Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T12:11:23.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of seasonality on drosophilids (Insecta, Diptera) in the northern part of the Atlantic Forest, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

R.D. Coutinho-Silva
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Celular e Molecular Aplicada, Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
M.A. Montes
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
G.F. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
F.G. de Carvalho-Neto
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
C. Rohde
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Celular e Molecular Aplicada, Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Humana e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Vitória de Santo Antão, PE, Brazil
A.C.L. Garcia*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Humana e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Vitória de Santo Antão, PE, Brazil
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +55 (81) 3523 3351 Fax: +55 (81) 2126 8000 E-mail: alauergarcia@yahoo.com.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seasonality is an important aspect associated with population dynamic and structure of tropical insect assemblages. This study evaluated the effects of seasonality on abundance, richness, diversity and composition of an insect group, drosophilids, including species native to the Neotropical region and exotic ones. Three preserved fragments of the northern Atlantic Forest were surveyed, where temperatures are above 20 °C throughout the year and rainfall regimes define two seasons (dry and rainy). As opposed to other studies about arthropods in tropical regions, we observed that abundance of drosophilids was significantly higher in the dry season, possibly due to biological aspects and the colonization strategy adopted by the exotic species in these environments. Contrarily to abundance, we did not observe a seasonal pattern for richness. As for other parts of the Atlantic Forest, the most representative Neotropical species (Drosophila willistoni, D. sturtevanti, D. paulistorum and D. prosaltans) were significantly more abundant in the rainy season. Among the most abundant exotic species, D. malerkotliana, Zaprionus indianus and Scaptodrosophila latifasciaeformis were more importantly represented the dry season, while D. simulans was more abundant in the rainy period. The seasonality patterns exhibited by the most abundant species were compared to findings published in other studies. Our results indicate that exotic species were significantly more abundant in the dry season, while native ones exhibited an opposite pattern.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Introduction

Arthropods represent approximately 80% of the species of the Animalia kingdom. Among these, insects have the highest richness and a considerable number of species live in rainforests (Zhang, Reference Zhang2011). Despite the deforestation, the Atlantic Forest is one of the largest rainforests in the Americas, with substantial species richness and endemism rates (Myers et al., Reference Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Fonseca and Kent2000; Galindo-Leal & Câmara, Reference Galindo-Leal, Câmara, Galindo-Leal and Câmara2003; Ribeiro et al., Reference Ribeiro, Metzger, Martensen, Ponzoni and Hirot2009; Scarano & Ceotto, Reference Scarano and Ceotto2015). Its latitudinal range is around 29° extending along the Brazilian coast and adjacent regions in Argentina and Paraguay (Ribeiro et al., Reference Ribeiro, Metzger, Martensen, Ponzoni and Hirot2009). This wide latitudinal extension of the Atlantic Forest and the significant oscillation in geographical relief result in different climate types and vegetation physiognomies across its domain area (Galindo-Leal & Câmara, Reference Galindo-Leal, Câmara, Galindo-Leal and Câmara2003; Pinto & Brito, Reference Pinto, Brito, Galindo-Leal and Câmara2003; Tabarelli et al., Reference Tabarelli, Pinto, Silva, Hirota and Bedê2005).

Several studies have produced evidence of the seasonal changes in abundance, richness, composition and diversity of tropical insects (Janzen & Schoener, Reference Janzen and Schoener1968; Pinheiro et al., Reference Pinheiro, Diniz, Coelho and Bandeira2002; Basset et al., Reference Basset, Novotny, Miller and Kitching2003; Grimbacher & Stork, Reference Grimbacher and Stork2009; Neves et al., Reference Neves, Oliveira, Espírito-Santo, Vaz-de-Mello, Louzada, Sanchez-Azofeifa and Fernandes2010; Ferreira et al., Reference Ferreira, Martins, Paixão and Silva2015). A specific group of insects, drosophilids, have become the object of considerable research addressing seasonal variations in the southern part of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil (Dobzhansky & Pavan, Reference Dobzhansky and Pavan1950; Saavedra et al., Reference Saavedra, Callegari-Jacques, Naap and Valente1995; De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007; Bizzo et al., Reference Bizzo, Gottschalk, De Toni and Hofmann2010; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Hochmüller, Valente and Schmitz2012), where marked temperature and rainfall changes are observed throughout the year, characterized by four distinct seasons. The seasonality of drosophilids inhabiting the northern part of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest has been little investigated, despite the influence of rainfall on the region's seasonal features, while the temperature range is less extensive. As opposed to the southern portion of the biome, only two seasons are observed, the rainy and the dry (Colombo & Joly, Reference Colombo and Joly2010).

Seasonality is an important factor in survival strategies adopted by numerous organisms, playing an essential role in the knowledge about populations and the structure of tropical insect communities in a given area (Wolda, Reference Wolda1978a , Reference Wolda b ; Spitzer et al., Reference Spitzer, Novotny, Tonner and Leps1993). Seasonal patterns may interfere in population size, reproductive activity and the availability of food resources, among other aspects (Wolda, Reference Wolda1988). Although several insect species may be living in similar seasonal situations, they do not exhibit the same response pattern to environmental changes permanently. In other words, each species exhibits particular adaptations that underline their seasonal cycles (Tauber & Tauber, Reference Tauber and Tauber1981). From this perspective, understanding how seasonal changes impact ecological parameters of native as well as exotic insect species has fascinated researchers interested in evaluating the effects of biological invasions in natural environments (Sax et al., Reference Sax, Stachowicz, Brown, Bruno, Dawson, Gaines, Grosberg, Hastings, Holt, Mayfield, O'Connor and Rice2007).

This study evaluated the influence of seasonality on abundance, richness, composition and diversity of the drosophilid assemblage focused on species native to the Neotropical region and exotic ones in Atlantic Forest fragments on the north region of its distribution range.

Material and methods

Study sites

Adult drosophilids were collected in three preserved fragments of the Atlantic Forest in the state of Pernambuco, northeast Brazil: Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin (Darwin, 07°48′S; 34°57′W), Estação Experimental de Itapirema (Itapirema, 07°38′S; 34°56′W) and Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá (Tapacurá, 08°03′S; 35°13′W) (fig. 1). The first two fragments cover an area of approximately 60 hectares (ha) (Costa-Lima, Reference Costa-Lima1998; Mascarenhas et al., Reference Mascarenhas, Beltrão, Souza, Galvão, Pereira and Miranda2005), while Tapacurá stretches across 382 ha (Coelho, Reference Coelho1979). The three areas studied have similar phytogeographic characteristics, and are classified as dense ombrophilous forests, all of which are located in the Pernambuco subregion (IBGE, 2012).

Fig. 1. Map of Brazil showing the Atlantic Forest domain in the country (grey area) and the three fragments where drosophilids were collected. Itapirema = Estação Experimental de Itapirema, Darwin = Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin and Tapacurá =Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá.

Climate in the region is type As according to the Köpen classification system, defined as tropical moist with dry summers and rainfall below 60 mm in the season of greater drought. The rainy season starts in April and ends in August, when almost 70% of all rain volume is recorded in a year. Annual rainfall exceeds 2000 mm. Mean temperature is approximately 25 °C, oscillating between 22 and 30 °C (INMET, 2016; LAMEPE, 2016).

Collection and identification of drosophilids

Two collections were carried out in the rainy (between June and August) and two in the dry (between January and March) seasons in each study fragment between March 2011 and June 2012. Ten traps baited with banana and constructed with plastic bottles according to Tidon & Sene (Reference Tidon and Sene1988) were placed in each fragment for 3 days. Traps were hung 1.5 m above the ground and 30 m away from one another along a linear transect located 500 m away from the fragment edge.

The drosophilids captured were characterized using taxonomic keys (Freire-Maia & Pavan, Reference Freire-Maia and Pavan1949; Poppe et al., Reference Poppe, Schmitz, Grimaldi and Valente2014) and species descriptions (Val & Sene, Reference Val and Sene1980; Vilela & Bächli, Reference Vilela and Bächli1990; Chassagnard & Tsacas, Reference Chassagnard and Tsacas1993; Bächli et al., Reference Bächli, Vilela, Escher and Saura2004; Culik & Ventura, Reference Culik and Ventura2009). Cryptic species were recognized after inspection of male genitalia. Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans were identified based on the shape of the posterior salience of the genital arch (Salles, Reference Salles1948). The males of the willistoni subgroup of Drosophila were named considering the shape of the hypandrium (Burla et al., Reference Burla, Da Cunha, Cordeiro, Dobzhansky, Malogolowkin and Pavan1949; Malogolowkin Reference Malogolowkin1952; Rohde et al., Reference Rohde, Monteiro, Cabral, Silva, Oliveira, Montes and Garcia2010). Other cryptic species were documented after inspection male terminalia (Breuer & Pavan, Reference Breuer and Pavan1950; Magalhães & Björnberg, Reference Magalhães and Björnberg1957; Vilela, Reference Vilela1983; Vilela & Bächli, Reference Vilela and Bächli1990; Vilela et al., Reference Vilela, Silva and Sene2002). For the analysis of male terminalia, flies were prepared in potassium hydroxide (KOH) 10%, stained in acid fuchsin and dissected in glycerol (Bächli et al., Reference Bächli, Vilela, Escher and Saura2004). The number of females of cryptic species was estimated calculating each species’ sex ratio.

Voucher specimens were deposited in the drosophilid collection of the Laboratório de Genetica, Centro Acadêmico de Vitória, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil. The species were also categorized as native to the Neotropical region and exotic (Gottschalk et al., Reference Gottschalk, Hofmann and Valente2008).

Ecological analyses

Richness and abundance of each species were recorded during each field excursion. These parameters were used to estimate the Shannon–Wiener diversity (H′) and the Smith and Wilson's evenness (E var) indices in the software Ecological Methodology (Kenney & Krebs, Reference Kenney and Krebs2000).

Species accumulation curves were constructed for each fragment surveyed and compared using the jackknife 1 species estimator, calculated in the software Biodiversity Pro, version 2 (McAleece et al., Reference McAleece, Lambshead, Paterson and Gage1997).

Similarity trees were constructed using the Jaccard and Morisita indices in the software PAST, version 1.94b (Hammer et al., Reference Hammer, Harper and Ryan2001). The temporal and spatial distribution patterns of the Neotropical and exotic species were characterized based on the relative abundance of individuals. The Chi-square (χ2) test was used to compare absolute richness and abundance considering the two seasons (dry and rainy), the three survey sites (Darwin, Itapirema and Tapacurá) and the species native to the Neotropical region and the exotic ones. The null hypothesis assumed was that these categories of comparison do not differ significantly.

Results

In total, 40,911 drosophilids of 36 species and 6 genera (Drosophila, Neotanygastrella, Rhinoleucophenga, Scaptodrosophila, Zaprionus and Zygothrica) were collected. Drosophila was the richest genus, with 29 species, followed by Rhinoleucophenga, with 3. The other genera included one species each (table 1). The Neotropical and exotic drosophilids captured were represented by 29 and 7 species, respectively. Exotic species accounted for 75.44% of total abundance recorded.

Table 1. List of drosophilid species native to the Neotropical region and exotic ones (*) in the rainy and dry seasons for the sampling excursions carried out in three fragments of the Atlantic Forest, north of their distribution.

N, number of individuals; S obs, species richness observed; H′, Shannon–Wiener heterogeneity index; E var, Smith–Wilson evenness index.

Spatial variation

The highest richness was recorded in Darwin (27 species), followed by Tapacurá (25 species) and Itapirema (22 species). The jackknife 1 estimator revealed that the richness values observed are similar to the values estimated for each fragment, when 35, 29 and 27 species were expected in Darwin, Tapacurá and Itapirema, respectively. Abundance followed an opposite pattern as that of richness, when Itapirema had the largest number of individuals, followed by Tapacurá and Darwin (table 1). The analysis of species composition estimated by the Jaccard index showed that species clustered for fragment surveyed (fig. 2a), indicating that the drosophilid assemblages living in the three sites were different.

Fig. 2. Similarity tree based on the Jaccard (a) and Morisita (b) indices for the drosophilids collections carried out in the rainy and dry seasons in the Atlantic Forest domain, in Itapirema (Estação Experimental de Itapirema), Darwin (Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin) and Tapacurá (Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá).

Temporal variation

No significant difference was observed in richness between seasons: 34 species were recorded in the rainy season, 28 in the dry (χ2 = 0.581, df = 1, P = 0.5250). Species richness was higher in the rainy season in all localities (table 1), though with no significant difference (χ2 = 0.286, df = 2, P = 0.8670). Similarly, no differences were observed in richness of native (χ2 = 0.750, df = 1, P = 0.3865) and exotic (χ2 = 0.070, df = 1, P = 0.7815) species between seasons.

Abundance was five times as high during the dry season, with significant statistical difference (χ2 = 18,368.472, df = 1, P < 0.0001). In all localities, the number of individuals recorded was higher in this season (Itapirema: χ2 = 15,231.761, df = 1, P < 0.0001; Darwin: χ2 = 3073.778, df = 1, P < 0.0001; Tapacurá: χ2 = 1488.783, df = 1, P < 0.0001). In the dry season, exotic species were more abundant than Neotropical species, independently of fragment surveyed (χ2 = 14,837.545, df = 1, P < 0.0001). However, in the rainy season the species native to the Neotropical region were more abundant (χ2 = 425.696, df = 1, P < 0.0001) (fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Relative abundance of drosophilid species native to the Neotropical region and exotic ones in the rainy and dry seasons, in three Atlantic Forest fragments: Itapirema (Estação Experimental de Itapirema), Darwin (Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin) and Tapacurá (Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá).

Rare species (with abundance values below 1%) represented 77.78% of the richness, but only 1.53% of the abundance. Eight species had relative abundance above 1%, four of which were exotic (D. malerkotliana, Z. indianus, D. simulans and S. latifasciaeformis) and four were Neotropical (D. willistoni, D. sturtevanti, D. paulistorum and D. prosaltans) (fig. 4). Together, these species accounted for 98.47% of the total abundance.

Fig. 4. Ranking based on abundance of 36 drosophilid species collected in three fragments of the Atlantic Forest. 1 = Drosophila malerkotliana, 2 = D. willistoni, 3 = Zaprionus indianus, 4 = D. sturtevanti, 5 = D. simulans, 6 = Scaptodrosophila latifasciaeformis, 7 = D. paulistorum, 8 = D. prosaltans, 9 = D. mercatorum, 10 = D. nebulosa, 11 = D. neocardini, 12 = D. melanogaster, 13 = D. fumipennis, 14 = D. ararama, 15 = Rhinoleucophenga punctulata, 16 = D. sp7, 17 = D. cardinoides, 18 = D. pictilis, 19 = D. polymorpha, 20 = D. ellisoni, 21 = D. sp6, 22 = D. ananassae, 23 = D. sp2, 24 = D. sp5, 25 = Neotanygastrella tricoloripes, 26 = Zygothrica orbitalis, 27 = D. zottii, 28 = D. sp9, 29 = D. sp10, 30 = D. sp1, 31 = D. sp3, 32 = R. sp1, 33 = D. sp4, 34 = D. sp8, 35 = R. capixabensis, 36 = D. kikkawai.

Concerning the most abundant exotic species, i.e. D. malerkotliana, Z. indianus and S. latifasciaeformis were more intensively captured in the dry season (χ2 = 1527.360, df = 1, P < 0.0001; χ2 = 886.261, df = 1, P < 0.0001; χ2 = 232.865, df = 1, P < 0.0001, respectively) (table 1). The three species were more representatively collected in this season, in all fragments studied. But the opposite behaviour was observed for D. simulans, which was more abundant during high rainfall periods (χ2 = 1131.867, df = 1, P < 0.0001) (fig. 5a).

Fig. 5. Seasonal variation of exotic (a) and native drosophilid species to the Neotropical region (b) in three fragments of the Atlantic Forest: Itapirema (Estação Experimental de Itapirema), Darwin (Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin) and Tapacurá (Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá).

Drosophila willistoni, D. sturtevanti, D. paulistorum and D. prosaltans were significantly more abundant in the rainy season (χ2 = 275.179, df = 1, P < 0.0001; χ2 = 112.901, df = 1, P < 0.0001; χ2 = 111.284, df = 1, P < 0.0001; χ2 = 58.243, df = 1, P < 0.0001, respectively) (table 1). The relative abundance of the four species was higher in this season, in all localities. The exception was D. sturtevanti in Tapacurá (fig. 5b).

Drosophila malerkotliana was the most abundant species recorded in this study, with more than 60% of the flies collected. It was the dominant species in the dry season, when it accounted for almost 70% of the individuals captured, against 21% in the rainy season. During this period D. willistoni was the main species, representing more than 40% of the total number of drosophilids observed, as opposed to <7% of the flies captured in the period of drought (table 1).

The similarity tree constructed using the Morisita index formed clusters for season (fig. 2b). The rainy season had higher diversity indices (H′ = 2.639, E var = 0.119), compared with the period of drought (H′ = 1.731, E var = 0.076). This was also observed for the fragment surveyed, when analysed separately (table 1).

Discussion

Seasonality in tropical regions is often marked by contrasting seasons concerning rainfall volumes, when temperature does not vary considerably (Peel et al., Reference Peel, Finlayson and McMahon2007). In this study, we evaluated areas of similar characteristics in the northern Atlantic Forest, observing that drosophilids are significantly more abundant in the dry season. It was in this period that exotic species were more numerous, while native ones were more abundant in the rainy season. No significant differences were observed in richness between seasons and between the fragments surveyed. Also, the highest diversity indices were recorded in the rainy period.

The average number of drosophilids captured per trap was similar to the values recorded in the northern Atlantic Forest (Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Silva, Monteiro, Oliveira, Montes and Rohde2014; Monteiro et al., Reference Monteiro, Garcia, Oliveira and Rohde2016) and higher compared with studies carried out in the southern part of the biome (Gottschalk et al., Reference Gottschalk, De Toni, Valente and Hofmann2007; Döge et al., Reference Döge, Valente and Hofmann2008; Cavasini et al., Reference Cavasini, Buschini, Machado and Mateus2014). Richness values were near those observed in other parts of the Atlantic Forest (De Toni & Hofmann, Reference De Toni and Hofmann1995; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Valiati, Gottschalk, Rohde and Valente2008; Penariol & Madi-Ravazzi, Reference Penariol and Madi-Ravazzi2013). These comparisons and the jackknife 1 values that were similar to the observed ones reveal that the sampling strategy adopted was efficient.

The similarity tree constructed using the Jaccard index clustered collections for study areas, indicating that drosophilid assemblages are different in the sites surveyed, even though these were geographically close. Differences in species composition in Atlantic Forest fragments in somewhat distant sites have been observed in other investigations about drosophilids (De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007; Gottschalk et al., Reference Gottschalk, De Toni, Valente and Hofmann2007; Döge et al., Reference Döge, Valente and Hofmann2008). The fact that the three fragments analysed in this study had heterogeneous assemblages and similar responses concerning the parameters investigated indicates that our results may reflect the patterns expected for these organisms in the northern Atlantic Forest.

Although a larger number of drosophilid species have been recorded in the rainy season, the seasonal differences in richness were not significant. In other areas of the northern Atlantic Forest (Monteiro et al., Reference Monteiro, Garcia, Oliveira and Rohde2016) as well as in the southern part of the biome (Torres & Madi-Ravazzi, Reference Torres and Madi-Ravazzi2006; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Hochmüller, Valente and Schmitz2012), higher richness values of these drosophilids were also observed in the rainy season. Concerning other arthropod groups, such as coleopterans, isopterans and arachnids, no significant differences were reported for richness in terms of seasonality in tropical forests (Vasconcellos, Reference Vasconcellos2003; Dias et al., Reference Dias, Brescovit, Couto and Martins2006, Anu et al., Reference Anu, Sabu and Vineesh2009).

In the Cerrado, a biome characterized by a dry season and a more intense water deficit compared with the northern Atlantic Forest, seasonal differences in richness have been observed for drosophilids, when the highest number of species was recorded in times of higher rainfall (Tidon, Reference Tidon2006; Mata et al., Reference Mata, Roque and Tidon2008; Roque et al., Reference Roque, Mata and Tidon2013). In the Atlantic Forest, humidity is more consistently preserved in periods of low rainfall (Por et al., Reference Por, Imperatriz-Fonseca and Lencioni2005). Therefore, reduced rain volumes do not seem to represent a limiting factor to drosophilid richness in this environment.

Contrasting with our results, several other studies about tropical insects have demonstrated the higher abundance of individuals in the rainy season (Owen & Chanter, Reference Owen and Chanter1970; Wolda, Reference Wolda1978a ; Denlinger, Reference Denlinger1980; Smythe, Reference Smythe, Leigh, Rand and Windsor1982; Frith & Frith, Reference Frith and Frith1985, Hammond, Reference Hammond, Knight and Holloway1990; Hill, Reference Hill1993; Novotny & Basset, Reference Novotny and Basset1998; Devries & Walla, Reference Devries and Walla2001). Although our findings did not reproduce this model when Neotropical and exotic species are considered together, the pattern is observed when only Neotropical species are included in the analysis. Probably, trophic resources are more readily available in the rainy season (Buril et al., Reference Buril, Melo, Alves-Araújo and Alves2013), which is an advantage for native species (David et al., Reference David, Allemand, van Herrewege, Cohet, Ashburner, Carson and Thompson1983; Döge et al., Reference Döge, Valadão and Tidon2015). In turn, it may be supposed that exotic species were more successful when invading these natural areas, by using the resources available in the dry season.

There is no single pattern to describe the seasonal abundance of exotic and native drosophilids in different parts of the world. Our findings reflect the configuration observed by Srinath & Shivanna (Reference Srinath and Shivanna2014), for instance, who investigated the drosophilid fauna in India, recording greater abundance of native species in the rainy season. This was also observed in Brazil, more specifically in the Cerrado (Mata et al., Reference Mata, Roque and Tidon2008) and in the southern part of the Atlantic Forest (Torres & Madi-Ravazzi, Reference Torres and Madi-Ravazzi2006). Concerning exotic species, Bombin & Reed (Reference Bombin and Reed2016), confirm our results, noting that these flies are more abundant during drought periods in North America, similarly to what was reported by Mata et al. (Reference Mata, Roque and Tidon2008) in Brazil.

The diversity indices (H′ and E var) were higher in the rainy season. In the southern Atlantic Forest, these indices have exhibited a trend towards increasing values during the dry period (De Toni & Hofmann, Reference De Toni and Hofmann1995; De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007; Gottschalk et al., Reference Gottschalk, De Toni, Valente and Hofmann2007). In this study, the high dominance of exotic species in the dry season justifies the lower E var values recorded. The greater richness and evenness of abundance values when rainfall volumes are increased explain the higher H′ values observed in this season.

Approximately 80% of the richness of the drosophilid assemblage analysed was formed by rare species, which are represented by those whose frequency is below 1%. This pattern is regularly observed for Neotropical arthropods (Novotny & Basset, Reference Novotny and Basset2000; Coddington et al., Reference Coddington, Agnarsson, Miller, Kuntner and Hormiga2009), and it has been described in studies about drosophilids from the Atlantic Forest (Schmitz et al., Reference Schmitz, Hofmann and Valente2010, Cavasini et al., Reference Cavasini, Buschini, Machado and Mateus2014) and other biomes, such as the Amazon Forest (Acurio et al., Reference Acurio, Rafael and Dangles2010), the Cerrado (Roque et al., Reference Roque, Mata and Tidon2013) and the Caatinga (Oliveira et al., Reference Oliveira, Rohde, Garcia, Montes and Valente2016). From the ecological and evolutionary standpoints, rare species are those that have become more specialized to a few environments (Dobzhansky & Pavan, Reference Dobzhansky and Pavan1950).

The occurrence of intraspecific variations in temporal abundance patterns of several insect groups has been well documented (Wolda & Broadhead, Reference Wolda and Broadhead1985; Wolda, Reference Wolda1989; Wolda et al., Reference Wolda, O'Brien and Stockwell1998; Noguera et al., Reference Noguera, Zaragoza-Caballero, Chemsak, Rodríguez-Palafox, Ramirez, González-Soriano and Ayala2002; Wiwatwitaya & Takeda, Reference Wiwatwitaya and Takeda2005; Kishimoto-Yamada et al., Reference Kishimoto-Yamada, Itioka, Sakai and Ichie2010). In this study, among the most abundant exotic drosophilids, D. malerkotliana, Z. indianus and S. latifasciaeformis were more considerably recorded in the dry season, while D. simulans was more abundant in the rainy period. Of these, low abundance of S. latifasciaeformis has been recorded in other areas of the Atlantic Forest (De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007; Bizzo et al., Reference Bizzo, Gottschalk, De Toni and Hofmann2010), making a comparison with our results more difficult.

The pattern observed for D. simulans has been recorded in the southern Atlantic Forest (Schmitz et al., Reference Schmitz, Valente and Hofmann2007, Döge et al., Reference Döge, Valente and Hofmann2008; Bizzo et al., Reference Bizzo, Gottschalk, De Toni and Hofmann2010; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Hochmüller, Valente and Schmitz2012). Ecological findings point to the higher sensitivity of this species to water deficit, compared with other drosophilids (David et al., Reference David, Allemand, Capy, Chakir, Gibert, Pétavy and Moreteau2004). Bombin & Reed (Reference Bombin and Reed2016) also observed significant positive correlation of D. simulans with high rainfall periods in the USA. Studies have shown that this species is strongly influenced by the availability of trophic resources (Döge et al., Reference Döge, Valadão and Tidon2015). It is possible that, in the fragments surveyed in this study, these resources are more plentiful during the rainy season (Buril et al., Reference Buril, Melo, Alves-Araújo and Alves2013), which may be favourable to this species.

Contrasting with the pattern observed, D. malerkotliana and Z. indianus have been recorded more abundantly during periods of more intense rains in their native sites, in Asia (Srinath & Shivanna, Reference Srinath and Shivanna2014) and Africa (Prigent et al., Reference Prigent, Le Gall, Mbunda and Veuille2013), respectively. This pattern is also observed in the southern part of the Atlantic Forest (Tidon-Sklorz & Sene, Reference Tidon-Sklorz and Sene1992; De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007; Bizzo et al., Reference Bizzo, Gottschalk, De Toni and Hofmann2010). These data demonstrate that these species do not present a uniform seasonal fluctuation pattern concerning rainfall along their distribution range in the biome. It is possible that other abiotic factors such as temperature (which is comparatively low and varies more broadly in the southern Atlantic Forest) could explain these oscillations. Low temperatures may limit population sizes of Z. indianus in the southern Atlantic Forest (Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Valiati, Gottschalk, Rohde and Valente2008). At 18 °C, this species’ biological cycle may extend for up to 1 month (Nava et al., Reference Nava, Nascimento, Stein, Haddad, Bento and Parra2007), which is too long for a colonizing drosophilid (Atkinson, Reference Atkinson1979). Similarly, D. malerkotliana is also influenced by temperature, with reduced fertility below 20 °C and total interruption of its development at 15 °C (Medeiros et al., Reference Medeiros, Martins and David2003).

Concerning D. malerkotliana, which was the most abundant species in this work, studies have shown its opportunistic character, taking over trophic resources at least 24 h before other drosophilids. This aspect, besides its short life cycle (Martins, Reference Martins, Bierregaard, Gascon, Lovejoy and Mesquita2001) and the likely occupation of sites that are inaccessible to other species are characteristics that may lend competitive advantages to D. malerkotliana, particularly in times when food resources are more limited.

The greater abundance of Neotropical species in the rainy season may be attributed mainly to species of the willistoni (D. willistoni and D. paulistorum) and of the saltans (D. sturtevanti and D. prosaltans) subgroups. In a study about the first subgroup, Garcia et al. (Reference Garcia, Silva, Monteiro, Oliveira, Montes and Rohde2014) had already observed the identical seasonal pattern in other fragments in the northern Atlantic Forest, which has also been reported for the southern part of the biome (Dobzhansky & Pavan Reference Dobzhansky and Pavan1950; Franck & Valente, Reference Franck and Valente1985; Tidon-Sklorz & Sene, Reference Tidon-Sklorz and Sene1992; Saavedra et al., Reference Saavedra, Callegari-Jacques, Naap and Valente1995; De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007; Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Hochmüller, Valente and Schmitz2012). Dobzhansky (Reference Dobzhansky1957) and Spassky et al. (Reference Spassky, Richmond, Pérez-Salas, Pavlovsky, Mourão, Hunter, Hoenigsberg, Dobzhansky and Ayala1971) highlight the fact that humidity is a limiting factor for these species, which may explain their higher abundance values in the rainy season.

Drosophila sturtevanti exhibited one single seasonal pattern along the whole extension of the Atlantic Forest, with greater abundance in the rainy season (Torres & Madi-Ravazzi Reference Torres and Madi-Ravazzi2006; De Toni et al., Reference De Toni, Gottschalk, Cordeiro, Hofmann and Valente2007). Torres & Madi-Ravazzi (Reference Torres and Madi-Ravazzi2006) observed a positive correlation of this species with rainfall. Considering D. prosaltans, few individuals have been collected in the southern part of the Atlantic Forest, preventing any discussion about a seasonal pattern for this species along the biome.

In the dry season, when trophic resources (especially fruit) are less readily available in the northern Atlantic Forest (Buril et al., Reference Buril, Melo, Alves-Araújo and Alves2013), generalist species have greater survival success, which explains their dominance in this period. Drosophila malerkotliana, Z. indianus, S. latifasciaeformis and D. simulans are generalist species (Yassin et al., Reference Yassin, Gidaszewski, Albert, Hiver, David, Orgogozo and Debat2012), and the first three have larger populations during the dry period. These findings demonstrate that the seasonal pattern observed in this study is explained by differences in abundance between native and exotic species, indicating the adoption of adaptation strategies by these groups.

Acknowledgements

The authors were grateful to the following funding agencies: Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE), Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação (PROPESQ) da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação (PRPPG) da Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). They also thank Mr Roberto Siqueira, Mr Paulo Martins and Mr Manoel Américo de Carvalho Fonseca for granting permission to collect drosophilids in Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin, Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá and Estação Experimental de Itapirema, respectively and Dr Elisângela Lúcia de Santana Bezerra for help with botanical information.

References

Acurio, A., Rafael, V. & Dangles, O. (2010) Biological invasions in the Amazonian Tropical Rain Forest: the case of Drosophilidae (Insecta, Diptera) in Ecuador, South America. Biotropica 42, 717723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anu, A., Sabu, T. & Vineesh, P.J. (2009) Seasonality of litter insects and relationship with rainfall in a wet evergreen forest in south Western Ghats. Journal of Insect Science 9, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, W.D. (1979) A comparison of the reproductive strategies of domestic species of Drosophila . The Journal of Animal Ecology 48, 5364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächli, G., Vilela, C.R., Escher, A.S. & Saura, A. (2004) The Drosophilidae (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 39, 1362.Google Scholar
Basset, Y., Novotny, V., Miller, S.E. & Kitching, R.L. (2003) Arthropods of Tropical Forests: Spatio-Temporal Dynamics and Resource use in the Canopy. Cambridge, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bizzo, L., Gottschalk, M.S., De Toni, D.C. & Hofmann, P.R.P. (2010) Seasonal dynamics of a drosophilid (Diptera) assemblage and its potencial as bioindicator in open environments. Iheringia Série zoologia 100, 185191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bombin, A. & Reed, L.K. (2016) The changing biodiversity of Alabama Drosophila: important impacts of seasonal variation, urbanization, and invasive species. Ecology and Evolution 6, 70577069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breuer, M.E. & Pavan, C. (1950) Genitália masculina de Drosophila (Diptera) grupo annulimana . Revista Brasileira de Biologia 10, 469488.Google Scholar
Buril, M.T., Melo, A., Alves-Araújo, A. & Alves, M. (2013) Plantas da Mata Atlântica: Guia de árvores e arbustos da Usina São José. Recife, Editora Livro rápido.Google Scholar
Burla, H., Da Cunha, A. B., Cordeiro, A. R., Dobzhansky, T., Malogolowkin, C. & Pavan, C. (1949) The willistoni group of sibling species of Drosophila . Evolution 3, 300314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavasini, R., Buschini, M.L.T., Machado, L.P.B. & Mateus, R.P. (2014) Comparison of Drosophilidae (Diptera) assemblages from two highland Araucaria Forest fragments, with and without environmental conservation policies. Brazilian Journal of Biology 74, 761768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chassagnard, M.T. & Tsacas, L. (1993) Le sous-genre Zaprionus s. str. Définition de groupes d'espècies et révision du sous-goup vittiger (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Annales Societé Entomologique de France 29, 173194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coddington, J.A., Agnarsson, I., Miller, J.A., Kuntner, M.E. & Hormiga, G. (2009) Undersampling bias: the null hypothesis for singleton species in tropical arthropod surveys. The Journal of Animal Ecology 78, 573584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coelho, A.G.M. (1979) As Aves da Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá, Pernambuco. Natural Biology 2, 118.Google Scholar
Colombo, A.F. & Joly, C.A. (2010) Brazilian Atlantic Forest lato sensu: the most ancient Brazilian forest, and a biodiversity hotspot, is highly threatened by climate change. Brazilian Journal of Biology 70, 697708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Lima, M.L.F. (1998) A Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlântica em Pernambuco – situação atual, ações e perspectivas. São Paulo, Brasil, Conselho Nacional da Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlântica, Instituto Florestal.Google Scholar
Culik, M.P. & Ventura, J.A. (2009) New species of Rhinoleucophenga, a potential predator of pineapple mealybugs. Pesquisas Agropecuárias Brasileira 44, 417420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, J.R., Allemand, R., van Herrewege, J. & Cohet, Y. (1983) Ecophysiology: abiotic factors. pp. 105170 in Ashburner, M., Carson, H. & Thompson, J.N. Jr. (Eds) Genetics and Biology of Drosophila. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
David, J.R., Allemand, R., Capy, P., Chakir, M., Gibert, P., Pétavy, G. & Moreteau, B. (2004) Comparative life histories and ecophysiology of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans . Genetica 120, 151163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denlinger, D.L. (1980) Seasonal and annual variation in insect abundance in the Nairobi National Park, Kenya. Biotropica 12, 100106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Toni, D.C. & Hofmann, P.R.P. (1995) Preliminary taxonomic survey of the genus Drosophila (Diptera, Drosophilidae) at Morro da Lagoa da Conceição; Santa Catarina Island; Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 55, 347350.Google Scholar
De Toni, D.C., Gottschalk, M.S., Cordeiro, J., Hofmann, P.R.P. & Valente, V.L.S. (2007) Study of the Drosophilidae (Diptera) communities on Atlantic Forest islands of Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 36, 356375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devries, P.J. & Walla, T.R. (2001) Species diversity and community structure in Neotropical fruit-feeding butterflies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 74, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, S.C., Brescovit, A.D., Couto, E.C.G. & Martins, C.F. (2006) Species richness and seasonality of spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) in an urban Atlantic Forest fragment in Northeastern Brazil. Urban Ecosystems 9, 323335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1957) Chromosomal variability in Islands and continental populations of Drosophila willistoni from Central America and the West Indies. Evolution 11, 280293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. & Pavan, C. (1950) Local and seasonal variations in relative frequencies of species of Drosophila in Brazil. The Journal of Animal Ecology 19, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döge, J.S., Valente, V.L.S. & Hofmann, P.R.P. (2008) Drosophilids (Diptera) from an Atlantic Forest Area in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 52, 615624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döge, J.S., Valadão, H. & Tidon, R. (2015) Rapid response to abiotic and biotic factors controls population growth of two invasive drosophilids (Diptera) in the Brazilian Savanna. Biological Invasions 17, 24612474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, R.L., Martins, V.M., Paixão, E.A. & Silva, M.S. (2015) Spatial and temporal fluctuations of the abundance of Neotropical cave-dwelling moth Hypena sp. (Noctuidae, Lepidoptera) influenced by temperature and humidity. Subterranean Biology 16, 4760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, G. & Valente, V.L.S. (1985) Study on the fluctuation in Drosophila populations of Bento Gonçalves, RS, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 45, 133141.Google Scholar
Freire-Maia, A. & Pavan, C. (1949) Introdução ao estudo da drosófila. Cultus 1, 366.Google Scholar
Frith, C. & Frith, D. (1985) Seasonality of insect abundance in an Australian upland tropical rainforest. Austral Ecology 10, 237248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galindo-Leal, C. & Câmara, I.G. (2003) Atlantic Forest hotspots status: an overview. pp 311 in Galindo-Leal, C. & Câmara, I.G. (Eds) The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook. Washington, D.C., Center for Applied Biodiversity Science and Island Press.Google Scholar
Garcia, A.C.L., Valiati, V.H., Gottschalk, M.S., Rohde, C. & Valente, V.L.S. (2008) Two decades of colonization of the urban environment of Porto Alegre, southern Brazil, by Drosophila paulistorum (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Iheringia Série Zoologia 98, 329338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, A.C.L., Silva, D.M.I.O., Monteiro, A.G.F., Oliveira, G.F., Montes, M.A. & Rohde, C. (2014) Abundance and richness of cryptic species of the willistoni Group of Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in the biomes Caatinga and Atlantic Forest, Northeastern Brazil. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 107, 975982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, C.F., Hochmüller, C.J.C., Valente, V.L.S. & Schmitz, H.J. (2012) Drosophilid assemblages at different urbanization levels in the City of Porto Alegre, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 41, 3241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, M.S., De Toni, D.C., Valente, V.L.S. & Hofmann, P.R.P. (2007) Changes in Brazilian Drosophilidae (Diptera) assemblages across an urbanisation gradient. Neotropical Entomology 36, 848862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottschalk, M.S., Hofmann, P.R.P. & Valente, V.L.S. (2008) Diptera, Drosophilidae: historical occurrence in Brazil. Check List 4, 485518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimbacher, P.S. & Stork, N.E. (2009) Seasonality of a diverse beetle assemblage inhabiting lowland tropical rain forest in Australia. Biotropica 41, 328337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, O., Harper, D.A.T. & Ryan, P.D. (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics softwarepackage for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4, 19.Google Scholar
Hammond, P.M. (1990) Insect abundance and diversity in the Dumoga-Bone National Park, N. Sulawesi, with special reference to the beetle fauna of lowland rain forest in the Toraut region. pp. 197254 in Knight, W.J. & Holloway, J.D. (Eds). Insects and the Rain Forests of South East Asia (Wallacea). London, UK, Royal Entomological Society.Google Scholar
Hill, C.J. (1993) The species composition and seasonality of an assemblage of tropical Australian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Australian Entomologist 20, 121126.Google Scholar
IBGE (2012) Manual técnico da vegetação brasileira. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.Google Scholar
INMET (2016) Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia, Available: http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal (accessed 26 June 2016).Google Scholar
Janzen, D.H. & Schoener, T.W. (1968) Differences in insect abundance and diversity between wetter and drier sites during a tropical dry season. Ecology 49, 96110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, A.J. & Krebs, C.J. (2000) Programs for Ecological methodology. 2nd edn. Vancouver, Canada, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Kishimoto-Yamada, K., Itioka, T., Sakai, S. & Ichie, T. (2010) Seasonality in light-attracted chrysomelid populations in a Bornean rainforest. Insect Conservation and Diversity 3, 266277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAMEPE (2016) Laboratório de Meteorologia de Pernambuco, Available: http://www.itep.br/LAMEPE.asp (accessed 26 June 2016).Google Scholar
Magalhães, L.E. & Björnberg, A.J.S. (1957) Estudo da genitália masculina de Drosophila do grupo saltans (Diptera). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 17, 435450.Google Scholar
Malogolowkin, C. (1952) Sobre a genitália dos “Drosophilidae” (Diptera). III. Grupo willistoni do gênero Drosophila . Revista Brasileira de Biologia 12, 7996.Google Scholar
Martins, M.B. (2001) Drosophilid fruit-fly guilds in Forest fragments. pp. 175186 in Bierregaard, R.O., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T.E. & Mesquita, R. (Eds) Lessons from Amazonia: the Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mascarenhas, J.C., Beltrão, B.A., Souza, L.C. Jr., Galvão, M.J.T.G, Pereira, S.N. & Miranda, J.L.F. (2005) Projeto cadastro de fontes de abastecimento por água subterrânea. Diagnóstico do município de Goiana, estado de Pernambuco. CPRM – Serviço Geológico do Brasil, Recife, CPRM/PRODEEM.Google Scholar
Mata, R.A., Roque, F. & Tidon, R. (2008) Drosophilids (Insecta: Diptera) of the Paranã valley: eight new records for the Cerrado biome. Biota Neotropica 8, 5560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAleece, N., Lambshead, P.J.D., Paterson, G.L.J. & Gage, J.D. (1997) BioDiversity Professional version 2.Google Scholar
Medeiros, H.F., Martins, M.B. & David, J.R. (2003) The extension of the geographic range of Drosophila malerkotliana on the American continent. Drosophila Information Service 86, 8992.Google Scholar
Monteiro, L.S., Garcia, A.C.L., Oliveira, G.F. & Rohde, C. (2016) High diversity of Drosophilidae in high-altitude wet forests in Northeastern Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 45, 265273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nava, D.E., Nascimento, A.M., Stein, C.P., Haddad, M.L., Bento, J.M.S. & Parra, J. (2007) Biology, thermal requirements, and estimation of the number of generations of Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae) for the main fig producing regions of Brazil. The Florida Entomologist 90, 495501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neves, F.S., Oliveira, V.H.F., Espírito-Santo, M.M., Vaz-de-Mello, F.Z., Louzada, J., Sanchez-Azofeifa, A. & Fernandes, G.W. (2010) Successional and seasonal changes in a community of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in a Brazilian tropical dry forest. Natureza & Conservação 8, 160164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noguera, F.A., Zaragoza-Caballero, S., Chemsak, J.A., Rodríguez-Palafox, A., Ramirez, E., González-Soriano, E. & Ayala, R. (2002) Diversity of the family Cerambycidae (Coleoptera) of the tropical dry forest of Mexico, I. Sierra de Huautla, Morelos. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 95, 617627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novotny, V. & Basset, Y. (1998) Seasonality of sap-sucking insects (Auchenorrhyncha, Hemiptera) feeding on Ficus (Moraceae) in a lowland rain forest in New Guinea. Oecologia 115, 514522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novotny, V. & Basset, Y. (2000) Rare species in communities of tropical insect herbivores: pondering the mystery of singletons. Oikos 89, 564572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, G.F., Rohde, C., Garcia, A.C.L., Montes, M.A. & Valente, V.L.S. (2016) Contributions of dryland forest (Caatinga) to species composition, richness and diversity of Drosophilidae. Neotropical Entomology 45, 537547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, D.F.D. & Chanter, O. (1970) Species diversity and seasonal abundance in tropical Ichneumonidae. Oikos 21, 142144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L. & McMahon, T.A. (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Science 11, 16331644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penariol, L.V. & Madi-Ravazzi, L. (2013) Edge-interior differences in the species richness and abundance of drosophilids in a semideciduous forest fragment. SpringerPlus 2, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, F., Diniz, I.R., Coelho, D. & Bandeira, M.P.S. (2002) Seasonal pattern of insect abundance in the Brazilian Cerrado. Austral Ecology 27, 132136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, L.P. & Brito, M.C.W. (2003) Dynamics of biodiversity loss in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: an introduction. pp. 2730 in Galindo-Leal, C. & Câmara, I.G. (Eds) The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Trends, and Outlook. Washington, DC, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science and Island Press.Google Scholar
Poppe, J.L., Schmitz, H.J., Grimaldi, D. & Valente, V.L.S. (2014) High diversity of Drosophilidae (Insecta, Diptera) in the Pampas Biome of South America, with descriptions of new Rhinoleucophenga species. Zootaxa 3779, 215245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Por, F.D., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. & Lencioni, F. (2005) Biomes of Brazil: an illustrated natural history/Biomas Brasileiros: uma história natural ilustrada. Sofia, Bulgaria, Pensoft Publishers.Google Scholar
Prigent, S.R., Le Gall, P., Mbunda, S.W. & Veuille, M. (2013) Seasonal and altitudinal structure of drosophilid communities on Mt Oku (Cameroon volcanic line). Comptes Rendus Geoscience 345, 316326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, M.C., Metzger, J.P., Martensen, A.C., Ponzoni, F.J. & Hirot, M.M. (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 142, 11411153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, C., Monteiro, A.G.F., Cabral, W.B.M., Silva, D.M.I.O., Oliveira, G.F., Montes, M.A. & Garcia, A.C.L. (2010) The importance of identification of the willistoni subgroup of Drosophila at the species level: the first evidence of D. equinoxialis in the Northeast region of Brazil. Drosophila Information Service 93, 118122.Google Scholar
Roque, F., Mata, R.A. & Tidon, R. (2013) Temporal and vertical drosophilid (Insecta; Diptera) assemblage fluctuations in a neotropical gallery forest. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 657672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saavedra, C.C.R., Callegari-Jacques, S.M., Naap, M. & Valente, V.L.S. (1995) A descriptive and analytical study of four neotropical drosophilid communities. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 33, 6274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salles, H. (1948) Sobre a genitália dos drosofilídeos (Diptera): I. Drosophila melanogaster e D. simulans . Summa Brasiliensis Biologiae 1, 311383.Google Scholar
Sax, D.F., Stachowicz, J.J., Brown, J.H., Bruno, J.F., Dawson, M.N., Gaines, S.D., Grosberg, R.K., Hastings, A., Holt, R.D., Mayfield, M.M., O'Connor, M.I. & Rice, W.R. (2007) Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, 465471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarano, F.R. & Ceotto, P. (2015) Brazilian Atlantic forest: impact, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation 24, 23192331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, H.J., Valente, V.L.S. & Hofmann, P.R.P. (2007) Taxonomic survey of Drosophilidae (Diptera) from mangrove forests of Santa Catarina Island, Southern Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 36, 5364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, H.J., Hofmann, P.R.P. & Valente, V.L.S. (2010) Assemblages of drosophilids (Diptera, Drosophilidae) in mangrove forests: community ecology and species diversity. Iheringia Série Zoologia 100, 33140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smythe, N. (1982) The seasonal abundance of night-flying insects in a Neotropical forest. pp. 309318 in Leigh, E.G., Rand, A.S. & Windsor, D.M. (Eds). The Ecology of a Tropical Forest: Seasonal Rhythms and Long Term Changes. Washington, DC, Smithonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Spassky, B., Richmond, R.C., Pérez-Salas, S., Pavlovsky, O., Mourão, C.A., Hunter, A.S., Hoenigsberg, H., Dobzhansky, T. & Ayala, F.J. (1971) Geography of the sibling species related to Drosophila willistoni and the semispecies of the Drosophila paulistorum complex. Evolution 25, 129143.Google ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, K., Novotny, V., Tonner, M. & Leps, J. (1993) Habitat preferences, distribution and seasonality of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidae) in a montane tropical rain forest, Vietnam. Journal of Biogeography 20, 109121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinath, B.S. & Shivanna, N. (2014) Seasonal variation in natural populations of Drosophila in Dharwad, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2, 3541.Google Scholar
Tabarelli, M., Pinto, L.P., Silva, J.M.C., Hirota, M. & Bedê, L. (2005) Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conservation Biology 19, 695700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, C.A. & Tauber, M.J. (1981) Insect seasonal cycles: genetics and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12, 281308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidon, R. (2006) Relationships between drosophilids (Diptera, Drosophilidae) and the environment in two contrasting tropical vegetations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 87, 233247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidon, R. & Sene, F.M. (1988) A trap that retains and keeps Drosophila alive. Drosophila Information Service 67, 89.Google Scholar
Tidon-Sklorz, R. & Sene, F.M. (1992) Vertical and temporal distribution of Drosophila (Diptera, Drosophilidae) species in a wooded area in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 52, 311317.Google Scholar
Torres, F.R. & Madi-Ravazzi, L. (2006) Seasonal variation in natural populations of Drosophila spp. (Diptera) in two woodlands in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Iheringia Série Zoologia 96, 437444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Val, F.C. & Sene, F.M. (1980) A newly introduced Drosophila species in Brazil (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 33, 293298.Google Scholar
Vasconcellos, A. (2003) Ecologia e biodiversidade de cupins em remanescentes de Mata Atlântica do Nordeste Brasileiro. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Brazil.Google Scholar
Vilela, C.R. (1983) A revision of the Drosophila repleta species group (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 27, 1114.Google Scholar
Vilela, C.R. & Bächli, G. (1990) Taxonomic studies on Neotropical species of seven genera of Drosophilidae (Diptera). Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 63, 1332.Google Scholar
Vilela, C.R., Silva, A.F.G. & Sene, F.M. (2002) Preliminary data on the geographical distribution of Drosophila species within morphoclimatic domains of Brazil. III. The cardini group. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 46, 139148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiwatwitaya, D. & Takeda, H. (2005) Seasonal changes in soil arthropod abundance in the dry evergreen forest of northeast Thailand, with special reference to collembolan communities. Ecological Research 20, 5970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolda, H. (1978 a) Seasonal fluctuations in rainfall, food and abundance of tropical insects. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 369381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolda, H. (1978 b) Fluctuations in abundance of tropical insects. American Naturalist 112, 10171045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolda, H. (1988) Insect seasonality: Why? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolda, H. (1989) Seasonal cues in tropical organisms. Rainfall? Not necessarily! Oecologia 80, 437442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolda, H. & Broadhead, E. (1985) Seasonality of Psocoptera in two tropical forests in Panama. Journal of Animal Ecology 54, 519530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolda, H., O'Brien, C.W. & Stockwell, H.P. (1998) Weevil diversity and seasonality in tropical Panama as deduced from light-trap catches (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 590, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yassin, A., Gidaszewski, N., Albert, B., Hiver, J., David, J.R., Orgogozo, V. & Debat, V. (2012) The Drosophilidae (Diptera) of the Scattered Islands, with the description of a novel association with Leptadenia madagascariensis Decne. (Apocynaceae). Fly 6, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Z.Q. (2011) Animal biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148, 1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of Brazil showing the Atlantic Forest domain in the country (grey area) and the three fragments where drosophilids were collected. Itapirema = Estação Experimental de Itapirema, Darwin = Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin and Tapacurá =Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá.

Figure 1

Table 1. List of drosophilid species native to the Neotropical region and exotic ones (*) in the rainy and dry seasons for the sampling excursions carried out in three fragments of the Atlantic Forest, north of their distribution.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Similarity tree based on the Jaccard (a) and Morisita (b) indices for the drosophilids collections carried out in the rainy and dry seasons in the Atlantic Forest domain, in Itapirema (Estação Experimental de Itapirema), Darwin (Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin) and Tapacurá (Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Relative abundance of drosophilid species native to the Neotropical region and exotic ones in the rainy and dry seasons, in three Atlantic Forest fragments: Itapirema (Estação Experimental de Itapirema), Darwin (Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin) and Tapacurá (Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Ranking based on abundance of 36 drosophilid species collected in three fragments of the Atlantic Forest. 1 = Drosophila malerkotliana, 2 = D. willistoni, 3 = Zaprionus indianus, 4 = D. sturtevanti, 5 = D. simulans, 6 = Scaptodrosophila latifasciaeformis, 7 = D. paulistorum, 8 = D. prosaltans, 9 = D. mercatorum, 10 = D. nebulosa, 11 = D. neocardini, 12 = D. melanogaster, 13 = D. fumipennis, 14 = D. ararama, 15 = Rhinoleucophenga punctulata, 16 = D. sp7, 17 = D. cardinoides, 18 = D. pictilis, 19 = D. polymorpha, 20 = D. ellisoni, 21 = D. sp6, 22 = D. ananassae, 23 = D. sp2, 24 = D. sp5, 25 = Neotanygastrella tricoloripes, 26 = Zygothrica orbitalis, 27 = D. zottii, 28 = D. sp9, 29 = D. sp10, 30 = D. sp1, 31 = D. sp3, 32 = R. sp1, 33 = D. sp4, 34 = D. sp8, 35 = R. capixabensis, 36 = D. kikkawai.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Seasonal variation of exotic (a) and native drosophilid species to the Neotropical region (b) in three fragments of the Atlantic Forest: Itapirema (Estação Experimental de Itapirema), Darwin (Refúgio Ecológico Charles Darwin) and Tapacurá (Estação Ecológica do Tapacurá).