Research Article |
Corresponding author: Marina Mazón ( marinamazonmor@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Michael Ohl
© 2020 Marina Mazón, Ximena López, Oscar Romero.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Mazón M, López X, Romero O (2020) Hymenoptera functional groups’ shifts in disturbance gradients at Andean forests in Southern Ecuador. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 80: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.80.60345
|
Ecosystems under ecological restoration should be monitored in order to investigate if the ecosystem is being functionally recovered, especially in highly vulnerable biodiversity hotspots like Andean forests. Here we sampled Hymenoptera families in four Andean forest reserves above 1800 masl from Southern Ecuador, in three conservation levels in each forest: low (degraded), medium (10–15 years of recovery) and high (well-conserved forest). All Hymenoptera families were classified into four functional groups: predators, herbivores, pollinators and parasitoids. A total of 32 hymenopteran families were collected, with parasitoids clearly dominating in the samples. Family assemblages were not statistically different, neither in abundance nor family richness. Assemblages were more similar between them in the high and medium areas than in low conservation areas, where assemblages were very variable and showed a higher functional diversity in two of the reserves. The low presence of pollinators may be due to the high humidity during the sampling and the sampling method. Although some results are promising for the restoring trajectory, especially for parasitoids, we should keep in mind that this is at family level, so it would be interesting to know if these patterns persist at lower taxonomic levels.
Herbivores, Hymenoptera families, Parasitoids, pollinators, predators
Ecosystems provide a wide range of services that are at risk because of biodiversity loss derived from demographic growth and land use changes (
Andean forests are considered as a highly vulnerable biodiversity hotspot (
Hymenoptera is one of the most important and diverse insect orders, including representative groups of two of the most essential ecosystem services: pollination (i.e., bees) and natural pest control (i.e., parasitoid wasps). Both pollinators and parasitoids (whose hosts are mostly herbivorous insects), because of their close relationship with plants, have been used as indicators for ecosystem disturbances (
In this study we aim to 1) identify the Hymenoptera families present in different disturbance levels in Andean forests, and 2) evaluate how functional groups within Hymenoptera are shifting as disturbance increases.
The research was done in four protected areas of Andean forest located in Loja and Zamora Chinchipe provinces, in the buffer area of Podocarpus National Park, at southern Ecuador (Fig.
In each reserve, we identified three areas of different conservation status with the help of their personal staff: a well–conserved area, an area under about 10–15 years of recovery, either naturally or assisted, and a degraded area (Table
Location of trapping sites in the three conservation levels of the four Andean forest reserves.
Reserve | Conservation level | Coordinates X/Y | Altitud (masl) |
---|---|---|---|
ECSF | high | -3.973, -79.077 | ca 1870 |
medium | -3.975, -79.078 | ca 1860 | |
low | -3.972, -79.079 | ca 1840 | |
Arcoíris | high | -3.988, -79.095 | ca 2160 |
medium | -3.988, -79.093 | ca 2160 | |
low | -3.989, -79.093 | ca 2160 | |
Madrigal | high | -4.051, -79.168 | ca 2520 |
medium | -4.045, -79.175 | ca 2350 | |
low | -4.047, -79.176 | ca 2400 | |
Tapichalaca | high | -4.489, -79.126 | ca 2570 |
medium | -4.493, -79.130 | ca 2520 | |
low | -4.490, -79.126 | ca 2620 |
We sorted and identified all hymenopteran specimens to family level, and then we classified them into four major functional groups: predators, herbivores, pollinators and parasitoids, following
We compared the family assemblages in the three conservation levels by a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and a PERMANOVA with 9999 permutations, using Jaccard index for similarity, which considers presence/absence of families, regardless of the relative abundances of each one. We did the same analyses to check for differences in the hymenopteran families assemblages related to the reserves.
Regarding the functional groups, we calculated both richness (i.e., number of families) and abundance (i.e., number of individuals) for every functional group, and we compared them across the conservation levels by means of a KRUSKAL-WALLIS test and a post-hoc DUNN test.
Additionally, we evaluated functional diversity with the Shannon index, considering the abundance of individuals belonging to every functional group. Since some samples were damaged and lost, we considered the mean abundance values for the two or three samples in every sampling site. Then, we compared Shannon indices in two ways: by the KRUSKAL-WALLIS with the four reserves as replicates, and in the four reserves treated as independent samples, compared by a randomization test with 1000 random partitions (
The NMDS, PERMANOVA, KRUSKAL-WALLIS and post-hoc tests were run with software Past version 3.0 (
We collected a total of 32 hymenopteran families, mostly belonging to the parasitoid functional group, with family Ichneumonidae clearly dominating the sampling (1930 individuals). We only collected seven specimens belonging to three families from the pollinator functional group (Table
Abundances and functional groups of every collected hymenopteran family in the three conservation levels (high, medium and low) from the four Andean forest reserves in southern Ecuador. PRED = predators, HERB = herbivores, PAR = parasitoids, POL = pollinators.
Family | Functional groups | ECSF | Arcoiris | Madrigal | Tapichalaca | Total | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
high | medium | low | high | medium | low | high | medium | low | high | medium | low | |||
Pompilidae | PRED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 8 |
Sphecidae | PRED | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Vespidae | PRED | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 5 | 27 |
Formicidae | PRED | 19 | 4 | 4 | 24 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 65 |
Pergidae | HERB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
Tenthredinidae | HERB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 12 |
Xiphydriidae | HERB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Bethylidae | PAR | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 21 |
Braconidae | PAR | 167 | 9 | 12 | 60 | 15 | 6 | 134 | 25 | 2 | 38 | 31 | 76 | 577 |
Diapriidae | PAR | 48 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 17 | 36 | 134 |
Dryinidae | PAR | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 19 |
Embolemidae | PAR | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Eucharitidae | PAR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Eulophidae | PAR | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 |
Eupelmidae | PAR | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
Eurytomidae | PAR | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Evaniidae | PAR | 25 | 2 | 0 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 9 | 92 |
Figitidae | PAR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 17 |
Ichneumonidae | PAR | 300 | 33 | 6 | 188 | 72 | 23 | 248 | 101 | 6 | 195 | 233 | 401 | 1930 |
Liopteridae | PAR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Mutillidae | PAR | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Mymaridae | PAR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Orussidae | PAR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
Perilampidae | PAR | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Platygastridae | PAR | 13 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 44 |
Proctotrupidae | PAR | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
Pteromalidae | PAR | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 16 |
Sapygidae | PAR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
Tiphiidae | PAR | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 3 | 23 |
Agaonidae | POL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Apidae | POL | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Halictidae | POL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
Families assemblages were not statistically different, neither regarding the conservation level (F = 1.354, p = 0.156) nor the reserve (F = 1.382, p = 0.118). In the NMDS, although the samples were distributed from high to low conservation level (Fig.
When comparing mean abundance and total richness of every functional group with the conservation levels no significant differences were found either (Table
Results from Kruskal-Wallis test (H) and p-value (p) when comparing number of families (S) and number of individuals (Ab) from all Hymenoptera and every functional group (PRED = predators, HERB = herbivores, PAR = parasitoids, POL = pollinators) in the three conservation levels of Andean forests.
H | p | |
S_total Hymenoptera | 3.298 | 0.19 |
Ab_total Hymenoptera | 3.962 | 0.138 |
S_PRED | 0.183 | 0.903 |
Ab_PRED | 0.269 | 0.872 |
S_HERB | 3.010 | 0.174 |
Ab_HERB | 3.151 | 0.207 |
S_PAR | 3.537 | 0.171 |
Ab_PAR | 3.962 | 0.138 |
S_POL | 0.644 | 0.671 |
Ab_POL | 0.5 | 0.74 |
Regarding functional diversity, no significant results were obtained in the KRUSKAL-WALLIS test (H = 0.3462, p = 0.841). However, when treating every reserve independently, permutational tests gave very different results in the four reserves (Fig.
In the present research we found 32 hymenopteran families, which represents 36.31% of Neotropical families (
However, the low occurrence of hymenopteran pollinators was unexpected. Bees are abundant in Andes even above 2500 masl (
No differences among conservation levels were found. Restoration may favour the presence of wild bees (
Another aspect that may have masked the effect of conservation level on Hymenoptera richness and abundance are the altitudinal differences amongst some of the reserves. Parasitoids (
When looking at assemblage composition, samples were grouped according to conservation level rather than to reserves, although samples were very separated one from another, showing that assemblages, even in the same conservation level, were highly variable. The type of disturbance may be influencing these results, since it will affect the way the ecosystem responds to it (
Regarding overall functional diversity, it was significantly higher in the low conservation areas of two reserves. Although it can not be seen as a consistent pattern, open areas may serve as corridors for insects (
Ecological restoration is an effective way to recover the structure and function of ecosystems, but comprehensive monitoring should be carried out in order to investigate if its functions are becoming similar to those from a healthy well conserved reference ecosystem. Here we show promising results for parasitoid wasps, but not so for bees. It would be interesting to see what happens when identification goes to genus or species level, and whether trends observed for families are persisting for these lower taxonomic levels.
We would like to express our gratitude to the staff in every reserve that helped us with the permissions and facilities: Hugo Tapia (Madrigal Reserve), Joerg Zeilinger (ECSF), Arturo Jiménez (Arcoíris Reserve and Foundation), and Michael Möens and Jocotoco Foundation’s staff (Tapichalaca Reserve). Also, we would like to acknowledge all the colleagues and students that helped us in the field trips, as well as to Ángel Benítez (UTPL, Ecuador), John Latke (Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil) and Michael Wilson (National Museum Wales, UK) for their valuable comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by the Prometeo Project of Secretaría de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación from Ecuador, and the project DI-10-FARNR (2018–2019) from Universidad Nacional de Loja, Ecuador. Samplings were done under MAE permissions 011-2014-IC-FLO-DPL-MA and 013-2018-IC-FLO-FAU-DPAZCH-UPN-VS/MA.