Dokument

Summary:
2.1 DNA sequencing is increasingly being used to assist in species identification in order to overcome taxonomic impediment. However, few studies attempt to compare the results of these molecular studies with a more traditional species delineation approach based on morphological characters. We sequenced the mtDNA Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (CO1) gene, measuring 636 base pairs, from 47 ants of the genus Pheidole (Formicidae: Myrmicinae) collected in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest to test whether the morphology-based assignment of individuals into species is supported by DNA-based species delimitation. 20 morphospecies were identified, whereas the barcoding analysis identified 19 Molecular Operational Taxonomic Unit(s) (MOTUs). We found that 15 out of the 19 DNA-based clusters allocated using sequence divergence thresholds of 2% and 3%, matched with morphospecies. Both thresholds yielded the same number of MOTUs. Only one MOTU was successfully identified to species level using the CO1 sequences of Pheidole species already in the Genbank. The average pairwise sequence divergence for all 47 sequences was 19%, ranging between 0-25%. In some cases, however, morphology and molecular based methods differed in their assignment of individuals to morphospecies or MOTUs. The occurrence of distinct mitochondrial lineages within morphological species highlight groups for further detailed genetic and morphological studies and therefore we advocate a pluralistic approach using several methods to understand the taxonomy of difficult lineages. 3.1 The assessment of the effects of habitat variation on phylogenetic composition and the processes structuring communities is of major interest to community and conservation ecologists. In this study, we used ants in the genus Pheidole in evaluating the phylogenetic composition/structure and processes structuring communities along a succession gradient in the secondary forests of Brazil. Since sampling settings can influence the performance of most indices, we used standardized measures (sesPD, NRI and NTI) besides an unstandardized measure i.e.phylogenetic distinctness (Δ* – a measure of pure phylogenetic relatedness), to test their response in detecting phylogenetic community composition and structure. We also applied null models on standardized measures in order to detect potential processes generating community patterns. Pheidole ant communities showed sensitivity to habitat variation portrayed by the overall increasing trend in phylogenetic distinctness (Δ*) along the stages of forest succession. Δ* was strongly and significantly correlated to species richness as opposed to NTI which didn’t show correlation. On overall, ant communities were phylogenetically clustered regardless of the null model used, suggesting that habitat filtering is the dominant process structuring the ant communities. That Pheidole ant communities in our study likely form non-interactive assembly, is a notion which contrasts with many studies suggesting that competitive interactions structure closely related ant communities. The observed high phylogenetic diversity in old growth forests compared to other forest stages reflects the conservation importance that need to be attached to these habitats in ensuring that maximum biodiversity value is preserved. 4.1 The mechanisms leading to phylogenetic community structure in local assemblages have become a major focus in recent community studies. Studying the phylogenetic structure of an ecological community can provide insights into the relative importance of different processes structuring that community. This study aimed at measuring the phylogenetic structure of ant genera communities occurring in 12 sites along a forest succession gradient, in the tropical secondary forests of Brazil. We also determined the processes structuring the ant communities; and tested the influence of metrics used, succession and taxonomic scale on the estimates of phylogenetic community structure. On average, the phylogenetic structure of ant communities was over-dispersed, meaning that ant species were more distantly related to their neighbours than expected by chance. The observed over-dispersion and clustering across the sites depended on the metric used and to an extent the forest succession stage, although other possible explanations may include effects of the null model, variation in the strength of ecological processes among habitats or distribution of traits. We noticed that finely defined ant communities (single genus) tended to be clustered while with several ant genera, most communities showed over-dispersion, suggesting that competition is increasingly evident as ant communities are defined to include greater phylogenetic diversity. This study shows that the phylogenetic structure of ant communities depends on interplay of several factors, most of which still need to be comprehensively researched on.

Bibliographie / References

1. Oliver, I., Nally, R.M. & York, A. 2000. Identifying performance indicators of the effects of forest management on ground-active arthropod biodiversity using hierarchical partitioning and partial canonical correspondence analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 139: 21–40.
2. Didham, R.K., Ghazoul. J., Stork, N.E. & Davis, A.J. 1996. Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. TREE 11: 255-260.
3. Gotelli, N.J. & Rohde, K. 2002. Co-occurrence of ectoparasites of marine fishes: a null model analysis. Ecology Letters 5: 86–94.
4. Brady, S.G., Schultz, T.R., Fisher, B.L. & Ward, P.S. 2006. Evaluating alternative hypotheses for the early evolution and diversification of ants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 103: 18172-18177.
5. Matthews, L.J., Tehrani, J.J., Jordan, F.M., Collard, M. & Nunn, C.L. 2011. Testing for Divergent Transmission Histories among Cultural Characters: A Study Using Bayesian Phylogenetic Methods and Iranian Tribal Textile Data. Public library of Science ONE 6: e14810.
6. Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. 1996. Microclimatic changes and indirect loss of ant diversity in a tropical agroecosystem. Oecologia 108: 577–582.
7. 1999 September-2003 October Bachelors of Education Science at Kenyatta University. 1994-1997 High School Education at Don Bosco Girls Secondary. Other studies 14 th -21 st September 2005 GIS Beginners Course at National Museums of Kenya. Work experience 2006-2007 Voluntary attachment at the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) Department of Herpetology. 2003-2004 High school teacher (Biology and Chemistry) at Don Bosco Girls.
8. Andersen, A.N. 1995. A classification of Australian ant communities based on functional groups which parallel plant life-forms in relation to stress and disturbance. Journal of Biogeography 22:15-29.
9. Pacheco, R., Silva, R.R., Morini, M. & Brandão, C.R. 2009. A Comparison of the Leaf- Litter Ant Fauna in a Secondary Atlantic Forest with an Adjacent Pine Plantation in Southeastern Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 38: 055-065.
10. Hendy, M.D. & Penny, D. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Systematic Zoology 38:297-309.
11. Colwell, R.K., & Winkler, D.W. 1984. A null model for null models in biogeography. Pages 344–359 in D.R. Strong, D. Simberloff, L.G. Abele, and A.B. Thistle, editors. Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
12. Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20: 289-290.
13. Tofts, R. & Silvertown. J. 2000. A phylogenetic approach to community assembly from a local species pool. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267:363–369.
14. Floren, A., Biun, A. & Linsenmair, K.E. 2002. Arboreal ants as key predators in tropical lowland rainforest trees. Oecologia 131: 137–144.
15. Chung, A.Y.C. 1995. Cammon Lowland RainForest Ants of Sabah, The Borneo Nature Series 1, Forestry Departement, Sabah, 3-7.
16. Osorio-Pérez, K., Barberena-Arias, M.F. & Aide, T.M. 2007. Changes in Ant Species Richness and Composition during Plant Secondary Succession in Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 43: 244-253.
17. Ng'endo, R., Bihn, J.H., Opgenoorth, L., Braendle, M. & Brandl, R. (2011) Determinants of phylogenetic community structure of ant communities along a forest succession gradient. Accepted for (poster presentation) GfOe 2011 in Oldenburg, Germany.
18. Ng'endo, R., Bihn, J.H. & Brandl, R. (2010) DNA barcoding as a method for species identification in the hyper-diverse ant genus Pheidole. – in Verhandlungen der gesellschaft für Ökologie (GfÖ), Band 40. 40 th Anniversary Conference in Giessen. (Poster).
19. Floren, A. & Linsenmair, K.E. 2000. Do ant mosaics exist in pristine lowland rain forest? Oecologia 123:129–137.
20. Bihn, J.H., Verhaagh, M., Brändle, M. & Brandl. R. 2008b. 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.
21. Bihn, J.H., Verhaagh, M. & Brandl, R. 2008a. Ecological Stoichiometry along a Gradient of Forest Succession: Bait Preferences of Litter Ants. Biotropica. 40: 597-599.
22. Pineda, F.D., Nicolás, J.P., Pou, A. & Galiano, E.F. 1981 Ecological succession in oligotrophic pastures of Central Spain. Vegetatio 44: 165–176. Determinants of Phylogenetic Community Structure
23. Vamosi, S.M., Heard, S.B., Vamosi, J.C. & Webb, C.O. 2009. Emerging patterns in the comparative analysis of phylogenetic community structure. Molecular Ecology 18: 572-592.
24. Webb, C.O. 2000. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. American Naturalist 156:145–155. Determinants of Phylogenetic Community Structure
25. Carvalho, K.S. & Vasconcelos, H.L. 1999. Forest fragmentation in central Amazonia and its effects on litter-dwelling ants. Biological Conservation 20: 151–157.
26. Rockwood, L. & Glander, K. 1979. Howling monkeys and leaf-cutting ants: comparative foraging in a tropical deciduous forest. Biotropica 11: 1–10.
27. Proches, S., Wilson, J.R.U. & Cowling, R.M. 2006. How much evolutionary history in a 10x10 m plot? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273: 1143–1148.
28. Cavender-Bares, J. & Wilczek, A. 2003. Integrating micro-and macroevolutionary processes in community ecology. Ecology 84: 592–597.
29. Kaspari, M. 1996. Litter ant patchiness at 1-m2 scale: Disturbance dynamics in three Neotropical forests. Oecologia 107: 265–273. Determinants of Phylogenetic Community Structure Kaspari, M. & Weiser, M.D. 2000. Ant activity along moisture gradients in a Neotropical Forest. Biotropica 32: 703–711.
30. Campos, R.B.F., Schoereder, J.H. & Sperber, C.F. 2003. Local determinants of species richness in litter ant communities (Hymenoptera: Formicidade). Sociobiology 4: 357- 367.
31. Chong, C-S. Hoffmann, A.A & Thomson, L.J. 2010. Local-scale spatial dynamics of ants in a temperate agroecosystem. Austral Ecology DOI: 10.1111/j.1442- 9993.2010.02155.x Determinants of Phylogenetic Community Structure
32. Torres, J. A. & Medina-Gaud, S. 1998. Los insectos de Puerto Rico. Acta Científ 12:3-41.
33. Bihn, J.H., Gebaurer, G. & Brandl. R. 2010. Loss of functional diversity of ant assemblages in secondary tropical forests. Ecology 91: 782-792.
34. Shik, J.Z. & Kaspari, M. 2010. More food, less habitat: how necromass and leaf litter decomposition combine to regulate a litter ant community. Ecological Entomology 35: 158-165.
35. Ng'endo, R., Kairu, E. & Ogol, C.P.K. Morphological taxonomy as a tool for diversity assessment of Ridged Frogs (Genus Ptychadena) in Eastern Arc Mountains -Taita Hills, Kenya. Acta Herpetologica, submitted.
36. Torres, J.A. 1984. Niches coexistence of ant communities in Puerto Rico: Repeated Patterns. Biotropica 16: 284–295.
37. Gotelli, N.J. 2000. Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81: 2606–2621.
38. Fittkau, E.J. & Klinge, H. 1973. On biomass and trophic structure of the central Amazonian rain forest ecosystem. Biotropica 5: 2–14.
39. Cavender-Bares, J., Ackerly, D.D., Baum, D.A. & Bazzaz, F.A. 2004. Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. American Naturalist 163: 823-843.
40. Cavender-Bares, J., Keen, A. & Miles, B. 2006. Phylogenetic structure of Floridian plant communities depends on taxonomic and spatial scale. Ecology 87: S109-S122.
41. Webb, C.O., Ackerly, D.D., McPeek, M.A. & Donoghue, M.J. 2002. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 475–505.
42. Swofford, D.L. & Olsen, G.J. 1990. Phylogeny reconstruction. Pages 411-501 in Molecular systematics, 1st edition (D. M. Hillis and C. Moritz, eds.). Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
43. Schneider, D.C. 1994. Quantitative ecology: spatial and temporal scaling. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. 238 p.
44. Menge, B.A. & Olson, A.M. 2003. Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 5: 52-57.
45. Helmus, M., Savage, K., Diebel, M., Maxted, J. & Ives, A. 2007. Separating the determinants of phylogenetic community structure. Ecological Letters 10: 917–925.
46. Zorilla, J.M., Serrano, J.M., Casado, M.A., Acosta, F.J. & Pineda, F.D. 1986. Structural characteristics of an ant community during succession. Oikos 47: 346–354. Summary References Rogeria Stenamma Bolton 2003
47. Submitted Papers:
48. Gotelli, N.J. & Entsminger, G.L. 2003. Swap algorithms in null model analysis. Ecology 84:532–535.
49. Gotelli, N.J. & Entsminger, G.L. 2001. Swap and fill algorithms in null model analysis: rethinking the Knight's Tour. Oecologia 129: 281–291.
50. Connor, E.F. & Simberloff, D. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60: 1132–1140.
51. Rico-Gray, V. & Oliveira, P.S. 2007. The ecology and evolution of ant-plant interactions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 331 p.
52. McGlynn, T.P., & Kirksey, S.E. 2000. The effects of food presentation and microhabitat upon resourse monopoly in a ground-foraging ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) community. Revista de Biologia Tropical 48: 629–642.
53. Wilson, E.O. 1971. The insect societes. Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge, MA.
54. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London, Series B. Biological Sciences 326: 119–157.
55. Kembel, S. & Hubbell, S.P. 2006. The phylogenetic structure of a neotropical forest tree community. Ecology 87: 86-99.
56. Swenson, N.G., Enquist, B.J., Pither, J., Thompson, J. & Zimmerman, J.K. 2006. The problem and promise of scale dependency in community phylogenetics. Ecology 87: 2418-2424.
57. Levin, S.A. 1992. The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H.
58. Austin, M.P. 1977. Use of ordination and other multivariate descriptive methods to study succession. Vegetatio 35: 165–175.
59. Kembel, S.W. et al. 2008. Picante: phylocom integration, community analyses, null- models, traits and evolution in R v. 0.2-0. http://picante.r-forge.r-project.org//.
60. Chazdon, R.I., Careaga, S., Webb, C. & Vargas, O. 2003. Community and phylogenetic structure of reproductive traits of woody species in wet tropical forests. Ecological monographs 73:331–348.
61. Letcher, S.G. 2010. Tropical forest succession phylogenetic structure of angiosperm communities during tropical forest succession. Proceedings of royal society of B. 277: 97-104.
62. Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial Scaling in Ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385-397.
63. Ng'endo, R., Bihn, J.H. & Brandl, R. DNA barcodes for species identification in the hyperdiverse ant genus Pheidole (Formicidae: Myrmicinae). Journal of Insect Science, submitted.
64. Webb, C.O., Ackerly, D.D. & Kembel, S.W. 2008. Phylocom: Software for the Analysis of Community Phylogenetic Structure and Trait Evolution, Version 4.0.1. Available from URL: http://www.phylodiversity.net/phylocom/.
65. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

Das Dokument ist im Internet frei zugänglich - Hinweise zu den Nutzungsrechten