Mutualistic interactions between ants and plants involve rewards offered by plants and services performed by ants in a mutually advantageous relationship. The rewards are principally food and/or nest sites, and ants in turn perform a number of services for plants: they disperse and plant seeds; they protect foliage, buds, and reproductive structures from enemies such as herbivores and seed predators; they fertilize plants with essential nutrients; and they may sometimes function as pollinators. In this book, initially published in 1985, Professor Beattie reviews the fascinating natural history of ant–plant interactions, discusses the scientific evidence for the mutualistic nature of these relationships, and reaches some conclusions about the ecological and evolutionary processes that mold them. This important work explores the natural history, experimental approach, and integration with contemporary evolutionary and ecological literature of the time will appeal to a wide variety of biologists.

Patterns in the spatial distribution of organisms provide important information about mechanisms that regulate the diversity of life and the complexity of ecosystems. Although microorganisms may comprise much of the Earth's biodiversity and have critical roles in biogeochemistry and ecosystem functioning, little is known about their spatial diversification. Here we present quantitative estimates of microbial community turnover at local and regional scales using the largest spatially explicit microbial diversity data set available (> 10(6) sample pairs). Turnover rates were small across large geographical distances, of similar magnitude when measured within distinct habitats, and did not increase going from one vegetation type to another. The taxa-area relationship of these terrestrial microbial eukaryotes was relatively flat (slope z = 0.074) and consistent with those reported in aquatic habitats. This suggests that despite high local diversity, microorganisms may have only moderate regional diversity. We show how turnover patterns can be used to project taxa-area relationships up to whole continents. Taxa dissimilarities across continents and between them would strengthen these projections. Such data do not yet exist, but would be feasible to collect.

Environmental monitoring and conservation evaluation in terrestrial habitats may be enhanced by the use of invertebrate inventories, but taxonomic and logistic constraints frequently encountered during conventional taxonomic treatment have greatly restricted their use. To overcome this problem we suggest that nonspecialists may be used to classify invertebrates to morphospecies without compromising scientific accuracy. To test this proposition, large pitfall and litter samples of ants, beetles, and spiders from four forest types were sorted to morphospecies by a nonspecialist and to species by specialists. These data were used to generate morphospecies and species inventories and to estimate richness (α diversity) and turnover (β diversity), information frequently used in the above activities. Our results show that the estimates of richness of ants and spiders varied little between morphospecies and species inventories. Differences between estimates of beetle richness were largely influenced by errors of identification in two families, Curculionidae and Staphylinidae. But morphospecies and species inventories yielded identical ranking of forest type using richness. Turnover was assessed by sample ordination, which revealed similar clusters regardless of the type of inventory. Analysis of similarities of assemblages of ants and beetles showed significant differences between all forest types. Spider assemblages showed a lower level of discrimination. The assessment of turnover was consistent among inventories but different between the major taxa. Our findings suggest that morphospecies may be used as surrogates for species in some environmental monitoring and conservation, in particular when decisions are guided by estimates of richness and the assessment of turnover.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecological Applications.Abstract. We investigated three procedures that may lead to rapid and accurate assessment of epigaeic arthropod biodiversity. They are: (1) the identification of taxa whose diversity is correlated with that of others; (2) the identification of times and methods of sampling that produce estimates of diversity representative of more intensive sampling; and (3) the use of morphospecies inventories generated by non-specialists.Ants, beetles, and spiders were sampled from four forest types, in three seasons, using two collecting methods: pitfall trapping and extraction from litter. Specimens were sorted by a non-specialist to morphospecies and by specialist taxonomists to species. Richness (ax-diversity) and turnover (e-diversity) were compared for different sampling regimes using morphospecies and species inventories.We found no significant positive correlations between ant, beetle, and spider species richness but there was a strong negative correlation between ant and beetle richness. For beetles alone, richness within the families Carabidae, Scarabaeidae, and Pselaphidae (i.e., avoiding taxonomically problematic families) was significantly correlated with richness within all other families.Assessment of turnover revealed that: (1) the four forest types contained significantly different assemblages of ants and beetles but not spiders and (2) the four forests were less clearly discriminated using species from the three beetle families Carabidae, Scarabaeidae, and Pselaphidae when compared to species from all beetle families pooled.Analyses of single sampling periods and methods revealed that summer and spring pitfall samples were most representative of more intensive sampling. That is: (1) the richness of ants and beetles in these samples was significantly positively correlated with the richness of all other samples and (2) turnover of beetles and ants among the four forests revealed by summer pitfall samples was similar to turnover using all samples. The three beetle surrogate families recorded by pitfall samples in spring, and to a lesser extent summer, showed significant correlations in richness with all other beetle species recorded in the same samples. However, the assessment of turnover was less accurate when only surrogate families were used.The most accurate and cost-effective assessment of turnover was generated by a summer pitfall sample in which data for ants, carabid, and scarab beetles were combined and analyzed as a single data set.Results were largely consistent regardless of whether species or morphospecies were used, which suggests that monitor...

