Biota Neotropica 20(1): e20190782, 2020
www.scielo.br/bn
ISSN 1676-0611 (online edition)
Article
Accessing the subterranean ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in native and
modified subtropical landscapes in the Neotropics
Mila Ferraz de Oliveira Martins*1 , Marcílio José Thomazini2, Dilmar Baretta3, George Gardner Brown2,
Marcio Gonçalves da Rosa3 , Mauricio Rumenos Guidetti Zagatto5, Alessandra Santos2, Herlon Sérgio Nadolny2,
Guilherme Borges Xarão Cardoso2, Cintia Carla Niva2,6, Marie Luise Carolina Bartz4 & Rodrigo Machado Feitosa1
1
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Avenida Francisco Heráclito dos Santos, s/n, Centro Politécnico,
CEP: 81531980, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
2
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Estrada da Ribeira, km. 111, Guaraituba,
CEP: 83411000, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
3
Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Centro de Educação Superior do Oeste, Rua Beloni Trombeta
Zanin, 680, Santo Antônio, CEP: 89815630, Chapecó, SC, Brasil
4
Universidade Positivo, Rua Professor Pedro Viriato Parigot de Souza 3841/3842, Cidade Industrial,
CEP: 81280330, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
5
Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Piracicaba, SP, Brasil
6
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária - Embrapa Cerrados Rodovia BR 020
Km18, Brasília, DF, Brasil
*Corresponding author: Mila Ferraz de Oliveira Martins, e-mail: milafomartins@gmail.com
MARTINS, M.F.O., THOMAZINI, M.J., BARETTA, D., BROWN, G.G., ROSA, M.G., ZAGATTO, M.R.G.,
SANTOS, A., NALDONY, H.S., CARDOSO, G. B.X., NIVA, C.C., BARTZ, M.L.C., FEITOSA, R.M. Accessing
the subterranean ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in native and modified subtropical landscapes in
the Neotropics. Biota Neotropica. 20(1): e20190782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Abstract: Several studies have characterized and delimited subterranean ant assemblages. Soil extraction, one of the methods
employed to access this fauna, employs the removal of monoliths. One of the most widely used methods for the extraction
of soil sampling is called TSBF (developed by the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme). This method provides
relevant data about the species associated with the soil. In the present study we characterized assemblages of subterranean
ants using the TSBF method in different subtropical areas of the Neotropics. We considered two sampling designs in
different localities. The first design resulted in 315 TSBF samples obtained from layers at distinct depths. The second design
resulted in 270 TSBF samples and 270 epigaeic pitfall trap samples. This material was used to delimit the species that
occur exclusively in the subterranean stratum (TSBF) and that are not found on the soil surface. A total of 281 species were
recorded. Of these, 57 can be considered subterranean, based on their occurrence in subterranean strata. We also verified that
the highest occurrence of ants was in the first 10 cm of soil depth. Due to the importance of using methods that efficiently
extract the subterranean ant fauna in studies, we suggest the TSBF method should be used to sample ants or to associate this
method with epigaeic pitfall traps to delimit strictly subterranean assemblages in specific community stratification studies.
Keywords: Soil, hypogaeic, Brazil, monoliths, pitfall.
Avaliação da mirmecofauna subterrânea (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) em paisagens
nativas e modificadas na região subtropical do Neotrópico
Resumo: Vários estudos têm caracterizado e delimitado assembleias de formigas subterrâneas. A extração de solo, um dos
métodos utilizados para amostragem dessa fala, implica na remoção de monólitos. Um dos métodos mais utilizados na extração
de monólitos é chamado TSBF (desenvolvido pelo Programa Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility). Esse método fornece dados
extremamente relevantes sobre as espécies associadas ao solo. No presente estudo, nós caracterizamos as assembleias de
formigas subterrâneas usando o método TSBF em diferentes áreas subtropicais do Neotrópico. Utilizamos dois delineamentos
amostrais distintos. O primeiro delineamento resultou em 315 amostras de TSBF obtidas a partir da estratificação do solo. O
segundo resultou em 270 amostras de TSBF mais 270 provenientes de armadilhas pitfall epigeicas. Esse material foi utilizado
para delimitar espécies que ocorrem exclusivamente no estrato subterrâneo (TSBF) e não são encontradas na superfície do solo.
Registramos um total de 281 espécies. Destas, 57 podem ser consideradas subterrâneas (baseado na ocorrência no respectivo
estrato). Também verificamos que a maior ocorrência de formigas se deu nos primeiros 10 cm de profundidade. Devido à
importância do uso de métodos que coletem eficientemente formigas subterrâneas, sugerimos o uso do método TSBF em
estudos de estratificação de comunidades ou sua associação a armadilhas do tipo pitfall epigeica para delimitar assembleias
estritamente subterrâneas.
Palavras-chave: Solo, hipogeicas, Brasil, monólitos, pitfall.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
2
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Introduction
Ants are conspicuous organisms present in most terrestrial
environments (Folgarait 1998), from the arboreal to the subterranean
strata (Lucky et al. 2013, Jacquemin et al. 2016). However, little
is known about underground ant assemblages (Ryder Wilkie et al.
2007, Andersen & Brault 2010, Jacquemin et al. 2012), mainly
because there are few efficient and specific methods for collecting this
important fauna (Wong & Guénard 2017). Underground ants are the
last biodiversity frontier to be explored in Formicidae (Rider Wilkie
et al. 2007, Andersen & Brault 2010), and are also important for the
understanding of the origin and evolution of Formicidae (Lucky et
al. 2013). In addition, subterranean ants are considered bioturbators
sensu strictu (Bottinelli et al. 2015), and because they respond to
drastically changes in soil density, they can serve as bioindicators
(Schmidt et al. 2013).
Aiming to develop an efficient sampling method for subterranean
ants, researchers have been testing useful sampling techniques that
can be replicated. Wong & Guénard (2017) compiled the published
research on the collecting methods of subterranean ants and classified
them into three types: (1) subterranean baits, (2) soil sampling, and
(3) direct sampling. Most of those publications (65%) described the
use of baits or other attractive items (Wong & Guénard 2017), which
favor the capture of predatory, generalist and mass-recruiting species
(Longino 2000, Bestelmeyer et al. 2000, Schmidt & Solar 2010, Wong
& Guénard 2017).
Amongst the methods classified as “soil sampling” is the extraction
of monoliths (Delabie & Fowler 1995, Fowler et al. 2000, Andersen
& Brault 2010, Wong & Guénard 2017). The use of monoliths is
promising because it enables us to determine the vertical stratification
of species in the soil, among other advantages (see: Jacquemin et
al. 2012, Jacquemin et al. 2016, Wong & Guénard 2017). A widely
used technique of monolith extraction in soil macrofauna studies was
proposed by the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program (TSBF)
(Anderson & Ingram 1993) and was standardized by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) in the ISO norm 23611-5:2011.
