Inventory of Ant Fauna in the Influence Area of a Small Hydropower Plant in the State of Paraná, Brazil

Article Open Access

Inventory of Ant Fauna in the Influence Area of a Small Hydropower Plant in the State of Paraná, Brazil

Author Information
1
Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, Unochapecó, Chapecó 89815-900, Brazil
2
Postgraduate Program in Environmental Sciences, Unochapecó, Chapecó 89815-899, Brazil
3
MF Environmental Consulting, Chapecó 89815-899, Brazil
4
Impacto Environmental Consulting, Chapecó 89815-899, Brazil
5
Biology Department of Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul (UFFS), Chapecó 89815-899, Brazil
6
Biological Sciences Department, UNESPAR, União da Vitória 84600-010, Brazil
7
Biological Sciences Course, Unochapecó, Chapecó 89815-899, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 08 July 2025 Accepted: 14 August 2025 Published: 19 August 2025

Creative Commons

© 2025 The authors. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Views:20
Downloads:4
Ecol. Divers. 2025, 2(3), 10009; DOI: 10.70322/ecoldivers.2025.10009
ABSTRACT: The construction of hydroelectric dams for power generation causes environmental alterations and ecosystem restructuring in directly and indirectly affected areas. This study aimed to survey the ant fauna in the indirect area of influence of a small hydroelectric plant located in Mangueirinha, Paraná State, Brazil. Seven sampling campaigns were conducted, two before and five during the project’s implementation, using pitfall traps as the sampling method. A total of 72 ant species were recorded, belonging to 26 genera and six subfamilies. Species richness and abundance did not differ significantly between the pre-implementation and implementation phases. The Chao1 estimator indicated that actual species richness may be approximately 7.6% higher than observed. These findings contribute to understanding ant biodiversity in areas subject to land-use change in Paraná State. The results highlight the value of using insect species richness and abundance, particularly of bioindicator groups such as ants, for environmental impact monitoring.
Keywords: Bioindicators; Diversity; Environmental impact; Power production; Richness

