Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:00:25.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction networks between solitary hymenopterans and their natural enemies in different restoration areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2021

Guilherme Gonzaga da Silva ,
Denise Lange  and
Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira Open the ORCID record for Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira [Opens in a new window]
Guilherme Gonzaga da Silva
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil
Denise Lange
Affiliation:
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Campus Santa Helena, Santa Helena, PR, Brasil
Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil
*
Author for correspondence: Rhainer Guillermo-Ferreira, Email: rhainerguillermo@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The diversity of species and their interactions have been positively related with environmental complexity. Therefore, highly anthropized environments have their integrity under serious threat. These effects may last for years compromising the dynamics of natural communities, such as antagonistic and mutualistic interactions, including host-natural enemy interactions. To investigate these effects, trap nest methodology was used to assess the diversity of solitary bees, wasps and their natural enemies in three fragmented environments with different degree of anthropic perturbation, composed of a Eucalyptus plantation (considered here as higher perturbation), a Cerrado area (medium perturbation) and a Riparian forest (lesser perturbation). Then, host-natural enemies associations were analysed to verify the size, specialization degree and modularity of interaction network. The gradient from highest to lowest degree of anthropic perturbation was evidenced in the species diversity index, the size of the interaction network and the specialization indexes of the host-natural enemy network. The environment with Eucalyptus plantation showed higher values of diversity of natural enemies, greater number of species in the interaction network, lesser degree of specialization in the interaction and lesser modularity, than Cerrado and Riparian forest environments, respectively. The low degree of nestedness and lack of significance of this index to all sampled areas are indicative of a specialized pattern of networks. The results corroborate the notion that human impact may affect interaction networks, this being an important tool for checking the degree of anthropic alteration.

Keywords

pollinatoranthropicCentrisTetrapediaTrypoxylon
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 9 - 16
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrecht, M, Duelli, P, Schmid, B and Müller, CB (2007) Interaction diversity within quantified insect food webs in restored and adjacent intensively managed meadows. Journal of Animal Ecology 76, 1015–1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almeida-Neto, M, Guimaraes, PRJ, Loyota, RD and Ulrich, W (2008) A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves-dos-Santos, I (2003) Trap-nesting bees and wasps on the university campus in Sao Paulo, southeastern Brazil (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Journal of Kansas Entomology Society 76, 328–334.Google Scholar
Araujo, FG, Fagundes, R and Antonini, Y (2018) Trap-nesting Hymenoptera and Their Network with Parasites Recovered in Brazil Riparian Forests. Neotropical Entomology 47, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araujo, PCS, Lourenço, AP and Raw, A (2016) Trap-nesting bees in Montane Grassland (Campo Cave) and Cerrado in Brazil: collecting generalist or specialist nesters. Neotropical Entomology 45, 482–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bascompte, J, Jordano, P and Olesen, JM (2006) Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 312, 431–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batra, SWT (1984) Solitary Bees. Scientific American 250, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellay, S, Lima, DP Jr, Takemoto, RM and Luque, JL (2011) A host-endoparasite network of Neotropical marine fish: are there organizational patterns? Parasitology 138, 1945–1952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellay, S, Oda, FH, Campião, KM, Yamada, FH, Takemoto, RM and Oliveira, EF (2018) Host-Parasite Networks: An Integrative Overview with Tropical Examples. In Dáttilo, W and Rico-Gray, V (eds), Ecological Networks in the Tropics. Cham: Springer. pp. 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellay, S, Oliveira, EF, Almeida-Neto, M, Abdallah, VD, Azevedo, RK, Takemoto, RM and Luque, JL (2015) The patterns of organisation and structure of interactions in a fish-parasite network of a neotropical river. International Journal of Parasitology 45, 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlow, EL, Neutel, A, Cohen, JE, Ruiter, PC, Ebenman, BO, Emmerson, M, Fox, JW, Jansen, VA, Iwan, JJ, Kokkoris, GD and Logofet, DO (2004) Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. Journal of Animal Ecology 73, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blüthgen, N, Menzel, F and Blüthgen, N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecology 6, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buschini, MLT and Wolff, LL (2006) Notes on the biology of Trypoxylon (Trypargilum) opacum Brèthes (Hymenoptera; Crabronidae) in southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 66, 907–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caniani, D, Labella, A, Lioi, DS, Mancini, IM and Masi, S (2016) Habitat ecological integrity and environmental impact assessment of anthropic activities: A GIS-based fuzzy logic model for sites of high biodiversity conservation interest. Ecological Indicators 67, 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dormann, CF, Gruber, B and Fründ, J (2008) Introducing the bipartite package: analyzing ecological networks. Interaction 1, 0.2413793.Google Scholar
Dormann, CF and Strauss, R. (2014) The method for detecting modules in quantitative bipartite networks. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Encinas-Viso, F, Revilla, TA and Etienne, RS (2012) Phenology drives mutualistic network structure and diversity. Ecology Letters 15, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandéz, F and Sharkey, MJ (2006) Introducción a los Hymenoptera de la Region Neotropical. Sociedad Colombiana de Entomología y Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá DC pp. 894.Google Scholar
Gazola, AL and Garofalo, CA (2009) Trap-nesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in forest fragments of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Genetics and Molecular Research 8, 607–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giubbina, MF, Martensen, AC and Ribeiro, MC (2018) Sugarcane and Eucalyptus plantation equally limit the movement of two forest-dependent understory bird species. Austral Ecology 43, 527–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, P, Ashby, B and Buckling, A (2015) Population mixing promotes arms race host-parasite coevolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282.Google ScholarPubMed
Grab, H, Danforth, B, Poveda, K and Loeb, G (2018) Landscape simplification reduces classical biological control and crop yield. Ecological Applications 28, 348–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guimarães, PR and Guimarães, P (2006) Improving the analyzes of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environmental Modelling & Software 21, 1512–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, NM, Brudvig, LA, Clobert, J, Davies, KF, Gonzalez, A, Holt, RD, Lovejoy, TE, Sexton, JO, Austin, MP, Collins, CD, Cook, WM, Damschen, EI, Ewers, RM, Foster, BL, Jenkins, CN, King, AJ, Laurence, WF, Levey, DJ, Margules, CR, Melbourne, BA, Nicholls, AO, Orrock, JL, Song, DX and Townshend, JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 1, e1500052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammer, Ø, Harper, AD and Ryan, PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronic 4, 9.Google Scholar
Hoehn, P, Tscharntke, T, Tylianakis, JM and Dewenter-Steffan, I (2008) Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275.Google ScholarPubMed
Holzschuh, A, Steffan-Dewenter, I and Tscharntke, T (2010) How do landscape composition and configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasitoids? Journal of Animal Ecology 79, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutcheson, K (1970) A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Journal of Theoretical Biology 29, 151–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joppa, LN, Montoya, JM, Sanderson, J and Pimm, SL (2010) On nestedness in ecological networks. Evolutionary Ecology Research 12, 35–46.Google Scholar
Kéfi, S, Miele, V, Wieters, EA, Navarrete, SA and Berlow, EL (2016) How Structured Is the Entangled Bank? The Surprisingly Simple Organization of Multiplex Ecological Networks Leads to Increased Persistence and Resilience. PLoS Biology 14, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, A, Steffan-Dewenter, I and Tscharntke, T (2006) Rain forest promotes trophic interactions and diversity of trap-nesting Hymenoptera in adjacent agroforestry. Journal of Animal Ecology 76, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krombein, KV (1967) Trap nesting wasps and bees: life histories, and nest associates. Washington: Smithsonian Press, 570 pp.Google Scholar
Lafferty, KD, Dobson, AP and Kuris, AM (2006) Parasites dominate food web links. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 11211–11216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagrue, C and Poulin, R (2015) Local diversity reduces infection risk across multiple freshwater host-parasite associations. Freshwater Biology 60, 2445–2454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, R, Moure-Oliveira, D and Garofalo, CA (2018) Interaction Network and niche analysis of natural enemy communities and their host bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in fragments of Cerrado and Atlantic Forest. Sociobiology 65, 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIvor, JS (2017) Cavity-nest boxes for solitary bees: a century of design and research. Apidologie 48, 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madeira, F, Tscharntke, T, Elek, Z, Kormann, UG, Pons, X, Rosch, V, Samu, F, Scherber, C and Batáry, P (2016) Spillover of arthropods from cropland to protected calcareous grassland - the neighbouring habitat matters. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 235, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matos, MCB, Sousa-Souto, L, Almeida, RS and Teodoro, AV (2012) Contrasting patterns of species richness and composition of solitary wasps and bees (Insecta: Hymenoptera) according to land-use. Biotropica 45, 1–7.Google Scholar
Mesquita, TM and Augusto, SC (2011) Diversity of trap-nesting bees and their natural enemies in the Brazilian savana. Tropical Zoology 24, 127–144.Google Scholar
Mougi, A and Kondoh, M (2016) Food-web complexity, meta-community complexity and community stability. Scientific Reports 6, 24478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, KM (2001) Solitary wasps: behavior and natural history. New York: Cornell University Press, 406 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlmann, M, Miele, V, Dray, S, Chalmandrier, L, O’Connor, L and Thuiller, W (2019) Diversity indices for ecological networks: a unifying framework using Hill numbers. Ecology Letters 22, 737–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penczykowski, RM, Laine, AL and Koskella, B (2016) Understanding the ecology and evolution of host-parasite interactions across scales. Evolutionary Applications 9, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira-Peixoto, MH, Pufal, G, Staab, M, Martins Feitosa, C and Klein, AM (2016) Diversity and specificity of host-natural enemy interactions in an urban-rural interface. Ecological Entomology 41, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, MJO, Evans, MD, Fontaine, C, Harvey, M, Julliard, R, McLaughlin, O, Silvertown, J, Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A, White, P and Bohan, DA (2016) The visualization of ecological networks and their use as a tool for engagement, advocacy and management. Advances in Ecological Research 54, 41–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, RW (1974) An introduction to quantitative ecology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 532 pp.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Version 3.5.1. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Robinson, A, Inouye, DW, Ogilvie, JE and Mooney, EH (2017) Multitrophic interactions mediate the effects of climate change on herbivore abundance. Oecologia 185, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocha-Filho, LC, Moure-Oliveira, D, Carvalho, SM, Frantine-Silva, W and Augusto, SC (2019) Diversity and host–parasite interactions of cavity-nesting Hymenoptera communities in the Brazilian Savannah. Journal of Insect Conservation 23, 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha-Filho, LC, Rabelo, LS, Augusto, SC and Garófalo, CA (2017) Cavity-nesting bees and wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) in a semi-deciduous Atlantic forest fragment immersed in a matrix of agricultural land. Journal of Insect Conservation 21, 727–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D, Kehoe, R, Cruse, D, van Veen, FJF and Gaston, KJ (2018) Low levels of artificial light at night strengthen top-down control in insect food web. Current Biology 28, 2474–2478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soares, JJ, Silva, DW and Lima, MIS (2003) Current state and projection of the probable original vegetation of the São Carlos region of São Paulo state, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 63, 527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stangler, ES, Hanson, PE and Steffan-Dewenter, I (2015) Interactive effects of habitat fragmentation and microclimate on trap-nesting Hymenoptera and their trophic interactions in small secondary rainforest remnants. Biodiversity and Conservation 24, 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tscharntke, T, Gathmann, A and Steffan-Dewenter, I (1998) Bioindication using trap-nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: community structure and interactions. Journal of Applied Ecology 35, 708–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylianakis, JM, Laliberte, E, Nielsen, A and Bascompte, J (2010) Conservation of species interaction networks. Biological Conservation 143, 2270–2279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylianakis, JM, Tscharntke, T and Lewis, OT (2006) Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasitoid food webs. Nature 445, 202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez, DP, Poulin, R, Krasnov, BR and Shenbrot, GI (2005) Species abundance and the distribution of specialization in host-parasite interaction networks. Journal of Animal Ecology 74, 946–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidal, MC and Murphy, SM (2018) Bottom-up vs. top-down effects on terrestrial insect herbivores: a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters 21, 138–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westerfelt, P, Widenfalk, O, Lindelow, Å, Gustafsson, L and Weslien, J (2015) Nesting of solitary wasps and bees in natural and artificial holes in dead wood in young boreal forest stands. Insect Conservation and Diversity 8, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar