Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Hindistan Botanik Bahçesi'nin (Howrah, Batı Bengal, Hindistan) farklı yaşam alanı mozaiklerinde karınca türlerinin çeşitliliği

Öz

Karıncalar (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) çok çeşitli ekolojik nişlere sahiptir ve otçul ya da yırtıcı ya da temizleyici olarak çeşitli gıda kaynaklarından yararlanır. Bu çalışma, sıkışık bir şehrin ortasında yer alan Hint Botanik bahçesi olarak bilinen bitkiler için ayrılmış ex-situ bir koruma alanındaki karınca çeşitliliğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, çalışma karınca topluluğu yapısının bu korunan alanda bulunan farklı habitat mozaikleriyle ilişkisini belgelemektedir. Bu çalışma için toplama yöntemi olarak çukur düşme tuzağı kullanılmıştır ve dört farklı habitatta dağıtılan ve birbirini takip eden iki ay içinde tekrarlanan kuadrat örneklemesi (toplam 16 kuadrat ve her kuadrat muntazam yerleştirilmiş 9 çukur düşme tuzağı içermektedir) içinde birleştirilmiştir. Tüm örnekler toplanmış, korunmuş ve titizlikle tanımlanmıştır. Tüm çalışma alanından 19 cins ve 6 alt aileden toplam 27 karınca türü belgelenmiştir. Bu çalışma aynı zamanda habitatlar arasındaki çeşitlilik farklılıklarını da yansıtmaktadır. Hint Botanik Bahçesi'nde bulunan farklı habitatlar arasında 'Bahçe-Fidanlık' (Shannon_H = 2.214 ve Simpson_1-D = 0.8333) ve 'Yabani Çalılar ve Ağaç Bahçeleri' (Shannon_H = 2.105 ve Simpson_1-D = 0.8182) en çeşitli iki habitattır ve 'otlu açık çalılık alanı' en baskın olanıdır (Dominance_D = 0.4354, Berger-Parker = 0.6512, Shannon_H = 1.521 ve Simpson_1-D = 0.5646). Bu çalışma, karıncaların toplum yapısı hakkında açıkça bir fikir vermektedir ve bu ekosistemin istikrarını ve koşullarını oluşturan insan yapımı bir ex-situ koruma alanındaki habitatlarla ilişkisini yansıtmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karınca topluluğu
• Hindistan
• tür çeşitliliği
• tür toplulukları
• habitat mozaikleri

Diversity of ants species in different habitat mosaics of Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Indian Botanical Garden (Howrah, West Bengal, India)

Öz

Ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) occupy a wide range of ecological niches and exploit various food resources either as herbivores or as predators or scavengers. This study establishes the diversity of ants in an ex-situ conservation site dedicated for plants known as Indian Botanical garden situated amidst a congested city.  It also documents the relation of ant community structure with different habitat mosaics present within this protected area. For this study pit fall trap was used as collection method and amalgamated within quadrat sampling (total 16 quadrats and each quadrat contains 9 pit fall traps placed uniformly) distributed in four different habitats and repeated in two consecutive months. All the specimens were collected, preserved and identified meticulously. Total 27 species of ants from 19 genera and 6 subfamilies are documented from the whole study area. This study also reflects differences in diversity among the habitats. Among different habitats present in the Indian Botanic Garden, ‘Garden-Nurseries’ (Shannon_H =2.214 and Simpson_1-D=0.8333) and ‘Wild Bushes and Tree groves’ (Shannon_H =2.105 and Simpson_1-D=0.8182) are two most diverse habitats and ‘Open scrubland with grasses’ is the most dominant one (Dominance_D = 0.4354, Berger-Parker = 0.6512, Shannon_H =1.521 and Simpson_1-D=0.5646). This study clearly gives an idea about the community structure of the ants and reflects its relation with the habitats in a man-made ex-situ conservation site which establish the stability and conditions of this ecosystem.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ant community
• Species assemblage
• Species diversity
• Habitat mosaics
• India

Kaynakça

1. Anderson A (1993). Ants as Indicators of Restoration Success at a Uranium Mine in Tropical Australia. Restoration Ecology. 1(3): 156-167, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1993.tb00022.x.
2. Angulo E, Boulay R, Ruano F, Tinaut A, Cerdá X (2016). Anthropogenic Impacts in Protected Areas: Assessing the efficiency of conservation efforts using Mediterranean ant communities. PeerJ 4:e2773. Doi: 10.7717/peerj.2773.
3. Bharti H, Guénard B, Bharti M, Economo E (2016). An updated checklist of the ants of India with their specific distributions in Indian states (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Zookeys 551:1-83. Doi: 10.3897/zookeys.551.6767.
4. Bingham CT (1903). Hymenoptera. Ants and cuckoo-wasps. In: Blanford WT (ed.). The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Vol. II. London: Taylor and Francis, 506 pp.
5. Bolton B (1994). Identification Guide to the Ant Genera of the World, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 222 pp., ISBN:9780674442801.
6. Bolton B, Alpert G, Ward P, Naskrecki P (2007). Bolton's Catalogue of Ants of the World 1758-2005. Harvard University Press. ISBN:9780674021518.
7. Buczkowski G, Richmond D (2012). The Effect of Urbanization on Ant Abundance and Diversity: A Temporal Examination of Factors Affecting Biodiversity. PloS One 7(8): e41729. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041729.
8. Evans T, Dawes T, Ward P, Lo N (2011). Ants and termites increase crop yield in a dry climate. Nature Communications 2:262, Doi: 10.1038/ncomms1257.

9. Fayle T, Turner E, Foster W (2013). Ant mosaics occur in SE Asian oil palm plantation but not rain forest and are influenced by the presence of nest-sites and non-native species. Ecography 36: 1051–1057.
10. Fisher R, Knowlton N, Brainard R, Caley M (2011). Differences among Major Taxa in the Extent of Ecological Knowledge across Four Major Ecosystems. PloS One. 6(11): e26556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026556.
11. Goulet H, Huber J (1993). Hymenoptera of the world: An identification guide to families. Canada: Canada Communication Group Publishing, 680pp, ISBN:0-660-14933-8.
12. Grimaldi D, Engel M (2005). Evolution of the Insects, New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 110726877X.
13. Hoffmann B, Andersen A (2003). Responses of ants to disturbance in Australia, with particular reference to functional groups. Austral Ecology. 28 (4): 444-464. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01301.x.
14. Holland J, Reynolds C (2005). The influence of emptying frequency of pitfall traps on the capture of epigeal invertebrates, especially Pterostichus madidus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 18: 259–263.
15. Holldobler B, Wilson E (1990). The Ants. p. 394.Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Jointly published with the Harvard University Press. Hardcover, ISBN:978-3-540-52092-4.
16. King J, Andersen A, Cutter A (1998). Ants as bioindicators of habitat disturbance: validation of the functional group model for Australia's humid tropics. Biodiversity & Conservation. 7 (12): 1627–1638.
17. King J, Porter S (2005). Evaluation of sampling methods and species richness estimators for ants in upland ecosystems in Florida. Environmental Entomology. 34:1566–1578.
18. Larsen k, Work T, Purrington F (2003). Habitat use patterns by ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of northeastern Iowa. Pedobiologia 47(3):288-299 · Doi: 10.1078/0031-4056-00192
19. Lassau S, Hochuli D (2004). Effects of habitat complexity on ant assemblages. Ecography 27: 157-164. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03675.x.
20. Lindenmayer D, Margules C, Botkin D (2000). Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management. Conservation Biology 14(4): 941–950.
21. Mukherjee A (2012). "Calcutta Botanic Garden". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
22. Parui A, Chatterjee S, Basu P (2015). Habitat characteristics shaping ant species assemblages in a mixed deciduous forest in Eastern India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 31(3): 267-280, Doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467415000036.
23. Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (1999). Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research. New York: Oxford University press, p 377, ISBN: 0-19-512083-3.
24. Royal Botanic Garden (1830). Calcutta Index. Vol. 1, 154 p. Edinburgh: American Philosophical Society press.
25. Ryder Wilkie KT, Mertl AL, Traniello JFA (2010). Species Diversity and Distribution Patterns of the Ants of Amazonian Ecuador. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13146. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013146
26. Sambamurty A (2005). Taxonomy of Angiosperms, I.K. International Publishing House Pvt. Limited. ISBN: 9788188237166.
27. Santos M (2016). Research on urban ants: approaches and gaps. Insectes Sociaux 63: 359–371.
28. Sutherland W (2006). Ecological Census Techniques. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p 432.
29. Vink C, Paquin P, Cruickshank R (2012). Taxonomy and Irreproducible Biological Science. Bioscience 62 (5):451–452, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.3.
30. Wang C, Strazanac J, Butler L (2001). A Comparison of Pitfall Traps with Bait Traps for Studying Leaf Litter Ant Communities. Journal of Economic Entomology, 94(3): 761–765, Doi: https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-94.3.761.
31. Ward D, New T, and Yen A (2001). Effects of pitfall trap spacing on the abundance, richness and composition of invertebrate catches. Journal of Insect Conservation 5:47–53. Doi: 10.1023/A:1011317423622.
32. Wright J, Gurney W, Jones C (2004). Patch dynamics in a landscape modified by ecosystem engineers. Oikos 105 (2): 336-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12654.x.
33. Yusah K, Foster W, Reynolds G, Fayle T (2018). Ant mosaics in Bornean primary rain forest high canopy depend on spatial scale, time of day, and sampling method. PeerJ 6:e4231. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4231.