Efeitos da fragmentação florestal sobre vespas e abelhas solitárias em uma área da Amazônia Central

Morato, Elder F.; Campos, Lúcio Antônio de O.

doi:10.1590/S0101-81752000000200014

Resumo

The effects of forest fragmentation on tree-hole nesting solitary wasps and bees were investigated at a site 90 km north of Manaus, Brazil. Wasp and bee faunas were monitored in continuous terra firme forest, forest fragments of 1, 10 and 100 ha, natural gaps in continuous forest and deforested areas. These habitats were studied in terms of abundance, richness, diversity and similarity. The wasps and bees were monitored monthly during June 1988 through June 1990 by means of a trap-nests technique. A total of 1529 nests of wasps of 24 species and 405 nests of bees of 14 species were collected. The number of species of wasps and bees varied little among the habitats. The genus Trypoxylon Latreille, 1796 (Sphecidae) accounted for 79% of wasp nests and Centris Fabricius, 1804 (Anthophoridae) for 56% of bee nests. Wasps showed an overall preference for cleared areas and fragments of 1 ha, whereas bees showed an overall preference for continuous forest and natural gaps. Nevertheless, some species of wasps showed a preference for nesting in continuous forest and some bees a preference for deforested areas. Species found in deforested areas also nested in small size forest fragments. This shows that species occurring predominantly in cleared áreas can also colonize small forest fragments. The diversity of wasps and bees was greater in continuous forest. The composition of wasp and bee faunas of continuous forest was different from that of altered habitats. The similarity between the natural gaps and cleared areas was the smallest. The data suggest that the forest adapted bees are more sensitive to habitai fragmentation than the corresponding species of wasps. It is concluded that the preexisting cavity nesting solitary wasp and bee communities were altered by the forest fragmentation. However, it appears that at least in part, the natural variation in continuous forest could be responsible for the resulte obtained from this study.

Amazonia; forest fragmentation; solitary bees; solitary wasps; trap-nests

Efeitos da fragmentação florestal sobre vespas e abelhas solitárias em uma área da Amazônia Central

Effects of forest fragmentation on solilary wasps and bees in an area in Central Amazônia

Elder F. Morato^I; Lúcio Antônio de O. Campos^II

^IDepartamento de Ciências da Natureza, Universidade Federal do Acre. 69915-900 Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil

^IIDepartamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa. 36571-000 Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil

ABSTRACT

The effects of forest fragmentation on tree-hole nesting solitary wasps and bees were investigated at a site 90 km north of Manaus, Brazil. Wasp and bee faunas were monitored in continuous terra firme forest, forest fragments of 1, 10 and 100 ha, natural gaps in continuous forest and deforested areas. These habitats were studied in terms of abundance, richness, diversity and similarity. The wasps and bees were monitored monthly during June 1988 through June 1990 by means of a trap-nests technique. A total of 1529 nests of wasps of 24 species and 405 nests of bees of 14 species were collected. The number of species of wasps and bees varied little among the habitats. The genus Trypoxylon Latreille, 1796 (Sphecidae) accounted for 79% of wasp nests and Centris Fabricius, 1804 (Anthophoridae) for 56% of bee nests. Wasps showed an overall preference for cleared areas and fragments of 1 ha, whereas bees showed an overall preference for continuous forest and natural gaps. Nevertheless, some species of wasps showed a preference for nesting in continuous forest and some bees a preference for deforested areas. Species found in deforested areas also nested in small size forest fragments. This shows that species occurring predominantly in cleared áreas can also colonize small forest fragments. The diversity of wasps and bees was greater in continuous forest. The composition of wasp and bee faunas of continuous forest was different from that of altered habitats. The similarity between the natural gaps and cleared areas was the smallest. The data suggest that the forest adapted bees are more sensitive to habitai fragmentation than the corresponding species of wasps. It is concluded that the preexisting cavity nesting solitary wasp and bee communities were altered by the forest fragmentation. However, it appears that at least in part, the natural variation in continuous forest could be responsible for the resulte obtained from this study.

Key words: Amazonia, forest fragmentation, solitary bees, solitary wasps, trap-nests.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

AGRADECIMENTOS. Ao Prof. Pe. Jesus Santiago Moure (UFPR), Dr. Sérvio Túlio Amarante (MZUSP), Dr. Amold s. Menke (Systematic Entomology Lab. - U.S. National Museum) e Dr. A. Willink (Facultad de Ciências Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo - Universidad Nacional de Tucumán) pela identificação das espécies de abelhas e vespas. Este estudo foi parcialmente financiado pelo Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA) e pelo Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution (STRI) e representa a publicação número 308 da série técnica do projeto Dinâmica Biológica de Fragmentos Florestais (Instituto de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Caixa Postal 478, 69011-970 Manaus, Amazonas, Brasil).

