Comparison between Winkler's extractor and pitfall traps to estimate leaf litter ants richness (Formicidae) at a rainforest site in southest Brazil.
Species richness is a central topic in community ecology (Longino et al., 2002) and a fundamental component of biodiversity (Gaston, 1996). However, it is difficult to estimate the species richness of a given area, since the available techniques do not always provide a representative sample of the total richness (Agosti et al., 2000; Agosti and Alonso, 2001).
Studies on communities of leaf litter arthropods (e.g. Romero and Jaffe, 1989; Parr and Chown, 2001) point out the need for well-structured sampling protocols to properly estimate richness and evenness. In the case of ants, foraging area, nest dispersion, and activity patterns are important factors that must be considered in a sampling design (Wang et al., 2001). Researchers of ant communities suggest the combination of different techniques as the best way to estimate richness and abundance of ants (Delabie et al., 2000; Longino et al., 2002).
Pitfall traps, Winkler's extractors, food baits and hand collecting are the most efficient techniques, and, hence, the most frequently used in ant community studies. Both Winkler's extractors and pitfalls have proven to be efficient in sampling abundance and richness of leaf litter ant communities (Romero and Jaffe, 1989; Wang et al., 2001). However, Parr and Chown (2001) compared both techniques and suggested that species sampled with Winkler's extractors are more abundant and smaller than those sampled with pitfalls.
It is also possible to use data obtained with both techniques to estimate species richness. Species accumulation curves allow estimating sample completeness (Colwell and Coddigton, 1994), assessing the efficiency of the method used, and comparing different inventories (Soberon and Llorente, 1993).
Therefore, it is important to compare in the same site the efficiency of the two most used techniques for sampling ant diversity. We studied communities of leaf litter ants from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, compared richness estimates for genera and species, and built species accumulation curves with data from pitfall traps and Winkler's extractors.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study area
This study was carried out in Dense Ombrophylous Forest (IBAMA, 1996), in the "Reserva Biologica do Tingua" (ReBio Tingua, 22[degrees]28'-22[degrees]39' S and 43[degrees]13'-43[degrees] 34' W), Nova Iguacu municipality, state of Rio de Janeiro, in November 2003. Sampling was carried out in submontane rainforest (Veloso et al., 1991) at 400 m asl on average.
2.1.1. Characterisation of submontane rainforest
Submontane rainforest presents canopy height varying from 15 to 20 m on average, discontinuous in some places and where Rubiaceae, Mimosoideae, Myrtaceae and Lauraceae are the most speciose families (Rodrigues, 1996). Understory is relatively dense with high frequency of small trees and bushes. Herbaceous climbers and lianas are common, particularly at the forest edge. Some epiphytes like Orchidaceae, Bromeliaceae, Araceae and Cactaceae species are relatively frequent close to streams (IPJBRJ, 2002) (Figure 1).
Winkler's Extractors (Wke): We marked 25 points along a 1,200 m transect, and at each point we stretched two perpendicular 25 m lines; one to the left and the other to the right. At the end of each line we delimited a 1 [m.sup.2] plot, totalling 50 plots. Sifted samples from each plot were separated and placed into Winkler's extractors for 48 hours. This procedure was adapted from Delabie et al. (2000).
Pitfall traps (Pft): We use 50 pitfalls that were distributed along the previously described transect, between the plots with Winkler's extractors. Pitfalls consisted of 300 mL plastic glasses with a diameter of 7.0 cm, containing 3% formalin. Pitfalls were buried in the soil with the upper border parallel to the ground, and remained open for 48 hours.
2.3. Identification of ants
Ant genera were identified following Bolton (1994), and subfamilies following Bolton (2003). Whenever possible, identification at species level was carried out with keys from taxonomical reviews or by comparison with identified specimens from the Entomological Collection Angelo Moreira da Costa Lima (CECL), at the Institute of Biology of the Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vouchers were deposited in the same collection.
2.4. Data analysis
Species accumulation curves were built using the number of samples (Soberon and Llorente, 1993). According to Moreno and Halffter (2000) and Medellin (1993), this method is better for sampling units that grow linearly.
