Analyze Diet
Journal of environmental management2026; 406; 129756; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.129756

Is managing horses ‘as wild’ beneficial for dung beetle assemblages and their associated ecological functions?

Abstract: In Europe, where livestock has largely replaced wild ungulates over the centuries, dung beetle assemblages have become largely dependent on livestock farming. The radical changes in livestock farming practices during the 20th century have therefore had a profound impact on these assemblages. Trophic rewilding with large herbivores is an important focus in European rewilding projects, and dung beetle assemblages appear to be good indicators of the success of rewilding. By comparing the composition of dung beetle assemblages and the rate of dung disappearance in three neighboring grassland habitats in southern France, maintained respectively by a population of Przewalski horses managed by natural selection and two herds managed for production purposes (a flock of sheep and a herd of endurance horses), our study shows a) significant differences in the composition of the dung of the three animals; b) a single pool of dung beetle species; c) but a different assemblage structure. While tunnelers dominated across all the sampled habitats, rollers were the second most abundant group in domestic farms, and were replaced by dwellers in the Przewalski horse rangelands. Differences in dung beetle assemblages and dung composition between the three grazers could both explain that sheep droppings were removed faster than horse dung. Understanding how herbivore types and management shape these assemblages helps refine decisions for conservation and/or rewilding. However, the place of ecological heritage and species co-occurences in these changes need to be examined, since in this region the history of dung beetles is closely linked to that of sheep pastoralism as for other types of semi-natural grasslands in Europe.
Publication Date: 2026-04-28 PubMed ID: 42054923DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.129756Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This research investigates whether managing horses in a “wild” manner benefits dung beetle communities and their ecological roles by comparing dung beetle assemblages and dung decomposition rates in different grazing systems in southern France.

Background and Purpose

  • In Europe, wild ungulates have largely been replaced by livestock over centuries, making dung beetle communities highly dependent on livestock grazing.
  • Changes in livestock farming in the 20th century have strongly impacted these dung beetle assemblages.
  • Trophic rewilding—reintroducing or managing large herbivores to mimic natural ecosystems—is increasingly used in conservation and rewilding efforts.
  • Dung beetles are considered good indicators of success in rewilding efforts due to their role in dung decomposition and nutrient cycling.
  • The research aims to understand how different grazing management styles affect dung beetle communities and ecological functions.

Methodology

  • The study was conducted in southern France, comparing three neighboring grassland habitats:
    • A population of Przewalski horses managed under natural selection (“as wild”).
    • A flock of sheep managed for production.
    • A herd of endurance horses also managed for production.
  • Data collected included:
    • Composition of the dung from each grazer species.
    • Structure and diversity of the dung beetle assemblages in each area.
    • Rate of dung disappearance as a measure of ecosystem function.

Key Findings

  • Differences in dung composition: The dung from the three grazers showed significant compositional differences.
  • Similar dung beetle species pool: Despite different dung types, the same overall set of dung beetle species was found across the habitats.
  • Variations in assemblage structure: The relative abundance and functional groups of dung beetles differed between habitats.
    • Tunnelers were the dominant dung beetle group in all habitats.
    • Rollers were the second most abundant group in livestock-managed farms (sheep and endurance horses).
    • In the Przewalski horse rangelands managed “as wild,” dwellers replaced rollers as the second most abundant group.
  • Dung removal rates: Sheep droppings were decomposed more quickly than horse dung, potentially due to dung composition and associated beetle assemblages.

Implications

  • The type of herbivore species and their management style shape dung beetle assemblages and influence dung decomposition rates.
  • Managing horses “as wild” alters the dung beetle community structure compared to domestic farm management, which can impact ecological functions.
  • These insights help refine conservation and rewilding strategies by highlighting the importance of herbivore identity and management.
  • The historical context is important: in this region, dung beetle communities have a long association with sheep pastoralism, affecting their current assemblage structures.
  • Further research is needed on ecological heritage and species co-occurrence to better understand these complex interactions in semi-natural European grasslands.

Cite This Article

APA
Mutillod C, Perrin W, Buisson É, Tatin L, Mesléard F, Jay-Robert P, Dutoit T. (2026). Is managing horses ‘as wild’ beneficial for dung beetle assemblages and their associated ecological functions? J Environ Manage, 406, 129756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.129756

Publication

ISSN: 1095-8630
NlmUniqueID: 0401664
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 406
Pages: 129756
PII: S0301-4797(26)01216-8

Researcher Affiliations

Mutillod, Clémentine
  • Avignon Univ, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, site Agroparc BP 61207, Avignon Cedex 09, 84911, France. Electronic address: clementine.mutillod@gmail.com.
Perrin, William
  • CEFE, University Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Université Montpellier Paul Valéry, Montpellier, France. Electronic address: wilm.perrin@yahoo.com.
Buisson, Élise
  • Avignon Univ, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, site Agroparc BP 61207, Avignon Cedex 09, 84911, France. Electronic address: elise.buisson@univ-avignon.fr.
Tatin, Laurent
  • Avignon Univ, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, site Agroparc BP 61207, Avignon Cedex 09, 84911, France. Electronic address: laurent.tatin@imbe.fr.
Mesléard, François
  • Avignon Univ, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, site Agroparc BP 61207, Avignon Cedex 09, 84911, France; Institut de recherche pour la conservation des zones humides méditerranéennes Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, 13200, Arles, France; Association pour le Cheval de Przewalski: TAKH, Le Villaret, 48150, Hures la Parade, France. Electronic address: fmesleard@gmail.com.
Jay-Robert, Pierre
  • CEFE, University Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Université Montpellier Paul Valéry, Montpellier, France.
Dutoit, Thierry
  • Avignon Univ, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, site Agroparc BP 61207, Avignon Cedex 09, 84911, France. Electronic address: thierry.dutoit@univ-avignon.fr.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.