4.2 Article

Orchid Bee (Apidae: Euglossini) Communities in Atlantic Forest Remnants and Restored Areas in Parana State, Brazil

Journal

NEOTROPICAL ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 352-361

Publisher

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOC BRASIL
DOI: 10.1007/s13744-017-0530-2

Keywords

Euglossini; euglossine bees; ecological restoration; fauna restoration; neotropical bees

Categories

Funding

  1. Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) (CAPES/PROCAD) [158/2007]
  2. CNPq

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we compare orchid bee communities surveyed in four forest remnants of the Atlantic Forest and four reforested areas characterized by seasonal semi-deciduous forest vegetation in different successional stages (mature and secondary vegetation), located in southern Brazil. The sizes of forest remnants and reforested areas varied from 32.1 to 583.9 ha and from 11.3 to 33.3 ha, respectively. All reforested areas were located near one forest remnant. During samplings, totaling nine per study area, euglossine males were attracted to eight scent baits and captured with bait trap and entomological nets. Each forest remnant and its respective reforested area were sampled simultaneously by two collectors. We collected 435 males belonging to nine species of orchid bees distributed in four genera. The number of individuals and species did not differ significantly between different areas, except for a reforested area (size 33.3 ha), which was located far from its respective forest remnant. Our findings also revealed an apparent association between an orchid bee species (Euglossa annectans Dressler 1982) and the most preserved area surveyed in our study, suggesting that this bee is a potential indicator of good habitat quality in recuperating or preserved areas. Our results suggest that reforested habitats located near forest remnants have a higher probability of having reinstated their euglossine communities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available