105 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 A B S T R A C T Current energy production has been the subject of studies on environmental impacts and the need to adequately understand that the relationship to biodiversity loss is growing. One of the ways of assessing environmental changes is the use of bioindicator species, and ants represent an alternative in this regard. This study aimed to evaluate ant assemblages occurring in different environments in areas under the direct influence of two small hydropower plants (SHPP). Sampling was carried out using pitfall traps in forest and agricultural fragments, as well as pasture areas, along the Andrada River, municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná, in July 2016 and March 2017. The sampled ant assemblages were evaluated for richness, abundance, and composition. The rarefaction analysis was used to compare the richness sampled in the two areas under direct influence. Abundance was analyzed based on the number of occurrences. The nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) was applied to test whether the abundance and composition of ant assemblages differ at the same site when sampled in both seasons. In total, 63 species belonging to 23 genera and 6 subfamilies were identified. The subfamily Myrmicinae was the most species-rich (S = 25), followed by the subfamily Formicinae (S = 21). The most species- rich genus was Camponotus (S = 15) followed by Pheidole (S =11). A total of 41.3% richness was registered concurrently in the two assemblages. The study contributes to the expansion of knowledge of the ant fauna occurring in the state of Paraná and serves as a basis for monitoring impacts caused by the implementation of SHPP and other developments. Keywords: biodiversity; bioindicators; conservation; production of energy. R E S U M O A produção energética vigente tem sido alvo de estudos sobre seus impactos ambientais, e cresce a necessidade de se compreender adequadamente sua relação com a perda de biodiversidade. Uma das formas de avaliação das alterações ambientais é a utilização de espécies bioindicadoras, e as formigas representam uma alternativa nesse quesito. Esta pesquisa objetivou avaliar diferentes ambientes quanto às assembleias de formigas que ocorrem nas áreas de influência direta de duas pequenas centrais hidrelétricas. A amostragem foi conduzida em ambientes de fragmentos florestais, agrícolas e de pastagens, junto das margens do Rio Andrada, no município de Cascavel, estado do Paraná, nos meses de julho de 2016 e março de 2017. Foram utilizadas armadilhas do tipo pitfall nas amostras e foram avaliadas a riqueza, a abundância e a composição das assembleias de formigas amostradas. Efetuou-se a análise de rarefação para comparar a riqueza amostrada nas duas áreas de influência direta. A abundância foi analisada com base no número de ocorrências. Foi construída uma análise nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) para testar se a abundância e a composição das assembleias de formigas diferem em um mesmo ponto quando amostradas nas duas estações. Registraram-se 63 espécies pertencentes a 23 gêneros e a seis subfamílias. A subfamília Myrmicinae foi a mais rica (S = 25), seguida da Formicinae (S = 21). O gênero mais rico foi Camponotus (S = 15), seguido por Pheidole (S = 11). O total de 41.3% da riqueza foi registrado concomitantemente nas duas assembleias. O estudo contribui para a expansão do conhecimento sobre a mirmecofauna que ocorre no território paranaense e serve de base para o monitoramento de impactos causados pela instalação de pequenas centrais hidrelétricas e de outros empreendimentos. Palavras-chave: biodiversidade; bioindicadores; conservação; produção de energia. Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from areas under the direct influence of two small hydropower plants in Brazil Assembleias de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) de áreas de influência direta de duas pequenas centrais hidrelétricas no Brasil Junir Antônio Lutinski1 , Milton Carlos de Filtro2 , Leandro Baucke3 , Fernanda Emanuela Dorneles1 , Cladis Juliana Lutinski1 , Carin Guarda1 1Universidade Comunitária da Região de Chapecó – Chapecó (SC), Brazil. 2MF Consultoria Ambiental – Chapecó (SC), Brazil. 3Impacto Assessoria Ambiental – Chapecó (SC), Brazil. Correspondence address: Junir Antonio Lutinski – Rua Beija-Flor, 254 E – Efapi – CEP: 89809-760 – Chapecó (SC), Brazil. E-mail: junir@unochapeco.edu.br Conflicts of interest: the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Funding: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). Received on: 01/14/2021. Accepted on: 10/06/2021. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z217694781030 Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences ISSN 2176-9478 Volume 56, Number 1, March 2021 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0149-5415 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7327-768X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8489-3218 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1653-6067 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-8763 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4323-5080 mailto:junir@unochapeco.edu.br https://doi.org/10.5327/Z217694781030 http://www.rbciamb.com.br http://abes-dn.org.br/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Lutinski, J. A. et al. 106 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 Introduction Human activities such as the conversion of forests into agricultural or pasture areas, the expansion of urban areas, and the implementation of projects that result in river damming are the examples that impact the environment, modify the area where they are developed, cause changes in physical and chemical properties of soils, interfere with wa- tercourses, modify the habitat, and impact the flora and fauna (Tsout- sos et al., 2005; Costa et al., 2019). Environmental impacts, such as the emission of greenhouse gases and, consequently, global warming, from the current energy matrix based on fossil fuels, have been the subject of studies and public policies (Laurent and Espinosa, 2015). Thus, the need to explore renewable energy sources emerges, whose impacts on biodiversity are also observed; however, they are considered minor in relation to the burning of fossil fuels (Gasparatos et al., 2017; Bracco, 2020). The exploration of renewable energy sources modifies the envi- ronment, results in river damming, as in the case of hydropower plants (HPP) and in the suppression of vegetation, and alters the local micro- climate (Gasparatos et al., 2017). These changes in the directly affected areas result in the loss of habitats for terrestrial organisms, such as in- vertebrates. The impacts resulting from these processes on biodiversity are still less known. Hydropower is an alternative to fossil fuels; however, environmen- tal impacts resulting from the implementation and operation of HPP on invertebrates, and more specifically on the entomofauna, are still incipient (Kjærstad et al., 2018). The impacts are related to vegetation suppression, land removal, soil compaction, and flooding that can destroy remnants of vegetation, change the dynamics of the affected ecosystem, and make it impossible the permanence of animal species (Moran et al., 2018). Insects are affected by this process, and the study of these organisms can reveal the level of environmental quality from which interventions can be determined in order to maintain, recov- er, or restore the balance of the environment, aiming at the ecological sustainability of ecosystems (Rocha et al., 2015; Moura and Franzener, 2017; Parikh et al., 2021). Only in the last decade, the invertebrate community became the target of environmental impact studies and reports of these impacts (EIA/RIMA) when such projects are implemented in Brazil, and in only a few Brazilian states, such as Paraná. In southern Brazil, approx- imately 48 HPP and 146 small HPP (SHPP) are in operation (ANEEL, 2016, 2019). Electrical energy represents the main source of energy production in Brazil, which is justified by entrepreneurs due to the low cost of production, low emission of polluting gases, and also for being a source of energy considered clean (Oliveira, 2018). Despite the fa- vorable arguments, studies begin to point out negative environmental and social impacts of the implementation of large HPP, such as the release of greenhouse gases (Carreira, 2016), social transformations in the territory, and impacts on fauna and flora (Marín and Torres, 2013). As SHPP have more accessible legislation and faster implementation, they have been installed in small- and medium-sized rivers (Kusma and Ferreira, 2010; Lutinski et al., 2017b). Despite the smaller impact, the construction of these developments also causes impacts that need to be better understood both to support the planning of such projects and to establish bases for monitoring after the implementation. One of the ways to assess and monitor changes in biodiversity is the use of bioindicator species (Parmar et al., 2016; Araújo et al., 2018). The presence, absence, or change in the abundance of a population can serve as a parameter to be evaluated (Gerlach et al., 2013; Rocha et al., 2015). Among the bioindicators used, insects have achieved promi- nence, both for being the most diverse group in terms of richness and for easy sampling (Lutinski et al., 2018). Predominant in most terrestrial environments, ants are recognized as bioindicators (Tibcherani et  al., 2018). The study of their richness and abundance allows the effective assessments of environmental conditions and the level of restoration of impacted areas (Blinova and Dobrydina, 2018). These insects fulfill this function because they have a wide geographic distribution, are locally abundant, functionally im- portant at different ecological and trophic levels, and are susceptible to ecological changes (Lawes et al., 2017; Tibcherani et al., 2018). Habitats have been and continue to be transformed by human ac- tion, and the study of ant assemblages enables us to assess the impact of these activities in these locations (Tibcherani et al., 2018). Some are cited as pests; however, they play essential roles in nutrient cycling, due to feeding on living or dead organic matter. They also act in the con- struction of underground galleries, aiding in soil drainage, and, conse- quently, aiding in the penetration of plant roots. In addition, they are important in the trophic chain, as they act as predators and also serve as prey (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990). Studies on the ant fauna in Paraná are recent and still restricted (Lutinski et al., 2017a, 2017b; Franco and Feitosa, 2018), with regions and environments still unexplored regarding the biodiversity of these insects. The diversity and richness of ant assemblages are affected by human activities. A reduction in ant richness is observed in forested environments that are transformed into monocrops or pasture areas. In contrast, generalist species tend to be more abundant under such conditions (Baccaro et al., 2015). Considering the bioindicator poten- tial of ants, understanding the changes in assemblages of these insects becomes relevant to support studies and monitoring of environmen- tal impacts. In this context, this study aimed to evaluate the richness, abundance, and composition of ant assemblages occurring in the areas under the direct influence of two small hydroelectric power plants in the southwest region of the state of Paraná. Material and Methods Study area Sampling was conducted in transects established in forest frag- ments, agricultural areas, and pastures, along the banks of the Andrada River, municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná. In that river, the im- Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from areas under the direct influence of two small hydropower plants in Brazil 107 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 plementation of two SHPP, namely, AL and SM, among others, was planned. The two SHPP were designed one continuous with the other, with SHPP 2 upstream of SHPP 1. In the areas under the direct influ- ence (DIA) of each of these two SHPP, five sampling sites were defined, on both banks of the river, equidistant from each other, in order to cover the greatest possible heterogeneity of environments in the DIA, as described below: • SHPP 1 (AL): Site 1 (S 25°10ʹ25ʹʹ; W 53°24ʹ53ʹʹ), in early and medi- um stages of natural restoration with native vegetation, surround- ed by agricultural cultivation areas, located at the final portion of the reservoir and upstream of the flooded area; Site 2 (S 25°10ʹ44ʹʹ; W 53°25ʹ07ʹʹ), with native and arboreal vegetation, consisting of a forest fragment, located in the final portion of the reservoir and upstream from the flooded area; Site 3 (S 25°11ʹ12ʹʹ; W 53°24ʹ59ʹʹ) located in the middle portion of the area expected to be flooded. Low-density tree vegetation limited by pastures and crops and a forest fragment; Site 4 (S 25°11ʹ25ʹʹ; W 53°25ʹ44ʹʹ) also located in the middle portion of the area expected to be flooded. Low-density tree vegetation limited by pastures and crops; Site 5 (S 25°11ʹ29ʹʹ; W 53°25ʹ59ʹʹ), where the installation of a powerhouse was planned, sloped relief with native arboreal vegetation; • SHPP 2 (SM): Site 1 (S 25°08ʹ25ʹʹ; W 53°24ʹ06ʹʹ) located in the final portion of the reservoir