Introduction
The Winkler extraction is a rapid, simple, cost-effective, and repeatable method to collect ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the leaf litter (Bestelmeyer et al. 2000; Delabie et al. 2000). This method, along with pitfall traps, constitute the fundamental sampling techniques of the standardized “Ants of the Leaf Litter” (A.L.L.) protocol (Agosti and Alonso 2000). The latter was developed to allow qualitative and quantitative comparisons of ant assemblages at different localities or over time, for use in biological evaluation and conservation, assemblage monitoring, and description of diversity patterns. In order to carry out reliable comparisons, the Winkler extraction duration should ideally be sufficient to collect all the ants present in the sample, or at least to provide a correct picture of the assemblage structure. The standard Winkler extraction of the A.L.L. protocol lasts 48 hours, but a survey of the literature shows that a large variety of extraction durations have been used, often without a justification (the extraction time ranged from 0 to 10 days or was not given; a 48—hour extraction was used in less than 50 % of the 73 studies surveyed. Supplementary details are provided in the Appendix). This diversity makes inter-study comparisons potentially challenging, especially because a very long time is often necessary to obtain a complete extraction of the ant fauna (Krell et al. 2005; Sakchoowong et al. 2007). For instance, up to 15 days were necessary to extract all ants present in leaf litter samples from temperate forests of England (Krell et al. 2005). In addition, because the Winkler method is partly based on the passive dessication of the leaf litter (Bestelmeyer et al. 2000; Krell et al. 2005), the completeness of ant extraction might be affected by the moisture content of the sample, with wetter samples requiring longer extraction times than drier ones. If it is the case, using the Winkler method to compare the ant assemblage structure among seasons, between moist and dry habitats, or even before and after a rain might be irrelevant. In this study, the leaf litter moisture of a mountain rainforest was experimentally manipulated to test the following hypotheses. First, the completeness of a 48—hour Winkler extraction, as recommended by the A.L.L. protocol, is not affected by the initial moisture content of the leaf litter sample. This result would be obtained if the ant extraction relies mainly on the disturbance of the leaf litter rather than on its passive dessication. Second, a 48—hour extraction is sufficient to obtain a reliable picture of the ant assemblage, whatever the initial moisture content of the leaf litter sample. To test this hypothesis, we compared the composition and the species relative abundance of the ant assemblages after a 48—hour and a 96—hour Winkler extraction for both dry and moist leaf litter samples.
Figure 1.
Relationship between the moisture content of the leaf litter sample and the proportion of ant individuals added by the second Winkler extraction. Only data from rainfall-excluded plots were analyzed (n = 60). Data from rainfall-allowed plots were not included because the moisture content of almost all these samples was maximal (Table 1 ). Both axes are arcsin square root transformed. The best—fitting equation of the regression analysis was: asinsqrt (Proportion of added individual) = -0.01 7 + 0.3 11 × asinsqrt (Leaf litter moisture); adjusted r2 = 0.189, p < 0.01. High quality figures are available online.
Materials and Methods
The study was carried out at 2000 m a.s.l. at the “te;serva BiologíFrancisco” situated within the Eastern Cordillera of the Ecuadorian Andes, in the province of ZamoraChinchipe (3° 58' S, 79° 5' W). Vegetation corresponds to an evergreen upper montane forest (Hormeier et al. 2008). Mean annual precipitation is 2100 mm (Bendix et al. 2008). Mean temperature in the leaf litter during the experiment was 16 °C (min-max: 12.7-21.5 °C). Atmospheric relative humidity at 1.5 m above ground ranged from 91 to 95% during sampling.
In November 2009, six 3 ×3 m plots, spaced 2 to 20 m apart, were randomly assigned to either rainfall—excluded (n = 3) or rainfall—allowed (n = 3) plots. Rainfall exclusion was achieved by installing transparent plastic sheets at 1-1.2 m above ground. At the top side of the plot, a supplementary sheet was buried to a depth of 30 cm to keep running water from going inside. The three other sides were left open to limit any greenhouse effect. A mesh replaced the sheets at rainfall—allowed plots to exclude falling leaves but to allow rainfall inputs (Figure 2).
