Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Homogenization and impoverishment of taxonomic and functional diversity of ants in Eucalyptus plantations

Abstract

Despite its negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity, tree plantations can contribute to biodiversity conservation in fragmented landscapes, as they harbor many native species. In this study, we investigated the impact of Eucalyptus plantations on the taxonomic and functional diversity of ant communities, comparing ant communities sampled in managed and unmanaged (abandoned for 28 years) Eucalyptus plantations, and native Atlantic rain forests. Eucalyptus plantations, both managed and unmanaged, reduced the functional diversity and increased the similarity between ant communities leading to functional homogenization. While communities in managed plantations had the lowest values of both taxonomic and functional ant diversities, ant communities from unmanaged plantations had similar values of species richness, functional redundancy and Rao’s Q compared to ant communities from forest patches (although functional richness was lower). In addition, communities in unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations were taxonomically and functionally more similar to communities located in managed plantations, indicating that Eucalyptus plantations have a severe long-term impact on ant communities. These results indicate that natural regeneration may mitigate the impact of Eucalyptus management, particularly regarding the functional structure of the community (α diversity), although it does not attenuate the effects of long term homogenization in community composition (β diversity).

Introduction

The conversion of native habitats into human-modified land use reduces and fragments habitats into small remnants and is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss1. Among these conversions, tree plantations (especially Eucalyptus, Acacia and Pinus) have become one of the fastest growing land uses in recent decades, mainly to attend the high demand for timber and cellulose2. Brazil has the largest area of Eucalyptus plantations in the world, totaling about 7.74 million hectares, and is the largest exporter of Eucalyptus cellulose3. These plantations –located mostly in areas originally covered by rain forest– are extensive monocultures that are managed through ploughing, fertilizers and herbicides, and are clear cut harvested after 5–10 years of planting3. Eucalyptus plantations, like other tree plantations, have been the focus of a vigorous debate about their impact on conservation. This debate is particularly intense in regard to plantations located in heterogeneous landscapes composed of native forest patches and anthropic land uses without a forest-vegetation phytophysiognomy2. Eucalyptus plantations may harbor native species more effectively than non-forest anthropic land uses4 and can also increase landscape connectivity, i.e., the dispersion and movement of native species5. Besides their commercial use, less intensively managed tree plantations may also be established to reduce erosion, combat global warming through carbon sequestration, and facilitate land and vegetation rehabilitation2,6. On the other hand, the high fertilizer and water demands, the release of allelopathic substances, and the intensive management – all of which are characteristic of industrial-scale Eucalyptus plantations– severely impact soil structure, water supply, and reduce the stability and biodiversity of tree plantations relative to native forests6,7,8. The effect of Eucalyptus plantations on biodiversity also reflects this ambiguous nature of tree monocultures: diversity (richness and abundance) can change or remain largely unchanged for many organisms. For example, a multi-taxon study showed that ten out of 15 taxa (including plants, invertebrates and vertebrates) did not show differences in richness between Eucalyptus monoculture and primary or secondary forest9.

Given the unclear influence of Eucalyptus plantations on conservation, it is necessary to assess biodiversity changes beyond the patterns of species richness, and to assess the plantations’ impact on ecological processes and species interactions. For instance, compared to native forest, tree monocultures have lower allocation and decomposition of organic matter6, different species interactions – promoting the outbreak of some species10 – and different community structure11. In this context, recent studies have shown that functional trait diversity is more strongly related to biotic interactions, abiotic filters, and ecological processes than taxonomic diversity12,13. Increasingly, researchers are assessing functional diversity through several indices: the dominant trait values, the occupied phenotypic space, the distribution of abundances in this space, or the ecological resilience and resistance to environmental disturbance or invasion of communities14,15,16,17. Although most of them are based on the average trait values of species, some methods have recently started to integrate intraspecific trait variation, which more accurately reflects ecosystem functioning and species responses to environmental changes18,19,20. Moreover, methods incorporating intraspecific variability give results that are less context-dependent, as well as more consistent with biologically expected patterns21.

In this study, we want to assess how Eucalyptus plantations affect the taxonomic and functional diversities of ant communities, considering intraspecific trait variation in the calculation of functional diversity. Ants are key in a myriad of essential ecological processes such as soil cycling and aeration, seed dispersion and decomposition of organic matter22,23. In addition, ants respond to environmental disturbances, may be used as a proxy for disturbance impact on others invertebrates24, making these insects good indicator of anthropic disturbances. Ant communities in tree plantation monocultures may have higher, lower, or equal richness comparing to native forest, but usually have different composition11,25,26,27,28. The lack of a clear pattern of how ant taxonomical diversity (richness) are affected by tree plantations and the change in species composition, along with the status of ants as important key organisms in several ecosystem functions, indicate that a functional trait approach may help to elucidate the effect of monoculture plantations on ant communities and its impacts on ecosystem. We sampled ants in managed Eucalyptus plantations with different management ages, as well as in unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations, and in native rain forest. We asked how Eucalyptus plantations affect the taxonomical and functional diversity indexes (alpha diversity) of these ant communities. We hypothesized that unmanaged plantations —where natural regeneration of the vegetation is starting to take place— would have higher functional and taxonomic diversities than managed ones, but lower diversities than the Atlantic Forest remnants. We also asked if Eucalyptus plantations influence the similarity (beta diversity) between ant communities, as an indication for possible effect on landscape homogenization. We expected that ant communities located in Eucalyptus plantations – regardless of age and management (managed or unmanaged) – would be more similar to each other than to forest ant communities (homogenization due to management).

