Research Article |
Corresponding author: Maria Elina Bichuette ( lina.cave@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Oana Teodora Moldovan
© 2019 Maria Elina Bichuette, Luiza Bertelli Simões, Tamires Zepon, Diego Monteiro von Schimonsky, Jonas Eduardo Gallão.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
ichuette ME, Simões LB, Zepon T, von Schimonsky DM, Gallão JE (2019) Richness and taxonomic distinctness of cave invertebrates from the northeastern state of Goiás, central Brazil: a vulnerable and singular area. Subterranean Biology 29: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.29.30418
|
The karst area of the northeastern state of Goiás comprises two main municipalities: São Domingos and Posse. São Domingos is inside the limits of a Full Protection Conservation Unit known as Parque Estadual de Terra Ronca (PETeR), where a high number of caves occurs, some of them surpassing 10 km in length. Despite their protection by law, uncontrolled tourism has been threatening the integrity of the unique and fragile cave systems of São Domingos. On the other hand, the caves of Posse are much less visited, with its subterranean fauna poorly unknown and are strongly threatened by the urban areas and mining activities in the vicinity. We conducted six systematic surveys of invertebrates in 12 caves, seven of which are located in São Domingos and five in Posse, between 2010 and 2012. Immediately outside the caves, we sampled several microhabitats for comparison. We estimated richness, abundance, and taxonomic distinctness of the communities. We recorded 1,941 individuals of 344 morphospecies. Caves from São Domingos showed a higher species richness and were more taxonomic distinct than caves from Posse. Most morphospecies were considered troglophiles (188). We also found one trogloxene and one troglobite, as well as nine troglomorphic taxa that possibly are troglobitic as well. Both regions have markedly singular caves regarding its subterranean fauna, with high values of taxonomic distinctness. However, the richer caves were not necessarily the most taxonomic distinct. Conservation measures are especially necessary in the region of Posse, where caves are not legally protected and are within an area of significant urbanization. Cave entrances of Posse are near deforested vicinities, in some cases with domestic wastes and cement plants nearby.
caves, conservation, phylogenetic diversity, subterranean fauna, São Domingos, Posse, Goiás
The subterranean fauna consists of organisms able to survive in peculiar conditions of the environment, as the permanent darkness, the high relative humidity of the air and stable temperatures at the deepest zones (
Because of its unique conditions and the high degree of endemism, subterranean environments are fragile and sensitive to environmental changes, especially those regarding anthropic activities (
Brazil has about 17,000 registered caves (
Some studies have shown that phylogenetic diversity, a measure of species relatedness considering the phylogenetic relationship among species, are more sensitive to detecting responses of communities to environmental changes (
In the present study, we sampled subterranean invertebrates at the karst area of the northeastern Goiás state, central Brazil, encompassing the municipalities of São Domingos and Posse. We estimated species richness and abundance by each cave and by each region, as well as by the karst area. Finally, we compared the fauna of these caves regarding geographical position and taxonomic distinctness of the communities. We expected that phylogenetic component of diversity would indicate those most singular caves in the region better than traditional indexes of diversity. Our purpose was to improve the knowledge about components of biological diversity in the region and, through a better knowledge of the ecological-evolutionary processes underlying these communities, provide best arguments for better conservation decisions.
The karst area at northeastern Goiás represents one of the regional expressions of Bambuí geomorphological Unit, the largest set of limestone in Brazil, comprising approximately 105,200 km2 (
Part of São Domingos region is inside the limits of a Conservation Unit, the Parque Estadual de Terra Ronca (PETeR, Figure
Posse, which represents the southernmost part of the same limestone outcrop, is 200 km from PETeR (Figure
Both regions are inside the limits of Cerrado Domain (
In São Domingos, we sampled the following caves / cave systems: Lapa Angélica cave, Lapa do Bezerra cave, Pau Pombo cave, São Bernardo cave system, São Mateus cave system, Terra Ronca I cave and Terra Ronca II cave. In Posse, we sampled Doralino cave system, Nova Esperança cave, Bombas cave system, Russão cave system, and Revolucionários cave (Figure
We visited the study area on six occasions, three during the raining season (April 2010, April 2011 and February 2012) and three during the dry season (October 2011, June and October 2012). Caves varied with respect to the number of visits: two visits, one during the dry season and other during the raining season in Lapa do Bezerra, São Bernardo and Terra Ronca I, two during the raining season in São Mateus, two during the dry season in Terra Ronca II, one during the dry season in Pau Pombo and Revolucionários, and one during the raining season in Bombas, Doralino, Nova Esperança and Russão. Lapa Angélica was the only cave monitored on all occasions.
We sampled terrestrial substrates and streams mainly by active search in all potential microhabitats, including piles of leaf litter, trunks, guano deposits, under rocks, among others, where specimens were collected with tweezers and brushes and immediately euthanized and preserved in 70% alcohol. In two caves, Lapa Angélica and Terra Ronca II, we also used 0.25 m² quadrats (
We identified collected specimens to the least inclusive taxonomic level possible (Operational Taxonomic Units / OTUs) using specific literature as a guide (
All taxa we found were listed for each cave and study area (Appendix
We determined the taxonomic distinctness of each cave using the index of phylogenetic diversity known as taxonomic distinctness (TD, Δ*) (
We collected a total of 1,941 individuals of 344 morphospecies belonging to 128 families, 37 orders and ten classes (Appendix
Fauna from caves of northeastern Goiás, central Brazil: A Heterophrynus longicornis (Amblypygi) preying a cricket Endecous sp. (Orthoptera: Phalangopsidae) B Nesticodes rufipes (Araneae: Theridiidae) C Scolopendra viridicornis (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha) DChernetidae (Pseudoscorpiones) E Flirtea batman (Opiliones: Cosmetidae) F Stenochrus portoricensis (Schizomida: Hubbardiidae).
Of the 344 morphospecies, we classified one as a trogloxene (TX) (Araneae: Ctenidae: Enoploctenus sp.), 188 as troglophiles (TF), one as a troglobite (TB) (Pseudoscorpiones: Chernetidae: Spelaeochernes sp.), nine as troglomorphic and, being such, possibly troglobitic (TM/TB?) and 48 as accidentals (AC). Due to lack of data, we considered the classification of 97 morphospecies as uncertain concerning their ecological-evolutionary relationship with caves.
In São Domingos, Lapa Angélica was the richest and most abundant cave, with 203 morphospecies and 865 individuals, followed by Terra Ronca II cave with 88 morphospecies and 274 individuals. Pau Pombo cave was the least rich and abundant with 11 morphospecies and 22 individuals (Table
Species richness, individual abundance, and taxonomic distinctness (TD) of caves from northeastern Goiás karst area (São Domingos and Posse). Legend: SBer= São Bernardo cave system, Ang= Lapa Angélica, Bez= Lapa do Bezerra, SMat= São Mateus cave system, TR_I= Terra Ronca I cave, TR_II= Terra Ronca II cave, PPom= Pau Pombo cave, Rus= Russão cave system, Bom= Bombas cave system, Dor= Doralino cave system, NEsp= Nova Esperança cave, Rev= Revolucionários cave.
Caves | Species Richness | Individual Abundance | TD | |
São Domingo | SBer | 28 | 72 | 73.566 |
Ang | 203 | 865 | 71.966 | |
Bez | 52 | 179 | 71.760 | |
SMat | 37 | 66 | 71.541 | |
TR I | 42 | 76 | 72.110 | |
TR II | 88 | 274 | 69.669 | |
Ppom | 11 | 22 | 69.237 | |
Posse | Rus | 40 | 90 | 67.847 |
Bom | 24 | 48 | 73.006 | |
Dor | 40 | 95 | 67.955 | |
NEsp | 17 | 42 | 64.680 | |
Revo | 43 | 112 | 78.649 |
For São Domingos, the expected TD (Δ+) value was 72.517, and the cave with the highest TD was São Bernardo (Δ+= 73.566), followed by Terra Ronca I (Δ+=72.110), Lapa Angélica (Δ+= 71.966), Lapa do Bezerra (Δ+= 71.760), São Mateus (Δ+=71.541), Terra Ronca II (Δ+= 69.669) and Pau Pombo (Δ+= 69.237) (Figure
Taxonomic distinctness (TD) for caves from A São Domingos and B Posse karst areas. Horinzontal line presents the expected TD for the region and funnel graph means 95% confidence limits. Legend: SBer= São Bernardo cave system, Ang= Lapa Angélica, Bez= Lapa do Bezerra, SMat= São Mateus cave system, TR_I= Terra Ronca I cave, TR_II= Terra Ronca II cave, PPom= Pau Pombo cave, Rus= Russão cave system, Bom= Bombas cave system, Dor= Doralino cave system, NEsp= Nova Esperança cave, Rev= Revolucionários cave.
For Posse, the expected TD (Δ+) value was 73.206, and the cave with the highest TD was Revolucionários (Δ+=78.649), followed by Bombas system (Δ+= 73.006), Russão (Δ+= 67.847), Doralino system (Δ+= 67.955) and Nova Esperança (Δ+= 64.680) (Figure
According to simple linear regression, the richness and TD values are not correlated in both areas: São Domingos (r = 0.001972, r2 = 0.007384, F = 0.03719, p = 0.8547) and Posse (r = 0.2147, r2 = 0.2044, F = 0.7708, p = 0.4446), i.e., the richest caves not necessarily present the higher TD value, as observed in the São Domingos area (Figure
Simple linear regression between richness and Taxonomic distinctness (TD) values of caves from A São Domingos and B Posse karst areas. Legend: SBer= São Bernardo cave system, Ang= Lapa Angélica, Bez= Lapa do Bezerra, SMat= São Mateus cave system, TR_I= Terra Ronca I cave, TR_II= Terra Ronca II cave, PPom= Pau Pombo cave, Rus= Russão cave system, Bom= Bombas cave system, Dor= Doralino cave system, NEsp= Nova Esperança cave, Rev= Revolucionários cave.
Our data show high species richness for both the São Domingos and Posse karst areas, which has been also observed for other Brazilian karst areas, such as Chapada Diamantina with c.a. 160 morphospecies (
In São Domingos karst area, Lapa Angélica cave was the richest and the most abundant. Although we sampled this cave on more occasions, its high richness is likely due to the high input of nutrients brought by the extense rivers crossing the cave systems and, consequently, to the high amount of dissolved organic carbon in subterranean terrestrial substrates (62.2 mgC.L-1); the same was observed for Terra Ronca II cave (111.12 mgC.L-1) (
In Posse karst area, the higher species richness and abundance we found inside the cave Revolucionários is also attributable to the drainage traversing its length, as well as the high humidity of the terrestrial substrates and the high amount of trophic resources, composed mainly of leaf litter, frugivorous and hematophagous bat guano (
São Bernardo (São Domingos region) and Revolucionários (Posse region) were the most singular caves in Goiás karst area.
Lapa Angélica is also one of the most visited caves from PETeR and, on some occasions, visitors traverse its entire length. There has been no effective control of the number and frequency of tourist groups in the region since 2000 (ME Bichuette pers. obs.). We noted that there is only a few sparsely guano spots along the cave, probably reduced as a consequence of anthropic impacts (ground trampling and noise pollution, which drives off the bats). Disturbance diminishes the environmental heterogeneity and, consequently, reduces the offer of microhabitats and resources to the local community, as observed in Lapa Angélica in relation to bat guano along years (M.E. Bichuette pers. obs.). Environmental impacts (contamination) also cause reduction of taxonomic distinctness in marine species communities, while richness remained constant (
We observed that some of the other richest caves which do not have high taxonomic distinctness, possibly because of anthropic impacts in the region. Taxonomic distinctness in the region may still be related to the trophic diversity of the community, in such a way that when there is a reduction in the number of guilds, TD decays (
Terra Ronca II cave, even with the second higher species richness, presented the lowest TD. The stretch of the cave we sampled has basically the same substratum type, which is predominantly composed of banks of sand and pebbles deposited at riverside. Despite its high species richness, the species are not taxonomically very distinct from each other (e.g., several morphospecies are from the beetle families Carabidae and Staphylinidae) when compared to other subterranean communities of the same region. In Posse, the richest cave (Revolucionários) also had the highest TD. Its high faunistic singularity is related to the presence of species and genera belonging to different families. Nova Esperança presented several common taxa and, therefore, low faunistic singularity.
São Domingos is remarkable for its high richness in troglobitic species of fishes that exhibit various degrees of specialization to subterranean life, including one species of Loricariidae catfish, four Trichomycteridae catfishes, one Heptapteridae catfish and one Sternopygidaeelectric fish (
If we excluded the troglophilic taxa and considered only troglobitic terrestrial invertebrates, species diversity recorded in northeastern Goiás would be considered poor when compared to other Brazilian regions, as has been demonstrated in this and in previous studies (
As we corroborated in our study, a high degree of singularity is usually present in caves, even among those, which are geographically near other caves and inserted in the same rocky massif. To preserve as many singular caves as possible is urgent, because the ideal of environmental compensation is not applicable to these unique environments.
Even the caves from São Domingos are inside a legally protected area (PETeR), the tourist flow is intense and, several times, there is no adequate inspection. Thus, intense visitation may be affecting the subterranean communities we studied. Besides, part of the headwaters of rivers that crosses caves of São Domingos is outside the State Park limits. There, extensive cattle farming and monocultures are causing silting and pollution of rivers, bringing noxious materials to the caves and impacting the community (
In conclusion, caves of São Domingos and Posse karst areas exhibited a high taxonomic distinctness for terrestrial fauna, influenced by the high proportion of troglophilic, accidental and undetermined taxa. Our data show the relevance to considerer not only troglobitic taxa. Besides non-troglobionts, both areas showed a high diversity of troglobitic fish (Bichuette and Trajano 2003) and shelters highly important for bats (
We are thankful to our colleagues of Laboratório de Estudos Subterrâneos who help in the field trips (CS Fernandes; PP Rizzato); to the helpful field guide in Terra Ronca, RH dos Santos; to the specialists who help in the identification of part of the material: A Brescovit (Araneae), JLC Mineiro (Acari), R Bessi (Carabidae), E Caron (Staphylinidae); RL Falaschi (Diptera), F Moreira (Hemiptera), H Gil-Santana (Heteroptera, Reduviidae), MP Bolfarini (Orthoptera), D Zeppelini (Collembola), JG Palacios-Vargas (Collembola), A Chagas-Jr. (Chilopoda), CS Fernandes (Isopoda), M Bartz (Haplotaxida), LRL Simone and R Salvador (Gastropoda), LP Prado (Formicidae), and JS Gallo (Diplopoda); to Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for the financial support to MEB (processes 98/13858-1 and 2010/08459-4), to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the Master scholarship to LBS (process 132981/2011-4) and productivity scholarships to MEB (processes 303715/2011-1, 308557/2014-0 and 310378/2017-6); to CS Fernandes for use permission of isopod images (Figures
Individual abundance of cave invertebrates in São Domingos and Posse karst areas, state of Goiás, central Brazil, and their status according to relationship with the subterranean environment. Legend: Caves: SBer= São Bernardo cave system , Ang= Lapa Angélica, Bez= Lapa do Bezerra, SMat= São Mateus cave system, TR_I= Terra Ronca I cave, TR_II= Terra Ronca II cave, PPom= Pau Pombo cave, Rus= Russão cave system, Bom= Bombas cave system, Dor= Doralino cave system, NEsp= Nova Esperança cave, Rev= Revolucionários cave. Status: TX= trogloxene, TF=troglophile, TB= troglobite, TM/TB?= troglomorphic/ possibly troglobitic, AC= accidental, ?= undetermined classification.
Taxa | Gen. sp./ morphotype | Status | Caves - São Domingos | Caves - Posse | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SBer | Ang | Bez | SMat | TR I | TR II | Ppom | Rus | Bom | Dor | NEsp | Revo | |||
F. Arthropoda | ||||||||||||||
C. Arachnida | ||||||||||||||
Sc. Acari | ||||||||||||||
O. Ixodida | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Ixodidae | ||||||||||||||
Sf. Amblyomminae | Amblyomma sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Argasidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Mesostigmata | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 4 | ? | 6 | ||||||||||||
sp. 5 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 6 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Laelapidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Tetranychidae | sp. 1 | ? | 3 | |||||||||||
O. Oribatida | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Galumnidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Amblypygi | F | |||||||||||||
Fa. Phrynidae | Heterophrynus longicornis (Butler, 1873) | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Araneae | ||||||||||||||
So. Araneomorphae | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Anapidae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | |||||||||||
Fa. Araneidae | Alpaida sp. 1 | TF | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Eustala sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Micrathena sp. 1 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Ocrepeira sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Pronous sp. 1 | TF | 4 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Caponiidae | Nops sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Corinnidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||
Fa. Ctenidae | Enoploctenus sp. 1 | TX | 4 | |||||||||||
Isoctenus sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | |||
Isoctenus sp.2 | TF | 3 | 6 | |||||||||||
Fa. Filistatidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Linyphiidae | Agyneta sp. 1 | TF | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Fa. Lycosidae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Allocosa sp. 1 | AC | 2 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Mysmenidae | sp. 1 | ? | 3 | |||||||||||
Mysmena sp. 1 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Nesticidae | Nesticus sp. 1 | TF | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Oonopidae | sp. 1 | TF | 5 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 3 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Triaeris stenaspsis Simon, 1891 | TF | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Palpimanidae | Fernandezina sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Pisauridae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Pholcidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Ninetinae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 22 | ||||||||||
Ibotyporanga sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Pholcinae | Leptopholcus sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Modisiminae | Mesobolivar sp. 1 | TF | 7 | 10 | 27 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 8 | ||
Fa. Salticidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Scytodidae | Scytodes sp. 1 | TF | 16 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
Scytodes sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Scytodes aff. eleonorae Rheims & Brescovit, 2001 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Segestriidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Selenopidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Sicariidae | Loxosceles sp. 1 | TF | 29 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 13 | ||||||
Loxosceles sp. 2 | TF | 1 | 4 | |||||||||||
Loxosceles sp. 3 | TF | 11 | 3 | 6 | ||||||||||
Sicarius sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Symphytognathidae | Anapistula sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Tetragnathidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Crysometa sp. 1 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Glenognatha sp. 1 | ? | 5 | ||||||||||||
Leucage sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||
Leucage sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Theridiidae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 5 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | 4 | |||||||||||
sp. 4 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 5 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 6 | TF | 1 | 6 | |||||||||||
Achaearanea sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||
Chrysso sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Latrodectus geometricus Koch 1841 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Nesticodes rufipes (Lucas, 1846) | TF | 6 | 5 | |||||||||||
Theridion sp. 1 | TF | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | |||||||
Fa. Theridiosomatidae | Plato sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 22 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | |||||
Plato sp. 2 | TF | 15 | 2 | 2 | 6 | |||||||||
Plato sp. 3 | TF | 2 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||
Steatoda sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Thomisiidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Trechaleidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Uloboridae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Zodaridae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||
So. Mygalomorphae | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Dipluridae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | |||||||||||
Ischnothele annulata Tullgren, 1905 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Idiopidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Theraphosidae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | |||||||||||
O. Opiliones | ||||||||||||||
So. Laniatores | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Phalangodidae | 1 | |||||||||||||
Sfa. Phalangodinae | gen. n. sp. n. | TF | ||||||||||||
Fa. Cosmetidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Cosmetinae | Flirtea batman (Pinto-da-Rocha & Yamaguti, 2013) | TF | 1 | 14 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | |||
sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Gonyleptidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Pachylinae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 5 | ||||||||||||
Eusarcus sp. 1 | TF | 7 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | |||||
Fa. Tricommatidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Tricommatinae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Stygnidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Stygninae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
So. Eupnoi | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Sclerosomatidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Gagrellinae | sp. 1 | TF | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | ||||
sp. 2 | TF | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Pseudoscorpiones | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Chthoniidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Fa. Atemnidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Atemninae | Paratemnoides sp. 1 | TF | 6 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Cheiridiidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Cheiridiinae | Cheiridium sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Cheliferidae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Chernetidae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Chernetinae | ||||||||||||||
T. Chernetini | Spelaeochernes sp. 1 | TB | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | ||||||||
Fa. Geogarypidae | Geogarypus sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Olpiidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 16 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Hesperolpiinae | Progarypus sp. 1 | TF | 4 | |||||||||||
O. Schizomida | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Hubbardiidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Hubbardiinae | ||||||||||||||
T. Hubbardiinii | Stenochrus portoricensis Chamberlin, 1922 | TF | 3 | 8 | ||||||||||
O. Scorpiones | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Buthidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Buthinae | ||||||||||||||
T. Buthinii | Tityus sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
C. Chilopoda | ||||||||||||||
O. Geophilomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Ballophilidae | Ityphilus sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Schendylidae | Schendylops sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Schendylops sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
O. Lithobiomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Henicopidae | Lamyctes sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Scolopendromorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Scolopocryptopidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Newportiinae | Newportia (Tidops) balzanii (Silvestri, 1895) | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Scolopendridae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Scolopendrinae | Scolopendra viridicornis Newport, 1844 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Scutigeromorpha | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Pselliodidae | Sphendononema guildingii (Newport, 1845) | TF | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
C. Diplopoda | ||||||||||||||
O. Polydesmida | sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
O. Spirostreptida | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Pseudonannolenidae | Pseudonannolene aff. imbirensis Fontanetti, 1996 | TF | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||
sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 3 | ||||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 4 | 1 | 9 | 1 | |||||||||
sp. 4 | TM/TB? | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 5 | TF | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
sp. 6 | TF | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 7 | ? | 3 | ||||||||||||
sp. 8 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Spirostreptidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
O. Siphonophorida | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
C. Symphyla | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Scutigereliidae | Hanseniella sp. 1 | TF | 8 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
C. Entognatha | ||||||||||||||
O. Diplura | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||
O. Collembola | ||||||||||||||
So. Entomobryomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Lepidocyrtidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Cyphoderinae | Cyphoderus sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 19 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Entomobryidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 11 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 4 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Entomobryinae | Entomobrya sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Paronellidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 6 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Trogolaphysa sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 4 | ||||||||||||
Trogolaphysa sp. 2 | TM/TB? | 1 | 7 | 4 | ||||||||||
Trogolaphysa sp. 3 | TF | 5 | ||||||||||||
C. Insecta | ||||||||||||||
O. Blattaria | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Blaberidae | sp. 1 | TF | 5 | |||||||||||
Fa. Blattellidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 48 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
sp. 2 | TF | 7 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 6 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Corydiidae | sp. 1 | AC | 3 | |||||||||||
O. Coleoptera | ||||||||||||||
So. Adephaga | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Carabidae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
Sfa. Harpalinae | ||||||||||||||
T. Pentagonicini | Pentagonicina sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
T. Platynini | ||||||||||||||
SubT Platynina | Platynus sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
T. Pterostichini | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||
SubT. Agonina | sp. 1 | TF | 29 | 1 | 21 | 1 | ||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
SubT. Lozandrina | Loxandrus sp. 1 | ? | 3 | |||||||||||
Sfa.Trechinae | ||||||||||||||
T. Bembidiini | ||||||||||||||
Subt. Tachyina | Paratachys sp. 1 | TF | 48 | 1 | 19 | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Paratachys sp. 2 | ? | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Pericompsus sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||
Polyderis sp. 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Tachys sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
T. Zuphiini | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | |||||||||||
Fa. Dytiscidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
So. Myxophaga | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Hydroscaphidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
So. Polyphaga | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Cantharidae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Chrysomelidae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Curculionidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Dryopidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Elmidae | Macrelmis sp. 1 | TF | 9 | |||||||||||
Macrelmis sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Hexacylloepus sp. 1 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Lampyridae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||
Fa. Ptiliidae | Micridium sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Ptilodactylidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Scarabaeidae | Canthon sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Scydmaenidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Staphylinidae | sp. 1 | TF | 19 | 20 | 2 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | 5 | |||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
sp. 4 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 5 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 6 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 7 | TF | 2 | 7 | |||||||||||
sp. 8 | AC | 2 | ||||||||||||
sp. 9 | ? | 1 | 4 | |||||||||||
sp. 10 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Aleocharinae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
Sfa. Osoriinae | Holotrochus sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Oxytelinae | sp. 1 | TF | 18 | 18 | 2 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa.Paederinae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Homeotarsus sp. 1 | ? | 3 | ||||||||||||
Homeotarsus sp. 2 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
Homeotarsus sp. 3 | ? | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Pselaphinae | sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Sfa. Staphylininae | ||||||||||||||
T. Staphilinini | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
T. Xantholinini | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Steninae | Stenus sp. 1 | TF | 2 | |||||||||||
Stenus sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Tachyporinae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Tenebrionidae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
O. Diptera | ||||||||||||||
So. Brachycera | ||||||||||||||
Io. Muscomorpha/ Acalyptratae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
F. Drosophilidae | Drosophila sp. 1 | TF | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||
Drosophila sp. 2 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Drosophila sp. 3 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Muscidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | |||||||||||
Fa. Phoridae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
So. Nematocera | ||||||||||||||
Io. Bibionomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Cecidomyiidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Io. Culicomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Ceratopogonidae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Chironomidae | sp. 1 | ? | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 6 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 6 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Culicidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||
Io. Tipulomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Limoniidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Io. Bibionomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Mycetophilidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 9 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 3 | ||||||||||||
Io. Psychodomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Psychodidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Phlebotominae | sp. 1 | TF | 7 | 15 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||
Io. Bibionomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Sciaridae | sp. 1 | TF | 6 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 4 | TF | 8 | ||||||||||||
Io. Culicomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Simulidae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Io. Tipulomorpha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Tipulidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Ephemeroptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Baetidae | Cloeodes sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Leptophlebiidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 12 | 8 | 1 | ||||||||
Miroculis sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Hemiptera | ||||||||||||||
So. Auchenorrhyncha | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Cicadellidae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Cixiidae | sp. 1 | TF | 6 | 1 | ||||||||||
So. Heteroptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Belostomatidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Gelastocoridae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Notonectidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Hydrometridae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | |||||||||||
Fa. Coreidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Coreinae | Zicca sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Lygaeidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 7 | 2 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Reduviidae | sp. 1 | TF | 8 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 4 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Ectrichodiinae | Pothea furtadoi Gil-Santana & Costa, 2005 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Emesinae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Reduviinae | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Zelurus sp. 1 | TF | 13 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||
Sfa. Harpactocorinae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Veliidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | |||||||||||
O. Hymenoptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Formicidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Cerapachyinae | Acanthostichus kirbyi Emery, 1895 | AC | 3 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Ecitoninae | Labidus coecus (Latreille, 1802) | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Formicinae | Nylanderia sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Myrmicinae | Pheidole sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Pheidole sp. 2 | TF | 6 | 3 | |||||||||||
Pheidole sp. 3 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Pheidole sp. 4 | TF | 16 | ||||||||||||
Pheidole sp. 5 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Solenopsis sp. 1 | TF | 3 | ||||||||||||
Wasmannia auropunctata (Roger, 1863) | AC | 3 | ||||||||||||
Sfa. Ponerinae | Hypoponera sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Hypoponera sp. 2 | TF | 1 | 11 | |||||||||||
Hypoponera sp. 3 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Hypoponera sp. 4 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Leptogenys sp. 1 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Vespidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
SF.Ichneumonoidea | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Isoptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Termitidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Nasutitermitinae | sp. 1 | TF | 11 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
O. Lepidoptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Noctuidae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Tineidae | sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 1 | |||||||
O. Megaloptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Megalopteridae | sp. 1 | ? | 2 | |||||||||||
O. Neuroptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Myrmeleontidae | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Odonata | sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Orthoptera | ||||||||||||||
So. Ensifera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Phalangopsidae | sp. 1 | TF | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||
Sfa. Luzarinae | Endecous sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 7 | |||||||
Endecous sp. n. 1 | TF | 15 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||
Endecous sp. n. 2 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
Eidmanacris sp. 1 | TF | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
Fa. Trigonidiidae | ||||||||||||||
Sfa. Trigonidiinae | Cyrtoxipha sp. 1 | AC | 1 | |||||||||||
O. Plecoptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Perlidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 4 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Perlodidae | sp. 1 | TF | 3 | |||||||||||
O. Psocoptera | sp. 1 | TF | 4 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 8 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 2 | ||||||||||||
O. Thysanoptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Lepismatidae | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
sp. 2 | AC | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 3 | AC | 1 | ||||||||||||
O. Trichoptera | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Calamoceratidae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Hydropsychidae | Leptonema sp. 1 | TF | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Hydropsychidae | Smicridae sp. 1 | TF | 7 | 2 | ||||||||||
Fa. Philopotamidae | Chimarra sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 8 | 3 | |||||||||
Fa. Odontoceridae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | |||||||||||
C. Malacostraca | ||||||||||||||
O. Isopoda | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Armadillidae | Venezillo congener (Budde-Lund, 1904) | TF | 11 | 11 | ||||||||||
Fa. Dubioniscidae | sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 14 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | TF | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||
sp. 3 | TF | 8 | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Platyarthridae | sp. 1 | TF | 1 | 5 | ||||||||||
Fa. Styloniscidae | sp. 1 | TM/TB? | 2 | |||||||||||
F. Mollusca | ||||||||||||||
C. Gastropoda | ||||||||||||||
O. Pulmonata | ||||||||||||||
So. Stylommatophora | sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
sp. 2 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
sp. 3 | ? | 4 | ||||||||||||
sp. 4 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 5 | ? | 5 | ||||||||||||
sp. 6 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
sp. 7 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 8 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 9 | ? | 2 | ||||||||||||
sp. 10 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
sp. 11 | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Gastrocoptidae | Gastrocopta sharae Salvador, Cavallari & Simone, 2017 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Charopidae | Radiodiscus sp. 1 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Ferussaciidae | Cecilioides consobrina (d’Orbigny, 1842) | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Scolodontidae | Entodina jekylli Baker, 1913 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Prohappia besckei (Dunker, 1847) | ? | 1 | ||||||||||||
Fa. Systrophiidae | Happia glaberrima Thiele, 1927 | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Subulinidae | Leptinaria concentrica (Reeve, 1849) | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
Fa. Valloniidae | Pupisoma dioscoricola (Adams, 1845) | ? | 1 | |||||||||||
F. Annelida | ||||||||||||||
C. Clitellata | ||||||||||||||
O. Haplotaxida | ||||||||||||||
Fa. Glossoscolecidae | Pontoscolex corethrurus (Müller, 1857) | TF | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Fa. Megascolecidae | Dichogaster saliens (Beddard, 1893) | ? | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Dichogaster gracilis (Michaelsen, 1892) | TF | 1 | ||||||||||||
Sc. Hirudinea | sp. 1 | AC | 2 | |||||||||||
F. Nematoda | sp. 1 | ? | 1 |