In May 2010, ants were collected using the Winkler method (Bestelmeyer et al. 2000). One plot of each treatment was always sampled during a single day. Sampling was carried out at least a day after significant rainfall to limit the risk of arthropods (especially small ones) sticking to the wet litter, and thus not being effectively extracted (Fisher 1996). The leaf litter present inside a 0.5 m2 or a 0.25 m2 quadrat (n = 16 and 4/plot, respectively) was collected and sifted (Figure 3 shows details of the quadrat disposition within each plot). The moisture content (using a Protometer Mini moisture meter, www.romus.org), volume, and weight of the sifted leaf litter were measured and its fauna was extracted with a mini—Winkler apparatus (Fisher 1996, 1998). All the extractions operated in the same room. After a 48—hour extraction, the collecting container was replaced by a new one and a second extraction was performed over a 48—hour period. No additional search for remaining ants was made after the second extraction, since such a procedure may be highly time—consuming (Ivanov et al. 2010). Rather, the efficiency of the first 48—hour extraction was estimated by calculating the proportion of individuals and species collected after the first extraction relative to the total number of individuals and species present after a 96—hour extraction.
Figure 2.
Rainfall—excluded (A, B) and rainfall-allowed (C, D) plots. High quality figures are available online.
Figure 3.
Quadrat disposition within each plot. Each plot was a 3 × 3 m square. The disposition of the quadrats was chosen in order to obtain a 50 cm border around a 4 m2 area. The fact that quadrats are of two different sizes (0.5 and 0.25 m2) is a consequence of this design. High quality figures are available online.
Analyses of similarity (ANOSIM) was used to test for differences in the composition of ant assemblages between treatments and between the first and second Winkler extractions. The ANOSIM test is a non—parametric permutation procedure applied to similarity matrices. It produces a global R—statistic, which represents an absolute measure of distance between groups. When the R—value is close to 1, groups are highly distinct; whereas when the R—value is close to 0, groups are strongly similar (Clarke and Gorley 2006). Abundance data were fourth—root transformed prior to analyses to reduce the weight of common species. Similarity matrices were built using Bray—Curtis similarity measures. Tests were performed with the PRIMER v.6.1.6. software (PRIMER-E Ltd., www.primer-e.com). Other analyses were carried out using the SigmatStat v.2.03 software (Systat Software Inc., www.systat.com).
Our protocol was designed to answer to two independent, although complementary, questions. The first one is methodological and aims to evaluate the impact of leaf litter moisture on the efficiency of the Winkler method for extracting ants. The second is ecological and is about understanding the impact of an extended drought per se on ant assemblages. Here, we focused on the first question; differences between ant assemblages from rainfall—excluded and rainfall—allowed plots will be discussed in detail elsewhere (Delsinne et al. in prep.). Voucher specimens were deposited at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium and at the “Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja”, Loja, Ecuador.
Results and Discussion
The leaf litter samples from rainfall—excluded plots were on average 43% drier than samples from rainfall—allowed plots (Table 1). In total, 5649 ant specimens and 28 species were collected (Tables 1 and 2). Doubling the Winkler extraction time allowed the collection of 7.8 and 23.5% of supplementary individuals for rainfall—excluded and rainfallallowed samples, respectively (Table 1; Mann—Whitney Rank Sum Test, p < 0.01). For samples collected under rainfall—excluded plots (n = 60), the proportion of added individuals increased significantly with increasing moisture content of the leaf litter sample; both variables were arcsin square root transformed prior to linear regression analysis (p < 0.01; Figure 1). Adding either the volume or the weight (both log10 transformed) of the leaf litter into the model did not significantly improve the ability of the equation to predict the proportion of added individuals (arcsin square root transformed) (stepwise regression). Interestingly, when the three very wet samples (moisture content = 100 %; asinsqrt (100) = 1.57; Figure 1) were excluded from the analysis, the significance of the trend disappeared; the best—fitting equation of the regression analysis became: asinsqrt (Proportion of added individual) = 0.0316 + 0.248 × asinsqrt (Leaf litter moisture); adjusted r2 = 0.042, p = 0.068). These results indicated that the moisture content of the leaf litter sample significantly affected the efficiency of the Winkler method to extract ant individuals, at least when the moisture content was very high. The wetter the leaf litter, the longer the extraction should ideally last in order to collect all the specimens present within the sample. More data are needed to accurately estimate (1) the moisture content, above which it would be useful to extend the Winkler extraction, and (2) the duration of the extraction necessary to achieve similar extraction efficiencies.
