secondary seed dispersal and parasite control. We conducted field experiments at two sites in the northern hemisphere temperate region in which dung removal and secondary seed dispersal were assessed. Dung beetles were classified in three functional groups, depending on their size and dung manipulation method: dwellers, large and small tunnelers. Other soil inhabiting fauna were included as a fourth functional group. Dung removal and seed dispersal by each individual functional group and combinations thereof were estimated in exclusion experiments using different dung types. Dwellers were the most diverse and abundant group, but tunnelers were dominant in terms of biomass. All dung beetle functional groups had a clear preference for fresh dung. The ecosystem services in dung removal and secondary seed dispersal provided by dung beetles were significant and differed between functional groups. Although in absolute numbers more dwellers were found, large tunnelers were disproportionally important for dung burial and seed removal. In the absence of dung beetles, other soil inhabiting fauna, such as earthworms, partly took over the dung decomposing role of dung beetles while most dung was processed when all native functional groups were present. Our results, therefore, emphasize the need to conserve functionally complete dung ecosystems to maintain full ecosystem functioning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 43%
Environmental Science 13 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 33 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#17,799,562
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,563
of 4,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,947
of 315,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#44
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.