Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 2089–2102 | Cite as

Something is lost and something is gained: loss and replacement of species and functional groups in ant communities at fragmented forests

  • Ezequiel GonzálezEmail author
  • Liliana Buffa
  • María Teresa Defagó
  • Silvia Itatí Molina
  • Adriana Salvo
  • Graciela Valladares
Research Article



Small fragments of natural habitats with an increased proportion of edges are common landscape traits following agricultural expansion. Consequences of habitat fragmentation are widely documented. However, functional and mechanistic approaches are still needed in order to understand these changes.


We studied habitat loss and edge effects on ant communities, addressing changes in species and functional group diversity, and the relative importance of β-diversity components.


In an endangered Neotropical forest, we sampled ants in edge and interior habitats using pitfall traps, during three summers (28 sites). We calculated taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity and partitioned taxonomic and functional β-diversity into replacement and loss/gain components.


We found more species and functional groups at edge than interior habitats, and four species were edge indicators. Habitat loss negatively affected total abundance and that of particular functional groups (fungus-growers and cryptic species) but had a positive effect on taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity as well as abundance of opportunists and predators. Species and functional group replacement drove β-diversity, being linked to habitat loss. However, interactions between habitat loss and edges explained the loss/gain of taxonomic and functional composition.


Fragmentation led to enriched ant communities at edges, possibly resulting from a higher influx of matrix species as edges become pervasive. This highlights the need to assess the spillover between habitats to understand its influence. Moreover, species replacement and the decrease of functional groups due to habitat loss could have an impact on ecosystem processes in which ants play an important role.


Ants β-diversity components Chaco Serrano Edge effects Functional groups Habitat loss 



We are thankful to the field owners that allowed us to work in their lands, to field assistants for their valuable help and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.


This work was performed with grants from the National Scientific and Technical Research Council or Argentina (CONICET; PIP 112 201201 00662), the Secretariat of Science and Technology of Córdoba (SECyT) and with an Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences at the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (Grants No. 42900/1312/3166).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no financial or other types of conflicts of interest that bias this work.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_724_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (921 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 920 kb)


  1. Andersen AN (1995) A classification of Australian ant communities, based on functional groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. J Biogeogr 22:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrera CA, Buffa LM, Valladares G (2015) Do leaf-cutting ants benefit from forest fragmentation? Insights from community and species-specific responses in a fragmented dry forest. Insect Conserv Divers 8:456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoń K (2009) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package, version 0.12. 2. Accessed 20 June 2018
  4. Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baselga A (2013) Separating the two components of abundance-based dissimilarity: balanced changes in abundance vs. abundance gradients. Methods Ecol Evol 4:552–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baselga A (2017) Partitioning abundance-based multiple-site dissimilarity into components: balanced variation in abundance and abundance gradients. Methods Ecol Evol 8:799–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baselga A, Orme CDL (2012) betapart: an R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods Ecol Evol 3:808–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates D, Sarkar D (2007) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.9975-12. Accessed 20 June 2018
  9. Bestelmeyer BT, Wiens JA (2001) Ant biodiversity in semiarid landscape mosaics: the consequences of grazing vs. natural heterogeneity. Ecol Appl 11:1123–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bishop TR, Robertson MP, van Rensburg BJ, Parr CL (2015) Contrasting species and functional beta diversity in montane ant assemblages. J Biogeogr 42:1776–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanton CM, Ewel JJ (1985) Leaf-cutting ant herbivory in successional and agricultural tropical ecosystems. Ecology 66:861–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blitzer EJ, Dormann CF, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Rand TA, Tscharntke T (2012) Spillover of functionally important organisms between managed and natural habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bogaert J, Van Hecke P, Impens I (1999) A reference value for the interior-to-edge ratio of isolated habitats. Acta Biotheor 47:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brandão CR, Silva RR, Delabie JH (2012) Neotropical ants (Hymenoptera) functional groups: nutritional and applied implications. In: Panizzi AR, Parra JRP (eds) Insect bioecology and nutrition for integrated pest management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breheny P, Burchett W (2016) visreg: visualization of regression models. R package version 2.5-0. Accessed 23 September 2018
  16. Cabido M, Carranza ML, Acosta A, Páez S (1991) Contribución al conocimiento fitosociológico del Bosque Chaqueño Serrano en la provincia de Córdoba, Argentina. Phytocoenología 19:547–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cagnolo L, Valladares G, Salvo A, Cabido M, Zak M (2009) Habitat fragmentation and species loss across three interacting trophic levels: effects of life-history and food-web traits. Conserv Biol 23:1167–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carvalho KS, Vasconcelos HL (1999) Forest fragmentation in central Amazonia and its effects on litter-dwelling ants. Biol Conserv 91:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Claver S, Silnik SL, Campón FF (2014) Response of ants to grazing disturbance at the central Monte Desert of Argentina: community descriptors and functional group scheme. J Arid Land 6:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Cáceres M, Jansen F, De Caceres MM (2016) Package ‘indicspecies’. R package version 1. 7.6. Accessed 20 June 2018
  21. Debuse VJ, King J, House AP (2007) Effect of fragmentation, habitat loss and within-patch habitat characteristics on ant assemblages in semi-arid woodlands of eastern Australia. Landscape Ecol 22:731–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dejean A, Gibernau M (2000) A rainforest ant mosaic: the edge effect (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 35:385–402Google Scholar
  23. Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003) Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl Ecol 4:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duelli P, Studer M, Marchand I, Jakob S (1990) Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol Conserv 54:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunn RR (2004) Managing the tropical landscape: a comparison of the effects of logging and forest conversion to agriculture on ants, birds, and Lepidoptera. For Ecol Manag 191:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fernández F (2003) Introducción a las hormigas de la región Neotropical. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferrante M, González E, Lövei GL (2017) Predators do not spill over from forest fragments to maize fields in a landscape mosaic in central Argentina. Ecol Evol 7:7699–7707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischer J, Abson DJ, Butsic V, Chappell MJ, Ekroos J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T, Smith HG, Wehrden H (2014) Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv Lett 7:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Folgarait PJ (1998) Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodivers Conserv 7:1221–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fox J (2003) Effect displays in R for generalized linear models. J Stat Softw 8:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gagic V, Bartomeus I, Jonsson T, Taylor A, Winqvist C, Fischer C, Slade EM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Emmerson M, Potts SG, Tscharntke T, Weisser W, Bommarco R (2015) Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices. Proc R Soc Lond B 282:20142620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gámez-Virués S, Perović DJ, Gossner MM, Börschig C, Blüthgen N, De Jong H, Simons NK, Klein AM, Krauss J, Maier G, Scherber C, Steckel J, Rothenwöhrer C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Weiner CN, Weisser W, Werner M, Tscharntke T, Westphal C (2015) Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat Commun 6:8568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Golden DM, Crist TO (2000) Experimental effects of habitat fragmentation on rove beetles and ants: patch area or edge? Oikos 90:525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. González E, Salvo A, Valladares G (2015a) Arthropods on plants in a fragmented Neotropical dry forest: a functional analysis of area loss and edge effects. Insect Sci 22:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. González E, Salvo A, Valladares G (2015b) Sharing enemies: evidence of forest contribution to natural enemy communities in crops, at different spatial scales. Insect Consev Divers 8:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. González E, Salvo A, Defagó MT, Valladares G (2016) A moveable feast: insects moving at the forest-crop interface are affected by crop phenology and the amount of forest in the landscape. PLoS ONE 11:e0158836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. González E, Salvo A, Valladares G (2017a) Arthropod communities and biological control in soybean fields: forest cover at landscape scale is more influential than forest proximity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 239:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. González E, Salvo A, Valladares G (2017b) Natural vegetation cover in the landscape and edge effects: differential responses of insect orders in a fragmented forest. Insect Sci 24:891–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Grau RH, Gasparri NI, Aide M (2008) Balancing food production and nature conservation in the Neotropical dry forests of northern Argentina. Glob Change Biol 14:985–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song D, Townshend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klein BC (1989) Effects of forest fragmentation on dung and carrion beetle communities in central Amazonia. Ecology 70:1715–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leal IR, Filgueiras BK, Gomes JP, Iannuzzi L, Andersen AN (2012) Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biodivers Conserv 21:1687–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Legendre P, Anderson MJ (1999) Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol Monogr 69:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Magura T (2002) Carabids and forest edge: spatial pattern and edge effect. For Ecol Manag 157:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Majer JD, Delabie JHC, McKenzie NL (1997) Ant litter fauna of forest, forest edges and adjacent grassland in the Atlantic rain forest region of Bahia, Brazil. Insect Soc 44:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moreno CE, Castillo-Campos G, Verdú JR (2009) Taxonomic diversity as complementary information to assess plant species diversity in secondary vegetation and primary tropical deciduous forest. J Veg Sci 20:935–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nanni AS, Grau HR (2014) Agricultural adjustment, population dynamics and forests redistribution in a subtropical watershed of NW Argentina. Reg Environ Change 14:1641–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neves FS, Queiroz-Dantas KS, Da Rocha WD, Delabie JHC (2013) Ants of three adjacent habitats of a transition region between the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes: the effects of heterogeneity and variation in canopy cover. Neotrop Entomol 42:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package version 2(9). Accessed 20 June 2018
  58. Perfecto I, Armbrecht I, Philpott SM, Soto-Pinto L, Dietsch TV (2007) Shaded coffee and the stability of rainforest margins in Latin America. In: Tscharntke T, Leuschner C, Zelle M, Guhadja E, Bidin A (eds) The stability of tropical rainforest margins: linking ecological, economic and social constraints of land use and conservation. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 227–263Google Scholar
  59. Philpott SM, Perfecto I, Armbrecht I, Parr CL (2010) Ant diversity and function in disturbed and changing habitats. In: Lach L, Parr C, Abbott K (eds) Ant ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 137–156Google Scholar
  60. Pimm SL, Raven P (2000) Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, the R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-109. Accessed 20 June 2018
  62. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed 20 May 2018
  63. Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ries L, Sisk TD (2010) What is an edge species? The implications of sensitivity to habitat edges. Oikos 119:1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmidt FA, Ribas CR, Sobrinho TG, Ubaidillah R, Schoereder JH, Clough Y, Tscharntke T (2017) Similar alpha and beta diversity changes in tropical ant communities, comparing savannas and rainforests in Brazil and Indonesia. Oecologia 185:487–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sobrinho TG, Schoereder JH (2007) Edge and shape effects on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) species richness and composition in forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 16:1459–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sobrinho TG, Schoereder JH, Sperber CF, Madureira MS (2003) Does fragmentation alter species composition in ant communities (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)? Sociobiology 42:329–342Google Scholar
  69. Soininen J, Heino J, Wang J (2018) A meta-analysis of nestedness and turnover components of beta diversity across organisms and ecosystems. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27:96–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Suarez AV, Bolger DT, Case TJ (1998) Effect of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities in coastal Southern California. Ecology 79:2041–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, Schindler D, Schlesinger WH, Simberloff D, Swackhamer D (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vasconcelos HL, Carvalho KS, Delabie JH (2001) Landscape modifications and ant communities. In: Bierregaard RO Jr, Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Mesquita R (eds) Lessons from Amazonia: the ecology and conservation of a fragmented forest. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 199–207Google Scholar
  74. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1995) New ‘biodiversity’ measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wirth R, Meyer ST, Leal IR, Tabarelli M (2008) Plant herbivore interactions at the forest edge. In: Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Murata J (eds) Progress in botany. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 423–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zak MR, Cabido M, Hodgson JG (2004) Do subtropical seasonal forest in the Gran Chaco, Argentina, have a future? Biol Conserv 120:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zak MR, Cabido M, Cáceres D, Díaz S (2008) What drives accelerated land cover change in central Argentina? Synergistic consequences of climatic, socioeconomic, and technological factors. Environ Manage 42:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePrague, SuchdolCzech Republic
  2. 2.Centro de Investigaciones Entomológicas de Córdoba, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CONICET, FCEFyNCórdobaArgentina
  3. 3.Cátedra de Entomología, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, FCEFyNCórdobaArgentina

Personalised recommendations