Fortunately, the standard 48—hour extraction was sufficient to provide a reliable estimation of the composition and species richness of the ant assemblage, even when based on very wet samples. Indeed, there were no significant differences in the composition of the ant assemblage between Winkler extraction times (R = —0.333; p = 1 for both treatments; anosim tests). Moreover, the proportion of species added was not significantly different between samples from the two treatments (Table 1; Mann—Whitney Rank Sum Test, p = 0.395). Only three and eight samples, containing between one and six species after the first extraction, had one supplementary species documented after the second extraction for rainfall-excluded (n = 60) and rainfall-allowed plots (n = 60), respectively. At the treatment level, all the species collected after a 96—hour extraction were already documented after the first 48—hour extraction. Because ants are social insects, it is generally recommended to work with occurrence rather than abundance data (Longino 2000). Our results suggested this also limits biases caused by the leaf litter moisture.
The ant species rank—abundance curves based on 48—hour and 96—hour extracted samples were very similar for both treatments (Spearman Rank Order Correlations; for rainfall—excluded plots: n = 24 species; r = 0.990, p < 0.01; for rainfall—allowed plots: n = 20 species; r = 0.984; p < 0.01). Thus, doubling the extraction time did not substantively change the shape of the species relative abundance curve obtained after a standard 48—hour extraction.
There were no significant differences in the composition of the ant assemblage between treatments (R = 0.296; p = 0.2, anosim test based on the 48—hour Winkler extraction). At the species level, changes in relative abundance between rainfall—excluded and rainfall-allowed plots (Table 2) may be caused, for instance, by specific differences in drought tolerance. Nevertheless, it is possible that some individuals stuck to the wet litter of rainfall—allowed samples and were lost during the sifting process. This is suspected to be especially true for small ants, such as Brachymyrmex and Solenopsis species, since they are more prone to stick to wet litter. As a result, at least part of the differences in species relative abundance between treatments may be caused by the sampling procedure itself.
The few studies that have investigated the Winkler extraction efficiency for different periods of time demonstrated that a large proportion of both ant specimens and species were rapidly extracted from the samples (Ward 1987; Beshaw and Bolton 1994; Krell et al. 2005; Delsinne et al. 2008; Ivanov et al. 2010). For instance, a 48—hour extraction of samples from the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest allowed documentation of 85 and 95% of ant individuals and species, respectively (J.H.C. Delabie pers. comm.). Moreover, based on the analysis of 110 tropical and temperate assemblages collected with Winkler samples but with an extraction period varying from 10 to 72 hours (mean — SD: 32.3 ± 21.1 hours; median: 24 hours), Ward (2000) found that the extraction period had no significant effect on several measures of diversity such as species richness. Relatively short extraction times seem therefore justified when focusing on ants. Because the moisture content of the leaf litter only slightly decreased during the Winkler extraction (e.g., Sakchoowong et al. 2007; Delsinne pers. obs.), it is probable that the ant fauna migration out of the leaf litter relies mainly on the disturbance of the habitat rather than on its passive dessication.
In conclusion, a 48—hour Winkler extraction duration, as proposed for the A.L.L. protocol (Agosti and Alonso 2000), allows researchers to carry out reliable comparisons of leaf litter ant assemblages. Absolute abundance may be slightly underestimated when the moisture content of the leaf litter sample is high (e.g., ≥ 80%), but the assemblage structure (i.e., species richness, composition, and relative abundance) is correctly documented.
Table 1.
Leaf litter sample properties and efficiency of the ant fauna extraction for relatively dry and wet Winkler samples from rainfall—excluded and rainfall—allowed plots, respectively. Data are medians, interquartiles between parentheses, total values in bold.
Table 2.
The 28 morphospecies collected and their relative abundance (%) for Winkler samples from rainfall—allowed and rainfall-excluded plots. Data from the 48—hour and the 96—hour extractions were computed separately.
Acknowledgments
We thank J. Bendix, the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (D.F.G.)-Research Unit 816 and the team of the “Estación Científica San Francisco” for allowing and extensively facilitating our work at the R.B.S.F. We are grateful to J. Peña for assistance with fieldwork, to M. Leponce and an anonymous referee for discussions and helpful suggestions on the manuscript. This research was funded by the Belgian Science Policy (BELSPO) and was carried out in the framework of E.D.I.T. (European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy).
References
1.
D Agosti
,
M Mohamed
,
CYC. Arthur
1994. Has the diversity of tropical ant fauna been underestimated? An indication from leaf litter studies in a West Malaysian lowland rain forest.
Tropical Biodiversity
2: 270–275.
Google Scholar
2.
D Agosti,
LE. Alonso
2000. The A.L.L. protocol. A standard protocol for the collection of ground—dwelling ants. In:
D Agosti,
JD Majer,
LE Alonso,
TR Schultz
, Editors.
Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity
, pp. 204–206. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Google Scholar
3.
I Armbrecht
,
L Rivera
,
I. Perfecto
2005. Reduced diversity and complexity in the leaf— litter ant assemblage of Colombian coffee plantations.
Conservation Biology
19: 897– 907.
Google Scholar
4.
R Belshaw
,
B. Bolton
1993. The effect of forest disturbance on the leaf litter ant fauna in Ghana.
Biodiversity and Conservation
2: 656–666.
Google Scholar
5.
R Belshaw
,
B. Bolton
1994. A survey of the leaf litter ant fauna in Ghana, West Africa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Journal of Hymenoptera Research
3: 5–16.
Google Scholar
6.
J Bendix
,
R Rollenbeck
,
M Richter
,
P Fabian
,
P. Emck
2008. Climate. In:
E Beck,
J Bendix,
I Kottke,
F Makeschin,
R Mosandl
, Editors.
Gradients in a Tropical Mountain Ecosystem of Ecuador, Ecological Studies
198: 63–73.
Google Scholar
7.
BT Bestelmeyer,
D Agosti,
LE Alonso,
RF Brandáo,
WL Brown Jr,
JHC Delabie,
R. Silvestre
2000. Field techniques for the study of ground–dwelling ants: An overview, description, and evaluation. In:
D Agosti,
JD Majer,
LE Alonso,
TR Schultz
, Editors.
Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity
, pp. 122–144. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Google Scholar
8.
JH Bihn
,
M Verhaagh
,
M Brändie
,
R. Brändi
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: 733–743.
Google Scholar
9.
DL Braga
,
JNC Louzada
,
R Zanetti
,
J. Delabie
2010. Avaliação Rápida da Diversidade de Formigas em Sistemas de Uso do Solo no Sul da Bahia.
Neotropical Entomology
39: 464– 469.
Google Scholar
10.
CRF Brandão,
RR. Silva
2008. Synecology of
Wasmannia auropunctata, an invasive ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in continuous and fragmented areas in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. In:
TD Paine
, Editor.
Invasive Forest Insects,
Introduced Forest Trees,
and Altered Ecosystems. pp. 141–151. Springer Science and Business Media BV.
Google Scholar
11.
CA Brühl
,
T Eltz
,
KE. Linsenmair
2003. Size does matter — effects of tropical rainforest fragmentation on the leaf litter ant community in Sabah, Malaysia.
Biodiversity and Conservation
12: 1371–1389.
Google Scholar
12.
CA Brühl
,
M Mohamed
,
KE. Linsenmair
1999. Altitudinal distribution of leaf litter ants along a transect in primary forests on Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
Journal of Tropical Ecology
15: 265–277.
Google Scholar
13.
LA Calcaterra
,
F Cuezzo
,
SM Cabrera
,
JA. Briano
2010. Ground ant diversity (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Iberá Nature Reserve, the largest wetland of Argentina.
Annals of the Entomological Society of America
103: 71–83.
Google Scholar
14.
KR Clarke,
RN. Gorley
2006.
PRIMER v.6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E.
Google Scholar
15.
DW Davidson
,
J-P Lessard
,
CR Bernau
,
SC. Cook
2007. The tropical ant mosaic in a primary Bornean rain forest.
Biotropica
39: 468–475.
Google Scholar
16.
JHC Delabie,
BL Fisher,
JD Majer,
IW. Wright
2000. Sampling effort and choice of methods. In:
D Agosti,
JD Majer,
LE Alonso,
TR Schultz
, Editors.
Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity.
pp. 145–154. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Google Scholar
17.
