Abstract
The Pantanal is one of the faunistic provinces considered as a priority area for invertebrate conservation. However, it is one of the areas in Brazil where the local fauna is less assessed, thus needing more scientific information that could allow political decisions to be made regarding conservation. The continuous pressure for new pasture areas leads to improper habitat occupation and destruction, like fragmentation of forest areas in the region. Such alterations can cause different impacts on the local fauna, including the soil arthropods. The main objective of this work was to compare the morphospecies composition, diversity and density of the soil arthropod fauna between a secondary single species forest (Cambarazal) and a cultivated pasture with exotic and native grass species, using only pitfall traps as sampling method. We found a great variation on the vegetal cover among environments. A higher humidity in the forest soil was observed, as well as a greater compaction of the soil in the cultivated pasture. A total of 3635 individuals were collected, belonging to 214 different morphospecies. 139 morphospecies were collected in the forest (37% exclusive to this environment), while 134 morphospecies were collected in the cultivated pasture (35% exclusive). The diversity was higher in the forest (H′ = 1.634) than in the cultivated pasture (H′ = 1.253). However, considering the area as a whole (forest and pasture) the global diversity was increased. In this paper we discuss about the effects of environmental changes on soil arthropod diversity and propose a hypothetical model for invertebrate management in mosaic ecosystems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alho C.J.R., Campos Z.M.S. and Gonçalves H.C. 1987. Ecologia de capivara (Hidrochaeris hidrochaeris, Rodentia) do Pantanal: I — Habitats, densidade e tamanho de grupo. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 47(1/2): 87–97.
Butakka C.M.M. and Miyazaki R.D. 1998. Estudos preliminares da entomofauna aquática associada a Eichhornia azurea (SW) Kunth na Baía Mariana no Pantanal de Barão de Melgaço, Mato Grosso, Brasil. In: Anais do IV Simpósio de Ecossistemas Brasileiros. Academia Ciências do Estado de São Paulo, Águas de Lindóia, Brasil.
Borror D.J. and White R.E. 1970. A Field Guide to Insects of North America to Mexico. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, USA.
Conservation International do Brasil 1999. Ações Prioritárias para Conservação da Biodiversidade do Cerrado e Pantanal. Brasília, MMA.
Elton C.S. 1973. The structure of invertebrate populations inside neotropical rain forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 42: 55–103.
Ferreira R.L. and Marques M.M.G.S.M. 1998. A fauna de artrópodes de serrapilheira de áreas de monocultura com Eucalyptus sp. e mata secundária heterogênea. Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 27(3): 395–403.
Ferreira R.L. and Souza-silva M. 2001. Biodiversity under rocks: the role of microhabitat in structuring invertebrate communities in Brazilian outcrops. Biodiv. Conserv. 7(10): 1171–1183.
Filgueiras T.S. and Wechsler F.S. 1992. Aproveitamento e manejo — Pastagens nativas. In: DIAS B.F.S. (ed.), Alternativas de Desenvolvimento dos Cerrados: Manejo e Conservação dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis. IBAMA, Brasília, 96pp.
Garay I.E.G. and Dias B.F.S. 2001. Conservação da biodiversidade em ecossistemas tropicais: avanços conceituais e revisão de novas metodologias de avaliação e monitoramento. Editoras Vozes, Petrópolis, RJ, 430pp.
Goudie A. 1994. The human impact on the natural environment, 4th ed. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusets.
Haskell D.G. 2000. Effects of forest roads in macroinvertebrate soil fauna in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Conserv. Biol. 14(1): 57–63.
Ingham D.S. and Samways M.J. 1996. Application of fragmentation and variegation models to epigaeic invertebrates in South Africa. Conserv. Biol. 10(5): 1353–1358.
Lorenzi H. 2000. Plantas daninhas do Brasil: terrestres, aquáticas, parasitas e exóticas, 3a ed. Nova Odessa, SP, 608pp.
MacArthur R.H. and MacArthur J.W. 1961. On birds species diversity. Ecology 42: 594–598.
Matthew R.O., Dahlsten D.L. and Benson W.W. 2003. Ecological interactions among ants in the genus Linepithema, their phorid parasitoids, and ant competidores. Ecol. Entomol. 28: 203–210.
Moretti M.S., Goulart M.D.C. and Callisto M. 2003. Avaliação rápida da macrofauna associada a Echhornia azurea (Swartz) Kunth, 1843 e Pontederia lanceolata Nutt., 1818 (Pontederiaceae) na Baia do Coqueiro, Pantanal de Poconé (MT/Brasil). Rev. Brasil. Zoociências 5(1): 7–21.
Medri I.M. and Lopes J. 2001. Coleopterofauna em floresta e pastagem no norte do Paraná, Brasil, coletada com armadilha de solo. Rev. Brasil. Zool. 18(Suppl. 1): 125–133.
Meirelles J.C. 1996. Pecuáriia bovídea — O desafio da produtividade. Folha da EMBRAPA, Brasília, Maio/Junho, p. 2.
Moore J.C., Hunt H.W. and Elliot E.T. 1991. Interactions between soil organisms and herbivores. In: Barbosa P., Kirschik V. and Jones C. (eds.), Multithrophic-level Interactions Among Microorganisms, Plants and Insects. John Wiley, New York, 385pp.
Pianka E.R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. Am. Nat. 100: 33–46.
Pianka E.R. 1982. Evolutionary Ecology, 3rd ed. Harper & Row, New York, 356pp.
Primack R.B. and Rodrigues E. 2001. Biologia da conservação. Londrina, 328pp. E. Rodrigues.
Primavesi A. 1982. O manejo ecológico do solo. Livraria Nobel, SA, 514pp.
Ramos A.E. and Rosa C.M.M. 1992. Impactos de processos ecológicos — Impacto das queimadas. In: DIAS B.F.S. (ed.), Alternativas de Desenvolvimento dos Cerrados: Manejo e Conservação dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis 96p. IBAMA, Brasília, pp. 34–38.
Richards B.N. 1974. Introduction to the Soil Ecosystem. Longman Group Ltd., New York, 266pp.
Rizzini C.T. 1997. Tratado de fitogeografia do Brasil: aspectos ecológicos, sociológicos e florísticos. Âmbito Cultural Edições Ltda, 747pp.
Santos G.B., Marques M.I., Adis J. and De Musis C.R. 2003. Artrópodos associados à copa de Attalea phalerata Mart. (Arecaceae), na região do Pantanal de Poconé, Mato Grosso, Brasil. Rev. Brasil. Entomol. 47(2): 211–224.
Schowalter T.D. and Sabin T.E. 1991. Serrapilheira microarthropod responses to the canopy herbivory, season and decomposition is serrapilheira bags in a regenerating conifer ecosystem in Western Oregon. Biol. Fert. Soils 11: 93–96.
Seastedt T.R. 1984. The role of microarthropods in decomposition and mineralization processes. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 29: 25–46.
Silva L.F. 1996. Solos tropicais: aspectos pedológicos, ecológicos e de manejo. Terra Brasilis, São Paulo, 137pp.
Suguio K. 1973. Introdução à Sedimentologia. ed. Edgard Blucher Ltda. EDUSP, 317pp.
Sutherland W.J. 1996. Ecological Census Techniques: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 336pp.
Vasconcelos H.L. 1999. Effects of forest disturbance on the structure of ground-foraging ant communities in central Amazonia. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 409–420.
Wolda H. 1981. Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia 50: 296–302.
White R.E. 1983. A Field Guide to Beetles of North America. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, USA.
Zar J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd ed.. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 718pp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Loyola, R.D., Brito, SL., Ferreira, R.L. (2006). Ecosystem disturbances and diversity increase: implications for invertebrate conservation. In: Hawksworth, D.L., Bull, A.T. (eds) Arthropod Diversity and Conservation. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5204-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5204-0_3
Received:
Accepted:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5203-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5204-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)