Next Article in Journal
Simulation and Prediction of the Potential Distribution of Two Varieties of Dominant Subtropical Forest Oaks in Different Climate Scenarios
Previous Article in Journal
Tree- and Stand-Scale Roost Selection and Partitioning by Bats Barbastella barbastellus Schreber, 1774 and Pipistrellus pygmaeus Leach, 1825 in a European Lowland Forest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 7
10.3390/f16071190
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Can Ground-Dwelling Ants Tell Us About Different Land-Use Systems in the Brazilian Amazon?

by
Elisangela Silva
1,2,*,
Cristina Machado Borges
3,
Emília Zoppas Albuquerque
4,5,*,
Daniela Faria Florencio
6,*,
Izaias Fernandes
7,
Mariana Tolentino
8,
Vanesca Korasaki
9,
Júlio Louzada
3 and
Ronald Zanetti
2
1
Fundação de Medicina Tropical Doutor Heitor Vieira Dourado, Avenida Pedro Teixeira, s/n—Dom Pedro, Manaus 69040-000, AM, Brazil
2
Laboratório de Entomologia Florestal, Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras 37200-900, MG, Brazil
3
Setor de Ecologia, Departamento de Ecologia e Conservação, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras 37200-000, MG, Brazil
4
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 1000 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20560, USA
5
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Entomologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Rodovia Dourados/Itahum km 12, Cidade Universitária, Dourados 74809-970, MS, Brazil
6
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação, Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, Avenida Francisco Mota, 572, Mossoró 59625-900, RN, Brazil
7
Laboratório de Biodiversidade e Conservação, Universidade Federal de Rondônia, Avenida Norte Sul, Nova Morada, Rolim de Moura 76940-000, RO, Brazil
8
Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação de Aves Silvestres (CEMAVE), Cabedelo 58108-012, PB, Brazil
9
Graduate Program in Environmental Sciences, Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais, Avenida Escócia, 1001, Frutal 38202-436, MG, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(7), 1190; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16071190 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 2 May 2025 / Revised: 14 July 2025 / Accepted: 16 July 2025 / Published: 19 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Tropical rainforests are rapidly disappearing due to human activities, particularly land-use changes, resulting in a heterogeneous mosaic of landscapes that substantially contribute to global terrestrial biodiversity loss. We investigated how changes in land-use affect species richness, composition, and functional guilds of ground-dwelling ants within various land-use systems at a local scale in the Amazonian rainforest. Our focus was to respond to the following: (i) How do local species richness and community composition reflect differences among land-use systems? (ii) Are ground-dwelling ants, especially specialists, negatively impacted by intensified land-use changes? We surveyed 55 sites representing five land-use systems: primary forest, secondary forest, forest corridor, selective logging, and Eucalyptus plantation. We registered 150 ant species, and species richness ranged from 43 to 94. Richness varies according to the land-use systems, likely influenced by differences in habitat structural complexity both vertically and horizontally. Ant species composition and guilds distribution also varied among land-use systems studied. Environments characterized by reduced structural complexity or higher disturbed levels, such as Eucalyptus plantations, tend to support lower resource availability, which may lead to decreased species richness. However, the surrounding matrix appears to play a key role in maintaining regional biodiversity, as evidenced by the absence of differences in ground-dwelling ants diversity across all land-use systems studied.

1. Introduction

The Brazilian Amazon accounts for approximately 40% of the world’s tropical rainforests and it is home to two-thirds of the planet’s known terrestrial biodiversity, playing a crucial role in global biological conservation [1,2,3]. These forests act as key global climate regulators [4], sequestering and storing carbon [5], and helping to control diseases [6]. However, they are rapidly disappearing due to various disturbances, including deforestation driven by agricultural intensification, monoculture, pastures, logging, fire, and urbanization. These activities are widely recognized as significant drivers of global terrestrial biodiversity loss [3,7], creating a mosaic of landscapes with differing levels and types of disturbances [8]. Such disturbances, events, or processes disrupt the structure and functioning of ecosystems and their communities, threatening the ecological integrity of this vital region.
The impact of land-use changes on the animal and plant biodiversity can be perceived in many ways, including alteration in the communities structure through a reduction in richness [8], abundance [9], and/or species composition [10,11]. Depending on the metrics used, the effects on the disturbance on species richness may be partially masked, since both primary and secondary forests can sustain a high number of species [12]. However, these communities may present a distinct composition, characterized by the loss of specialized species and increase in the dominance of generalist taxa with high dispersal capacity [12,13,14]. Higher levels of disturbance, such as those associated with intensive land-use change or habitat structural simplification of the habitat (e.g., monocultures), tend to be exacerbated by disproportionately affecting species with narrow ecological requirements. This often results in a reduction in β-diversity while α-diversity remains stable or only slightly decreased [12].
Although monocultures simplify the natural environment, homogeneous agroecosystems [15] such as Eucalyptus plantations represent an important economic activity in several regions of Brazil [16], particularly in the Amazon region, where this practice is prevalent [17]. Many studies have shown negative effects of Eucalyptus plantations in communities of invertebrates and vertebrates [18,19,20,21,22]. However, the impact of Eucalyptus plantations on biodiversity is not yet fully understood, as many organisms often do not show changes when assessed through metrics like species richness and abundance. For instance, ants, arachnids, fruit flies, myriapods, orchid bees, orthopterans, scavenger flies, grasshoppers, and small mammals did not show differences in richness between Eucalyptus monoculture and primary or secondary forests [18,19]. Thus, to better understand the current land-use changes in the Amazon in their implications for conservation of anthropogenic landscapes and future trends, detailed studies of biodiversity are essential. Besides the conventional metrics used in ecological studies, such as species richness and composition, it is also important to investigate how these land-use changes affect the diversity of ecological guilds, for example, by analyzing terrestrial invertebrates’ guilds [23].
Ants are widely recognized as bioindicators for assessing anthropogenic impacts and habitat restoration levels [10,24]. Thus, studies investigating the factors that promote ant diversity in tropical rainforests are of significant ecological importance [25,26], especially in distinct land-use systems [14,23,27,28]. Ant guild diversity is one such factor. Guilds comprise groups of species that use similar resources, usually food, and serve as indicators of ecosystem functionality [29,30]. These studies are notably interesting because they are related directly to various ecological functions within ecosystems [31,32]. Some species are specialized for warm climate specialists and strongly prefer open habitats (e.g., dominant Dolichoderinae), whereas other species have more specific habitat and resource requirements (e.g., cryptic species, subordinate Camponotini). Others, still, occur across a broad range of environments (e.g., generalists and epigaeic opportunists) [30]. These functions can be compromised by environmental stressors and anthropogenic impacts, which may ultimately affect overall environmental quality [10,24,29,31,32]. Therefore, studies on the factors promoting ant diversity are fundamental for the developing effective conservation strategies [26,33], especially within different land-use systems [14,23,27,28].
We investigated how land-use changes affect species richness, composition, and guilds of ground-dwelling ants across different land-use systems within the Amazonian rainforest, at a local scale. We assume that increased intense land-use changes or habitat simplification (e.g., Eucalyptus plantations) leads to higher levels of disturbance. Given that habitat simplification and resource availability are often diminished in more intensively managed systems, we focus on the two fundamental questions. First, (i) how do local species richness and community composition reflect differences among land-use systems? We predicted that species richness will be lower in land-use systems with greater habitat simplification, especially Eucalyptus plantations, owing to their structurally uniform vegetation, diminished soil cover heterogeneity, and scarcity of microhabitats [14,27,34]. Furthermore, we expected that increasing dissimilarities in soil cover and vegetation structure across land-use systems (e.g., Primary Forest, Secondary Forest, Forest Corridors, Selective Logging, and Eucalyptus Plantation) will lead to more distinct ant species composition [15,35]. Second, (ii) are ground-dwelling ants, especially specialists, negatively impacted by intensified land-use changes? We hypothesized that as habitat complexity decreases and land-use intensity increases, there will be a reduction in species richness within specialist guilds and a corresponding increase in species of generalist guilds. This reflects a shift in guild composition [36,37,38] since these groups can respond to environmental impacts in different ways. Our results will contribute to a better understanding of how ground-dwelling ant assemblages respond to land-use changes in the Amazonian rainforest and may provide guidance and support policies for the conservation and maintenance of biodiversity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

We conducted fieldwork within an area of 1.7 Mha of “terra firme” rainforest, located between the municipalities of Monte Dourado and Almeirim, Northeast of Pará state, on the border with Amapá state, located in the Jari River basin, Brazil (00°27′00″–01°30′00″ S, 51°40′00″–53°20′00″ W), belonging to the Jari Cellulose Company. The collections were made in 2009, from January to June (rainy season). The study area comprises a mosaic of large-scale landscapes, ranging from primary forests to monocultures. These areas have a high ecological importance due to its remarkable biodiversity, contrasting land-use systems and rapid landscape transformation. These conditions provide a valuable opportunity to investigate the effects of land-use changes on the species richness, composition, and functional guild structure of ground-dwelling ant assemblages.
The area has a Tropical Monsoon climate (Aw) with high and constant temperatures throughout the year, with a minimum temperature of 23.2 °C and a maximum of 30.8 °C, reaching an average of 26.2 °C [39]. The rainfall average is 2115 mm, and approximately 40% of the total annual rainfall occurs in March, April, and May [40]. The rainy season is from January to June, and the dry season is from September to November [39]. As both rainfall and temperature are similar in these forests, the soil is considered the main responsible factor for non-anthropic variations in vegetation.

2.2. Sampling Design

We surveyed 55 areas spaced at least 0.50 km and at a maximum of 83.30 km from each other in five land-use systems: (i) primary forest (PF)—10 sites, separated by a distance from 1.72 to 82.29 km, with an average distance of 42.18 km. These sites represent a matrix of approximately 1.5 Mha of the original physiognomy of the region, which has never been subjected to logging, agriculture, or any other type of degradation, disturbance, or human activity. These areas served as a baseline for comparison, for more details see [41,42]; (ii) secondary forest (SF)—5 sites, separated from 3.59 to 53.51 km, with an average distance of 31.09 km. These areas have been abandoned for approximately 20 to 25 years, after being submitted to a selective logging model using reduced impact logging techniques (RIL), and were undergoing natural regeneration at the time of data collection;); (iii) forest corridors (FC)—16 sites, separated from 1.91 to 55.91 km, with an average distance 19.07 km. These corridors consist of wide areas of primary forest (approximately 200 m wide), which connect areas with different land-uses that suffered edge and isolation effects, being considered low impact areas [17]; (iv) selective logging (SL)—5 sites, separated from 2.76 to 11.86 km, with an average distance of 5.90 km. Primary forest areas where a selective logging model took place, also using RIL techniques [41,42]; and (v) Eucalyptus plantation (EP)—19 sites, separated from 0.5 to 59.89 km, with an average distance of 26.1 km). These sites represent large-scale monoculture with approximately 130,000 ha of Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maiden and Eucalyptus sp., where all the native forest was replaced by exotic species (Figure 1). These areas were predetermined in previous studies for faunal monitoring and the control of environmental impact [17].

2.3. Ant Sampling

We established a 1 km transect at each of the 55 sampling sites distributed across five land-use systems (10 in primary forest, 5 in secondary forest, 16 in forest corridors, 5 in selective logging, and 19 in Eucalyptus plantation). At each transect, we placed five baited-pitfall traps (19 cm in diameter, 11 cm in depth), using human feces as bait. We filled each pitfall with a liquid solution of 200 mL (water, detergent, and salt) and with a plastic lid suspended approximately 20 cm above the ground for rain protection. Each trap was separated 200 m from each other to ensure sample independence and uniform spatial coverage of the sampled areas. These traps operated for five days and were checked every 24 h, when bait and liquid solutions were replaced. We combined all the specimens collected in the same trap over the five days into a single sample.
In our analysis, all five pitfall traps from the same transect were considered a sampling unit. These sites were distributed unevenly among land-use systems due to logistical constraints and site availability. Details on how we standardized the uneven sampling effort are provided in Section 2.4—Statistical Analyses.
To optimize our fieldwork in the expansive and remote Amazon Forest, we used the same dung beetle pitfall traps as [17]. We also recognized the opportunity to analyze ground-dwelling ants collected as non-target captures, thereby reducing costs and facilitating fieldwork logistics. Although the use of unbaited pitfall traps in ant protocols is preferable to capturing ants foraging randomly outside the colony [43,44,45], a previous study [46] showed a correlation between the ant communities collected with bait (human feces) and unbaited traps. This indicates that ant communities sampled through both methods tend to exhibit similar responses of the number of species and composition of the ants to local environmental shifts, including major disturbances. Thus, the authors suggest that a slight reduction in species richness resulting from the use of baited pitfall traps does not significantly hinder the ability to capture a representative portion of the ant fauna in a given area.
We identified specimens using keys to subfamilies and genera available in [47]. When available we used species-levels keys. Sébastien Lacau at the Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia (UESB), Brazil, confirmed all species and morphospecies. A full collection of voucher specimens is held at the UESB. Additional vouchers are also deposited in the Formicidae collection at the Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA). Furthermore, we classified ants into 13 guilds, following [48]. The following guilds were used: (i) arboreal predators, (ii) arboreal omnivorous, (iii) cephalotines, (iv) generalists, (v) large generalist epigaeic predators, (vi) legionary, (vii) leaf-cutter fungus-growers, (viii) litter-nesting fungus-growers, (ix) medium-sized epigaeic generalist predators, (x) medium-sized generalist hypogeic predators, (xi) small generalist hypogeic, (xii) specialized cryptic predators, and (xiii) specialized predators. Rogério R. Silva at the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, reviewed these classifications to ensure accuracy.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

To account for the social behavior of ants and avoid biases from multiple individuals belonging to the same colony or the proximity of nests or trails to pitfall traps, we used incidence-based rather than abundance-based data in the rarefaction and extrapolation curves and in all diversity comparisons between land-use systems, as recommended by [49] for biodiversity studies.
We calculated rarefaction and extrapolation curves to estimate species richness from the sampling units because this method standardizes the uneven number of samples and calculates extrapolation species richness curves to assess the expected number of species. For all methods, we used the Chao 1 approach [50]. These curves were calculated using the iNEXT function from the iNEXT 3.0.1 package [51] for Hill numbers of q = 0 (species richness) with the maximum reference sample size [50].
We compared species richness (response variable) among land-use systems using a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) with a negative binomial distribution, to take overdispersion of the data into account. We assessed the fit model and adequacy using residual diagnostics and overdispersion tests implemented via the “DHARMa 0.4.7” package [52]. We conducted pairwise comparisons among land-use categories (PF, SF, FC, SL, and EP—predictor variables) using Tukey-adjusted contrasts to identify significant differences in species richness using the “emmeans 1.11.0” package [53].
To assess the species and guild composition of ground-dwelling ant assemblages, we calculated the distance matrix between locations using the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity [54,55]. After that, we tested the effect of different land-use systems on the composition using a nonparametric multivariate analysis of variance—PERMANOVA [56]—with land-use system as a group factor. The statistical test used by PERMANOVA is a multivariate analogy to Fisher’s F-ratio and is calculated directly from any symmetric distance or dissimilarity matrix and p values. Then, we performed 999 permutations. To assess the difference between the five land-use systems studied, we conducted a post hoc pairwise test using the “pairwiseAdonis 0.4” package [57]. We calculated the adjusted p-value using the Bonferroni correction in which the p-values are multiplied by the number of comparisons. We used the Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling ordination (NMDS) with two dimensions to visualize differences in community composition among land-use systems, based on Bray–Curtis distances. We implemented NMDS in the “vegan 2.7-1” package.
Additionally, we used the homogeneity of multivariate dispersions analysis, PERMDISP, to assess the dispersion of ant assemblages between different land-use systems. This is a multivariate analysis analogous to Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances, and the statistics (mean distance of group members to centroid) are tested by permutation [58]. Using differences in ant assemblages, the mean distance to the centroid group (i.e., multivariate dispersion) measures the global species replacement or beta diversity in the region [59]. Thus, we used PERMDISP to assess whether the beta diversity differed between the areas within each type of land-use.
We assessed whether land-use systems affect species richness within guild using a Kruskal–Wallis test, a nonparametric approach appropriate for counting data with non-normal distribution. For significant results (p < 0.05), we applied Dunn’s post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction to control type I error. We performed these analyses using the “dunn.test 1.3.6” package [60]. We excluded the trophic guild of small generalist hypogeic predator ants from this analysis because it had only one individual. We performed all analyses using the R Program version 4.4.3 [61].

3. Results

3.1. Species Richness vs. Different Land-Use Systems

We registered 150 ant species. The species richness ranged from 43 to 94 species among the sampled areas (see full dataset in Table S1). The forest corridor (FC) had the highest richness (Sobs = 94 spp, Sest = 133 spp.—16 sites), followed by primary forest (PF) (Sobs = 81 spp., Sest = 119 spp.—10 sites), Eucalyptus plantation (EP) (Sobs = 67 spp., Sest = 83 spp.—19 sites), secondary forest (SF) (Sobs = 53 spp., Sest = 76 spp.—5 sites), and selective logging (SL) (Sobs = 43 spp., Sest= 76 spp.—5 sites). The sample-size-based rarefaction curves showed that species richness was higher in FC and PF, while SF and EP showed lower species richness (Figure 2).
Species richness varied among land-use systems (F4.50 = 2.697; p = 0.041) and, consequently, with the complexity of the habitats. Eucalyptus plantation (EP) showed lower values than forest corridor (FC) (p = 0.01), but no differences were observed among the other land-use systems (Figure 3).

3.2. Species Composition vs. Different Land-Use Systems

Species composition varied among the land-use systems (PERMANOVA: F4.50 = 4.854; p = 0.001), with EP showing distinct ant species composition (Table 1 and Figure 4). The beta diversity did not differ among all five land-use systems (PERMDISP: F4.50 = 0.389 and p = 0.815), suggesting homogeneity in the dispersion of these communities. FC shows an interesting pattern: it shares species across all land-use systems except with EP.

3.3. Guilds vs. Different Land-Use Systems

The composition of ant guilds was significantly different among the land-use systems (PERMANOVA: F4.50 = 3.643 and p = 0.001). Eucalyptus plantation differed from all land-uses systems, except from SF (Table 2 and Figure 5). However, PF, SF, FC, and SL showed a similar guild composition. The beta diversity did not differ among the five land-use systems (PERMDISP: F4.50 = 1.50; p = 0.217), suggesting homogeneity in the dispersion of guild composition among land-use systems.
Species richness in 6 of the 12 analyzed guilds varied among the five land-use systems (Figure 6). Arboreal predators guild (χ2 = 14.853; df = 4; p = 0.005) showed greater species richness in EP compared to FC (p = 0.023) and PF (p = 0.014). Large generalist epigaeic predators guild (χ2 = 14.792; df = 4; p = 0.005) had lower species richness in EP than in FC (p = 0.006). The same pattern is shown in the leaf-cutter fungus-growers guild (χ2 = 12.066; df = 4; p = 0.017), medium-sized epigaeic generalist predators guild (χ2 = 14.226; df = 4; p = 0.007), litter-nesting fungus-growers guild (χ2 = 22.704; df = 4; p < 0.001), which showed lower richness in EP compared to FC (p = 0.030; p = 0.013; p < 0.001, respectively). On the other hand, arboreal omnivorous (χ2 = 15.297; df = 4; p = 0.004) showed lower richness in EP compared to SL (p = 0.025). The remaining guilds, including cephalotines (χ2 = 3.981; df = 4; p = 0.409), generalists (χ2 = 2.735; df = 4; p = 0.603), legionary ants (χ2 = 3.844; df = 4; p = 0.428), medium-sized generalist hypogeic predators (χ2 = 0.765; df = 4; p = 0.943), specialized cryptic predators (χ2 = 4.024; df = 4; p = 0.403), and specialized predators (χ2 = 2.748; df = 4; p = 0.601), did not show significant differences in species richness across land-use systems.

4. Discussion

We found that species richness, composition, and especially species richness within guilds, reflect the impacts of habitat structural simplification, likely due to reduced resource availability such as nesting sites. Heterogeneous environments, such as forest corridors (FC), play a crucial role in maintaining species and biodiversity, while homogeneous plantations, such as Eucalyptus, support a more impoverished and functionally narrow community. This loss of species richness within guilds may represent, in the long term, a gradual loss of ecological functions provided by these organisms and a “plastic” response from some specialized guilds. Our results should be interpreted in the broader regional context because the matrix in which these areas are inserted seems to play an important role in shaping regional biodiversity patterns. These findings reinforce the need to consider the conservation of structurally complex environments and landscape connectivity as fundamental strategies to maintain biodiversity and functionality in rainforests. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate SL, FC, and EP all together in the same area in the Amazon context.
Our study recorded a total of 150 ground-dwelling ant species that represents approximately 60% of the estimated ground-dwelling ant fauna in the Jari project area, and around 20% of all ant species registered for the state of Pará [62]. This high number of ant species is expected in studies about ant diversity in the Amazon biome, one of the richest areas in the Neotropical region [28,63,64]. However, it is important to emphasize that the true ant species richness at the Jari region is likely higher than what we detected, considering that we employed a single ground-based sampling method that was not specifically optimized for ants and targeted only one stratum [43,46]. Studies such as [65] suggest that capturing the full species pool in hyperdiverse tropical systems may require up to ten times the sampling effort typically applied, which is often impractical. Furthermore, additional sampling techniques may be important in terms of biodiversity, as ants show high vertical stratification [10,26,34], and ant assemblages present in arboreal and shrub strata can also respond to disturbances related to environmental changes [27,66,67]. Despite the limitation of using pitfall traps baited with feces in this study, this methodology was crucial to minimize field effort and logistical costs in remote Amazonian areas [46] and proved suitable for assessing quantitative impacts of land-use change on ant diversity.
The highest ant richness was found in land-use systems with little or no disturbance, corroborating our hypothesis. However, primary forest (PF) did not have the highest richness, as expected, although this result was not significant. This can be explained by the fact that FC areas may represent an intermediate level of disturbance, which could promote the coexistence of species typically associated with both primary and disturbed habitats, as observed in other studies [68,69,70]. Although differences in land-use systems seem to reflect the ant species richness of ground-dwelling ant assemblages, only the richness found in EP was significantly different from FC systems analyzed here. The lower richness found in these areas seems to be associated with more intense land-use. EP requires the removal of all native vegetation, disrupting superficial layers of the soil related to food resources and nesting sites for the ants. Similar studies have also shown that intensive land-use impacts on biodiversity [14,71], intensifying the negative effects of deforestation on ant diversity [14] and other invertebrates [67].
Ant species composition showed variation among different land-use systems. Eucalyptus plantation was the only system that differed significantly from all other land-use systems in terms of species composition. Biodiversity can be assessed using various parameters, but species composition is one of the most suitable of them to detect the effects of disturbances in ant assemblages [10]. This is because richness can remain constant even with the loss of some native species due to the arrival and establishment of invasive species [72,73]. In this study, the invasive ant species Paratrechina longicornis [74] was found in all land-use systems except for FC. This species characteristically occurs in disturbed environments, mainly due to anthropic changes, and presents a wide flexibility of response to several environmental factors [75]. The arrival of these new species can modify the existing interspecific interactions [76] in the community, interfering with population sizes. Furthermore, EP supports less biodiversity than native areas; however, the level of effect on ecological interactions may depend on the landscape in which they are implemented [77,78]. This result supports the idea that species richness has limited value as an indicator of changes in habitat quality [14,34], so our results reinforce the importance of considering species composition to assess the impacts of forest disturbance [18]. The variation in species composition is also important from a functional point of view because different species play different roles in ecosystems [79], and compositional change can affect important ecosystem functions [37].
The composition of ant guilds varied between EP and the PF, FC, and SL. The use of guilds showed more sensitivity than other measures widely used for impact assessment [80]. Eucalyptus plantations showed the highest biological differences in guilds composition, demonstrating that this system is the one that affects the most ground-dwelling ant assemblages. Two possible mechanisms can explain this result: (i) monocultures simplify the structure of vegetation, creating a homogeneous agroecosystem [15,35]; (ii) Eucalyptus leaves have a high concentration of allelopathic substances [81], which can change the leaf litter characteristics, the composition and microbial activity of the soil and, consequently, interfere with the biodiversity of ants.
Forest corridors showed a particular pattern in our study: they shared species with all land-use systems except EP. This result highlights the importance of ecological corridors as structural elements of the landscape that promote functional connectivity, facilitating species movement, recolonization, and the maintenance of diversity among primary, secondary, and selective logging forest areas. In our study sites, FC directly connects different land-use types, mainly secondary forest, and appears to act as diversity hubs that support the sustainability of communities in other systems. Previous studies have shown that forest corridors increase matrix permeability and reduce isolation between fragments, promoting population persistence even in fragmented landscapes [82,83,84]. Conversely, the absence of shared species with EP suggests that homogeneous plantations represent functionally incompatible environments, where habitat structure and available resources do not allow the persistence or recruitment of species circulating among other systems. This finding reinforces that the ecological effectiveness of corridors depends not only on their physical presence but also on the ecological compatibility of the environments they connect [85]. Therefore, forest corridors play a central role in conserving functional biodiversity in our landscape, especially through their ability to connect and sustain biological communities in mixed land-use contexts.
We partially corroborate our hypothesis regarding species richness within guilds across different land-use systems. We found a loss of some specialist species in certain guilds; however, contrary to expectations, generalist guilds did not show a significant increase in simplified habitats, such as Eucalyptus plantations. Of the eight species classified as arboreal predators, five occur in EP, a structurally simplified environment. This result may indicate a behavioral shift by some species in this guild to foraging on the ground, possibly due to scarce food resources in the arboreal stratum [86]. More homogeneous environments have fewer resources, due to the simplification of the habitat, which puts pressure on species by changes in the number of resources and microhabitats available in the soil [14,27,71]. This selective pressure acts so that only species adapted to a broad niche can survive in these habitats [87,88,89]. This pattern suggests a “plastic” response of this specialized guild to unfavorable environmental conditions, making them more likely to fall into pitfall traps.
The guilds of large generalist epigaeic predators, leaf-cutter fungus-growers, medium-sized epigaeic generalist predators, and litter-nesting fungus-growers showed lower species richness in EP than in FC. This pattern suggests that although these ecological functions are still represented, they are performed by a more limited number of species in more homogeneous environments. These guilds are especially dependent on soil microhabitats, such as deep litter, structural complexity, low humidity, and temperature conditions, characteristics that are severely limited in Eucalyptus monocultures. Litter-nesting fungus growers guild may demonstrate subtle impacts in most environments studied, but they are strongly affected in areas with robust environmental changes such as monoculture due to their specialized biology. Unlike leaf-cutting ants that cut fresh leaves, they use feces of other insects and decaying organic matter, including animal remains, to cultivate their fungus garden which they use to feed their brood [90]. A reduction in these resources in those areas may result in a decrease in their species richness. On the other hand, leaf-cutter fungus-growers, has demonstrated that the increase in their richness may be largely associated with the increase in plant diversity [34] of these environments since these ants use different plant species and a large volume of vegetal matter [91]. The impoverishment within guilds of these four guilds can reduce functional redundancy and compromise ecosystem resilience to future disturbances [14,18,72]. Thus, even if overall functions such as predation or decomposition remain detectable, they become ecologically more fragile, as they depend on a more restricted and possibly less efficient set of species.
The arboreal omnivorous guild showed lower species richness in EP compared to SL. Ants in this guild forage in the canopy and exploit multiple resources—such as nectar, exudates, honeydew, and small arthropods—which tend to be scarce in homogeneous eucalyptus plantations [14,27]. Although it may seem unexpected to find arboreal omnivorous ants captured using a technique designed for soil-dwelling organisms, this pattern is common, especially when attractive baits are used [45], as in our study. In summary, the use and identification of guilds is a very important tool for understanding ant communities [30]. This is supported by this study which shows that a small group of ecologically equivalent or complementary species can help us understand complex ecosystem interactions and functions by examining how these organisms use available resources. This characteristic becomes very important since these guilds seem to correspond with reasonable fidelity to the studied environment [31,38,92,93].
Human-induced disturbances in tropical forests are prioritized on the conservationist agenda [2]. Studies that evaluate the consequences of disturbances are essential and encouraged [25,94]. Not all species play the same role in the ecosystem [80]. Ants are a dominant group in forests [95], and they have been used for monitoring studies because changes in species composition may result in a loss of functional diversity resulting from human-induced disturbances [36,37,38]. In this sense, our work contributes to a better understanding of the effects of different types of land-use systems on ground-dwelling ant assemblages, particularly on the impacts caused by the introduction of Eucalyptus monocultures, since this land-use system was responsible for the biological differences in the richness and species composition of guilds.
Eucalyptus monocultures are already a reality in tropical rainforests, and if not properly managed and monitored, these ecosystems can increase the loss of habitat [96]. As well as in our work, the effects of the simplification in the environment due to monocultures can affect the soil richness and species composition, along with the functional structure [29,37,97]. The strong economic interest in EP and the urgent need to preserve the Amazonian biodiversity highlight the importance of establishing effective measures that improve the conservation value of the biodiversity and ecosystem services in these systems.

5. Conclusions

Our work contributes to a better understanding of how land-use changes impact the ground-dwelling ant assemblages in the Brazilian Amazon. We have demonstrated that changes in land-use affect species richness, species composition, and the species richness of trophic guilds. Therefore, our results provide a robust understanding of the environmental drivers behind the maintenance or loss of ground-dwelling ant assemblages, especially in different land-use systems, reinforcing the importance of combining taxonomic and functional approaches to better understand the dynamics of ant communities in these areas. Thus, our discoveries are quite relevant, especially for the Amazon, which is one of the richest areas in species in the Neotropics. In addition, it can serve as a basis for predicting the ecological consequences of biodiversity loss and future changes in land-use.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f16071190/s1. Table S1: Subfamily, species, and morphospecies of ants and guilds in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Eucalyptus plantation (EP), forest corridors (FC), primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), and selective logging (SL).

Author Contributions

Conceived, designed, and carried out the experiments, C.M.B., V.K., J.L. and R.Z. Analyzed the dataset, E.S., E.Z.A., D.F.F., M.T. and I.F. Wrote the manuscript, discussed concepts, revised, edited, and approved the final version, E.S., E.Z.A., D.F.F. and M.T. Reviewed manuscript with key contributions and approved final version V.K., J.L., I.F. and R.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

E. Silva was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). V. Korasaki thanks Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and National Institute of Science and Technology—Soil Biodiversity/INCT-CNPq. E.Z. Albuquerque acknowledges the Peter Buck Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Smithsonian Institution and NSF DEB grant 1654829. D.F. Florencio was supported by Centro de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas e Humanas (CCSAH) and UFERSA.

Data Availability Statement

All the relevant data are provided in the article and in Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jari Florestal for their logistical and technical support during fieldwork, and our fieldwork assistants. We thank G Schiffler for collecting the specimens. We are grateful to S Lacau from Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia (UESB) for ant species identification and to RR Silva from Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi for discussion and confirmation of guild classification. We are indebted to FB Baccaro, FA Schmidt, and the reviewers for critical reading and invaluable comments on the manuscript. We would like to thank S Aragao for the English revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MhaMega hectare (ha × 106)
AwTropical Monsoon Climate
°CDegree Celsius
mmMillimeter(s)
PFPrimary Forest
kmKilometer(s)
SFSecondary Forest
RILReduced Impact Logging
FCForest Corridors
SLSelective Logging
EPEucalyptus Plantation
haHectare
hHour
UESBUniversidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia
UFLAUniversidade Federal de Lavras
ANOVAAnalysis of Variance
PERMANOVANonparametric Multivariate Analysis of Variance
NMDSNon-Metric Multidimensional Scaling
PERMDISPHomogeneity of Multivariate Dispersions Analysis
MaxTMaximum Type Independence Test Statistic
SobsRichness Observed
SestRichness Estimated
SDStandard Deviation
βBeta Diversity

References

  1. Barlow, J.; Ewers, R.M.; Anderson, L.; Aragao, L.E.O.C.; Baker, T.R.; Boyd, E.; Feldpausch, T.R.; Gloor, E.; Hall, A.; Malhi, Y.; et al. Using learning networks to understand complex systems: A case study of biological, geophysical and social research in the Amazon. Biol. Rev. 2011, 86, 457–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Laurance, W.F.; Sayer, J.; Cassman, K.G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Newbold, T.; Adams, G.L.; Albaladejo Robles, G.; Boakes, E.H.; Braga Ferreira, G.; Chapman, A.S.A.; Etard, A.; Gibb, R.; Millard, J.; Outhwaite, C.L.; et al. Climate and land-use change homogenise terrestrial biodiversity, with consequences for ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2019, 3, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Snyder, P.K.; Twine, T.E.; Cuadra, S.V.; Costa, M.H.; DeLucia, E.H. Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nat. Clim. Change 2012, 2, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Berenguer, E.; Gardner, T.A.; Ferreira, J.; Aragão, L.E.O.C.; Camargo, P.B.; Cerri, C.E.; Durigan, M.; Oliveira Junior, R.C.; Vieira, I.C.G.; Barlow, J. Developing Cost-Effective Field Assessments of Carbon Stocks in Human-Modified Tropical Forests. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hahn, M.B.; Gangnon, R.E.; Barcellos, C.; Asner, G.P.; Patz, J.A. Influence of Deforestation, Logging, and Fire on Malaria in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nunes, C.A.; Berenguer, E.; França, F.; Ferreira, J.; Lees, A.C.; Louzada, J.; Sayer, E.J.; Solar, R.; Smith, C.C.; Aragão, L.E.O.C.; et al. Linking land-use and land-cover transitions to their ecological impact in the Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2202310119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gibson, L.; Lee, T.M.; Koh, L.P.; Brook, B.W.; Gardner, T.A.; Barlow, J.; Peres, C.A.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Laurance, W.F.; Lovejoy, T.E.; et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 2011, 478, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Muscardi, D.; Almeida, S.S.P.; Schoereder, J.; Marques, T.; Sarcinelli, T.; Corrêa, A. Response of litter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) to habitat heterogeneity and local resource availability in native and exotic forests. Sociobiology 2008, 52, 655–665. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ribas, C.R.; Campos, R.B.F.; Schmidt, F.A.; Solar, R.R.C. Ants as Indicators in Brazil: A Review with Suggestions to Improve the Use of Ants in Environmental Monitoring Programs. Psyche 2012, 2012, 636749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rizzotto, A.M.; Roani, A.H.; Guarda, C.; Giovenardi, R.; Lutinski, J.A. Mirmecofauna em áreas de preservação permanente e plantios florestais no noroeste do Rio Grande do Sul. Ciênc. Florest. 2019, 29, 1227–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Solar, R.R.D.C.; Barlow, J.; Ferreira, J.; Berenguer, E.; Lees, A.C.; Thomson, J.R.; Louzada, J.; Maués, M.; Moura, N.G.; Oliveira, V.H.F.; et al. How pervasive is biotic homogenization in human-modified tropical forest landscapes? Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 1108–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Escobar-Ramírez, S.; Tscharntke, T.; Armbrecht, I.; Torres, W.; Grass, I. Decrease in β-diversity, but not in α-diversity, of ants in intensively managed coffee plantations. Insect Conserv. Diver. 2020, 13, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Solar, R.R.D.C.; Barlow, J.; Andersen, A.N.; Schoereder, J.H.; Berenguer, E.; Ferreira, J.N.; Gardner, T.A. Biodiversity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance in the Amazon: A multi-scale assessment using ant communities. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 197, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Murray, B.R.; Baker, A.C.; Robson, T.C. Impacts of the Replacement of Native Woodland with Exotic Pine Plantations on Leaf-Litter Invertebrate Assemblages: A Test of a Novel Framework. Int. J. Ecol. 2009, 2009, 490395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Azevedo, T.L.; Mello, A.A.; Ferreira, R.A.; Sanquetta, C.R.; Nakajima, N.Y. Equações hipsométricas e volumétricas para um povoamento de Eucalyptus sp. localizado na FLONA do Ibura, Sergipe. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2011, 6, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beiroz, W.; Slade, E.M.; Barlow, J.; Silveira, J.M.; Louzada, J.; Sayer, E. Dung beetle community dynamics in undisturbed tropical forests: Implications for ecological evaluations of land-use change. Insect Conserv. Diver. 2016, 10, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barlow, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Araujo, I.S.; Ávila-Pires, T.C.; Bonaldo, A.B.; Costa, J.E.; Esposito, M.C.; Ferreira, L.V.; Hawes, J.; Hernandez, M.I.M.; et al. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 18555–18560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Da Rocha, P.L.B.; Viana, B.F.; Cardoso, M.Z.; De Melo, A.M.C.; Costa, M.G.C.; De Vasconcelos, R.N.; Dantas, T.B. What is the value of eucalyptus monocultures for the biodiversity of the Atlantic forest? A multitaxa study in southern Bahia, Brazil. J. For. Res. 2013, 24, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hawes, J.; Da Silva Motta, C.; Overal, W.L.; Barlow, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Peres, C.A. Diversity and composition of Amazonian moths in primary, secondary and plantation forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 2009, 25, 281–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Junqueira, L.K.; Florencio, D.F. Termite Damage in Agriculture Areas and Implanted Forests: An Ecological Approach. In Termites and Sustainable Management; Khan, M., Ahmad, W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Marsden, S.J.; Whiffin, M.; Galetti, M. Bird diversity and abundance in forest fragments and Eucalyptus plantations around an Atlantic forest reserve, Brazil. Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 737–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wilker, I.; Queiroz, A.C.M.; Ribas, C.R.; Morini, M.S.C.; Lasmar, C.J.; Schmidt, F.A.; Feitosa, R.M.; Nogueira, A.; Baccaro, F.B.; Ulysséa, M.A.; et al. A systematic review of the land use change effects on ant diversity in Neotropics. Biol. Conserv. 2024, 299, 110778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paknia, O.; Pfeiffer, M. Hierarchical partitioning of ant diversity: Implications for conservation of biogeographical diversity in arid and semi-arid areas. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersen, A.N. Not enough niches: Non-equilibrial processes promoting species coexistence in diverse ant communities. Austral Ecol. 2008, 33, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vasconcelos, H.L.; Vilhena, J.M.S.; Facure, K.G.; Albernaz, A.L.K.M. Patterns of ant species diversity and turnover across 2000 km of Amazonian floodplain forest. J. Biogeogr. 2010, 37, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oliveira, A.B.; Schmidt, F.A. Ant assemblages of Brazil nut trees Bertholletia excelsa in forest and pasture habitats in the Southwestern Brazilian Amazon. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schmidt, F.A.; Costa, M.M.S.D.; Martello, F.; De Oliveira, A.B.; Menezes, A.S.; Fontenele, L.K.; Morato, E.F.; Oliveira, M.A. Ant diversity studies in Acre: What we know and what we could do to know more? Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi Ciênc. Nat. 2020, 15, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Andersen, A.N. Responses of ant communities to disturbance: Five principles for understanding the disturbance dynamics of a globally dominant faunal group. J. Anim. Ecol. 2019, 88, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Silva, R.R.; Brandão, C.R.F. Morphological patterns and community organization in leaf-litter ant assemblages. Ecol. Monogr. 2010, 80, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Andersen, A. Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: A comparison with Australia. J. Biogeogr. 1997, 24, 433–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kwon, T.-S.; Lee, C.M.; Sung, J.H. Diversity decrease of ant (Formicidae, Hymenoptera) after a forest disturbance: Different responses among functional guilds. Zool. Stud. 2014, 53, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Waltert, M.; Bobo, K.S.; Kaupa, S.; Montoya, M.L.; Nsanyi, M.S.; Fermon, H. Assessing Conservation Values: Biodiversity and Endemicity in Tropical Land Use Systems. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e16238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Queiroz, A.C.M.; Rabello, A.M.; Braga, D.L.; Santiago, G.S.; Zurlo, L.F.; Philpott, S.M.; Ribas, C.R. Cerrado vegetation types determine how land use impacts ant biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 29, 2017–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Martello, F.; De Bello, F.; Morini, M.S.D.C.; Silva, R.R.; Souza-Campana, D.R.D.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Carmona, C.P. Homogenization and impoverishment of taxonomic and functional diversity of ants in Eucalyptus plantations. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Arnan, X.; Cerdá, X.; Rodrigo, A.; Retana, J. Response of ant functional composition to fire. Ecography 2013, 36, 1182–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bihn, J.H.; Gebauer, G.; Brandl, R. Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests. Ecology 2010, 91, 782–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Leal, I.R.; Filgueiras, B.K.C.; Gomes, J.P.; Iannuzzi, L.; Andersen, A.N. Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 1687–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Climate Data for Cities Worldwide. Available online: https://en.climate-data.org/ (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  40. Coutinho, S.d.C.; Pires, M.J.P. Jari um Banco Genético Para o Futuro; IMAGO: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  41. Barlow, J.; Louzada, J.; Parry, L.; Hernández, M.I.M.; Hawes, J.; Peres, C.A.; Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z.; Gardner, T.A. Improving the design and management of forest strips in human-dominated tropical landscapes: A field test on Amazonian dung beetles. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Parry, L.; Barlow, J.; Peres, C.A. Allocation of hunting effort by Amazonian smallholders: Implications for conserving wildlife in mixed-use landscapes. Bio. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1777–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Agosti, D.; Majer, J.D.; Alonso, L.E.; Schultz, T.R. Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity; Smithsonian Institution Press: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bestelmeyer, B.; Agosti, D.; Alonso, L.; Brandao, C.R.; Brown, W.L.J.; Delabie, J.; Silvestre, R. Field techniques for the study of ground-dwelling ants: An overview, description and evaluation. In Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity; Smithsonian Institution Press: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 122–144. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sheikh, A.H.; Ganaie, G.A.; Thomas, M.; Bhandari, R.; Rather, Y.A. Ant pitfall trap sampling: An overview. J. Entomol. Res. 2018, 42, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Przybyszewski, K.R.; Silva, R.J.; Vicente, R.E.; Garcia Freitas, J.V.; Pereira, M.J.B.; Izzo, T.J.; Tonon, D.S. Can Baited Pitfall Traps for Sampling Dung Beetles Replace Conventional Traps for Sampling Ants? Sociobiology 2020, 67, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Baccaro, F.B.; Feitosa, R.M.; Fernández, F.; Fernandes, I.O.; Izzo, T.J.; de Souza, J.L.P.; Solar, R.R.C. Guia Para os Gêneros de Formigas do Brasil; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia: Manaus, Brazil, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brandão, C.R.F.; Silva, R.R.; Delabie, J.H.C. Bioecologia e Nutrição de Insetos. Base para o Manejo Integrado de Pragas.; Embrapa Informação Tecnológica: Brasília, Brazil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gotelli, N.J.; Ellison, A.M.; Dunn, R.R.; Sanders, N.J. Counting ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Biodiversity sampling and statistical analysis for myrmecologists. Myrmecol. News 2011, 15, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chao, A.; Gotelli, N.J.; Hsieh, T.C.; Sander, E.L.; Ma, K.H.; Colwell, R.K.; Ellison, A.M. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 2014, 84, 45–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hsieh, T.C.; Ma, K.H.; Chao, A. iNEXT: An R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models. R Package Version 0.4.7. 2024. Available online: https://github.com/florianhartig/DHARMa (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  53. Lenth, R.V. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means. 2025. Available online: https://rvlenth.github.io/emmeans/ (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  54. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R.N.; Somerfield, P.J.; Warwick, R.M. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 3rd ed.; Primer-E: Plymouth, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  55. Legendre, P.; Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  56. Anderson, M.J. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol. 2001, 26, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Martinez Arbizu, P. PairwiseAdonis: Pairwise Multilevel Comparison Using adonis. R Package Version 0.4. Available online: https://github.com/pmartinezarbizu/pairwiseAdonis (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  58. Anderson, M.J. Distance-Based Tests for Homogeneity of Multivariate Dispersions. Biometrics 2006, 62, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Anderson, M.J.; Ellingsen, K.E.; McArdle, B.H. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Dinno, A.; dunn.test: Dunn’s Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums. R Package Version 1.3.6. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dunn.test/index.html (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  61. R Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. 2025. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  62. Albuquerque, E.Z.; Prado, L.P.D.; Andrade-Silva, J.; De Siqueira, E.L.S.; Da Silva Sampaio, K.L.; Alves, D.; Brandão, C.R.F.; Andrade, P.L.; Feitosa, R.M.; De Azevedo Koch, E.B.; et al. Ants of the State of Pará, Brazil: A historical and comprehensive dataset of a key biodiversity hotspot in the Amazon Basin. Zootaxa 2021, 5001, 1–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Miranda, P.N.; Morato, E.F.; Oliveira, M.A.; Delabie, J.H.C. A riqueza e composição de formigas como indicadores dos efeitos do manejo florestal de baixo impacto em floresta tropical no estado do Acre. Rev. Árvore 2013, 37, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wilkie, K.T.; Mertl, A.L.; Traniello, J.F.A. Species Diversity and Distribution Patterns of the Ants of Amazonian Ecuador. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chao, K.-J.; Phillips, O.L.; Baker, T.R.; Peacock, J.; Lopez-Gonzalez, G.; Vásquez Martínez, R.; Monteagudo, A.; Torres-Lezama, A. After trees die: Quantities and determinants of necromass across Amazonia. Biogeosciences 2009, 6, 1615–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Frizzo, T.L.M.; Campos, R.I.; Vasconcelos, H.L. Contrasting Effects of Fire on Arboreal and Ground-Dwelling Ant Communities of a Neotropical Savanna. Biotropica 2012, 44, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vasconcelos, H.L.; Bruna, E.M. Arthropod responses to the experimental isolation of Amazonian forest fragments. Zoologia 2012, 29, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Azevedo-Ramos, C.; De Carvalho, O.; Do Amaral, B.D. Short-term effects of reduced-impact logging on eastern Amazon fauna. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 232, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gómez, C.; Abril, S. Selective logging in public pine forests of the central Iberian Peninsula: Effects of the recovery process on ant assemblages. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 1061–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gunawardene, N.R.; Majer, J.D.; Edirisinghe, J.P. Investigating residual effects of selective logging on ant species assemblages in Sinharaja Forest Reserve, Sri Lanka. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chan, K.M.A.; Daily, G.C. The payoff of conservation investments in tropical countryside. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 19342–19347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Gardner, T.A.; Barlow, J.; Chazdon, R.; Ewers, R.M.; Harvey, C.A.; Peres, C.A.; Sodhi, N.S. Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 561–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. King, J.R.; Tschinkel, W.R. Experimental evidence that human impacts drive fire ant invasions and ecological change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 20339–20343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Latreille, P.A. Histoire Naturelle des Fourmis, et Recueil de Mémoires et D’observations sur les Abeilles, les Araignées, les Faucheurs, et Autres Insectes; Impr. Crapelet (chez T. Barrois): Paris, France, 1802. [Google Scholar]
  75. Hölldobler, B.; Wilson, E.O. The Ants; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  76. Morrison, A.J. Developing a global leadership model. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2000, 39, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Beiroz, W.; Audino, L.; Queiroz, A.C.; Rabello, A.; Alves Boratto, I.; Silva, Z.; Ribas, C. Structure and composition of edaphic arthropod community and its use as bioindicators of environmental disturbance. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2014, 12, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Schmidt, F.A.; Ribas, C.R.; Schoereder, J.H. How predictable is the response of ant assemblages to natural forest recovery? Implications for their use as bioindicators. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Del Toro, I.; Ribbons, R.; Pelini, S. The little things that run the world revisited: A review of ant-mediated ecosystem services and disservices (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecol. News 2012, 17, 133–146. [Google Scholar]
  80. Loreau, M.; De Mazancourt, C. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: A synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Larrañaga, A.B. Impacts of Eucalyptus globulus plantations on Atlantic streams: Changes in invertebrate density and shredder traits. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 2009, 175, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Beier, P.; Noss, R.F. Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity? Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 1241–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lees, A.C.; Peres, C.A. Conservation Value of Remnant Riparian Forest Corridors of Varying Quality for Amazonian Birds and Mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tewksbury, J.J.; Levey, D.J.; Haddad, N.M.; Sargent, S.; Orrock, J.L.; Weldon, A.; Danielson, B.J.; Brinkerhoff, J.; Damschen, E.I.; Townsend, P. Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 12923–12926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hilty, J.; Worboys, G.L.; Keeley, A.; Woodley, S.; Lausche, B.J.; Locke, H.; Carr, M.; Pulsford, I.; Pittock, J.; White, J.W.; et al. Guidelines for Conserving Connectivity Through Ecological Networks and Corridors; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Philpott, S.M.; Arendt, W.J.; Armbrecht, I.; Bichier, P.; Diestch, T.V.; Gordon, C.; Greenberg, R.; Perfecto, I.; Reynoso-Santos, R.; Soto-Pinto, L.; et al. Biodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants, Birds, and Trees. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 1093–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Dias, N.D.S.; Zanetti, R.; Santos, M.S.; Peñaflor, M.F.G.V.; Broglio, S.M.F.; Delabie, J.H.C. The Impact of Coffee and Pasture Agriculture on Predatory and Omnivorous Leaf-Litter Ants. J. Insect Sci. 2013, 13, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Kassen, R. The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the maintenance of diversity. J. Evol. Biol. 2002, 15, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wirth, R.; Meyer, S.; Leal, I.; Tabarelli, M. Plant Herbivore Interactions at the Forest Edge; In Progress in Botany; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 69, pp. 423–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mayhé-Nunes, A.J. Sinopse do gênero Mycetarotes (Hym., Formicidae), com a descrição de duas especies novas. Bol. Entomol. Venez. 1995, 10, 197–205. [Google Scholar]
  91. Lucia, D.T.M.C. Formigas-Cortadeiras: Da Bioecologia ao Manejo; Editora UFV: Vicosa, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  92. Lacau, L.; Villemant, C.; Bueno, O.C.; Delabie, J.H.C.; Lacau, S. Morphology of the eggs and larvae of Cyphomyrmex transversus Emery (Formicidae: Myrmicinae: Attini) and a note on the relationship with its symbiotic fungus. Zootaxa 2008, 1923, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Silvestre, R.; Brandão, C.R.F.; Silva, R.R. Grupos funcionales de hormigas: El caso de los gremios del Cerrado. In Introducción a Las Hormigas de Las Región Neotropical; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2003; pp. 101–136. [Google Scholar]
  94. Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, J.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M.; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A.; et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Lach, L.; Hooper-Bu`i, L.M. Consequences of ant inva-sions. In Ant Ecology; Lach, L., Parr, C.L., Abbott, K.L., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 261–286. [Google Scholar]
  96. Lindenmayer, D.; Pierson, J.; Barton, P.; Beger, M.; Branquinho, C.; Calhoun, A.; Caro, T.; Greig, H.; Gross, J.; Heino, J.; et al. A new framework for selecting environmental surrogates. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 538, 1029–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Arcoverde, G.B.; Andersen, A.N.; Setterfield, S.A. Is livestock grazing compatible with biodiversity conservation? Impacts on savanna ant communities in the Australian seasonal tropics. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 26, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 01190 g001
Figure 1. Location of the 55 sampling sites in five land-use systems: primary forest (○), secondary forest (♢), forest corridors (□), selective logging (×), and Eucalyptus plantation (△), situated between the municipalities of Monte Dourado and Almeirim, Northeast of Pará state, on the border with Amapá state, located in the Jari River basin, Brazil.
Figure 1. Location of the 55 sampling sites in five land-use systems: primary forest (○), secondary forest (♢), forest corridors (□), selective logging (×), and Eucalyptus plantation (△), situated between the municipalities of Monte Dourado and Almeirim, Northeast of Pará state, on the border with Amapá state, located in the Jari River basin, Brazil.
Forests 16 01190 g001
Forests 16 01190 g002
Figure 2. Sample-size-based rarefaction (solid lines) and extrapolation (dotted lines) sampling curves for ground-dwelling ants sampled in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. The shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals. The X-axis is the number of sampling units (number of areas by land-use systems = transects), and the Y-axis is the observed number of species. The solid curve represents the rarefaction curve interpolated from the reference sample, and the dashed curve represents the extrapolation. Eucalyptus plantation (EP), forest corridors (FC), primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), and selective logging (SL).
Figure 2. Sample-size-based rarefaction (solid lines) and extrapolation (dotted lines) sampling curves for ground-dwelling ants sampled in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. The shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals. The X-axis is the number of sampling units (number of areas by land-use systems = transects), and the Y-axis is the observed number of species. The solid curve represents the rarefaction curve interpolated from the reference sample, and the dashed curve represents the extrapolation. Eucalyptus plantation (EP), forest corridors (FC), primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), and selective logging (SL).
Forests 16 01190 g002
Forests 16 01190 g003
Figure 3. Species richness medians by transect of the ground-dwelling ant species among the five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Primary forest (PF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), secondary forest (SF), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences (adjusted p-value = 0.01).
Figure 3. Species richness medians by transect of the ground-dwelling ant species among the five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Primary forest (PF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), secondary forest (SF), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences (adjusted p-value = 0.01).
Forests 16 01190 g003
Forests 16 01190 g004
Figure 4. Distribution in a two-dimensional NMDS of the ground-dwelling ant species sampling in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Eucalyptus plantation (EP), forest corridors (FC), primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), and selective logging (SL).
Figure 4. Distribution in a two-dimensional NMDS of the ground-dwelling ant species sampling in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Eucalyptus plantation (EP), forest corridors (FC), primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), and selective logging (SL).
Forests 16 01190 g004
Forests 16 01190 g005
Figure 5. Distribution in a two-dimensional NMDS of the ants’ guilds composition sampling in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Primary forest (PF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), secondary forest (SF), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP).
Figure 5. Distribution in a two-dimensional NMDS of the ants’ guilds composition sampling in five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Primary forest (PF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), secondary forest (SF), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP).
Forests 16 01190 g005
Forests 16 01190 g006
Figure 6. Species richness within guilds of ant species among the five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Primary forest (PF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), secondary forest (SF), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among land-use systems (Dunn test with Bonferroni adjustment, p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Species richness within guilds of ant species among the five land-use systems at Jari Nacional Forest, Pará State, Brazil. Primary forest (PF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), secondary forest (SF), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among land-use systems (Dunn test with Bonferroni adjustment, p < 0.05).
Forests 16 01190 g006
Table 1. Adjusted p-value (with Bonferroni correction) from pairwise comparisons using Tukey test based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity of ground-dwelling ants present in five land-use systems. Primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Table 1. Adjusted p-value (with Bonferroni correction) from pairwise comparisons using Tukey test based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity of ground-dwelling ants present in five land-use systems. Primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Land-Use
System		PFSFFCSLEP
PF-----
SF0.09----
FC0.130.22---
SL1.000.120.06--
EP0.010.010.010.01-
Table 2. The p-value obtained from pairwise comparisons using Tukey test (Bonferroni adjustment, p < 0.05) on a distance matrix with trophic guilds. Primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Table 2. The p-value obtained from pairwise comparisons using Tukey test (Bonferroni adjustment, p < 0.05) on a distance matrix with trophic guilds. Primary forest (PF), secondary forest (SF), forest corridors (FC), selective logging (SL), and Eucalyptus plantation (EP). Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Land-Use SystemPFSFFCSLEP
PF-----
SF1.00----
FC1.001.00---
SL1.001.000.48--
EP0.011.000.010.01-
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, E.; Borges, C.M.; Albuquerque, E.Z.; Florencio, D.F.; Fernandes, I.; Tolentino, M.; Korasaki, V.; Louzada, J.; Zanetti, R. What Can Ground-Dwelling Ants Tell Us About Different Land-Use Systems in the Brazilian Amazon? Forests 2025, 16, 1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16071190

AMA Style

Silva E, Borges CM, Albuquerque EZ, Florencio DF, Fernandes I, Tolentino M, Korasaki V, Louzada J, Zanetti R. What Can Ground-Dwelling Ants Tell Us About Different Land-Use Systems in the Brazilian Amazon? Forests. 2025; 16(7):1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16071190

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Elisangela, Cristina Machado Borges, Emília Zoppas Albuquerque, Daniela Faria Florencio, Izaias Fernandes, Mariana Tolentino, Vanesca Korasaki, Júlio Louzada, and Ronald Zanetti. 2025. "What Can Ground-Dwelling Ants Tell Us About Different Land-Use Systems in the Brazilian Amazon?" Forests 16, no. 7: 1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16071190

APA Style

Silva, E., Borges, C. M., Albuquerque, E. Z., Florencio, D. F., Fernandes, I., Tolentino, M., Korasaki, V., Louzada, J., & Zanetti, R. (2025). What Can Ground-Dwelling Ants Tell Us About Different Land-Use Systems in the Brazilian Amazon? Forests, 16(7), 1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16071190

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop