Morphological patterns and community organization in leaf-litter ant assemblages

We present a new approach to determine the number and composition of guilds, using the hyperdiverse leaf-litter ant fauna as a model, based on appropriate morphological variables and species co-occurrence null models to describe the complex assemblages of interacting Species Community structure at the 1-m(2) scale. We obtained 18 linear morphometric measures from 949 workers of 171 leaf-litter ant species (18762 measurements) surveyed in four Atlantic Forest localities to test whether the assemblages are morphologically structured; the morphological characters were selected to indicate diet and foraging habits. Principal components analysis was used to characterize the morphospace and to describe the guild structure (number of species and composition). The guild proportionality assembly rule (significant tendency toward constant proportion of species in guilds) was assessed at the 1-m(2) scale. Our analysis indicates that the division of leaf-litter ants into guilds is based mainly on microhabitat distribution in the leaf-litter, body size and shape, eye size, and phylogeny. The same guild scheme applied to four more sites shows that different Atlantic Forest areas have the same leaf-fitter ant guilds. The guild proportionality assembly rule was confirmed for most guilds, Suggesting that there are guild-specific limitations on species coexistence within assemblages; on the other hand, in a few cases the variance in guild proportion was greater than expected under the null assumptions. Other studies on ant functional group classification are partially supported by our quantitative morphological analysis. Our results, however, imply that there are more compartments than indicated in previous models, particularly among cryptic species (confined to soil and litter) and tropical climate specialists. We argue that a general null model for the analysis of species association based oil morphology can reveal objectively defined groups and may thus contribute to a robust theory to explain community structure in general and have important consequences on studies of litter ant community ecology in particular.

Benthic foraminiferal distribution on the southeastern Brazilian shelf and upper slope

Foraminiferal data were obtained from 66 samples of box cores on the southeastern Brazilian upper margin (between 23.8A degrees-25.9A degrees S and 42.8A degrees-46.13A degrees W) to evaluate the benthic foraminiferal fauna distribution and its relation to some selected abiotic parameters. We focused on areas with different primary production regimes on the southern Brazilian margin, which is generally considered as an oligotrophic region. The total density (D), richness (R), mean diversity (H) over bar`, average living depth (ALD(X) ) and percentages of specimens of different microhabitats (epifauna, shallow infauna, intermediate infauna and deep infauna) were analyzed. The dominant species identified were Uvigerina spp., Globocassidulina subglobosa, Bulimina marginata, Adercotryma wrighti, Islandiella norcrossi, Rhizammina spp. and Brizalina sp.. We also established a set of mathematical functions for analyzing the vertical foraminiferal distribution patterns, providing a quantitative tool that allows correlating the microfaunal density distributions with abiotic factors. In general, the cores that fit with pure exponential decaying functions were related to the oligotrophic conditions prevalent on the Brazilian margin and to the flow of the Brazilian Current (BC). Different foraminiferal responses were identified in cores located in higher productivity zones, such as the northern and the southern region of the study area, where high percentages of infauna were encountered in these cores, and the functions used to fit these profiles differ appreciably from a pure exponential function, as a response of the significant living fauna in deeper layers of the sediment. One of the main factors supporting the different foraminiferal assemblage responses may be related to the differences in primary productivity of the water column and, consequently, in the estimated carbon flux to the sea floor. Nevertheless, also bottom water velocities, substrate type and water depth need to be considered.