Results

Three of the eight functional traits presented different community weighted mean (CWM) values between environments with different management (Fig. 1). Ant communities in rain forest had longer distance between the compound eye and mandible insertion (mean 0.210 mm ± SE 0.001) than those located in any of the eucalyptus plantations (0.180 mm ± 0.001, for both unmanaged Eucalyptus, 7-year-old Eucalyptus and 28-year-old Eucalyptus) (ANOVA: F = 11.58, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1B). Ant communities in the forest had longer interocular distances (i.e., eyes positioned more laterally) than ant communities located in unmanaged and 7-year-old Eucalyptus (0.662 mm ± 0.001 and 0.611 mm ± 0.001, respectively) (ANOVA: F = 11.0, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1E). For petiole length, differences were detected between communities of managed Eucalyptus of different ages, whereas communities in the older plantations had a smaller average petiole length (0.201 mm ± 0.001 and 0.223 mm ± 0.001, for 7-year-old Eucalyptus and 28-year-old Eucalyptus, respectively) (ANOVA: F = 3.09, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1H).

Figure 1
figure1

Mean and standard deviation of community weighted means of the eight functional traits of ant communities located in native rain forest, 28-year-old abandoned Eucalyptus plantations, seven-year-old commercial Eucalyptus plantations and 28-year-old Eucalyptus plantations. In each graphic, the different letters associated with the environments represent significant differences in the means assessed by Tukey’s Post-hoc analysis.

Managed Eucalyptus plantations had significantly decreased taxonomic and functional α diversities. Native rain forests and unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations had higher species richness (mean 20.701 ± SE 1.180 and 22.201 ± 0.660, respectively) than both recent and old Eucalyptus cultivations (13.8 ± 0.601 for 7-year-old Eucalyptus and 12.8 ± 1.352 for 28-year-old Eucalyptus) (Fig. 2A). Accordingly, native rain forests had the highest functional richness (FRic) values (308.461 ± 22.141), whereas the various types of Eucalyptus plantation did not differ in this aspect, regardless of their management regime (181.762 ± 17.562, 117.211 ± 25.584 and 139.684 ± 27.433, for unmanaged Eucalyptus, 7-year-old Eucalyptus and 28-year-old Eucalyptus, respectively) (Fig. 2B). We recorded the lowest values of functional redundancy (Fred) in managed Eucalyptus plantations (0.401 ± 0.041, 0.342 ± 0.043, for 7-year-old Eucalyptus and 28-year-old Eucalyptus, respectively); in contrast, native rain forests presented the highest values for this variable, while unmanaged plantations had intermediate values of functional redundancy (0.541 ± 0.081) (Fig. 2C). The results for Rao’s Q reflected the same pattern of species richness, with native rain forest and unmanaged Eucalyptus having higher values (0.920 ± 0.003 and 0.930 ± 0.001, respectively) than managed plantation (0.893 ± 0.005 and 0.891 ± 0.010, for 7-year-old Eucalyptus and 28-year-old Eucalyptus, respectively) (Fig. 2D).

Figure 2
figure2

Mean and standard deviation of taxonomic (A) and functional (BD) α diversity indices of ant communities located in native rain forest, 28-year-old unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations, seven-year-old commercial Eucalyptus plantations and 28-year-old Eucalyptus plantations. Different letters associated with the environments represent significant differences in the means assessed by Tukey’s Post-hoc analysis.

PERMANOVA analyses revealed significant differences between environments in their taxonomic and functional β diversities, overall and for individual components (Table 1). Taxonomic and functional β diversities showed a similar pattern, revealing that the ant communities from native rain forest were markedly different from those of Eucalyptus environments, which were more similar among themselves (Fig. 3). In taxonomic β diversity, these high values were due mainly to the turnover in species composition (βsim), which accounted for most of the total β diversity (Fig. 3A). However, functional β diversity had no clear pattern: the highest dissimilarities—between native rain forest and Eucalyptus communities—received a similar contribution from both β diversity components (turnover and nestedness) (Fig. 3B).

Table 1 Results of PERMANOVA for taxonomic and functional β diversities for ant communities collected in forest fragments and managed and unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations of different ages, São Paulo State, Brazil. Individual components are presented.
Figure 3
figure3

Mean of the total and the nested and turnover components of taxonomic (A) and functional (B) β diversities between environments (F = native rain forest; Un = 28-year-old unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations, 7 yr = recent seven-year-old Eucalyptus plantations; 28 yr = established 28-year-old Eucalyptus plantations).

Discussion

Eucalyptus plantations are often thought to harbor a significant portion of native species and therefore have some value for ecosystem conservation29,30. Our results suggest that managed plantations greatly reduced both taxonomic and functional diversity of ant communities and further drove them to taxonomical and functional homogenization at the landscape level. However, unmanaged plantations emerged as a transition stage between managed plantations and native forests, showing α diversity values similar to those of native forests, while their taxonomic and functional compositions (β diversity) were more similar to those of managed Eucalyptus plantations. These results suggest that although indexes of taxonomical and functional diversity of ant communities in unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations could eventually approximate to those of communities in native forests in terms of α diversity, plantations have a long-term impact on community composition, making even abandoned areas more similar to managed conditions than unmanaged ones in terms of β diversity.

