Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 927–942 | Cite as

Biodiversity conservation in urban parks: a study of ground-dwelling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Rio de Janeiro City

  • Marcus Nascimento SantosEmail author
  • Jacques H. C. Delabie
  • Jarbas M. Queiroz
Article

Abstract

Urban green recreational spaces may provide habitat for animals and plants. We investigated the importance of urban public parks in the city of Rio de Janeiro with regard to the conservation of ant species by comparing both the structure of the ground-dwelling ant community between urban parks and continuous forests and the influence of environmental factors on possible differences. Fifteen urban areas were sampled (5 isolated parks, 5 non-isolated parks and 5 forest areas). Ants were sampled at sardine bait stations and through manual/visual searching in quadrats around the baits. We identified 120 ant species (4 exotic species) distributed across 38 genera and 7 subfamilies. The four exotic species were Monomorium floricola, Paratrechina longicornis, Pheidole megacephala and Tetramorium simillimum. Both the taxonomic and functional diversity of ground-dwelling ants were higher in continuous forests, followed by non-isolated and then isolated urban parks. Environmental factors were found to be key drivers influencing the differences in ant community structure among continuous forests and urban parks. Soil compaction and canopy cover predicted the diversity patterns of the taxonomic and functional compositions of the ant communities. The ant species in the study areas exhibited a non-random pattern of distribution and a spatial association of species segregation. There was high spatial turnover of ant species in the study areas, indicating that conservation efforts are required in all studied urban areas, not just those areas considered to be species rich. Therefore, we need to conserve more species in more areas, not necessarily those high in richness.

Keywords

Formicidae Urban ants Urban landscapes Biodiversity conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Cainã Huntter de Souza Leite for his essential support and assistance in the ant collections in the forest areas. The Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the Programa de Pós-Graduacão em Ciências Ambientais e Florestais, Instituto de Florestas, UFRRJ, Brazil, supported this research. We also thank the Associate Editor and anonymous reviewers, whose invaluable critical comments improved this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This research does not involve human and/or animal participants. The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration. The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full). No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support our conclusions.

Supplementary material

11252_2019_872_MOESM1_ESM.doc (381 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 381 kb)
11252_2019_872_MOESM2_ESM.doc (28 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 28 kb)

References

  1. Agosti D, Alonso LE (2000) The ALL Protocol: a standard protocol for the collection of ground-dwelling ants. In: Agosti D, Majer JDL, Alonso E, Schultz TR (eds.) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. - Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London, pp 204–206Google Scholar
  2. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2008.0030-1299.16644.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida-Neto M, Guimarães PR, Lewinsohn TM (2007) On nestedness analyses: rethinking matrix temperature and anti-nestedness. Oikos 116:716–722.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15803.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almeida-Neto M, Ulrich W (2011) A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environ Model Softw 26:173–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Almeida-Neto M, Ulrich W (2010) A straightforward computational approach for quantifying nestedness using abundance data. Environm Model Software 26:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atmar W, Patterson BD (1993) The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 96:373–382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317508 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Badano EI, Regidor HA, Nunez HA, Acosta R, Gianoli E (2005) Species richness and structure of ant communities in a dynamic archipelago: effects of island area and age. J Biogeogr 32:221–227.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01174.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baillie JE, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2004) A global species assessment. Gland, Switzerland: the world conservation union. htpps://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2010-06-09
  9. Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:134–143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beever EA, Herrick JE (2006) Effects of feral horses in Great Basin landscapes on soils and ants: direct and indirect mechanisms. J Arid Environ 66:96–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bestelmeyer BT, Wiens JA (2001) Ant biodiversity in semiarid landscape mosaics: the consequences of grazing vs. natural heterogeneity. Ecol Appl 11:1123–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1123:ABISLM]2.0.CO;2
  12. Bolton B ( 2016) Bolton’s online catalogue. https://www.antweb.org/world.jsp. Accessed 16 November 2016
  13. Camarota F, Powell SS, Melo A, Priest GJ, Marquis RL, Vasconcelos H (2016) Co-occurrence patterns in a diverse arboreal ant community are explained more by competition than habitat requirements. Ecol Evol 6:8907–8918.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2606 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Carpintero S, Reyes-López J (2014a) Effect of park age, size, shape and isolation on ant assemblages in two cities of southern Spain. Entomol Sci 17:41–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpintero S, Reyes-López J (2014b) Effect of park age, size, shape and isolation on ant assemblages in two cities of southern Spain. Entomol Sci 17:41–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castracani C, Grasso DA, Fanfani A, Mori A (2010) The ant fauna of Castelporziano presidential reserve (Rome, Italy) as a model for the analysis of ant community structure in relation to environmental variation in Mediterranean ecosystems. J Insect Conserv 14:585–594.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9285-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke KM, Fisher BL, LeBuhn G (2008) The influence of urban park characteristics on ant (hymenoptera, Formicidae) communities. Urban Ecosyst 11:317–334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0065-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cochran WG (1957) Analysis of covariance: its nature and uses. Biometrics 13:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colwell RK (2000) Estimates: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, Version 8.2.0.0, User's Guide and application. < http://viceroy.colorado.edu/estimates>. Accessed 14 May 2014
  20. Colwell RK, Mao CX, Chang J (2004) Interpolating, extrapolating and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717–2727.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies ZG, Fullera RA, Lorama A, Irvineb KN, Simsa V, Gaston KJ (2009) A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 142:761–771.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delabie JHC, Agost D, Nascimento IC (2000) Litter and communities of the Brazilian Atlantic rain Forest region. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LT, Schultz T (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for ground living ants. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 280 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Fagundes R, Del-Claro K, Ribeiro SP (2012) Effects of the trophobiont herbivore Calloconophora pugionata (Hemiptera) on ant fauna associated with Myrcia obovata (Myrtaceae) in a montane tropical forest. Psyche 2012:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/783945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fergnani P, Sackmann P, Cuezzo F (2008) Environmental determinants of the distribution and abundance of the ants, Lasiophanes picinus and L. valdiviensis, in Argentina. J Insect Sci 8:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1673/031.008.3601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fernández-Juricic E (2000) Bird community composition patterns in urban parks of Madrid: the role of age, size and isolation. Ecol 15:373.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1703.2000.00358.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fernandez-Juricic E (2002) can human disturbance promote nestedness? A case study with breeding birds in urban habitat fragments. Oecologia 131:269–278.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0883-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Freitas SR, Neves CL, Chernicharo P (2006) Tijuca National Park: two pioneering restorationist initiatives in Atlantic forest in southeastern Brazil. Parque Nacional da Tijuca: palco de duas iniciativas clássicas de restauração da Mata Atlântica no Sudeste do Brasil Braz J Biol 66:975–982.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842006000600004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fujiwara M, Takada T (2017) Environmental stochasticity. In: eLS. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021220.pub2. http://www.els.net. Accessed 27 Apr 2018
  30. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaston KJ, Smith RM, Thompson K, Warren PH (2005) Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:395–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-6066-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Cantú-Salazar L, Cruz-Piñón G (2008) The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 39:93–113.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00232-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gippet JMW, Mondy N, Diallo-Dudek J, Bellec A, Dumet A, Mistler L, Kaufmann B (2017) I’m not like everybody else: urbanization factors shaping spatial distribution of native and invasive ants are species-specific. Urb Ecosyst 20:157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0576-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gomes DS, Almeida FS, Vargas AB, Queiroz JM (2013) Resposta da assembleia de formigas na interface solo-serapilheira a um gradiente de alteração ambiental. Iheringia Ser Zool 103:104–109.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0073-47212013000200004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. González-García A, Belliure J, Gómez-Sal A, Dávila P (2009) The role of urban greenspaces in fauna conservation: the case of the iguana Ctenosaura similis in the ‘patios’ of León city, Nicaragua. Biodivers Conserv 18:1909–1920.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9564-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gotelli NJ, Mccabe DJ (2002) Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J. M. Diamond’s assembly rules model. Ecology 83:2091–2096.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3072040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Goulart FF, Takahashi FSC, Rodrigues M (2015) Where matrix quality most matters? Using connectivity models to assess effectiveness of matrix conversion in the Atlantic Forest. Natur Conserv 13:47–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Griffiths D (2017) Connectivity and vagility determine beta diversity and nestedness in north American and European freshwater fish. J Biogeogr 44:1723–1733.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12964 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Groc S, Delabie JHC, Fernández F, Leponce M, Orivel J, Silvestre R, Vasconcelos HL, Dejean A (2013) Leaf-litter ant communities (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a pristine Guianese rainforest: stable functional structure versus high species turnover. Myrmecol News 19:43–51Google Scholar
  41. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
  42. Hamza MA, Anderson WK (2005) Soil compaction in cropping systems. A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions Soil Tillage Res 82:121–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hanski I, Simberloff D (1997) The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (Eds). Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, Californina pp. 5–26Google Scholar
  44. Heterick BE, Lythe M, Smithyman C (2013a) Urbanisation factors impacting on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) biodiversity in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia: two case studies. Urban Ecosyst 16:145–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0257-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heterick BE, Lythe M, Smithyman C (2013b) Urbanisation factors impacting on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) biodiversity in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia: two case studies. Urban Ecosyst 16:145–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0257-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Honnay O, Hermy M, Coppin P (1999) Nested plant communities in deciduous forest fragments: species relaxation or nested habitats? Oikos 84:119–129.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3546872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hunter P (2007) The human impact on biological diversity. How species adapt to urban challenges sheds light on evolution and provides clues about conservation. EMBO Rep 8:316–318.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400951 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. IBGE (2010) Censo Demográfico - Censo 2010. Tabelas/Rio de Janeiro. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/sociais/populacao/9662-censo-demografico-2010.html?=&t=resultados. Accessed 30 October 2018
  49. IUCN (2006) Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: The World Conservation Union. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2010-09-06
  50. Jordan D, Hubbard VC, Ponder Jr F, Berry EC (2000) The influence of soil compaction and the removal of organic matter on two native earthworms and soil properties in an oak-hickory forest. Biol Fert Soils 31:323–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Josens R, Sola F, Lois-Milevicich J, Mackay W (2016) Urban ants of the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina: species survey and practical control. Int J Pest Manage 22:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2016.1239035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14714.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kamura CM, Morini MSC, Figueiredo CJ, Bueno OC, Campos-Farinha AEC (2007) Comunidades de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) em um ecossistema urbano próximo à Mata Atlântica. Braz J Biol 67:635–641.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842007000400007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Koh LP, Sodhi NS (2004) Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecol Appl 14:1695–1708.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kolasa J (1996) Nestedness and discontinuities in species-range-size distributions. Trends Ecol Evo 11:433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Kutt AS, Fisher A (2010) Ant assemblages change with increasing dominance of an exotic pasture grass in a tropical savanna woodland. Ecol Manag Restor 11:67–69.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00517.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leal IR, Filgueiras BK, Gomes JP, Iannuzzi L, Andersen AN (2012) Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biodivers Conserv 21:1687–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lessard JP, Buddle CM (2005) The effects of urbanization on ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) associated with the Molson nature reserve, Quebec. Can Entomol 137:215–225.  https://doi.org/10.4039/n04-055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lobry de Bruyn LA (1999) Ants as bioindicators of soil function in rural environments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:425–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00047-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lomolino MV (1996) Investigating causality of nestedness of insular communities: selective immigrations or extinctions? J Biogeogr 23:699–703.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.1996.tb00030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lutinski JA, Lopes BC, De Morais ABB (2013) Diversidade de formigas urbanas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de dez cidades do sul do Brasil. Biota Neotrop 13:332–342.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032013000300033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Macarthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. In: Macarthur RH (ed) monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. Mcabendroth L, Foggo A, Rundle SD, Bilton DT (2005) Unravelling nestedness and spatial pattern in pond assemblages. J Anim Ecol 74:41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00895.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McDonnell MJ, MacGregor-Fors I (2016) The ecological future of cities. Science 352:936–938.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3630
  66. Melo AS (2008) O que ganhamos ‘confundindo’ riqueza de espécies e equabilidade em um índice de diversidade. Biota Neotrop 8:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K (2005) The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:219–252.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Niemelä J, Kotze DJ, Venn S, Penev L, Stoyanov I, Spence J, De Oca EM (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban-rural gradients: an international comparison. Landsc Ecol 17:387–401.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021270121630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nuhn TP, Wright CG (1979) An ecological survey of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a landscaped suburban habitat. Am Midl Nat 102:353–362.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2424662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pacheco R, Vasconcelos HL (2007) Invertebrate conservation in urban areas: ants in the Brazilian Cerrado. Landscape Urban Plan 81:193–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pallant J (2005) SPSS Survıval manual: a step by step Guıde to data analysis using SPSS for Wındows. Australian Copyright, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  72. Patterson BD, Atmar W (1986) Nested subsets and the structure of insular mammalian faunas and archipelagos. Biol J Linn Soc 28:65–82.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1986.tb01749.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Patterson BD, Atmar W (2000) Analyzing species composition in fragments. Bonn Zool Monogr 46:9–24Google Scholar
  74. Pecarevic M, Danoff-Burg J, Dunn RR (2010) Biodiversity on Broadway – enigmatic diversity of the societies of ants (Formicidae) on the streets of new York City. PLoS One 5:e13222.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013222 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Pećarević M, Danoff-Burg J, Dunn RR (2010) Biodiversity on Broadway - enigmatic diversity of the societies of ants (Formicidae) on the streets of new York City. PLoS One 5:e13222.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013222 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Pereira MPS, Queiroz JM, Valcarcel R, Nunes AJM (2007) Fauna de formigas como ferramenta para monitoramento de área de mineração reabilitada na Ilha da Madeira, Itaguaí, RJ. Cienc Florest 17:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pisarski B (1982) Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Warsaw and Mazovia. Mem Zoologi (Warsaw) 36:73–90Google Scholar
  78. Plowes RM, Dunn JG, Gilbert LE (2007) The urban fire ant paradox: native fire ants persist in an urban refuge while invasive fire ants dominate natural habitats. Biol Invasions 9:825–836.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-006-9084-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rossbach M, Majer J (1983) A preliminary survey of the ant fauna of the Darling plateau and swan coastal plain near Perth, Western Australia. J R Soc West Aust 66:85–90Google Scholar
  80. Sanders NJ, Gotelli NJ, Heller NE, Gordon DM (2003) Community disassembly by an invasive ant species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:2474–2477.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0437913100 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Santos MN (2016) Research on urban ants: approaches and gaps. Insect Soc 63:359–371.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-016-0483-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Savage AM, Hackett B, Guénard B, Youngsteadt EK, Dunn RR (2015) Fine-scale heterogeneity across Manhattan's urban habitat mosaic is associated with variation in ant composition and richness. Insect Conserv Diver 8:216–228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Savitha S, Barve N, Davidar P (2008) Response of ants to disturbance gradients in and around Bangalore, India. Trop Ecol 49:235–243Google Scholar
  84. Slipinski P, Zmihorski M, Czechowski W (2012) Species diversity and nestedness of ant assemblages in an urban environment. Eur J Entomol 109:197–206.  https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2012.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ślipiński P, ZMihorski M, Czechowski W (2012) Species diversity and nestedness of ant assemblages in an urban environment. Eur J Entomol 109:197–206.  https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2012.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smith RM, Warren PH, Thompson K, Gaston KJ (2006) Urban domestic gardens (VI): environmental correlates of invertebrate species. Biodivers Conserv 15:2415–2438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-5014-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical approach. 2ª. Ed, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  88. Stone L, Roberts A (1990) The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oecologia 85:74–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317345 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Stott I, Soga M, Inger R, Gaston KJ (2015) Land sparing is crucial for urban ecosystem service. Front Ecol Environ 13:387–393.  https://doi.org/10.1890/140286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Suarez AV, Bolger DT, Case TJ (1998) Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities in coastal Southern California. Ecology 79:2041–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA. Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar
  92. Teixeira AM, Soares-Filho BS, Freitas SR, Metzger JP (2009) Modeling landscape dynamics in an Atlantic rainforest region: implications for conservation. Forest Ecol Manag 257:1219–1230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ter Braak CJF (1987) The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 69:69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00038688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ter Braak CJF (1995) Non-linear methods for multivariate statistical calibration and their use in palaeoecology: a comparison of inverse (k-nearest neighbours, partial least squares and weighted averaging partial least squares) and classical approaches. Chemometr Intell Lab 28:165–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(95)80048-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ter Braak CJF, Prentice IC (1988) A theory of gradient analysis. Adv Ecol Res 18:271–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60183-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ter Braak CJF, Verdonschot PFM (1995) Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology. Aquat Sci 57:255–289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ulrich W (2012) Turnover – a FORTRAN program for analysis of species associations. http://www.umk.pl/~ulrichw. Accessed 09 June 2017
  99. Ulrich W, Almeida-Neto M, Gotelli NJ (2009) A consumer's guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118:3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17053.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Ulrich W, Gotelli NJ (2012) A null model algorithm for presence – absence matrices based on proportional resampling. Ecol Model 244:20–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ulrich W, Gotelli NJ (2013) Pattern detection in null model analysis. Oikos 122:2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20325.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Ulrich W, Gotelli NJ (2010) Null model analysis of species associations using abundance data. Ecology 91:3384–3397.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-2157.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Uno S, Cotton J, Philpott SM (2010) Diversity, abundance, and species composition of ants in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosyst 13:425–441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0136-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vasconcelos HL, Vilhena JMS, Facure KG, Albernaz ALKM (2010) Patterns of ant species diversity and turnover across 2000 km of Amazonian floodplain forest. J Biogeogr37:432–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02230.x
  105. Vepsäläinen K, Ikonen H, Koivula MJ (2008) The structure of ant assemblages in an urban area of Helsinki, southern Finland. Ann Zool Fenn 45:109–127.  https://doi.org/10.5735/086.045.0203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Vepsäläinen K, Pisarski B (1982) The structure of urban ant communities along a geographical gradient from North Finland to Poland. In: Luniak M, Pisarski B (eds) Animals in urban environments pp, pp 155–169Google Scholar
  107. Ward D, Beggs J (2007) Coexistence, habitat patterns and the assembly of ant communities in the Yasawa islands, Fiji. Acta Oecol 32:215–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2007.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Weller B, Ganzhorn JU (2004) Carabid beetle community composition, body size, and fluctuating asymmetry along an urban-rural gradient. Basic Appl Ecol 5:193–201.  https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wilson EO, Simberloff DS (1969) Experimental zoogeography of islands: defaunation and monitoring techniques. Ecology 50:267–278.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1934855
  110. Wright DH, Patterson BD, Mikkelson GM, Cutler A, Atmar W (1997) A comparative analysis of nested subset patterns of species composition. Oecologia 113:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wright DH, Reeves JH (1992) On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages. Oecologia 92:416e428–416e428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Yamaguchi T (2004) Influence of urbanization on ant distribution in parks of Tokyo and Chiba City, Japan I. analysis of ant species richness. Ecol Res 19:209–216.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00625.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Yamaguchi T (2005) Influence of urbanization on ant distribution in parks of Tokyo and Chiba City, Japan II. Analysis of species. Entomol Sci 8:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2005.00096.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Yasuda M, Koike F (2009) The contribution of the bark of isolated trees as habitat for ants in an urban landscape. Landscape Urban Plan 92:276–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zvereva EL, Kozlov MV (2010) Responses of terrestrial arthropods to air pollution: a meta-analysis. Environ Sci Pollut R 17:297–311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0138-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Ambientais e Florestais, Instituto de FlorestasUniversidade Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Laboratório de MirmecologiaConvênio Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz - Centro de Pesquisas do CacauItabunaBrazil
  4. 4.Departamento de Ciências Ambientais, Instituto de FlorestasUniversidade Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations