A Review of Dung Beetle Introductions in the Antipodes and North America: Status, Opportunities, and Challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the introduction of cattle, exotic dung beetles (Coleoptera: Aphodiidae, Geotrupidae, Scarabaeidae) were imported into the Antipodes (Australia and New Zealand) and North America (primarily the United States) to accelerate the degradation of cattle dung on pastures. The history of dung beetle introductions between the two regions is similar but has not previously been assessed: this is important as new introductions are continuing in the regions. Here, we review these introduction programs, report on their current status, and discuss methodological advances. In doing so, we examine the accidental introduction of exotic (i.e., adventive) species and the contribution of both deliberately introduced and adventive species to endemic dung beetle faunas. Further, we provide a list of pest and parasite species whose populations can be reduced by dung beetle activity. We also identify a combined total of 37 introduced and 47 adventive dung beetle species that have become established in the Antipodes and North America, with exotic species dominating dung beetle assemblages from pasture habitats. Climatic and edaphic matches, the size of founding populations, abiotic and biotic stressors, and the time of year when releases are made are all critical determinants that affect the success of dung beetle introduction programs. Finally, we discuss opportunities, plus the risks and challenges associated with dung beetle introductions. We hope that this review will aid in the success of future introduction programs, either to enhance ecosystem services in areas that they are needed, or potentially to reestablish native species in regions where they have been extirpated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it