We found that ants in native rain forests had a longer distance from eyes to the mandible insertion compared to ants in Eucalyptus plantations. This trait is related to foraging activities, with predaceous ant species having higher values for this trait than non-predator ant species, e.g., Dacetini predators and specialist predators living in the soil31. This result suggests a decrease in the abundance and diversity of predator ants, which could be due to the fact that most of them feed on small invertebrates that compose the soil mesofauna31,32. Soil mesofauna is extremely sensitive to leaf litter structure, soil structure and composition33. According to Winck et al.34 Eucalyptus plantations can differ from native forest in many litter characteristics, such as moisture, mass and microbial activity, which can directly reduce mesofauna. Besides, the application of fertilizers and pesticides in Eucalyptus plantations, as well as the impoverishment of leaf litter and the high concentration of allelopathic substances that characterize these monocultures35 might affect the availability of this resource for ants. This result concurs with the notion that ants are the best indicator of invertebrate assemblage composition in disturbed environments36,37. Moreover, the simplification of the vegetation structure and the leaf litter characteristics in Eucalyptus monocultures can also substantially reduce the diversity of arthropods and hinder the coexistence of ant species38,39. More complex environments (in this study, native rain forest) provide a myriad of microhabitats, many of which are not accessible to dominant species, and thereby allow the existence of other species and facilitate coexistence in ant communities39.

Compared to unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations, managed plantations had a more negative effect on the taxonomic and functional diversity of ant communities, as reflected by their low values on all α-diversity indices. Managed Eucalyptus plantations had approximately half of the ant species that were found in the native rain forest, corresponding to a similar decrease in functional richness. At the same time, functional redundancy in managed plantations was lower than in the native rain forest, suggesting that the functional diversity of ant communities in plantations might be less resistant to species loss40,41,42,43. Ant communities located in highly disturbed environments and in non-native vegetation generally have a reduced number of species, a few of which are dominant44,45. Such species, e.g. species from Dominant Dolichoderinae and Generalist Myrmicinae functional groups46, are better adapted to the disturbed conditions and have rapid recruitment to find and defend food resources, driving competing species to local extinction36,47,48. More than reducing species richness and the amount of functional trait space occupied by ant communities, managed Eucalyptus plantations also decreased the functional similarities between species (functional redundancy), likely reducing community resistance. This interpretation is also supported by the low values of Rao’s Q in communities located in managed Eucalyptus, indicating the low evenness of functional diversity in these communities. In summary, altered environmental conditions associated with managed plantations benefited only a few species, resulting in a functional homogenization of ant communities, with higher similarity among species (reflected by lower Rao’sQ values) as well as a higher vulnerability (reflected by lower functional redundancy values).

Functional diversity of ant communities showed that unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations performed as a transition stage between communities located in managed plantations and native rain forest: they had species richness and Rao’s Q values similar to those of communities located in native rain forest, but they occupied a smaller functional space (functional richness). In studies performed in secondary forest derived from pastures abandoned up to 50 years, ant richness did not reach the values of communities located in native old grow forest49. The authors hypothesized that the recovery of ant communities established in former pasture would be slower compared to areas where the land is less disturbed. In line with such claim, our results suggest that –although Eucalyptus plantations cause severe impacts on the environment– its forest phytophisionomy may provide resources that allow ant communities to recover richness faster than in other land uses. On the other hand, the reduction in functional richness may result from the absence of certain resources in the unmanaged Eucalyptus, because the recovery of species composition can take even longer –although the recovery of plant community richness in tropical forest can take up to 40 years50,51. Furthermore, Eucalyptus trees may inhibit the development of some plant species by allelopathy, reducing the complexity of the environment52, as well as the availability of resources for ants, thereby influencing the amount of functional space occupied by ant communities52,53. Reduction of functional richness was also found for dung beetles –other insects group frequently used as bioindicator of human impact on biodiversity– after restoration of native Atlantic Forest from Eucalyptus plantation54. According to these authors, such result may indicate a deficiency in ecosystem processes supported by these organisms, as well as a reduction in the temporal stability of these systems.

Indicators of diversity at the local level (α diversity) of ant communities from unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations resembled those located in native forest, which suggests that the natural regeneration of forests in unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations can attenuate the dominance of some species in managed plantations. However, ant communities in unmanaged Eucalyptus plantations were taxonomically and functionally more similar to the managed plantations, as revealed by the patterns of β diversity. This result highlights that the consideration of different aspects of diversity is important for understanding the impacts of human disturbance on ecosystems53,55. Biologically, our results reveal that, for managed Eucalyptus plantation, 28 years of abandonment were not enough for the ant communities to recover the characteristics of those found in native forests. Studies with others organism, such as dung beetles54,56, lizards57, or arachnids58, also suggest that communities in native forest differ not just from plantations forests, but also from secondary or restored forests, demonstrating the uniqueness of primary forests and the importance of maintaining these habitats.

Notwithstanding the equal power of nestedness and turnover components to explain functional β diversity, the latter was the main driver of dissimilarities in taxonomic β diversity, exposing great changes in species composition. Our results agree with Bihn et al.59, who suggested that the high functional diversity of ant communities in tropical forest is driven primarily by rare species, which are often more sensitive to habitat disturbance. Consequently, the taxonomic and functional structure of these communities can only be attained in primary forests. Lapola & Fowler60 also found that ant communities in forest fragments shared more similarities among themselves than with ant communities located in 100-year-old Eucalyptus plantations established for restoration purposes, which supports the idea that Eucalyptus plantations have a long-lasting impact on ant communities.

