Background and Research Aims: Monitoring is essential for assessing the success of ecological restoration efforts. Ants, with their vast diversity and functional roles, serve as a significant group for such analyses. This study focused on evaluating ant communities to identify potential arboreal species that could serve as indicators of the forest restoration process. Methods: The study was carried out in restoration areas within the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest, located in two landscapes within the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil. We examined forest restoration plantations at three different developmental stages—early, middle, and late—alongside a native reference forest. Key parameters such as canopy cover and density of trees and saplings were measured. Ants were actively sampled throughout different seasons. We assessed ant community compositions across restoration gradients and investigated their association with vegetation structure. We also identified ant species that could serve as restoration indicators. Results: We identified a total of 60 species and 19 morphospecies. However, no significant difference in species richness was observed among the areas. Ant communities in restoration areas exhibited more similarity to each other than to those in native forests. Therefore, even in the oldest restored sections, ant communities have not yet converged with those of the reference ecosystem. Although we identified some indicator species within certain areas, none of these were arboreal. Conclusion: The composition of the ant community is more valuable than its species richness for monitoring tropical forest restoration. The historical context of restoration areas and the age of restoration efforts may influence the results. Implications for conservation: Early stages of tropical forest restoration do not recover the biodiversity and composition of arboreal ants found in reference forests. Additional studies are needed to better understand changes in the ant communities over time, providing information to improve monitoring, management and the conservation value.
AgostiD.MajerJ. D.AlonsoL. E.SchultzT. R. (2000). Standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity (9, pp. 204–206). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.
2.
AlmeidaF. S.QueirozJ. M. (2015). Formigas poneromorfas como engenheiras de ecossistemas: impactos sobre a biologia, estrutura e fertilidade dos solos. In DelabieJ. H. C.FeitosaR. M.SerrãoJ. E.MarianoC. S. F.MajerJ. D. (Eds.), As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil (pp. 437–446). Ilhéus: Editus.
3.
AlvaresC. A.StapeJ. L.SentelhasP. C.GonçalvesJ. L. M.SparovekG. (2013). Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische zeitschrift, 22, 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507
4.
AndersenA. N. (2019). Responses of ant communities to disturbance: five principles for understanding the disturbance dynamics of a globally dominant faunal group. Journal of Animal Ecology, 88, 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12907
5.
AndersenA. N.HoffmannB. D.SomesJ. (2003). Ants as indicators of mine site restoration: Community recovery at one of eight rehabilitation sites in central Queensland. Ecological Management & Restoration, 4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.2.x
AntoniazziR.GarroR. N. S. L.DáttiloW.RibeiroS.NevesF. S. (2019). Ant species richness and interactions in canopies of two distinct successional stages in a tropical dry forest. The Science of Nature, 106, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-019-1614-0
9.
AntWeb. Version 8.114. California Academy of Science. online at: https://www.antweb.org (Accessed 23 May 2025).
10.
ArenhardtT. C. P.KlunkG. A.VitorinoM. D.MartinsS. V. (2025). Comparison of leaf litter ant fauna in areas under ecological restoration and secondary forest. Community Ecology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42974-025-00245-6
11.
AyresM.AyresAyresD. L.SantosA. A. S. (2007). BioEstat 5.0: Aplicações estatísticas nas áreas das ciências biológicas e médicas. Belém: Sociedade Civil Mamirauá.
12.
BaccaroF. B.FeitosaR. M.FernándezF.FernandesI. O.IzzoT. J.SouzaJ. D.SolarR. (2015). Guia para os gêneros de formigas do Brasil. Manaus: Editora INPA, 388.
BaselgaA.OrmeD.VillegerS.De BortoliJ.LeprieurF.LogezM.Martinez-SantallaS.Martin-DevasaR.Gomez-RodriguezC.CrujeirasR. (2023). Betapart: partitioning Beta diversity into turnover and Nestedness components. R package version 1, 6.
15.
BassetY.ButterillP. T.DonosoD. A.LamarreG. P.Souto-VilarósD.PerezF.BobadillaR.LopezY.SilvaJ. A. R.BarriosH. (2023). Abundance, occurrence and time series: long-term monitoring of social insects in a tropical rainforest. Ecological Indicators, 150, 110243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110243
16.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of statistical software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
17.
BenayasJ. M. R.NewtonA. C.DiazA.BullockJ. M. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science, 325, 1121–1124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172460
18.
BorgesF.L.G.OliveiraM.R.AlmeidaT.C.MajerJ.D.GarciaL.C. (2021). Terrestrial invertebrates as bioindicators in restoration ecology: A global bibliometric survey. Ecological Indicators, 125, 107458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107458
19.
BragaD. L.LouzadaJ. N. C.ZanettiR.DelabieJ. H. C. (2010). Avaliação rápida da diversidade de formigas em sistemas de uso do solo no sul da Bahia. Neotropical Entomology, 39, 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2010000400002
20.
BrancalionP. H. S.VianiR. A. G.CalmonM.CarrascosaH.RodriguesR. R. (2013). How to Organize a Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Program? The Framework Developed by the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 32, 728–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.817339
21.
BrandãoC. R. F.SilvaR. R.DelabieJ. H. C. (2009). Formigas (Hymenoptera). In PanizziA. R.ParraJ.R.P. (Eds.), Bioecologia e nutrição de insetos: base para o manejo integrado de pragas (1ed, pp. 323–369). Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica.
22.
CardosoF. C. G.CapelessoE. S.BritezR. M.InagueG.MarquesM. C. M. (2022). Landscape conservation as a strategy for recovering biodiversity: lessons from a long-term program of pasture restoration in the southern Atlantic forest. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59, 2309–2321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14240
23.
CasimiroM.S.FilardiR.A.E.SanseveroJ.B.B.SantangeloJ.M.FeitosaR.M.QueirozJ.M. (2022). Concordância entre plantas regenerantes, formigas e outros artrópodes na Mata Atlântica: a importância da identidade das árvores no dossel. Iheringia. Série Zoologia, 112, e2022008.
24.
CasimiroM. S.SanseveroJ. B. B.QueirozJ. M. (2019). What can ants tell us about ecological restoration? A global meta-analysis. Ecological Indicators, 102, 593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.03.018
25.
CastilhoG. A. (2013). Estrutura da fauna de formigas epígeas em fragmentos de Floresta Atlântica Semidecidual com diferentes tamanhos (97 f). Dissertação (mestrado) – Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho, Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas.
26.
ChavesR. B.DuriganG.BrancalionP. H.AronsonJ. (2015). On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: new perspectives from São Paulo state (Brazil). Restoration Ecology, 23, 754–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12267
27.
ChazdonR. L. (2008). Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science, 320, 1458–1460. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155365
28.
ChristianiniA. V. (2015). Dispersão de sementes por poneromorfas. In DelabieJ. H. C.FeitosaR. M.SerrãoJ. E.MarianoC. S. F.MajerJ. D. (Eds.), As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil. Ilhéus: Editus (pp. 345–360).
29.
CiccareseL.MattsonA.PettenellaD. (2012). Ecosystem services from forest restoration: thinking ahead. New Forests, 43, 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-012-9350-8
CummingG.FidlerF.VauxD. L. (2007). Error bars in experimental biology. The Journal of cell biology, 177, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200611141
32.
Da SilvaF. R.Gonçalves-SouzaT.PaternoG. B.ProveteD. B.VancineM. H. (2022a). Modelos Lineares Generalizados. In: Da SilvaF. R.Gonçalves-SouzaT.PaternoG. B.ProveteD. B.VancineM. H. (Eds.), Análises ecológicas no R. Nupeea/Canal 6, Recife/São Paulo, pp. 237-286.
33.
Da SilvaF. R.Gonçalves-SouzaT.PaternoG. B.ProveteD. B.VancineM. H. (2022b). Modelos Lineares. In: Da SilvaF. R.Gonçalves-SouzaT.PaternoG. B.ProveteD. B.VancineM. H. (Eds.), Análises ecológicas no R. Nupeea/Canal 6, Recife/São Paulo, pp. 189-236.
34.
Da SilvaF. R.Gonçalves-SouzaT.PaternoG. B.ProveteD. B.VancineM. H. (2022c). Diversidade taxonômica. In: Da SilvaF. R.Gonçalves-SouzaT.PaternoG. B.ProveteD. B.VancineM. H. (Eds.), Análises ecológicas no R. Nupeea/Canal 6, Recife/São Paulo, pp. 395-419.
35.
DavidsonD. W.Patrell-KimL. J. (1996). Tropical arboreal ants: why so abundant? In Neotropical biodiversity and conservation (pp. 127–140). Mildred E. Mathias Botanical Garden.
36.
DelabieJ. H. C.AgostiD.NascimentoI. C. (2000). Litter and comunites communities of the Brazilian Atlantic rain forest region. In AgostiD.MajerJ. D.AlonsoL. T.SchultzT. (Eds.), Sampling ground-dweling ants: case studies from world’s rain forest (18, pp. 1–17). Bulletin.
37.
DelabieJ. H. C.RochaW. D.MarquesT. E. D.MarianoC. S. F. (2015a). Importância das formigas em estudos de biodiversidade e o papel desses insetos nos ecossistemas. Formigas do Alto Tietê, (1ed, 6,57–72).
38.
DelabieJ. H. C.FeitosaR.SerrãoJ. E.MarianoC.MajerJ. (2015b). In DelabieJ. H. C.FeitosaR. M.SerrãoJ. E.MarianoC. S. F.MajerJ. D. (Eds.), As formigas Poneromorfas do Brasil - Introdução (pp. 9–12). Ilhéus: Editus: As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil.
39.
DonosoD. A.JohnstonM. K.ClayN. A.KaspariM. E. (2013). Trees templates for trophic structure of tropical litter arthropod fauna. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 61, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.02.004
40.
DonosoD. A.JohnstonM. K.KaspariM. (2010). Trees as templates for tropical litter arthropod diversity. Oecologia, 164, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1607-3
EstradaM. A.de AlmeidaÂ. A.VargasA. B.AlmeidaF. S. (2019). Diversidade, riqueza e abundância da mirmecofauna em áreas sob cultivo orgânico e convencional. Acta Biológica Catarinense, 6(2), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.21726/abc.v6i2.223
44.
FeitosaR. M.CamachoG. P.SilvaT. S. R.UlysséaM. A.LadinoN.OliveiraA. M.DarochaW. (2022). Ants of Brazil: an overview based on 50 years of diversity studies. Systematics and Biodiversity, 20(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2022.2089268
45.
FeitosaR. M.DiasA. M. (2024). An illustrated guide for the identification of ant subfamilies and genera in Brazil. Insect Systematics & Evolution, 1, 1–121. https://doi.org/10.1163/1876312X-bja10062
46.
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression (p. 608). California: Sage Publications.
47.
GalindoV.GiraldoC.LavelleP.ArmbrechtI.FonteS. J. (2022). Land use conversion to agriculture impacts biodiversity, erosion control, and key soil properties in an Andean watershed. Ecosphere, 13, e3979. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3979
48.
Gatica-SaavedraP.EcheverríaC.NelsonC. R. (2017). Ecological indicators for assessing ecological success of forest restoration: a world review. Restoration Ecology, 25, 850–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12586
49.
GerlachJ.SamwaysM.PrykeJ. (2013). Terrestrial invertebrates as bioindicators: an overview of available taxonomic groups. Journal of Insect Conservation, 17, 831–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9565-9
50.
GershenzonJ.UllahC. (2022). Plants protect themselves from herbivores by optimizing the distribution of chemical defenses. Plant Biology, 119, e2120277119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120277119
51.
GomesE. C. F.RibeiroG. T.da Silva e SouzaT. M.Sousa-SoutoL. (2014). Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in three different stages of forest regeneration in a fragment of Atlantic Forest in Sergipe, Brazil. Sociobiology, 61(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v61i3.250-257
52.
GoveA. D.MajerJ. D.Rico-GrayV. (2005). Methods for conservation outside of formal reserve systems: The case of ants in the seasonally dry tropics of Veracruz, Mexico. Biological Conservation, 126, 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.008
53.
HammerO.HarperD.RyanP. (2001). PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Version 1.94. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4, 1–9.
HoenleP. O.DanosoD. A.ArgotiA.StaabM.BeerenC.BlüthgenN. (2022). Rapid ant community reassembly in a Neotropical forest: Recovery dynamics and land-use legacy. Ecologial Aplications, 32(4), e2559. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2559
58.
HuaF.BruijnzeelL. A.MeliPMartinP. A.ZhangJ.NakagawaS.MiaoX.WangW.McEvoyC.Peña-ArancibiaJ. L.BrancalionP. H. S.SmithP.EdwardsD. P.BalmfordA. (2022). The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science, 376(6595), 839–844. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4649
59.
IPBES. (2018).MontanarellaL.ScholesR.BrainichA. (Eds.), The assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237392
KaposV. (1989). Effects of isolation on the water status of forest patches in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 5, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400003448
62.
KaspariM. (1996). Testing resource-based models of patchiness in four Neotropical litter ant assemblages. Oikos, 76, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546338
KochE.B.A.NascimentoI.C.MajerJ.D.DelabieH.C. (2021). Seeking surrogates for taxonomic and functional evaluations of leaf-litter ant faunas. Ecological Indicators, 122, 107305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107305
65.
LapolaD. M.FowlerH. G. (2008). Questioning the implementation of habitat corridors: a case study in interior São Paulo using ants as bioindicators. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 68, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842008000100003
66.
LawesM. L.MooreA. M.AndersenA. N.PreeceN. D.FranklinD. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2992
67.
LeH. D.SmithC.HerbohnJ.HarrisonS. (2012). More than just trees: assessing reforestation success in tropical developing countries. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.07.006
68.
LimaR. A. F.SouzaV. C.SiqueiraM. F.SteegeH. (2020). Defining endemism levels for biodiversity conservation: tree species in the Atlantic Forest hotspot. Biological Conservation, 252, 108825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108825
69.
LüdeckeD.Ben-ShacharM. S.PatilI.WaggonerP.MakowskiD. (2021). performance: An R Package for Assessment, Comparison and Testing of Statistical Models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3139.
70.
LutinskiJ. A.GuardaC.LutinskiC. J.BusatoM. A.GarciaF. R. M. (2018). Fauna de formigas em áreas de preservação permanente de usina hidroelétrica. Ciência Florestal, 28, 1741–1754. https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509835334
MarquesM. C.TrindadeW.BohnA.GrelleC. E. (2021). The Atlantic Forest: an introduction to the megadiverse forest of South America. The Atlantic Forest: History, biodiversity, threats and opportunities of the mega-diverse Forest, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55322-7
73.
McCuneB.MeffordM. J. (1997). PC-ORD: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 3.04. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach.
74.
Mejía-DomínguezN. R.MeaveJ. A.Díaz-ÁvalosC.GonzálezE. J. (2011). Individual canopy-tree species effects on their immediate understory microsite and sapling community dynamics. Biotropica, 43, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00739.x
75.
MouraR. F.Del-ClaroK. (2023). Plants with extrafloral nectaries share indirect defenses and shape the local arboreal ant Community. Oecologia, 201, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-022-05286-6
76.
MyersN.MittermeierR. A.MittermeierC. G.FonsecaG. A. B.KentJ. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
77.
NagataniV. H.SilvaO. G. M.da SilvaAlmeidaR. P. S.Andrade-SilvaJ.de Souza-CampanaMoriniM. S. C. (2025). Fire ant nests: Abundance and size in crops under different agricultural management systems and landscape compositions. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12675
78.
NakamuraA.CatterallC. P.BurwellC. J.KitchingR. L.HouseA. P. N. (2009). Effects of shading and mulch depth on the colonization of habitat patches by arthropods of rainforest soil and litter. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 2, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00056.x
79.
NakamuraA.CatterallC. P.HouseA. P. N.KitchingR. L.BurwellC. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9034-9
80.
NevesF. S.BragaR. F.Espírito-SantoM. M.DelabieJ. H. C.FernandesG. W.Sánchez-AzofeifaA. (2010). Diversity of arboreal ants in a brazilian tropical dry forest: effects of seasonality and successional stage. Sociobiology, 56, 177–194.
81.
NickeleM. A.Reis FilhoW.PenteadoS. R. C.QueirozE. C.SilvaL. C. R.CamargoT. S.Casadei-FerreiraA.FeitosaR. M.PieM. R. (2023). Assessing forest restoration effectiveness in the Seasonal Semideciduous Forest in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion using epigaeic ant assemblages. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 39, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467423000275
ParkhurstT.ProberS. M.HobbsR. J.StandishR. (2022). Global meta-analysis reveals incomplete recovery of soil conditions and invertebrate assemblages after ecological restoration in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59, 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13852
84.
ParrC. L.BishopT. R. (2022). The response of ants to climate change. Global Change Biology, 28, 3188–3205. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16140
85.
QueirozA. C. M.RibasC. R. (2016). Canopy cover negatively affects arboreal ant species richness in a tropical open habitat. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 76, 864–870. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.02015
86.
RabelloA. Mara.QueirozA. C. M.RibasC. R. (2015).Ponerormofas como indicadoras de impacto pela mineração e de reabilitação após mineração In: DelabieJ. H. C.FeitosaR. M.SerrãoJ. E.MarianoC. S. F.MajerJ. D.As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil. Ilhéus: Editus, 425-436.
87.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
88.
RibasC.ShoerederJ. H.PicM.SoaresS. M. (2003). Tree heterogeneity, resource availability, and larger scale processes regulating arboreal ant species richness. Austral Ecology, 28, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01290.x
89.
RibeiroM. C.MetzgerJ. P.MartensenA. C.PonzoniF. J.HirotaM. M. (2009). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 1141–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
90.
RipleyW. N.VenablesB. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S.
91.
Rocha-OrtegaM.ArnanX.Ribeiro-NetoJ. D.LealI. R.FavilaM. E.Martínez-RamosM. (2018). Taxonomic and functional ant diversity along a secondary successional gradient in a tropical forest. Biotropica, 50, 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12511
92.
Rocha-OrtegaM.García-MartínezM. Á. (2018). Importance of nesting resources and soil conditions for the recovery of ant diversity during secondary succession in a tropical rainforest. Tropical Conservation Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918787063
93.
RomanelliJ. P.MeliP.Bispo SantosJ. P.JacobI. N.SouzaL. R.RodriguesA. V.TrevisanD. P.HuangC.AlmeidaD. R. A.SilvaL. G. M.AssadM. L. R. C. L.CadotteM. W.RodriguesR. R. (2022). Biodiversity responses to restoration across the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Science of The Total Environment, 821, 153403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153403
SchmidtF. A.RibasC. R.SchoerederJ. H. (2013). How predictable is the response of ant assemblages to natural forest recovery? Implications for their use as bioindicators. Ecological Indicators, 24, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.031
98.
SchultheissP.NootenS. S.WangR.WongM. K.BrassardF.GuénardB. (2022). The abundance, biomass, and distribution of ants on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2201550119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201550119
99.
SilvaR. R.FeitosaR. S. M.EberhardtF. (2007). Reduced ant diversity along a habitat regeneration gradient in the southern Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 240(1-3), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.12.002
100.
SilvaR. R.SilvestreR.BrandãoC. R. F.MoriniM. S. C.DelabieJ. H. C. (2015). Grupos tróficos e guildas em formigas poneromorfas. In DelabieJacques H. C.FeitosaR. M.SerrãoJ. E.MarianoC. S. F.MajerJ. D. (Eds.), As formigas poneromorfas do Brasil (pp. 163–179). Ilhéus: Editus.
101.
Souza-CampanaD. R.WazemaC. T.MagalhãesF. S.SilvaN. S.NagataniV. H.SuguituruS. S.GotoM. A.MoriniM. S. C. (2020). Coleção de referência do Laboratório de Mirmecologia do Alto Tietê (SP): status atual e perspectivas. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, 15(1), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.46357/bcnaturais.v15i1.274
102.
SpakeR.EzardT. H. G.MartinP. A.NewtonA.DoncasterC. P. (2015). A meta-analysis of functional group responses to forest recovery outside of the tropics. Conservation Biology, 29, 1695–1703. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12548
103.
SuganumaM. S.DuriganG. (2015). Indicators of restoration success in riparian tropical forests using multiple reference ecosystems. Restoration Ecology, 23, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12168
104.
SuganumaM. S.DuriganG. (2021). Build it and they will come, but not all of them in fragmented Atlantic Forest landscapes. Restoration Ecology, 30, e13537. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13537
105.
SuganumaM. S.TorezanJ. M. D.CavalheiroA. L.VanzelaA. L. L.BenatoT. (2008). Comparando metodologias para avaliar a cobertura do dossel e a luminosidade no sub-bosque de um reflorestamento e uma floresta madura. Revista Árvore, 32, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-67622008000200020
106.
SuguituruS. S.MoriniM. D. C.FeitosaR. M.SilvaR. D. (2015). Formigas do alto Tietê. Bauru: Canal, 6, 456.
107.
UnderwoodE. C.FisherB. L. (2006). The role of ants in conservation monitoring: if, when, and how. Biological conservation, 132, 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.022
108.
VianiR. A.HollK. D.PadoveziA.StrassburgB. B. N.FarahF. T.GarciaL. C.ChavesR. B.RodriguesR. R.BrancalionP. H. (2017). Protocol for monitoring tropical forest restoration: perspectives from the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science, 10, 1940082917697265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917697265
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (pp. 189–201).
112.
WildtruthF.PerfectoI. (2023). Effects of canopy connectivity on the arboreal ant community in coffee shade trees. Biotropica, 55, 1106–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13255
113.
WilkieK. T. R.MertlA. L.TranieloJ. F. A. (2007). Biodiversity below ground: probing the subterranean ant fauna of Amazonia. Naturwissenschaften, 94, 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-007-0250-2
114.
WoodS. N. (2017). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R (p. 496). New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
115.
WortleyL.HeroJ-M.HowesM. (2013). Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restoration Ecology, 21, 573. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12028
ZephirinT.PierreG. J.YoubiM.BlandineE.StephanieE.JudicaëlF.L.ChantalA. D.ChamplainD. L. (2022). Relation between ground-dwelling and arboreal ant diversity in three vegetation types in the humid forest zone of southern Cameroon. African Journal of Ecology, 60, 1057–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13019
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
