Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?

<p>This study aims to analyze how the vegetation structure (physiognomy) and seasonal changes between seasons (wet and dry) influence richness, diversity and composition of ant species of arboreal and shrubby Caatinga environments. The vegetation structure was significantly different among the...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Emerson Mota Silva, Anderson Matos Medina, Ivan Cardoso Nascimento, Priscila Paixão Lopes, Karine S. Carvalho, Gilberto M. M. Santos
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana 2014
Materias:	Species Richness Formicidae Species Composition Seasonality Environmental Heterogeneity Zoology QL1-991 Ecology QH540-549.5 Natural history (General) QH1-278.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/8014f9b95b614a2a9f0cf0e8ac130539
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:8014f9b95b614a2a9f0cf0e8ac130539
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:8014f9b95b614a2a9f0cf0e8ac1305392021-12-02T13:42:43ZDoes ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?0361-652510.13102/sociobiology.v61i2.155-163https://doaj.org/article/8014f9b95b614a2a9f0cf0e8ac1305392014-07-01T00:00:00Zhttp://periodicos.uefs.br/ojs/index.php/sociobiology/article/view/421https://doaj.org/toc/0361-6525<p>This study aims to analyze how the vegetation structure (physiognomy) and seasonal changes between seasons (wet and dry) influence richness, diversity and composition of ant species of arboreal and shrubby Caatinga environments. The vegetation structure was significantly different among the three strata for all parameters (mean diameter of vegetation, level of herbaceous cover, degree of coverage and thickness of litter and percentage of canopy cover). We collected 127 ant species. The mean number of species was approximately two times higher in the rainy season than in the dry season. There was no difference in species richness between the arboreal and shrubby Caatinga physiognomies nor interaction between season and physiognomy. Despite the similarity in richness, species composition differed between physiognomies, however we found no difference in composition between seasons. The seasonal differentiation may be mainly related to the variation in the overall numbers of individuals circulating in the environment, since the enhancement of resource availability during rainy season allows the colony to grow or expand foraging activities, which increases local diversity. Water restriction explains the limited diversity in both environments, while the occurrence of species with greater resource specificity may determine differences in ant composition. Differences in composition of each of Caatinga's physiognomy enhance beta diversity, therefore, raising the overall diversity in the Caatinga Domain. </p>Emerson Mota SilvaAnderson Matos MedinaIvan Cardoso NascimentoPriscila Paixão LopesKarine S. CarvalhoGilberto M. M. SantosUniversidade Estadual de Feira de SantanaarticleSpecies RichnessFormicidaeSpecies CompositionSeasonalityEnvironmental HeterogeneityZoologyQL1-991EcologyQH540-549.5Natural history (General)QH1-278.5ENSociobiology, Vol 61, Iss 2, Pp 155-163 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Species Richness Formicidae Species Composition Seasonality Environmental Heterogeneity Zoology QL1-991 Ecology QH540-549.5 Natural history (General) QH1-278.5
spellingShingle	Species Richness Formicidae Species Composition Seasonality Environmental Heterogeneity Zoology QL1-991 Ecology QH540-549.5 Natural history (General) QH1-278.5 Emerson Mota Silva Anderson Matos Medina Ivan Cardoso Nascimento Priscila Paixão Lopes Karine S. Carvalho Gilberto M. M. Santos Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
description	<p>This study aims to analyze how the vegetation structure (physiognomy) and seasonal changes between seasons (wet and dry) influence richness, diversity and composition of ant species of arboreal and shrubby Caatinga environments. The vegetation structure was significantly different among the three strata for all parameters (mean diameter of vegetation, level of herbaceous cover, degree of coverage and thickness of litter and percentage of canopy cover). We collected 127 ant species. The mean number of species was approximately two times higher in the rainy season than in the dry season. There was no difference in species richness between the arboreal and shrubby Caatinga physiognomies nor interaction between season and physiognomy. Despite the similarity in richness, species composition differed between physiognomies, however we found no difference in composition between seasons. The seasonal differentiation may be mainly related to the variation in the overall numbers of individuals circulating in the environment, since the enhancement of resource availability during rainy season allows the colony to grow or expand foraging activities, which increases local diversity. Water restriction explains the limited diversity in both environments, while the occurrence of species with greater resource specificity may determine differences in ant composition. Differences in composition of each of Caatinga's physiognomy enhance beta diversity, therefore, raising the overall diversity in the Caatinga Domain. </p>
format	article
author	Emerson Mota Silva Anderson Matos Medina Ivan Cardoso Nascimento Priscila Paixão Lopes Karine S. Carvalho Gilberto M. M. Santos
author_facet	Emerson Mota Silva Anderson Matos Medina Ivan Cardoso Nascimento Priscila Paixão Lopes Karine S. Carvalho Gilberto M. M. Santos
author_sort	Emerson Mota Silva
title	Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
title_short	Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
title_full	Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
title_fullStr	Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
title_full_unstemmed	Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
title_sort	does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?
publisher	Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/8014f9b95b614a2a9f0cf0e8ac130539
work_keys_str_mv	AT emersonmotasilva doesantrichnessandcompositionrespondtophytophysiognomicalcomplexityandseasonalityinxericenvironments AT andersonmatosmedina doesantrichnessandcompositionrespondtophytophysiognomicalcomplexityandseasonalityinxericenvironments AT ivancardosonascimento doesantrichnessandcompositionrespondtophytophysiognomicalcomplexityandseasonalityinxericenvironments AT priscilapaixaolopes doesantrichnessandcompositionrespondtophytophysiognomicalcomplexityandseasonalityinxericenvironments AT karinescarvalho doesantrichnessandcompositionrespondtophytophysiognomicalcomplexityandseasonalityinxericenvironments AT gilbertommsantos doesantrichnessandcompositionrespondtophytophysiognomicalcomplexityandseasonalityinxericenvironments
_version_	1718392564073103360

Does ant richness and composition respond to phytophysiognomical complexity and seasonality in xeric environments?

Ejemplares similares