Response of dung beetle diversity to remediation of soil ecosystems in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Degradation
Ecological restoration
Scarabaeinae
Tropical rain forest
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
11
11
2022
accepted:
07
02
2023
entrez:
20
3
2023
pubmed:
21
3
2023
medline:
22
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Efforts to alleviate the negative effects of oil spills in the Ecuadorian Amazon include remediation activities such as cleaning, reshaping, and revegetation of polluted areas. However, studies of the diversity of biological communities in these hydrocarbon-degraded ecosystems have never been carried out. Here, we evaluated the diversity of dung beetles on remediated soil ecosystems (Agricultural Soils and Sensitive Ecosystems) and on non-contaminated soils (Natural Forests and Palm Plantations). The study was conducted in Sucumbíos and Orellana provinces, in the Ecuadorian Amazon at four sampling sites per ecosystem type (a total of 16 sites). At each sampling site, six pitfall traps remained active for 120 consecutive h per month for 1 year. We collected 37 species and 7,506 individuals of dung beetles. We observed significant differences in mean species abundance, richness, and diversity between non-contaminated soil ecosystems and remediated soil ecosystems, with Natural Forests presenting the highest values, and Agricultural Soils the lowest values. Regarding sampling month, we also found significant differences among ecosystems, which were also higher in Natural Forests. The results suggest that hydrocarbon-degraded ecosystems tend to conserve lower beetle diversity one year after remediation highlighting the importance of Natural Forests for the conservation of tropical biodiversity. Therefore, dung beetle diversity could be used for future landscape management of these hydrocarbon-degraded ecosystems.
Sections du résumé
Background
Efforts to alleviate the negative effects of oil spills in the Ecuadorian Amazon include remediation activities such as cleaning, reshaping, and revegetation of polluted areas. However, studies of the diversity of biological communities in these hydrocarbon-degraded ecosystems have never been carried out. Here, we evaluated the diversity of dung beetles on remediated soil ecosystems (Agricultural Soils and Sensitive Ecosystems) and on non-contaminated soils (Natural Forests and Palm Plantations).
Methodology
The study was conducted in Sucumbíos and Orellana provinces, in the Ecuadorian Amazon at four sampling sites per ecosystem type (a total of 16 sites). At each sampling site, six pitfall traps remained active for 120 consecutive h per month for 1 year.
Results
We collected 37 species and 7,506 individuals of dung beetles. We observed significant differences in mean species abundance, richness, and diversity between non-contaminated soil ecosystems and remediated soil ecosystems, with Natural Forests presenting the highest values, and Agricultural Soils the lowest values. Regarding sampling month, we also found significant differences among ecosystems, which were also higher in Natural Forests.
Discussion
The results suggest that hydrocarbon-degraded ecosystems tend to conserve lower beetle diversity one year after remediation highlighting the importance of Natural Forests for the conservation of tropical biodiversity. Therefore, dung beetle diversity could be used for future landscape management of these hydrocarbon-degraded ecosystems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36935915
doi: 10.7717/peerj.14975
pii: 14975
pmc: PMC10022510
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soil
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14975Informations de copyright
© 2023 Pozo-Rivera et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Karina García is employed by Empresa Pública PETROECUADOR. Daniel Hidalgo was an employee of Empresa Pública PETROECUADOR during the development of the research.
Références
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 23;11(6):e0157442
pubmed: 27336589
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2017 Jan;135:183-190
pubmed: 27741459
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jan 10;647:932-941
pubmed: 30096681
Environ Entomol. 2018 Dec 7;47(6):1376-1387
pubmed: 30192974
Environ Entomol. 2019 Sep 30;48(5):1095-1103
pubmed: 31287500
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Oct;23(10):538-45
pubmed: 18775582
An Acad Bras Cienc. 2013 Apr-Jun;85(2):679-97
pubmed: 23828347
PeerJ. 2020 Sep 08;8:e9860
pubmed: 33665001
Bioresour Technol. 2015 Sep;191:133-9
pubmed: 25985416
PLoS One. 2013 May 22;8(5):e64963
pubmed: 23717678
Soil Biol Biochem. 2015 Jun 1;85:190-198
pubmed: 25883392
Rev Biol Trop. 2013 Jun;61(2):735-52
pubmed: 23885586
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021 Jan;28(1):754-762
pubmed: 32822011
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Oct 1;566-567:761-770
pubmed: 27239719
J Insect Sci. 2016 Sep 12;16(1):
pubmed: 27620555
Ecol Appl. 1992 May;2(2):203-217
pubmed: 27759199
PeerJ. 2020 Jun 29;8:e9391
pubmed: 32655992
PeerJ. 2017 Apr 4;5:e3125
pubmed: 28392980