This technique, known as TSBF method, generates a substantial volume
of ant specimens. It consists of the removal of soil monoliths that are
25 x 25 cm and are taken 20 or 30 cm deep in the soil, followed by
hand sorting extraction of the associated fauna (Bartz et al. 2014a, Rosa
et al. 2015, ISO 2018).
Despite the massive volume of material that has been sampled using
the TSBF method, published information on the ecological dynamics
of the ants collected using it is insufficient. This is a function of the
fact that Pedobiology studies (which employ the TSBF method with
high frequencies) traditionally identify the collected material at high
taxonomic levels (like Order, Family and Genera) and therefore do not
give information on community composition and species ecology (see:
Lourente et al. 2007, Klenk et al. 2009, Correia 2010, Lima et al. 2010,
Rousseau et al 2010, Zagatto 2014, Benazzi et al. 2013, Pereira et al.
2012, Gutiérrez et al. 2017).
The present work characterizes subterranean ant assemblages
in three subtropical regions of the Neotropics using two sampling
methods: TSBF and epigaeic pitfall traps. In situ extraction methods, like
monoliths, can help to detect ecological, behavioral and morphological
patterns, since the specimens collected using these methods are not
attracted from other strata (from the surface, for example). Furthermore,
http://www.scielo.br/bn
TSBF is widely disseminated in studies that evaluate the impact of land
use systems on the underground soil (micro, meso and macro fauna)
(Lavelle et al 1997, Bartz et al 2014a, Rosa et al. 2015). In order to
improve the scientific contribution of this study, we characterize the
ant assemblages and compare the communities at the species level.
Material and Methods
1. Study area
The specimens came from three localities in the Southern Region
of Brazil: (1) Ponta Grossa, Campos Gerais region, state of Paraná;
(2) Western and (3) Plateau, regions of the state of Santa Catarina. In
each region of Santa Catarina, the samples were collected from three
municipalities: Xanxerê, Chapecó and São Miguel do Oeste in the
West and Lages, Otacílio Costa and Campo Belo do Sul in the Plateau
(Figure 1).
Ponta Grossa is in the Second Plateau of Paraná, about 120
kilometers from the state capital, Curitiba. According to Maack
(2012), the region is characterized by open grasslands with Araucaria
angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze 1898 patches, within the Atlantic Forest
domain. Climate is type Cfb (climatic classification of Köppen-Geiger)
-subtropical humid, without defined dry periods throughout the year and
with the average temperature of the warmest month lower than 22 °C.
The sampled areas have mean elevation of 875 m and total annual
rainfall between 1.300 and 1.800 mm throughout the year (IAPAR,
1978). Seven land use systems (LUSs) were sampled: (1) Integrated
Crop-livestock (ICL); (2) Integrated Crop-livestock-forestry (ICLF);
(3) Grazed native field (GN); (4) Eucalyptus sp. plantation (EP); (5)
no-tillage (NT); (6) Campos Gerais (CG), and (7) Mixed Ombrophilous
forest (F). The native areas, CG and F, were at Vila Velha State Park
(25°14’17” S 50°0’39” W). The land use systems ICL, ICLF, and
GN were in the Model Farm of the Instituto Agronômico do Paraná
(IAPAR) (25° 5’ 11” S 50° 9’ 38” W) and the EU and NT systems
were at the Experimental Field of the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisas
Agropecuárias (Embrapa) (25°08’17” S 50°04’47” W).
The western region of Santa Catarina is characterized by humid
subtropical Cfa climate, with no defined dry season, and the average
temperature during the warmest month is above 22 °C (Bartz et
al. 2014a). The native forest in the Western region of the state is a
transition between mixed ombrophilous and semi-deciduous forest
(Bartz et al. 2014b). In the Plateau region the climate is classified
as Cfb (as described for Ponta Grossa), and native grasslands with
mixed ombrophilous forest patches predominate (Rosa 2013). The
municipalities of each region of Santa Catarina were chosen based
on their geographic characteristics, soil type, LUSs, and management
history. Five LUSs were sampled in each of the three municipalities:
(1) Native forest (FN); (2) Eucalyptus sp. plantation (EP); (3) Pasture
(PA); (4) No-tillage (NT) and (5) Integrated Crop-livestock integration
(ICL) (for details on the location and characterization of the areas see:
Rosa 2013, Bartz et al. 2014a, b, Rosa et al. 2015).
All areas were part of a study of soil quality in different land use
systems developed by the Embrapa Forestry (Colombo, PR), and
Santa Catarina SisBiota Project, led by the Universidade Estadual de
Santa Catarina (UDESC) at Chapecó. In these projects, soil fauna was
evaluated as an indicator of soil quality in different LUS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
3
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
Figure 1. Map of the sampled areas.
2. Sampling design
The Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program organizes measures
to monitor soil quality through the removal of monoliths in places where
financial and technological resources are limited. The soil monoliths
were 25 x 25 cm, and the depth at which they were collected was variable
according to the extent of horizon A of the soil (Anderson & Ingram
1993, ISO 2018). This method can be applied to any soil type. The area
for the removal of monoliths is delimited by a metallic quadrangular
structure, followed by the excavation and removal of soil layers. Each
layer is packed separately, and the associated fauna can be extracted
either in the field or in the laboratory, with or whitout assistance of a
stereomicroscope (Anderson & Ingram 1993). In the present study, all
extractions were performed in the laboratory, without stereomicroscope.
Our extractions, in Ponta Grossa, were made in layers up to 20 cm,
delimited in three strata: 0 - litter; I – 0 to 10 cm and II – 10 to 20 cm.
In Santa Catarina, extractions were not stratified.
We used material from two different sample designs, according to
the research group involved in the sampling. In Paraná, samples were
collected on four different dates. In the areas of ICLF, ICL, NF, NT,
and EU, samples were taken in October and November 2012 and in
April and May 2013. In the Vila Velha State Park, samples were taken
in September 2013 and in January 2014. All areas of Santa Catarina
(West and Plateau) were sampled in the course of two seasons: winter
(July and August 2011) and summer (December 2011 and January 2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
In Paraná, for each area (seven LUSs) three plots of 50 x 100 m (0.5
hectares) were delimited per LUS, within which five monoliths were
extracted, separated by at least 200 m. These samples were distributed in
a central transect, 20 meters from the edge of the plot. A zigzag pattern
was drawn with samples always at least 20 m apart and following the
slope of the plot (Zagatto, 2014) (Figure 2). A total of 105 monoliths
(seven LUSs x three plots x five monoliths) were collected, divided into
the depth layers mentioned above (0, I and II), totalling 315 sample
units per season of the year (630 total samples).
In Santa Catarina, one area of each LUS (NF, EU, PA, ICL, and
NT) was evaluated in each of the three municipalities per region (West
and Plateau). Sampling grids, with nine points mounted in three lines
of three points each, were sampled 20 m from the border and 30 m
apart in each LUS, totaling one hectare. At each point a monolith was
extracted and an epigaeic pitfall trap was installed (one meter distant
from the monolith) (Figure 3). Each pitfall trap consisted of a 200 ml
capacity recipient, half filled with water and detergent, buried with the
opening at ground level and left in the field for 72 hours. A total of 270
samples of TSBF and 270 of epigaeic pitfalls (three municipalities x
five LUSs x nine monoliths x two regions) were obtained per season
(1080 total samples).
The ants from all areas were conditioned in 80% alcohol and
sent to the Laboratório de Sistemática e Biologia de Formigas of the
Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). The material was processed
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
4
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Figure 2. Schematic drawing of the sampling design in the state of Paraná.
Adapted from Zagatto (2014).
and identified to the specific level whenever possible. The identifications
were generally based on the Guide for the Ant Genera of Brazil (Baccaro
et al., 2015). In addition, UFPR specialists (Alexandre C. Ferreira,
Gabriela P. Camacho, John E. Latke, Mayron Escárraga, Rodrigo M.
Feitosa, and Thiago S. R. da Silva) were consulted to confirm species
identifications. Finally, whenever necessary, we performed comparisons
with the material deposited in the Coleção Entomológica Padre Jesus
Santiago Moure at UFPR (DZUP), where voucher material was
deposited. The species that were not possible to name were identified
as morphospecies.
3. Data analysis
Due to differences in the sampling design, the data were organized
in two separate matrices that indicate presence and absence: one matrix
with data from Paraná and the other with data from Santa Catarina. Since
samples were taken at different seasons to increase the likelihood of
finding different species, each species in a sampling unit was considered
only once, regardless of the season when it was collected, as suggested
by Brandão et al (2011). The observed richness (Sobs) obtained by each
method and stratum were compared with the richness estimated by
Jackniffe1 and Bootstrap. These estimators were chosen because they
provide a satisfactory balance in the analyses, since they separately
consider the effect of species occurring in a single sample (Jackniffe1)
and of all species in the samples, without overweighting the presence of
rare species (Bootstrap). To determine whether a species is epigaeic or
hypogaeic, we used the exclusivity criterion: species collected only by
the TSBF method or those present only in strata I and II were considered
subterranean; conversely, the species collected only by pitfall traps or
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Figure 3. Schematic drawing of the sampling design in the state of Santa Catarina.
Adapted from Bartz et al. (2014), and Rosa et al. (2015).
those present only in stratum 0 of the TSBF method were considered
epigaeic. We used the samples from Paraná to evaluate the sampling
efficiency of the TSBF method, since only these samples were stratified
(layer separation by depth). The stratification allowed us to evaluate
the presence of ants in the different strata, providing data not only on
ant richness but also on aspects related to their biology (stratum of
occurrence).
A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to verify if
the presence of ants in strata was homogeneous (providing an equal
probability of collection success between the layers). The model was
elaborated from the proportion of ant occurrence in the plots (ranging
from 0 to 5, in a half-hectare), with the strata as fixed variables and the
LUSs as random variables. The model was compared by maximum
likelihood and the data were evaluated for overdispersion, assuming a
binomial distribution.
The analyses and graphs were performed in the R environment
(version 3.1.3, R-CORE-TEAM 2016) with the vegan, car, MASS,
iNEXT and lme4 packages. The map of the localities was generated
using Program QGis v. 2.16.3 and the coordinates provided in Zagatto
(2014) and Rosa (2013) and the shape files obtained from the Brazilian
Institute of Geography and Statistics data base - IBGE (2016). The
figures were drawn in Adobe Illustrator (version CC 2018).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
5
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
Results
In Santa Catarina, 238 species were collected by both methods
(epigaeic pitfall and TSBF). Pitfalls collected 202 species and
generated 1,585 records of occurrence, while the TSBF collected 149
species, generating 769 records (Table 2). From the total, 89 species
were collected only in pitfall (51.7% of them composed by the genus
Pheidole) and 36 only in the TSBF (Table 1). The three most frequent
species in the pitfalls were Pachycondyla striata Smith, 1858, Pheidole
subarmata Mayr, 1884 and Linepithema micans (Forel, 1908), with
109, 97 and 71 occurrences, respectively. In TSBF the species with the
greatest number of records were Hypoponera sp. 1, Hypoponera sp.
8 and Pheidole subarmata, with 60, 57 and 42 records, respectively.
1. Richness and species frequency
In total, 281 ant species were collected (considering all counties
sampled and the different methods – epigaeic pitfall trap and TSBF).
These species were distributed in 49 genera and 10 subfamilies (Table 1).
The subfamilies with the greatest number of species were Myrmicinae,
with 175 (61.4% of the species collected); Formicinae, 39 (13.7%); and
Ponerinae, with 32 species (11.2%). The richest genera were Pheidole,
with 98 species (34%), Solenopsis and Hypoponera with 22 species
(7.7%) each.
Table 1. Species list by region (Campos Gerais, West and Plateau) and municipality. PG - Ponta Grossa, SMO - São Miguel do Oeste, CHP - Chapecó, XAN - Xanxerê,
LGS - Lages, OTC - Otacílio Costa, and CBS - Campo Belo do Sul). The species sampled exclusively by a method (in Santa Catarina) are indicated by symbols:
♦ - TSBF, ♣ - Pitfall; and the exclusive species per stratum are indicated with superscript numbers: 0 - litter, I - stratum I (0-10 cm), and II - stratum II (10-20 cm).
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
Plateau
West
CHP
XAN
LGS
OTC
CBS
Amblyoponinae
Fulakora armigera (Mayr, 1887)♦
X
Fulakora elongata (Santschi, 1912)♦
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dolichoderinae
Dorymyrmex brunneus Forel, 1908
Dorymyrmex sp. 1♣
X
X
X
Dorymyrmex sp. 2♣
X
Linepithema gallardoi (Brèthes, 1914)♣
Linepithema humile (Mayr, 1868)♣
X
X
X
Linepithema iniquum (Mayr, 1870)
X
X
X
Linepithema leucomelas (Emery, 1894)♣
X
Linepithema micans (Forel, 1908)
X
Linepithema pulex Wild, 2007I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dorylinae
Labidus coecus (Latreille, 1802)
X
X
Labidus praedator (Smith, 1858)♣
Neivamyrmex sp. 1♦
X
II
X
Neocerapachys splendens (Borgmeier, 1957)♦
X
X
X
Sphinctomyrmex stali Mayr, 1866♦
X
X
X
Ectatomminae
Ectatomma edentatum Roger, 1863♣
Ectatomma permagnum Forel, 1908I
X
X
X
Gnamptogenys rastrata (Mayr, 1866)♣
X
Gnamptogenys regularis Mayr, 1870
X
Gnamptogenys nr. striatula
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gnamptogenys sp. n. A♦
X
X
Gnamptogenys striatula Mayr, 1884I
Gnamptogenys sulcata (Smith, 1858)♣
Typhlomyrmex major Santschi, 1923♦
I
Typhlomyrmex pusillus Emery, 1894
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
6
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
Plateau
West
CHP
XAN
LGS
OTC
CBS
Formicinae
Acropyga decedens (Mayr, 1887)♦
X
Acropyga goeldii Forel, 1893
X
I
X
Brachymyrmex pilipes Mayr, 1887♣
X
Brachymyrmex coactus Mayr, 1887
Brachymyrmex pilipes gr. sp. 1♦
X
X
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 4
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 5
X
X
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 6
X
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 7
X
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 8♣
X
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 9
X
Brachymyrmex sp. 10♣
X
X
X
Camponotus balzani Emery, 1894
Camponotus blandus (Smith, 1858)
Camponotus brasiliensis Mayr, 1862I
X
Camponotus crassus Mayr, 1862
X
X
X
Camponotus melanoticus Emery, 1894♣I
X
X
X
Camponotus novogranadensis Mayr, 1870
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II
X
Camponotus renggeri Emery, 1894
Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775)
X
Camponotus sexguttatus (Fabricius, 1793)
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Camponotus sp. 1
X
Camponotus sp. 2
X
X
X
X
X
Camponotus sp. 4♣
X
Camponotus sp. 5♣
X
Camponotus sp. 6♣
X
Myrmelachista catharinae Mayr, 1887♣
X
Myrmelachista nodigera Mayr, 1887♣
I
X
X
Nylanderia fulva (Mayr, 1862)I
X
X
X
X
Nylanderia sp. 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nylanderia sp. 2
http://www.scielo.br/bn
X
X
Camponotus zenon Forel, 1912♣
Myrmelachista gallicola Mayr, 1887
X
X
X
Camponotus punctulatus Mayr, 1868
I
X
X
X
Camponotus nr. cingulatus♣
Nylanderia sp. 3♦
X
X
X
X
X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
7
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
Plateau
West
CHP
XAN
LGS
OTC
CBS
X
X
X
Heteroponerinae
Heteroponera dentinodis (Mayr, 1887)
Heteroponera mayri Kempf, 1962
X
Heteroponera microps Borgmeier, 1957♣
X
X
X
Myrmicinae
Acanthognathus ocellatus Mayr, 1887♦
X
Acromyrmex aspersus (Smith, 1858)♣
Acromyrmex crassispinus (Forel, 1909)
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
Acromyrmex landolti (Forel, 1885)♣
X
Acromyrmex lundii (Guérin-Méneville, 1838)♣
X
Acromyrmex subterraneus (Forel, 1893)♣
X
Apterostigma sp. 1
X
Apterostigma sp. 2♣
Atta sexdens (Linnaeus, 1758)
X
Carebara sp. 1♦
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Carebara sp. 2♣
Carebara brasiliana Fernández, 2004♣
X
X
X
X
X
Crematogaster ampla Forel, 1912♣
Crematogaster bruchi Forel, 1912
X
Crematogaster corticicola Mayr, 1887♣
X
X
X
Crematogaster quadriformis Roger, 1863
X
Crematogaster sp. 1
X
X
Crematogaster sp. 2
X
Cyphomyrmex rimosus (Spinola, 1851)
Cyphomyrmex sp. 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cyphomyrmex sp. 2
Cyphomyrmex sp. 3♣
X
Hylomyrma balzani (Emery, 1894)
I
Hylomyrma reitteri (Mayr, 1887)
X
X
X
Megalomyrmex pusillus Forel, 1912
X
Mycetophylax asper (Mayr, 1887)♣
X
Mycetophylax lectus (Forel, 1911)
X
Mycetophylax olitor Forel, 1893
X
Mycetophylax plaumanni Kempf, 1962
Mycocepurus goeldii (Forel, 1893)
X
X
X
Mycocepurus smithii (Forel, 1893)
X
X
X
Octostruma rugifera (Mayr, 1887)
X
Octostruma stenognatha (Brown & Kempf, 1960)♣
X
X
Oxyepoecus plaumanni Kempf, 1974I
X
Oxyepoecus reticulatus Kempf, 1974
X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ochetomyrmex semipolitus Mayr, 1878♣
Oxyepoecus rosai Albuquerque & Brandão, 2009
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
8
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Pheidole aberrans Mayr, 1868
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
Plateau
West
PG
SMO
CHP
XAN
LGS
OTC
CBS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole acutidens (Santschi, 1922)♣
X
Pheidole breviseta Santschi, 1919
Pheidole cavifrons Emery, 1906
X
Pheidole fallax gr. sp. 10
X
Pheidole gertrudae Forel, 18860
X
Pheidole heyeri Forel, 1899
Pheidole oxyops Forel, 1908
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
Pheidole nr. rosula
Pheidole radoszkowskii Mayr, 1884I
X
Pheidole rosae Forel, 1901
X
Pheidole subarmata Mayr, 1884
X
X
Pheidole transversostriata Mayr, 1887
X
Pheidole triconstricta Forel, 1886
X
Pheidole vafra Santschi, 1923
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. n. A
X
Pheidole sp. n. II
X
Pheidole sp. n. NI
X
Pheidole sp. 1
X
Pheidole sp. 2♦I
X
Pheidole sp. 3I
X
Pheidole sp. 4
X
Pheidole sp. 5I
X
Pheidole sp. 6
X
Pheidole sp. 7
X
Pheidole sp. 8
X
Pheidole sp. 9
X
Pheidole sp. 10
X
X
Pheidole sp. 11
X
Pheidole sp. 12
X
Pheidole sp. 13
Pheidole sp. 14♣
X
Pheidole sp. 15♣
X
X
Pheidole sp. 16♣
X
X
Pheidole sp. 17♣
X
X
Pheidole sp. 20
Pheidole sp. 21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 18
Pheidole sp. 19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 22♦
X
X
Pheidole sp. 23♣
X
Pheidole sp. 24♣
X
Pheidole sp. 25♣
X
http://www.scielo.br/bn
X
X
X
X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
9
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
CHP
Pheidole sp. 26
X
X
Pheidole sp. 27
X
Pheidole sp. 28♣
Pheidole sp. 29♣
XAN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 35♣
Pheidole sp. 36♣
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 38♣
Pheidole sp. 39♣
X
Pheidole sp. 40♣
X
Pheidole sp. 41
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 44♣
X
X
Pheidole sp. 45♣
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 43♣
Pheidole sp. 46♣
X
Pheidole sp. 48♣
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 50
X
X
Pheidole sp. 51
X
X
Pheidole sp. 52
Pheidole sp. 53♣
Pheidole sp. 54♣
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 57
X
Pheidole sp. 58♦
X
Pheidole sp. 59♣
X
Pheidole sp. 60♣
X
Pheidole sp. 61
X
X
Pheidole sp. 63♣
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 64♣
X
Pheidole sp. 65♣
X
Pheidole sp. 66♣
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
X
X
Pheidole sp. 56♣
Pheidole sp. 68
X
X
Pheidole sp. 55♣
Pheidole sp. 67♣
X
X
Pheidole sp. 37♣
Pheidole sp. 62
X
X
Pheidole sp. 34
Pheidole sp. 49♣
CBS
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 33
Pheidole sp. 47♣
OTC
X
Pheidole sp. 32♦
Pheidole sp. 42♣
LGS
X
Pheidole sp. 30
Pheidole sp. 31
Plateau
West
X
X
X
X
X
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
10
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
Plateau
West
CHP
XAN
LGS
Pheidole sp. 69♦
OTC
CBS
X
Pheidole sp. 70♣
X
Pheidole sp. 71♣
X
Pheidole sp. 72♣
X
Pheidole sp. 73♣
X
Pheidole sp. 74♣
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 75♣
X
Pheidole sp. 76♣
X
Pheidole sp. 77♣
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pheidole sp. 78♣
X
Pheidole sp. 79♣
X
Pheidole sp. 80♣
X
Pogonomyrmex naegelli Emery, 1878
X
X
X
Rogeria bruchi Santschi, 1922♦
X
X
Solenopsis gr. geminata sp. 1I
X
Solenopsis gr. geminata sp. 2
X
Solenopsis gr. geminata sp. 3♣
Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 1♣
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 2
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 3I
X
Solenopsis sp. 4
X
Solenopsis sp. 5
X
II
Solenopsis sp. 6
X
Solenopsis sp. 7♣
X
Solenopsis sp. 8I
X
Solenopsis sp. 9
X
Solenopsis sp. 10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 11
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 12
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 13
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 14♣
X
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 15
X
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 16
X
X
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 18♦
X
Strumigenys appretiata (Borgmeier, 1954)
X
Strumigenys denticulata Mayr, 1887♦
X
Strumigenys louisianae Roger, 1863
I
X
X
Strumigenys eggersi Emery, 1890
X
X
Strumigenys oglobini Santschi, 1936♣
http://www.scielo.br/bn
X
X
Solenopsis sp. 17
Strumigenys nr. epinotalisI
X
X
X
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
11
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
Plateau
West
CHP
XAN
Strumigenys nr. louisianae sp. 1♣
LGS
OTC
CBS
X
Strumigenys nr. louisianae sp. 2
X
X
X
X
Strumigenys nr. louisianae sp. 3♣
X
Mycetomoellerius holmgreni Wheeler, 1925
X
X
X
Mycetomoellerius sp. 1
X
X
X
Mycetomoellerius sp. 2♣
X
Tranopelta gilva Mayr, 1866
X
Wasmannia affinis Santschi, 1929
X
X
X
X
Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger, 1863)
X
X
Wasmannia sulcaticeps Emery, 1894
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ponerinae
Centromyrmex brachycola (Roger, 1861)
X
Hypoponera foreli (Mayr, 1887)
X
Hypoponera opaciceps (Mayr, 1887)
Hypoponera sp. 1
X
X
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 2
X
X
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 3
X
Hypoponera sp. 4
X
Hypoponera sp. 5♦
X
Hypoponera sp. 6 I
X
Hypoponera sp. 7
X
Hypoponera sp. 8
0
X
Hypoponera sp. 9
X
Hypoponera sp. 10I
X
Hypoponera sp. 11
X
Hypoponera sp. 12II
X
Hypoponera sp. 13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 14
X
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 15
Hypoponera sp. 16♦
X
Hypoponera sp. 17♦
X
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 18♦
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 22♦
X
X
X
Neoponera bucki (Borgmeier, 1927)♣
X
Odontomachus chelifer (Latreille, 1802)
X
X
X
Pachycondyla harpax (Fabricius, 1804)
X
X
X
Pachycondyla striata Smith, 1858
X
X
X
X
X
Rasopone ferruginea (Smith, 1858)♦
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 21♦
Simopelta curvata (Mayr, 1887)♦
X
X
X
Hypoponera sp. 19♦
Hypoponera sp. 23♦
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
12
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Continuation Table 1.
Paraná
Species
Santa Catarina
Campos Gerais
PG
SMO
Plateau
West
CHP
XAN
LGS
OTC
CBS
Proceratiinae
Discothyrea sexarticulata Borgmeier, 19540
X
Proceratium brasiliense Borgmeier, 1959♦
X
Pseudomyrmecinae
Pseudomyrmex flavidulus (Smith, 1858)♦
X
I
Pseudomyrmex gracilis (Fabricius, 1804)
X
Pseudomyrmex longus (Forel, 1912)I
X
X
Pseudomyrmex termitarius (Smith, 1877)♦
X
Pseudomyrmex sp. 1
X
X
Pseudomyrmex sp. 2♣
X
Total number of species
101
Table 2. Observed (Sobs) and estimated (estimators: Jackknife 1 – Jack1 and
Bootstrap - Boot) richness and number of exclusive species by method (Pitfall
and TSBF) in Santa Catarina.
Methods
Sobs
Jack1
Boot
Exclusive
Pitfall
202
260
227
89
TSBF
149
213
176
36
Total
238
294
323
-
In Paraná, the TSBF method collected 101 species (Table 1), with
44, 88 and 52 species at strata 0, I and II (Table 3), and 97, 301 and
121 occurrence records, respectively. Four out of the 101 species
were collected exclusively in stratum 0, 30 only in stratum I and five
in stratum II (Table 1). The most frequent species were Hypoponera
sp. 1, Brachymyrmex sp. 5 and Pheidole cavifrons Emery, 1906,
with 53, 25 and 16 occurrence records. Species occurrences in strata
were as follows: in litter (stratum 0), the three most frequent species
were Hypoponera sp. 1, with 12 records; Brachymyrmex sp. 1, and
Brachymyrmex sp. 5, with seven records each. In stratum I (0-10 cm),
the most frequent species were Hypoponera sp. 1, Hypoponera sp.
3 and Brachymyrmex sp. 3, with 29, 17 and 14 records, respectively.
In stratum II (10-20 cm), the highest frequency was recorded for
Hypoponera sp. 1, Brachymyrmex sp. 5 and Pheidole cavifrons, with
12, 8 and 7 records.
Table 3. Observed richness (Sobs) and estimated (estimators: Jackknife 1 – Jack1
E Bootstrap - Boot) and number of exclusive species by strata (0 - litter, I - 0-10
cm, and II- 10-20 cm).
Sobs
Jack1
Boot
Exclusive
0
44
66
54
4
I
88
125
106
30
II
53
77
64
5
Total
101
129
114
-
Strata
http://www.scielo.br/bn
103
108
94
111
109
101
The collector curves constructed for each method demonstrate that
a greater effort would be required to reach the asymptote (although this
is apparently close), and that the number of accumulated species per
sample unit was greater in pitfall than in TSBF (Figure 4a). Epigaeic
pitfall collected 77% and TSBF 70% of the numbers estimated by
Jackknife 1 and 89% and 84% of the numbers estimated by Bootstrap
(Table 2).
The collector curves for strata performed with data from Paraná
show that under the same sampling effort there is a greater addition of
species in stratum I, in relation to the others (Figure 4b). The numbers
of species observed approximate the Bootstrap estimated values (Table
3). The species collected in each stratum correspond to 66%, 70%
and 69% of the species estimated by Jackknife 1 (for strata 0, I and
II respectively) and 81%, 83% and 83% of the species estimated by
Bootstrap. The total number of species corresponds to 78% and 88%
of the estimate by Jackknife 1 and Bootstrap, respectively.
2. Subterranean ant assembly characterization
In the regions of Santa Catarina, we obtained 89 species exclusively
in the epigaeic stratum and 36 species in the subterranean stratum.
Seven species were recorded for the first time in the Plateau region of
Santa Catarina and were collected only by TSBF: Acropyga decedens
(Mayr, 1887), Fulakora armigera (Mayr, 1887), Gnamptogenys
reichenspergeri (Santschi, 1929), Neocerapachys splendens (Borgmeier,
1957), Proceratium brasiliense Borgmeier, 1959, Sphinctomyrmex stali
Mayr, 1866 and Typhlomyrmex major Santschi, 1923. No new records
were found for the western region. Fifty-eight species were collected
in Pitfall traps only once, while single species occurrences in TSBF
samples totalled 64. These numbers correspond to different proportions
(χ2 = 7.05, p = 0.007, gl = 1), with 28.7% and 42.9%, respectively, of
the total species collected by each method.
In Paraná, where the method utilised was exclusively TSBF, seven
species were present only in stratum I: Fulakora elongata (Santschi,
1912), Gnamptogenys reichenspergeri, Oxyepoecus plaumanni Kempf
1974, Pheidole radozskowskii Mayr, 1884, Pseudomyrmex gracilis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
13
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
Figure 4. a - Collector’s curves for both methods (Pitfall and TSBF). Dashed line: Pitfall; and continuous line: TSBF. b - Collector’s curve for the strata.
Continuous line: stratum 0; dashed line: stratum I; and dotted line: stratum II.
(Fabricius, 1804), P. longus (Forel, 1912) and Tranopelta gilva Mayr,
1866. In stratum II, Neivamyrmex sp.1 was the only species (with only
one occurrence).
The number of species with only one record of occurrence in strata
was 22 for stratum 0, 37 for stratum I and 24 for stratum II (Figure 5a,
b, and c). These species correspond to 50%, 42.1% and 46.1% of the
total species collected in each stratum. The graph of observed richness
(Sobs) and frequency of occurrence per stratum (Figure 5d) shows that
in stratum I there is a great number of species that occur more frequently.
Stratum I had the highest number of occurrence frequencies, once this
is the stratum with the highest number of occurrences of ants (GLMM,
Binomial, z = 5,239, df = 4, p <0.05), with a probability of occurrence
of 86.10 % in the sampled areas.
Discussion
The present study delimited and characterized subterranean ant
assemblages in the subtropical regions of the Neotropics. In these
regions, only two previous studies collected subterranean ants: (1)
Silva & Silvestre (2004) in Western Santa Catarina, and (2) Schmidt
& Diehl (2008) in Rio Grande do Sul. This is the first survey that
evaluates subterranean ant assemblages in Paraná and the Plateau
region of Santa Catarina. Despite the different sampling efforts, the
aforementioned publications presented 32 and seven species belonging
to the subterranean stratum, representing only 28% and 20% of the total
species observed by those authors, respectively. Considering the number
of species with restricted occurrence in the subterranean stratum in all
sampled localities, our results were similar (in percentage): 57 species,
or 20.2% of the total collected (Table 1).
The biology of most subterranean species is unknown. TSBF
samples provide data of occurrence and preference among strata,
nesting, and species composition in the different soil layers. The manual
extraction of ants in the stratified monoliths, characteristic of this
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
method, provides the opportunity for in loco observation of the collected
organisms. Wong & Guénard (2017) emphasized the importance of the
“observer bias” (represented by different levels of experience in active
collections), in which a collector may underestimate the presence of
subterranean ants (especially the small ones) in samples or even in
the field. This error can be reduced if sorting is performed under a
stereomicroscope.
The total number of species observed in each municipality of Santa
Catarina is extremely close to that observed in other studies already
conducted in those regions (see Silva & Silvestre 2004, Ulysséa et al.
2011, Lutinski & Morais 2013). However, the number of species collected
in Paraná is considerably high when compared with the richness found
by other studies employing different methods for sampling subterranean
ants (see Table 1 and Wong & Guénard 2017). This could indicate a
higher efficiency of TSBF in sampling subterranean ants in these areas.
However, additional studies comparing methods for collecting hypogaeic
ants are indispensable to confirm this tendency. These comparisons should
especially consider the most practical and widely employed method
currently, the hypogaeic pitfall traps (Schmidt & Solar, 2010).
When epigaeic pitfall traps and TSBF are compared, it becomes
clear that pitfall traps capture a greater number of species that have a
high frequency of occurrence. However, when evaluating the number
of infrequent species, TSBF is superior (42.7% of the species sampled).
This may be explained by the fact that pitfall traps remained in the field
for 72 hours, increasing the likelihood of species occurring more than
once and increasing the number of species captured (see Lasmar et
al 2017). Another factor that can explain this difference is the higher
ant activity in the ground surface due to nesting and foraging than in
the hypogaeic stratum (Jacquemin et al. 2016). In addition, in Santa
Catarina, 36 species were collected exclusively by TSBF. This means
that 15% of the species sampled there in this study would not have
been registered without an association between the pitfall and a specific
sampling method for the subterranean stratum.
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
14
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
Figure 5. a to c - Fisher graphs for each stratum sampled in Paraná; d - Comparative graph of observed richness (Sobs) and frequency of occurrence
between the strata.
The results obtained by the GLMM analysis of the Paraná data show
that stratum I has more species than the other strata. A similar result
was found by Andersen & Brault (2010) and Rider Wilkie et al. (2007),
who also obtained a greater number of species in the topsoil and a great
number of exclusive species (19 species) in this layer (up to 12,5 cm).
These results indicate a tendency for greater richness and frequency
of occurrence in this stratum, which consequently must be considered
during the sampling design of projects focusing on subterranean ants
or even in comprehensive inventories of the ant fauna.
Sampling methods that record assemblages in different vertical strata
allow for a more efficient evaluation of the association between ants
and micro habitats. This association was effective for the delimitation
of species that occur in different strata also in Jacquemin et al. (2016)
and in the present work. The criterion of exclusive delimitation of
http://www.scielo.br/bn
occurrence used here proved to be efficient, as observed by Fowler et al.
(2000). Most species identified by these authors belonged to a unique
stratum (collected only in epigaeic traps or only in hypogaeic traps).
Considering the exclusivity of occurrence in the strata, and collection
methods (pitfall and TSBF), 33% of the total species are epigaeic and
20% are hypogaeic.
More than a quarter (28.5%) of the species identified in this study are
subterranean and most can be considered infrequent. We thus consider
the criterion “exclusivity” (stratum and/or method) a good approach
for delimiting the subterranean habit, as already mentioned in literature
(e.g. Fowler et al. 2000). However, the delimitation of subterranean
ant species was possible only with the association of epigaeic and
hypogaeic sampling methods. In addition, we found that in stratified
TSBF samples the 0-10 cm stratum has the greatest number of species
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
15
Subterranean ants of southern Brazil
and highest frequency of occurrence. This fact, allied to the number of
species obtained through sampling by the TSBF method, indicates that
this is a useful method for sampling subterranean ants.
The localities sampled in this study are under intense pressure for
urbanization and agricultural production. Thus, TSBF is a promising
tool in diversity assessments (because it is a widely used method
in soil quality studies, facilitating the acceptance by producers for
the development of research in their areas), especially to access the
impact of human activities on subterranean species. In addition, it was
demonstrated that the TSBF captures rarely sampled species or species
that are still undiscovered.
Acknowledgments
We thank Alexandre C. Ferreira, Gabriela P. Camacho, John E. Latke,
Mayron Escárraga and Thiago S. R. da Silva for species identification.
Special thanks to Sebastian F. Sendoya for the support in the data
analyses. We thank IAPAR and Vila Velha State Park for technical
support, and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico
e Tecnológico (CNPq) (Processes: 140260/2016; 563251/2010-7);
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa
Catarina (FAPESC) (Process 6.309/2011-6/FAPESC) and Empresa
Brasileira de Pesquisas Agropecuárias (Embrapa) (Project:
02.11.01.031.00.00) for the financial support. RMF was supported by
CNPq (302462/2016-3). DB and GGB thank the CNPq for Research
Productivity Grants (307162/2015-0, 304084/2010-7, 307486/2013-3).
Collecting was done with permits from ICMBio (18128-1), IAP (463.12)
and IBAMA (02027.002353/05-94).
Author Contributions
Mila Ferraz de Oliveira Martins: contributed substantially in the
concept of the study, in data collection, data analysis and interpretation,
and to prepare the manuscript.
Marcílio José Thomazini: contributed in the concept and design of
the study; data collection, and to critical revision, adding intellectual
content.
Dilmar Baretta: did a substantial contribution in the concept and
design of the study, data collection, contributed to data analysis and
interpretation and did a critical revision, adding intellectual content
Marcio Gonçalves da Rosa: contributed in the concept and design
of the study, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and did a
critical revision, adding intellectual content
Maurício Rumenos Zagatto: contributed in the concept and design
of the study, and data collection.
Alessandra Santos: contributed in the concept and design of the
study, and data collection.
Herlon S. Nadolny: contributed in data collection
Guilherme B. X. Cardoso: contributed in data collection
Cintia C. Niva: contributed in data collection
Marie L. C. Bartz: contributed in the concept and design of the
study, and data collection.
Rodrigo M. Feitosa: contributed substantially in the concept of
the study, in data collection, data interpretation, and to prepare the
manuscript.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to
the publication of this manuscript.
References
ANDERSEN, A. & BRAULT, A. 2010. Exploring a new biodiversity frontier:
subterranean ants in northern Australia. Biodivers Cons 19(9): 2741-2750.
ANDERSON, J.M. &INGRAM, J.S.I. (ed). 1993. Tropical soil biology and
fertility: a handbook of methods. 2nd ed. C.A.B. International, Wallingford.
BACCARO, F.F., FEITOSA, R.M., FERNÁNDEZ, F. et al. 2015. Guia para os
Gêneros de formigas do Brasil. Editora INPA, Manaus.
BARTZ, M.L.C., BROWN, G.G., ROSA, M.G. et al. 2014a. Earthworm richness
in land-use systems in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Appl Soil Ecol. 83: 59–70.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.03.003
BARTZ, M.L.C., BROWN, G.G., ORSO, R., MAFRA, A.L., & BARETTA, D.
2014b. The influence of land use systems on soil and surface litter fauna in
the western region of Santa Catarina. Rev Ciên Agr. 45(5): 880–887. URL:
http://ccarevista.ufc.br/seer/index.php/ccarevista/article/view/3453/1050
BENAZZI, E.D.S., BIANCHI, M.D.O., CORREIA, M.E.F., LIMA, E. &
ZONTA, E. 2013. Impactos dos métodos de colheita da cana-de-açúcar sobre
a macrofauna do solo em área de produção no Espírito Santo – Brasil. Sem:
Ciên Agr 34(6): 3425-3442. URL: http://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/
semagrarias/article/viewFile/12760/13670
BESTELMEYER, B., AGOSTI, D., ALONSO, L. et al. 2000. Field Techniques
for the study of ground-dwelling ants: an overview, description and
evaluation. pp: 122-144. In: D. AGOSTI, J. MAJER, L. ALONSO & T.
SCHUTZ, (eds). Ants- Standard methods for measuring and monitoring
biodiversity, 1st ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.
BOTTINELLI, N., JOUQUET, P., CAPOWIEZ, Y. et al. 2015. Why is the
influence of soil macrofauna on soil structure only considered by soil
ecologists? Soil Till Res. 146: 118–124.
BRANDÃO, C.R.F., SILVA, R.R. & FEITOSA, R.M. 2011. Cerrado grounddwelling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as indicators of edge effects. Zool.
28(3): 379–387. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702011000300012
CORREIA, D.S. 2010. Fauna edáfica como indicadora em ambiente reconstruído
após mineração de carvão. M. S. thesis, Universidade Estadual de Santa
Catarina (UDESC). URL: http://tede.udesc.br/tede/tede/2228
DELABIE, J. & FOWLER, H. 1995. Soil and litter cryptic ant assemblages of
Bahia cocoa plantations. Pedobiol. 39(1): 423-433.
FOLGARAIT, P.J. 1998. Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem
functioning: a review. Biodivers Cons. 7(9): 1221-1244. URL: https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008891901953
FOWLER, H., DELABIE, J. & MOUTINHO, P. 2000. Hypogaeic and epigaeic
ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) assemblages of atlantic costal rainforest
and dry mature and secondary Amazon forest in Brazil: continuums or
communities. Trop Ecol. 41(1): 73-80.
GUTIÉRREZ, J.A.M., ROUSSEAU, G.X., ANDRADE-SILVA, J. & DELABIE,
J.H.C. 2017. Taxones superiores de hormigas como sustitutos de la riqueza
de espécies en una cronosecuencia de bosques secundarios, bosque primario
y sistemas agroforestales en la Amazonia Oriental, Brasil. Rev Biol Trop.
65(1): 279-291.
(IAPAR) Instituto Agronâmico do Paraná. 1978. Cartas climáticas básicas do
estado do Paraná. Fundação Instituto Agronômico do Paraná. Londrina.
(IBGE) Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2016. Shapefiles for
Brazil and Southern States [IBGE > Bases e referenciais > Malhas Digitais
> 2015 > Brasil/UFs]. URL: http://mapas.ibge.gov.br/bases-e-referenciais/
bases-cartograficas/malhas-digitais.html
JACQUEMIN, J., DROUET, T., DELSINNE, T., ROISIN, Y. & LEPONCE,
M. 2012. Soil properties only weakly affect subterranean ant distribution
at small spatial scales. Appl Soil Ecol. 62:163-169.
JACQUEMIN, J., ROISIN, Y. & LEPONCE, M. 2016. Spatio-temporal variation
in ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) communities in leaf-litter and soil layers
in a premontane subtropical forest. Myrmecol. News 22: 129-139.
http://www.scielo.br/bn
Biota Neotrop., 20(1): e20190782, 2020
16
Martins, M.F.O. et al.
KLENK, L.A., ZAWADNEAK, M.A.C. & BUCH, A.C. 2009. Cupins, Formigas
e Minhocas como Indicadores de Recuperação da Qualidade de Solo sob
Processo de Conversão - Pinhais (PR). Rev Bras Agroecol. 4(2): 3571–3575.
LASMAR, C., QUEIROZ, A., RABELLO, A. et al. 2017. Testing the effect of
pitfall-trap installation on ant sampling. Insect Soc. 64(3): 445-451. DOI
10.1007/s00040-017-0558-7
ROSA, M. G. 2013. Macrofauna do solo em diferentes sistemas de uso no
oeste e planalto catarinense, M.S. thesis. Universidade Estadual de Santa
Catarina (UDESC), Chapecó. URL: http://www.cav.udesc.br/arquivos/id_
submenu/832/marcio_goncalves_da_rosa_osmar_klauber_filho_24_0.pdf
LAVELLE, P., BIGNELL, D., LEPAGE, M. & DHILLION, S.P. 1997. Soil
function in a changing world: The role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers.
Eur J Soil Biol. 33: 159-193.
ROSA, M.G., KLAUBERG FILHO, O., BARTZ, M.L.C., MAFRA, A.L.,
SOUSA, J.P.F.A. & BARETTA, D. 2015. Macrofauna Edáfica e Atributos
Físicos e Químicos em Sistemas de Uso do solo no Planalto Catarinense.
Rev Bras Cien Solo, 39(6): 1544–1553. URL: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/
rbcs/v39n6/0100-0683-rbcs-39-6-1544.pdf
LIMA, S.S., AQUINO, A.M., LEITE, L.F.C., VELÁSQUEZ, E. & LAVELLE,
P. 2010. Relação entre macrofauna edáfica e atributos químicos do solo em
diferentes agroecossistemas. Pesqui Agropecu Bras. 45(3): 322–331. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2010000300013
ROUSSEAU, G.X., SILVA, P.R.S. & CARVALHO, C.J.R. 2010. Earthworms,
ants and other arthropods as soil health indicators in traditional and no-fire
agro-ecosystems from eastern brazilian Amazonia. Acta Zool Mex. Número
Especial 2: 117-134.
LONGINO, J. 2000. What to do with the data. pp: 186-203. In: D. AGOSTI,
J. MAJER, L. ALONSO & T. SCHUTZ, (eds), Ants- Standard methods
for measuring and monitoring biodiversity, 1st ed. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington and London.
RYDER WILKIE, K., MERTL, A. & TRANIELLO, J. 2007. Biodiversity
below ground: probing the subterranean ant fauna of Amazonia. Naturwis.
94(9): 725-731.
LOURENTE, E.R.P., SILVA, R.F., SILVA, D.A., MARCHETTI, M.E. &
MERCANTE, F.M. 2007. Macrofauna edáfica e sua interação com atributos
químicos e físicos do solo sob diferentes sistemas de manejo. Acta Sci-Agr.
29(1), 17-22.
LUCKY, A., TRAUTWEIN, M., GUÉNARD, B., WEISSER, M. & DUNN, R.
2013 Tracing the rise of ants - Out of ground. PLOS one 8(12): 1-8. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084012
LUTINSKI, J.A., LOPES, B.C. & MORAIS, A.B.B. 2013. Diversidade
de formigas urbanas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de dez cidades do
sul do Brasil. Biota Neotrop. 13(3): 332–342. DOI: 10.1590/S167606032013000300033
MAACK, R. 2012. Geografia Física do Estado do Paraná. 4th Ed. Universidade
Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa.
PEREIRA, R.C., ALBANEZ, J.M. & MAMÉDIO, I.M.P. 2012. Diversidade
da meso e macrofauna edáfica em diferentes sistemas de manejo de uso do
solo em Cruz das Almas - BA. Magistra 24: 63-76.
QGIS Development Team. 2016. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open
Source Geospatial Foundation. URL: https://www.qgis.org/en/site/
SCHMIDT, F.A. & DIEHL, E. 2008. What is the effect of soil use on ant
communities? Neotrop Entomol. 37(4): 381–388. DOI: 10.1590/S1519566X2008000400005
SCHMIDT, F., RIBAS, C. & SCHOEREDER, J. 2013. How predictable is the
response of ant assemblages to natural forest recovery? Implications for
their use as bioindicators. Ecol Indic. 24: 158-166.
SILVA, R.R. & SILVESTRE, R. 2004. Riqueza da fauna de formigas
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) que habita as camadas superficiais do solo
em Seara, Santa Catarina. Pap Avul Zool. 44(1): 1-11. URL: http://www.
scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0031-10492004000100001
ULYSSÉA, M.A., CERETO, C.E., ROSUMEK, F.B., SILVA, R.R. & LOPES,
B.C. 2011. Updated list of ant species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) recorded
in Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil, with a discussion of research
advances and priorities. Rev Bras Entomol. 55(4): 603–611. DOI: 10.1590/
S0085-56262011000400018
WONG, M. & GUÉNARD, B. 2017. Subterranean ants: summary and
perspectives on field sampling methods, with notes on diversity and ecology
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol News 25: 1-16.
ZAGATTO, M.R.G. 2014. Fauna edáfica em sistemas de uso do solo no município
de Ponta Grossa- PR. M. S. thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR).
URL: http://dspace.c3sl.ufpr.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/1884/35923/R%20
-%20D%20-%20MAURICIO%20RUMENOS%20GUIDETTI%20
ZAGATTO.pdf?sequence=1
Received: 26/04/2019
Revised: 04/10/2019
Accepted: 16/10/2019
Published online: 02/12/2019
http://www.scielo.br/bn
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782