For each technique, the total of species per sample was randomised 1,000 times in the program EcoSim[R] (Gotelli and Entsminger, 2009) to estimate confidence intervals (adapted from Lourenco et al., 2010). Accumulation curves were built from observed and randomised data. Logarithmic functions for the randomised curves of each technique were also presented.
3. Results and Discussion
In total, we collected ants from ten subfamilies, 37 genera and 105 species (Table 1). Those two methods resulted in a satisfactory sampling of richness; 21.3% of the genera and 47.6% of the species were collected exclusively with Winkler's extractors, whereas 6.4% of the genera and 9.5% of the species were collected exclusively with pitfalls (Table 2).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Myrmicinae was the most frequent ant subfamily sampled with both techniques, and this result is probably related to the high richness and abundance of this group in the leaf litter fauna of the Neotropics (Silva and
Brandao, 1999). Veiga-Ferreira et al. (2005) and Vargas et al. (2007) recorded a high number of species of Myrmicinae in the Atlantic Forest and the Restinga of Rio de Janeiro, respectively. For each of the subfamilies Cerapachyinae and Ecitoninae, only one species was sampled with Winkler's extractors and pitfalls. This result is probably related to habitat conditions that can affect the structure of the ant community (Andersen, 2000; Holldobler and Wilson, 1990; Nakamura et al., 2003), and consequently the frequency of each species. According to Lassau and Hochuli (2004), the structural complexity of the environment directly affects species richness.
Although pitfall traps tend to capture larger ants (Olson, 1991), such as the specimens of Ectatomminae and Ponerinae recorded in the present study, they can also sample abundance and richness of the leaf litter ant community (Romero and Jaffe, 1989; Wang et al., 2001). Winkler's extractors captured smaller and cryptic leaf litter ants, such as the Myrmicinae, or even ants that are rarely collected with other techniques (Bestelmeyer et at., 2000; Castilho et al., 2007). For the Atlantic Forest, Winkler's extractor had proven to be the most efficient single sampling technique to estimate richness. However, pitfalls also recorded a significant portion of the total richness. Lassau and Hochuli (2004) collected ants using only pitfalls in complex environments, and, although those environments were different from the one studied here, ant richness was higher in environments with more complex structures. Therefore, pitfalls must be used together with other sampling techniques in the field, especially in tropical forests.
On the one hand, our results are consistent with Parr and Chown (2001), who, when comparing sampling techniques, suggested that species collected with Winkler's extractors are more abundant and smaller than the ones collected in pitfalls. On the other hand, Olson (1991) showed that Winkler's extractors and pitfalls together can sample c. 75.0% of the species richness estimated for the leaf litter ant fauna, a percentage considered reasonable for ecological studies on leaf litter.
Despite differences in efficiency, species accumulation curves for both techniques were similar (y = 19.743 Ln(x) + 19.962; [r.sup.2] = 0.9688; p < 0.001 for Wke, y = 14.487 Ln(x) - 3.348; [r.sup.2] = 0.995; p < 0.001 for Pft), as well as the curve obtained with both methods combined (y = 22.378 Ln(x) + 20.575; [r.sup.2] = 0.9739; p < 0.001 for Wke + Pft) (Figure 2). To obtain the total of 105 species recorded with both techniques combined, it would be necessary to take 64.07 samples with Wke and 111.84 with Pft. Therefore, we noticed that Winkler's extractors were c. 74.0% more efficient than pitfalls in the Atlantic Forest, corroborating results from Parr and Chown (2001).
Sampling techniques must be used with a well-structured sampling design in order to advance knowledge on the ant fauna of Brazilian biomes, especially in the leaf litter (Castilho et al. (2007) and Veiga-Ferreira et al. (2010) for new records of ant's species), allowing more complete environmental analyses. The influence of ants on edaphic processes, flux of energy and matter in ecosystems (Brown, 1997), predation, and seed dispersal (Folgarait, 1998; Passos and Oliveira, 2002, 2003; Leal, 2003) makes this insect group a good study model for environmental surveys and monitoring (Silva and Brandao, 1999).
Acknowledgements--We are grateful to the team at the Reserva Biologica do Tingua (Nova Iguacu office) and to IBAMA for the study license. This study was supported by grants from the Brazilian governmental to GOS (CAPES), to AJMN and CELS (CNPq).
ANDERSEN, AN., 2000. A global ecology of rain forest ants: Functional groups in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. In AGOSTI, D., MAJER, JD., ALONSO, LE. and SCHULTZ, TR. (Eds.). Ants: Standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Washington: Smithsonian Institutions Press. p. 25-34
AGOSTI, D. and ALONSO, LE., 2001. The all Protocol: a standard protocol for the collection of ground-dwelling ants. Anet Newsletter, vol. 3, p. 8-11.
AGOSTI, D., MAJER, JD., ALONSO, LE. and SCHULTZ, TR. (Eds.)., 2000. Ants: standand (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Washington: Smithsonian Institutions Press. 280 p.
BESTELMEYER, BT., AGOSTI, D., ALONSO, LE., BRANDAO, CRF., BROWN JUNIOR, WL., DELABIE, JHC. and SILVESTRE, R., 2000. Field techniques for the study of ground-living ants: An overview, description, and evaluation. In AGOSTI, D., MAJER, JD., ALONSO, LT. and SCHULTZ, TR. (Eds.). Ants: Standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Washington: Smithsonian Institutions Press. p.122-144
BOLTON, B., 1994. Identification Guide to the Ant Genera of the World. London: Harvard University Press. 222 p.
--, 2003. Synopsis and classification of Formicidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Instistitute, vol. 71, p. 1-370.
BRAZ, DM., MOURA, MVLP. and ROSA, MMT., 2004. Chave de identificacao para as especies de Dicotiledoneas arboreas da Reserva Biologica do Tingua, RJ, com base em caracteres vegetativos. Acta Botanica Brasilica, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 225-250.
BROWN, KS., 1997. Diversity, disturbance and sustainable use of Neotropical forests: insects as indicators for conservation monitoring. Journal of Insect Conservation, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018432508944
CASTILHO, ACC., DELABIE, JHC., MARQUES, MI., ADIS, J. and MENDES, LF., 2007. Registros Novos da Formiga Criptobiotica Creightonidris scambognatha Brown (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Neotropical Entomology, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 150-152. PMid:17420875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2007000100020
COLWELL, RK. and CODDINGTON, JA., 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, vol. 345, p. 101-118. PMid:7972351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1994.0091
DELABIE, JHC., AGOSTI, D. and NACIMEJNTO, IC., 2000. Litter ant communities of the Brazilian Atlantic rain forest region. In AGOSTI, D., MAJER, JD., ALONSO, LT. and SCHULTZ, TR. (Eds.). Sampling ground-dwelling ants: case studies from the world's rain forests. Perth, Australia: Curtin University School of Environmental Biology. p. 1-17. (Bulletin, vol. 18).
FOLGARAIT, PJ., 1998. Ant biodiversity and its relationship to ecosystem functioning: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 7, p. 1221-1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008891901953
GASTON, KJ., 1996. Species richness: measure and measurement. In GASTON, KL. (Ed.). Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Cambridge: Blackwell Science. p. 77-113.
GOTELLI, N.J. and ENTSMINGER, GL., 2009. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7. Jericho: Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear. Available from: <http://garyentsminger.com/ecosim.htm>. Access in: 05 jul. 2010.
HOLLDOBLER, B. and WILSON, EO., 1990. The Ants. Cambrigde: The Belknap Press of Havard University. 733 p.
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis--IBAMA, 1996. Plano de acao emergencial--Reserva Biologica do Tingua. Brasilia: IBAMA, 114 p.
Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botanico do Rio de Janeiro, 2002. Projeto Tingua: Paisagem e flora da reserva biologica do Tingua: subsidios ao monitoramento da vegetacao. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botanico do Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. 55 p. Relatorio tecnico-cientifico.
LASSAU, SA. and HOCHULI, DF., 2004. Effects of habitat complexity on ant assemblages. Ecography, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 157-164.
LEAL, IR., 2003, Dispersao de Sementes por Formigas. In LEAL, IR., TABARELLI, M. and SILVA, JMC. Ecologia e Conservacao da Caatinga. Recife: Ed. Univ. UFPE. p. 593-624.
LONGINO, JT., CODDINGTON, J. and COLWELL, RK., 2002. The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: estimating species richness three different ways. Ecology, vol. 83, no. 3, p. 689-702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0689:TAFOAT]2.0.CO;2
LOURENCO, EC., COSTA, LM., SILVA, RM. and ESBERARD, CEL., 2010. Bat diversity of Ilha da Marambaia, Southern Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil (Chiroptera, Mammalia). Brazilian Journal of Biology, vol. 70, no. 3, p. 511-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ S1519-69842010000300007
MEDELLIN, RA., 1993. Estructura y diversidad de una comunidad de murcielagos en el tropico humedo mexicano. In MEDELLIN, RA. and CEBALLOS, TG. (Eds.). Avances en el estudio de los mamiferos de Mexico. Mexico: Asociacion Mexicana de Mastozoologia. vol. 1, p 333-354.
MORENO, CE. and HALFFTER, G., 2000. Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity inventories using species accumulation curves. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 37, p. 149-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00483.x
NAKAMURA, A., PROCTOR, H. and CATTERALL, CP., 2003. Using soil and litter arthropods to assess the state of rainforest restoration. Ecological Management & and Restoration, vol. 4, p. 20-28. PMid:17923455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.3.x
OLSON, DM., 1991. A comparison of the efficacy of litter sifting and pitfall traps for sampling leaf litter ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a Tropical wet forest, Costa Rica. Biotropica, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 166-172.
PARR, CL. and CHOWN, SL., 2001. Inventory and bioindicator sampling: testing pitfall and Winkler methods with ants in a South African savanna. Journal of Insect Conservation, vol. 5, p. 27-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011311418962
PASSOS, L. and OLIVEIRA, PS., 2002. Ants affect the distribution and performance of seedlings of Clusia criuva, a primarily bird-dispersed rain forest tree. Journal of Ecology, vol. 90, p. 517-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00687.x
PASSOS, L. and OLIVEIRA, PS., 2003. Interactions between ants, fruits and seeds in a restinga forest in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 19, p. 261-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266467403003298
RODRIGUES, HC. 1996. Composicao floristica e fitossociologica de um trecho de Mata Atlantica na Reserva Biologica do Tingua, Nova Iguacu, Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. 77 p. Dissertacao de Mestrado.
ROMERO, H. and JAFFE, K., 1989. A comparison of methods for sampling ants (Hymenoptera:Formicidae) in savannas. Biotropica, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 348-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2388285
SILVA, RR. and BRANDAO, CRF., 1999. Formigas (Hymenoptera: Formicidae como indicadores da qualidade ambiental e da biodiversidade de outros invertebrados terrestres. Biotemas, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 55-73.
SOBERON, J. and LLORENTE, J., 1993. The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction species richness. Conservation Biology, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 480-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030480.x
VARGAS, AB., MAYHE-NUNES, AJ., QUEIROZ, JM., SOUZA, GO. and FOLLY-RAMOS, E., 2007. Efeitos de Fatores Ambientais sobre a Mirmecofauna em Comunidade de Restinga no Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Neotropical Entomology, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 28-37. PMid:17420859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519 566X2007000100004
VEIGA-FERREIRA, S., MAYHE-NUNES, AJ. and QUEIROZ, JM., 2005. Formigas de serapilheira na Reserva Biologica do Tingua, Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Revista Universidade Rural, Serie Ciencias da Vida, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 49-54.
VEIGA-FERREIRA, S., ORSOLON-SOUZA, G. and MAYHENUNES, AJ., 2010. Hymenoptera, Formicidae Latreille, 1809: New records for Atlantic Forest in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Check List, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 442-444.
VELOSO, HP., RANGEL-FILHO, ALR. and LIMA, JCA., 1991. Classificacao da Vegetacao brasileira adaptada a um sistema universal. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. 124 p.
WANG, C., STRAZANAC, J. and BUTLER, L., 2001. A comparison of Pitfall Traps with Bait Traps for studying leaf litter ant communities. Journal Economic Entomology, vol. 94, no. 3, p. 761-765. PMid:11425034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-94.3.761
Orsolon-Souza, G. (a) *, Esberard, CEL. (b), Mayhe-Nunes, AJ. (b), Vargas, AB. (c), Veiga-Ferreira, S. (a), and Folly-Ramos, E. (d)
(a) Programa de Pos-graduacao em Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro--UFRRJ, Rod. BR 465, Km 7, CEP 23890-000, Seropedica, RJ, Brazil
(b) Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro--UFRRJ
(c) Programa de Pos-graduacao em Ciencias Ambientais e Florestais, Instituto de Florestas, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro--UFRRJ
(d) Departamento de Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da Paraiba--UFPB, R. Manoel Goncalves, s/n, CEP 58297-000, Rio Tinto, PB, Brazil
* e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received July 19, 2010--Accepted November 11, 2010--Distributed November 30, 2011 (With 2 figures)
Table 1. List of species collected by Winkler's extractor and pitfall traps in submontane rainforest in "Reserva Biologica do Tingua", Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. November/2003. Subfamilies Species/Morphospecies Winkler's Pitfall extractor traps Amblyoponinae Amblyopone armigera Mayr, # # 1897 Amblyopone elongata # # (Santschi, 1912) Prionopelta punctulata # - Mayr, 1866 Ceraphachynae Cerapachys splendens # - Borgmeier, 1957 Dolichoderinae Azteca sp.1 - # Linepithema pulex Wild, # - 2007 Linepithema sp.1 # # Ecitoninae Labidus sp.1 - # Ectatominae Ectatomma permagnum # - Forel, 1908 Ectatomma edentatum # - Roger, 1863 Ectatomma brunneum F. - # Smith, 1858 Gnamptogenys cf. horni # - Gnamptogenys horni # # Santschi, 1929 Gnamptogenys rastrata # # (Mayr, 1866) Gnamptogenys cf. # - porcata Gnamptogenys cf. # - lunaris Gnamptogenys sp.1 - # Formicinae Brachymyrmex sp.1 # - Brachymyrmex sp.2 # # Brachymyrmex sp.3 # # Camponotus # - novogranadensis Mayr, 1870 Camponotus punctulatus # - Mayr, 1868 Campontous sp.1 # - Camponotus sp.2 - # Myrmicinae Acromyrmex aspersus (F. # - Smith, 1858) Attini Acromyrmex coronatus # - (Fabricius, 1804) Acromyrmex niger (F. # - Smith, 1858) Apterostigma sp.1 # # Apterostigma sp.2 # # Cyphomyrmex gr. strigatus # # sp.1 Cyphomyrmex gr. strigatus # # sp.2 Cyphomyrmex gr. rimnosus # - sp.1 Mycocepurus smithii Forel, # # 1893 Mycetarotes carinatus # - Mayhe-Nunes, 1995 Sericomyrmex sp.1 # # Sericomyrmex sp.2 # # Sericomyrmex sp.3 # # Trachymyrmex sp.1 # # Myrmicinae Basiceros bruchi Santschi, # - 1922 Non-Attini Basiceros disciger (Mayr, # - 1887) Basiceros iheringi # - (Emery, 1887) Basiceros rugiferum # # (Mayr, 1887) Carebara urichi (Wheeler, # # 1922) Crematogaster nigropilosa # - Mayr, 1870 Hylomyrma balzani (Emery, # - 1894) Hylomyrma reitteri (Mayr, # # 1887) Lachnomyrmex plaumanni # - Borgmeier, 1957 Megalomyrmex drifti Kempf, # # 1961 Megalomyrmex goeldii # # Forel, 1912 Megalomyrmex silvestrii # - Wheeler, 1909 Oxypoecus sp.1 # # Oxypoecus sp.2 # - Pheidole sp.1 # # Pheidole sp.2 # # Pheidole sp.3 # # Pheidole sp.4 # # Pheidole sp.5 # # Pheidole sp.6 # # Pheidole sp.7 # # Pheidole sp.8 # # Pheidole sp.9 # - Pheidole sp.10 # - Pyramica sp.1 # # Pyramica sp.2 # # Pyramica sp.3 # - Pyramica sp.4 - # Rogeria sp.1 # - Rogeria sp.2 # - Rogeria sp.3 # - Solenopsis sp.1 # # Solenopsis sp.2 # # Solenopsis sp.3 # - Solenopsis sp.4 # # Solenopsis sp.5 # - Solenopsis sp.6 # # Solenopsis sp.7 # - Strumigenys elongata # - Roger, 1863 Wasmannia auropunctata # # (Roger, 1863) Wasmannia lutzi Forel # # 1908 Ponerinae Anochetus mayri Emery, # - 1884 Centromyrmex sp.1 - # Hypoponera sp.1 # # Hypoponera sp.2 # - Hypoponera sp.3 # - Hypoponera sp.4 # - Hypoponera sp.5 # - Hypoponera sp.6 # - Leptogenys sp.1 # - Odontomachus chelifer # # (Latreille, 1802) Odontomachus haematodus - # (Linnaeus, 1758) Odontomachus meinerti # - Forel, 1905 Odontomachus sp.1 # - Pachycondyla bucki # - (Borgmeier, 1928) Pachycondyla ferruginea # - (F. Smith, 1858) Pachycondyla harpax # # (Fabricius, 1804) Pachycondyla stigma # # (Fabricius, 1804) Pachycondyla striata F. # # Smith, 1858 Pachycondyla venusta # # Forel, 1912 Thaumatomyrmex mutilatus # - Mayr, 1887 Proceratiinae Discothyrea sexarticulata # # Borgmeier 1954 Proceratium brasiliense # - Borgmeier, 1959 Pseudomyrmecinae Pseudomyrmex sp.1 # - Pseudomyrmex sp.2 # - Pseudomyrmex sp.3 - # Pseudomyrmex sp.4 - # # = collected by the technique; - = non-collected by the technique. Table 2. Distribution of genera and species richness of each Formicidae subfamilies sampled by Winkler's extractor (Wke) and pitfall traps (Pft) at "Rebio Tingua", Brazil, November/2003. Subfamily Genera Species Wke Pft Common Wke both techniques Amblyoponinae 2 (1) 1 (-) 1 3 (1) Cerapachyinae 1 (1) -- -- -- 1 (1) Dolichoderinae 1 (-) 2 (1) 1 2 (1) Ecitoninae -- -- 1 (1) -- -- -- Ectatomminae 2 (-) 2 (-) 2 7 (5) Formicinae 2 (-) 2 (-) 2 6 (4) Myrmicinae 20 (4) 9 (-) 14 54 (23) Ponerinae 6 (3) 4 (1) 3 20 (12) Proceratiinae 2 (1) 1 (-) -- 2 (1) Pseudomyrmecinae 1 (-) 1 (-) 1 2 (2) Total 37 (10) 23 (3) 24 97 (50) Subfamily Species Pft Common both techniques Amblyoponinae 2 (-) 2 Cerapachyinae -- -- -- Dolichoderinae 2 (1) 1 Ecitoninae 1 (1) -- Ectatomminae 4 (2) 2 Formicinae 3 (1) 2 Myrmicinae 32 (1) 31 Ponerinae 8 (2) 6 Proceratiinae 1 (-) 1 Pseudomyrmecinae 2 (2) -- Total 55 (10) 45 Exclusive genera and species for each technique are within parenthesis.