| Literature DB >> 31166963 |
Janine Schyra1, Jean Norbert B K Gbenyedji2,3, Judith Korb1,3.
Abstract
Termites (Isoptera) are important ecosystem engineers of tropical ecosystems. However, they are notoriously difficult to identify, which hinders ecological research. To overcome these problems, we comparatively studied termite assemblages in the two major West African ecosystems, savannah and forest, both under natural settings and along disturbance gradients. We identified all species using morphological as well as molecular markers. We hypothesized species richness to be higher in the forest than the savannah and that it declines with disturbance in both ecosystems. Overall we found more species in the forest than in the savannah. However, alpha diversity per site did not differ between both ecosystems with on average around ten species. For both ecosystems, species diversity did not decrease along the studied disturbance gradient but encounter rates did. For the forest, we did not detect a decline in soil feeding termites and an increase of fungus grower Macrotermitinae with disturbance as some other studies did. Yet, soil feeders were generally rare. Strikingly, the set of morphologically difficult-to-identify Macrotermitinae (Microtermes and Ancistrotermes) was as high in the forest as in the savannah with little species overlap between both ecosystems. Using phylogenetic community analyses, we found little evidence for strong structuring mechanisms such as environmental filtering or interspecific competition. Most local assemblages did not differ significantly from random assemblages of the regional species pool. Our study is the most comprehensive of its kind. It provides the most reliable termite species list for West Africa that builds the basis for further ecological studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31166963 PMCID: PMC6550446 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of Africa with the location of the two sampling regions savannah and forest in Togo.
The savannah in northern Togo with the distribution of the 14 protected sampling sites (Park) and 13 fallows and the forest in the south east of Togo with 10 protected forest sites and seven teak plantation sites. ● = protected sites; x = disturbed sites.
Fig 2Input Bayesian phylogeny of the (a) savannah and (b) tropical forest ecosystems for the program Phylocom based on the gene cytochrome oxidase II.
Occurrence of species: = in both regimes; = protected only; = disturbed only.
Comparison of the regional species pools for the savannah and tropical forest with presence/absence and total species richness.
| savannah | tropical forest | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fg | Park | fallows | Forest | Teak pl. | |
| I | - | - | X | X | |
| I | - | - | X | X | |
| IIg | - | - | X | - | |
| IIg | X | X | X | - | |
| IIg | X | X | X | - | |
| IIg | X | X | X | - | |
| IIg | X | X | - | X | |
| II | - | X | X | X | |
| II | - | - | X | - | |
| IIf | X | X | X | X | |
| IIf | X | X | X | X | |
| IIf | - | - | X | X | |
| IIf | X | X | - | - | |
| IIf | X | X | - | - | |
| IIf | - | - | X | X | |
| IIf | - | - | X | X | |
| IIf | X | X | - | - | |
| IIf | X | X | X | - | |
| IIf | X | X | X | X | |
| IIf | - | - | X | X | |
| IIf | - | - | X | - | |
| IIf | X | X | - | - | |
| IIf | X | - | - | X | |
| IIf | - | - | X | - | |
| III | X | X | X | X | |
| III | X | X | X | X | |
| III | - | - | X | X | |
| II | X | X | X | X | |
| II | - | - | X | - | |
| II | - | - | X | X | |
| IV | - | - | X | X | |
| IV | - | - | X | - | |
| III | X | - | X | X | |
| IV | - | - | X | X | |
| II | X | X | X | X | |
| III | - | - | - | X | |
| III | - | X | - | - | |
| IV | - | - | - | X | |
| IV | X | - | - | - | |
| III | X | X | - | - | |
Shown are presence/absence and total numbers of species including feeding groups (fg) for the two ecosystems savannah and tropical forest with its classification into protected and disturbed habitats. The classification of feeding groups follows Donovan et al. [33]: I: dead wood-feeders; II: wood-litter feeders (IIg: grass feeders; IIf: fungus growers); III: humus feeders; IV: true soil feeders.
1 species which were identified identically with the phylogenetic inference and the species delimitation approach;
(1) species which were identified identically with both approaches in the savannah but not in forest,
2species which were only possible to unambiguously identify with the help of the molecular approaches but not with morphological traits.
Fig 3Comparison of (a) net relatedness index (NRI), (b) species richness and (c) number of total encounters between park and fallows in comparison with (d) net relatedness index (NRI), (e) species richness and (f) number of total encounters between forest and teak plantations.
Fig 4Similarity among sites within and between habitat regimes in the savannah (a-c) and forest (d-f) ecosystem.
Figures (a) and (d) show the number of shared species, (b,e) compositional similarity measured with the Bray-Curtis index and (c,f) phylogenetic similarity measured with the PhyloSor index. F = fallows, P = Park; T = Teak plantation, Fo = Forest.