T Delsinne
,
M Leponce
,
L Theunis
,
Y Braet
,
Y. Roisin
2008. Rainfall influences ant sampling in dry forests.
Biotropica
40: 590– 596.
Google Scholar
18.
DA Donoso
,
MK Johnston
,
M. Kaspari
2010. Trees as templates for tropical litter arthropod diversity.
Oecologia
164: 201–211.
Google Scholar
19.
DA Donoso
,
G. Ramón
2009. Composition of a high diversity leaf litter ant community (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from an Ecuadorian pre—montane rainforest.
Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (Nouvelle Série)
45: 487–499.
Google Scholar
20.
A dos Santos Oliveira Jr,
J Santos Melo,
L Santos Sampaio,
M Neves Alves,
MC Silva Santos,
R Freire Silva,
AL. Biggi de Souza
2009. Eficiencia de métodos amostrais para a colecta de formigas epigéica em uma floresta tropical no parque Estadual da Serra do Conduru, URUC, UCA - BAHIA.
Anais do IX Congresso de Ecologia do Brasil,
São Lourenço
-MG. 1–3.
Google Scholar
21.
AM Ellison
,
S Record
,
A Arguello
,
NJ. Gotelli
2007. Rapid inventory of the ant assemblage in a temperate hardwood forest: species composition and assessment of sampling methods.
Environmental Entomology
36: 766–775.
Google Scholar
22.
MDF Ellwood
,
DT Jones
,
WA. Foster
2002. Canopy ferns in lowland dipterocarp forest support a prolific abundance of ants, termites, and other invertebrates.
Biotropica
34: 575– 583.
Google Scholar
23.
TM Fayle
,
EC Turner
,
JL Snaddon
,
Chey V Khen
,
AYC Chung
,
P Eggleton
,
WA. Foster
2010. Oil palm expansion into rain forest greatly reduces ant biodiversity in canopy, epiphytes and leaf—litter.
Basic and Applied Ecology
11: 337–345.
Google Scholar
24.
BL. Fisher
1996. Ant diversity patterns along an elevational gradient in the Réserve Naturelle Intégrale d'Andringitra, Madagascar.
Fieldiana Zoology
85: 93–108.
Google Scholar
25.
BL. Fisher
1998. Ant diversity patterns along an elevational gradient in the Réserve Spéciale d'Anjanaharibe-Sud and on the western Masoala Peninsula, Madagascar.
Fieldiana Zoology
90: 39–67.
Google Scholar
26.
BL Fisher
,
HG. Robertson
2002. Comparison and Origin of Forest and Grassland Ant Assemblages in the High Plateau of Madagascar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).
Biotropica
34: 155–167.
Google Scholar
27.
BL. Fisher
1999. Improving inventory efficiency: A case study of leaf–litter ant diversity in Madagascar.
Ecological Applications 9:
714–731.
Google Scholar
28.
S Groc
,
J Orivel
,
A Dejean
,
J-M Martin
,
M-P Etienne
,
B Corbara
,
JHC. Delabie
2009. Baseline study of the leaf—litter ant fauna in a French Guianese forest.
Insect Conservation and Diversity
2: 183–193.
Google Scholar
29.
S. Groc
2006. Diversité de la myrmécofaune des Causses aveyronnais - Comparaison de différentes méthodes d'échantillonnage.
Mémoire de DESUPS.
Université Paul Sabatier.
Google Scholar
30.
RJ Guerrero
,
CE. Sarmiento
2010. Distribución altitudinal de hormigas (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) en la vertiente noroccidental de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Colombia).
Acta Zoológica Mexicana
26: 279–302.
Google Scholar
31.
NR Gunawardene
,
JD Majer
,
JP. Edirisinghe
2010. Investigating residual effects of selective logging on ant species assemblages in Sinharaja Forest Reserve, Sri Lanka.
Forest Ecology and Management
259: 555–562.
Google Scholar
32.
NL Hites
,
MAN Mourão
,
FO Araújo
,
MVC Melo
,
JC de Biseau
,
Y. Quinet
2005. Diversity of the ground-dwelling ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of a moist, montane forest of the semi—arid Brazilian “Nordeste”.
Revista de Biología Tropical
53: 165–173.
Google Scholar
33.
