Factors influencing abundance of the American burying beetle at different geographic scales Curtis Creighton Purdue University Calumet.

Factors influencing abundance of the American burying beetle at

different geographic scales

Curtis CreightonPurdue University Calumet

Co-presentersRobert Basarache - Ouachita National Forest, United States

Forest Service, Idabel, OK 74745

Mark V. Lomolino - SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210

Mark Belk - Department of Integrative BiologyBrigham Young University, Provo, Utah846024

Gary D. Schnell - Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73072

Ana E. Hiott - Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73072

Body Size Implications

Body Size Implications

• Larger species tend to depend on larger prey• Larger species tend to occupy a greater diversity of habitats• Larger species tend to require larger home ranges

Factors affecting abundance at local scales:

Tiak District of Ouachita National Forest

Factors affecting local abundance

Factors affecting local abundance

Tree density: 2.3 – 4.6 m2 / ha

Factors affecting local abundance

Tree density: 10.3 – 15.0 m2 / ha

Factors affecting local abundance

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1993 1994 1995 1996 1998

Year

Bee

tles

/Tra

p-n

igh

t Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 1

Factors affecting local abundance

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Seed-Cut Select 1 Select 2

Site

Bee

tles

/Tra

p*n

igh

t

Before

After

Randomization test p = 0.045

Factors affecting abundance at local scales:

Fort Chaffee

Factors affecting local abundance

S ites No L onger Surveyed N

0 1 32 4 5

K ilom eters

New boundary

1

6

8

12

13

15

17

18

21

22

23

2527

29

30

34

3638

39

42

43

44

45

46

47

49

50

54

55

57

58 64

6768

69

70

79

84

88

89

97

99

101

109

111

122

123

128

129

137

145

146

147

502503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519 520

521

A

B

C

D

E

F

G H I J K L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

Factors affecting local abundance

Sites no longer surveyed

Kilom eters

1 2 3 4 50

Im pact A rea

N ew Boundary

0 .000 to 0 .041 0 .041 to 0 .423 0 .423 to 0 .846 0 .846 to 1 .269 1 .269 to 1 .692 1 .692 to 2 .115 2 .115 to 2 .538 2 .538 to 2 .961

Factors affecting local abundance

12

N

0 1 32 4 5

K ilom eters

Im pact A rea

N ew boundary

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

Beetles/trap-n ight2003

3.00

Factors affecting local abundance

Distance (km) from centroid

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

De

nsi

ty in

de

x (b

ee

tles/

tra

p-n

igh

t)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

r = -0.527 p < 0.01

Factors affecting local abundance

0 1 2 3 4 5

Den

sity

Inde

x (b

eetle

s/tr

ap-n

ight

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

Distance (km) from border

r = 0.521 p < 0.01

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Me

an d

ens

ity in

dex

(be

etle

s/tr

ap

-nig

ht)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Factors affecting local abundance

Factors affecting local abundance1998

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Be e tle s/ tra p -nig ht

N

Kilom eters

0 1 2 3 4 5

Im pact A rea

Be e tle s/ tra p -nig ht

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

2000

3.0

N

Kilo m e te rs

0 2 3 4 5 6

Im pact Area

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

1999

N

Kilo m e te rs

0 2 3 4 5 6

Be e tle s/ tra p -nig ht

Im pact A rea

2001

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Be e tle s/ tra p -nig ht

Kilo m e te rs

0 2 3 4 5 6

N

New boundary

3.0

Im pact Area

0 1 32 4 5

Kilom eters

N

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

2002

Beetles/trap-night

N ew boundary

Im pact A reaN

New boundary

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Beetles/trap-night2003

3.0

0 1 32 4 5

K ilom eters

Im pact Area

Factors affecting abundance at regional scales:

Eastern Oklahoma

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Beetle density - N. orbicollis

Are

a si

ze (

ha)

r = -0.04

Factors affecting regional abundance

Factors affecting regional abundance

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Beetle density - N. americanus

Are

a si

ze (

ha)

r = 0.94

Hypotheses explaining the decline of the American burying beetle

1.Habitat loss and fragmentation (Anderson 1982)• artificial lighting• vertebrate competition• loss of carrion • congener competition

2.Extinction of the passenger pigeon3.Pathogen

Funding provided by:

United States Forest Service

Military Department of Arkansas

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Management