Recebido em 06.VIII.1998; aceito em 25.IV.2000.

Batra, S.W. 1984. Solitary bees. Sci Amer. 250 (2): 86-93.
Bierregaard Jr., R.D. & T. Lovejoy. 1988. Birds in Amazonian forest fragments: effects of insularization, p. 1564-1579. In: H. Quellet (Ed.). Acta XIX Cong. Int. Ornith.. Ottawa, Univ. of Ottawa Press, 1409p.
Cowan, D.P. 1991. The solitary and presocial Vespidae, p. 33-73. In: K.E. Ross & R.W. Matthews (Ed.). The social biology of wasps. Ithaca, Comstock Publishing Associates, 678p.
Diamond, J.M. & R.M. May. 1976. Island biogeography and the design of natural reserves, p. 163-186. In: R.M. May (Ed.). Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Oxford, Blackwell, 317p.
Evans, H.E. 1966. The behavior pattems of solitaiy wasps. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 11: 123-54.
Evans, H.E. & M.J.W. Eberhard. 1970. The Wasps. Ann. Arbor., The University of Michigan Press, 265p.
Fye, R.E. 1972. The effect of forest disturbances on populations of wasps and bees in Northwestern Ontario (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Canad. Entomol. 104: 1623-1633.
Henderson, A.; G. Galeano & R. Bernal. 1995. Field guide to the palms of the Americas. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 353p.
Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test of comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Jour. Theor. Biol. 29: 151-154.
Janzen, D.H. 1983. No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos 41: 402-410.
Jayasingh, D.B. & C.A. Taffe. 1982. The biology of the eumenid mud-wasp Pachodynerus nasidens in trapnests. Ecological Entomology 7: 283-289.
Jennings, D.T. & M.W. Housewart. 1984. Predation by eumenid wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae) on spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and other lepidopterous larvae in spruce-fir forests of Maine. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 77 (1): 39-45.
Krombein, K.V. 1960a. Biological notes on some Hymenoptera that nest in sumach pith. Ent. News 71 (2): 29-36.
______ . 1960b. Biological notes on some Hymenoptera that nest in sumach pith. Ent. News 71 (3): 63-9.
______ . 1967. Trap-nesting wasps and bees: life histories, nests and associates. Washington, Smithsonian Press, 569p.
Lovejoy, T.E. 1980. Discontinuous wilderness: minimum areas for conservation. Parks 5 (2): 13-5.
Lovejoy, T.E.; J.M. Rankin; R.O. Bierregaard Jr.; K.S. Brown Jr.; L.H. Emmons & M.E. Van der Voor. 1984. Ecosystem decay of Amazon forest remnants, p. 295-325. In: M.H. Nitecki (Ed.). Extinctions. Chicago, University of Chicago, 354p.
Lovejoy, T.E.; R.O. Bierregaard Jr.; A.B. Rylands; J.R. Malcon; C.E. Quintela; L. Harper; K.S. Brown Jr.; A.H. Powell; G.V.N. Powell; H.O.R. Schubart & M.B. Hays. 1986. Edge and other effects on isolation on Amazon forest fragments, p. 257-285. In: M.E. Soule (Ed.). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer, 584p.
Ludwig, J.A. & J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 337p.
Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 179p.
Martins, M. 1987. Variação espacial e temporal de algumas espécies e grupos de Drosophila (Diptera) em duas reservas de mata isoladas nas vizinhanças de Manaus (Amazonas, Brasil). Bol. Mus. Par. Emílio Goeldi. Ser. Zool. 3 (2): 195-218.
______ . 1989. Invasão de fragmentos florestais por espécies oportunistas de Drosophila (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Acta Amazonica 19: 265-271.
Parker, F.D. 1986. Factors influencing mortality and nesting in managed populations of the sunflower leafcutter bee (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Environ. Entomol. 15(4): 877-879.
Pielou, E.C. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data: a primer on classification and ordination. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 263p.
Roubik, D.W. 1989. Ecology and natural history of tropical bees. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 514p.
Sokal, R.R. & F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. San Francisco, Freeman and Company, 887p.
Sousa, W.P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 353-391.