J Homeier
,
FA Werner
,
SR Gradstein
,
S-W Breckle
,
M. Richter
2008. Potential vegetation and floristic composition of Andean forests in South Ecuador, with a focus on the RBSF. In:
E Beck,
J Bendix,
I Kottke,
F Makeschin,
R Mosandl
, Editors.
Gradients in a Tropical Mountain Ecosystem of Ecuador,
Ecological Studies
198: 87–100.
Google Scholar
34.
K Ivanov
,
J Milligan
,
J. Keiper
2010. Efficiency of the Winkler method for extracting ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from temperate–forest litter.
Myrmecological News
13:73–79.
Google Scholar
35.
JA King
,
AN Ansersen
,
AD. Cutter
1998. Ants as bioindicators of habitat disturbance: validation of the functional group model for Australia's humid tropics.
Biodiversity and Conservation
7: 1627–1638.
Google Scholar
36.
Y. Kolo
2006. A rapid assessment of the ants of the Boké Region, Guinea. In:
RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment: A Rapid Biological Assessment of Boké Préfecture, Northwestern Guinea. pp. 120–126. Conservation International.
Google Scholar
37.
M Kone
,
S Konate
,
K Yeo
,
P Kouassi
,
KE. Linsenmair
2010. Diversity and abundance of terrestrial ants along a gradient of land use intensification in a transitional forest—savannah zone of Côte d' Ivoire.
Journal of Applied Biosciences
29: 1809– 1827.
Google Scholar
38.
F-T Krell
,
AYC Chung
,
E DeBoise
,
P Eggleton
,
A Giusti
,
K Inward
,
S. Krell-Westerwalbesloh
2005. Quantitative extraction of macro—invertebrates from temperate and tropical leaf litter and soil: Efficiency and time–dependent taxonomic biases of the Winkler extraction.
Pedobiologia
49: 175–186.
Google Scholar
39.
JS Lapolla
,
T Suman
,
J Sosa-Calvo
,
T. Schultz
2007. Leaf litter ant diversity in Guyana.
Biodiversity and Conservation
16: 491–510.
Google Scholar
40.
M Leponce
,
L Theunis
,
JHC Delabie
,
Y. Roisin
2004. Scale dependence of diversity measures in a leaf—litter ant assemblage.
Ecography
27: 253–267.
Google Scholar
41.
J-P Lessard
,
RR Dunn
,
N J. Sanders
2009. Temperature—mediated coexistence in temperate forest ant communities.
Insectes Sociaux
56: 149–156.
Google Scholar
42.
J-P Lessard
,
TE Sackett
,
WN Reynolds
,
DA Fowler
,
NJ. Sanders
2011. Determinants of the detrital arthropod community structure: the effects of temperature and resources along an environmental gradient.
Oikos
120: 333– 343.
Google Scholar
43.
JT. Longino
2000. What to do with the data? In:
D Agosti,
JD Majer,
LE Alonso,
TR Schultz
, Editors.
Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity.
pp. 186–203. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Google Scholar
44.
JT Longino
,
J Coddington
,
RK. Colwell
2002. The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: estimating species richness three different ways.
Ecology
83: 689–702.
Google Scholar
45.
CT Lopes
,
HL. Vasconcelos
2008. Evaluation of three methods for sampling ground— dwelling ants in the Brazilian Cerrado.
Neotropical Entomology
37: 399–405.
Google Scholar
46.
JD Majer
,
JHC. Delabie
1994. Comparison of the ant communities of annually inundated and terra firme forests at Trombetas in the Brazilian Amazon.
Insectes Sociaux
41: 343– 359.
Google Scholar
47.
JD. Majer
1996. Ant recolonization of rehabilitated bauxite mines at Trombetas, Para, Brazil.
Journal of Tropical Ecology
12: 257–273.
Google Scholar
48.
AKF Maisch
,
B Fiala
,
U Maschwitz
,
M Mohamed
,
J Nais
,
KE. Linsenmair
2008. An analysis of declining ant species richness with increasing elevation at Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo.
Asian Myrmecology
2: 33–49.
Google Scholar
49.
MG Martelli
,
MM Ward
,
AM. Fraser
2004. Ant diversity sampling on the Southern Cumberland Plateau: A comparison of litter sifting and pitfall trapping.
Southeastern Naturalist
3: 113–126.
Google Scholar
50.
D Mezger
,
M. Pfeiffer
2011. Partitioning the impact of abiotic factors and spatial patterns on species richness and community structure of ground ant assemblages in four Bornean rainforests.
Ecography
34: 39–48.
Google Scholar
51.
AS Mikheyev
,
L Tchingnoumba
,
A Henderson
,
A. Alonso
2008. Effect of propagule pressure on the establishment and spread of the little fire ant
Wasmannia auropunctata in a Gabonese oilfield.
Diversity and Distributions
14: 301–306.
Google Scholar
52.
LW. Morrison
1998. A review of Bahamian ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) biogeography.
Journal of Biogeography
25: 561–571.
Google Scholar
53.
NM Nadkarni
,
JT. Longino
1990. Invertebrates in canopy and ground organic matter in a Neotropical montane forest, Costa Rica.
Biotropica
22: 286–289.
Google Scholar
54.
PJ Neville
,
DJ O'Dowd
,
AL. Yen
2008. Issues and implications for research on disturbed oceanic islands illustrated through an ant survey of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
Journal of Insect Conservation
12: 313–323.
Google Scholar
55.
DM. Olson
1991. A Comparison of the efficacy of litter sifting and pitfall traps for sampling leaf litter ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in a tropical wet forest, Costa Rica.
Biotropica
23: 166–172.
Google Scholar
56.
DM. Olson
1994. The distribution of leaf litter invertebrates along a Neotropical altitudinal gradient.
Journal of Tropical Ecology
10: 129–150.
Google Scholar
57.
CL Parr
,
SL. Chown
2001. Inventory and bioindicator sampling: Testing pitfall and Winkler methods with ants in a South African savanna.
Journal of Insect Conservation
5 : 27–36.
Google Scholar
58.
SM Philpott
,
P Bichier
,
RA Rice
,
R. Greenberg
2008. Biodiversity conservation, yield, and alternative products in coffee agroecosystems in Sumatra, Indonesia.
Biodiversity and Conservation
17: 1805–1820.
Google Scholar
59.
H Ratsirarson
,
HG Robertson
,
MD Picker
,
S. van Noort
2002. Indigenous forests versus exotic eucalypt and pine plantations: a comparison of leaf—litter invertebrate communities.
African Entomology
10: 93–99.
Google Scholar
60.
HG. Robertson
2002. Comparison of leaf litter ant communities in woodlands, lowland forests and montane forests of north–eastern Tanzania.
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 : 1637–1652.
Google Scholar
61.
AD Rowles
,
DJ. O'Dowd
2009. Impacts of the invasive Argentine ant on native ants and other invertebrates in coastal scrub in south– eastern Australia.
Austral Ecology
34: 239– 248.
Google Scholar
62.
KT Ryder Wilkie
,
AL Mertl
,
JFA. Traniello
2007. Biodiversity below ground: probing the subterranean ant fauna of Amazonia.
Naturwissenschaften
94: 725–731.
Google Scholar
63.
TK Sabu,
RT. Shiju
2010. Efficacy of pitfall trapping, Winkler and Berlese extraction methods for measuring ground—dwelling arthropods in moist—deciduous forests in the Western Ghats.
Journal of Insect Science
10: 98. Available online, insectscience.org/10.98
Google Scholar
64.
TK Sabu,
PJ Vineesh,
KV. Vinod
2008. Diversity of forest litter—inhabiting ants along elevations in the Wayanad Region of the Western Ghats.
Journal of Insect Science
8: 69. Available online,
insectscience.org/8.69
Google Scholar
65.
K Sagata
,
AL Mack
,
DD Wright
,
PJ. Lester
2010. The influence of nest availability on the abundance and diversity of twig—dwelling ants in a Papua New Guinea forest.
Insectes Sociaux
57: 333–341.
Google Scholar
66.
W Sakchoowong
,
S Nomura
,
K Ogata
,
J. Chanpaisaeng
2007. Comparison of extraction efficiency between Winkler and Tullgren extractors for tropical leal litter macroarthropods.
Thai Journal of Agricultural Science
40: 97–105.
Google Scholar
67.
NJ Sanders
,
J-P Lessard
,
MC Fitzpatrick
,
RR. Dunn
2007. Temperature, but not productivity or geometry, predicts elevational diversity gradients in ants across spatial grains.
Global Ecology and Biogeography
16: 640–649.