Inventories of vertebrate and flowering plants are frequently used as surrogates for estimates of total biodiversity. This is in part because the inclusion of invertebrates and nonflowering plants is perceived as being too time‐consuming, costly, and difficult because of the shortage of specialists. Estimates of the species richness of field samples of spiders, ants, polychaetes, and mosses made by a biodiversity technician and by specialist taxonomists were compared. The biodiversity technician received a few hours training in the taxonomy of each group and separated specimens into recognizable taxonomic units (RTUs). The specialists sorted to species. For the three animal groups the biodiversity technician recorded 165 taxa and the specialists 147, with the error for the ants and spiders being 13% or less. A small amount of splitting and lumping of species was detected. The concordance of estimates remained very similar when small subsamples were used. The procedure was repeated by 13 undergraduates using a subsample of spiders. Their average error was 14.4%. The greatest similarity in estimates was for the mosses, but with high levels of splitting and lumping this result was entirely fortuitous. The results suggest that RTU estimates made by biodiversity technicians may be sufficiently close to formal taxonomic estimates of species richness to be useful for the rapid assessment of biodiversity. They also show, however, that the procedures outlined here should be used on invertebrate and nonflowering plant groups before they can be confidently included in biodiversity surveys.

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

No abstract

Conservation planners represent many aspects of biodiversity by using surrogates with spatial distributions readily observed or quantified, but tests of their effectiveness have produced varied and conflicting results. We identified four factors likely to have a strong influence on the apparent effectiveness of surrogates: (1) the choice of surrogate; (2) differences among study regions, which might be large and unquantified (3) the test method, that is, how effectiveness is quantified, and (4) the test features that the surrogates are intended to represent. Analysis of an unusually rich dataset enabled us, for the first time, to disentangle these factors and to compare their individual and interacting influences. Using two data-rich regions, we estimated effectiveness using five alternative methods: two forms of incidental representation, two forms of species accumulation index and irreplaceability correlation, to assess the performance of ‘forest ecosystems’ and ‘environmental units’ as surrogates for six groups of threatened species—the test features—mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, plants and all of these combined. Four methods tested the effectiveness of the surrogates by selecting areas for conservation of the surrogates then estimating how effective those areas were at representing test features. One method measured the spatial match between conservation priorities for surrogates and test features. For methods that selected conservation areas, we measured effectiveness using two analytical approaches: (1) when representation targets for the surrogates were achieved (incidental representation), or (2) progressively as areas were selected (species accumulation index). We estimated the spatial correlation of conservation priorities using an index known as summed irreplaceability. In general, the effectiveness of surrogates for our taxa (mostly threatened species) was low, although environmental units tended to be more effective than forest ecosystems. The surrogates were most effective for plants and mammals and least effective for frogs and reptiles. The five testing methods differed in their rankings of effectiveness of the two surrogates in relation to different groups of test features. There were differences between study areas in terms of the effectiveness of surrogates for different test feature groups. Overall, the effectiveness of the surrogates was sensitive to all four factors. This indicates the need for caution in generalizing surrogacy tests.