1
|
Elizalde L, Arbetman M, Arnan X, Eggleton P, Leal IR, Lescano MN, Saez A, Werenkraut V, Pirk GI. The ecosystem services provided by social insects: traits, management tools and knowledge gaps. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2020; 95:1418-1441. [PMID: 32525288 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2019] [Revised: 05/06/2020] [Accepted: 05/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Social insects, i.e. ants, bees, wasps and termites, are key components of ecological communities, and are important ecosystem services (ESs) providers. Here, we review the literature in order to (i) analyse the particular traits of social insects that make them good suppliers of ESs; (ii) compile and assess management strategies that improve the services provided by social insects; and (iii) detect gaps in our knowledge about the services that social insects provide. Social insects provide at least 10 ESs; however, many of them are poorly understood or valued. Relevant traits of social insects include high biomass and numerical abundance, a diversity of mutualistic associations, the ability to build important biogenic structures, versatile production of chemical defences, the simultaneous delivery of several ESs, the presence of castes and division of labour, efficient communication and cooperation, the capacity to store food, and a long lifespan. All these characteristics enhance social insects as ES providers, highlighting their potential, constancy and efficiency as suppliers of these services. In turn, many of these traits make social insects stress tolerant and easy to manage, so increasing the ESs they provide. We emphasise the need for a conservation approach to the management of the services, as well as the potential use of social insects to help restore habitats degraded by human activities. In addition, we stress the need to evaluate both services and disservices in an integrated way, because some species of social insects are among the most problematic invasive species and native pests. Finally, we propose two areas of research that will lead to a greater and more efficient use of social insects as ES providers, and to a greater appreciation of them by producers and decision-makers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luciana Elizalde
- LIHo - Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA-CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina
| | - Marina Arbetman
- Ecopol, INIBIOMA-CONICET - Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina
| | - Xavier Arnan
- CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalunya, Barcelona, E-08193, Spain
| | - Paul Eggleton
- Life Sciences Department, The Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, U.K
| | - Inara R Leal
- Departamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, 1235 - Cidade Universitária, Recife, 50670-901, Brazil
| | - María Natalia Lescano
- LIHo - Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA-CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina
| | - Agustín Saez
- Ecopol, INIBIOMA-CONICET - Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina
| | - Victoria Werenkraut
- LIHo - Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA-CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina
| | - Gabriela I Pirk
- LIHo - Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA-CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Pasaje Gutiérrez 1125, Bariloche, 8400, Argentina
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Menta C, Remelli S. Soil Health and Arthropods: From Complex System to Worthwhile Investigation. INSECTS 2020; 11:insects11010054. [PMID: 31963103 PMCID: PMC7022451 DOI: 10.3390/insects11010054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2019] [Revised: 01/08/2020] [Accepted: 01/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
The dramatic increase in soil degradation in the last few decades has led to the need to identify methods to define not only soil quality but also, in a holistic approach, soil health. In the past twenty years, indices based on living communities have been proposed alongside the already proven physical-chemical methods. Among them, some soil invertebrates have been included in monitoring programs as bioindicators of soil quality. Being an important portion of soil fauna, soil arthropods are involved in many soil processes such as organic matter decomposition and translocation, nutrient cycling, microflora activity regulation and bioturbation. Many studies have reported the use of soil arthropods to define soil quality; among taxa, some have been explored more in depth, typically Acari and Collembola, while generally less abundant groups, such as Palpigradi or Embioptera, have not been investigated much. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the use of different soil microarthropod taxa in soil degradation/quality studies to highlight which groups are the most reported for soil monitoring and which are the most sensitive to soil degradation. We have decided not to include the two most present and abundant taxa, Acari and Collembola, in this paper in consideration of the vast amount of existing literature and focus the discussion on the other microarthropod groups. We reported some studies for each taxon highlighting the use of the group as soil quality indicator. A brief section reporting some indices based on soil microarthropods is proposed at the end of this specific discussion. This paper can be considered as a reference point in the use of soil arthropods to estimate soil quality and health.
Collapse
|