Datas de Publicação

Publicação nesta coleção
12 Maio 2009
Data do Fascículo
Jun 2000

Histórico

Aceito
25 Abr 2000
Recebido
06 Ago 1998

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[1] Batra, S.W. 1984. Solitary bees. Sci Amer. 250 (2): 86-93.

[2] Bierregaard Jr., R.D. & T. Lovejoy. 1988. Birds in Amazonian forest fragments: effects of insularization, p. 1564-1579. In: H. Quellet (Ed.). Acta XIX Cong. Int. Ornith.. Ottawa, Univ. of Ottawa Press, 1409p.

[3] Cowan, D.P. 1991. The solitary and presocial Vespidae, p. 33-73. In: K.E. Ross & R.W. Matthews (Ed.). The social biology of wasps. Ithaca, Comstock Publishing Associates, 678p.

[4] Diamond, J.M. & R.M. May. 1976. Island biogeography and the design of natural reserves, p. 163-186. In: R.M. May (Ed.). Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Oxford, Blackwell, 317p.

[5] Evans, H.E. 1966. The behavior pattems of solitaiy wasps. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 11: 123-54.

[6] Evans, H.E. & M.J.W. Eberhard. 1970. The Wasps. Ann. Arbor., The University of Michigan Press, 265p.

[7] Fye, R.E. 1972. The effect of forest disturbances on populations of wasps and bees in Northwestern Ontario (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Canad. Entomol. 104: 1623-1633.

[8] Henderson, A.; G. Galeano & R. Bernal. 1995. Field guide to the palms of the Americas. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 353p.

[9] Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test of comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Jour. Theor. Biol. 29: 151-154.

[10] Janzen, D.H. 1983. No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos 41: 402-410.

[11] Jayasingh, D.B. & C.A. Taffe. 1982. The biology of the eumenid mud-wasp Pachodynerus nasidens in trapnests. Ecological Entomology 7: 283-289.

[12] Jennings, D.T. & M.W. Housewart. 1984. Predation by eumenid wasps (Hymenoptera: Eumenidae) on spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and other lepidopterous larvae in spruce-fir forests of Maine. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 77 (1): 39-45.

[13] Krombein, K.V. 1960a. Biological notes on some Hymenoptera that nest in sumach pith. Ent. News 71 (2): 29-36.

[14] ______ . 1960b. Biological notes on some Hymenoptera that nest in sumach pith. Ent. News 71 (3): 63-9.

[15] ______ . 1967. Trap-nesting wasps and bees: life histories, nests and associates. Washington, Smithsonian Press, 569p.

[16] Lovejoy, T.E. 1980. Discontinuous wilderness: minimum areas for conservation. Parks 5 (2): 13-5.

[17] Lovejoy, T.E.; J.M. Rankin; R.O. Bierregaard Jr.; K.S. Brown Jr.; L.H. Emmons & M.E. Van der Voor. 1984. Ecosystem decay of Amazon forest remnants, p. 295-325. In: M.H. Nitecki (Ed.). Extinctions. Chicago, University of Chicago, 354p.

[18] Lovejoy, T.E.; R.O. Bierregaard Jr.; A.B. Rylands; J.R. Malcon; C.E. Quintela; L. Harper; K.S. Brown Jr.; A.H. Powell; G.V.N. Powell; H.O.R. Schubart & M.B. Hays. 1986. Edge and other effects on isolation on Amazon forest fragments, p. 257-285. In: M.E. Soule (Ed.). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer, 584p.

[19] Ludwig, J.A. & J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 337p.

[20] Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 179p.

[21] Martins, M. 1987. Variação espacial e temporal de algumas espécies e grupos de Drosophila (Diptera) em duas reservas de mata isoladas nas vizinhanças de Manaus (Amazonas, Brasil). Bol. Mus. Par. Emílio Goeldi. Ser. Zool. 3 (2): 195-218.

[22] ______ . 1989. Invasão de fragmentos florestais por espécies oportunistas de Drosophila (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Acta Amazonica 19: 265-271.

[23] Parker, F.D. 1986. Factors influencing mortality and nesting in managed populations of the sunflower leafcutter bee (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Environ. Entomol. 15(4): 877-879.

[24] Pielou, E.C. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data: a primer on classification and ordination. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 263p.

[25] Roubik, D.W. 1989. Ecology and natural history of tropical bees. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 514p.

[26] Sokal, R.R. & F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. San Francisco, Freeman and Company, 887p.

[27] Sousa, W.P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 353-391.