Suppr超能文献

南非蜣螂物种化学生态学的首次研究

First Investigation of the Semiochemistry of South African Dung Beetle Species

作者信息

Burger Barend (Ben) Victor

Abstract

The inhabitants of cities and large towns are largely unaware of the constant battle that rural communities have to wage against flies. In rural areas, on the other hand, inhabitants do not always appreciate the crucial role that dung beetles play in controlling dung-breeding fly populations. Not only do dung beetles play an important role in the destruction of the habitat of many dung-breeding flies (Heinrich and Bartholomew 1979), but by burying and dispersing dung, the coprophagous fauna associated with mammals is also responsible for returning a large proportion of plant nutrients to the soil (e.g., Bornemissza and Williams 1970). Serious problems have been experienced in the cattle farming areas of Australia where cattle were introduced without the associated insect fauna. The dung pats left by cattle become the habitat of dung-breeding flies, some of which are blood-feeding pests and carriers of serious diseases (Hughes 1970). This resulted in the uncontrolled increase of fly populations and the deterioration of pastures in parts of that continent. It has been estimated that cow pats are responsible for the reduction of pasture, albeit only temporarily, by about 20% per animal per year (Waterhouse 1974). During the 1950s, George Bornemissza hypothesized that the introduction of foreign dung beetle species that are able to remove and bury cattle dung would aid not only Australia’s soil fertility by recycling the dung nutrients back into the ground, but would also reduce the number of pestilent flies and parasitic worms that use the dung pats as a breeding resource. In 1965, this idea culminated in the establishment of the Australian Dung Beetle Project, and eventually 43 dung beetle species were imported from Africa and other continents in order to combat the fly problem (Wikipedia August 2012). The introduction of exotic dung beetles and their subsequent establishment in Australia was a highly successful venture and largely solved the fly problem in many parts of the continent. The emergence of problems similar to those in Australia is now also being observed in other countries. The destruction of the habitat of large mammals by urbanization and modern farming practices invariably results in dwindling numbers of dung beetles and an increase in numbers of flies during the warm summer months. The importance of this process is vividly illustrated in rural areas in Africa where visitors to game reserves with normal herbivore populations are rarely bothered by flies during the summer when dung beetle activity reaches its peak, whereas in small settlements a few kilometers outside these reserves the indigenous people are plagued by swarms of flies. Extensive research has been devoted to the ecology, ethology, and evolution of dung beetles, notably by Bornemissza, Halffter, and their coworkers. Recently, Simmons and Ridsdill-Smith (2011) edited a wide-ranging review of the literature on the ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Although it is estimated that there are more than 4000 dung beetle species in Africa alone, the olfactory ecology of dung beetles remains a largely unexplored yet potentially very fertile research field. Little research has been carried out on the chemical aspects of the ecology of dung beetles, and practically no information was available on the existence, the modes of operation, and the chemical structures of sex attractants of dung beetles before the work discussed in this chapter commenced in 1978. On the basis of their nesting behavior, dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae can be divided into three groups: The paracoprids construct their nests under a dung pat by excavating tunnels in which the dung is packed; the endocoprids excavate a chamber in the dung pat itself, forming brood balls within this chamber; and the telecoprids detach a portion of dung from the pat, rolling it some distance from the dung source before burying it. The majority of dung beetles species in southern Africa are mainly crepuscular paracoprids (87%) (Halffter and Matthews 1966). The diurnal telecoprids are also numerous, but are represented by fewer species (12%) (Ferreira 1972). Larvae and adults of the majority of species of the subfamily Scarabaeinae are coprophagous, and are morphologically adapted to feed on vertebrate excrement (Halffter and Matthews 1966). Adult dung beetles ingest only the liquid or colloidal constituents of the dung by squeezing portions of the moist dung between highly specialized membranous mandibles and ingesting the expressed juice. There are differences in the courtship, mating, and brooding behavior of the Scarabaeinae species. Telecoprids prepare a brood ball from fresh dung, roll the ball to an apparently carefully selected spot at a distance from the dung pat or dung midden, where the female deposits an egg in a chamber constructed at the top of the dung ball. The larva feeds on whole dung particles with the aid of its chewing mouthparts until eventually it pupates (Waterhouse 1974). The next generation, as well as the adult beetles that have overwintered in the soil, emerge from the soil after the first summer rains when temperatures are high enough for habitation and when the soil is moist enough for the beetles to break free from the brood chamber or from the hard soil. Dung beetles are attracted to dung on which they feed, and after a feeding period of a few weeks the beetles that have overwintered in the soil and those that breed in their first season are ready to start breeding. Dung beetles utilize volatile compounds emitted by dung to locate a fresh source of a species’ preferred dung type, although dung beetles are apparently not linked exclusively to one type of dung (Dormont et al. 2004, 2007). In areas with intact ecology, dung beetles of many species arrive in the thousands at a dung pat or rhinoceros midden. There is fierce competition for fresh dung between the beetles. Even in the case of the large volumes of dung voided by, for example, rhinoceros, dung beetles manage to dehydrate the dung or to bury or disperse it within a few hours. A photograph of rhinoceros dung voided during the night in the Mkuzi Game Reserve, South Africa, is shown in Figure 3.1a. At about 10:00 the following morning during a sampling period of 20 minutes, 720 dung beetles were recorded arriving at this resource. The entire dung heap appeared to be in constant movement from the activity of thousands of beetles, resulting in the formation of an almost uniform mixture of dung and dung beetles. By that stage, it was already too late for the larger species to gather enough of the already half-dried-out dung for the formation of a brood ball. In the foreground in Figure 3.1a, the last beetles that had managed to form a dung balls can be seen rolling them away. By 15:00 in the afternoon most of the dung was buried underneath the dung or next to it, or rolled away, and only relatively dry plant material was left at this spot.

摘要

城市和大城镇的居民大多没有意识到农村社区与苍蝇持续不断的斗争。另一方面,农村地区的居民并不总是认识到蜣螂在控制粪便滋生苍蝇数量方面所起的关键作用。蜣螂不仅在破坏许多粪便滋生苍蝇的栖息地方面发挥着重要作用(海因里希和巴塞洛缪,1979年),而且通过掩埋和分散粪便,与哺乳动物相关的食粪动物群也负责将很大一部分植物养分归还土壤(例如,博尔内米萨和威廉姆斯,1970年)。在澳大利亚的养牛区就遇到了严重问题,那里引进牛时没有引入相关的昆虫动物群。牛留下的粪堆成为粪便滋生苍蝇的栖息地,其中一些是吸血害虫和严重疾病的传播者(休斯,1970年)。这导致该大陆部分地区苍蝇数量不受控制地增加,牧场质量恶化。据估计,牛粪每年使每头牛的牧场面积暂时减少约20%(沃特豪斯,1974年)。20世纪50年代,乔治·博尔内米萨推测,引入能够清除和掩埋牛粪的外来蜣螂物种,不仅有助于通过将粪便养分循环回土壤来提高澳大利亚的土壤肥力,还将减少以粪堆为繁殖资源的害虫苍蝇和寄生虫的数量。1965年,这一想法最终促成了澳大利亚蜣螂项目的设立,最终从非洲和其他大陆引进了43种蜣螂物种,以解决苍蝇问题(维基百科,2012年8月)。外来蜣螂的引入及其随后在澳大利亚的定居是一项非常成功的举措,在很大程度上解决了该大陆许多地区的苍蝇问题。现在在其他国家也观察到了类似于澳大利亚出现的问题。城市化和现代农业实践对大型哺乳动物栖息地的破坏总是导致蜣螂数量减少,在温暖的夏季苍蝇数量增加。这一过程的重要性在非洲农村地区得到了生动的体现,在那里,夏季蜣螂活动达到顶峰时,有正常食草动物种群的野生动物保护区的游客很少受到苍蝇的困扰,而在这些保护区外几公里的小村庄里,当地居民却饱受苍蝇成群之苦。人们对蜣螂的生态学、行为学和进化进行了广泛的研究,特别是博尔内米萨、哈尔夫特及其同事。最近,西蒙斯和里兹迪尔 -史密斯(2011年)编辑了一篇关于蜣螂生态学和进化的广泛文献综述。尽管据估计仅非洲就有4000多种蜣螂,但蜣螂的嗅觉生态学在很大程度上仍是一个未被探索但潜力巨大的研究领域。关于蜣螂生态学的化学方面的研究很少,在本章1978年开始这项工作之前,几乎没有关于蜣螂性引诱剂的存在、作用方式和化学结构的信息。根据它们的筑巢行为,金龟子亚科的蜣螂可分为三组:旁食粪型蜣螂在粪堆下挖掘隧道建造巢穴,在隧道中堆放粪便;内食粪型蜣螂在粪堆本身挖掘一个腔室,在这个腔室内形成育雏球;远食粪型蜣螂从粪堆上分离出一部分粪便,将其滚离粪源一段距离后再掩埋。南非大多数蜣螂物种主要是黄昏活动的旁食粪型蜣螂(87%)(哈尔夫特和马修斯,1966年)。白天活动的远食粪型蜣螂数量也很多,但物种较少(12%)(费雷拉,1972年)。金龟子亚科大多数物种的幼虫和成虫都是食粪的,在形态上适应以脊椎动物粪便为食(哈尔夫特和马修斯,1966年)。成年蜣螂通过用高度特化的膜质下颚挤压部分潮湿粪便并摄取挤出的汁液,只摄取粪便中的液体或胶体成分。金龟子亚科物种在求偶、交配和育雏行为上存在差异。远食粪型蜣螂用新鲜粪便准备一个育雏球,将球滚到离粪堆或粪堆较远的一个显然经过精心挑选的地方,雌性在粪球顶部建造的腔室内产卵。幼虫借助其咀嚼式口器以整个粪便颗粒为食,直到最终化蛹(沃特豪斯,1974年)。下一代以及在土壤中越冬的成年甲虫,在第一个夏雨季节后,当温度足够高适合居住且土壤足够湿润使甲虫能够从育雏室或坚硬土壤中挣脱出来时,从土壤中出现。蜣螂被它们取食的粪便所吸引,经过几周的取食期后,在土壤中越冬的甲虫和在第一个季节繁殖的甲虫准备开始繁殖。蜣螂利用粪便释放的挥发性化合物来定位新鲜的、其偏好的粪便类型来源,尽管蜣螂显然并不只与一种粪便类型相关(多尔蒙特等人,2004年、2007年)。在生态完整的地区,许多物种的蜣螂会成千上万地来到一个粪堆或犀牛粪堆。甲虫之间为新鲜粪便展开激烈竞争。即使是像犀牛排出的大量粪便,蜣螂也能在几个小时内使粪便脱水或掩埋或分散它。图3.1a展示了南非姆库齐野生动物保护区夜间犀牛排出的粪便照片。在第二天上午10:00左右的20分钟采样期内,记录到720只蜣螂到达这个粪便源。整个粪堆似乎因成千上万只甲虫的活动而不断移动,导致形成了粪便和蜣螂几乎均匀的混合物。到那个时候,对于较大的物种来说,收集足够的已经半干的粪便来形成育雏球已经太晚了。在图3.1a的前景中,可以看到最后成功形成粪球的甲虫正在把它们滚走。到下午15:00时,大部分粪便被埋在粪堆下面或旁边,或者被滚走了,这个地方只留下了相对干燥

相似文献

2
Dung beetle community assemblages in a southern African landscape: niche overlap between domestic and wild herbivore dung.
Bull Entomol Res. 2022 Feb;112(1):131-142. doi: 10.1017/S0007485321000742. Epub 2021 Aug 20.
3
A game theoretic model of kleptoparasitism with strategic arrivals and departures of beetles at dung pats.
J Theor Biol. 2012 May 7;300:292-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.01.038. Epub 2012 Feb 1.
5
Greenhouse gas emissions from dung pats vary with dung beetle species and with assemblage composition.
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 12;12(7):e0178077. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178077. eCollection 2017.
6
Brood ball-mediated transmission of microbiome members in the dung beetle, Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 1;8(11):e79061. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079061. eCollection 2013.
8
The finely defined shift work schedule of dung beetles and their eye morphology.
Ecol Evol. 2021 Oct 27;11(22):15947-15960. doi: 10.1002/ece3.8264. eCollection 2021 Nov.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验