Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The importance of remnants of natural vegetation for maintaining ant diversity in Brazilian agricultural landscapes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Brazil is one of the leading producers of soybeans and other annual crops, and in several regions landowners are required by law to maintain 20 % of their lands with natural vegetation (i.e. as “legal reserves”). However, there is a growing concern that some of these reserves will be subject to increased levels of disturbance or even be lost as a result of the ongoing legislation reforms. In this sense, studies that evaluate the conservation potential of retaining natural habitats within agricultural areas are of great importance. We assessed the efficiency with which remnants of natural vegetation conserve the native ant fauna in a context of intensive agriculture. We compared the structure of ground-dwelling ant assemblages between crop fields and reserves located in different farms. Ant species richness was much higher in the reserves than in the crops, and this pattern was consistent in spite of variations in the type of crop planted in each field, and in the size (39–149 ha) and vegetation (open or closed savanna) of the reserves. From 41.4 to 76.4 % of all species recorded within each farm were exclusively found in the reserves. Differences in species composition were strong not only because the reserves had much more species, but also because the species that were present in both habitats showed contrasting patterns of abundance in each habitat. Overall, our results highlight that even small remnants of natural vegetation can have a significant potential to maintain a higher diversity of ants within an agriculturally dominated landscape.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Código Florestal, Law n°4771, September 15, 1965, modified by Medida Provisória. 2166–67, August 24, 2001

References

  • Abensperg-Traun M, Smith GT, Arnold GW, Steven DE (1996) The effects of habitat fragmentation and livestock-grazing on animal communities in remnants of gimlet Eucalyptus salubris woodland in the Western Australian wheatbelt. I Arthropods. J Appl Ecol 33:1281–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida S, Louzada J, Sperber C, Barlow J (2011) Subtle land-use change and tropical biodiversity: dung beetle communities in Cerrado grasslands and exotic pastures. Biotropica 43:704–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida-Neto M, Guimarães P, Guimarães PR, Loyola RD, Ulrich W (2008) A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117:1227–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso LE (2010) Ant conservation: current status and a call to action. In: Lach L, Parr CL, Abbott KL (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen AN (2000) Global ecology of rainforest ants: functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen AN, Majer JD (2004) Ants show the way down under: invertebrates as bioindicators in land management. Front Ecol Environ 2:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbrecht I, Rivera L, Perfecto I (2005) Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf-litter ant assemblage of Colombian coffee plantations. Conserv Biol 19:897–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbrecht I, Perfecto I, Silverman E (2006) Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colombian forests and coffee plantations. Ecol Entomol 31:403–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2004) Explaining agricultural land expansion and deforestation in developing countries. Am J Agr Econ 86:1347–1353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barragán F, Moreno CE, Escobar F, Halffter G, Navarrete D (2011) Negative impacts of human land use on dung beetle functional diversity. PLoS One 6:e17976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull AC (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 42:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman M, Andersen AN (2012) New Caledonia has a depauperate subterranean ant fauna, despite spectacular radiations above ground. Biodivers Conserv 21(2489):2497

    Google Scholar 

  • Bestelmeyer BT, Wiens JA (1996) The effects of land use on the structure of ground-foraging ant communities in the Argentine Chaco. Ecol Appl 6:1225–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton B, Alpert G, Ward PS, Naskrecki P (2007) Bolton’s catalogue of ants of the world: 1758–2005 (CD-ROM). Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannstrom C (2001) Conservation-with-development models in Brazil’s agro-pastoral landscapes. World Dev 29:1345–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315:381–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalcanti R, Joly C (2002) The conservation of the Cerrados. In: Oliveira PS, Marquis RJ (eds) The Cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a Neotropical savanna. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 351–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomitz KM (2004) Transferable development rights and forest protection: an exploratory analysis. Int Regional Sci Rev 27:348–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK (2006). EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8.2. http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, Oneill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cuezzo F, Guerrero RJ (2012) The ant genus Dorymyrmex Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dolichoderinae) in Colombia. Psyche (Cambridge) 2012:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahms H, Lenoir L, Lindborg R, Wolters V, Dauber J (2010) Restoration of seminatural grasslands: what is the impact on ants? Restor Ecol 18:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauber J, Bengtsson JAN, Lenoir L (2006) Evaluating effects of habitat loss and land-use continuity on ant species richness in seminatural grassland remnants. Conserv Biol 20:1150–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Marco P, Coelho F (2004) Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodivers Conserv 13:1245–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn RR (2000) Isolated trees as foci of diversity in active and fallow fields. Biol Conserv 95:317–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekroos J, Heliola J, Kuussaari M (2010) Homogenization of lepidopteran communities in intensively cultivated agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside PM (2001) Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environ Conserv 28:23–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira J, Pardini R, Metzger JP, Fonseca CR, Pompeu PS, Sparovek G, Louzada J (2012) Towards environmentally sustainable agriculture in Brazil: challenges and opportunities for applied ecological research. J Appl Ecol 49:535–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folgarait PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers Conserv 7:1221–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães JPR, Guimarães P (2006) Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environ Model Softw 21:1512–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann BD (2003) Responses of ant communities to experimental fire regimes on rangelands in the Victoria River District of the Northern Territory. Aust Ecol 28:182–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann BD, Andersen AN (2003) Responses of ants to disturbance in Australia, with particular reference to functional groups. Aust Ecol 28:444–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann BD, Griffiths AD, Andersen AN (2000) Responses of ant communities to dry sulfur deposition from mining emissions in semi-arid tropical Australia, with implications for the use of functional groups. Aust Ecol 25:653–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holldobler B, Wilson E (1990) The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houet T, Loveland T, Hubert-Moy L, Gaucherel C, Napton D, Barnes C, Sayler K (2010) Exploring subtle land use and land cover changes: a framework for future landscape studies. Landsc Ecol 25:249–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimes P, Idigel C, Rimandai M, Fayle TM, Janda M, Weiblen GD, Novotny V (2012) Why are there more arboreal ant species in primary than in secondary tropical forests? J Anim Ecol 81:1103–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klink CA, Machado RB (2005) Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv Biol 19:707–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange D, Fernandes WD, Raizer J, Faccenda O (2008) Predacious activity of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in conventional and in no-till agriculture systems. Braz Arch Biol Technol 51:1199–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepers E, Lambin EF, Janetos AC, DeFries R, Achard F, Ramankutty N, Scholes RJ (2005) A synthesis of information on rapid land-cover change for the period 1981–2000. Bioscience 55:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucey JM, Hill JK (2012) Spillover of insects from rain forest into adjacent oil palm plantations. Biotropica 44:368–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majer JD (1983) Ants–bio-indicators of minesite rehabilitation, land-use, and land conservation. Environ Manag 7:375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall EJP, West TM, Kleijn D (2006) Impacts of an agri-environment field margin prescription on the flora and fauna of arable farmland in different landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 113:36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli LA, Naylor R, Vitousek PM, Moutinho P (2010) Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities for a sustainable future. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:431–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Medan D, Torretta JP, Hodara K, de la Fuente EB, Montaldo NH (2011) Effects of agriculture expansion and intensification on the vertebrate and invertebrate diversity in the Pampas of Argentina. Biodivers Conserv 20:3077–3100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger JP, Lewinsohn TM, Joly CA, Verdade LM, Martinelli LA, Rodrigues RR (2010) Brazilian law: full speed in reverse? Science 329:276–277

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morandin LA, Winston ML, Abbott VA, Franklin MT (2007) Can pastureland increase wild bee abundance in agriculturally intense areas? Basic Appl Ecol 8:117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad DC, Stickler CM, Almeida OT (2006) Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv Biol 20:1595–1603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira-Filho AT, Ratter JA (2002) Vegetation physiognomies and woody flora of the Cerrado biome. In: Oliveira PS, Marquis RJ (eds) The Cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a Neotropical Savanna. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 91–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco R, Vasconcelos HL (2012a) Habitat diversity enhances ant diversity in a naturally heterogeneous Brazilian landscape. Biodivers Conserv 21:797–809

