Influence of landscape structure on Euglossini composition in open vegetation environments

Moreira, Eduardo Freitas; Santos, Rafaela Lorena da Silva; Silveira, Maxwell Souza; Bôscolo, Danilo; Neves, Edinaldo Luz das; Viana, Blandina Felipe

doi:10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2016-0294

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(68 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, eight recent studies do show empirical support for the habitat amount hypothesis. A study in the naturally heterogeneous savanna landscape of the Chapada Diamantina in Brazil did so for Euglossini bees (Moreira et al., ), a study within five major industrial sites in Europe did so for five out of seven tested taxa (Piano et al., ), while a study on fluvial islands in Amazonia did so for arboreal mammals (Rabelo, Bicca‐Marques, Aragón, & Nelson, ). Both patch size and habitat amount in the local landscape independently affected species numbers of saproxylic beetles in German forests, without an interaction effect, hence consistent with the habitat amount hypothesis and refuting the island effect (Seibold et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat amount, not patch size and isolation, drives species richness of macro‐moth communities in countryside landscapes

Merckx

Miranda

Pereira

2019

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Our aim was to test whether species richness patterns are best explained by the effect of the total amount of habitat within the landscape, or instead by a combination of patch size and patch isolation effects. To this end, we jointly contrast the habitat amount hypothesis and countryside biogeography with patch size and isolation concepts from island biogeography. Location Three multi‐habitat landscapes in Peneda‐Gerês National Park, NW Portugal. Taxon Macro‐moths (Lepidoptera). Methods Light‐trapping using a semi‐nested design at 84 fixed sites which were each repeatedly sampled six times. Results Autocovariate models show that sampling sites with a higher number of forest and meadow macro‐moth species (alpha diversity) were surrounded by a higher amount of forest and meadow habitat, respectively within a 160 and 320 m radius (scale of effect). These top‐ranked models, containing only habitat amount as a significant variable, had lower Akaike's information criteria (AIC) than models (only) containing patch size and/or isolation. Complementary to this, the countryside species–area relationship (SAR) model outperforms the classic SAR model, so that the effective area of habitat explains landscape species richness (gamma diversity) across spatial scales (beta diversity) better than the classic SAR. Specifically, we show that forest macro‐moths have a higher spatial turnover than meadow macro‐moths and that, on average, there are more species in forest than in meadow habitat. Main conclusions The habitat amount hypothesis predicts alpha species richness in multi‐habitat landscapes better than do patch size and isolation while the countryside SAR predicts beta and gamma diversity better than the classic SAR. We suggest that evidence is mounting to revise the application of the classical approaches of island biogeography and metapopulation theory to conservation biogeography.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat amount, not patch size and isolation, drives species richness of macro‐moth communities in countryside landscapes

Merckx

Miranda

Pereira

2019

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some these studies have shown structural differences in euglossine bee communities from distinct biogeographical regions, and differences have usually been attributed mainly to historical factors (Aguiar et al 2014). However, comparative studies of orchid bee communities from different vegetation physiognomies have shown that regional differences in community structure are also influenced by climatic, geomorphological, and/or vegetational parameters (Nemésio & Silveira, 2007;Sydney et al, 2010;Mattozo et al, 2011;Aguiar et al, 2014;Nemésio & Vasconcelos, 2013;Giangarelli et al, 2015;Costa & Francoy, 2017;Medeiros et al, 2017;Moreira et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Physiognomies and the Structure of Euglossini bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Communities

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to evaluate the occurrence of orchid bees in remnants of the Atlantic Forest. We sampled specimens from five regions of Southeast Brazil, covering three different physiognomies of the Atlantic Forest (mixed Araucaria forests with high altitude fields, Atlantic Semi-deciduous Forest and Atlantic Rain Forest). The distances between the sampling sites ranged from 24 to 746 km. Male orchid bees attracted by fragrances were actively sampled monthly during one year using entomological nets and aromatic traps. A total of 1,482 bees were captured, including four genera and at least 31 species. We observed differences in the abundance and richness of species sampled among sites. Climatic variables, mostly relative humidity, explained twice more of the observed differences in the Euglossini communities than simple spatial variation. Our study found differences in the composition of euglossine bee communities as well as in their patterns of abundance and dominance among different vegetation formations. However, the level of pairwise similarity among the Euglossini communities sampled, although highly variable, was not related to climatic factors or geographical distances between the sampling sites. The greatest dissimilarities in the composition of the orchid bee communities were observed between sites around 400 km from each other rather than among sites that were further apart. A possible explanation is that the sampled areas that were 400 km from each other were also highly dissimilar regarding climate, especially altitude.

show abstract

“…However, there are still theoretical controversy and few empirical data regarding the effects of the loss of natural environments on network characteristics such as nestedness (the extent to which interactions with specialist species are a subset of interactions with generalist species) and complementary specialization-Hʹ 2 (the extent to which specialist species interact with other specialists) (Blüthgen and Klein 2011;Weiner et al 2014). Few empirical studies have actually investigated the effects of deforestation on the structure of plant-pollinator networks, with even fewer information available in tropical regions (Hagen and Kraemer 2010;Gómez et al 2011;Ferreira et al 2013;Dáttilo et al 2015;Moreira et al 2015Moreira et al , 2017. The existing network studies show a positive influence of increasing cover of natural vegetation, particularly when the landscape heterogeneity is high (Moreira et al 2015;Boscolo et al 2017;Moreira et al 2017).…”

Section: Electronic Supplementary Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ecological networks of biotic interactions provide an efficient approach to understand the complex set of connections among several species when simultaneously influenced by many different factors (Bascompte et al 2003). The study of mutualistic interaction networks, such as plant-pollinators, may improve the ecological knowledge beyond species diversity studies to assess the impacts of habitat change on biodiversity and ecological processes functioning (Forup and Memmott 2005;Sabatino et al 2010;Ferreira et al 2013;Moreira et al 2015Moreira et al , 2017. Those studies can provide more complete guidance for conservation of biodiversity, ecological processes, and natural environments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest and connectivity loss simplify tropical pollination networks

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mutualistic interactions between plants and pollinators play an essential role in the organization and persistence of biodiversity. The structure of interaction networks mediates the resilience of local communities and ecosystem functioning to environmental changes. Hence, network structure conservation may be more critical for maintaining biodiversity and ecological services than the preservation of isolated species in changing landscapes. Here, we intensively surveyed seven 36 km 2 landscapes to empirically investigate the effects of forest loss and landscape configuration on the structure of plantpollinator networks in understory vegetation of Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Our results indicate that forest loss and isolation affect the structure of the plant-pollinator networks, which were smaller in deforested landscapes, and less specialized as patch isolation increased. Lower nestedness and degree of specialization (Hʹ 2 ) indicated that the remaining plant and bee species tend to be generalists, and many of the expected specialized interactions in the network were already lost. Because generalist species generate a cohesive interaction core in these networks, these simplified networks might be resistant to loss of peripheral species, but may be susceptible to the extinction of the most generalist species. We suggest that such a network pattern is an outcome of landscapes with a few remaining isolated patches of natural habitat. Our results add a new perspective to studies of plant-pollinator networks in fragmented landscapes, showing that those interaction networks might also be used to indicate how changes in natural habitat affect biodiversity and biotic interactions.

show abstract

Influence of landscape structure on Euglossini composition in open vegetation environments

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

Habitat amount, not patch size and isolation, drives species richness of macro‐moth communities in countryside landscapes

Habitat amount, not patch size and isolation, drives species richness of macro‐moth communities in countryside landscapes

Different Physiognomies and the Structure of Euglossini bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Communities

Forest and connectivity loss simplify tropical pollination networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About