Google Scholar
68.
RR Silva
,
RS Machado Feitosa
,
F. Eberhardt
2007. Reduced ant diversity along a habitat regeneration gradient in the southern Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
Forest Ecology and Management
240: 61–69.
Google Scholar
69.
SM Soares
,
JH Schoereder
,
OG. Desouza
2001. Processes involved in species saturation of ground-dwelling ant communities (Hymenoptera, Formicidae).
Austral Ecology
26: 187–192.
Google Scholar
70.
TG Sobrinho
,
JH. Schoereder
2007. Edge and shape effects on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) species richness and composition in forest fragments.
Biodiversity and Conservation
16:1459–1470.
Google Scholar
71.
SE Solomon
,
AS. Mikheyev
2005. The ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) fauna of Cocos Island, Costa Rica.
The Florida Entomologist
88:415–423.
Google Scholar
72.
JLP Souza
,
CAR Moura
,
AY Harada
,
E. Franklin
2007. Diversidade de espécies dos generês de
Crematogaster,
Gnamptogenys e
Pachycondyla (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) e complementaridade dos métodos de coleta durante a estação seca numa estação ecológica no estado do Pará, Brasil.
Acta Amazonica
37: 649–656.
Google Scholar
73.
BJ Spiesman
,
GS. Cumming
2008. Communities in context: the influences of multiscale environmental variation on local ant community structure.
Landscape Ecology
23:313–325.
Google Scholar
74.
M Tista
,
K. Fiedler
2011. How to evaluate and reduce sampling effort for ants.
Journal of Insect Conservation.
15: 547–559.
Google Scholar
75.
AB Vargas
,
JM Queiroz
,
AJ Mayhé-Nunes
,
G Souza
,
EF. Ramos
2009. Teste da regra de equivalência energética para formigas de serapilheira: efeitos de diferentes métodos de estimativa de abundência em floresta ombrófila.
Neotropical Entomology
38: 867– 870.
Google Scholar
76.
HL Vasconcelos
,
JMS Vilhena
,
GJA. Caliri
2000. Responses of ants to selective logging of a central Amazonian forest.
Journal of Applied Ecology
37: 508–514.
Google Scholar
77.
HL Vasconcelos
,
JMS Vilhena
,
KG Facure
,
ALKM. Albernaz
2010. Patterns of ant species diversity and turnover across 2000 km of Amazonian floodplain forest.
Journal of Biogeography
37: 432–440.
Google Scholar
78.
HL Vasconcelos
,
JMS Vilhena
,
WE Magnusson
,
ALKM. Albernaz
2006. Long—term effects of forest fragmentation on Amazonian ant communities.
Journal of Biogeography
33: 1348–1356.
Google Scholar
79.
D Ward
,
J. Beggs
2007. Coexistence, habitat patterns and the assembly of ant communities in the Yasawa islands, Fiji.
Acta Oecologica
32:215–223.
Google Scholar
80.
PS. Ward
1987. Distribution of the introduced Argentine ant (
Iridomyrmex humilis) in natural habitats of the Lower Sacramento Valley and its effects on the indigenous ant fauna.
Hilgardia
55: 1–16.
Google Scholar
81.
PS. Ward
2000. Broad—scale patterns of diversity in leaf litter ant communities. In:
D Agosti,
JD Majer
LE Alonso,
TR Schultz
, Editors.
Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity.
pp. 99–121. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Google Scholar
82.
AD Watt
,
NE Stork
,
B. Bolton
2002. The diversity and abundance of ants in relation to forest disturbance and plantation establishment in southern Cameroon.
Journal of Applied Ecology
39: 18–30.
Google Scholar
83.
TJ Zelikova
,
RR Dunn
,
NJ. Sanders
2008. Variation in seed dispersal along an elevational gradient in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Acta Oecologica
34:155–162.
Google Scholar
Appendices
Appendix.
Winkler extraction duration used in published ant surveys. In December 2010, keywords such as “ants + Winkler”, “Formicidae + Winkler” and “A.L.L. protocol” were used to search studies dealing with ant diversity, ecology and biogeography on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Ant taxonomical studies were not included because their aim is not to compare ant assemblages in a standardized way. Where the same data set was used in several papers, only one was listed. The study locality is given in order to show that extraction time was rarely selected according to where the sampling was carried out.