Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts (2014, unknown): “…Navarro et al. 2011; 230 Noriega et al. 2007; 231 Horgan 2009; 232 Gardner et al. 2008; 233 da Silva 2011; 234 Silva et al. 2010; 235 Jacobs et al. 2010; 236 Slade et al. 2011; 237 Filgueiras et al. 2011; 238 Navarrete and Halffter 2008; 239 Davis and Philips 2005; 240 Parra-H and Nates-Parra…”
Measuring the success of reforestation for restoring biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (2016, unknown): “S3); 267 however, because species richness is the most commonly used diversity index and biomass is 268 known to have a significant effect on dung beetle functioning (Slade et al. 2011, Braga et al. 269 2013), we retained these metrics in the analyses.”
Human perturbations reduce dung beetle diversity and dung removal ecosystem function (2021, methodology): “In this study, we evaluate the effects of land use perturbation on dung removal rates (i.e., the rate at which dung is cleared from the soil surface, by typically being buried into deeper soil layers; e.g., Slade et al., 2011).”
Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices (2015, methodology): “Dung removal and seed burial: We used data collected from six forest sites in Sabah, Malaysian 199 Borneo (two old-growth forest, two low-intensity selectively logged forest and two high-intensity 200 logged forest) [34].”