Aust Ecol 36:983–992Ĭampos RI, Vasconcelos HL, Ribeiro SP, Neves FS, Soares JP (2006) Relationship between tree size and insect assemblages associated with Anadenanthera macrocarpa. Ecol Evol 6(12):3953–3964īuchholz S, Hannig K (2009) Do covers influence the capture efficiency of pitfall traps? Eur J Entomol 106:667–671Ĭampos RI, Vasconcelos HL, Andersen AN, Frizzo, TLM, Spena KC (2011) Multi-scale ant diversity in savanna woodlands: an intercontinental comparison. J Biogeogr 33:71–90īrown GR, Matthews IM (2016) A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 122–144īotes A, McGeoch MA, Robertson HG, van Niekerk A, Davids HP, Chown SL (2006) Ants, altitude and change in the northern Cape Floristic Region. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Tennant A, Schultz T (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Oecologia 152:227–238īates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) lme4: linear mixed effects models using Eigen and S4-version 1īestelmeyer BT, Agosti D, Leeanne F, Alonso T, Brandão CRF, Brown WL, Delabie JHC, Silvestre R (2000) Field techniques for the study of ground-living ants: an overview, description, and evaluation.
#OPTIMAL PITFALL TRAP FOR RAINFOREST MAC#
INPA Publishing Company, Manausīallinger A, Lake PS, Mac Nally R (2007) Do terrestrial invertebrates experience floodplains as landscape mosaics? Immediate and longer-term effects of flooding on ant assemblages in a floodplain forest. J Biogeogr 33:823–832īaccaro FB, Feitosa RM, Fernandez F, Fernandes IO, Izzo TJ, Souza JLP, Solar R (2015) Guia para gêneros de formigas do Brasil. Biotropica 23(4):575–585Īndersen AN, Hertog T, Woinarski JCZ (2006) Long-term fire exclusion and ant community structure in an Australian tropical savanna: congruence with vegetation succession.
Aust J Ecol 8:127–137Īndersen AN (1991) Responses of ground-foraging ant communities to three experimental fire regimes in a savanna forest of tropical Australia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 204–206Īndersen AN (1983) Species diversity and temporal distribution of ants in the semi-arid mallee region of northwestern Victoria. (eds) Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. In: Agosti D, Majer JD, Tennant A, Schultz T. These results suggest that in closed-forest habitats, precautions to avoid a digging-in effect may be unnecessary for epigaeic samples, but that it is best to wait at least 5 days after an arboreal pitfall is installed to begin sampling ants.Īgosti D, Alonso LE (2000) The ALL protocol: a standard protocol for the collection of ground-dwelling ants. We term this process the familiarization effect, referring to the time that the ants require to become familiar with the trap, which was about 4–7 days after the installation. Probably, arboreal ants avoid strange objects (pitfalls) in the tree in the early phase, and then, over time, they might become familiarized with the pitfall and start to fall into the trap. We also observed an increase for arboreal-ant activity density and species richness with increased time after the arboreal pitfall installation.
The lack of evidence of a digging-in effect is probably due to differences in habitat complexity and the natural history of the Australian and South American ant faunas. We did not observe any effect for epigaeic activity density and species richness catches caused by pitfall installation. We tested whether samples taken with pitfalls dug (epigaeic stratum) or tied in a tree (arboreal stratum) at the same time, but were opened for sampling after different time periods, showed some pattern of ant activity density and richness in Brazilian closed-forest habitat. However, an installation effect has not been tested for arboreal pitfalls. Digging-in effect is related to higher epigaeic invertebrate catches immediately after pitfall-trap installation, as first reported for the Australian fauna.
0 kommentar(er)
