Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 983–997 | Cite as

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

  • Renata Pacheco
  • Heraldo L. Vasconcelos
  • Sarah Groc
  • Gabriela P. Camacho
  • Tiago L. M. Frizzo
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Agricultural intensification Biodiversity conservation Formicidae Mosaic of land use types Neotropical savannas 

Notes

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).

Supplementary material

10531_2013_463_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4968 kb)

References

  1. 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 33:1281–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 43:704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 117:1227–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 25–34Google Scholar
  7. Andersen AN, Majer JD (2004) Ants show the way down under: invertebrates as bioindicators in land management. Front Ecol Environ 2:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  9. Armbrecht I, Rivera L, Perfecto I (2005) Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf-litter ant assemblage of Colombian coffee plantations. Conserv Biol 19:897–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Armbrecht I, Perfecto I, Silverman E (2006) Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colombian forests and coffee plantations. Ecol Entomol 31:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barbier EB (2004) Explaining agricultural land expansion and deforestation in developing countries. Am J Agr Econ 86:1347–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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:e17976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull AC (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 42:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berman M, Andersen AN (2012) New Caledonia has a depauperate subterranean ant fauna, despite spectacular radiations above ground. Biodivers Conserv 21(2489):2497Google Scholar
  16. Bestelmeyer BT, Wiens JA (1996) The effects of land use on the structure of ground-foraging ant communities in the Argentine Chaco. Ecol Appl 6:1225–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bolton B, Alpert G, Ward PS, Naskrecki P (2007) Bolton’s catalogue of ants of the world: 1758–2005 (CD-ROM). Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Brannstrom C (2001) Conservation-with-development models in Brazil’s agro-pastoral landscapes. World Dev 29:1345–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315:381–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 351–367Google Scholar
  21. Chomitz KM (2004) Transferable development rights and forest protection: an exploratory analysis. Int Regional Sci Rev 27:348–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Colwell RK (2006). EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8.2. http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates
  23. 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 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cuezzo F, Guerrero RJ (2012) The ant genus Dorymyrmex Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Dolichoderinae) in Colombia. Psyche (Cambridge) 2012:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dahms H, Lenoir L, Lindborg R, Wolters V, Dauber J (2010) Restoration of seminatural grasslands: what is the impact on ants? Restor Ecol 18:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 20:1150–1160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Marco P, Coelho F (2004) Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodivers Conserv 13:1245–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  29. Dunn RR (2000) Isolated trees as foci of diversity in active and fallow fields. Biol Conserv 95:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ekroos J, Heliola J, Kuussaari M (2010) Homogenization of lepidopteran communities in intensively cultivated agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fearnside PM (2001) Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environ Conserv 28:23–38Google Scholar
  32. 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 49:535–541Google Scholar
  33. 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 309:570–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Folgarait PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers Conserv 7:1221–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guimarães JPR, Guimarães P (2006) Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environ Model Softw 21:1512–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoffmann BD (2003) Responses of ant communities to experimental fire regimes on rangelands in the Victoria River District of the Northern Territory. Aust Ecol 28:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoffmann BD, Andersen AN (2003) Responses of ants to disturbance in Australia, with particular reference to functional groups. Aust Ecol 28:444–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 25:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holldobler B, Wilson E (1990) The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 25:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 81:1103–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klink CA, Machado RB (2005) Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv Biol 19:707–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 51:1199–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 55:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lucey JM, Hill JK (2012) Spillover of insects from rain forest into adjacent oil palm plantations. Biotropica 44:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Majer JD (1983) Ants–bio-indicators of minesite rehabilitation, land-use, and land conservation. Environ Manag 7:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 113:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martinelli LA, Naylor R, Vitousek PM, Moutinho P (2010) Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities for a sustainable future. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 20:3077–3100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Metzger JP, Lewinsohn TM, Joly CA, Verdade LM, Martinelli LA, Rodrigues RR (2010) Brazilian law: full speed in reverse? Science 329:276–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morandin LA, Winston ML, Abbott VA, Franklin MT (2007) Can pastureland increase wild bee abundance in agriculturally intense areas? Basic Appl Ecol 8:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nepstad DC, Stickler CM, Almeida OT (2006) Globalization of the Amazon soy and beef industries: opportunities for conservation. Conserv Biol 20:1595–1603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 91–120Google Scholar
  59. Pacheco R, Vasconcelos HL (2012a) Habitat diversity enhances ant diversity in a naturally heterogeneous Brazilian landscape. Biodivers Conserv 21:797–809Google Scholar
  60. Pacheco R, Vasconcelos HL (2012b) Subterranean pitfall traps: is it worth including them in your ant sampling protocol? Psyche. Article ID 870794Google Scholar
  61. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Hanson P, Cartin V (1997) Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodivers Conserv 6:935–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Philpott SM, Foster PF (2005) Nest-site limitation in coffee agroecosystems: artificial nests maintain diversity of arboreal ants. Ecol Appl 15:1478–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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 22:1093–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pimm SL, Raven P (2000) Biodiversity–extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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 91:460–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 9:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ratter JA, Ribeiro JF, Bridgewater S (1997) The Brazilian cerrado vegetation and threats to its biodiversity. Ann Bot 80:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ribas CR, Schoereder JH, Pic M, Soares SM (2003) Tree heterogeneity, resource availability, and larger scale processes regulating arboreal ant species richness. Aust Ecol 28:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 15:378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 11:499–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Risch SJ, Carrol CR (1982a) The ecological role of ants in two mexican agroecosystems. Oecologia 55:114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Risch SJ, Carroll CR (1982b) Effect of a keystone predaceous ant, Solenopsis geminata, on arthropods in a tropical agroecosystem. Ecology 63:1979–1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schmidt FA, Diehl E (2008) What is the effect of soil use on ant communities? Neotrop Entomol 37:381–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sharley DJ, Hoffmann AA, Thomson LJ (2008) The effects of soil tillage on beneficial invertebrates within the vineyard. Agric For Entomol 10:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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 140:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wetterer JK (2011) Worldwide spread of the tropical fire ant, Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 14:21–35Google Scholar
  78. Wratten SD, Gillespie M, Decourtye A, Mader E, Desneux N (2012) Pollinator habitat enhancement: benefits to other ecosystem services. Agric Ecosyst Environ 159:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renata Pacheco
    • 1
  • Heraldo L. Vasconcelos
    • 1
  • Sarah Groc
    • 1
  • Gabriela P. Camacho
    • 2
  • Tiago L. M. Frizzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-graduação em Entomologia, Departamento de EntomologiaUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrazil

Personalised recommendations