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco R, Vasconcelos HL (2012b) Subterranean pitfall traps: is it worth including them in your ant sampling protocol? Psyche. Article ID 870794

  • Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Hanson P, Cartin V (1997) Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodivers Conserv 6:935–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philpott SM, Foster PF (2005) Nest-site limitation in coffee agroecosystems: artificial nests maintain diversity of arboreal ants. Ecol Appl 15:1478–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philpott SM, Arendt WJ, Armbrecht I, Bichier P, Diestch TV, Gordon C, Greenberg R, Perfecto I, Reynoso-Santos R, Soto-Pinto L, Tejeda-Cruz C, Williams-Linera G, Valenzuela J, Zolotoff JM (2008) Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees. Conserv Biol 22:1093–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Raven P (2000) Biodiversity–extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843–845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Postma-Blaauw MB, de Goede RGM, Bloem J, Faber JH, Brussaard L (2010) Soil biota community structure and abundance under agricultural intensification and extensification. Ecology 91:460–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 9:5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratter JA, Ribeiro JF, Bridgewater S (1997) The Brazilian cerrado vegetation and threats to its biodiversity. Ann Bot 80:223–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribas CR, Schoereder JH, Pic M, Soares SM (2003) Tree heterogeneity, resource availability, and larger scale processes regulating arboreal ant species richness. Aust Ecol 28:305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Fay JP (2001) Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conserv Biol 15:378–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein AM, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng A, Viana BF (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11:499–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Risch SJ, Carrol CR (1982a) The ecological role of ants in two mexican agroecosystems. Oecologia 55:114–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risch SJ, Carroll CR (1982b) Effect of a keystone predaceous ant, Solenopsis geminata, on arthropods in a tropical agroecosystem. Ecology 63:1979–1983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt FA, Diehl E (2008) What is the effect of soil use on ant communities? Neotrop Entomol 37:381–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharley DJ, Hoffmann AA, Thomson LJ (2008) The effects of soil tillage on beneficial invertebrates within the vineyard. Agric For Entomol 10:233–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teodoro AV, Muñoz A, Tscharntke T, Klein A-M, Tylianakis JM (2011) Early succession arthropod community changes on experimental passion fruit plant patches along a land-use gradient in Ecuador. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wetterer JK (2011) Worldwide spread of the tropical fire ant, Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 14:21–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Wratten SD, Gillespie M, Decourtye A, Mader E, Desneux N (2012) Pollinator habitat enhancement: benefits to other ecosystem services. Agric Ecosyst Environ 159:112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Laura Silva, Alan Costa, Daniela Santos, Raphael Silva, Ricardo Campos, Cauê Lopes and Fabiane Mundim for field assistance, and to Ben Hoffmann and an anonymous reviewer for proofreading and commenting the previous versions of this manuscript. We also thank UFU for providing logistical support, the farm owners for granting access to collect on their lands, and J. Longino, F. Fernandéz, S. Powell, J. H. C. Delabie, G. Snelling and W. MacKay that kindly identified some of the ant species. Financial support was provided by the Brazilian Council of Research and Scientific Development (CNPq grants 472972/2008-1 and 143112/2008-2), FAP-DF (PRONEX/FAPDF/CNPQ-563/2009), and Capes (AUX PE-PNPD-2578/2011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, C.P. 593, Uberlândia, MG, 38400-902, Brazil

    Renata Pacheco, Heraldo L. Vasconcelos, Sarah Groc & Tiago L. M. Frizzo

  2. Programa de Pós-graduação em Entomologia, Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, 36570-000, Brazil

    Gabriela P. Camacho

Authors
  1. Renata Pacheco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heraldo L. Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Groc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriela P. Camacho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tiago L. M. Frizzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renata Pacheco.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4968 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pacheco, R., Vasconcelos, H.L., Groc, S. et al. The importance of remnants of natural vegetation for maintaining ant diversity in Brazilian agricultural landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 22, 983–997 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0463-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0463-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation