Advertisement

Neotropical Entomology

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 186–196 | Cite as

Environmental Thresholds of Nepomorpha in Cerrado Streams, Brazilian Savannah

  • N. F. S. Giehl
  • L. S. BrasilEmail author
  • K. Dias-Silva
  • D. S. Nogueira
  • H. S. R. Cabette
Ecology, Behavior and Bionomics
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

Determining thresholds of species loss in response to gradients of human impact is becoming an increasingly important component of stream conservation and management. We analyzed the thresholds of change in populations and communities of the infraorder Nepomorpha along a gradient of environmental integrity in streams of the Brazilian savannah, based on samples from 20 sites. We used the Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN) to identify the location and magnitude of changes associated with the environmental quality and the frequency and abundance of the different taxa. We also used TITAN to calculate the positive and negative thresholds of the community and species along the habitat integrity gradient. Nepomorphan species were generally associated with sites of higher environmental quality, which presented larger populations and greater species richness. Only a few nepomorphan species groups were associated with impacted streams. Thresholds were evident in some aquatic nepomorphan populations, but not for the community as a whole. This indicates that species have idiosyncratic responses to the environmental gradient, but in general nepomorphans appear to be a good indicator of healthy environments or less impacted streams in the Brazilian savannah.

Keywords

Aquatic bugs, biomonitoring, conservation, environmental gradient, biological indicators 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank CAPES for the N.F.S. Giehl doctoral stipend. L.S. Brasil is thankful for the post-doctorate grant of the PNPD-CAPES linked to the PPG in Zoology (UFPA and MPEG); D.S. Nogueira and K. Dias-Silva for the post-doctorate grant of the CAPES; FAPEMAT (no. 98/04), CAPES–PROAP, and PROCAD (no. 109/2007) for the financial support and PELD/CNPq (no. 403725/2012-7 and 385588/2014-3) for Technology Development and Industrial stipend to N.F.S. Giehl; and PPG in Ecology and Conservation and Entomology Laboratory (UNEMAT-NX) for the logistic support. We thank A.L. Melo (UFMG), J.R.I. Ribeiro (UNIPAMPA), and H.D.D. Rodrigues (USP) for confirming some species identities. We also thank the reviewers for the valuable corrections and suggestions.

Supplementary material

13744_2018_632_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary 1 Habitat Integrity Index, adapted by Cabette et al. (unpublished). (DOCX 21 kb)
13744_2018_632_Fig5_ESM.png (168 kb)
Supplementary 2

Relative abundance and occurrence of nepomorphan species in lotic environments in Mato Grosso, central Brazil. (PNG 168 kb)

13744_2018_632_MOESM2_ESM.tif (15 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 14 kb)
13744_2018_632_Fig6_ESM.png (475 kb)
Supplementary 3

Distribution and abundance of nepomorphans ranked by the Environmental Integrity Gradient in lotic environments in Mato Grosso, central Brazil. (PNG 475 kb)

13744_2018_632_MOESM3_ESM.tif (154 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 154 kb)
13744_2018_632_Fig7_ESM.png (145 kb)
Supplementary 4

Maximum change points of the taxa along the gradient of environmental quality, in the lotic environments of Mato Grosso, central Brazil. [A and B = axes 1 and 2 of the PCA plotted with the 12 HII questions and the NDVI, C and D = the PCA axes plotted with the HII, NDVI and limnological data]. The black symbols represent species associated with less pristine environments (z-) and the white symbols, those associated with more pristine environments (z+). The horizontal lines indicate the 95% quartile around the change point. (PNG 145 kb)

13744_2018_632_MOESM4_ESM.tif (46 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 46 kb)
13744_2018_632_Fig8_ESM.png (111 kb)

(PNG 111 kb)

13744_2018_632_MOESM5_ESM.tif (41 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 41 kb)
13744_2018_632_Fig9_ESM.png (145 kb)

(PNG 144 kb)

13744_2018_632_MOESM6_ESM.tif (46 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 46 kb)
13744_2018_632_Fig10_ESM.png (107 kb)

(PNG 107 kb)

13744_2018_632_MOESM7_ESM.tif (41 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 40 kb)

References

  1. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes. The influence of land-use on river ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker ME, King RS (2010) A new method for detecting and interpreting biodiver- sity and ecological community thresholds. Methods Ecol Evol 1:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker ME, King RS (2013) Of TITAN and straw men: an appeal for greater understanding of community data. Freshwater Sci 32:489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brando PM, Coe MT, De Fries R, Azevedo AA (2013) Ecology, economy and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the Southeast Amazon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 368:20120152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardoso P, Rigal F, Fattorini S, Terzopoulou S, Borges PAV (2013) Integrating landscape disturbance and indicator species in conservation studies. PLoS One 8:e63294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro DMP, Dolédec S, Callisto M (2018) Land cover disturbance homogenizes aquatic insect functional structure in neotropical savanna streams. Ecol Indic 84:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase JM (2003) Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couceiro SR, Hamada N, Forsberg BR, Pimentel TP, Luz SL (2012) A Macroinvertebrate Multimetric index to evaluate the biological condition of streams in the Central Amazon region of Brazil. Ecol Indic 18:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunha EJ, Montag LFA, Juen L (2015) Oil palm crops effects on environmental integrity of Amazonian streams and Heteropteran (Hemiptera) species diversity. Ecol Indic 52:422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dias-Silva K, Cabette HSR, Juen L, De Marco P (2010) The influence of habitat integrity and physical-chemical water variables on the structure of aquatic and semi-aquatic Heteroptera. Zoologia 27:918–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodds WK, Clements WH, Gido K, Hilderbrand RH, King RS (2010) Thresholds, breakpoints and nonlinearity in freshwaters as related to management. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:988–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolédec S, Forcellini M, Olivier JM, Roset N (2015) Effects of large river restoration on currently used bioindicators and alternative metrics. Freshw Biol 60:1221–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  14. Fearnside PM (2005) Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates and consequences. Conservation Biol 19:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feld CK, Bello F, Dolédec D, Faculty S (2014) Biodiversity of traits and species both show weak responses to hydromorphological alteration in lowland river macroinvertebrate. Freshw Biol 59:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferreira MC, Begot TO, Prudente BS, Juen L, Montag LFA (2018) Effects of oil palm plantations on habitat structure and fish assemblages in Amazon streams. Environ Biol Fish 101:547–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Firmiano KR, Ligeiro R, Macedo DR, Juen L, Hughes RM, Callisto M (2017) Mayfly bioindicator thresholds for several anthropogenic disturbances in neotropical savanna streams. Ecol Indic 74:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckman CW (2011) Encyclopedia of South American Aquatic Insects: Hemiptera – Heteroptera illustrated keys to known families, genera, and species in South America. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, 679 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Heino J, Muotka T, Paavola R (2003) Determinants of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: regional and local influences. J Anim Ecol 72:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoek Y, Zuckerberg B, Manne LL (2015) Application of habitat thresholds in conservation: considerations, limitations and future directions. Global Ecol Conserv 3:736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchinson GE (1957) Population studies – animal ecology and demography: concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson CJ (2013) Identifying ecological thresholds for regulating human activity: effective conservation or wishful thinking? Biol Conserv 168:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karaouzas I, Gritzalis KC (2006) Local and regional factors determining aquatic and aquatic bug (Heteroptera) assemblages in rivers and streams of Greece. Hydrobiologia 573:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King RS, Baker ME (2010) Considerations for analyzing ecological community thresholds in response to anthropogenic environmental gradients. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:998–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King RS, Baker ME (2011) An alternative view of ecological community thresholds and appropriate analyses for their detection. Ecol Appl 21:2833–2839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King RS, Richardson CJ (2003) Integrating bioassessment and ecological risk assessment: an approach to developing numerical water-quality criteria. Environ Manag 31:795–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King RS, Baker ME, Kazyak PF, Weller DE (2011) How novel is too novel? Stream community thresholds at exceptionally low levels of catchment urbanization. Ecol Appl 21:1659–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kovalenko KE, Brady VJ, Brown TN, Ciborowski JJH, Danz NP, Gathman JP, Host GE, Howe RW, Johnson LB, Niemi GJ, Reavie ED (2014) Congruence of community thresholds in response to anthropogenic stress in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Freshwater Sci 33:958–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leal CG, Pompeu PS, Gardner TA, Leitão RP, Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, Zuanon J, De Paula FR, Ferraz SFB, Thomson JR, Mac Nally R, Ferreira J, Barlow J (2016) Multi-scale assessment of human-induced changes to Amazonian instream habitats. Landsc Ecol 31:1725–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ligeiro R, Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, Macedo DR, Firmiano KR, Ferreira WR, Oliveira D, Melo AS, Callisto M (2013) Defining quantitative stream disturbance gradients and the additive role of habitat variation to explain macroinvertebrate taxa richness. Ecol Indic 25:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R, Jason A, Bennett A, Burgman M, Cale P, Calhoun A, Cramer V, Cullen P, Zavaleta E (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol Lett 11:78–91Google Scholar
  32. Lock K, Adriaens T, Van De Meutter F, Goethals P (2013) Effect of water quality on waterbugs (Hemiptera: Gerromorpha & Nepomorpha) in Flanders (Belgium): results from a large-scale field survey. Ann Limnol Int J Lim 49:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luiza-Andrade A, Brasil LS, Benone NL, Shimano Y, Farias APJ, Montag L, Dolédec S, Juen L (2017) Infuence of oil palm monoculture on the taxonomic and functional composition of aquatic insect communities in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Ecol Indic 82:478–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magurran NE (2013) Medindo a diversidade biológica. UFPR, Curitiba 261 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Moreira, F.F.F. Distributional database of the water striders, water bugs, and kissing bugs (Heteroptera: Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha & Cimicomorpha: Reduviidae: Triatominae). Disponível em: <https://sites.google.com/site/distributionaldatabase/>. Acesso em: jun. 2015
  36. Mossman HL, Panter CJ, Dolman PM (2015) Modelling biodiversity distribution in agricultural landscapes to support ecological network planning. Landsc Urban Plan 141:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nessimian JL, Venticinque EM, Zuanon J, De Marco P Jr, Gordo M, Fidelis L, Batista JD, Juen L (2008) Land use, habitat integrity and aquatic insect assemblages in central Amazonian streams. Hydrobiologia 614:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nieser N (1975) The water bugs ( Heteroptera: Nepomorpha) of the Guyana region. Stud Fauna Suriname other Guyanas 16:1–303Google Scholar
  39. Nieser N, López-Ruf M (2001) A review of Limnocoris Stål (Heteroptera: Naucoridae) in southern South America east of the Andes. Tidj V Entomol 144:261–328Google Scholar
  40. Nieser N, Melo AL (1997) Os Heterópteros Aquáticos de Minas Gerais – Guia Introdutório com Chave de Identificação para as Espécies de Nepomorpha e Gerromorpha. Editora UFMG, Belo Horizonte 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, Mcmahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quiroz-Martínez H, Rodríguez-Castro A (2007) Aquatic insects as predators of mosquito larvae. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 23(23):110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version R V. 3.0.1. Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  44. Rasmussen JJ, McKnight US, Loinaz MC, Thomsen NI, Olsson ME, Bjerg PL, Binning PJ, Kronvang B (2013) A catchment scale evaluation of multiple stressor effects in headwater streams. Sci Total Environ 442:420–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodrigues ME, Roque FO, Quintero JMO, Pena JCC, Sousa DC, De Marco P Jr (2016) Nonlinear responses in damselfly community along a gradient of habitat loss in a savanna landscape. Biol Conserv 194:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rouse JW, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deeering DW (1973) Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS (Earth Resources Technology Satellite). In: Proceedings of the third Erts symposium, SP-351 Goddard Space Flight Center, 1973. NASA, Washington, pp 309–317Google Scholar
  47. Shimano Y, Juen L (2016) How oil palm cultivation is affecting mayfly assemblages in Amazon streams. Ann Limnol 52:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sites RW, Reynoso-Velasco D (2015) Review of the Ambrysus stali La Rivers species complex (Heteroptera: Nepomorpha: Naucoridae) with the description of a new species from Mesoamerica. Zootaxa 4018:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smucker NJ, Detenbeck EN, Morrison AC (2013) Diatom responses to watershed development and potential moderating effects of near-stream forest and wetland cover. Freshwater Sci 32:230–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Souza MAA, Melo AL, Vianna GJC (2006) Heterópteros aquáticos oriundos do município de Mariana. MG Neotrop Entomol 35:803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strahler HN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vörösmarty CJ, Mcintyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. F. S. Giehl
    • 1
  • L. S. Brasil
    • 2
    Email author
  • K. Dias-Silva
    • 3
  • D. S. Nogueira
    • 4
  • H. S. R. Cabette
    • 1
  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e ConservaçãoUniv do Estado de Mato GrossoNova XavantinaBrasil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-Graduação em ZoologiaUniv Federal do Pará e Museu Paraense Emílio GoeldiBelémBrasil
  3. 3.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade e ConservaçãoUniv Federal do ParáAltamiraBrasil
  4. 4.Instituto Federal de Mato GrossoAlta FlorestaBrasil

Personalised recommendations