1. Introduction

The increasing anthropogenic alteration of natural environments has resulted in habitat simplification, a decline in biodiversity, and, in some cases, species extinction [1,2]. Assessing species richness and abundance is widely used to evaluate ecosystem changes [3,4]. Insects have proven effective ecological indicators in environmental impact assessments [4,5]. The growing pressure on natural habitats highlights the importance of conducting biodiversity surveys alongside relevant environmental descriptors [3,6]. Environmental changes such as forest fragmentation [2], hydroelectric dam construction, and urban expansion are well-established threats to biodiversity conservation [5,7,8]. The development of hydropower projects typically involves vegetation removal, land clearing, soil compaction, and reservoir creation, all of which can eliminate habitats critical to various species [9]. Once operational, these facilities may alter ecosystem dynamics by modifying microclimatic conditions, including temperature and humidity [10,11]. Nevertheless, the effects of such changes on invertebrate communities, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, remain poorly understood. In southern Brazil, 48 Hydroelectric Power Plants (HPPs) and 146 Small Hydroelectric Power Plants (SHPPs) are currently in operation [12]. Although hydropower is considered a lower-impact energy source compared to fossil fuels [11], its environmental consequences include habitat loss, species displacement, and ecosystem restructuring in adjacent areas [13]. In the State of Paraná, early entomofaunistic surveys conducted by Sakagami, Laroca, and Moure [14], as well as Laroca, Cure, and Bortoli [15], laid the groundwork for understanding the effects of deforestation, habitat fragmentation, the introduction of exotic species, and unsustainable agricultural practices on insect communities. Notably, Paraná was the first state in southern Brazil to mandate invertebrate surveys as part of Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), thereby contributing valuable insights into insect occurrence and distribution [8]. However, significant gaps remain, particularly concerning the inventory of ant fauna in areas directly or indirectly affected by the construction of small hydroelectric plants. Ants are among the most commonly used bioindicator organisms due to their ecological sensitivity and functional diversity [3,16,17]. Metrics such as species richness and frequency of occurrence provide valuable insights into ecosystem health and can reflect vegetation structure, litter accumulation, and the diversity of other invertebrate taxa [4,18]. These parameters also enable comparisons of ant assemblages across different habitat types [17]. In the context of Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), ant surveys are especially effective for assessing the ecological impacts of anthropogenic activities in both directly and indirectly affected areas [8,19]. Their effectiveness stems from their wide geographic distribution, high local abundance, ecological significance across trophic levels, sensitivity to habitat disturbance, and the relative ease with which they can be identified to the morphospecies level [20,21,22]. In this context, the objective of the present study was to inventory the ant fauna occurring in the area of indirect influence (AII) of a small hydroelectric plant in the municipality of Mangueirinha, Paraná State.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area This study was conducted in the municipality of Mangueirinha, located in the southwestern region of Paraná State, as part of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the implementation of a Small Hydroelectric Power Plant (SHPP) (25°58′15″ S; 52°09′05″ W). The Marrecas River, where the dam is situated, is part of the Paraná River basin. The total flooded area covered 6.44 ha, of which 3.96 ha corresponded to the natural riverbed. Based on the recommended 30 m strip, the minimum environmental protection buffer encompassed 8.89 ha. The total flooded perimeter measured 3.62 km. The SHPP began operations in 2018. The study area is part of the Atlantic Forest Biome, characterized regionally by Deciduous Seasonal Forest phytophysiognomy. The sampled portion of the watershed consists of conventional agricultural crops and pasturelands, interspersed with small forest fragments. Seven sampling events were conducted: the first two prior to project implementation (before construction began), and the subsequent five during the implementation phase (construction and pre-reservoir formation). Sampling dates were as follows: (1) 12–13 January 2016 (summer); (2) 10–11 April 2016 (fall); (3) 3–5 June 2017 (fall); (4) 18–20 September 2017 (winter); (5) 6–8 December 2017 (spring); (6) 1–3 March 2018 (summer); and (7) 12–14 June 2018 (fall). All samples were collected in the indirect influence areas of the SHPP. Three transect sites were selected within the area projected to become riparian vegetation following reservoir filling, including: Site 1: Located downstream of the powerhouse (25°57′56″ S; 52°08′29″ W) on the right bank of the river. This area features secondary vegetation in early to mid-stages of natural regeneration, surrounded by agricultural crop fields. Site 2: Situated within the reservoir area (25°58′20″ S; 52°09′05″ W) on the right bank of the river, encompassing an upstream portion of the reservoir and the powerhouse. This site consists of a forest fragment in the mid-stage of regeneration. Site 3: Located upstream of the reservoir (25°58′31″ S; 52°09′08″ W) on the left bank of the river. This site includes a riparian vegetation strip along the river as well as a preserved forest fragment at the transect’s end. 2.2. Sampling Pitfall traps used for sampling consisted of 500 mL plastic cups (10 cm in diameter and 11 cm in height), fully buried so that the openings were flush with the ground surface. Each trap was filled with 100 mL of water and two drops of detergent to reduce surface tension, causing insects to sink upon falling. At each of the three sampling sites, 200-m transects were established. Along each transect, 10 traps were placed linearly, spaced 20 m apart, and remained active for 48 h [23,24]. A total of 70 samples were collected per site, resulting in 210 samples over the course of the study. 2.3. Identification Collected specimens were transferred to bottles containing 70% ethanol. In the Entomology laboratory at Unochapecó, specimens were sorted and mounted for subsequent identification using a binocular stereoscopic microscope. Ants were identified by a specialist myrmecologist employing taxonomic keys from Gonçalves [25], Kempf [26,27], Watkins [28], Della Lucia [29], Lattke [30], Taber [31], Fernández [32], Longino [33], Longino and Fernández [34], and Wild [35]. Taxonomic classification followed Bolton [36]. 2.4. Data Analysis Species richness was defined as the number of ant species recorded in each sample. Abundance was determined based on relative frequency, i.e., the number of occurrences of a given species in each trap, rather than the number of individuals [37]. This measure helps minimize the influence of foraging behavior and colony size and is considered more appropriate for studies of ant communities [38]. Estimates of overall species richness and richness per site were calculated and compared with the corresponding observed richness. For this purpose, the non-parametric Chao1 estimator was applied, which uses the number of species occurring in only one sample (uniques) and those occurring in exactly two samples (duplicates) to estimate undetected richness [39]. All analyses were performed using PAST software [40,41,42]. 2.5. Ethical Aspects This study was authorized by the Paraná Environmental Institute (IAP) under the “Authorization for Activities with Scientific Purpose” No. 35378, issued on 31 October 2013.

3. Results

In total, 72 species belonging to 26 genera and six subfamilies were recorded. The most species-rich genera were Camponotus (S = 12) and Pheidole (S = 11). The most frequently recorded species in the samples were Pachycondyla striata Smith, 1858 (n = 68), Pheidole pubiventris Mayr, 1887 (n = 56), Pheidole sp. 1 (n = 48), Gnamptogenys striatula Mayr, 1884 (n = 42), Pheidole risii Forel, 1892 (n = 35), Linepithema gallardoi (Brèthes, 1914) (n = 31), Acromyrmex subterraneus (Forel, 1893) (n = 19), Pheidole sp. 2 (n = 19), Pheidole sp. 5 (n = 18), Pheidole sp. 3 (n = 17), Hypoponera distinguenda (Emery, 1890) (n = 17), and Crematogaster corticícola Mayr, 1887 (n = 16) (Table 1). Species richness was similar across the three sampling sites. The highest richness was observed at Site 3 (S = 57), followed by Site 1 (S = 52) and Site 2 (S = 51). Abundance (number of occurrences) followed the same pattern, with Site 3 recording the highest value (n = 253), followed by Site 1 (n = 209), and Site 2 (n = 191). The Chao1 estimator suggested the potential occurrence of up to 77 species. Site 3 exhibited the highest number of exclusive species (S = 9), while Sites 1 and 2 each recorded five exclusive species. In total, 35 species (48.6%) were shared across all three sites (Table 1).

Table 1. Species richness, total occurrences, percent frequency, and Chao1 estimates for ant assemblages sampled at three sites within the Indirect Influence Area (AII) of a Small Hydroelectric Plant (SHP) in Mangueirinha, Paraná State, Brazil, before and during project implementation (2016–2018).

Taxon Ocurrence AII Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Percent Frequency
Dolichoderinae
Leptomyrmecini
Dorymyrmex brunneus Forel, 1908 14 2.14 2.39 1.05 2.77
Linepithema gallardoi (Brèthes, 1914) 31 4.75 5.74 3.66 4.74
Linepithema humile (Mayr, 1868) 12 1.84 0.48 1.05 3.56
Linepithema micans (Forel, 1908) 6 0.92 0.48 1.57 0.79
Linepithema sp. 1 3 0.46 1.57
Linepithema sp. 2 2 0.31 0.48 0.40
Tapinomini
Tapinoma melanocephalum (Fabricius, 1793) 2 0.31 0.48 0.40
Ectatomminae
Ectatommini
Gnamptogenys striatula Mayr, 1884 42 6.43 6.22 6.28 6.72
Gnamptogenys sp. 1 1 0.15 0.52
Formicinae
Camponotini
Camponotus atriceps (Smith, 1858) 7 1.07 0.96 1.05 1.19
Camponotus cingulatus Mayr1862 9 1.38 1.44 1.57 1.19
Camponotus diversipalpus Santschi, 1922 8 1.23 1.44 1.57 0.79
Camponotus lespesii Forel, 1886 14 2.14 1.44 3.14 1.98
Camponotus mus Roger, 1863 8 1.23 3.83
Camponotus rufipes (Fabricius, 1775) 7 1.07 1.44 0.52 1.19
Camponotus sericeiventris (G.-Méneville, 1838) 6 0.92 0.48 1.05 1.19
Camponotus sp. 1 4 0.61 0.48 1.05 0.40
Camponotus sp. 2 3 0.46 1.19
Camponotus sp. 3 2 0.31 0.48 0.40
Camponotus sp. 4 1 0.15 0.48
Camponotus sp. 5 1 0.15 0.48
Myrmelachistini
Brachymyrmex coactus Mayr, 1887 3 0.46 0.96 0.40
Brachymyrmex cordemoyi Forel, 1895 1 0.15 0.48
Brachymyrmex sp. 1 0.15 0.40
Myrmelachista sp. 1 3 0.46 0.48 1.05
Myrmelachista sp. 2 2 0.31 0.96
Lasiini
Nylanderia fulva (Mayr, 1862) 6 0.92 0.52 1.98
Paratrechina longicornis (Latreille, 1802) 4 0.61 1.05 0.79
Myrmicinae
Attini
Acromyrmex niger (Smith, 1858) 12 1.84 2.39 2.09 1.19
Acromyrmex rugosus (Smith, 1858) 8 1.23 0.48 1.57 1.58
Acromyrmex subterraneus (Forel, 1893) 19 2.91 3.83 2.09 2.77
Acromyrmex sp. 1 9 1.38 1.91 0.52 1.58
Acromyrmex sp. 2 1 0.15 0.52
Apterostigma pilosum Mayr, 1865 1 0.15 0.40
Cephalotes pusillus (Klug, 1824) 5 0.77 0.96 0.52 0.79
Cyphomyrmex rimosus (Spinola, 1851) 5 0.77 0.96 1.19
Mycocepurus goeldii (Forel, 1893) 6 0.92 1.44 0.52 0.79
Mycocepurus sp. 1 4 0.61 0.48 0.52 0.79
Mycocepurus sp. 2 1 0.15 0.40
Pheidole pubiventris Mayr, 1887 56 8.58 6.70 7.85 10.67
Pheidole risii Forel, 1892 35 5.36 7.18 7.33 2.37
Pheidole sp. 1 48 7.35 6.22 9.42 6.72
Pheidole sp. 2 19 2.91 3.83 3.14 1.98
Pheidole sp. 3 17 2.60 3.35 1.57 2.77
Pheidole sp. 4 13 1.99 2.87 1.57 1.58
Pheidole sp. 5 18 2.76 1.91 4.19 2.37
Pheidole sp. 6 6 0.92 2.37
Pheidole sp. 7 2 0.31 0.52 0.40
Pheidole sp. 8 4 0.61 1.57 0.40
Pheidole sp. 9 2 0.31 0.79
Procryptocerus adlerzi (Mayr, 1887) 3 0.46 0.96 0.52
Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger, 1863) 2 0.31 0.48 0.52
Crematogastrini
Crematogaster corticicola Mayr, 1887 16 2.45 2.87 2.09 2.37
Crematogaster sp. 2 0.31 0.48 0.40
Pogonomyrmecini
Pogonomyrmex naegelii Forel, 1878 1 0.15 0.40
Pogonomyrmex sp. 5 0.77 0.96 1.05 0.40
Solenopsidini
Monomorium floricola (Jerdon, 1851) 4 0.61 0.48 0.52 0.79
Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 5 0.77 0.96 1.05 0.40
Solenopsis saevissima (Smith, 1855) 6 0.92 1.05 1.58
Solenopsis stricta Emery, 1896 2 0.31 0.52 0.40
Solenopsis sp. 6 0.92 0.96 0.52 1.19
Ponerinae
Ponerini
Hypoponera distinguenda (Emery, 1890) 17 2.60 2.39 2.62 2.77
Hypoponera sp.1 1 0.15 0.52
Hypoponera sp.2 2 0.31 1.05
Hypoponera sp.3 1 0.15 0.40
Neoponera villosa (Fabricius, 1804) 2 0.31 0.48 0.52
Odontomachus chelifer (Latreille, 1802) 1 0.15 0.40
Pachycondyla striata Smith, 1858 68 10.41 9.57 11.52 10.28
Pachycondyla sp. 5 0.77 0.96 0.52 0.79
Pseudomyrmecinae
Pseudomyrmecini
Pseudomyrmex flavidulus (Smith, 1858) 4 0.61 0.48 0.52 0.79
Pseudomyrmex gracilis (Fabricius, 1804) 3 0.46 0.48 1.05
Pseudomyrmex phyllophilus (Smith, 1858) 3 0.46 0.96 0.40
Ecological indicators
Richness 72 52 51 57
Abundance (occurrence) 653 209 191 253
Chao 1 78 66.2 62.8 70.9
Difference between S(obs) and Chao 1 (%) 7.6 27.3 23.1 24.4

4. Discussion

The present study provides additional information on the occurrence of ant species in the southwestern region of the state of Paraná. The most frequent species found in the samples are characteristic of anthropized environments and are commonly reported in studies evaluating ant fauna in southern Brazil [43,44,45,46]. Compared to the others, the slightly higher richness and diversity recorded at Site 3 can be explained by the more advanced stage of forest regeneration in this area. The similarity in ecological descriptors across sites suggests that the ant fauna in the more recently regenerating areas (Sites 1 and 2) is beginning to reflect patterns of structural complexity similar to those found in more preserved environments, such as Site 3. The time required for community reestablishment in regenerating areas can vary from five years [47,48] to more than two decades for full recovery [49]. Lutinski et al. [8], in a study conducted in the municipality of Marmeleiro (southwestern Paraná), identified 55 ant species, a lower richness than found in the present study (72 species). The genera Acromyrmex, Brachymyrmex, Camponotus, Linepithema, and Pheidole were also the most frequent in that study. The environments sampled in Marmeleiro consisted of small forest fragments and agricultural areas, showing similarities in species composition and richness with the sites sampled in the indirect influence area (AII) of the SHPP in Mangueirinha. Ants of the subfamily Dolichoderinae are typical of anthropized environments in southern Brazil [46]. The genera Dorymyrmex and Linepithema include species frequently encountered in a wide range of habitats in the region [45,50]. According to Fernández [32] and Baccaro et al. [51], some species within these genera, such as L. humile, have pest potential. The omnivorous habits and presence of six such species in this study indicate environmental degradation at the sampled sites. Camponotus was the most species-rich genus in the samples. Ants in this genus are widely distributed throughout the Neotropical region and are known for their pronounced polymorphism and omnivorous behavior [52]. They forage from the ground to the canopy and are often involved in mutualistic relationships and chemical defense interactions with other organisms [18,51]. Camponotus mus, C. rufipes, and C. sericeiventris are widely distributed in the state of Santa Catarina [45] and are commonly found in anthropized environments [50]. The genera Brachymyrmex, Crematogaster, Nylanderia, and Wasmannia are characterized by omnivorous and generalist behavior [18,53]. The presence of these ants may indicate environmental pressure due to adjacent agricultural activity or habitat fragmentation [54]. Their small body size and mass recruitment behavior [18,51] may favor efficient nesting, dominance over food sources, and frequent detection in samples. The high Neotropical diversity of Pheidole and Solenopsis is supported by the recording of dozens of species in localized studies [16]. Their broad distribution and dispersal ability make some species locally abundant. According to Silvestre et al. [18], these genera nest in the ground and form large colonies. They are aggressive generalists frequently recorded in disturbed environments [55]. The environmental conditions of the AII, particularly at Sites 1 and 2, may be conducive to the presence of these ants. The occurrence of ants belonging to the genera Cephalotes, Myrmelachista, Procryptocerus, and Pseudomyrmex in the AII highlights the role of forest fragments in supporting their populations. These ants require vegetation structures for shelter and nesting. Cephalotes ants, in particular, are strongly associated with vegetation, using it as a food source and nesting substrate [32,52]. Pseudomyrmecinae ants are diurnal, visually oriented, agile patrollers that depend on myrmecophilous plants, often visiting nectaries and preferring closed, humid forests, although some species can occur in more open areas [56]. Myrmelachista ants are tiny and frequently found inside seeds. Although restricted to the Neotropics, they exhibit a broad geographic distribution [32]. The presence of these genera underscores the importance of conserving forest remnants as refuges for these insects. Five species of leaf-cutting ants were recorded, all from the genus Acromyrmex. These ants are known for their potential economic impact, as they harvest green plant material to cultivate the fungi they consume [57]. Endemic to the Neotropical region and polymorphic, Acromyrmex play an important role in soil dynamics. Their underground galleries improve soil aeration, while their waste and feces enrich the soil [18,51]. The occurrence of species from the genera Cyphomyrmex, Gnamptogenys, Hypoponera, Mycocepurus, Neoponera, and Pachycondyla also reinforces the need for conserving forest fragments and maintaining the leaf litter layer, which provides shelter and food for these ants [18,51]. Gnamptogenys, Hypoponera, Neoponera, and Pachycondyla are specialized predators that forage in soil litter. According to Lattke [58], these genera are commonly associated with shaded, humid environments and prey on small invertebrates, usually without specificity. Mycocepurus