and upstream of the flooded area, With na- tive and secondary vegetation, surrounded by agricultural cultiva- tion areas; Site 2 (S 25°08ʹ59ʹʹ; W 53°25ʹ06ʹʹ) located in the final por- tion of the reservoir and upstream of the flooded area, with arboreal native vegetation, composing a forest fragment bordering the river bed; Site 3 (S 25°08ʹ18ʹʹ; W 53°24ʹ04ʹʹ) located in the middle portion of the area expected to be flooded. Low-density arboreal vegetation limited by pastures and crops; Site 4 (S 25°10ʹ12ʹʹ; W 53°24ʹ08ʹʹ) located in the middle portion of the area expected to be flooded. Low-density arboreal vegetation limited by pastures and crops; Site 5 (S 25°08ʹ46ʹʹ; W 53°24ʹ07ʹʹ), downstream of the development with native vegetation and at an advanced stage of succession. Sampling Two seasonal samplings were carried out, covering the predefined sampling sites. The samplings were carried out in July 2016 (winter) and March 2017 (summer), during the study to obtain licenses for the two projects. Pitfall traps were used for sampling, which consisted of plastic cups with a capacity of 500 mL (7.5 cm in diameter by 11.5 cm in height), fully buried, so that their openings are at the ground level. Each cup was added with 200 mL water with a drop of detergent to break the surface tension of the water, leading the ant to sink as it fell. At each of the sampling sites, five pitfall traps were installed, equidistant 20 m from each other, which remained open for 48 h (Bestelmeyer et al., 2000) in each of the samplings. A total of 25 pitfalls were installed in each DIA, in each sampling (summer and winter), 50 for each SHPP, i.e., 100 in total. The use of pitfall traps is justified by the heterogeneity of the sam- pled environments, aiming at standardizing the sampling effort. Ar- eas  devoid of vegetation prevent the use of sampling techniques for canopy ants, nor do they have a uniform litter that allows the use of some extraction method. Screening and identification Specimens sampled were transferred to flasks containing 70% alcohol. In the laboratory, they were screened and mounted for later identification under a binocular microscope. Ants were identified according to the keys proposed by Gonçalves (1961), Kempf (1964, 1965), Watkins (1976), Del- la Lucia (1993), Lattke (1995), Taber (1998), Fernández (2003), Longino (2003), Longino and Fernández (2007), and Wild (2007). Statistical analysis Richness was defined as the number of ant species occurring in each of the samples. Abundance was defined based on the number of occurrences of each species in each pitfall (Tavares et al., 2008). The number of records minimizes the effect of foraging habits and colony size and is more appropriate for studies of ant assemblages (Romero and Jaffe, 1989). The percentage relative frequency was defined by the number of occurrences (i.e., the sum of records of the presence of a particular species in each pitfall) divided by the sum of occurrences of all species in the respective DIA and multi- plied by 100 (percentage). Diversity (richness and abundance) was evaluated using the Shan- non–Weaver Diversity Index. This analysis was obtained using the EstimateS 8.0 software (Colwell, 2006). Evenness represents the par- ticipation of each taxon in the assemblage and was estimated by the Pielou index (Magurran, 1988). To assess the sample sufficiency, the nonparametric Chao 1 index was used and estimates were generated with the EstimateS 8.0 software (Colwell, 2006). The Chao 1 estima- tor essentially uses information about species occurring in only one sample (singletons) and those occurring in two samples (doubletons) (Chao, 1987). Ant richness of the DIA of the two SHPP was compared using the rarefaction test based on the number of occurrences (Gotelli and Col- well, 2001). These analyses were obtained using the EcoSim 7 software (Gotelli and Entsminger, 2001), which allows the comparisons of rich- ness between assemblages that differ in terms of species occurrence. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) was applied to test whether the abundance and composition of ant assemblages differ at the same site when sampled in both seasons. The data matrix was pre- viously transformed into log(x+1); the Bray–Curtis index was used as an association index, and the analysis was performed with the statisti- Lutinski, J. A. et al. 108 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 cal software Primer 6.1.9 (Clarke and Gorley, 2005). Additionally, PER- MANOVA was used to test the difference between groups. The research was carried out under license ICMBio/SISBio num- ber 50736-1. The sample specimens, as well as the accompanying fau- na, were listed in the educational collection of the Universidade Comu- nitária da Região de Chapecó, Unochapecó. Results A total of 196 occurrences of ants were recorded with the sampling effort used. In all, 63 species belonging to 23 genera and 6 subfamilies were recorded. The ant assemblage of DIA of SHPP 1 showed greater richness (S = 47) and abundance (n = 115) compared with the assem- blage of DIA of SHPP 2 (S = 42; n = 81). The subfamily Myrmicinae was the most species-rich (S = 25), followed by Formicinae (S = 21), Pone- rinae (S = 8), Dolichoderinae (S = 6), Pseudomyrmecinae (S = 2), and Ectatomminae (S = 1) subfamilies. The most species-rich genus was Camponotus (S = 15) followed by Pheidole (S = 11). The most abundant species in the records were Pheidole sp. 2 (n = 18; 9.2%), Pachycondyla striata F. Smith, 1858 (n = 13; 6.6%), Camponotus cameranoi Emery, 1894 (n = 10; 5.1%), and Gnamptogenys striatula Mayr, 1884 (n = 10; 5.1%) (Table 1). A total of 41.3% (S = 26) of the richness was registered con- comitantly in the two assemblages. Altogether 33.3% (S = 21) of the richness was registered exclusively in the DIA of SHPP 1 and 25.4% (S = 16) exclusively in the DIA of SHPP 2. The Chao 1 estimate for the assemblage of SHPP 2 was 96.2 species and for the assemblage of SHPP 1, 74.6. Shannon and Evenness indices were similar for the two assemblages (Figure 1). The greater richness of the assemblage of SHPP 1 (Table 1) was also demonstrated by the rarefaction analysis (Figure 2). The curves did not reach asymptote (Figure 2), indicating that the richness of both assemblages may be greater than that sampled according to Chao 1 estimates (Figure 1). Table 1 – Richness, occurrences, and percentage relative frequency of ants sampled in DIA, in the pre-implementation period of two SHPP in the municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná, July 2016 (winter) and March 2017 (summer). Taxon SHPP AL SHPP SM (n) (%) (n) (%) Subfamily Dolichoderinae         Dorymyrmex brunneus (Forel, 1908) 1 1.23 Linepithema gallardoi (Brèthes, 1914) 1 0.87 1 1.23 Linepithema micans (Forel, 1908) 1 0.87 3 3.70 Linepithema humile (Mayr, 1868) 1 0.87 1 1.23 Linepithema sp. 1 6 7.41 Linepithema sp. 2 1 0.87 Subfamily Ectatomminae Gnamptogenys striatula Mayr, 1884 8 6.96 2 2.47 Subfamily Formicinae Brachymyrmex aphidicola (Forel, 1909) 1 0.87 Brachymyrmex coactus Mayr, 1887 2 1.74 1 1.23 Brachymyrmex sp. 1 1.23 Camponotus cameranoi Emery, 1894 5 4.35 5 6.17 Camponotus cingulatus Mayr, 1862 2 1.74 2 2.47 Camponotus fastigatus Roger, 1863 1 0.87 Camponotus lespesii Forel, 1886 2 1.74 1 1.23 Camponotus melanoticus Emery, 1894 1 0.87 1 1.23 Camponotus mus Roger, 1863 1 1.23 Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) 4 4.94 Camponotus sp. 1 3 2.61 1 1.23 Camponotus sp. 2 1 1.23 Camponotus sp. 3 2 2.47 Camponotus sp. 4 1 1.23 Camponotus sp. 5 4 3.48 1 1.23 Camponotus sp. 6 5 4.35 Camponotus sp. 7 2 1.74 Camponotus sp. 8 1 0.87 Myrmelachista sp. 1 0.87 0.00 Nylanderia fulva (Mayr, 1862) 1 0.87 Paratrechina longicornis (Latreille, 1802) 1 0.87 Continue... Figure 1 – Exclusive (S(e)), shared (S(c)), and estimated (Chao 1) richness, Shannon diversity index, and Evenness of ant assemblages sampled in DIA, in the pre-implementation period of two SHPP in the municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná, July 2016 (winter) and March 2017 (summer). AL: SHPP 1; SM: SHPP 2. S(c) = 26 (41.3%) Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from areas under the direct influence of two small hydropower plants in Brazil 109 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 Taxon SHPP AL SHPP SM (n) (%) (n) (%) Subfamily Myrmicinae Acromyrmex rugosus (F. Smith, 1858) 1 0.87 1 1.23 Acromyrmex subterraneus (Forel, 1893) 1 1.23 Apterostigma pilosum Mayr, 1865 2 1.74 Apterostigma wasmannii Forel, 1892 1 0.87 Atta sexdens (Linnaeus, 1758) 3 2.61 2 2.47 Atta sp. 6 5.22 1 1.23 Crematogaster sp. 1 1.23 Monomorium floricola (Jerdon, 1851) 1 0.87 Mycocepurus goeldii (Forel, 1893) 1 1.23 Mycocepurus sp. 1 1.23 Pheidole pubiventris Mayr, 1887 3 2.61 4 4.94 Pheidole risii Forel, 1892 1 0.87 Pheidole sp. 1 4 4.94 Pheidole sp. 2 13 11.30 5 6.17 Pheidole sp. 3 4 4.94 Pheidole sp. 4 3 2.61 1 1.23 Pheidole sp. 5 3 2.61 Pheidole sp. 6 3 2.61 1 1.23 Pheidole sp. 7 2 1.74 1 1.23 Pheidole sp. 8 1 0.87 Pheidole sp. 9 1 0.87 Pogonomyrmex naegelii Forel, 1878 1 0.87 1 1.23 Solenopsis saevissima (F. Smith, 1855) 1 0.87 3 3.70 Solenopsis sp. 2 1.74 1 1.23 Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger, 1863) 1 0.87 Subfamily Ponerinae Hypoponera trigona (Mayr, 1887) 1 1.23 Hypoponera sp. 1 1 0.87 Hypoponera sp. 2 1 0.87 Neoponera villosa (Fabricius, 1804) 5 4.35 2 2.47 Odontomachus chelifer (Latreille, 1802) 1 0.87 1 1.23 Table 1 – Continuration. Continue... Taxon SHPP AL SHPP SM (n) (%) (n) (%) Pachycondyla striata F. Smith, 1858 9 7.83 4 4.94 Pachycondyla sp. 1 2 1.74 Pachycondyla sp. 2 1 0.87 Subfamily Pseudomyrmecinae Pseudomyrmex flavidulus (F. Smith, 1858) 2 1.74 1 1.23 Pseudomyrmex gracilis (Fabricius, 1804)     3 3.70 Richness 47 42 Abundance (occurrences) 115   81   Table 1 – Continuration. AL: SHPP 1; SM: SHPP 2. With 35% similarity, the NMDS analysis grouped the abundance and composition of ant assemblages from the sites sampled in the two DIA into four groups. Site 2 of the DIA of SHPP 2 was similar to sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the DIA of SHPP 1, while Site 5 of this DIA was isolated from all others. Sites 1 and 5 and sites 3 and 4 of the DIA of SHPP 2 formed two separate groups (Figure 3). The difference between the sites was con- firmed by the PERMANOVA analysis (F = 1.87; p = 0.04). Ecologically, this difference indicates the heterogeneity and the mosaic of different land uses that make up the sites sampled in the DIA of the two SHPP. Discussion The biodiversity (subfamilies and genera) of ants sampled reflects the accumulated knowledge of the ant fauna occurring in southern Brazil (Ulysséa et al., 2011; Franco and Feitosa, 2018). The most spe- cies-rich subfamilies in the samples, Myrmicinae, Formicinae, Pone- rinae, and Dolichoderinae, corroborate the study of Lutinski et  al. (2018). The richness of the subfamily Myrmicinae predominates in samples from southern Brazil (Ulysséa et al., 2011; Franco and Feitosa, 2018; Rizzotto et al., 2019). The richness, abundance, and composition sampled will serve as a parameter for evaluating the impacts caused during the implementation of the two projects. The difference in the evaluated parameters of the ant fauna sampled at different sites reflects the mosaic of environments and land uses that compose them. Myrmicine ants perform various ecosystem functions, occupy dif- ferent niches, colonize strata from the subsoil, and litter to the top of the canopy (Baccaro et  al., 2015; Cuautle et  al., 2020). Some species establish relationships with fungi, plants, and even other ants (Baccaro et al., 2015). The richness of the genera Pheidole (S = 11), Acromyrmex (S = 2), and Solenopsis (S = 2) also corroborates the literature on this Lutinski, J. A. et al. 110 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 subfamily in southern Brazil (Ulysséa et al., 2011; Franco and Feitosa, 2018; Dröse et al., 2019). While Acromyrmex, Apterostigma, Atta, and Mycocepurus ants feed on fungi grown on plant material, Crematogas- ter, Monomorium, Pheidole, Solenopsis, and Wasmannia are generalists (Baccaro et al., 2015). Some species of Pheidole and Solenopsis are pred- ators and can contribute to biological control (Abeijon et  al., 2019). The mosaic of conserved or recovering environments, surrounded by agricultural environments and pasture areas, can explain the occur- rence of myrmicine ants in the DIA of the two SHPP, since, among the sampled species, some are tolerant to environmental disturbances, while others require more conserved environments. The subfamily Formicinae is the second most species-rich among For- micidae in the Neotropical region (Martins et al., 2020). Species-rich gen- era such as Camponotus belong to this subfamily. These are easily sampled ants, usually with arboreal habits; however, some can be found in the soil or litter (Baccaro et al., 2015). The genus Camponotus, most species-rich in the samples (S = 15), is constant in the records of the southern Atlantic Forest (Franco and Feitosa, 2018; Lutinski et al., 2018; Dröse et al., 2019). This genus includes generalist ants, although they can establish close rela- tionships with other insects, such as aphids (Hemiptera, Aphididae) (Bac- caro et al., 2015), and can also be found in urban environments (Lutinski, 2017). Also highlighted in the samples were the genera Brachymyrmex (S = 3) and Myrmelachysta (S = 1), ants associated with litter and vegetation, respectively (Baccaro et al., 2015). It is also worth highlighting the records of Nylanderia fulva and Paratrechina longicornis, ants known for their in- vasive, generalist, and tolerant habits in disturbed environments (Zenner de Polanía, 2019). As with myrmicine ants, the richness and abundance of Formicinae ants can be explained by the heterogeneous preservation conditions verified in the sampling sites. The subfamily Ponerinae stands out for its richness and abundance in samples taken in conserved environments in southern Brazil (Franco and Feitosa, 2018; Lutinski et  al., 2018; Dröse et  al., 2019). The rich- ness of the genera Hypoponera (S = 3) and Pachycondyla (S = 3) agrees with the literature since these genera stand out in richness among the Ponerinae ants of the neotropical region (Bolton, 2021). Ants of these genera, as well as Neoponera and Odontomachus, are the specialized predators found in soil and litter, where they prey on small arthropods. It is worth noting that the richness of Ponerinae ants sampled in the two DIA allows us to infer that, despite the anthropogenic disturbance verified from the agricultural and grazing activities practiced in the sur- roundings, the existing forest remnants harbor a specialized ant fauna. Dolichoderinae ants are constantly recorded in samples taken in the Atlantic Forest Biome (Freitas et al., 2014). In general, they usually have relationships with some plants, on which feed on sugary liquids from floral nectaries (Baccaro et  al., 2015), with an emphasis in this study on the richness of Linepithema (S = 5). Dorymyrmex and Linepi- thema are the generalist ants and support fragmentation and anthropic environments (Lutinski et al., 2017b), which may explain the richness and abundance in the samples from the two DIA. The subfamily Ectatomminae was represented in the samples by the records of only one species, G. striatula. It is a specialized species of predatory ant that colonizes and forages the litter, where it also finds its prey (Camacho and Feitosa, 2015). The records of this species in the two DIA are associated with the remaining forest fragments. Pseudomyrmecinae ants are frequent in surveys that were already carried out in southern Brazil (Ulysséa et al., 2011; Franco and Feitosa, 2018; Dröse et al., 2019). Two species belonging to the genus Pseudo- Figure 3 – Distribution, according to NMDS of the abundance and composition of ant assemblages sampled in DIA, in the pre- implementation period of two SHPP in the municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná, July 2016 (winter) and March 2017 (summer). AL: SHPP 1; SM: SHPP 2; P1-5: sampling sites. Figure 2 – Comparison, using the rarefaction method, of the richness of ant assemblages sampled in DIA, in the pre-implementation of two SHPP in the municipality of Cascavel, state of Paraná, July 2016 (winter) and March 2017 (summer). AL: SHPP 1; SM: SHPP 2. Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from areas under the direct influence of two small hydropower plants in Brazil 111 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 Contribution of authors: Lutinski, J.A.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing — original draft, Writing — editing and review, Supervision, Validation, Visualization. Filtro, M.C.: Funding acquisition, Project administration. Baucke, L.: Funding acquisition, Project administration. Dorneles, F.E.: Investigation, Writing – editing and review. Lutinski, C. J.: Investigation, Writing – editing and review. Guarda, C.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – editing and review. References Abeijon, L.M.; Kruger, A.P.; Lutinski, J.A.; Garcia, F.R.M., 2019. Can ants contribute to the conservative biological control of the south american fruit fly? Bioscience Journal, v. 35, (3), 941-948. https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ- v35n3a2019-41728. Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica – ANEEL. 2016. BIG – Banco de Informações de Geração. ANEEL, Distrito Federal. Electronic Database (Accessed July 15, 2018) at: https://www.aneel.gov.br/ documents/656877/14854008/Boletim+de+Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es +Gerenciais+1%C2%BA+trimestre+de+2017/798691d2-990b-3b36-1833- c3e8c9861c21. Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica – ANEEL. 2019 (Accessed July 20, 2020) at: https://www2.aneel.gov.br/areaPerfil.cfm?idPerfil=3. Araújo, F.G.; Morado, C.N.; Parente, T.T.E.; Paumgartten, F.J.R; Gomes, I.D., 2018. Biomarkers and bioindicators of the environmental condition using a fish species (Pimelodus maculatus Lacepède, 1803) in a tropical reservoir in Southeastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, v. 78, (2), 351-359. https:// doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.167209. Baccaro, F.B.; Feitosa, R.M.; Fernandez, F.; Fernándes, O.M.; Lzzo, T.; Souza, J.L.P.; Solar, R., 2015. Guia para gêneros de formigas no Brasil. INPA, Manaus, 388 pp. myrmex were sampled, and Pseudomyrmex flavidulus was recorded in the two DIA. These ants, although they have already been recorded in urban (Lutinski, 2017) and agricultural (Rizzotto et al., 2019) envi- ronments, depend on the vegetation where they find their prey. In this sense, the role of DIA forest fragments in the conservation of this fauna and the biodiversity associated with it is highlighted. Although 41.3% richness was sampled simultaneously in the two DIA, most species occurred exclusively in one or the other DIA. Myrme- cofauna samples are influenced by abiotic factors such as temperature and humidity (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1990) that regulate the foraging activities of these insects. Biotic factors, such as the presence of vegeta- tion that provides them with nesting and food sites, in many cases, and the presence of other animal species, especially other arthropods, with which they interact and obtain food (Baccaro et  al., 2015), determine their presence or absence in a given environment. In this sense, the rich- ness shared by the two DIA can be explained by the sharing of biotic and abiotic factors, as they are located in the same hydrographic basin of a small river. The occurrence of unique species in each DIA, in contrast, can be explained by the status of conservation or impact in which each sampling site is. These variations in the status of conservation in which each sampling site is found may also explain the similarity in composi- tion and abundance verified from the NMDS and PERMANOVA. Sites 1 and 2 of each DIA stood out in terms of richness, abundance, and composition, which may be associated with better conditions of native vegetation cover. Sites occupied by crops and pastures showed lower richness and abundance (Sites 3, 4, and 5 of each DIA). The ant assemblage richness of the DIA of SHPP 1 was 11.9% higher than that of the DIA of SHPP 2. However, Chao 1 estimate for the ant assemblage of DIA of SHPP 2 indicated that the richness of this can be 28.9% higher than the DIA of SHPP 1. These results, associated with the values of the Shannon (Hʹ) and Evenness (Jʹ) indices, do not allow us to infer that the ant richness of the two DIA is different from each other and that the variations found are small and due to chance. Estimates such as Chao 1 help in the analysis of sampling sufficiency (Lemes and Köhler, 2017) and represent a useful tool when the sampling effort is limited. Final Considerations The relevance of biodiversity surveys in environments to be im- pacted by impoundments such as SHPP lies in establishing a basis from which it is possible to carry out further studies and compare the results. In this way, it was contributed to more assertively measure the envi- ronmental impacts of these projects. Ants, recognized as bioindicators, allow an inference about the condition of the environment, especially regarding the succession or degradation of the vegetation and, there- fore, of the terrestrial invertebrate fauna, with which the ants maintain a close relationship with many taxa. In this sense, this study fulfills its objective of contributing infor- mation about ant assemblages occurring in environments subjected to impacts by the implementation of two SHPP. First, the survey contrib- utes to the expansion of knowledge about the ant fauna occurring in the state of Paraná, and, second, it will serve as a basis for monitoring impacts caused by the implementation of these and other projects. The ant fauna surveyed here is mostly constituted by genera and species that are abundant in the southern region of Brazil and fre- quently sampled in anthropized environments. These are resilient spe- cies, whose richness and local abundance will be less affected by the implementation of SHPP, in short and medium term. Nevertheless, the occurrence of species of the genera Gnamptogenys, Hypoponera, My- cocepurus, Myrmelachista, Odontomachus, and Pseudomyrmex in the samples stands out. These ants, although abundant in the region, are associated with litter, vegetation, and/or prey (other invertebrates) that serve as food. These species tend to disappear locally as the changes resulting from the implementation of SHPP take place. https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v35n3a2019-41728 https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v35n3a2019-41728 https://www.aneel.gov.br/documents/656877/14854008/Boletim+de+Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es+Gerenciais+1%C2%BA+trimestre+de+2017/798691d2-990b-3b36-1833-c3e8c9861c21 https://www.aneel.gov.br/documents/656877/14854008/Boletim+de+Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es+Gerenciais+1%C2%BA+trimestre+de+2017/798691d2-990b-3b36-1833-c3e8c9861c21 https://www.aneel.gov.br/documents/656877/14854008/Boletim+de+Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es+Gerenciais+1%C2%BA+trimestre+de+2017/798691d2-990b-3b36-1833-c3e8c9861c21 https://www.aneel.gov.br/documents/656877/14854008/Boletim+de+Informa%C3%A7%C3%B5es+Gerenciais+1%C2%BA+trimestre+de+2017/798691d2-990b-3b36-1833-c3e8c9861c21 https://www2.aneel.gov.br/areaPerfil.cfm?idPerfil=3 https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.167209 https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.167209 Lutinski, J. A. et al. 112 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Agosti, D.; Alonso, L.E.; Brandão, C.R.F.; Brown Jr., W.L.; Delabie, J.H.C.; Silvestre, R., 2000. Field techniques for the study of ground-dwelling ants. In: Agosti, D.; Majer, J.D.; Alonso, L.E.; Schultz, T.R. (Eds.), Ants: standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp. 122-144. Blinova, S.V.; Dobrydina, T.I., 2018. Study of ants as bioindicators of industrial pollution in Kemerovo Region, Russia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, v. 115, (012035), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755- 1315/115/1/012035. Bolton, B., 2021. Bolton World Catalog.. Versão 8.48. California Academy of Science (Accessed June 10, 2021) at: https://www.antweb.org. Bracco, S., 2020. A study for the optimal exploitation of solar, wind and hydro resources and electrical storage systems in the Bormida Valley in the North of Italy. Energies, v. 13, (20), 5291. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13205291 Camacho, G.P.; Feitosa, R.M., 2015. Estado da arte sobre a taxonomia e filogenia de Ectatomminae. In: Delabie, J.H.C.; Feitosa, R.M., Serrão, J.E.; Mariano, C.S.F.; Majer, J.D., (Eds.), As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil. Editus, Ilhéus, pp. 23-32. Carreira, L., 2016. Poder e conflito nas políticas de infraestrutura energética: análise dos textos de comunicação produzidos no planejamento de hidrelétricas no Oeste do Pará. InterEspaço, v. 2, (5), 175-195. https://doi. org/10.18766/2446-6549/interespaco.v2n5p175-195. Chao, A., 1987. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catch ability. Biometrics, v. 43, (4), 783-791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531532. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R.N., 2005. Primer: Getting started with v6. Plymouth routines in multivariate ecological research. Colwell, R.K., 2006. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and share species from simples (Software and User’s Guide), Version 8 (Accessed July 20, 2020) at: http://viceroy.colorado.edu/estimates/EstimateSPages/ EstimateSRegistration.htm. Costa, M.A.S.; Costa, M.S.; Costa, M.M.S.; Lira, M.A.T., 2019. Impactos socioeconômicos, ambientais e tecnológicos causados pela instalação dos parques eólicos no Ceará. Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, v. 34, (3), 399- 411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-7786343049.  Cuautle, M.; Castillo-Guevara, C.; Juárez-Juárez, B.; Pérez-Toledo, G., 2020. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a temperate ecosystem from la Malinche National Park, Mexico. Florida Entomologist, v. 103, (3), 321-328. https://doi. org/10.1653/024.103.0303. Della Lucia, T.M.C., 1993. As formigas cortadeiras. Folha da Mata, Viçosa, 262 pp. Dröse, W.; Podgaiski, L.R.; Dias, C.F.; Souza Mendonça Jr., M., 2019. Local and regional drivers of ant communities in forest-grassland ecotones in South Brazil: A taxonomic and phylogenetic approach. PloS One, v. 14, (4), e0215310. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215310. Fernández, F., 2003. Introducción a las hormigas de la región neotropical. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia, 398 pp. Franco, W.; Feitosa, R.M., 2018. First standardized inventory of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the natural grasslands of Paraná: New records for Southern Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, v. 58, e20185812. https://doi. org/10.11606/1807-0205/2018.58.12. Freitas, J.M.S.; Delabie, J.H.C.; Lacau, S., 2014. Composition and diversity of ant species into leaf litter of two fragments of a semi-deciduous seasonal forest in the Atlantic Forest Biome in Barra do Choça, Bahia, Brazil. Sociobiology, v. 61, (1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v61i1.9-20. Gasparatos, A.; Doll, C.N.H.; Esteban, M.; Ahmed, A.; Olang, T.A., 2017. Renewable energy and biodiversity: implications for transitioning to a green economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v. 70, 161-184. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030. Gerlach, J.; Samways, M.; Pryke, J., 2013. Terrestrial invertebrates as bioindicators: an overview of available taxonomic groups. Journal of Insect Conservation, v. 17, 831-850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9565-9. Gonçalves, C.R., 1961. O gênero Acromyrmex no Brasil. Studia Entomologica, v. 4, 113-180. Gotelli, N.J.; Colwell, R.K., 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, v. 4, (4), 379-391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x. Gotelli, N.J.; Entsminger, G.L., 2001. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear (Accessed July 15, 2020) at: http://www.garyentsminger.com/ecosim/. Hölldobler, B.; Wilson, E.O., 1990. The ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 732 pp. Kempf, W.W., 1964. A revision of the Neotropical fungus-growing ants of the genus Cyphomyrmex Mayr. Part 1: Group of strigatus Mayr. Studia Entomologica, v. 7, 1-44. Kempf, W.W., 1965. A revision of the Neotropical fungus-growing ants of the genus Cyphomyrmex Mayr. Part II: Group of rimosus (Spinola) (Hym., Formicidae). Studia Entomologica, v. 8, 161-200. Kjærstad, G.; Arnekleiv, J.V.; Speed, J.D.M.; Herland, A.K., 2018. Effects of hydropeaking on benthic invertebrate community composition in two central Norwegian rivers. River Research and Applications, v. 34, (3), 218-231. https:// doi.org/10.1002/rra.3241. Kusma, C.M.; Ferreira, F.W., 2010. Mecanismo de transposição de peixes de pequena central hidrelétrica. Ciência Rural, v. 40, (1), 89-94. https://doi. org/10.1590/S0103-84782009005000247. Lattke, J., 1995. Revision of the ant genus Gnamptogenys in the New World (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research, v. 4, (4), 137-193. Laurent, A.; Espinosa, N., 2015. Environmental impacts of electricity generation at global, regional and national scales in 1980-2011: What can we learn for future energy planning? Energy & Environmental Science, v. 8, (3), 689-701. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EE03832K. Lawes, M.J.; Moore, A.M.; Andersen, A.N.; Preece, N.D.; Franklin, D.C., 2017. Ants as ecological indicators of rainforest restoration: Community convergence and the development of an Ant Forest Indicator Index in the Australian wet tropics. Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, (20), 8442-8455. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2992. Lemes, J.R.A.; Köhler, A., 2017. Contribuição de ambientes antrópicos como habitats para formigas de solo de Floresta Estacional Decidual no Sul do Brasil. Entomo Brasilis, v. 10, (2), 69-75. https://doi.org/10.12741/ebrasilis.v10i2.665. Longino, J.T., 2003. The Crematogaster (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmicinae) of Costa Rica. Zootaxa, v. 151, (1), 1-150. https://doi. org/10.11646/zootaxa.151.1.1. Longino, J.T.; Fernández, F., 2007. Taxonomic review of the genus Wasmannia. In: Snelling, R.R.; Fisher, B.L.; Ward, P.S. (Eds.), Advances in ant systematics (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): homage to E. O. Wilson – 50 years of contributions. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, pp. 271-289. Lutinski, J.A., 2017. Formigas em ambientes Urbanos de Santa Catarina. CRV, Curitiba, 130 pp. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/115/1/012035 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/115/1/012035 https://www.antweb.org https://doi.org/10.3390/en13205291 https://doi.org/10.18766/2446-6549/interespaco.v2n5p175-195 https://doi.org/10.18766/2446-6549/interespaco.v2n5p175-195 https://doi.org/10.2307/2531532 http://viceroy.colorado.edu/estimates/EstimateSPages/EstimateSRegistration.htm http://viceroy.colorado.edu/estimates/EstimateSPages/EstimateSRegistration.htm http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-7786343049 https://doi.org/10.1653/024.103.0303 https://doi.org/10.1653/024.103.0303 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215310 https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2018.58.12 https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2018.58.12 https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v61i1.9-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9565-9 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x http://www.garyentsminger.com/ecosim/ https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3241 https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3241 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782009005000247 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782009005000247 https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EE03832K https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2992 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2992 https://doi.org/10.12741/ebrasilis.v10i2.665 https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.151.1.1 https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.151.1.1 Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from areas under the direct influence of two small hydropower plants in Brazil 113 RBCIAMB | v.57 | n.1 | Mar 2022 | 105-113 - ISSN 2176-9478 Lutinski, J.A.; Baucke, L.; Filtro, M.; Busato, M.A.; Knakiewicz, A.C.; Garcia, F.R.M., 2017a. Ant assemblage (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in three wind farms in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, v. 77, (1), 176- 184. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.14115. Lutinski, J.A.; Guarda, C.; Lutinski, C.J.; Dorneles, F.; Pedroso, J.; Busato, M.A.; Garcia, F.R.M., 2018. Assembleias de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) respondem ao processo de recuperação de áreas de preservação permanente? Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences (Online), v. 50, 112-127. https:// doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820180402. Lutinski, J.A.; Ilha, C.; Lutinski, C.J.; Baucke, L.; Filtro, M.; Busato, M.A.; Garcia, F.R.M., 2017b. Ant fauna associated with areas under the direct impact of small hydropower plants in the state of Paraná, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences (Online), (46), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176- 947820170196. Magurran, A.E., 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 179 pp. Marín, L.B.M.; Torres, J.L.M., 2013. Impactos en la flora terrestre por la implementación de pequeñas centrales hidroeléctricas en Alejandría, Antioquia. Producción + Limpia, v. 8, (2), 85-93 (Accessed May 5, 2017) at: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1909- 04552013000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso Martins, M.F.O.; Thomazini, M.J.; Baretta, D.; Brown, G.G.; Rosa, M.G.; Zagatto, M.R.G.; Santos, A.; Nadolny, H.S.; Cardoso, G.B.X.; Niva, C.C.; Bartz, M.L.C.; Feitosa, R.M., 2020. Accessing the subterranean ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in native and modified subtropical landscapes in the Neotropics. Biota Neotropica, v. 20, (1), 1-16. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782. Moran, E.F.; Lopez, M.C.; Moore, N.; Müller, N.; Hyndman, D.W., 2018. Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, (47), 11891-11898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1809426115.  Moura, G.S.; Franzener, G., 2017. Biodiversity of nematodes biological indicators of soil quality in the agroecosystems. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico, v. 84, e0142015. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808- 1657000142015. Oliveira, N.C.C., 2018. A grande aceleração e a construção de barragens hidrelétricas no Brasil. Varia Historia, v. 34, (65), 315-346. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/0104-87752018000200003. Parikh, G.; Rawtani, D.; Khatri, N., 2021. Insects as an indicator for environmental pollution. Environmental Claims Journal, v. 33, (2), 161-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2020.1780698. Parmar, T.K.; Rawtani, D.; Agrawal, Y.K., 2016. Bioindicators: the natural indicator of environmental pollution. Frontiers in Life Science, v. 9, (2), 110- 118. https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2016.1162753. Rizzotto, A.M.; Roani, A.H.; Guarda, C.; Giovenardi, R.; Lutinski, J.A., 2019. Mirmecofauna em áreas de preservação permanente e plantios florestais no noroeste do Rio Grande do Sul. Ciência Florestal, v. 29, (3), 1227-1240. https:// doi.org/10.5902/1980509836279. Rocha, W.O.; Dorval, A.; Peres Filho, O.; Vaez, C.A.; Ribeiro, E.S., 2015. Formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Bioindicadoras de Degradação Ambiental em Poxoréu, Mato Grosso, Brasil. Floresta e Ambiente, v. 22, (1), 88-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2179-8087.0049. Romero, H.; Jaffe, K., 1989. A comparison of methods for sampling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Savanna. Biotropica, v. 21, (4), 348-352. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2388285. Taber, S.W., 1998. The world of the harvester ants. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, 213 pp. Tavares, A.A.; Bispo, P.C.; Zanzini, A.C., 2008. Efeito do turno de coleta sobre comunidades de formigas epigéicas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) em áreas de Eucalyptus cloeziana e de cerrado. Neotropical Entomology, v. 37, (2), 126-130. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2008000200003. Tibcherani, M.; Nacagava, V.A.F.; Aranda, R.; Mello, R.L., 2018. Review of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as bioindicators in the Brazilian Savanna. Sociobiology, v. 65, (2), 112-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v65i2.2048. Tsoutsos, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gekas, V., 2005. Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy, v. 33, (3), 289-296. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6. Ulysséa, M.A.; Cereto, C.E.; Rosumek, F.B.; Silva, R.R.; Lopes, B.C., 2011. Updated list of ant species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) recorded in Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil, with a discussion of research advances and priorities. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, v. 55, (4), 603-611. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0085-56262011000400018.  Watkins, J.F., 1976. The identification and distribution of New World army ants (Dorylinae: Formicidae). Markham Press Fund of Baylor University Press, Waco, 102 pp. Wild, A.L., 2007. Taxonomic revision of the ant genus Linepithema (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). University of California Publications in Entomology, v. 126, 1-159 (Accessed January 15, 2018) at: https://antwiki.org/ wiki/images/b/b3/Wild_2007.pdf. Zenner de Polanía, I., 2019. Invasions of four South American tramp ants: a systematic review. Revista U.D.C. A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica, v. 22, (1), e1207. https://doi.org/10.31910/rudca.v22.n1.2019.1207. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.14115 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820180402 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820180402 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820170196 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820170196 http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1909-04552013000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1909-04552013000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809426115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809426115 https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000142015 https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000142015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-87752018000200003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-87752018000200003 https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2020.1780698 https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2016.1162753 https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509836279 https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509836279 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2179-8087.0049 https://doi.org/10.2307/2388285 https://doi.org/10.2307/2388285 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2008000200003 http://dx.doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v65i2.2048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0085-56262011000400018 https://antwiki.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Wild_2007.pdf https://antwiki.org/wiki/images/b/b3/Wild_2007.pdf https://doi.org/10.31910/rudca.v22.n1.2019.1207