Open access journal: http://periodicos.uefs.br/ojs/index.php/sociobiology ISSN: 0361-6525 DOI: 10.13102/sociobiology.v68i2.6071Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) Introduction Human dependence on natural resources is continuously increasing and aims to meet our immediate needs for food, fiber, water, and shelter. Since the Industrial Revolution, there has been an intensification in land use change and habitat conversion (which we define here as the conversion of natural habitats into anthropogenic land uses, Abstract Conversion of natural to anthropogenic environments affects biodiversity, and the understanding of these impacts may be improved by assessing how different functional groups respond to such land conversion. We studied land conversion impacts on ant functional groups, as ants are ecologically important and respond well to various environmental changes. We hypothesized that conversion of natural to anthropogenic environments modifies the composition of functional groups, fostering generalist and opportunistic groups over specialist ones, with more responses of this type in tropical than in temperate regions. We recovered 412 papers from ISI Web of Science, of which we selected 17 studies, published between 1993 and 2018, that addressed our study’s question. We assessed whether each functional group responded positively or negatively to conversion of natural habitat into anthropogenic land uses and used Monte Carlo tests to assess significance. Ants were affected by natural habitat conversion into monoculture and polyculture and by the conversion of savannas and of tropical and subtropical forests. Land conversion affected six of the 13 functional groups assessed here. In the temperate zone, cryptic species, predators, subordinate Camponotini, cold-climate specialists and tropical- climate specialists were impaired, whereas hot-climate specialists were favored. In the tropics, land conversion negatively impacted fungus-growers and predators. In both climatic zones, several functional groups, mainly those with broad ecological niches, did not respond to land conversion. Our results corroborate that land conversion effects vary among ant functional groups and indicate that the ant fauna of temperate ecosystems may be more susceptible than that of tropical regions. Sociobiology An international journal on social insects Roberta J Santos1,4, Pavel Dodonov2, Jacques Hubert C Delabie3,4 Article History Edited by Eduardo Calixto, University of Florida, USA Received 01 December 2020 Initial acceptance 26 January 2021 Final acceptance 27 April 2021 Publication date 28 June 2021 Keywords Insects; Land use; Land cover; Disturbance; Habitat simplification. Corresponding author Roberta de Jesus Santos Laboratório de Mirmecologia Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau, CEPEC/ CEPLAC - Caixa Postal 7, CEP: 45600-970 Itabuna, Bahia, Brasil. E-Mail: beta.biologia@gmail.com mainly agricultural ones), which has resulted in the global degradation of environmental conditions (Foley et al., 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Ellis et al., 2013). The effects of such land use change range from altering the structure and functioning of ecosystems to modifying the dynamics of interactions between ecosystems and atmosphere, water bodies and the surrounding lands (Vitousek et al., 1997; Foley et al., 2005). In addition, land use changes, 1 - Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Campus Soane Nazaré de Andrade, Ilhéus-BA, Brazil 2 - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Laboratório de Ecologia Espacial, Instituto de Biologia, Campus de Ondina, Salvador-BA, Brazil 3 - Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Campus Soane Nazaré de Andrade, Ilhéus-BA, Brazil 4 - Laboratório de Mirmecologia, Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau (CEPEC/CEPLAC), Ilhéus-BA, Brazil REvIEW Effects of Habitat Conversion on Ant Functional Groups: A Global Review mailto:beta.biologia@gmail.com Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups2 especially the conversion of natural and complex landscapes into anthropized environments, have led to the simplification, loss, and fragmentation of native habitats, contributing to the disappearance of biodiversity and consequently its functions and ecosystem services (Pimm & Raven, 2000; Hansen et al., 2004; Haines-Young, 2009; Almeida et al., 2016). Negative impacts caused by habitat conversion and intensification have already been documented for several taxonomic groups, such as birds (Donald et al., 2001, Rittenhouse et al., 2012), mammals (Sauvajot et al., 1998; Sotherton, 1998; Riffell et al., 2011; Seki et al., 2017), insects (Vasconcelos, 1999; Philpott et al., 2008; Winfree et al., 2011), and plants (Philpott et al., 2008; Meers et al., 2010). Thus, assessing the effects of habitat conversion on biological communities helps to understand how environmental changes affect biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services (Haines-Young, 2009; Luck et al., 2009; Geijzendorffer & Roche, 2013). For several taxa, a commonly used functional approach is the classification of species in a community into functional groups (FGs), with functionally similar species being included in the same group (Cummins, 1974; Cianciaruso et al., 2009; Laureto et al., 2015). Species classification into FGs can be either a priori, according to a classification based on species characteristics or similarities, or a posteriori, with multivariate analysis techniques (Petchey, 2004; Calaca & Grelle, 2016). The classification into FGs has been widely used in recent studies of biotic communities, including ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) (Andersen, 1995; King et al., 1998; Delabie et al., 2000; Ottonetti et al., 2006; Underwood & Fisher 2006; Crist, 2009, Leal et al., 2012; Lawes et al., 2017; Assis et al., 2018). Such groupings are based on taxonomic affinities, morphological patterns, and niche dimensions such as diet, nest location, foraging behavior, and habitat preference or environmental tolerance (Andersen, 1990, 1995, 1997; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Silvestre et al., 2003; Andersen & Majer, 2004; Weiser & Kaspari, 2006; Silva & Brandão, 2010; Brandão et al., 2012; Koch et al., 2019). The classification of ants into FGs is useful in studies of habitat conversion, as such classifications permits to infer how community structure and function are affected by disturbances and environmental changes (Andersen & Majer, 2004; Underwood & Fisher, 2006). Considering the importance of the ant fauna for the provision of important ecosystem supporting and regulating services, such as nutrient cycling, seed dispersal, population control of other arthropods, and formation and structuring of soil superficial layers (Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990; Folgarait, 1998; Del Toro et al., 2012), the understanding of habitat conversion effects on different ant FGs is essential to better understand the impacts of environmental changes on biodiversity. Since the first sketches of ant classification into FGs, with the Greenslade’s (1978) pioneer study in Australia, the FGs scheme has been modified and adapted to classify ant communities from other biogeographic regions (Majer et al., 2004). One of the best known functional schemes developed from ant communities of Australian savannas classifies the groups according to the ants’ relationship with climate, soil, vegetation, and disturbances, and the main FGs are: (i) Dominant Dolichoderinae; (ii) Subordinate Camponotini; (iii) Generalized Myrmicinae; (iv) Opportunists; (v) Climate Specialists; (vi) Cryptic species and (vii) Specialist Predators (see Table 1) (Andersen, 1995, 1997, 2000; King et al., 1998; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Andersen & Majer, 2004; Andersen et al., 2007). Another important functional classification, based on the nutrition and bioecological aspects of the ants, was developed for the Neotropical region, and resulted from information in previous studies (Delabie et al., 2000; Silvestre et al., 2003; Brandão et al., 2009, 2012; Silva & Brandão, 2010). This classification includes ant guilds or groups organized around ant nutritional requirements and/or feeding habits: (i) Generalist predators; (ii) Specialists; (iii) Arboreal predator ants; (iv) Generalists; (v) Fungus growers; (vi) Legionary ants; (vii) Dominant arboreal ants associated with carbohydrate-rich resources or domatia; (viii) Pollen-feeding arboreal ants, and; (ix) Subterranean ants (see Table 1 and Brandão et al., 2009, 2012). In general, habitat disturbance and conversion affect ant communities directly, by reducing the availability of resources and removing colonies, and indirectly, through changes in habitat structure, nesting site availability, temperature, and humidity (Andersen, 2000; Philpott et al., 2010). In addition, habitat changes promoted by agriculture, logging, grazing, mining, etc., may lead to the exclusion of sensitive groups and the advent of groups tolerant to disturbances, which can replace or compete with those present before the disturbance (Andersen, 1995, 2000; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Andersen & Majer, 2004; Ottonetti et al., 2006; Crist, 2009; Leal et al., 2012; Parui et al., 2015; Assis et al., 2018; Amaral et al., 2019). Highly specialized FGs, such as cryptic species, tend to be sensitive to changes in habitat due to their preference for forested environments and nesting and foraging in soil and litter (Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003). On the other hand, other groups of ants, often called opportunists, are ruderal with low competitiveness and wider environmental tolerance and may be predominant in disturbed environments (Andersen, 1997; King et al., 1998; Andersen & Majer, 2004). In addition, the effects of habitat conversion may affect ant FGs in different ways throughout the globe, as aspects associated with species richness, such as habitat heterogeneity and physical environment, differ between tropical and temperate zones. Habitat heterogeneity is related to the variety of resources in the environment, with a greater availability of resources permitting a better partitioning of niche space and greater specialization (MacAthur & MacAthur, 1961, Pianka, 1966; Brown & Lomolino, 1998). Therefore, it is possible that conversion of native habitats to anthropogenic land use Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 3 promotes greater loss of the original habitat heterogeneity in more structurally diverse and complex areas, impacting specialized FGs associated with native habitats, and may therefore be more significant in the tropics than in temperate regions. In order to assess the effects of habitat conversion on different ant FGs in tropical and temperate zones of the globe, we conducted a literature review to: i) identify how habitat conversion (conversion of native habitats to anthropogenic Functional groups of Australian ants Group Subdivision Characteristics Dominant Dolichoderinae Species of the Dolichoderinae subfamily, with dominant behavior and preference for hot and open habitats. Subordinate Camponotini Ants tend to be behaviourally submissive to dominant dolichoderines, and have large body size, nocturnal foraging, and/or arboreal habits. Generalized Myrmicinae Group with subdominant behavior to Dominant Dolichoderinae from a global perspective, and with high tolerance to disturbance. Opportunists Group that is dominant in disturbed environments in which other groups lose their relative importance. Climate specialists Hot-Climate Specialists Climate specialists that have specific habitat tolerance, with preferences related to temperature and humidity. Cold-Climate Specialists Tropical-Climate Specialists Cryptic species Species that can hide in their habitat and occur preferentially in forests and forage within soil and litter. Specialist Predators Ants specialized in diet and sensitive to disturbance. Functional groups of Neotropical region Group Subdivision Characteristics Generalist predators Epigaeic generalists predators Ants with large and medium-sized predators that forage on the soil surface or above the litter. Hypogaeic generalist predators Medium and small-sized ants that forage within the leaf litter. Specialists (with specialized morphology and biology) Predation in mass and/or nomadism Ants with hunting strategy in groups of workers in columns/ mass in predation or nomadic behavior in predation of certain preys. Dacetini predators Possess specialized jaws with morphology and mechanism different from other Mymicinae. Arboreal predator ants Species which forage in vegetation and prey on a range of arthropods. Generalists Generalized Myrmicines Ants with a wide ecological niche.Generalized Formicines, Dolichoderines and some Myrmicines Small-sized hypogaeic generalist foragers Fungus growers Leaf cutters Use live or dead plant substrate for rearing their symbiotic fungus. Litter-nesting fungus growers Cryptobiotic Attina ants living in the leaf litter and using a variety of substrates (e.g. leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, feces, lichen, and carcasses of arthropods) to rear the symbiotic fungus or yeast. Legionary ants (army ants) Ants with behavioral and reproductive syndrome, with nomadism, dicthadiiform reproductive females (wingless queens) and mandatory collective foraging. Dominant arboreal ants associated with carbohydrate-rich resources or domatia Ants picking up liquid food resources (as nectar produced by floral or extrafloral nectaries, carbohydrate-rich exudates sucking hemipterans, and exudates of some Lepidoptera larvae) or species living in association with myrmecophytes that present specialized structures aiming ant nesting (such as domatia) and provide food (nectaries and Mullerian or food bodies). Pollen-feeding arboreal ants Components of the Neotropical Cephalotini tribe that remove anemophilous pollen deposited on the vegetation surface, an important item in the diet of these ants. Subterranean ants Ants that live in the deeper layers of soil. *Andersen, 1995, 1997, 2000; King et al., 1998; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Andersen & Majer, 2004; Andersen et al., 2007; **Brandão et al., 2009, 2012. Table 1. Details of functional groups scheme of Australian ants based on their relationships to the climate, soil, vegetation, and disturbance*, and functional classification for ants of Neotropical region based on their nutritional and bioecological aspects**. Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups4 land uses, especially agricultural areas) affects ant FGs; ii) assess whether these effects can be observed in different types of native habitats and anthropogenic land uses; and iii) verify how the different ant FGs respond to habitat conversion in the tropical and temperate zones. We hypothesized that: a) FGs in general are negatively affected by the conversion of natural to anthropogenic environments; b) opportunistic and generalist ants and ants with a preference for disturbed sites respond positively to habitat conversion; c) specialist ants respond negatively to such changes; and d) in tropical zones, more FGs of ants would have negative responses as compared to groups in temperate climatic zones. Methods Literature search This study addresses the effects of converting natural to anthropic environments on ant FGs based on a literature review and statistical significance tests (Fig 1). The studies were identified through a comprehensive search (last updated in July 2018) in the ISI Web of Science database, using the following terms: “(ants OR ant OR Formicidae) AND (land cover OR land use) AND (functional)’ in TOPIC, ‘DocType=All document types, Language=All languages’, from all databases”. The research resulted in 412 published studies. 412 records identified through database searching 412 records screened 93 full-text articles assessed for eligibility 17 studies included in review Title and abstract revealed not appropriate 319 records excluded Articles outside the inclusion criteria 76 full-text articles excluded Screening Elegibility Included Identification Fig 1. The flow diagram showing an overview of the study selection process according to the PRISMA (Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. Adapted from Moher et al. (2009). Selection criteria After the first period dedicated to literature search, we selected studies that evaluated directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, the effects of habitat conversion (natural to anthropogenic) on ant FGs and that sampled ant fauna in areas with native vegetation (control) and in converted areas. We understand conversion as the integral transformation of a natural environment into an anthropogenic environment (Coppin et al., 2004), excluding uses such as selective logging, which only partially alter the natural environment, but including agroforestry. Titles and abstracts were carefully examined to determine whether the paper met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Then, the following criteria were used to select the studies for full reading: a) we included only studies on native vegetation that was completely converted to human activities for economic purposes and maintained for such purposes throughout the study; b) we excluded studies on fire ecology (burned vs. unburned areas), studies comparing non- grazed vs. grazed areas or studies comparing different logging managements in native areas; c) we excluded converted areas that were in natural regeneration, rehabilitation or succession; and d) we only included studies that included functional classification of species and figures or tables that permitted to compare the response of ant FGs between native vegetation (control) and converted areas. A study carried out in a deactivated mining region was excluded because it was the only study with this type of land use among the selected studies. Thus, in our final dataset we had comparisons of natural areas with areas converted to monoculture, polyculture, pasture, and agroforestry. We did not perform a meta-analysis because many published studies did not provide information such as mean and standard deviation or correlation or regression coefficients, which are necessary to calculate effect sizes (Borenstein et al., 2009). Thus, we devised a new simulation- based approach, based on the general recommendations for Monte Carlo statistical tests (Manly, 2007). As most of the studies reported responses in the absence of formal statistical significance tests, we first defined the type of response through Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 5 visual analysis of figures and tables. Our assessments of the responses of different FGs in any particular study are therefore necessarily qualitative. For each study, we assessed whether the response of FGs to habitat conversion was positive, negative or neutral by comparing the occurrence of different FG in native vegetation (control) and in converted areas. When the mean values reported for each FG in the two environments did not differ or differed slightly (e.g. difference in relative presence was less than 4%; difference in mean less than 0.25; or overlapping points in the scatter plot for FGs in native and anthropogenic habitat), we considered the effect as neutral. Otherwise, we considered habitat conversion to have positive effects when the values were greater in the converted environment and negative effects when they were greater in the natural habitat. This approach is similar to that used by Hoffmann & Andersen (2003). Due to the small number of studies that we included in the analysis according to the inclusion criteria above, it was not possible to characterize richness, frequency and abundance separately; we therefore combined these measures into a single response variable (Table 3). Thus, a positive effect may indicate a positive outcome on abundance, frequency and/or richness of a functional group, without differentiating between these measures. Study characteristics Our final selection included 17 papers published between 1993 and 2018, corresponding to studies carried out in several continental regions present in the tropical climatic zone [Africa (2), Asia (2), Oceania (2), and South America (3)] and temperate zone [Europe (1), North America (1), and Oceania (6)]. The selected studies employed 11 methods of ant sampling: Pitfall traps (15), Winkler for leaf litter samples (3), baits (2), hand collection (2), baited arboreal pitfall traps (1), baited pitfall traps (1), baited subterranean traps (baited Eppendorf’s tubes) (1), soil monolith method (1), quadrat sampling (insect vacuum and mouth aspirator) (1), sweep netting and foliage shaking (1), and Tullgren funnels with leaf litter and surface soil samples (1) (Table 3) (for a general review of sampling ants methods, see Delabie et al., 2021). These methods were used for ant sampling in different strata (arboreal, leaf litter, soil, and subterranean). The anthropic land uses included in the studies were agroforestry (e.g. cocoa plantations with native woody plant or mixture of different crop plants), monoculture (e.g. coffee, sugarcane, Eucalyptus plantation), pasture (e.g. alien grasses, grazing or managed areas), and polyculture [including crop rotation, mixed-crop fields, cultivated fields (cereals), and farmland]. Group Variations in nomenclature of some functional groups that occur in the studies Arboreal Arboreal ants, arboreal nesting dominant, territorially dominant arboreal species, non-dominant arboreal species Army ants Cryptic species Dominant Dolichoderinae Fungus-growers Attina, fungus-growing, fungivore/surface Generalists Omnivore, omnivore/surface Generalized Myrmicinae Opportunists Predators Other predators, predator/surface, predator/litter, specialized predators, specialist predators, generalist predators, large, solitary predators Subordinate Camponotini Cold-climate specialists Hot-climate specialists Tropical-climate specialists Table 2. Functional groups and variations in nomenclature of some functional groups present in the studies which met the selection criteria of this review. The classification of ants into FGs of these papers was according to functional schemes such as those of Andersen (1990, 1995, 1997), Delabie et al. (2000), Silvestre et al. (2003), and Weiser & Kaspari (2006) (Table 3 and see appendix 1). The classifications used in the selected articles are based on a particular functional grouping as previously mentioned and, in some cases, the authors of these articles made modifications and/or used literature with relevant information to group ants into ecological groups. We recognize the variety and specificity of the functional classifications of the set of studies selected in this review and, therefore, we made a broader and more general classification allowing us to analyze the extracted data. Most papers (17) classified ants into FGs and only two classified ants into functional guilds based on feeding and foraging guilds (Appendix 1). 13 FGs were used for the whole study while some FGs with differences in nomenclature were combined into a single group to facilitate data interpretation (Table 2). Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups6 R ef er en ce N um be r of in de pe nd en t ca se s tu di es (i .e ., ob se rv at io n) C on ti ne nt H ab ita t t yp e an d la nd u se Sa m pl in g m et ho d Sa m pl ed st ra tu m M et ri cs u se d R ef er en ce s us ed fo r fu nc tio na l c la ss ifi ca tio n A ss is e t a l., 2 00 8 3 So ut h A m er ic a Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. M on oc ul tu re Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. P as tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il R el at iv e pr es en ce (% ) D el ab ie e t a l., 2 00 0 L aw es e t a l., 2 01 7 1 O ce an ia Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. P as tu re Pi tfa ll tra ps / B ai te d su bt er ra ne an tra ps (B ai te d E pp en do rf t ub es )/ B ai te d A rb or ea l p itf al l t ra ps / L ea f lit te r s am pl es - W in kl er So il, a rb or ea l, su bt er ra ne an an d le af li tte r Fr eq ue nc y of o cc ur re nc e A nd er se n, 1 99 5 Pa ch ec o et a l., 2 01 7 2 So ut h A m er ic a Sa va nn a vs . P ol yc ul tu re B ai te d pi tf al l t ra ps a nd B ai te d su bt er ra ne an tr ap s (C on ve nt io na l pi tf al l t ra ps ) So il an d su bt er ra ne an lo g- tra ns fo rm ed m ea n nu m be rs o f a nt s pe r t ra p Si lv es tr e et a l., 2 00 3 Sa ad e t a l., 2 01 7 2 So ut h A m er ic a Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. M on oc ul tu re Pi tfa ll tra ps , B er le se (S oi l s am pl es ) an d Tu llg re n fu nn el s (S oi l s am pl es ) So il an d su bt er ra ne an To ta l s pe ci es ri ch ne ss W ei se r & K as pa ri, 2 00 6 L u et a l., 2 01 6 1 A si a Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. A gr of or es try Pi tfa ll tra ps / S w ee p ne tti ng a nd fo lia ge s ha ki ng So il an d ar bo re al M ea n fu nc tio na l g ro up - re la tiv e co nt rib ut io n (% ) A nd er se n, 1 99 0, 1 99 5 Pa ru i e t a l., 2 01 5 2 A si a Tr op ic al d ry fo re st v s. M on oc ul tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il R el at iv e ab un da nc e (% ) A nd er se n, 1 99 5 K ua te e t a l., 2 01 5 1 A fr ic a Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. P ol yc ul tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps / Q ua dr at s am pl in g (I ns ec t V ac uu m a nd m ou th as pi ra to r) / B ai t So il an d le af li tte r R el at iv e oc cu rr en ce (% ) D el ab ie e t a l., 2 00 0; A nd er se n, 2 01 0 K on e et a l., 2 01 2 4 A fr ic a Tr op ic al a nd s ub tr op ic al ra in fo re st v s. A gr of or es tr y L ea f l itt er s am pl es - W in kl er / Pi tfa ll tra ps / M on ol ith m et ho d/ H an d co lle ct io n L ea f l itt er , s oi l an d su bt er ra ne an R el at iv e ab un da nc e Lé vi eu x, 1 98 3; M aj er , 1 98 3; A nd er se n, 1 99 5, 19 97 ; K in g et a l., 1 99 8; H of fm an n et a l., 2 00 0; R ea d & A nd er se n, 2 00 0; A nd er se n & M aj er , 20 04 ; D ej ea n et a l., 2 00 7; B ol to n & F is he r, 20 08 Fr an kl in , 2 01 2 12 N or th A m er ic a Sc ru b, h ea th a nd sh ru bl an ds v s. P as tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il R el at iv e ab un da nc e A nd er se n, 1 99 5, 1 99 7 H ou se e t a l., 2 01 2 12 O ce an ia G ra ss la nd v s. P as tu re G ra ss la nd v s. P ol yc ul tu re W oo dl an d vs . P as tu re W oo dl an d vs . P ol yc ul tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il Pe rc en ta ge o cc ur re nc e (% ) G re en sl ad e, 1 97 8; A nd er se n, 1 99 7; B ro w n, 2 00 0 G ol la n et a l., 2 01 1 2 O ce an ia W oo dl an d vs . P as tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il R el at iv e ab un da nc e A nd er se n, 2 00 1 Y at es & A nd re w , 2 01 1 2 O ce an ia G ra ss la nd v s. M on oc ul tu re W oo dl an d vs . M on oc ul tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il N um be r o f a nt s pe ci es A nd er se n, 1 99 5 N ak am ur a et a l., 2 00 7 2 O ce an ia T ro pi ca l a nd s ub tr op ic al ra in fo re st v s. P as tu re Pi tfa ll tra ps , T ul lg re n fu nn el s (L ea f lit te r a nd s ur fa ce s oi l s am pl es ) So il an d le af lit te r M ea n fr eq ue nc y A nd er se n, 2 00 0 Sc hn el l e t a l., 2 00 3 2 O ce an ia W oo dl an d vs . M on oc ul tu re W oo dl an d vs . P as tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il R el at iv e ab un da nc e (% ) A nd er se n, 1 99 0 G óm ez e t a l., 2 00 3 4 E ur op e Sc ru b, h ea th a nd sh ru bl an ds vs . P as tu re S cr ub , h ea th a nd sh ru bl an ds v s. Po ly cu ltu re W oo dl an d vs . P as tu re W oo dl an d vs . P ol yc ul tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps So il M ea n ab un da nc e A nd er se n, 1 99 5, 1 99 7a (B es te lm ey er & W ie ns , 1 99 6; A nd er se n, 1 99 7b , 2 00 0; R ea d & A nd er se n, 2 00 0; B ro w n, 2 00 0) K in g et a l., 1 99 8 2 O ce an ia Tr op ic al a nd s ub tro pi ca l ra in fo re st v s. P as tu re Pi tfa ll tra ps / L ea f l itt er s am pl es - W in kl er / B ai ts So il, le af li tte r an d ar bo re al A bu nd an ce A nd er se n, 1 99 5 L ob ry D e B ru yn , 1 99 3 2 O ce an ia Sc ru b, h ea th a nd sh ru bl an ds v s. P ol yc ul tu re W oo dl an d vs . P ol yc ul tu re Pi tf al l t ra ps / H an d co lle ct io n So il Pe rc en ta ge a bu nd an ce (% ) G re en sl ad e & G re en sl ad e, 1 98 4; A nd er se n, 19 86 , 1 98 7 T ab le 3 . D et ai ls o f t he a rt ic le s se le ct ed fo r t hi s re vi ew . Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 7 Most studies had more than a single land use or sampled in contrasting landscapes (i.e., different locations) or different years or sampled in different strata and/or with different traps, as well as having more than a single type of native vegetation. Thus, when a study showed more than a single combination of native vegetation type versus converted environment, each combination was considered as a separate data set, i.e., independent case studies (hereafter observations), so that some papers corresponded to more than a single case study. Studies with paired comparisons in different climatic zones were excluded. Therefore, our review summed a total of 56 observations (Table 3) for the analyses. Statistical analysis Due to the nature of our data, assuming values of -1, 0, and 1 (for negative, neutral, and positive responses, respectively – see below), we chose to use a Monte Carlo approach to calculate significance by comparing our observed results to simulations of the null hypothesis. Monte Carlo method works by comparing a test statistic with a large number of random samples generated under a given model, which often represents the null hypothesis (Manly, 2007). One advantage of this test is its flexibility in defining the statistics and the model used for the simulation, permitting it to be adapted for specific study questions (Manly, 2007). Thus, we developed Monte Carlo test specifically to address our study questions and to test our null hypotheses. As we classified each response as negative, neutral, or positive, our statistical null hypothesis was that these values (-1, 0, +1) were randomly assigned to each response. We thus developed a simulation (Monte Carlo) model specifically to test this null hypothesis. We used this new Monte Carlo test to test whether the responses of ant FGs are significantly positive or negative (i.e. deviate significantly from what would be expected under our null hypothesis) and how these responses vary among the types of native vegetation, types of conversion, FGs, and climatic zone. Due to sampling size limitation, we considered observations from the same study as independent. We coded each response (observation) as -1 (negative response, i.e., decreased FG richness or abundance in converted environment), 0 (neutral, i.e., no difference between natural and converted environments), or +1 (positive, i.e., increased FG richness or abundance in the converted environment). We then performed analyses separately for each 1) type of converted environment, 2) type of native vegetation, 3) climatic zone, 4) FG, and 5) FG separated by climatic zone (temperate and tropical); for analyses 1 to 3 we grouped all FGs due to insufficient sampling size for separate analyses. In each analysis, we calculated the average response for each level of the explanatory variable by summing the responses (coded as -1, 0, and 1) and dividing this sum by the number of responses assessed. Thus, this index varies from -1 to 1. A value near -1 means that group most responses were negative, whereas a value close to 0 can mean that most response were neutral or that positive and negative responses were equally common and a value close to 1 means that most responses were positive. We then simulated the distribution of this index under the null model to assess whether the average responses differ significantly from zero. We are unaware of previous studies using exactly this type of simulation but, considering the flexibility of Monte Carlo test to adapt to specific research questions and nonstandard situations (Manly, 2007), we believe that this approach is valid. The null model used for these simulations was that positive, negative, and neutral responses were all equally probable, i.e., that a study could have observed a negative (-1), neutral (0), or positive (1) response for a give FG with the same probability. Thus, in each simulation, we randomly assigned a value of -1, 0, or 1 to each response (observation), simulating the null hypothesis that the responses were random, and calculated the average response with the randomized data. We repeated this procedure 9,999 times, thus obtaining a distribution of average responses under the null model, and calculated significance (p-value) as the proportion of times that the simulated absolute value was greater than or equal to the real absolute value; the real data were included as one of the possible results of the simulation (Manly, 2007). Following a traditional line of null hypothesis significance testing, we rejected the null hypothesis for p ≤0.05. All analyses were performed in R (R Core Team, 2018) and the scripts used are available as Supplementary Material 2 and at https://github.com/pdodonov/publications. Results When the FGs were combined, the responses were either positive or neutral. Thus, monoculture and polyculture had negative effects (p<0.007), whereas agroforestry and pasture did not have statistically significant effects (p ≥0.07) (Table 4). The only habitats in which habitat conversion effects were consistently negative (p<0.007) were savanna and tropical and subtropical rainforests, and habitat conversion did not have statistically significant effects for other types of native habitats (p≥0.09). When combining the vegetation types, negative effects were observed both in the temperate and tropical zones (p<0.01). Concerning the FGs, when combining the climate zones, six groups (cryptic species, fungus-growers, predators, subordinate Camponotini, cold- and tropical-climate specialists), responded negatively (p<0.02) to habitat conversion, whereas the other groups did not respond (p≥0.08) (Table 5). The cold- and tropical-climate specialists, as well as predators, cryptic species, and subordinate Camponotini, responded negatively (p<0.02) in the temperate zone too. In the tropical zone, however, only the fungus-growers and predators were negatively affected (p<0.008) by habitat conversion, with the Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups8 other groups having neutral responses (p≥0.07). The only significant positive effect (p=0.04) of habitat conversion was observed for hot-climate specialists in the temperate zone. Finally, arboreal ants, army ants, dominant Dolichoderinae, generalists, generalized Myrmicinae, and opportunists were not affected (p ≥0.07) by habitat conversion. Disturbed Habitat Number of observation Number of studies Number of observations considering the FGs Response Significance Agroforestry 5 2 30 -0.2 0.4324 Monoculture 9 5 49 -0.3111 0.0057 Pasture 29 9 149 -0.119 0.0702 Polyculture 13 5 75 -0.2667 0.006 Native Habitat Number of observation Number of studies Number of observations considering the FGs Response Significance Grassland 7 2 35 -0.2 0.1809 Savanna 2 1 12 -0.6667 0.007 Scrub, heath and shrublands 15 3 68 -0.0441 0.7154 Tropical and subtropical rainforest 16 8 89 -0.2969 0.0025 Tropical dry forest 2 1 16 -0.2857 0.1653 Woodland 14 6 83 -0.1471 0.0925 Table 4. Average response values of ant functional groups and significance for disturbed habitat and native habitat. Significant results (P < 0.05) are in bold. Discussion Negative effects habitat conversion to monocultures and polycultures were observed, as well as a lack of effect of conversion to agroforestry and pastures. These changes were observed in both the temperate and the tropical zones, with more FGs affected in temperate ecosystems. In general, the more specialized FGs (e.g. predators and cryptic species) responded negatively whereas more generalist groups did not respond to the habitat conversion. These results are partially consistent with our hypotheses and highlight the sensitivity of more specialized FGs to land use changes, especially in the temperate zone. Conversion to monoculture and polyculture can thus affect both the taxonomic and functional ant diversity (Philpott et al., 2008; Fayle et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2016; Groc et al., 2017; Saad et al., 2017; Rivera-Pedroza et al., 2019). This may be due to the intensive management of some of these land uses, in which, in addition to removing vegetation cover and soil preparation, the use of fertilizers and pesticides impacts the ant fauna (Lobry de Bruyn, 1999; Matlock & de La Cruz, 2003; Steinbauer & Peveling, 2011; Queiroz et al., 2012; Nickele et al., 2013). Additionally, the loss of diversity and simplification of vegetation structure that results of these processes modifies important habitat characteristics for ants, such as microhabitat structure, supply of nesting sites, temperature, availability/access to resources, as well as competitive interactions (Andersen, 1995, 2000; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Philpott & Foster, 2005; Armbrecht et al., 2006; Pacheco et al., 2009; Amaral et al., 2019). In turn, agroforestry had a neutral effect, possibly due to land uses such as shade cocoa and coffee plantations that maintain a fraction of the native vegetation and have microclimates similar or close to those of natural vegetation, increasing the availability of food, nesting sites, and hiding places to the ants and other arthropods (Perfecto et al., 1997; Philpott & Armbrecht, 2006; Delabie et al., 2007; Groc et al., 2017; Amaral et al., 2019). Although pastures did not have significant effects, this result should be treated with caution, as pastures are open areas with sun exposure and cattle trampling, with limited food resources and nesting sites that directly impact on the ant fauna (Neves et al., 2012; Cantarelli et al., 2015). Still, it is possible that the lower intensity of management practices (e.g. the low rate of application of agricultural inputs) compared to monocultures, as well as the growth of shrubs and the occurrence of scattered trees, may result in smaller differences in ant FGs between pastures and native habitats (Dias et al., 2008; Neves et al., 2012; Frizzo & Vasconcelos, 2013; Queiroz et al., 2017). The negative effects were prominent in the conversion of tropical and subtropical rainforest and savanna. These environments are structurally and compositionally complex, and the reduction of this complexity likely affects the availability of resources and conditions necessary for ants, impacting the abundance and composition of several FGs in these habitats (Andersen, 1995, 2000; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003). On the contrary, the conversion of tropical dry forest, scrub, heath and shrublands, grassland, and woodland to anthropogenic land uses, show non-significant effects on ant FGs. Although this may be due to idiosyncrasies of the evaluated studies, it is possible that environments such as Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 9 Table 5. Average response values of ant functional groups for climatic zone, functional group and functional group by climatic zone. Significant results (P<0.05) are in bold. Functional Groups Number of observations Number of studies Response Significance Arboreal 14 4 -0.3 0.3359 Army ants 6 3 -0.5 0.215 Cryptic species 17 9 -0.5625 0.0072 Dominant Dolichoderinae 44 12 -0.1053 0.3879 Fungus-growers 7 3 -0.8333 0.0064 Generalists 11 4 -0.1429 0.8198 Generalized Myrmicinae 45 13 0.0588 0.6491 Opportunists 49 14 0.2174 0.0871 Predators 28 11 -0.6818 0.0001 Subordinate Camponotini 29 10 -0.6316 0.0001 Cold-climate specialists 9 4 -0.6667 0.0202 Hot-climate specialists 37 8 0.1923 0.1288 Tropical-climate specialists 7 4 -1 0.0013 Functional Group in Temperate zone Number of observations Number of studies Response Significance Cryptic species 8 3 -0.875 0.0032 Dominant Dolichoderinae 38 8 -0.1351 0.2829 Generalized Myrmecinae 38 8 0.0714 0.6256 Opportunists 38 8 0.1579 0.2817 Predators 6 3 -0.8 0.019 Subordinate Camponotini 24 6 -0.8571 0.0001 Cold-climate specialists 8 3 -0.75 0.0147 Hot-climate specialists 34 6 0.2917 0.0451 Tropical-climate specialists 4 2 -1 0.0257 Functional Group in Tropical zone Number of observations Number of studies Response Significance Arboreal 14 4 -0.3 0.3411 Army ants 6 3 -0.5 0.2147 Cryptic species 9 6 -0.25 0.518 Dominant Dolichoderinae 6 4 1 0.0739 Fungus-growers 7 3 -0.8333 0.0089 Generalists 11 4 -0.1429 0.8193 Generalized Myrmecinae 7 5 0 1 Opportunists 11 6 0.5 0.1286 Predators 22 8 -0.6471 0.0008 Subordinate Camponotini 5 4 0 1 Cold-climate specialists 1 1 0 1 Hot-climate specialists 3 2 -1 0.0753 Tropical-climate specialists 3 2 -1 0.0748 Climatic Zone Number of observations Number of studies Number of observations considering FGs Response Significance Temperate 38 8 198 -0.1386 0.0177 Tropical 18 9 105 -0.3125 0.0002 Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups10 scrublands, heathlands, and grasslands select predominantly generalist species adapted to more stressful environmental conditions (such as the species of ants of Dominant Dolichoderinae, Generalized Myrmicinae, Opportunists in relation to the habitat and/or diet generalists), thus being less affected by habitat conversion. On the other hand, a lack of effect could also have been observed if some groups (probably more specialized) were harmed while others (generalists) were favored, generating a substitution of FGs (Andersen, 1997, 2000; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Underwood & Fisher, 2006). As expected, the conversion of habitat as a whole (without separating between natural and anthropogenic land uses) negatively impacted several FGs of ants, with this effect being more pronounced in temperate habitats. Although disturbance impacts tend to be greater in habitats that are structurally complex (Arcoverde et al., 2018), it is possible that ant FGs of temperate native habitats are more vulnerable to conversion, as more groups have been affected in this zone (cryptic species, predators, subordinate Camponotini, cold- and tropical-climate specialists) than in the tropics (fungus-growers and predators). This suggests that the loss of structural heterogeneity and complexity, as well as the typical habitat conditions and resources in anthropogenic land uses, has more significant consequences for ant FGs in temperate native (Andersen, 1995, 1997; Gómez et al., 2003; Underwood & Fisher, 2006; Gollan et al., 2011; Castillo- Guevara et al., 2019). Finally, it is possible that, as tropical areas are generally more species-rich, this high species richness results in greater resistance or resilience to habitat conversion (Tilman et al., 2014). The most affected FGs were cryptic species, fungus- growers, predators, subordinate Camponotini, cold- and tropical-climate specialists. Such effects were also observed when evaluating temperate ecosystems separately, with the exception of hot-climate specialists, which were favored, and fungus-growers, which had significant losses recorded only in the tropics, similarly to the predators. In general, these groups are more specialized than those that were not affected. The response of predators and cryptic species to conversion may be due to their specificities to their own habitat conditions and high specialization of requirements, being especially sensitive to disturbances (Andersen & Majer, 2004; Underwood & Fisher, 2006; Kone et al., 2012). This could also be the case of subordinate Camponotini, which also tend to occur in complex, heterogeneous and shaded habitats with abundant leaf litter for nesting and foraging (Andersen, 1997; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Hill et al., 2008; Parui et al., 2015; Assis et al., 2018). The FGs cold- and tropical-climate specialists are composed of ants that have important restrictions in habitat tolerance, such as variation in temperature and humidity (Andersen, 1995, 1997; Castillo-Guevara et al., 2019). In temperate regions, the occurrence of cold-climate specialists in native habitats, such as oak forests, is favored by the microclimate conditions of low temperature and sun exposure (Cuautle et al., 2016; Castillo-Guevara et al., 2019); in addition, ant species richness and overall abundance of this FG may decrease as land use intensifies (Gómez et al., 2003). It is possible that the same explanation applied to tropical-climate specialists. The FGs hot-climate specialists, in turn, were favored by habitat conversion in temperate regions. This may be due to increased temperatures in converted areas (see Gómez et al., 2003; Schnell et al., 2003; Gollan et al., 2011). Still, some studies observed this group only or mostly in native vegetation (see Gómez et al., 2003; Yates & Andrew, 2011; House et al., 2012). Although studies suggest that some fungus-growers (e.g. leaf-cutting ants) are favored by agricultural land uses, deforested areas, edges and disturbed environments (Jonkman, 1979; Vasconcelos & Cherrett, 1995; Wirth et al., 2007; Siqueira et al., 2017), we found a negative effect on this group in the tropics. Fungus-growers ants form a peculiar FG, with habits associated with fungal gardening, for which they use residues from arthropods and carcasses and/or live or dead plant material to grow their symbiotic fungus or yeast (Delabie et al., 2000; Mehdiabadi & Schultz, 2010). Forest habitat loss has been related to decreased abundance of this group in Argentina (González et al., 2018). The impacts of habitat conversion in fungus-growers FGs probably occurred because some land uses, with intensive management, in addition to homogenizing the habitat, affect strongly the ant fauna through the use of pesticides and soil preparation with effects on the structure of the nests, as well as the availability of the organic substrate for cultivation of the fungus (Lobry de Bruyn, 1999; Queiroz et al., 2012; Nickele et al., 2013). Our results show that, although some species may be favored by habitat conversion, fungus-growers ants in general are negatively impacted by it. Some FGs were not affected by the conversion of native habitats, including dominant Dolichoderinae in temperate and tropical ecosystems, which can be explained by their environmental tolerance, being favored mainly by warmer conditions and open habitats (Andersen, 1995, 1997; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003). Similarly, the lack of response of generalized Myrmicinae is probably due to their broad environmental tolerance allowing them to predominate in environments with moderate levels of disturbance and shaded habitats (King et al., 1998; Hoffmann & Andersen, 2003; Andersen & Majer, 2004). Opportunists also had a neutral effect on conversion, as it is a group with broad habitat tolerance that can occur in a range of environments, generally favored in disturbed sites and with low productivity (Andersen, 1990, 1995, 1997). Arboreal ants, army ants, and cryptic species also had neutral responses (in general or in one of the climatic zones), probably due to the existence of negative and positive responses of these FGs in different observations. The neutral response of arboreal ants is possible because some land uses https://www.linguee.com/english-portuguese/translation/together+with.html Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 11 still maintain trees that provide nesting sites, a limiting factor for this FG (Majer & Delabie, 1999; Schonberg et al., 2004; Kone et al., 2012). Army ants, in turn, are harmed in highly disturbed habitats (Matsumoto et al., 2009) by the lack of adequate bivouac sites, unfavorable microclimate and few organisms living in leaf litter and fallen logs (Roberts et al., 2000; Peters et al., 2011). However, the active search for preys associated with the nomadic behavior (Gotwald, 1995), the environmental tolerance and broader diet of some army ant species, may allow the occurrence of this FG in anthropic environments (Perfecto, 1992; Roberts et al., 2000; Delabie et al., 2007; O’Donnell et al., 2007; Matsumoto et al., 2009; Schleuning et al., 2011; Assis et al., 2018). Cryptic species are more diverse and abundant in forest habitats, associated with tree cover (Majer et al., 2004; Dalle Laste et al., 2019), and in our study they were negatively affected by the conversion of habitat except in the tropical zone. It is then possible that in tropical environments some components of this group have plasticity that allows their occurrence in land uses beyond the forest. The neutral response of cold-climate specialists to conversion in the tropical region may not reliable as there were only two observations from a single study, for this group. Generalist ants did not respond to habitat conversion, probably because of this group’s ability to use different sites for nesting and food sources (i.e., broad ecological niche), permitting their occurrence in native habitats (Kone et al., 2012; Pacheco et al., 2017; Saad et al., 2017) as well as in anthropogenic land uses (Kone et al., 2012; Assis et al., 2018), with survival and even dominance in homogeneous and simplified environments (García-Martínez et al., 2015; Assis et al., 2018). In the tropical region, habitat conversion did not affect subordinate Camponotini even though this group is usually associated with complex and shaded habitats (Parui et al., 2015), suggesting a broader flexibility to their occurrence in this region. Our results highlight that habitat conversion plays an important role in the loss of biodiversity. Although we have not detected the effect of habitat conversion for all FGs of ants considered in the review, we have evidenced, in general, a negative impact on part of the groups, where polyculture and monoculture have stronger impacts than pastures and especially agroforestry. These effects are especially evident on the more specialized groups. In addition, although some groups were not affected by habitat conversion, positive effects were seldom observed. In addition, we found more observations in the temperate than in the tropical regions, indicating that further studies in tropical regions are needed to better understand these impacts. In general, our study points out the importance of remnants of native habitats for the shelter and protection of specialized organisms, while also ensuring the ecosystem services mediated by them – especially compared to more managed systems, like monocultures and polycultures. Acknowledgments We thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Finance code 001) for the scholarship granted to RJS and the post-doctoral PNPD scholarship granted to PD; JHCD acknowledges his research grant from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Authors’ Contributions All authors conceived this study. RJS collected and organized the data. PD developed the R scripts and RJS and PD performed the statistical analyses. All authors contributed to the writing, discussed the results and commented on the manuscript. This manuscript is part of RJS’s PhD research, supervised by JHCD and cosupervised by PD. References Almeida, D.S. (2016). Recuperação Ambiental da Mata Atlântica. 3. ed. rev. e ampl. Ilhéus: Editus, 200 p. Amaral, G.C.D., Vargas, A.B. & Almeida, F.S. (2019). Efeitos de atributos ambientais na biodiversidade de formigas sob diferentes usos do solo. Ciência Florestal, 29: 660-672. doi: 10.5902/1980509833811 Andersen, A.N. (1990). The use of ant communities to evaluate change in Australian terrestrial ecosystems: a review and a recipe. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, 16: 347-357. 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. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/2846070 Andersen, A.N. (1997). Functional groups and patterns of organization in North American ant communities: a comparison with Australia. Journal of Biogeography, 24: 433-460. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.1997.00137.x Andersen, A.N. (2000). A global ecology of rainforest ants: functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. In D. Agosti, J.D. Majer, L.E. Alonso & T.R. Schultz (Eds.), Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity (pp. 25-34). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Andersen, A.N. & Majer, J.D. (2004). Ants show the way down under: Invertebrates as bioindicators in land management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2: 291-298. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0292:ASTWDU]2.0.CO;2 Andersen, A.N., van Ingen, L.T. & Campos, R.I. (2007). Contrasting rainforest and savanna ant faunas in monsoonal https://www.jstor.org/stable/2846070 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2846070 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.1997.00137.x https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002%5B0292:ASTWDU%5D2.0.CO;2 Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups12 northern Australia: a rainforest patch in a tropical savanna landscape. Australian Journal of Zoology, 55: 363-369. doi: 10.1071/ZO07066 Arcoverde, G.B., Andersen, A.N., Leal, I.R. & Setterfield, S.A. (2018). Habitat-contingent responses to disturbance: impacts of cattle grazing on ant communities vary with habitat complexity. Ecological Applications, 28: 1808-1817. doi: 10.1002/eap.1770 Armbrecht, I., Perfecto, I. & Silverman, E. (2006). Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colombian forests and coffee plantations. Ecological Entomology, 31: 403-410. doi: 10.11 11/j.1365-2311.2006.00802.x Assis, D.S., Dos Santos, I.A., Ramos, F.N., Barrios-Rojas, K.E., Majer, J.D. & Vilela, E.F. (2018). Agricultural matrices affect ground ant assemblage composition inside forest fragments. PloS One, 13: e0197697. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0197697 Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T. & Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis: John Wiley & Sons. 1st Edition, 452 p. ISBN: 978-0-470-05724-7. Brandão, C.R.F., Silva, R.R. & Delabie, J.H.C. (2009). Formigas (Hymenoptera). In A.R. Panizzi & J.R.P. Parra (Eds.), Bioecologia e Nutrição de Insetos: Base para o Manejo Integrado de Pragas (pp. 1-164). Brasília: Embrapa Tecnológica. Brandão, C.R.F., Silva, R.R. & Delabie, J.H.C. (2012). Neotropical ants (Hymenoptera) functional groups: nutritional and applied implications. In A.R. Panizzi & J.R.P. Parra (Eds.), Insect Bioecology and Nutrition for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (pp. 213-236). CRC Press & EMBRAPA, Boca Raton. ISBN 978-1-4398-3708-5 Brown, J.H. & Lomolino, M.V. (1998). Biogeography. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, 691 p. Calaça, A.M. & Grelle, C.E.V. (2016). Diversidade funcional de comunidades: discussões conceituais e importantes avanços metodológicos. Oecologia Australis, 20: 401-416. doi: 10.4257/oeco.2016.2004 Cantarelli, E.B., Fleck, M.D., Granzotto, F., Corassa, J.D.N. & d’Avila, M. (2015). Diversidade de formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) da serrapilheira em diferentes sistemas de uso do solo. Ciência Florestal, 25: 607-616. doi: 10.5902/ 1980509819612 Castillo-Guevara, C., Cuautle, M., Lara, C. & Juárez-Juárez, B. (2019). Effect of agricultural land-use change on ant dominance hierarchy and food preferences in a temperate oak forest. Peer J., 7: e6255. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6255 Cianciaruso, M.V., Silva, I.A. & Batalha, M.A. (2009). Phylogenetic and functional diversities: new approaches to community ecology. Biota Neotropica, 9. doi: 10.1590/ S1676-06032009000300008. Coppin, P., Jonckheere, I., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B. & Lambin, E. (2004). Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring, a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25: 1565-1596. doi: 10.1080/0143116031000101675 Crist, T.O. (2009). Biodiversity, species interactions, and functional roles of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in fragmented landscapes: a review. Mymecological News, 12: 3-13. Cuautle, M., Vergara, C.H. & Badano, E.I. (2016). Comparison of ant community diversity and functional group composition associated to land use change in a seasonally dry oak forest. Neotropical Entomology, 45: 170-179. doi: 10.1007/s13 744- 015-0353-y Cummins, K.W. (1974). Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience, 24(11): 631-641. doi: 10.2307/1296676 Dalle Laste, K.C., Durigan, G. & Andersen, A.N. (2019). Biodiversity responses to land-use and restoration in a global biodiversity hotspot: Ant communities in Brazilian cerrado. Austral Ecology, 44: 313-326. doi: 10.1111/aec.12676 Del Toro, I., Ribbons, R.R. & Pelini, S.L. (2012). The little things that run the world revisited: a review of ant- mediated ecosystem services and disservices (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 17: 133-146 Delabie, J.H.C., Agosti, D. & Nascimento, I.C. (2000). Litter ant communities of the Brazilian Atlantic rain forest region. In D. Agosti, J.D. Majer, L.T. Alonso & Schultz T.R. (Eds.), Sampling Ground-Dwelling Ants: Case Studies from the World’s Rain Forests (pp. 1-17). Perth, Australia: Curtin University, School of Environmental Biology, Bulletin No. 18. Delabie, J.H.C., Jahyny, B., Nascimento, I.C., Mariano, C.S.F., Lacau, S., Campiolo, S., Philpott, S.M. & Leponce, M. (2007). Contribution of cocoa plantations to the conservation of native ants (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with a special emphasis on the Atlantic Forest fauna of southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16: 2359-2384. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9190-6 Delabie, J., Koch, E., Dodonov, P., Caitano, B., DaRocha, W., Leponce, M., Majer, J. & Mariano, C. (2021). Sampling and analysis methods for ant diversity assessment. In J.C. Santos & G.W. Fernandes (Eds.), Measuring Arthropod Biodiversity, Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-53226-0_2 Dias, N.S., Zanetti, R., Santos, M.S., Louzada, J. & Delabie, J.H.C. (2008). Interação de fragmentos florestais com agroecossistemas adjacentes de café e pastagem: respostas das comunidades de formigas (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Iheringia, Sér. Zool., 98: 136-142. doi: 10.1590/S0073-47212 008000100017 Donald, P.F., Green, R.E. & Heath, M.F. (2001). Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268: 25-29. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1770 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00802.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00802.x https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197697 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197697 https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2016.2004 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032009000300008 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032009000300008 https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000101675 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-015-0353-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-015-0353-y https://doi.org/10.2307/1296676 https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12676 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9190-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53226-0_2 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1325 Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 13 Ellis, E.C., Kaplan, J.O., Fuller, D.Q., Vavrus, S., Goldewijk, K.K. & Verburg, P.H. (2013). Used planet: A global history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 7978- 7985. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217241110 Fayle, T.M., Turner, E.C., Snaddon, J.L., Chey, V.K., Chung, A.Y.C., Eggleton, P. & Foster, W.A. (2010). Oil palm expansion into rain forest greatly reduces ant biodiversity in canopy, epiphytes and leaf-litter. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11: 337- 345. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.009 Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P.K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309: 570-574. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772 Folgarait, P.J. (1998). Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7: 1221-1244. doi: 10.1023/A:1008891901953 Franklin, K. (2012). The remarkable resilience of ant assemblages following major vegetation change in an arid ecosystem. Biological Conservation, 148: 96-105. doi: 10.10 16/j.biocon.2012.01.045 Frizzo, T.L. & Vasconcelos, H.L. (2013). The potential role of scattered trees for ant conservation in an agriculturally dominated Neotropical landscape. Biotropica, 45: 644-651. doi: 10.1111/btp.12045 García-Martínez, M.Á., Martínez-Tlapa, D.L., Pérez-Toledo, G.R., Quiroz-Robledo, L.N., Castaño-Meneses, G., Laborde, J. & Valenzuela-González, J.E. (2015). Taxonomic, species and functional group diversity of ants in a tropical anthropogenic landscape. Tropical Conservation Science, 8: 1017-1032. doi: 10.1177/194008291500800412 Geijzendorffer, I.R. & Roche, P.K. (2013). Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services? Ecological Indicators, 33: 148-157. doi: 10.1016/j. ecolind.2013.03.010 Greenslade, P.J.M. (1978). Ants. In W.A. Low (Eds.), The Physical and Biological Features of Kunoth Paddock in Central Australia (pp. 109-113). Canberra, Australia, CSIRO Division of Land Resources: Technical paper no. 4. Groc, S., Delabie, J.H.C., Fernandez, F., Petitclerc, F., Corbara, B., Leponce, M., Céréghino, R. & Dejean, A. (2017). Litter- dwelling ants as bioindicators to gauge the sustainability of small arboreal monocultures embedded in the Amazonian rainforest. Ecological Indicators, 82: 43-49. doi: 10.1016/j. ecolind.2017.06.026 Gollan, J.R., De Bruyn, L.L., Reid, N., Smith, D. & Wilkie, L. (2011). Can ants be used as ecological indicators of restoration progress in dynamic environments? A case study in a revegetated riparian zone. Ecological Indicators, 11: 1517-1525. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.09.007 Gómez, C., Casellas, D., Oliveras, J. & Bas, J.M. (2003). Structure of ground-foraging ant assemblages in relation to land-use change in the northwestern Mediterranean region. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 2135-2146. doi: 10.1023/ A:1024142415454 González, E., Buffa, L., Defagó, M.T., Molina, S.I., Salvo, A. & Valladares, G. (2018). Something is lost and something is gained: loss and replacement of species and functional groups in ant communities at fragmented forests. Landscape Ecology, 33: 2089-2102. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0724-y Gotwald, W.H. (1995). Army Ants: The Biology of Social Predation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Haines-Young, R. (2009). Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy, 26: S178-S186. doi: 10.1016/j. landusepol.2009.08.009 Hansen, A.J., DeFries, R. & Turner, W. (2004). Land use change and biodiversity: a synthesis of rates and consequences during the period of satellite imagery. In G. Gutman & C. Justice (Eds.), Land Change Science: Observing, Monitoring, and Understanding Trajectories of Change on the Earth’s Surface (pp. 277-299). New York: Springer Verlag. Hill, J.G., Summerville, K.S. & Brown, R.L. (2008). Habitat associations of ant species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a heterogeneous Mississippi landscape. Environmental Entomology, 2: 453-463. doi: 10.1093/ee/37.2.453 Hoffmann, B.D. & Andersen, A.N. (2003). Responses of ants to disturbance in Australia, with particular reference to functional groups. Austral Ecology, 28: 444-464. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01301.x Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E.O. (1990). The Ants. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 732 p. House, A.P., Burwell, C.J., Brown, S.D. & Walters, B.J. (2012). Agricultural matrix provides modest habitat value for ants on mixed farms in eastern Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation, 16: 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10841-011-9389-4 Jonkman, J.C.M. (1979). Population dynamics of leaf-cutting ant nests in a Paraguayan pasture. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie, 87: 281-293. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1978. tb02454.x King, J.R., Andersen, A.N. & Cutter, A.D. (1998). Ants as bioindicators of habitat disturbance: validation of the functional group model for Australia’s humid tropics. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7: 1627-1638. doi: 10.1023/A:1008857214743 Koch, E.B.A., Santos, J.R.M., Nascimento, I.C. & Delabie, J.H.C. (2019). Comparative evaluation of taxonomic and functional diversities of leaf-litter ants of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 43: 437-546. doi: 10.3906/zoo-1811-7 Kone, M., Konate, S., Yeo, K., Kouassi, P.K. & Linsenmair, K.E. (2012). Changes in ant communities along an age https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.009 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008891901953 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.045 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.045 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F194008291500800412 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.09.007 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024142415454 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024142415454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0724-y https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/37.2.453 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01301.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9389-4 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1978.tb02454.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1978.tb02454.x https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008857214743 Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups14 gradient of cocoa cultivation in the Oumé region, central Côte d’Ivoire. Entomological Science, 15: 324-339. doi: 10.1111/ j.1479-8298.2012.00520.x Kuate, A.F., Hanna, R., Tindo, M., Nanga, S. & Nagel, P. (2015). Ant diversity in dominant vegetation types of southern Cameroon. Biotropica, 47: 94-100. doi: 10.1111/btp.12182 Laureto, L.M.O., Cianciaruso, M.V. & Samia, D.S.M. (2015). Functional diversity: an overview of its history and applicability. Natureza e Conservação, 13: 112-116. doi: 10.10 16/j.ncon.2015.11.001 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, 7: 8442-8455. doi: 10.10 02/ece3.2992 Leal, I.R., Filgueiras, B.K.C., Gomes, J.P., Iannuzzi, L. & Andersen, A.N. (2012). Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21: 1687-1701. doi: 10.1007/s10531-012-0271-9 Liu, C., Guénard, B., Blanchard, B., Peng, Y-Q. & Economo, E.P. (2016). Reorganization of taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic ant biodiversity after conversion to rubber plantation. Ecological Monographs, 86: 215-227. doi: 10.1890/ 15-1464.1 Lu, Z., Hoffmann, B.D. & Chen, Y. (2016). Can reforested and plantation habitats effectively conserve SW China’s ant biodiversity? Biodiversity and Conservation, 25: 753-770. doi: 10.1007/s10531-016-1090-1 Luck, G.W., Harrington, R., Harrison, P.A., Kremen, C., Berry, P.M., Bugter, R., Dawson, T.P., De Bello, F., Díaz, S., Feld, C.K., Haslett, J.R., Hering, D., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Rounsevell, M., Samways, M.J., Sandin, L., Settele, J., Sykes, M.T., Van Den Hove, S., Vandewalle, M. & Zobel, M. (2009). Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 59: 223- 235. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.7 Lobry de Bruyn, L.A. (1993). Ant composition and activity in naturally-vegetated and farmland environments on contrasting soils at Kellerberrin, Western Australia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 25: 1043-1056. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(93) 90153-3 Lobry de Bruyn, L.A. (1999). Ants as bioindicators of soil function in rural environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 74: 425-441. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-50019- 9.50024-8 MacArthur, R.H. & MacArthur, J.W. (1961). On bird species diversity. Ecology, 42: 594-598 Majer, J.D. & Delabie, J.H.C. (1999). Impact of tree isolation on arboreal and ground ant communities in cleared pasture in the Atlantic rain forest region of Bahia, Brazil. Insectes Sociaux, 46: 281-290. doi: 10.1007/s000400050147 Majer, J.D., Shattuck, S.O., Andersen, A.N. & Beattie, A.J. (2004). Australian ant research: fabulous fauna, functional groups, pharmaceuticals, and the Fatherhood. Australian Journal of Entomology, 43: 235-247. doi: 10.1111/j.1326- 6756.2004.00435.x Manly, B.F.J. (2007). Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology, 3nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London. Matlock Jr, R.B. & de La Cruz, R. (2003). Ants as indicators of pesticide impacts in banana. Environmental Entomology, 32: 816-829. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X-32.4.816 Matsumoto, T., Itioka, T., Yamane, S. & Momose, K. (2009). Traditional land use associated with swidden agriculture changes encounter rates of the top predator, the army ant, in Southeast Asian tropical rain forests. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18: 3139-3151. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9632-4 Meers, T.L., Kasel, S., Bella, T.L. & Enrightc, N.J. (2010). Conversion of native forest to exotic Pinus radiata plantation: Response of understorey plant composition using a plant functional trait approach. Forest Ecology and Management, 259: 399-409. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.035 Mehdiabadi, N.J. & Schultz, T.R. (2010). Natural history and phylogeny of the fungus-farming ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae: Attini). Myrmecological News, 13: 37-55. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D.G. (2009). The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6: e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 Nakamura, A., Catterall, C.P., House, A.P., Kitching, R.L. & Burwell, C.J. (2007). The use of ants and other soil and litter arthropods as bio-indicators of the impacts of rainforest clearing and subsequent land use. Journal of Insect Conservation, 11: 177-186. doi: 10.1007/s10841-006-9034-9 Nickele, M.A., Pie, M.R., Reis Filho, W. & Penteado, S.D.R.C. (2013). Formigas cultivadoras de fungos: estado da arte e direcionamento para pesquisas futuras. Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira, 33: 53-72. doi: 10.4336/2013.pfb.33.73.403 O’Donnell, S., Lattke, J., Powell, S. & Kaspari, M. (2007). Army ants in four forests: geographic variation in raid rates and species composition. Journal of Animal Ecology, 76: 580-589. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01221.x Ottonetti, L., Tucci, L. & Santini, G. (2006). Recolonization patterns of ants in a rehabilitated lignite mine in Central Italy: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2012.00520.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2012.00520.x https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2992 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2992 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0271-9 https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1464.1 https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1464.1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1090-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-50019-9.50024-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-50019-9.50024-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s000400050147 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1326-6756.2004.00435.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1326-6756.2004.00435.x https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-32.4.816 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9632-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.035 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01221.x Sociobiology 68(2): e6071 (June, 2021) 15 Potential for the use of Mediterranean ants as indicators of restoration processes. Restoration Ecology, 14: 60-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00105.x Pacheco, R., Camacho, G.P., Frizzo, T.L. & Vasconcelos, H.L. (2017). Effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services: decrease in ant predation in human-dominated landscapes in central Brazil. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 162: 302-308. doi: 10.1111/eea.12542 Pacheco, R., Silva, R.R., Morini, M.S.C. & Brandão, C.R.F. (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: 55-65. doi: 10.1590/S1519-566X2009000100005 Parui, A.K., Chatterjee, S. & Basu, P. (2015). Habitat characteristics shaping ant species assemblages in a mixed deciduous forest in Eastern India. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 31: 267-280. doi: 10.1017/S0266467415000036 Perfecto, I. (1992). Observations of a Labidus coecus (Latreille) underground raid in the Central Highlands of Costa Rica. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 99: 214-220. doi: 10.1155/ 1992/47525 Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Hanson, P. & Cartín, V. (1997). Arthropod biodiversity loss and the transformation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 935-945. doi: 10.1023/A:1018359429106 Petchey, O.L. (2004). On the statistical significance of functional diversity effects. Functional Ecology, 18: 297-303. doi: 10.11 11/j.0269-8463.2004.00852.x Peters, M.K., Lung, T., Schaab, G. & Wägele, J.-W. (2011). Deforestation and the population decline of the army ant Dorylus wilverthi in western Kenya over the last century. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 697-705. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664. 2011.01959.x Philpott, S.M., Arendt, W.J., Armbrecht, I., Bichier, P., Diestch, T.V., Gordon, C., Greenberg, R., Perfecto, I., Reynoso-Santos, R., Soto-Pinto, L., Tejeda-Cruz, C., Williams-Linera, G., Valenzuela, J. & Zolotoff, J.M. (2008). Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees. Conservation Biology, 22: 1093-1105. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.x Philpott, S.M. & Armbrecht, I. (2006). Biodiversity in tropical agroforests and the ecological role of ants and ant diversity in predatory function. Ecological Entomology, 31: 369-377. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00793.x Philpott, S.M. & Foster, P.F. (2005). Nest-site limitation in coffee agroecosystems: artificial nests maintain diversity of arboreal ants. Ecological Applications, 15: 1478-1485. doi: 10.1890/04-1496 Philpott, S.M., Perfecto, I., Armbrecht, I. & Parr, C.L. (2010). Ant diversity and function in disturbed and changing habitats. In L. Lach, C.L. Parr & K.L. Abbott (Eds.), Ant Ecology (pp. 137-156). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pianka, E.R. (1966). Latitudinal Gradients in species diversity: A review of concepts. The American Naturalist, 100: 33-46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2459377 Pimm, S.L. & Raven, P. (2000). Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature, 403: 843-845. doi: 10.1038/35002708 Queiroz, J.M., Almeida, F.S. & Pereira, M.P.D.S. (2012). Conservação da biodiversidade e o papel das formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) em agroecossistemas. Floresta e Ambiente, 13: 37-45 R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Riffell, S., Verschuyl, J., Miller, D. & Wigley, T.B. (2011). A meta-analysis of bird and mammal response to short-rotation woody crops. Global Change Biology Bioenergy Banner, 3: 313-321. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01089.x Rittenhouse, C.D., Pidgeon, A.M., Albright, T.P., Culbert, P.D., Clayton, M.K., Flather, C.H., Masek, J.G. & Radeloff, V.C. (2012). Conservation Biology. Land-Cover Change and Avian Diversity in the Conterminous United States. Conservation Biology, 26: 821-829. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739. 2012.01867.x Rivera-Pedroza, L.F., Escobar, F., Philpott, S.M. & Armbrecht, I. (2019). The role of natural vegetation strips in sugarcane monocultures: Ant and bird functional diversity responses. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 284: 106603. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106603 Roberts, D.L., Cooper, R.J. & Petit, L.J. (2000). Use of premontane moist forest and shade coffee agroecosystems by army ants in western Panama. Conservation Biology, 14: 192- 199. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98522.x Saad, L.P., Souza-Campana, D.R., Bueno, O.C. & Morini, M.S.C. (2017). Vinasse and its influence on ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) communities in sugarcane crops. Journal of Insect Science, 17. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iew103 Sauvajot, R.M., Buechner, M., Kamradt, D.A. & Schonewald, C.M. (1998). Patterns of human disturbance and response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban development. Urban Ecosystems, 2: 279-297. doi: 10.1023/ A:1009588723665 Schleuning, M., Farwig, N., Peters, M.K., Bergsdorf, T., Bleher, B., Brandl, R., Dalitz, H., Fischer, G., Freund, W., Gikungu, M.W., Hagen, M., Garcia, F.H., Kagezi, G.H., Kaib, M., Kraemer, M., Lung, T., Naumann, C.M., Schaab, G., Templin, M., Uster, D., Wägele, J.W. & Böhning-Gaese, K. (2011). Forest fragmentation and selective logging have inconsistent effects on multiple animal-mediated ecosystem processes in a tropical forest. PloS One, 6. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0027785 https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12542 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467415000036 https://doi.org/10.1155/1992/47525 https://doi.org/10.1155/1992/47525 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00852.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00852.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01959.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01959.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00793.x https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1496 https://www-nature.ez85.periodicos.capes.gov.br/articles/35002708 https://www-nature.ez85.periodicos.capes.gov.br/articles/35002708 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01089.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01867.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01867.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106603 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98522.x https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iew103 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009588723665 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Dalitz+H&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Fischer+G&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Freund+W&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Gikungu+MW&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hagen+M&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Garcia+FH&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Kagezi+GH&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Kaib+M&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Kraemer+M&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Lung+T&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Naumann+CM&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Schaab+G&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Templin+M&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Uster+D&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=W�gele+JW&cauthor_id=22114695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=B�hning-Gaese+K&cauthor_id=22114695 Roberta J Santos, Pavel Dodonov, Jacques Hubert C Delabie – Habitat Conversion Effects on Ant Functional Groups16 Schnell, M.R., Pik, A.J. & Dangerfield, J.M. (2003). Ant community succession within eucalypt plantations on used pasture and implications for taxonomic sufficiency in biomonitoring. Austral Ecology, 28: 553-565. doi: 10.1046/j. 1442-9993.2003.01312.x Schonberg, L.A., Longino, J.T., Nadkarni, N.M., Yanoviak, S.P. & Gering, J.C. (2004). Arboreal ant species richness in primary forest, secondary forest, and pasture habitats of a tropical montane landscape. Biotropica, 36: 402-409. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2004.tb00333.x Seki, H.A., Shirima, D.D., Mustaphi, C.J.C., Marchant, R. & Munishi, P.K.T. (2017). The impact of land use and land cover change on biodiversity within and adjacent to Kibasira Swamp in Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, 56: 518-527. doi: 10.1111/aje.12488 Silva, R.R. & Brandão, C.R.F. (2010). Morphological patterns and community organization in leaf-litter ant assemblages. Ecological Monographs, 80: 107-124. doi: 10.1890/08-1298.1 Silvestre, R., Brandão, C.R.F. & Silva, R.R. (2003). Grupos funcionales de hormigas: el caso de los gremios del Cerrado. In F. Fernandez (Eds.), Introduccion a las Hormigas de la Region Neotropical (pp. 113-148). Instituto de Investigacion de Recursos Biologicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogota, Colombia. Siqueira, F.F.S., Ribeiro-Neto, J.D., Taberelli, M., Andersen, A.N., Wirth, R. & Leal, I.R. (2017). Leaf-cutting ant populations profit from human disturbances in tropical dry forest in Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 33: 337-344. Sotherton, N.W. (1998). Land use changes and the decline of farmland wildlife: an appraisal of the set-aside approach. Biological Conservation, 83: 259-268. doi: 10.1016/S0006- 3207(97)00082-7 Steinbauer, M.J. & Peveling, R. (2011). The impact of the locust control insecticide fipronil on termites and ants in two contrasting habitats in northern Australia. Crop Protection, 30: 814-825. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2011.02.001 Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J.M. (2014). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45: 471-493. doi: 10.1146/annurev- ecolsys-120213-091917 Underwood, E.C. & Fisher, B.L. (2006). The role of ants in conservation monitoring: If, when, and how. Biological Conservation, 132: 166-182. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.022 Vasconcelos, H.L. (1999). Effects of forest disturbance on the structure of ground-foraging ant communities in central Amazonia. Biological Conservation, 8: 409-420. doi: 10.1023/ A:1008891710230 Vasconcelos, H.L. & Cherrett, J.M. (1995). Changes in leaf- cutting ant populations (Formicidae: Attini) after the clearing of mature forest in Brazilian Amazonia. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 30: 107-113. doi: 10.1080/01650529509360947 Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J.M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277: 494-499. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5325.494 Weiser, M.D., Kaspari, M (2006) Ecological morphospace of New World ants. Ecological Entomology, 31: 131-142. doi: 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2006.00759.x Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I. & Cariveau, D.P. (2011). Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 42: 1-22. doi: 10.1146/annurev- ecolsys-102710-145042 Wirth, R., Meyer, S.T., Almeida, W.R., Araújo, M.V., Barbosa, V.S. & Leal, I.R. (2007). Increasing densities of leaf-cutting ants (Atta spp.) with proximity to the edge in a Brazilian Atlantic forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 23: 501-505. doi: 10.1017/S0266467407004221 Yates, M. & Andrew, N.R. (2011). Comparison of ant community composition across different land-use types: assessing morphological traits with more common methods. Australian Journal of Entomology, 50: 118-124. doi: 10.11 11/j.1440-6055.2010.00795.x https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01312.x https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01312.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00082-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00082-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2011.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.022 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008891710230 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008891710230 https://doi.org/10.1080/01650529509360947 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-6946.2006.00759.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2010.00795.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.2010.00795.x