We highlight that management (or lack thereof) is a major driver of the differences in the functional structure of ant communities in Eucalyptus plantations. The process of natural forest regeneration, known as “passive restoration”, is currently suggested as one of the most promising methods for ecosystem restoration, because it is cheaper than the artificial tree plantation (i.e. active restoration)61. Natural forest regeneration allows natural colonization and secondary succession by any organisms that can disperse and establish in abandoned agricultural areas61. Although passive restoration can be faster and as effective as active restoration, especially in tropical and humid temperate ecosystems, it is highly stochastic and dependent on organisms’ dispersal abilities as well as on biotic and abiotic conditions61,62,63. In this sense, cessation of logging activities in Eucalyptus plantations may accelerate the restoration process, because of the positive microclimatic effect of the plantation canopy and the attraction of seed-dispersing fauna36,64.

In this study, we found that ant communities in abandoned Eucalyptus plantations approximated the functional structure of communities in native rain forest. This functional restructuring of the ant community in abandoned Eucalyptus plantation, comparing to those in managed Eucalyptus plantation, is probably a consequence of changes in trophic interactions involving ants. Most importantly, considering the key role of ants in ecological processes such as soil cycling, seed harvesting and seed dispersion22,23, this restructuring might further accelerate the recovery of the conditions of the whole system. In this sense, the implementation of restoration strategies, such as the applied nucleation of native vegetation patches in unmanaged Eucalyptus plantation, may increase the diversity of resources for ant communities, consequently increasing its functional richness as well as its importance in ecological and restoration processes65.

Our findings support the idea that Eucalyptus plantations can severely affect the taxonomic and functional diversities of ant communities, and that these impacts have long-term effects, even in unmanaged plantations. On the other hand, the passive restoration of native rain forest in unmanaged plantations can change the functional structure of ant communities, increasing their functional diversity and redundancy tending to converge with that of native rain forests’ communities. Although it is impracticable, particularly for economic reasons, to recommend the abandonment of monoculture tree plantations or the cessation of their management as a conservation strategy29, our outcomes suggest that the implementation of restoration strategies, such as passive restoration between stands of tree plantation, may mitigate some impacts of this land use on ant communities and on the various ecological processes in which theses insects are essential.

Methods

Study area & sampling design

The study was conducted at the Alto Tietê and Itatinga River basins, in São Paulo, Brazil. The landscape comprises a mosaic of agriculture, urban areas, Eucalyptus plantations under different management regimes, and native rain forest remnants. Even though Eucalyptus plantations are usually logged every seven years, management practices vary across the studied area, resulting in a mosaic of plantations of different ages. The native rain forest remnants in this region are categorized as Ombrophilous Dense Forest, which is characteristic of high-precipitation regions66. These remnants are composed of evergreen phanerophytes, with an average height of 15 m, and a dense shrub vegetation of palms, lianas, epiphytes and ferns.

We selected 25 sites distributed throughout four types of forest stand: (a) recent Eucalyptus saligna monoculture, seven years old and uncut (n = 5); (b) established E. saligna monoculture, 28years old and clearcut 3 times (n = 5); (c) abandoned E. saligna plantation, left without management for 28 years prior to this study (n = 5); and (d) original native rain forest (n = 10). The distances between plots of the same treatment ranged from a minimum of 264 m (native Atlantic forest) to a maximum of 1.8 km (28-year-old Eucalyptus monoculture).

The short distance between some of the plots was a due to geographical and sampling constrains in the sampled landscape, since we made a thorough effort in order to homogenize the characteristics of the sites by excluding confounding or hidden effects. To account for spatial auto-correlation we performed two spatial auto-correlation tests. First, to assess whether there was spatial autocorrelation between the geographic coordinates’ dissimilarity matrix and each response variable’s dissimilarity matrix, we calculated Moran’s I values, followed by a Monte Carlo permutation (N = 9,999). As non-significant spatial autocorrelation was detected for all dependent variables (Supplementary Table S4 in Supplementary Information), we considered the spatial sampling effect to be irrelevant. Second, to assess whether there was spatial autocorrelation in communities’ composition, we performed a spatial auto-correlation analysis between community composition (Bray-Curtis distance) and the spatial distance between samples, which showed a poor autocorrelation (Mantel r = 0.28 [which corresponds to only a r2 = 0.08], in Figure S5 in Supplementary Material).

In each site, we established a 250-m transect in which we systematically established six sampling sites at 50-m intervals. In neighboring sites where the distance was small, we oriented the transects in order to maintain the greatest possible distance between sites. In each of the six sampling site of each transects, we collected 0.5 m² of leaf litter and transferred it to a Berlese funnel, where it remained for seven days to sample ants. During that time, the ants dropped out of the Berlese funnel mesh sack, and we collected them live in plastic cups with moist sponges that were later transferred to vials containing 80% ethanol67. All specimens were identified to morphospecies or species level, whenever possible, and deposited in the Myrmecological Laboratory, University of Mogi das Cruzes. Each site was sampled once during the rainy season (the period of higher ant activity) between September and December of the years 2010 and 2011.

Functional traits

We measured functional individual-level traits, selecting up to six individuals of each species (or morphospecies) in each sampling site, depending on their abundance. Using this procedure we guaranteed, especially for more common species, a robust trait sampling, in a way that for more than half of species (43 of 78 species) we measured more than six individuals (Table S1 and Figures S1 and S2 in Supplementary Information). Six individuals are the most frequently used number of individuals measured in studies of functional diversity of ants68,69,70,71,72. The number of individuals reached up to 104 individuals measured for one species (Solenopsis sp2). For some species, we had a more limited number of individuals, but these species were generally rarer, and accounted for a very low percentage of individuals in the communities (Figure S3 in Supplementary Information). This lack of information is expected not to affect significantly the results, as shown repeatedly in the several studies: Pakeman & Quested73 Pakeman74 and Majekova75, which also considered functional diversity of ants.

To calculate functional diversity indices, we selected eight morphological traits related to the species’ ecological roles70,76: head width, scape length, distance of eye to the mandible insertion, eye length, minimum inter-eye distance, Weber’s length, petiole height (disregarding the postpetiole) and hind leg length (sum of tibia and femur) (Table 2). We standardized all others traits, dividing each trait by Weber’s length to reduce correlation with body size. We subsequently log-transformed trait values to reduce the influence of extreme values, and standardized the values to have mean of 0 and unit variance. Then, we applied such procedures to be able to apply (Principal Component Analysis; PCA) in a further step (see below), since PCA assumes that there is a linear relation between traits, which can be skewed by extreme values.

Table 2 Morphological traits used to calculate functional diversity and its functional significance for ant communities sampled in 25 sites within Atlantic Forest patches and Eucalyptus plantations of varying ages and management strategies, São Paulo State, Brazil.

Taxonomic diversity

We calculated α taxonomic diversity of the ant community (species richness) at each site. To assess the taxonomic diversity between communities, we computed β taxonomic diversity for all possible pairs of ant communities, as proposed by Baselga77. This procedure consists of estimating total β diversity using the Sorensen dissimilarity index (βsor), then decomposing it into two components: turnover β diversity, which is estimated through the Simpson dissimilarity index (βsim), and nested β diversity, which is the difference between βsor and βsim (βnes). Turnover and nested β diversities reflect species replacement and the loss of species between sites, respectively, and they reveal the process involved in community assembly77.

Taxonomic β diversity was calculated using the function beta.pair from the betapart package78 in R software79.

Functional diversity

We calculated the community-weighted mean (CWM) of each functional trait, using the mean trait value of each species, weighted according to its local abundance; CWM reflects the dominant trait value of the community80. To calculate the other functional diversity indexes, we first performed a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using the eight traits as input. It allowed us to synthesize the major axes of variation in the functional space and reduce the number of dimensions used to calculate the functional diversity indices81,82. We performed the PCA analysis using the mean trait values of each species and, afterwards, we predicted the values of PCA axes for all measured individuals. We adopted this procedure (using mean value of traits of each species to perform the PCA) because the use of values from individuals to performed the PCA analysis might biased the PCA axes due to species with high number of measured individuals. We retained the first four axes of this PCA, which accounted for 86.4% of the total variance in traits, and performed all subsequent analyses using those axes as indicators of the functional space.

For each ant community, we estimated functional richness (FRic), functional redundancy (FRed) and Rao’s Q. FRic represents the amount of functional trait space occupied by the community16. FRed is the saturation of the functional space of the community and reflects the potential resilience and resistance of the community20,40,83. Rao’s Q expresses the pairwise functional differences between species of the community, weighted by their relative abundances21,84. For Rao’s Q we used of species occurrence on each site instead of species abundance, because abundance may be biased by the number of individuals inhabiting the colony85,86.

Finally, we calculated functional β diversity, which expresses the functional dissimilarities between all possible pairs of ant communities. We further decomposed this index into the turnover and nested components, representing the replacement of functional traits and the loss of common functional traits among communities, respectively20,87,88.

CWM was calculated using the “dbFD” function in the “FD” package (89, and PCA ordination was calculated using the “prcomp” function; both calculations were run in R software79. All functional diversity indices were calculated using Trait Probability Distribution (TPD), which incorporates intra-specific variation, the multidimensional nature of traits, species abundances and probabilistic trait distributions20. The first step to calculate functional diversity with the TPD approach is to compute the Trait Probability Distribution of each species (TPDs), which reflects the probability of observing different trait values in a given species. This approach requires the construction of a multidimensional probability density function using the individuals of each species. We opted to estimate these distributions using a multivariate Gaussian distribution, which requires the average value of each species in the multidimensional trait space as well as their standard deviation (reflecting the variability in trait values among conspecifics) for each axis. Therefore, we included intraspecific variation in functional diversity indices by using the standard deviations of each species. We used two different strategies to estimate standard deviations, depending on the number of measured individuals of each species. For species with at least six measured individuals (total of 46 species), we estimated standard deviations based on the data from all the individuals of that species in the entire sample. For species with less than six measured individuals (33 species), we used the average standard deviation of all the other species as their standard deviation. This procedure retains the standard deviation of the most abundant species, while assigning a reasonable standard deviation value to the least sampled species, which is preferable to other alternatives, such as using the same standard deviation (SD) value for all species89.

In the TPD framework, the TPDs are further used to estimate the trait probability distribution of each community (TPDc), which is the sum of the TPDs of all species in the community, weighted by their relative abundances (which we estimated using frequencies of occurrence)20.

Data analysis

To assess the effect of Eucalyptus management on taxonomic and functional ant diversity, we first conducted a one-way-ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s post hoc analysis for α taxonomic and functional diversity indices (richness, FRic, FRed and Rao’s Q). However, in the case of Rao’s Q, which presented non-normal residuals (Shapiro-Wilk test), we used the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a non-parametric multiple comparison test90. To assess the effect of managed Eucalyptus on taxonomic and functional β diversities, we used PERMANOVA (9,999 permutations)91 for total β diversity and its components, turnover and nestedness, between sites.

The distance matrix used to calculate the Moran’s I values was computed using the vegan92 package in R software, and all graphics were produced using the ggplot293 package in R software79.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734), 570–574 (2005).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Paquette, A. & Messier, C. The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(1), 27–34 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2015. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf (2017).

  4. 4.

    Klomp, N. & Grabham, C. A comparison of the avifaunal diversity on native hardwood plantations and pastureland in north-east Victoria 1999–2000. Albury, N.S.W: Charles Sturt University, Johnstone Centre (2002).

  5. 5.

    Lindenmayer, D. B. & Richard, J. Hobbs. Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests–a review. Biological Conservation 119(2), 151–168 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lugo, A. E. The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness on degraded lands with tree monocultures. Forest ecology and management 99(1–2), 9–19 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pozo, J., González, E., Díez, J. R., Molinero, J. & Elósegui, A. Inputs of particulate organic matter to streams with different riparian vegetation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 602–611 (1997).

  8. 8.

    Forrester, D. I., Bauhus, J., Cowie, A. L. & Vanclay, J. K. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 233(2), 211–230 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barlow, J. et al. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(47), 18555–18560 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nair, K. S. S. Pest outbreaks in tropical forest plantations: is there a greater risk for exotic tree species? CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. (2001).

  11. 11.

    Suguituru, S. S., Silva, R. R., Souza, D. R. D., Munhae, C. D. B. & Morini, M. S. D. C. Ant community richness and composition across a gradient from Eucalyptus plantations to secondary Atlantic Forest. Biota Neotropica 11(1), 369–376 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dı́az, S. & Cabido, M. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(11), 646–655 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lohbeck, M. et al. Functional diversity changes during tropical forest succession. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14(2), 89–96 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dukes, J. S. Biodiversity and invasibility in grassland microcosms.Oecologia 126(4), 563–568 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Garnier, E. et al. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession (2004).

  16. 16.

    Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. & Mouillot, D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89(8), 2290–2301 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pillar, V. D. et al. Functional redundancy and stability in plant communities. Journal of Vegetation Science 24(5), 963–974 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    de Bello, F. et al. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(10), 2873–2893 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Violle, C. et al. The return of the variance: intraspecific variability in community ecology. Trends in ecology & evolution 27(4), 244–252 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Carmona, C. P., de Bello, F., Mason, N. W. & Lepš, J. Traits without borders: integrating functional diversity across scales. Trends in ecology & evolution 31(5), 382–394 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    de Bello, F., Carmona, C. P., Mason, N. W., Sebastià, M. T. & Lepš, J. Which trait dissimilarity for functional diversity: trait means or trait overlap? Journal of Vegetation Science 24(5), 807–819 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Folgarait, P. J. Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity & Conservation 7(9), 1221–1244 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Del Toro, I., Ribbons, R. R. & Pelini, S. L. The little things that run the world revisited: a review of ant-mediated ecosystem services and disservices (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 17, 133–146 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Majer, J. D., Orabi, G. & Bisevac, L. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) pass the bioindicator scorecard. Myrmecological News 10, 69–76 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pik, A. J., Oliver, A. N. & Beattie, A. J. Taxonomic sufficiency in ecological studies of terrestrial invertebrates. Austral Ecology 24.5, 555–562 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ratsirarson, H., Robertson, H. G., Picker, M. D. & Van Noort, S. Indigenous forests versus exotic eucalypt and pine plantations: a comparison of leaf-litter invertebrate communities. African Entomology 10(1), 93–99 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Schnell, M. R., Pik, A. J. & Dangerfield, J. M. Ant community succession within eucalypt plantations on used pasture and implications for taxonomic sufficiency in biomonitoring. Austral Ecology 28(5), 553–565 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mentone, T. D. O., Diniz, E. A., Munhae, C. D. B., Bueno, O. C. & Morini, M. S. D. C.. Composição da fauna de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de serapilheira em florestas semidecídua e de Eucalyptus spp., na região sudeste do Brasil. Biota Neotropica, p. 237–246 (2011).

  29. 29.

    Pryde, E. C., Holland, G. J., Watson, S. J., Turton, S. M. & Nimmo, D. G. Conservation of tropical forest tree species in a native timber plantation landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 339, 96–104 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jacoboski, L. I., Mendonça-Lima, A. D. & Hartz, S. M. Structure of bird communities in eucalyptus plantations: nestedness as a pattern of species distribution. Brazilian Journal of Biology 3(76), 583–591 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Silvestre, R., Brandão, C. R. F. & Da Silva, R. R. Grupos funcionales de hormigas: el caso de los gremios del Cerrado. Introducción a las hormigas de la región neotropical, 113–148 (2003).

  32. 32.

    Blüthgen, N. & Feldhaar, H. Food and shelter: how resources influence ant ecology. Ant ecology, 115–136 (2010).

  33. 33.

    Goudin, A. K., Almeida, M. A. X., Souto, J. S. & Souto, P. C. Composição e sazonalidade da mesofauna do solo do semiárido paraibano. Revista Verde de Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Sustentável 8(4), 214–222 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Winck, B. R., de Sá, E. L. S., Rigotti, V. M. & Chauvat, M. Relationship between land-use types and functional diversity of epigeic Collembola in Southern Brazil. Applied Soil Ecology 109, 49–59 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Larrañaga, A., Basaguren, A., Elosegi, A. & Pozo, J. Impacts of Eucalyptus globulus plantations on Atlantic streams: changes in invertebrate density and shredder traits. Fundamental and Applied Limnology/Archiv für Hydrobiologie 175(2), 151–160 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Andersen, A. N. Using ants as bioindicators: multiscale issues in ant community ecology. Conservation Ecology 1(1) (1997).

  37. 37.

    Ribas, C. R., Campos, R. B., Schmidt, F. A. & Solar, R. R. Ants as indicators in Brazil: a review with suggestions to improve the use of ants in environmental monitoring programs. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology (2011).

  38. 38.

    Hansen, R. A. Effects of habitat complexity and composition on a diverse litter microarthropod assemblage. Ecology 81(4), 1120–1132 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Sarty, H. U. et al. Atividade moluscicida e cercaricida de diferentes espécies de Eucalyptus. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 23(4), 197–199 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    de Bello, F. et al. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(52), 20684–20689 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Sasaki, T. et al. Vulnerability of moorland plant communities to environmental change: consequences of realistic species loss on functional diversity. Journal of applied ecology 51(2), 299–308 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mouillot, D. et al. Functional over-redundancy and high functional vulnerability in global fish faunas on tropical reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(38), 13757–13762 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Carmona, C. P., Guerrero, I., Morales, M. B., Oñate, J. J. & Peco, B. Assessing vulnerability of functional diversity to species loss: a case study in Mediterranean agricultural systems. Functional Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12709 (2016).

  44. 44.

    Pacheco, R. & Vasconcelos, H. L. Invertebrate conservation in urban areas: ants in the Brazilian Cerrado. Landscape and Urban Planning 81(3), 193–199 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Pacheco, R., Vasconcelos, H. L., Groc, S., Camacho, G. P. & Frizzo, T. L. The importance of remnants of natural vegetation for maintaining ant diversity in Brazilian agricultural landscapes. Biodiversity and conservation 22(4), 983–997 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Delabie, J. H. C., Agosti, D. & Nascimento, I. C. Litter ant communities of the Brazilian Atlantic rain forest region. In Sampling Ground-dwelling Ants: case studies from the world’s rain forests. Curtin University of Technology School of Environmental Biology Bulletin 18 (2000).

  47. 47.

    Human, K. G. & Gordon, D. M. Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105(3), 405–412 (1996).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Cuautle, M., Vergara, C. H. & Badano, E. I. Comparison of Ant Community Diversity and Functional Group Composition Associated to Land Use Change in a Seasonally Dry Oak Forest. Neotropical entomology 45(2), 170–179 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Bihn, J. H., Verhaagh, M., Brändle, M. & Brandl, R. Do secondary forests act as refuges for old growth forest animals? Recovery of ant diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Biological conservation 141.3, 733–743 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Aide, T. M., Zimmerman, J. K., Pascarella, J. B., Rivera, L. & Marcano‐Vega, H. Forest regeneration in a chronosequence of tropical abandoned pastures: implications for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 8(4), 328–338 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Dunn, J. L., Turnbull, J. D. & Robinson, S. A. Comparison of solvent regimes for the extraction of photosynthetic pigments from leaves of higher plants. Functional Plant Biology 31(2), 195–202 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Zhang, D., Zhang, J., Yang, B. W. & Wu, F. Effects of afforestation with Eucalyptus grandis on soil physicochemical and microbiological properties. Soil Res. 50, 167–176 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Mouillot, D., Graham, N. A., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. & Bellwood, D. R. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(3), 167–177 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Audino, L., Louzada, J. & Comita, L. Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: Is it possible to recover species and functional diversity? Biological Conservation 169, 248–257 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    McGill, B. J., Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J. & Magurran, A. E. Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend in the Anthropocene. Trends in ecology & evolution 30(2), 104–113 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Martello, F., Andriolli, F., de Souza, T. B., Dodonov, P. & Ribeiro, M. C. Edge and land use effects on dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) in Brazilian cerrado vegetation. Journal of Insect Conservation 20(6), 957–970 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Gardner, T. A. et al. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a Neotropical herpetofauna. Conservation biology 21(3), 775–787 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lo-Man-Hung, N. F., Gardner, T. A., Ribeiro-Júnior, M. A., Barlow, J. & Bonaldo, A. B. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for Neotropical epigeic arachnids. Journal of Arachnology 36(2), 394–401 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Bihn, J. H., Gebauer, G. & Brandl, R. Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests. Ecology 91(3), 782–792 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lapola, D. M. & Fowler, H. G. Questioning the implementation of habitat corridors: a case study in interior São Paulo using ants as bioindicators. Brazilian Journal of Biology 68(1), 11–20 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Benayas, J. M. R., Bullock, J. M. & Newton, A. C. Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(6), 329–336 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Campoe, O. C., Stape, J. L. & Mendes, J. C. T. Can intensive management accelerate the restoration of Brazil’s Atlantic forests? Forest Ecology and Management 259(9), 1808–1814 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Geldenhuys, C. J. Native forest regeneration in pine and eucalypt plantations in Northern Province, South Africa. Forest Ecology and Management 99(1), 101–115 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Neri, A. V. et al. Regeneração de espécies nativas lenhosas sob plantio de Eucalyptus em área de Cerrado na Floresta Nacional de Paraopeba, MG, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 19(2), 369–376 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Corbin, J. D. & Holl, K. D. Applied nucleation as a forest restoration strategy. Forest Ecology and Management 265, 37–46 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Colombo, A. F. & Joly, C. A. Brazilian Atlantic Forest lato sensu: the most ancient Brazilian forest, and a biodiversity hotspot, is highly threatened by climate change. Brazilian Journal of Biology 70(3), 697–708 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Bestelmeyer, B. T. The trade‐off between thermal tolerance and behavioral dominance in a subtropical South American ant community. Journal of Animal Ecology 69(6), 998–1009 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Silva, R. R. & Brandão, C. R. F. Morphological patterns and community organization in leaf-litter ant assemblages. Ecological Monographs 80(1), 107–124 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Gibb, H. & Parr, C. L. Does structural complexity determine the morphology of assemblages? An experimental test on three continents. PLoS One 8(5), e64005 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Yates, M. L., Andrew, N. R., Binns, M. & Gibb, H. Morphological traits: predictable responses to macrohabitats across a 300 km scale. PeerJ 2, e271 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Gibb, H. et al. Does morphology predict trophic position and habitat use of ant species and assemblages? Oecologia 177(2), 519–531 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Parr, C. L. et al. GlobalAnts: a new database on the geography of ant traits (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Conservation and Diversity 10(1), 5–20 (2017).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Pakeman, R. J. & Quested, H. M. Sampling plant functional traits: what proportion of the species need to be measured? Applied Vegetation Science 10(1), 91–96 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Pakeman, R. J. Functional trait metrics are sensitive to the completeness of the species’ trait data? Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5(1), 9–15 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Májeková, M. et al. Evaluating functional diversity: missing trait data and the importance of species abundance structure and data transformation. PloS one 11(2), e0149270 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Silva, R. R. & Brandão, C. R. F. Ecosystem-wide morphological structure of leaf-litter ant communities along a tropical latitudinal gradient. PloS one 9(3), e93049 (2014).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Baselga, A. (2010). Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19(1), 134–143 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Baselga, A. & Orme, C. D. L. Betapart: an R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3(5), 808–812 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    R Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/ (2017).

  80. 80.

    Garnier, E. et al. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 85(9), 2630–2637 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Diaz, S. et al. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science 15(3), 295–304 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Carmona, C. P., de Bello, F., Mason, N. W. & Lepš, J. The density awakens: a reply to Blonder. Trends in ecology & evolution 31(9), 667–669 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Moretti, M., De Bello, F., Roberts, S. P. & Potts, S. G. Taxonomical vs. functional responses of bee communities to fire in two contrasting climatic regions. Journal of Animal Ecology 78(1), 98–108 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Botta‐Dukát, Z. Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. Journal of Vegetation Science 16(5), 533–540 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Longino, J. T. What to do with the data. in Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity (ed. Agosti, D., Majer, J., Alonso, E. & Schultz, T. R.) 186–203, (Washigton, 2000).

  86. 86.

    Leponce, M., Theunis, L., Delabie, J. & Roisin, Y. Scale dependence of diversity measures in a leaf-litter ant assemblage. Ecography 27, 253–267 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Mouillot, D., Graham, N. A. S., Mason, N. W. & Bellwood, D. R. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(3), 167–177 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Laliberté, E., Legendre, P. & Shipley, B. FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1, 0–12 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Blonder, B., Lamanna, C., Violle, C. & Enquist, B. J. The n‐dimensional hypervolume. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23(5), 595–609 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Siegel, S. & Castellan, N. J. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-HiU Book Company, New York (1988).

  91. 91.

    Anderson, M. J. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland (2001).

  92. 92.

    Oksanen, J. et al. The vegan package. Community ecology package 10, 631–637 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Wickham, H. Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer (2016).

  94. 94.

    Kaspari, M. Body size and microclimate use in Neotropical granivorous ants. Oecologia 96(4), 500–507 (1993).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Weiser, M. D. & Kaspari, M. Ecological morphospace of New World ants. Ecological Entomology 31(2), 131–142 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Fowler, H. G., Forti, L. C., Brandão, C. R. F., Delabie, J. H. C. & Vasconcelos, H. L. Ecologia nutricional de formigas. Ecologia nutricional de insetos e suas implicações no manejo de pragas, 131–223 (1991).

  97. 97.

    Gronenberg, W. The trap-jaw mechanism in the dacetine ants Daceton armigerum and Strumigenys sp. Journal of Experimental Biology 199(9), 2021–2033 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Bauer, T., Desender, K., Morwinsky, T. & Betz, O. Eye morphology reflects habitat demands in three closely related ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Journal of Zoology 245(4), 467–472 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Traniello, J. F. A. Comparative foraging ecology of north temperate ants: the role of worker size and cooperative foraging in prey selection. Insectes Sociaux 34(2), 118–130 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Kaspari, M. Worker size and seed size selection by harvester ants in a Neotropical forest. Oecologia 105(3), 397–404 (1996).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Kaspari, M. & Weiser, M. D. The size–grain hypothesis and interspecific scaling in ants. Functional Ecology 13(4), 530–538 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Feener, D. H. Jr., Lighton, J. R. B. & Bartholomew, G. A. Curvilinear allometry, energetics and foraging ecology: a comparison of leaf-cutting ants and army ants. Functional Ecology, 509–520 (1988).

  103. 103.

    Wiescher, P. T., Pearce-Duvet, J. M. & Feener, D. H. Assembling an ant community: species functional traits reflect environmental filtering. Oecologia 169(4), 1063–1074 (2012).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank to Megan King for proofreading the manuscript. We also thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for support granted to FM (#99999.004182/2014-06). MSCM receives research grants from FAPESP (#10/50973-7, 10/50294-2 and 2015/05126-8). MCR receives research grant from CNPq (# 312045/2013-1; 312292/2016-3) and is continually supported by FAPESP (# 2013/50421-2). CPC was supported by a Mobilitas Pluss Fellowship from the Estonian Research Council (project MOBJD13), and by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence EcolChange).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.S.C., M.S.M. and R.R.S. conceived the ideas and designed method, collected the data (ants and traits measurements) and identified ant species; F.M., C.C. and F.de.B. analyzed the data; F.M., C.C., F.de.B. and M.C.R. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe Martello.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martello, F., de Bello, F., Morini, M. et al. Homogenization and impoverishment of taxonomic and functional diversity of ants in Eucalyptus plantations. Sci Rep 8, 3266 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20823-1

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing