Comparison among four cursors arthropod groups biomass in three different vegetational composition sites of the landscape (Igrapiúna, Bahia, Brazil)

Authors

  • Ariane Lima Xavier Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Biomonitoramento, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Rua Barão de Geremoabo s/n, Ondina, 40170-115, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.
  • Toni Pablo Souto Galindo Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Biomonitoramento, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Rua Barão de Geremoabo s/n, Ondina, 40170-115, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.
  • Patrícia Alves Ferreira Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Biomonitoramento, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Rua Barão de Geremoabo s/n, Ondina, 40170-115, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.
  • Perimar Espírito Santo de Moura Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Biomonitoramento, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Rua Barão de Geremoabo s/n, Ondina, 40170-115, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.
  • Carolina Estevam de Pinho Almeida Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Biomonitoramento, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Instituto de Biologia, Rua Barão de Geremoabo s/n, Ondina, 40170-115, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13102/scb8029

Abstract

Areas with forested matrix and agricultural systems can minimize the effects of fragmentation by connecting the remaining native vegetation. This study evaluated the biomass of four groups of cursors arthropods that occur in the rubber-tree matrix and in the forested fragments in early and advanced regeneration stage, aiming to verify the permeability of this monoculture (Havea brasiliensis) and the possibility of using it to connect isolated fragmented areas. There were eight randomized points in the three different vegetable composition and four pitfalls were used for each point. The sampled arthropods were separated by groups (Order) and their biomasses (humid weight) were measured. The chosen Orders were Araneae, Dermaptera, Blattaria and Isopoda. According to the most abundant groups, Araneae and Isopoda were chosen to the rubber-tree plantation as Dermaptera and Blattaria were to the forest areas. The biomass scores showed bigger amplitude variation among primary forest sites and fragments than in the rubber-tree plantation. There was no significant difference among the three areas. However the analyses of the interactions among the factor levels (three different vegetable composition compared two to two) has pointed out significance between the forested fragments in regeneration advanced stage and the rubber-trees plantation. The inferior values of biomass of the plantation of the rubber-trees can indicate its inefficiency to connect remaining native vegetation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbott I, A Wills & T Burbidge. 1999. The impact of canopy development on arthropod faunas in recently established Eucalyptus globulus plantations in Western Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 121(3): 147-158.

Adis J. 1979. Problems of interpreting arthropod sampling with pitfall traps. Zoologischer Anzeiger Jena 202 (24): 177-184.

Benito NP, M Brossard, A Pasini, MF Guimarães & B Bobillier. 2004. Transformations of soil macroinvertebrate populations after native vegetation conversion to pasture cultivation (Brazilian Cerrado). European Journal of Soil Biology 40: 147-154.

Bierregaard RO Jr, WF Laurence, JW Jr Sites, AJ Lynam, RK Didham, RKM Andersen, MD Tocher, AP Smith, VM Viana, TE Lovejoy, KE Sieving, A Kranes, C Restrepo & GK Moritz. 1997. Priorities for the Study of Fragmented Tropical Ecosystems, p. 515-524. In: WF Laurence & RO Bierregaard (Eds.). Tropical forest remanants - ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bihn JH, M Verhaagh, M Brandle & R Brandl. 2008. Do secondary forests act as refuges for old growth forest animals? Recovery of ant diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Biological Conservation 141(3): 733-743.

Borror DJ & DM DeLong. 1988. Introdução ao estudo dos insetos. São Paulo: Editora Edgard Beücher.

Bragagnolo C, AA Nogueira, R Pinto-da-Rocha & R Pardini. 2007. Harvestmen in an Atlantic forest fragmented landscape: Evaluating assemblage response to habitat quality and quantity. Biological Conservation 139(3-4): 389-400.

Carvalho FMV, PS Pinheiro, FAS Fernandez & JL Nessimian. 1999. Diet of small mammals in Atlantic Forest fragments in southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências 1(1): 91-101.

Cerqueira R, A Brant, MT Nascimento & R Pardini. 2003. Fragmentação: alguns conceitos, p. 23-40. In: DM Rambaldi & DAS Oliveira (Orgs.). Fragmentação de ecossistemas: causas, efeitos sobre a biodiversidade e recomendações de políticas públicas. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.

Costa MGC 2004. Comparação da microfauna de vertebrados e artrópodes cursores de serapilheira em região da Mata Atlântica e monocultura de eucalipto, no Sul da Bahia. Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador. Msc. diss.

Förster B, M Garcia, O Francimari & J Römbke. 2006. Effects of carbendazim and lambda-cyhalothrin on soil invertebrates and leaf litter decomposition in semi-field and field tests under tropical conditions (Amazon, Brazil). European Journal of Soil Biology 42(1): 171-179.

Ganihar SR. 1997. Biomass estimates of terrestrial arthropods based on body length. Journal Bioscience 22(2): 219-224.

Gerber E, C Krebsa, C Murrella, M Morettib, R Rocklinc & U Schaffnera. 2008. Exotic invasive knotweeds (Fallopia spp.) negatively affect native plant and invertebrate assemblages in European riparian habitats. Biological Conservation 141(3): 646-654.

Haila Y. 2002. A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecological Applications 12(2): 321-334.

Hijii N, Y Umeda & M Mizutani. 2001. Estimating density and biomass of canopy arthropods in coniferous plantations: an approach based on a tree-dimensional parameter. Forest Ecology and Management 144(1-3): 147-157.

Höfer H, L Beck, B Förster, M Garcia, W. Hanagarth, FJ Luizão, RC Luizão, C Martius, JW Morais & J Römbke. 2000. The function of the soil macrofauna in decomposition processes in Central Amazonian polyculture systems and forests. Biotic and Abiotic Interactions in Soil and Sediment. German-Brazilian Workshop on Neotropical Ecosystems – Achievements and Prospects of Cooperative Research.

Hooper RG. 1996. Arthropod biomass in winter and the age of longleaf pines. Forest Ecology and Management 82(1): 115-131.

Kremen C, RK Colwell, TL Erwin, DD Murphy, RF Noss & MA Sanjayan. 1993. Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biology 7(4): 796-808.

Laurence JF & EB Britton.1991. Coleoptera, p. 543-683. In: ID Naumann (Ed.). Insects of Australia: a textbook for students and research workers. Melbourne: Cornell University Press.

Laurence JF, ES Nielsen & S Mackerra. 1991. Skeletal anatomy and key to orders, p. 3-32. In: ID Naumann (Ed.). Insects of Australia: a textbook for students and research workers. Melbourne: Cornell University Press.

McGarigal K & S Cushman. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecological Applications 12(2): 335-345.

McGeoch MA & SL Chown. 1998. Scaling up the value of bioindicators. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(2): 46-47.

Migliorini M, PP Fanciulli & F Bernini. 2003. Comparative analysis of two edaphic zoocenoses (Acari Oribatida; Hexapoda Collembola) in the area of Orio al Serio Airport (Bergamo, northern Italy). Pedobiologia 47(1): 9-18.

Mittermeier RA, N Myers, C Mittermeier, GAB Fonseca & J Kent. 2000. Biodiversidade hotspot for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Moço MKS, EF Gama-Rodrigues, AC Gama-Rodrigues & M Correia. 2005. Caracterização da fauna edáfica em diferentes coberturas vegetais na região norte fluminense. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Solo 29(4): 555-564.

Parisi V, C Menta, C Gardi, C Jacomini & E Mozzanica. 2005. Microarthropod communities as a tool to assess soil quality and biodiversity: a new approach in Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105(1-2): 323-333.

Primack RB & E Rodrigues. 2001. Biologia da conservação. Londrina: Editora Planta.

Santos SAP, JE Cabanas & JA Pereira. 2007. Abundance and diversity of soil arthropods in olive grove ecosystem (Portugal): effect of pitfall trap type. European Journal of Soil Biology 43(2): 77-83.

Saunders DA, RJ Hobbs & CR Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5(1): 18-32.

Schowalter TD. 1996. Insect ecology: an ecosystem approach. Londres: Academic Press.

Tabarelli M, LP Pinto, JMC Silva, MM Hirota & L Dedê. 2005. Desafios e oportunidades para a conservação da biodiversidade na Mata Atlântica brasileira. Megadiversidade 1(1): 12-23.

Thomazini MJ & APBW Thomazini. 2000. A fragmentação florestal e a diversidade de insetos nas florestas tropicais úmidas. Rio Branco: Embrapa.

Tinôco MS. 2004. Variação da composição da comunidade de artrópodes das formações florestadas do extremo sul da Bahia: disponibilidade de recursos alimentares para lagartos e anuros de serrapilheira. Universidade Federal da Bahia. Salvador, MSc. diss.

Tischendorf L & L Fahrig. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90(1): 7-19.

Viana V & AFV Pinheiro. 1998. Conservação da Biodiversidade em fragmentos Florestais. Série Técnica IPEF 12(32): 25-42.

Downloads

Published

2008-12-31

How to Cite

Xavier, A. L., Galindo, T. P. S., Ferreira, P. A., Moura, P. E. S. de, & Almeida, C. E. de P. (2008). Comparison among four cursors arthropod groups biomass in three different vegetational composition sites of the landscape (Igrapiúna, Bahia, Brazil). SITIENTIBUS série Ciências Biológicas, 8(3/4), 302–306. https://doi.org/10.13102/scb8029

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 3/4 (2008)

Section

Artigos

License

Sitientibus série Ciências Biológicas (SCB) is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.