Changes in Epigaeic Ant Assemblage Structure in the Amazon during Successional Processes after Bauxite Mining

Geraldo Wilson Fernandes, Tate C. Lana, Carla R. Ribas, Jose Henrique Schoereder, Ricardo Solar, Johnatan D. Majer, Eduardo G. Cordeiro, Jacques Hubert C. Delabie, Evaldo Ferreira Vilela

Abstract


Environmental impact studies often involve monitoring and using bioindicators to evaluate the restoration stage of impacted areas. We aimed to assess ant assemblages’ response to the ecological succession of previously disturbed areas in the Brazilian Amazon. We sampled epigeic ant assemblages in five bauxite mining areas, representing different restoration stages, and compared them with two pristine areas. We also compared trends in species richness at the same mine site investigated 14 years earlier. Ten pitfall traps and four Winkler samples of litter were taken along a 100-m transect in each area. We expected that ant species richness would increase with the amelioration in habitat condition (i.e., environmental surrogates of ecological succession, including litter depth, soil penetrability, the circumference of trees, the distance of trees to adjacent trees, and percentage of ground cover). We also compared the efficacy of both sampling methods. Due to more significant sampling effort, pitfall traps captured more ant species than Winkler sacks. However, Winkler samples’ addition allowed the collection of more cryptic species than by pitfall traps alone. We sampled a total of 129 ant species, with increases in ant species richness in more mature rehabilitation. Nevertheless, similarity analysis indicated a significant difference between ant assemblages of rehabilitated areas and pristine ones. Assemblages differed mainly by the presence of specialist and rare species, found only in pristine plots. Rehabilitated areas exhibited a significant increase in tree circumference as they reached more ecologically advanced stages, which contributed to increasing ant species richness. These trends and comparison with the earlier study indicate that although there are favorable increases in ant species richness, in terms of species composition, rehabilitated areas were far from achieving an ant assemblage composition or environmental status that closely resembles pristine areas.


Keywords


Amazonian ants; Trombetas; biomonitoring; biodiversity; ecological indicators; land rehabilitation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andersen, A.N. & Majer, J.D. (2004). Ants show the way down under: invertebrates as bioindicators in land management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2: 291-298.

Andersen, A. N. & Sparling, G. P. (1997). Ants as indicators of restoration success: relationship with soil microbial biomass in the Australian seasonal tropics. Restoration Ecology, 5: 109-114.

Bestelmeyer, B.T., Agosti, D., Alonso, L.E., Brandão, C.R.F., Brown, W.L., Delabie, J.H. & Silvestre, R. (2000). Field techniques for the study of ground-dwelling ant: an overview, description, and evaluation. Pp. 122-144, in: Agosti, D., Majer, J., Alonso, E. and Schultz, T., (eds.). Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. Biological Diversity Handbook Series. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.

Bihn, J.H., Gebauer, G. & Brandl, R. (2010). Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests. Ecology, 91: 782-92.

Bisevac, L. & Majer, J.D. (1999). Comparative study of ant communities of rehabilitated mineral sand mines and heathland, Western Australia. Restoration Ecology, 7: 117-126.

Brown, G.R. & Matthews, I.M. (2016). A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. Ecology and Evolution, 6: 3953-3964.

Brown Jr, W.L. (1957). Predation of arthropod eggs by the ant genera Proceratium and Discothyrea. Psyche: 64: 115-115.

Cerdá, X. & Dejean, A. 2011. Predation by ants on arthropods and other animals. In Carlo Polidori, (ed.) Predation in the Hymenoptera: An Evolutionary Perspective. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. pp. 39-78.

Clarke, K.R., & Green, R.H. (1988). Statistical design and analysis for a” biological effects” study. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 46: 213-226.

Colwell, R.K. & Coddington, J.A. (1994). Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 345: 101-118.

Delabie, J.H., Fisher, B.L., Majer, J.D. and Wright, I.W. (2000). Sampling effort and choice of methods. Pp. 145-154, in: Agosti, D., Majer, J., Alonso, E. and Schultz, T., (eds.). Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. Biological Diversity Handbook Series. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.

Donoso, D.A. (2017). Tropical ant communities are in long-term equilibrium. Ecological Indicators, 83: 515-523.

Donoso, D.A. and Ramón, G. (2009). Composition of a high diversity leaf litter ant community (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from an Ecuadorian pre-montane rainforest. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 45: 487-499.

Donoso, D.A., Johnston, M.K., Clay, N.A., and Kaspari, M.E. (2013). Trees as templates for trophic structure of tropical litter arthropod fauna. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 61: 45-51.

dos Santos Alves, T., Campos, L.L., Neto, N.E., Matsuoka, M. & Loureiro, M.F. (2011). Biomassa e atividade microbiana de solo sob vegetação nativa e diferentes sistemas de manejos. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 33: 341-347.

Fernandes, G.W., Almada, E.D. & Carneiro, M.A.A. (2010). Gall-inducing insect species richness as indicators of forest age and health. Environmental Entomology, 39: 1134-1140.

Harris, J.A., Hobbs, R.J., Higgs, E. & Aronson, J. (2006). Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology, 14: 170-176.

IBRAM (2010). Information and Analysis of the Brazilian Mineral Economy. Brazilian Mining Association, 5th edition.

Kaspari, M. (1996). Testing resource-based models of patchiness in four Neotropical litter ant assemblages. Oikos, 76: 443-454.

Kempf, W.W. & Brown Jr, W.L. (1969). Two new Strumigenys ants from the Amazon valley in Brasil (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 29: 17-24.

Kollmann, J., Meyer, S.T., Bateman, R., Conradi, T., Gossner, M.M., de Souza Mendonça Jr, M., ... & Oki, Y. (2016). Integrating ecosystem functions into restoration ecology - recent advances and future directions. Restoration Ecology, 24: 722-730.

Lamb, D., Erskine, P.D. & Parrotta, J. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science, 310: 1628-1632.

Lassau, S.A. & Hochuli, D.F. (2004). Effects of habitat complexity on ant assemblages. Ecography, 27: 157-164.

Leal, I.R, Filgueiras, B.K.C., Gomes, J.P., Iannuzzi, L. & Andersen, A.N. (2012). Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21: 1687-1701.

Levings, S.C. (1983). Seasonal, annual, and among-site variation in the ground ant community of a deciduous tropical forest: some causes of patchy species distributions. Ecological Monographs, 53: 435-455.

Majer, J.D. (1983). Ants – useful bioindicators of mine site rehabilitation, land use and land conservation status. Environmental Management, 7: 375-383.

Majer, J.D. (1996). Ant recolonization of rehabilitated bauxite mines at Trombetas, Pará, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 12: 257-273.

Majer, J.D. & Delabie, J.H.C. (1994). Comparison of the ant communities of annually inundated and terra firme forests at Trombetas in the Brazilian Amazon. Insectes Sociaux, 41: 343-359.

Olson, D. M. (1991). A comparison of the efficacy of litter sifting and pitfall traps for sampling leaf litter ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in a tropical wet forest, Costa Rica. Biotropica, 23: 166-172.

Orsolon-Souza, G. (2011). Comparison between Winkler’s extractor and pitfall traps to estimate leaf litter ants richness (Formicidae) at a rainforest site in southeast Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 71: 873-880.

Ottonetti, L. & Tucci, L. (2006). Recolonization patterns of ants in a rehabilitated lignite mine in central Italy: potential for the use of Mediterranean ants as indicators of restoration processes. Restoration Ecology, 14: 60-66.

Parrotta, J.A. & Knowles, O.H. (1999). Restoration of tropical moist forests on bauxite-mined lands in the Brazilian Amazon. Restoration Ecology, 7: 103-116.

Paolucci, L.N., Maia, M.L.B., Solar, R.R.C., Campos, R.I., Schoereder, J.H. & Andersen, A.N. (2016). Fire in the Amazon: impact of experimental fuel addition on responses of ants and their interactions with myrmecochorous seeds. Oecologia 182, 335-346.

Passos, L., & Oliveira, P. S. (2003). Interactions between ants, fruits and seeds in a Restinga forest in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 19: 261-270.

Passos, L. & Oliveira, P. S. (2004). Interaction between ants and fruits of Guapira opposita (Nyctaginaceae) in a Brazilian sandy plain rainforest: ant effects on seeds and seedlings. Oecologia, 139: 376-382.

Peterson, G. D. & Heemskerk, M. (2001). Deforestation and forest regeneration following small-scale gold mining in the Amazon: the case of Suriname. Environmental Conservation, 28: 117-126.

Reis, A. & Kageyama, P.Y. (2003). Restauração de áreas degradadas utilizando interações interespecíficas. Pages 91-110. in P.Y. Kageyama, R.E., Oliveira, L.F., D. Moraes, V. L. Engel, and F. B. Gandara (editors). Restauração Ecológica de Ecossistemas Naturais, FEPAF, Botucatu, Brazil.

Ribas, C.R., & Schoereder, J.H. (2007). Ant communities, environmental characteristics and their implications for conservation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16: 1511-1520.

Ribas, C.R., Schoereder, J.H., Pic, M. & Soares, S.M. (2003). Tree heterogeneity, resource availability, and larger-scale processes regulating arboreal ant species richness. Austral Ecology, 28: 305-314.

Ribas, C.R., Campos, R.B., Schmidt, F.A. & Solar, R.R. (2012). Ants as indicators in Brazil: a review with suggestions to improve the use of ants in environmental monitoring programs. Psyche, ID 636749. doi: 10.1155/2012/636749.

Rozendaal, D.M., Bongers, F., Aide, T.M., Alvarez-Dávila, E., Ascarrunz, N., Balvanera, P., ... & Calvo-Rodriguez, S. (2019). Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. Science Advances, 5, eaau3114.

Ruiz-Jaen, M.C. & Aide, T.M. 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restoration Ecology, 13: 569-577.

Schmidt, F.A., Ribas, C.R. & Schoereder, J.H. (2013). How predictable is the response of ant assemblages to natural forest recovery? Implications for their use as bioindicators. Ecological Indicators, 24: 158-166.

Solar, R.R.C, Barlow, J., Andersen, A.N., Schoereder, J.H., Berenguer, E., Ferreira, J.N. & Gardner, T.A. (2016). Biodiversity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance in the Amazon: A multi-scale assessment using ant communities. Biological Conservation, 197: 98-107.

Solar, R.R.C, Chaul, J.C.M, Maues, M. & Schoereder, J.H. (2016). A quantitative baseline of ants and orchid bees in human-modified Amazonian landscapes in Paragominas, Para, Brazil. Sociobiology, 63: 925-940.

Stanturf, J.A., Schoenholtz, S.H., Schweitzer, C.J. & Shepard, J.P. (2001). Achieving restoration success: myths in bottomland hardwood forests. Restoration Ecology, 9: 189-200.

Underwood, E.C. & Fisher, B.L. (2006). The role of ants in conservation monitoring: if, when, and how. Biological Conservation, 132: 166-182.

Vasconcelos, H.L., Vilhena, J.M. S. & Caliri, G.J. (2000). Responses of ants to selective logging of a central Amazonian forest. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37: 508-514.

Yanoviak, S. & Kaspari, M. (2000). Community structure and the habitat templet: ants in the tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos, 89: 259-266.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v68i1.4973

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


JOURNAL METRICS

 

JCR Impact Factor (2019): 0.690

JCR 5-year Impact Factor (2019): 0.846

Google Scholar h5-index (Insects and Arthropods journals): 12 

Scimago h-index (whole journal circulation period): 37         

Scopus CiteScore (2016-2019): 0.90

Mean time for editorial decision (2020): 78 days

Mean time for article publication (2020): 171 days

 

Sociobiology is indexed in the following databases: