Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:24:03.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing forest restoration effectiveness in the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion using epigaeic ant assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2023

Mariane Aparecida Nickele*
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
Wilson Reis Filho
Affiliation:
Epagri/Embrapa Florestas, Colombo, PR, Brazil
Susete do Rocio Chiarello Penteado
Affiliation:
Embrapa Florestas, Colombo, PR, Brazil
Elisiane Castro de Queiroz
Affiliation:
Funcema, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
Luis Cesar Rodrigues da Silva
Affiliation:
Itaipu Binacional, Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Brazil
Thiele Sides Camargo
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
Alexandre Casadei-Ferreira
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil Biodiversity and Biocomplexity Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Onna, Okinawa, Japan
Rodrigo Machado Feitosa
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
Marcio Roberto Pie
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP, UK
*
Corresponding author: Mariane Aparecida Nickele; Email: nickele.mariane@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Itaipu Hydroelectric Power Plant initiated a large reforestation programme after the expropriation of the areas destined for the formation of the reservoir. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of forest restoration of the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion, Brazil, using epigaeic ant assemblages as bioindicators, by comparing ant species richness and composition in the Reservoir Protection Strip with adjacent areas, such as the primary forest of the Iguaçu National Park and the Permanent Preservation Area located on a rural property and agricultural areas. In total, 171 ant species were identified. Ant species richness was higher in forest than in agricultural areas and did not differ among forest areas. However, ant species composition in forest areas, regardless of the restoration technique used, was not similar to the primary forest, possibly due to variation in forest recovery time. This study highlights the great value of the Iguaçu National Park as a conservation unit. Also, it reveals that the efforts for the creation and maintenance of the Reservoir Protection Strip, which remains without anthropic interventions for years, might indeed lead to a complete recovery of the ant species composition over time, reinforcing their great importance for biodiversity conservation.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

The last few centuries have been marked by a major conversion of tropical forests into mosaics of habitats altered by human action, driven mainly by the human population growth and socio-economic pressures (Gascon et al. Reference Gascon, Laurance, Lovejoy, Dias and Garay2002). The Atlantic Forest is the second largest tropical rain forest on the American continent, which originally stretched continuously along the coast of 17 Brazilian states, extending into the east of Paraguay and northeastern Argentina in its southern portion. Considered a global centre of endemism, the Atlantic Forest of South America is among the most diverse tropical forests. However, after centuries of exploitation, this forest has lost more than 93% of its area, placing it among the world’s highest priorities for conservation (Galindo-Leal & Câmara Reference Galindo-Leal and Câmara2003, Myers et al. Reference Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Fonseca and Kent2000). Forest loss and degradation have led to widespread biodiversity loss (Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016), which generate concern and awareness regarding the need of natural resource conservation (Malhi et al. Reference Malhi, Gardner, Goldsmith, Silman and Zelazowski2014).

The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion is the largest among the 15 ecoregions identified in the Atlantic Forest biome, with the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest as the dominant vegetation type (Di Bitetti et al. Reference Di Bitetti, Placci and Dietz2003). The Iguaçu National Park stands out as the largest integral protection conservation unit of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion, located in the western region of the State of Paraná, in southern Brazil (Di Bitetti et al. Reference Di Bitetti, Placci and Dietz2003), adjacent to the Iguazú National Park, in Argentina. This region includes the Itaipu Binacional Hydroelectric Power Plant, on the Paraná River, at the border between Brazil and Paraguay. The dam was built by the two countries between 1975 and 1982. Since 1979, after the expropriation of the areas destined for the formation of the reservoir, Itaipu developed the largest reforestation programme ever conducted by a hydroelectric power plant in the world. Today, more than 99% of the Permanent Preservation Areas, which currently consist of the so-called Reservoir Protection Strip, are restored (Itaipu 2015).

Forest restoration is a strategy to reverse forest loss and degradation, recovering the same or very close conditions of the original forest. It is mainly carried out through active revegetation, natural regeneration or mixed techniques, which can be carried out by planting seedlings of native and/or exotic species, natural regeneration, assisted natural regeneration, or even the establishment of agroforestry systems (Stanturf et al. Reference Stanturf, Palik and Dumroese2014a, b). And, environmental indicators can provide useful information for monitoring management practices, aiming to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems. The use of bioindicators can provide evidence of the development level of an environment in different stages of reconstitution, which can be evaluated by the structure of certain species and/or the composition of species present in each environment (Majer Reference Majer1983, Ribas et al. Reference Ribas, Campos, Schmidt and Solar2012).

Ants are ecologically important components of natural and disturbed ecosystems, providing a variety of ecological functions in almost all trophic levels, given their diversity and behavioural plasticity in nesting habits, feeding spectrum, and association with numerous species of plants and animals (Elizalde et al. Reference Elizalde, Arbetman, Arnan, Eggleton, Leal, Lescano, Saez, Werenkraut and Pirk2020, Folgarait Reference Folgarait1998). Several studies documented how ant community composition is influenced by plant diversity and vegetation physiognomy and therefore can serve as an indicator taxon for the invertebrate fauna, as well as soil conditions (e.g., Costa-Milanez et al. Reference Costa-Milanez, Lourenço-Silva, Castro, Majer and Ribeiro2014, Segat et al. Reference Segat, Vasconcellos, Silva, Baretta and Cardoso2017 and Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). Ant assemblages can change over the course of plant succession. That is, ant diversity tends to increase with increasing diversity of plant communities, the availability of micro-habitats, and consequently a greater availability of food and shelter resources (Majer Reference Majer1983, Mauda et al. Reference Mauda, Joseph, Seymour, Munyai and Foord2018, Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). In particular, epigaeic ants are the most sensitive ant assemblages to forest recovery (Schmidt et al. Reference Schmidt, Ribas and Schoereder2013), and they were more efficiently sampled with pitfall traps (a rather simple and cheap survey method) than other sampling methods, such as Winkler (Donoso, Reference Donoso2017, Parr & Chown Reference Parr and Chown2001).

Epigaeic ant assemblages have not been studied to date in the Iguaçu National Park, and in the Reservoir Protection Strips of the Itaipu, on the Brazilian side, even though they are considered important species source sites for biodiversity conservation. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of forest restoration of the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion, Brazil, using epigaeic ant assemblages, comparing ant species richness and composition in the Reservoir Protection Strips of the Itaipu, with adjacent areas, such as the primary forest of the Iguaçu National Park, and disturbed areas, such as Permanent Preservation Areas located on a rural property and agricultural areas. Our hypothesis is that forest restoration techniques used in the Reservoir Protection Strips, which remain without anthropic interventions for approximately 35 years, were effective and ant richness and composition may be more similar to primary forest than highly disturbed areas.

Materials and methods

Study area

The research was carried out in the western portion of the State of Paraná, Brazil, in the municipalities of Foz do Iguaçu, PR, Santa Terezinha de Itaipu, PR, and São Miguel do Iguaçu, PR (Figure 1). According to the global classification of Köppen, the climate is of the Cfa type, characterised as humid subtropical temperate, with well-defined winter and summer seasons, where rainfall is equally distributed throughout the year. The local temperature varies between maximum 40º C and minimum 3º C, with an annual maximum average of 26º C and minimum of 15º C. The average annual rainfall is 1,700 mm, with a predominantly high relative humidity, rarely below 80%, even in the driest periods of the year. The average altitude is 192 m, and the predominant vegetation is the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest (Ibama 1999).

Figure 1. Study site locations. INP_PF: Iguaçu National Park Primary Forest; RPS_SF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by secondary forest; RPS_NR: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by natural regeneration; RPS_RF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by reforestation; PPA_RP: Permanent Preservation Area located on rural property; AGR: Agricultural area. Source: Google Earth Pro v. 7.3.4.8642, 25°21′04.08″S, 54°18′12.84″W, elev 280 m, eye alt 66.25 km. Data SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO. Image Landsat/Copernicus. © Google Earth. Imagery date: 12 May 2022 (accessed 21 June 2022).

At the time of the reservoir formation, a study carried out by Itaipu in the Brazilian territory revealed that 23% of secondary forests, 24.7% of highly exploited forests undergoing natural rehabilitation and 50.3% of agricultural areas were restored. Itaipu also made possible the establishment of the Santa Maria Ecological Corridor, which connects the riparian forests of the reservoir and other protected areas, with the Iguaçu National Park, extending through the Private Reserve of Natural Heritage of the Santa Maria Farm. This corridor allowed the connection between two of the most extensive conservation areas in Southern Brazil, the Iguaçu and Ilha Grande National Parks, maintaining genetic exchange among different populations (Itaipu 2015).

Then, the following study sites were selected: (1) Iguaçu National Park primary forest (INP_PF): area with primary vegetation cover of Seasonal Semideciduous Forest (25º32ʼ42ʼʼS, 54º24ʼ56ʼʼW); (2) Reservoir Protection Strip formed by secondary forest (RPS_SF): permanent preservation area with remaining vegetation cover from Seasonal Semideciduous Forest (25º14ʼ54ʼʼS, 54º26ʼ49ʼʼW); (3) Reservoir Protection Strip formed by natural regeneration (RPS_NR): permanent preservation area with vegetation cover resulting from natural processes, composed of regenerating plants (25º22ʼ12ʼʼS, 54º23ʼ57ʼʼW); (4) Reservoir Protection Strip formed by reforestation (RPS_RF): area that was agriculture in the past, but with the formation of the reservoir, it was predominantly reforested with a mix of native species of the Mata Atlantica biome (25º22ʼ51ʼʼS, 54º27ʼ11ʼʼW); (5) Permanent Preservation Area located on rural property (PPA_RP): permanent preservation area formed by secondary forest located on a rural property between the Iguaçu National Park and the Reservoir Protection Strip, where is the Santa Maria Ecological Corridor (25º27ʼ43ʼʼS, 54º21ʼ19ʼʼW); and (6) Agriculture (AGR): soybean or corn monoculture area (25º22ʼ17ʼʼS, 54º25ʼ22ʼʼW).

The Reservoir Protection Strips have been without human intervention for 35 years. Secondary forest located on a rural property until now suffers from anthropogenic disturbances. However, all forest areas selected for the study are surrounded by agricultural areas.

Sampling ants

We established 12 transects of 125 metres in each area, separated by at least 500 m. In total, we sampled 72 transects (sampling units). We sampled ants in three transects per season of 2017, using epigaeic pitfall traps. Pitfall traps consisted of plastic recipients (8 cm diameter and 11 cm height) half filled with 300 ml of liquid solution of water, glycerol (5%), and salt (5%), which collected and killed the ants. Traps were buried so that they were flush with the soil and remained in the field for 48 h (Martins et al. Reference Martins, Nickele, Feitosa, Pie and Reis-Filho2021, Schmidt et al. Reference Schmidt, Ribas and Schoereder2013, Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). Along each transect, we installed five epigaeic pitfall traps spaced by 25 m. The first trap was placed 25 m away from the edge in each area. A pitfall trap was also placed in each transect in the transition between forest areas and agriculture, totalling 420 epigaeic pitfall traps.

We sorted, mounted and identified the ants to genus level using available taxonomic key in Baccaro et al. (Reference Baccaro, Feitosa, Fernández, Fernandes, Izzo, de Souza and Solar2015). For species identification, comparisons were made with material deposited at the Padre Jesus Santiago Moure Entomological Collection (DZUP) in the Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil, where vouchers were deposited. We also applied species names using updated taxonomic revisions for some of the ant genera recorded here. Taxonomic sources for species identification included Acromyrmex (Gonçalves Reference Gonçalves1961), Anochetus (Brown Reference Brown1978), Carebara (Fernández Reference Fernández2004), Crematogaster (Longino Reference Longino2003), Ectatomma (Kugler & Brown Reference Kugler and Brown1982), Gnamptogenys (Camacho et al. Reference Camacho, Franco and Feitosa2020), Labidus (Watkins Reference Watkins1976), Linepithema (Wild Reference Wild2007), Megalomyrmex (Brandão Reference Brandão1990), Odontomachus (Brown Reference Brown1976), Neoponera and Pachycondyla (Mackay & Mackay Reference Mackay and Mackay2010), Pheidole (Wilson Reference Wilson2003), Prionopelta (Ladino & Feitosa Reference Ladino and Feitosa2020), Strumigenys (Bolton Reference Bolton2000) and Wasmannia (Longino & Fernández Reference Longino, Fernández, Snelling, Fisher and Ward2007). Morphospecies were assigned number codes that apply only to this study.

Ant collections were authorised by the licence 55313-1 (Brazilian Biodiversity Information and Authorization System – SISBIO). Access to the genetic heritage was also registered by the record number ACDFB38 (National Management System of the Genetic Heritage – SisGen).

Environmental variables

Vegetation cover was used as an estimate of resources available for epigaeic ants. The percentage of vegetation cover was measured using digital images taken with a camera at the height of 1.3 m, with the lens facing up and next to where the epigaeic trap was placed. We also recorded richness and composition of plant species in all forest strata. To determine the number of plant species, 10 x 20 m plots were delimited in five transects from each forest area for the identification and measurement of tree and shrub individuals taller than 1.0 m and/or with more than 3 cm in circumference at breast height, measured at 1.30 m above ground. The plant species identification was carried out with the help of The Plant List platform (version 1.1, 2013).

Statistical analyses

Ant species accumulation curves and extrapolated sample-based rarefaction curves were obtained considering presence/absence data and incidence data in each sampling unit, reducing a potential bias caused by rarely sampled species (Chao et al. Reference Chao, Gotelli, Hsieh, Sander, Ma, Colwell and Ellison2014). To assess whether ant species richness differs among treatments, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, considering the data normality that was analysed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. In addition, a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis was performed to test for changes in ant species composition among areas. The ordering was based on a species presence–absence data matrix and Jaccard’s dissimilarity index. After a visual inspection of the data, a PERMANOVA was performed to test for significant clustering of the areas. In order to test the significance of possible differences in ant species composition among areas, the distribution of similarities between each pairwise area was also compared through an ANOSIM similarity analysis. By ANOSIM similarity analysis, high R-values mean high dissimilarities among the areas.

The value of each ant species as an indicator of each area was calculated using the Indicator Value (IndVal) method of Dufrêne and Legendre (Reference Dufrêne and Legendre1997). This index combines a measure of the habitat specificity of a species to a level of disturbance, or a disturbance state, with its fidelity within that state. Species with high specificity and fidelity within an area will have a high indicator value. Significance was tested using the Monte Carlo test with 10,000 permutations.

To assess plant species richness and the percentage of forest cover among areas, a one-way ANOVA and Shapiro–Wilk test were performed. And the NMDS analysis was also performed to assess differences in tree composition. To analyse plant species composition, we selected only species with more than 10 cm in diameter at breast height.

Ants collected in the transition between forest areas and agriculture were not included in the analyses, as there was only one pitfall in the transition per transect, but they were included in the taxonomic list. Also, agricultural areas were not included in the analysis of the environmental variables, since they were either soybean or corn monocultures. All analyses were performed using the R software environment (R Core Team 2019), except interpolation and extrapolation curves performed in the iNEXT online (Chao et al. Reference Chao, Ma and Hsieh2016).

Results

Ant species richness and composition

Overall, we sampled 171 ant species from 45 genera and 8 subfamilies (Appendix 1). Myrmicinae was the richest subfamily (92 species), followed by Formicinae (36), Ponerinae (17), Dolichoderinae (10), Dorylinae (6), Ectatomminae and Pseudomyrmecinae (4 species each), and Amblyoponinae (2). The most species-rich genera were Pheidole (40 species), Camponotus (24), Solenopsis (13), Hypoponera (10) and Brachymyrmex (9). In this study, we sampled three ant species new to science: Pheidole sp. n. 1, sampled only in the secondary forest located on a rural property; Pheidole sp. n. 2, sampled in all study areas; and Pheidole sp. n. 3, sampled only in the secondary forest (Appendix 1).

The secondary forest located on a rural property accumulated the largest number of species (94), followed by the primary forest (87), but ant species richness did not vary within forest areas (Figure 2, F5,66 = 13.74, p < 0.001). However, ant species richness was significantly higher in forest areas, irrespective of the rehabilitation technique used, than in agricultural areas. The interpolation and extrapolation ant species accumulation curves also showed that the agricultural area accumulated the lowest ant species (Figure 3). In the transition between forest areas and agriculture, 86 ant species were sampled in total, with 9 being sampled only in the transition. (Appendix 1).

Figure 2. Average ant species richness per transect in each area. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.001). Bars are standard errors.

Figure 3. Interpolation and extrapolation ant species accumulation curves per area, with 95% confidence intervals.

Ant species composition also varied among areas. NMDS revealed that ant species composition differed in forest and agricultural areas (Figure 4, PERMANOVA F5,66 = 6.63, p < 0.001). ANOSIM revealed greater similarity within forest areas than agricultural areas. However, there are differences in ant species composition evenly among forest areas (Table 1). For all combinations, the R values were significant, but there was a greater similarity in ant species composition between the secondary forest and the natural regeneration area. In addition, there was a greater similarity between the natural regeneration and the reforestation area (Table 1).

Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis plot of ant species composition.

Table 1. Dissimilarity (R-values) among the areas obtained by ANOSIM analysis for ant species composition. High R-values mean high dissimilarities among the areas

*** p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

The IndVal results showed a total of 11 significant indicator species for the primary forest, 1 species for the secondary forest, 2 species for the reforestation area, 2 species for the secondary forest located on a rural property, and 4 species for the agricultural area (Table 2).

Table 2. Ant species indicators of each area according IndVal analyses. Only significant indicator species are shown

IndVal: indicator value. p – probability, resulting of the permutation test.

Environmental variables

We sampled 110 plant species belonging to 82 genera and 34 families. Of these, 45 species were arboreal with more than 10 cm diameter at breast height (Appendix 2).

There were no differences in the plant richness among forest areas (Figure 5; ANOVA F4,55 = 1.31, p = 0.27). However, there were dissimilarities in arboreal plant species composition among forest areas, especially in relation to the Iguaçu National Park (Figure 6, PERMANOVA F4,55 = 1.03, p < 0.001). Finally, only the natural regeneration area showed vegetation cover significantly lower than other forest areas (Figure 7, ANOVA F4,55 = 11.29, p < 0.001).

Figure 5. Average plant species richness per transect in each area. Treatments underneath the same letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05). Bars are standard errors.

Figure 6. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis plot of arboreal plant species composition.

Figure 7. Vegetation cover percentage per transect in each area. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.001). Bars are standard errors.

Discussion

Through monitoring ant communities in regenerating forested areas, it is possible to evaluate the methodologies and the effectiveness of revegetation techniques in maintaining local diversity and, consequently, the self-sustainability of these environments (Pereira et al. Reference Pereira, Queiroz, Valcarcel and Mayhé-Nunes2007). Ant species richness did not differ among forested areas in our study. The structural complexity of the habitat is one of the main factors driving species richness and composition on a regional scale. The main factors that contribute to the high diversity of ants in forested areas are forest cover, the diversity of nesting sites, the amount of food available, the foraging area and interspecific competition (Braga et al. Reference Braga, Louzada, Zanetti and Delabie2010, Coelho et al. Reference Coelho, Fernandes, Santos and Delabie2009, Mauda et al. Reference Mauda, Joseph, Seymour, Munyai and Foord2018, Ribas et al. Reference Ribas, Schmidt, Solar, Campos, Valentim and Schoereder2011, Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). A minimum of established forest conditions is sufficient for ants to colonise a forest regardless of its age, causing species richness to be similar among the forest remnants with different recovery times, although species composition could differ (Schmidt et al. Reference Schmidt, Ribas and Schoereder2013).

Ant species richness in forest areas is significantly greater than in agricultural areas. The lower species richness in agricultural areas is expected since agricultural areas have less structural diversity, a fact observed in several studies (e.g., Falcão et al. Reference Falcão, Dáttilo and Izzo2015, Martello et al. Reference Martello, Bello, Morini, Silva, Souza-Campana, Ribeiro and Carmona2018, Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). Deforestation, mainly for agricultural development, pastures or forest monoculture plantations, is widely recognised as the most serious anthropogenic threat to terrestrial biodiversity (Sala et al. Reference Sala, Chapin, Armesto, Berlow, Bloomfield, Dirzo, Huber-Sanwald, Huenneke, Jackson, Kinzig, Leemans, Lodge, Mooney, Oesterheld, Poff, Sykes, Walker, Walker and Wall2000). Degraded environments or environments with low plant diversity (e.g., monocultures) present limitations to the organisms due to the lack of resources provided by these environments. Thus, in these areas, ant communities may present low species diversity (Pereira et al. Reference Pereira, Queiroz, Valcarcel and Mayhé-Nunes2007). In these conditions, most ant species are usually generalist species that can nest in several nest sites and use varied food sources, such as some Pheidole and Solenopsis species found in the present study (Braga et al. Reference Braga, Louzada, Zanetti and Delabie2010, Diehl et al. Reference Diehl, Sanhudo and Diehl-Fleig2004). In addition, the lower ant diversity in agricultural areas can be attributed to the application of pesticides for the control of pests, diseases and weeds, the level of soil compactness caused by human intervention in these areas, the absence or low amount of litter, which possibly decreases the quantity and quality of available resources, and the exposure of species to high thermal amplitude (Dias et al. Reference Dias, Zanetti, Santos, Louzada and Delabie2008, Lapola & Fowler Reference Lapola and Fowler2008).

Ant species composition is considered the best indicator for assessing changes in habitat quality, as it changes according to variation in land use classes, from undisturbed primary forest to highly disturbed areas, such as intensive agriculture (Majer & Nichols Reference Majer and Nichols1998, Ribas et al. Reference Ribas, Schmidt, Solar, Campos, Valentim and Schoereder2011, Schmidt & Diehl Reference Schmidt and Diehl2008, Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). In the present study, ant species composition in the agricultural area is different from ant species composition in the forest areas. However, among forest areas, ant species composition also differed.

After approximately 35 years of forest recovery, ant species composition in the permanent preservation areas that suffered disturbances differs significantly from the composition of the Iguaçu Nacional Park Primary Forest. Studies show after 13 (Falcão et al. Reference Falcão, Dáttilo and Izzo2015) or 25 years (Silva et al. Reference Silva, Feitosa and Eberhardt2007) of forest regeneration, the number of species and the composition profile between the primary forest and the disturbed areas still show substantial differences. In tropical forests, the complete recovery of ant species richness is estimated to occur 39 years after land abandonment. However, the recovery of species composition appears to take substantially longer than the recovery of species richness (Dunn Reference Dunn2004), as observed in the present study. Estimates indicate a time frame for recovery of 50 to several hundred years for a complete recovery in ant species composition in secondary forests (Bihn et al. Reference Bihn, Verhaagh, Brändle and Brandl2008), since in the present study, we also observed arboreal plant composition in areas under recovery also still differ from the primary forest.

There was a greater similarity in ant species composition between the secondary forest and natural regeneration area. As the level of disturbance increased, the dissimilarities in the composition of ant species also increased compared to the secondary forest area. For example, the secondary forest located on a rural property, which still suffers from anthropogenic disturbances, such as the presence of cattle, presents greater dissimilarity in the composition of ant species than the reforestation area, which was predominantly reforested with a mix of native species of the Mata Atlantica biome and which has been without human intervention for at least 35 years. Ant communities in secondary forests might recover more quickly in areas where the forest was less disturbed at the beginning of the succession than when it was established on former pasture (e.g., Bihn et al. Reference Bihn, Verhaagh, Brändle and Brandl2008). The reforestation was an agricultural area at the beginning of the reservoir’s formation, so it had to be revegetated. But currently, this area is structurally similar to other forest areas in the recovery process, so there were no differences in plant species richness and percentage of plant cover due to the arboreal size of the planted species. These factors contributed to ant species richness did not differ among forest areas, despite the percentage of vegetation cover being lower in the forest area that was naturally regenerated. Similar results were observed in a 28-year unmanaged eucalyptus plantation, where ant species richness was similar to native forests, yet ant species composition was more similar to managed plantations (Martello et al. Reference Martello, Bello, Morini, Silva, Souza-Campana, Ribeiro and Carmona2018).

This is the first study on epigaeic ant assemblages in forest and agricultural areas in the region between the Iguaçu National Park and the Reservoir Protection Strip of the Itaipu, on the Brazilian side. Pheidole gigaflavens Wilson (Reference Wilson2003) and Pheidole mosenopsis Wilson (Reference Wilson2003) were recorded for the first time in Brazil. Moreover, 16 new records to the State of Paraná were also obtained: Camponotus balzani Emery (1894), Camponotus bidens Forel, 1912, Camponotus depressus Mayr (1866), Camponotus zenon Emery (1925), Carebara urichi (Wheeler 1922), Mycetomoellerius kempfi (Fowler 1982), P. cornicula, P. gigaflavens, P. leonina, Pheidole midas Wilson (Reference Wilson2003), P. mosenopsis, Pheidole obscurithorax Naves (1985), Pheidole sensitiva (Borgmeier 1959), P. sigillata, Pheidole sculptior Forel (1893) and Pheidole synarmata Wilson (Reference Wilson2003) (Guénard et al. Reference Guénard, Weiser, Gomez, Narula and Economo2017, Janicki et al. Reference Janicki, Narula, Ziegler, Guénard and Economo2016). Furthermore, three species are new to science (Pheidole sp. n. 1, 2 and 3, ACF unpublished data).

Undisturbed primary forests have a unique ant species composition, are a key driver of species richness at the landscape scale, and may be an important species source for biodiversity conservation at local and regional scales (Pacheco et al. Reference Pacheco, Vasconcelos, Groc, Camacho and Frizzo2013, Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016). In the Iguaçu Nacional Park, 87 ant species were sampled through pitfall traps in the present study. On the Argentine side, another study revealed 172 ant species in the Iguazú National Park, sampled with different methods from 1998 to 2011 (Hanisch et al. Reference Hanisch, Calcaterra, Leponce, Achury, Suarez, Silva and Paris2015). Our study adds 18 new records, for a total of 191 ant species to this important protection conservation unit of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion.

The most significant number of indicator ant species were detected in the primary forest: five species of Pheidole, two species of Camponotus and Linepithema each, and one species of Acromyrmex and Holcoponera. Of these, Holcoponera striatula (Mayr 1884) has already been recorded as an indicator of primary forests in studies carried out in the Amazon forest (Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016, Vasconcelos & Vilhena Reference Vasconcelos and Vilhena2006). For the other species, there are no records as indicator species, but it is worth mentioning that this is the first study using ants as bioindicators in this region. The species Pheidole radoszkowskii (Mayr 1884) is considered an indicator of the secondary forest. This species has already been recorded as an indicator of habitats with discreet human impact on the southeast coast of Bahia, Brazil (Delabie et al. Reference Delabie, Paim, Do Nascimento, Campiolo and Mariano2006). In the natural regeneration area, no indicator species was determined, which can be explained by the greater similarity of this area with the secondary forest and the area that was reforested. In the reforestation, A. subterraneus and P. leonina were the indicator species. Acromyrmex subterraneus has already been considered an indicator in fragments of Atlantic Forest in São Paulo, Brazil (Lapola & Fowler Reference Lapola and Fowler2008) and also in areas of eucalyptus reforestation (Marinho et al. Reference Marinho, Zanetti, Delabie, Schlindwein and Ramos2002). Pheidole leonina was also recorded in areas of the Amazon Forest in Acre, Brazil (Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Della Lucia, Marinho, Delabie and Morato2009). In the secondary forest located on a rural property, W. auropunctata and P. sigillata are considered indicators of this area. Wasmannia auropunctata is considered an indicator of production areas, such as pastures (Solar et al. Reference Solar, Barlow, Andersen, Schoereder, Berenguer, Ferreira and Gardner2016), but this species has also been reported as an indicator of areas with an intermediate stage of succession in the Vale do Rio Doce region, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Coelho et al. Reference Coelho, Fernandes, Santos and Delabie2009). Pheidole sigillata has also been recorded in areas of urban parks and fragments of the Atlantic Forest in the state of São Paulo (Fernandes et al. Reference Fernandes, Souza-Campana, Silva and Morini2018). In the AGR, Solenopsis sp. 5, D. brunneus, S. invicta and P. cornicula are considered indicators of this environment. Dorymyrmex brunneus and Pheidole sp. have already been considered indicators of agricultural areas (Pacheco et al. Reference Pacheco, Vasconcelos, Groc, Camacho and Frizzo2013). Dorymyrmex brunneus is also commonly found in urban environments (Farneda et al. Reference Farneda, Lutinski and Garcia2007). Solenopsis invicta is common in disturbed or undisturbed areas, presenting enormous adaptive plasticity and possibly having the genic potential to exploit a great variety of environments (Diehl et al. Reference Diehl, Sanhudo and Diehl-Fleig2004). In general, Pheidole also is a generalist genus, having species characteristic of forest environments or open environments (Braga et al. Reference Braga, Louzada, Zanetti and Delabie2010), as observed in the present study.

In the present study, the effectiveness of the rehabilitation techniques used in the Reservoir Protection Strip of the Itaipu was evaluated, showing there were no differences in ant species richness among forest areas in the process of recovery and the primary forest of the Iguaçu National Park. It demonstrates the great importance of the Reservoir Protection Strip and the Permanent Preservation Areas in rural properties to conserve biodiversity. The discovery of three ant species new to science sampled in these areas reinforces these environments’ value. However, regardless of the rehabilitation technique used, ant species composition in disturbed forest areas is not similar to the primary forest due to the short forest recovery time. This highlights the great value of the Iguaçu Nacional Park as a conservation unit within the Atlantic Forest biome, given that they represent unique biodiversity in this region. Also, the present study revealed that the efforts for the formation and maintenance of the protection strips around the Itaipu reservoir, which remain without anthropic interventions for several years, might indeed lead to a complete recovery of the composition of ant species over time, reinforcing their great importance for biodiversity conservation.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Itaipu Binacional for financial, logistical and technical support and for granting the study areas. We thank the administrators of the Iguaçu National Park for permission to work in the park areas. We thank the owner of Santa Maria farm for permission to work in the APP in a rural property and other owners of agricultural areas. We thank Fundação da Universidade Federal do Paraná for the financial administration of this project. RMF was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant 301495/2019-0.

Financial support

This study was funded by Itaipu Binacional. Support for open access publication was provided by Edge Hill University.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. MAN, WRF, SRCP, LCRS and ECQ collected field data; MAN, ECQ, TSC, ACF and RMF identified the ants; LCRS identified the plants; MAN and MRP analysed the data; MAN wrote the first draft of the manuscript; and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Appendix 1 Species list of ants in Seasonal Semideciduous Forest areas, in the Alto Paraná Ecoregion, Atlantic Forest, Brazil

INP_PF: Iguaçu National Park Primary Forest; RPS_SF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by secondary forest; RPS_NR: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by natural regeneration; RPS_RF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by reforestation; PPA_RP: Permanent Preservation Area located on rural property. Transition: boundary between forest and agriculture. *New records to the ant species list of the Iguaҫu (Brazil) and Iguazú (Argentina) National Parks proposed by Hanisch et al. (Reference Hanisch, Calcaterra, Leponce, Achury, Suarez, Silva and Paris2015).

Appendix 2 Species list of plants in Seasonal Semideciduous Forest areas, in the Alto Paraná Ecoregion, Atlantic Forest, Brazil

INP_PF: Iguaçu National Park Primary Forest; RPS_SF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by secondary forest; RPS_NR: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by natural regeneration; RPS_RF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by reforestation; PPA_RP: Permanent Preservation Area located on rural property. Transition: boundary between forest and agriculture. *Exotic species; +Species with more than 10 centimetres in diameter at breast height.

References

Baccaro, FB, Feitosa, RM, Fernández, F, Fernandes, IO, Izzo, T J, de Souza, JLP and Solar, R (2015) Guia para os gêneros de formigas do Brasil. Manaus: Editora INPA, 388 pp.Google Scholar
Bihn, JH, Verhaagh, M, Brändle, M and Brandl, R (2008) Do secondary forests act as refuges for old growth forest animals? Recovery of ant diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Biological Conservation 141, 733743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, B (2000) The ant tribe Dacetini. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 65, 11028.Google Scholar
Braga, DL, Louzada, JNC, Zanetti, R and Delabie, J (2010) Avaliação rápida da diversidade de formigas em sistemas de uso do solo no sul da Bahia. Neotropical Entomology 39, 464469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandão, CRF (1990) Systematic revision of the Neotropical ant genus Megalomyrmex Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae), with the description of thirteen new species. Arquivos de Zoologia 31, 411481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, WL (1976) Contributions toward a reclassification of the Formicidae. Part VI. Ponerinae, tribe Ponerini, subtribe Odontomachiti. Section A. Introduction, subtribal characters. Genus Odontomachus. Studia Entomologica 19, 67171.Google Scholar
Brown, WL Jr (1978) Contributions toward a reclassification of the Formicidae. Part VI. Ponerinae, tribe Ponerini, subtribe Odontomachiti. Section B. Genus Anochetus and bibliography. Studia Entomologica 20, 549638.Google Scholar
Camacho, GP, Franco, W and Feitosa, RM (2020) Additions to the taxonomy of Gnamptogenys Roger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ectatomminae) with an updated key to the New World species. Zootaxa 4747, 450476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, A, Gotelli, NJ, Hsieh, TC, Sander, EL, Ma, KH, Colwell, RK and Ellison, AM (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological Monographs 84, 4567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, A, Ma, KH and Hsieh, TC (2016) iNEXT (iNterpolation and EXTrapolation) Online: Software for Interpolation and Extrapolation of Species Diversity. Program and User’s Guide published at http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/ Google Scholar
Coelho, MS, Fernandes, GW, Santos, JC and Delabie, JHC (2009) Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as bioindicators of land restoration in a Brazilian Atlantic forest fragment. Sociobiology 54, 5163.Google Scholar
Costa-Milanez, CB, Lourenço-Silva, G, Castro, PTA, Majer, JD and Ribeiro, SP (2014) Are ant assemblages of Brazilian veredas characterized by location or habitat type? Brazilian Journal of Biological Sciences 74, 8999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delabie, JHC, Paim, VRLDM, Do Nascimento, IC, Campiolo, S and Mariano, CDSF (2006) Ants as biological indicators of human impact in mangroves of the southeastern coast of Bahia, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 35, 602615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Bitetti, MS, Placci, G and Dietz, LA (2003) Uma visão de Biodiversidade para a Ecorregião Florestas do Alto Paraná – Bioma Mata Atlântica: Planejando a Paisagem de Conservação da Biodiversidade e Estabelecendo Prioridades para Ações de Conservação. Washington: World Wildlife Fund, 155 pp.Google Scholar
Dias, NS, Zanetti, R, Santos, MS, Louzada, J and Delabie, J (2008) Interação de fragmentos florestais com agroecossistemas adjacentes de café e pastagem: respostas das comunidades de formigas (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Iheringia Série Zoologia 98, 136142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, E, Sanhudo, CE and Diehl-Fleig, E (2004) Ground-dwelling ant fauna of sites with high levels of copper. Brazilian Journal of Biology 64, 3339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1519-69842004000100005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donoso, DA (2017) Tropical ant communities are in long-term equilibrium. Ecological Indicators 83, 515523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufrêne, M and Legendre, P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67, 345366.Google Scholar
Dunn, RR (2004) Recovery of faunal communities during tropical forest regeneration. Conservation Biology 18, 302309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elizalde, L, Arbetman, M, Arnan, X, Eggleton, P, Leal, IR, Lescano, MN, Saez, A, Werenkraut, V and Pirk, GI (2020) The ecosystem services provided by social insects: traits, management tools and knowledge gaps. Biological Reviews 95, 14181441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falcão, JCF, Dáttilo, W and Izzo, TJ (2015) Efficiency of different planted forests in recovering biodiversity and ecological interactions in Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 339, 105111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farneda, FZ, Lutinski, JA and Garcia, FRM (2007) Comunidade de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) na área urbana do município de Pinhalzinho, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Revista Ciências Ambientais 1, 5366.Google Scholar
Fernandes, TT, Souza-Campana, DR, Silva, RR and Morini, MSC (2018) Ants that frequently colonize twigs in the leaf litter of different vegetation habitats. Sociobiology 65, 340344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, F (2004) The American species of the myrmicine ant genus Carebara Westwood (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Caldasia 26, 191238.Google Scholar
Folgarait, PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 12211244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galindo-Leal, C and Câmara, IG (2003) The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook. Washington: Island Press, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International, 488 pp.Google Scholar
Gascon, C, Laurance, WF and Lovejoy, TE (2002) Fragmentação florestal e biodiversidade na Amazônia central. In Dias, BFS, Garay, I (ed.), Conservação da Biodiversidade em Ecossistemas Tropicais: Avanços Conceituais e Revisão de Novas Metodologias de Avaliação e Monitoramento. Petrópolis: Vozes, pp. 112127.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, CR (1961) O gênero Acromyrmex no Brasil (Hym. Formicidae). Studia Entomologica 4, 113180.Google Scholar
Guénard, B, Weiser, M, Gomez, K, Narula, N and Economo, EP (2017) The Global Ant Biodiversity Informatics (GABI) database: a synthesis of ant species geographic distributions. Myrmecological News 24, 8389.Google Scholar
Hanisch, PE, Calcaterra, L, Leponce, M, Achury, R, Suarez, A, Silva, R and Paris, C (2015) Check list of ground-dwelling ant diversity (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Iguazú National Park with a comparison at regional scale. Sociobiology 62, 213227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibama (1999) Plano de Manejo do Parque Nacional do Iguaçu. Brasília: Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, 294 pp.Google Scholar
Itaipu (2015) Conservação da biodiversidade. https://www.itaipugov.br/sites/default/files/rs2015/pt/conversao-da-biodiversidade.html. Accessed 20 September 2020.Google Scholar
Janicki, J, Narula, N, Ziegler, M, Guénard, B and Economo, EP (2016) Visualizing and interacting with large-volume biodiversity data using client-server web-mapping applications: the design and implementation of antmaps.org. Ecology 32, 185193.Google Scholar
Kugler, C and Brown, WL Jr (1982) Revisionary and other studies on the ant genus Ectatomma, including the description of two new species. Search Agriculture 24, 18.Google Scholar
Ladino, N and Feitosa, RM (2020) Taxonomic revision of the genus Prionopelta Mayr, 1866 (Formicidae: Amblyoponinae) for the Neotropical region. Zootaxa 4821, 201249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapola, DM and Fowler, HG (2008) Questioning the implementation of habitat corridors: a case study in interior São Paulo using ants as bioindicators. Brazilian Journal of Biology 68, 1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, JT (2003) The Crematogaster (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmicinae) of Costa Rica. Zootaxa 151, 1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, JT and Fernández, F (2007) Taxonomic review of the genus Wasmannia. In Snelling, RR, Fisher, BL, Ward, PS (eds.), Advances in Ant Systematics: Homage to E.O. Wilson – 50 Years of Contributions. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, pp. 271289.Google Scholar
Mackay, WP and Mackay, EE (2010) The Systematics and Biology of the New World Ants of the Genus Pachycondyla (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press, 642 pp.Google Scholar
Majer, JD (1983) Ants: bio-indicators of minesite rehabilitation, land-use, and land conservation. Environmental Management 7, 375383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majer, JD and Nichols, OG (1998) Long-term recolonization patterns of ants in Western Australian rehabilitated bauxite mines with reference to their use as indicators of restoration success. Journal of Applied Ecology 35, 161182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhi, Y, Gardner, TA, Goldsmith, GR, Silman, MR and Zelazowski, P (2014) Tropical forests in the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39, 125159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinho, CGS, Zanetti, R, Delabie, JHC, Schlindwein, MN and Ramos, LDS (2002) Diversidade de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) da serapilheira em eucaliptais (Myrtaceae) e área de cerrado de Minas Gerais. Neotropical Entomology 31, 187195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martello, F, Bello, F, Morini, MSC, Silva, RR, Souza-Campana, DR, Ribeiro, MC and Carmona, CP (2018) Homogenization and impoverishment of taxonomic and functional diversity of ants in Eucalyptus plantations. Scientific Reports 8, 3266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins, MF de O, Nickele, MA, Feitosa, RM, Pie, MR and Reis-Filho, W (2021) Species list of ground-dwelling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Nhecolândia, Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Papéis Avulsos De Zoologia 61, e20216181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauda, EV, Joseph, GS, Seymour, CL, Munyai, TC and Foord, SH (2018) Changes in landuse alter ant diversity, assemblage composition and dominant functional groups in African savannas. Biodiversity and Conservation 27, 947965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, Fonseca, GAB and Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, MA, Della Lucia, TMC, Marinho, CGS, Delabie, JHC and Morato, EF (2009) Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) diversity in an area of the Amazon Forest in Acre, Brazil. Sociobiology 54, 127.Google Scholar
Pacheco, R, Vasconcelos, HL, Groc, S, Camacho, GP and Frizzo, TLM (2013) The importance of remnants of natural vegetation for maintaining ant diversity in Brazilian agricultural landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 983997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, CL and Chown, SL (2001) Inventory and bioindicator sampling: testing pitfall and Winkler methods with ants in a South African savana. Journal of Insect Conservation 5, 2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, MPDS, Queiroz, JM, Valcarcel, R and Mayhé-Nunes, AJ (2007) Fauna de formigas como ferramenta para monitoramento de área de mineração reabilitada na Ilha da Madeira, Itaguaí, RJ. Ciência Florestal 17, 197204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Ribas, CR, Campos, RBF, Schmidt, FA and Solar, RRC (2012) Ants as indicators in Brazil: a review with suggestions to improve the use of ants in environmental monitoring programs. Psyche 2012, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribas, CR, Schmidt, FA, Solar, RRC, Campos, RBF, Valentim, CL and Schoereder, JH (2011) Ants as indicators of the success of rehabilitation efforts in deposits of gold mining tailings. Restoration Ecology 20, 712720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, OE, Chapin, FS, Armesto, JJ, Berlow, E, Bloomfield, J, Dirzo, R, Huber-Sanwald, E, Huenneke, LF, Jackson, RB, Kinzig, A, Leemans, R, Lodge, DM, Mooney, HA, Oesterheld, M, Poff, NL, Sykes, MT, Walker, BH, Walker, M and Wall, DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, FA and Diehl, E (2008) What is the effect of soil use on ant communities? Neotropical Entomology 37, 381388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, FA, Ribas, CR and Schoereder, JH (2013) How predictable is the response of ant assemblages to natural forest recovery? Implications for their use as bioindicators. Ecological Indicators 24, 158166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segat, JC, Vasconcellos, RLF, Silva, DP, Baretta, D and Cardoso, EJBN (2017) Ants as indicators of soil quality in an on-going recovery of riparian forests. Forest Ecology and Management 404, 338343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, RR, Feitosa, RSM and Eberhardt, F (2007) Reduced ant diversity along a habitat regeneration gradient in the southern Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 240, 6169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solar, RR de C, Barlow, J, Andersen, AN, Schoereder, JH, Berenguer, E, Ferreira, JN and Gardner, TA (2016) Biodiversity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance in the Amazon: a multi-scale assessment using ant communities. Biological Conservation 197, 98107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanturf, JA, Palik, BJ and Dumroese, RK (2014a) Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. Forest Ecology and Management 331, 292323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanturf, JA, Palik, BJ, Williams, MI, Dumroese, RK and Madsen, P (2014b) Forest restoration paradigms. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 33, S161S194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Plant List (2013). Version 1.1. http://www.theplantlist.org. Accessed 16 November 2019.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, HL and Vilhena, JMS (2006) Species turnover and vertical partitioning of ant assemblages in the Brazilian Amazon: a comparison of forests and savanas. Biotropica 38, 100106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, JF (1976) The Identification and Distribution of New World Army Ants (Dorylinae: Formicidae). Waco: Baylor University Press, 102 pp.Google Scholar
Wild, AL (2007) Taxonomic revision of the ant genus Linepithema (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). University of California Publications in Entomology 126, 1151.Google Scholar
Wilson, EO (2003) Pheidole in the New World: A Dominant, Hyperdiverse Ant Genus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 794 pp.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Study site locations. INP_PF: Iguaçu National Park Primary Forest; RPS_SF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by secondary forest; RPS_NR: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by natural regeneration; RPS_RF: Reservoir Protection Strip formed by reforestation; PPA_RP: Permanent Preservation Area located on rural property; AGR: Agricultural area. Source: Google Earth Pro v. 7.3.4.8642, 25°21′04.08″S, 54°18′12.84″W, elev 280 m, eye alt 66.25 km. Data SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO. Image Landsat/Copernicus. © Google Earth. Imagery date: 12 May 2022 (accessed 21 June 2022).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Average ant species richness per transect in each area. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.001). Bars are standard errors.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Interpolation and extrapolation ant species accumulation curves per area, with 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis plot of ant species composition.

Figure 4

Table 1. Dissimilarity (R-values) among the areas obtained by ANOSIM analysis for ant species composition. High R-values mean high dissimilarities among the areas

Figure 5

Table 2. Ant species indicators of each area according IndVal analyses. Only significant indicator species are shown

Figure 6

Figure 5. Average plant species richness per transect in each area. Treatments underneath the same letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05). Bars are standard errors.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis plot of arboreal plant species composition.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Vegetation cover percentage per transect in each area. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.001). Bars are standard errors.