ants, in contrast, use decomposing organic matter to cultivate symbiotic fungi used as food [18]. The Chao1 estimator indicated that the true ant richness in the AII is likely higher than the observed richness. This outcome is expected when sites are assessed individually [59]. However, when the AII is considered as a whole, the seven sampling events reduced the gap between observed and estimated richness to less than 10%. The implementation of the SHPP did not result in a reduction in ant species richness in the AII. Certain ant species are more sensitive to environmental changes [60] and may decline or disappear in altered habitats. In such cases, ecological niches left vacant may be filled by more generalist species, which tend to dominate in anthropized environments. The diversity recorded in the present study (72 species) reinforces the bioindicator potential of ant assemblages in areas influenced by hydropower developments. Although this richness is considerable, it is lower than that reported in other surveys conducted in the State of Paraná. For example, Franco and Feitosa [61] recorded 163 ant species in the natural grasslands of Campos Gerais using multiple sampling techniques. This difference may be attributed to the type of environment sampled, open and preserved landscapes versus forest fragments under anthropogenic pressure, as well as the broader methodological approach employed in their study. Nevertheless, the species composition observed in Mangueirinha, characterized by generalist species and the presence of forest-associated taxa, demonstrates that even indirectly affected areas can sustain expressive ant communities. Another relevant study conducted in São Camilo State Park [62] reported 108 ant species, including new records for both Paraná and southern Brazil, in fragments of seasonal semideciduous forest. Although species richness was lower in the present inventory, the results are comparable when considering this study’s standardized pitfall method and smaller spatial scale. Moreover, the number of site-exclusive species and the richness estimate (Chao1) suggest that actual diversity in the study area may be underestimated. Together, these findings indicate that preserved grassland environments and secondary forest fragments play complementary roles in regional ant conservation, highlighting the importance of including varied vegetation types and disturbance levels in environmental impact assessments. Despite the valuable data obtained, a notable limitation of the present study is the exclusive use of the pitfall trapping method, which may lead to an underestimation of the true species richness and diversity. Recent studies emphasize the importance of combining multiple sampling techniques, such as pitfall traps, Winkler extractors, Malaise traps, and manual collection, to better capture the functional and taxonomic diversity of ant communities, especially in heterogeneous environments [61,63]. For example, Franco and Feitosa et al. [61] conducted a detailed inventory in the natural grasslands of Paraná using pitfall, Winkler, and manual sampling methods, resulting in higher recorded richness and diversity, particularly of species less detectable by single methods. Similarly, Lutinski et al. [63] demonstrated that combining different collection methods allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of ant communities in forest fragments of southwestern Brazil, revealing species that would not have been detected using only pitfall traps. The construction and operation of hydropower dams profoundly alter environmental drivers, with cascading effects on ant assemblages. Flooding and habitat fragmentation eliminate nesting sites and microhabitats, facilitating the replacement of specialist ant species by generalists and opportunists, thereby altering community composition, diversity, and functional structure [8]. Additionally, changes in microclimate (e.g., temperature, soil moisture, light regime), resource availability, and soil connectivity affect abundance and trophic interactions [18]. These responses can be asynchronous, immediate losses of sensitive taxa followed by community reassembly over years or decades, making ant communities sensitive indicators for environmental monitoring and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies [64]. Hydropower development exerts persistent long-term impacts on soil and vegetation, frequently impairing ecosystem recovery. Reservoir-induced inundation alters soil physico-chemical properties, including reduced oxygenation, organic-matter loss, and nutrient alteration, while construction activities accelerate compaction and erosion, reducing infiltration and increasing sedimentation risk [65]. Vegetation is affected through outright removal, shifts in species composition, loss of arboreal strata, and reduced structural heterogeneity, undermining ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, slope stability, and habitat provisioning. These effects may endure for decades, especially under continuing anthropogenic pressures (e.g., land-use change, fires, invasive species), underscoring the need for long-term restoration planning and sustained ecological monitoring to restore functional resilience [64].

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to the knowledge of ant diversity in environments undergoing transformation and provides new data on the distribution of myrmecofauna in the state of Paraná. It also presents a list of species from an area subject to flooding due to the construction of a small hydroelectric power plant (SHPP). It will serve as a baseline for assessing potential impacts on invertebrate fauna following project implementation. The role of the Paraná Environmental Institute (IAP) in requiring the inclusion of invertebrates in Environmental Impact Studies and Reports (EIS/EIR) is noteworthy. This inclusion is fully justified, as invertebrates represent the largest known component of biodiversity. Understanding the richness and abundance of indicator insects, such as ants, is essential for monitoring environmental conditions before and after the implementation of infrastructure projects like SHPPs.

Acknowledgments

To the Community University of Chapecó Region, Unochapecó, for research support.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.L., M.C.d.F. and L.B.; Methodology, J.A.L. and C.I.; Software, J.A.L. and C.I.; Validation J.A.L., C.I., M.C.d.F., L.B., C.J.L., C.G, M.A.B., D.R.H., A.F. and M.E.M.C.; Formal Analysis, J.A.L. and C.I.; Investigation, J.A.L., C.I., M.C.d.F., L.B., C.J.L., C.G, M.A.B. and D.R.H.; Resources, J.A.L., M.C.d.F. and L.B.; Data Curation, J.A.L. and C.I.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.A.L., C.I., M.C.d.F., L.B., C.J.L., C.G, M.A.B., D.R.H., A.F. and M.E.M.C.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.A.L., C.I., M.C.d.F., L.B., C.J.L., C.G, M.A.B., D.R.H., A.F. and M.E.M.C.; Visualization, J.A.L., C.I., M.C.d.F., L.B., C.J.L., C.G, M.A.B., D.R.H., A.F. and M.E.M.C.; Supervision, J.A.L.; Project Administration, J.A.L.; Funding Acquisition, M.C.d.F. and L.B.

Ethics Statement

This study was authorized by the Paraná Environmental Institute (IAP) “Authorization for activities with scientific purpose” # 35378 as of 31 October 2013.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could haveappeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

1.
Diamond J. Colapso, 8th ed.; Editora Record: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012; 699p.
2.
Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015, 520, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
3.
Solar RRC, Barlow J, Andersen AN, Schoereder JH, Berenguer E, Ferreira JN, et al. Biodiversity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance inthe Amazon: A multi-scale assessment using ant communities. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 197, 98–107. [Google Scholar]
4.
Parr CL, Dunn RR, Sanders NJ, Weiser MD, Photakis M, Bishop TR, et al. Global Ants: A new database on the geography of ant traits (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Insect Conserv. Divers. 2017, 10, 5–20. [Google Scholar]
5.
Fernandes IO, Souza JLP. Dataset of long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the influence areas of a hydroelectric power plant on the Madeira River in the Amazon Basin. Biodivers. Data J. 2018, 6, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
6.
Wilson EO. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; 720p.
7.
Pecarevic M, Danoff-Burg J, Dunn RR. Biodiversity on Broadway—Enigmatic Diversity of the Societies of Ants (Formicidae) on the Streets of New York City. PLoS ONE. 2010, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
8.
Lutinski JA, Lutinski CJ, Guarda C, Busato MA, Garcia FR. Richness and structure of ant assemblies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Atlantic forest in southern Brazil. An. Acad. Bras. Ciências 2017, 89, 2719–2729. [Google Scholar]
9.
Meireles AJA.  Impactos Ambientais Promovidos pela Implantação e Operação de Usinas eólicas em áreas de Preservação Permanente (APP’s)—Os campos de dunas fixas e móveis da planície costeira do Cumbe, município de Aracati. 2008. Available online: http://wp2.oktiva.com.br/portaldomar-bd/files/2010/08/usinasEolicas_impactos (accessed on 18 August 2025).
10.
Barbosa Filho WP. Impactos ambientais em usinas eólicas. Agrener. GD 2013, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
11.
Kliemann BCK, Dalariva RL. Pequenas centrais hidrelétricas: cenários e perspectivas no estado do Paraná. Ciênc Nat. 2015, 37, 274–283. [Google Scholar]
12.
ANEEL. BIG—Banco de Informações de Geração. Distrito Federal. 2016. Available online: http://www2.aneel.gov.br/aplicacoes/capacidadebrasil/capacidadebrasil.cfm (accessed on 18 August 2025).
13.
Brazil. Forest Code. Law n° 12,651 of May 25, 2012; Diário Oficial da União: Brasília, Brazil, 2012. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm (accessed on 18 August 2025).
14.
Sakagami SF, Laroca S, Moure JS. Wild bee biocenotics in São José dos Pinhais (PR), South Brazil. J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ. 1967, 16, 253–291. [Google Scholar]
15.
Laroca S, Cure JRH, Bortoli C. A associação das abelhas silvestres (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) de uma área restrita no interior da cidade de Curitiba (Brasil): Uma abordagem biocenótica. Dusenia 1982, 13, 93–117. [Google Scholar]
16.
Pacheco R, Vasconcelos HL, Groc S, Camacho GP, Frizzo TL. The importance of remnants of natural vegetation for maintaining ant diversity in Brazilian agricultural landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 983–997. [Google Scholar]
17.
Laste KCD, Durigan G, Andersen AN. Biodiversity responses to land-use and restoration in a global biodiversity hotspot: Ant communities in Brazilian Cerrado. Austral Ecol. 2019, 44, 313–326. [Google Scholar]
18.
Silvestre R, Brandão CRF, Silva RR. Grupos funcionales de hormigas: el caso de los grêmios del cerrado. In Introducción a las Hormigas de la región Neotropical; Fernández F, Ed.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2003; pp. 113–148.
19.
Silva EJE, Loeck AE. Ocorrência de formigas domiciliares (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) em Pelotas, RS. Rev. Bras. Agrociênc. 1999, 5, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
20.
Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. The Ants; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; 732p.
21.
Oliveira MA, Gomes CF, Pires EM, Marinho CG, Della Lucia TM. Bioindicadores ambientais: Insetos como um instrumento desta avaliação. Rev. Ceres. 2014, 61, 800–807. [Google Scholar]
22.
Santos RS, Delabie JHC. Epigaeic ants in a forest remnant in the state of Acre, Brazil and new records for the state. Braz. J. Agric. 2018, 93, 24–32. [Google Scholar]
23.
Bestelmeyer BT, Agosti D, Alonso LE, Brandao CRF, Brown WL, Jr., Delabie JHC, et al. Field techniques for the study of ground-dwelling ants. In Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity; Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR, Eds.; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 122–144.
24.
Lutinski JA, Lutinski CJ, Iop S, Mello Garcia FR. Evaluation of an ant sampling protocol (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in three modified environments located inside an austral Atlantic Forest area of Brazil. Ecol. Austral. 2013, 23, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
25.
Gonçalves CR. O Gênero Acromyrmex no Brasil. Stud. Entomol. 1961, 4, 113–180. [Google Scholar]
26.
Kempf WW. A revision of the Neotropical fungus-growing ants of the genus Cyphomyrmex Mayr. Part 1: Group of strigatus Mayr. Stud. Entomol. 1964, 7, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
27.
Kempf WW. A revision of the Neotropical fungus-growing ants of the genus Cyphomyrmex Mayr. Part II: Group of rimosus (Spinola) (Hym., Formicidae). Stud. Entomol. 1965, 8, 161–200. [Google Scholar]
28.
Watkins JF. The Identification and Distribution of New World Army Ants (Dorylinae: Formicidae); Markham Press Fund of Baylor University Press: Waco, TX, USA, 1976; 102p.
29.
Della Lucia TMC. As Formigas Cortadeiras; Editora Folha da Mata: Viçosa, Brazil, 1993. 262p.
30.
Lattke JE. Revision of the ant genus Gnamptogenys in the New World (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J. Hymenopt. Res. 1995, 4, 137–193. [Google Scholar]
31.
Taber SW. The World of the Harvester Ants; Texas A & M University Press: College Station, TX, USA, 1998; 213p.
32.
Fernández F. Introducción a las Hormigas de la Región Neotropical; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2003; 433p.
33.
Longino JT. The Crematogaster (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Myrmicinae) of Costa Rica. Zootaxa 2003, 151, 1–150. [Google Scholar]
34.
Longino JT, Fernández F. Taxonomic review of the genus Wasmannia. In Advances in Ant Systematics (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Homage to E.O. Wilson—50 Years of Contributions; Snelling RR, Fisher BL, Ward PS, Eds.; Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 271–289.
35.
Wild AL. Taxonomic revision of the ant genus Linepithema (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomol. 2007, 126, 1–159. [Google Scholar]
36.
Bolton B. Synopsis and Classification of Formicidae; The American Entomological Institute: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2019; 370p.
37.
Tavares AA, Bispo PC, Zanzini AC. Efeito do turno de coleta sobre comunidades de formigas epigéicas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) em áreas de Eucalyptus cloezianae de cerrado. Neotrop. Entomol. 2008, 37, 126–130. [Google Scholar]
38.
Romero H, Jaffe K. A comparison of methods for sampling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Savanna. Biotropica 1989, 21, 348–352. [Google Scholar]
39.
Magurran AE. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1988; 179p.
40.
Chao A. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 1987, 43, 783–791. [Google Scholar]
41.
Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. Past: Palaeonthological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Version 1.37. 2001. Available online: http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm (accessed on August 18, 2025).
42.
Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL. EcoSim: Null Models Software for Ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear. 2001. Available online: http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim/ (accessed on August 18, 2025).
43.
Melo AS, Pereira RA, Santos AJ, Shepherd GJ, Machado G, Medeiros HF, et al. Comparing species richness among assemblages using sample units: why not use extrapolation methods to standardize different sample sizes? Oikos 2003, 101, 398–410. [Google Scholar]
44.
Clarke KR, Gorley RN. PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial (Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research); PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK, 2006.
45.
Ulysséa MA, Cereto CE, Rosumek FB, Silva RR, Lopes BC. Updated list of ant species (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) recorded in Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil, with a discussion of research advances and priorities. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2011, 55, 603–611. [Google Scholar]
46.
Lutinski JA, Baucke L, Filtro M, Busato MA, Knakiewicz AC, Garcia FRM. Ant assemblage (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in three wind farms in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2017, 77, 176–184. [Google Scholar]
47.
Pinto-Coelho RM. Fundamentos em Ecologia; Artmed Editora: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2000; 252p.
48.
Gomes EC, Ribeiro GT, da Silva TM, Sousa-Souto L. Ant assemblages (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in three different stages of forest regeneration in a fragment of Atlantic Forest in Sergipe, Brazil. Sociobiology 2014, 61, 250–257. [Google Scholar]
49.
Roth DS, Perfecto I, Rathcke B. The effects of management systems on ground-foraging ant diversity in Costa Rica. Ecol. Appl. 1994, 4, 423–436. [Google Scholar]
50.
Lutinski JA, Guarda C, Lutinski CJ, Garcia FMR. Formigas em ambientes urbanos no Sul do Brasil. In Formigas em Ambientes Urbanos no Brasil; Bueno OC, Campos AEC, Morini MSC, Eds.; Canal 6: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017; pp. 397–422.
51.
Baccaro FB, Feitosa RM, Fernandez F, Fernandes IO, Izzo TJ, Souza JD, et al. Guia Para gêneros de Formigas no Brasil; INPA: Manaus, Brazil, 2015; 388p.
52.
Feitosa RM. Formigas do alto Tietê—Parte II. In Formigas do Alto Tietê; Suguituru SS, Morini MSC, Feitosa RM, Silva R.Eds.; Canal 6: São Paulo, Brazil, 2015; pp. 101–437.
53.
Schwingel I, Lutinski JA, da Quadros SO, Busato MA, Arruda CRP. Formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) em centros de saúde da família de Chapecó, SC. Hygeia 2016, 12, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
54.
Galindo-Leal C, Câmara IG. The Atlantic Forest of South America. Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; 488p.
55.
Bueno OC, Campos AEC, Morini MSC. Formigas em Ambientes Urbanos no Brasil; Canal 6: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017; 685p.
56.
Ward PS. Subfamília Pseudomyrmecinae. In Introducción a las Hormigas de la Región Neotropical; Fernández F, Ed.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2003; pp. 331–333.
57.
Della Lucia TMC. As Formigas Cortadeiras: Da Bioecologia ao Manejo; Editora UFV: Viçosa, Brazil, 2011; 421p.
58.
Lattke JE. Subfamilia Ponerinae. In Introducción a las Hormigas de la Región Neotropical; Fernández F, Ed.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2003; pp. 261–276.
59.
Chao A, Colwell RK, Lin CW, Gotelli NJ. Sufficient sampling for asymptotic minimum species richness estimators. Ecology 2009, 90, 1125–1133. [Google Scholar]
60.
Leal IR, Filgueiras BK, Gomes JP, Iannuzzi L, Andersen AN. Effects of habitat fragmentation on ant richness and functional composition in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 1687–1701. [Google Scholar]
61.
Franco W, Feitosa RM. First standardized inventory of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the natural grasslands of Paraná: New records for Southern Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 2018, 58, e20185818. doi:10.11606/1807-0205/2018.58.18. [Google Scholar]
62.
Ladino N, Feitosa RM. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Parque Estadual São Camilo, an isolated Atlantic Forest remnant in western Paraná, Brazil. Zoologia 2022, 39, e22001. doi:10.3897/zoologia.39.e22001. [Google Scholar]
63.
Lutinski JA, Dorneles FE, Guarda C, Lutinski CJ, Busato MA, Giovenardi R, et al. Ant diversity (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Turvo State Park, municipality of Derrubadas, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2023, 83, e239642. doi:10.1590/1519-6984.239642. [Google Scholar]
64.
Lutinski JA, Guarda C, Lutinski CJ, Garcia FRM. Fauna de formigas em áreas de preservação permanente de usina hidroelétrica. Ciência Florestal 2018, 28, 1741–1754. doi:10.5902/1980509835334. [Google Scholar]
65.
Lutinski JA, Lutinski CJ, Serena AB, Busato MA, Mello Garcia FR. Ants as Bioindicators of Habitat Conservation in a Conservation Area of the Atlantic Forest Biome. Sociobiology 2024, 71, e9152. doi:10.13102/sociobiology.v71i1.9152. [Google Scholar]
TOP