Research Article |
Corresponding author: Marconi Souza Silva ( marconisilva@dbi.ufla.br ) Academic editor: Oana Teodora Moldovan
© 2015 Marconi Souza Silva, Rodrigo Lopes Ferreira.
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:
Souza-Silva M, Ferreira RL (2015) Cave invertebrates in Espírito Santo state, Brazil: a primary analysis of endemism, threats and conservation priorities. Subterranean Biology 16: 79-102. https://doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.16.5227
|
The cave-dwelling invertebrates were studied according to their composition, biodiversity, distribution and threats in the Atlantic Forest Central Biodiversity Corridor, a priority area for conservation actions in Brazil. Twelve obligate cave species were found, plus 495 troglophile species. Araneae (103 spp.), Coleoptera (61 spp.), Diptera (56 spp.) and Lepidoptera (38 spp.) were the richest taxa. The richness was higher in the carbonate caves (63 spp., sd = 16.7) and the highest diversity in granitic caves (H´= 2.68, sd = 0.5). The spatial turnover was 63.45 and similarity less than 30%. The total richness was correlated with the linear extension of the caves (Rs = 0.757, p ≤ 0.05). Surrounding area deforestation and religious and tourist use were the main threats. Emergency attention is recommended regarding protective actions, management and conservation of caves of extremely high biological importance.
Atlantic forest, biodiversity, cave protection, subterranean habitats, troglobiont species
In the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil, the degradation of the Atlantic Forest has been as widespread and intense as in the rest of the country. From the original native forest cover, there is currently only approximately 11% remaining (
The corridor is extremely diverse, sheltering many animal and plant species with restricted distributions, including threatened species (
The first study regarding caves animals in the Atlantic Forest was made in 1907 in Iporanga municipality (São Paulo state), with the description of Pimelodella kronei (
It was only in the 1980’s that more general studies started to be conducted, when
Caves are subterranean environments which harbor a rich fauna living with low food resource availability, constant temperatures and high humidity (
The characteristics most often mentioned to explain why some species are more vulnerable to extinction than others include small population sizes, low geographic distribution, specialized habitat requirements (
Many troglobiont species have low population growth rates and in this case, strong environmental changes may increase the risk of extinction (
The present study sought to evaluate the composition, richness, diversity, turnover and similarity of invertebrate cave fauna in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil, an important geographical unit for conservation in the Atlantic Forest. Thus, we attempted to also evaluate the human changes to these caves, using a Cave Conservation Priority index (
The caves investigated in this study are located in the Atlantic Forest Central Biodiversity Corridor in Espírito Santo, Brazil, a priority area for conservation (
Location (UTM) and characteristics of 15 caves in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Cave | Municipality | X | Y | L | A (m) | H | SE (m) | SV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Pansini | Vargem Alta | 285168.01 | 7711062.66 | M | 450 | ps | 300 | M |
Casa Branca | Itaimbe-Itaguaçu | 305381.99 | 7830778.80 | Gr | 160 | DC | 15 | P |
Didi Vieira | Afonso Claúdio | 284809.28 | 7766144.11 | Gn | 662 | DC | 79 | SF |
Evald | Domingos Martins | 320007.63 | 7747606.91 | Gr | 705 | DC | 23 | M |
Faz. do Dr Saulo | Ecoporanga | 302473.87 | 7969940.28 | Gr | 223 | ps | 60 | P |
Faz. Paraíso | Ecoporanga | 306636.61 | 7957526.01 | Gr | 338 | DC | 13 | SF |
Henrique Altoé | Jaciguá | 289929.20 | 7709392.59 | Gr | 600 | ps | 90 | P |
João Buteco | Ecoporanga | 308438.31 | 7974280.89 | Gr | 250 | DC | 25 | P |
Limoeiro | Conceição de Castelo | 273406.68 | 7733590.71 | C | 502.8 | DC | 600 | P |
Michele | Pancas | 311940.58 | 7872453.45 | Gr | 97 | ps | 60 | P |
Mirante | Vargem Alta | 285168.01 | 7711062.66 | M | 650 | ps | 30 | SF |
Represa | Santa Teresa | 322639.34 | 7808340.40 | Gr | 626 | ps | 25 | P |
Rio Itaúnas | Pedro Canário | 395452.20 | 7977430.06 | Gr | 301 | ps | 41 | P |
Ruschi | Santa Tereza | 339370.99 | 7791692.36 | Gr | 672 | TS | 30 | SF |
Santa Bárbara | Venda N. Imigrantes | 275936.82 | 7747596.29 | Gr | 1116 | WT | 80 | M |
Only one visit to each cave was conducted and invertebrates present in the caves were collected manually in all existing potential biotopes and plotted on a schematic sketch of each cave (
Uses and environmental changes (impacts) in the caves and surroundings were evaluated based on forms filled out during visits (
To standardize the richness values used in the comparisons of caves, they were relativized according to the linear development and horizontal extension of the entrances of each cave (biological variable/cave linear development/Σ entry width) (
The alpha diversity values (α) of invertebrate communities associated with each cave were calculated using the Shannon-Weaver index (
To assess the status of threats to biodiversity in caves of the Atlantic Forest in Espírito Santo, we used the Cave Conservation Priority index (CCPi) proposed by
The human modifications surveyed in this study were classified in relation to uses and impacts. Tourist and religious activities were considered uses, impacts being trampling, illumination and construction resulting from these activities (
Environmental changes (impacts) were defined for each cave in function of the presence or absence of modifications inside and in the surroundings. Surroundings was considered as a 250 meter radius projected from the cave’s external contour, according to Brazilian law (CONAMA nº 347, September, 10th, 2004,
The urgent conservation and management actions for the caves and their surrounding forest cover were based on six criteria: (1) microbiological research (suggested for caves with probable occurrence of human pathogenic fungi), (2) defining the abundance of troglobiont species, (3) recovery of the surroundings (suggested for caves with deforested surroundings area), (4) management plan (suggested for caves with intense human use), (5) maintenance of the surroundings using Private Natural Heritage Reserves-PNHRs, (suggested for caves with preserved surroundings area or in advanced succession), (6) compensatory measures (suggested for caves made completely uncharacteristic as a result of human activities).
Private Natural Heritage Reserves (PNHRs) is a category in the current National Conservation Unit System (Law 9.985 of 2000 – SNUC) that supports the creation of protected areas of variable sizes and uses (
The results of the CCPi associated with troglomorphic traits and troglobiont species richness and distribution were used to indicate karst areas that deserve attention with respect to conservation needs.
507 invertebrate species were collected, distributed in at least 121 families (Table
Composition and distribution of invertebrate taxa observed in 15 caves in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Legend: Didi Vieira (DV), Fazenda Paraíso (FP), Michele (Mi), Limoeiro (L), Represa (RE), João Buteco (JB), Casa Branca (CB), Ruschi (RU), Evald (E), Santa Barbára (SB), Fazenda do Dr Saulo (FS), Mirante (Mr), Archimedes Pasinsi (AP), Henrique Atoé (HA), Rio Itaúnas (RI).
Taxa | Family/subfamily | DV | FP | Mi | L | RE | JB | CB | Ru | E | SB | FS | Mi | AP | HA | RI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turbellaria | Dugesiidae | + | + | |||||||||||||
Oligochaeta | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||
Isopoda | unidentified | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Trachelipodidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Philosciidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Platyarthridae | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
Armadillididae | + | |||||||||||||||
Acari | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
Acaridae | + | |||||||||||||||
Anystidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Argasidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Ascidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Bdellidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Cunaxidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Erythraeidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Labidostomatidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Laelapidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Macrochelidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Macronyssidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Podocinidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Trombidiidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Veigaiidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Amblypygi | Charinidae | + | ||||||||||||||
Araneae | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||
Araneidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Clubionidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Ctenidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||
Dipluridae | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
Dysderidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Gnaphosidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Lycosidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Lyniphidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Nemesidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Ochiroceratidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Oecobidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Oonopidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Pholcidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||
Salticidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Scicariidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Scytodidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
Tetragnathidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Theraphosidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Theridiidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||
Theridiosomatidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
Uloboridae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Opiliones | Gonyleptidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||
Escadabiidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Palpigradi | Eukeneniidae | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Pseudoscorpiones | Chernetidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Diplopoda | unidentified | + | ||||||||||||||
Cryptodesmidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Pseudonannolenidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Pyrgodesmidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Rinocricidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Polydesmida | unidentified | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Trichopolydesmidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Spirobolida | unidentified | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Geophilomorpha | unidentified | + | + | |||||||||||||
Litobiomorpha | unidentified | + | ||||||||||||||
Polyxenida | unidentified | + | ||||||||||||||
Symphyla | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Archaeognatha | Meinertellidae | + | ||||||||||||||
Blattodea | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||
Coleoptera | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||
Carabidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Chrysomelidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Dermestidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Dryopidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Elateridae | + | |||||||||||||||
Elmidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Histeridae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Lampyridae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Leiodidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Cholevidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Pselaphidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
Scarabeidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Staphylinidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||
Tenebrionidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Collembola | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||
Diplura | Anajapygidae | + | ||||||||||||||
Campodeidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Japygidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Projapygidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Diptera | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Agromyzidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
Calliphoridae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Cecidomyidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Chironomiidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Culicidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Dixidae | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Dolychopodidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Drosophilidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Keroplatidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Lauxanidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Lonchaeidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Milichidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Mycetophilidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Nematocera | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
Phoridae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Psychodidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Sciaridae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Simulidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Sphaeroceridae | + | |||||||||||||||
Empididae | + | |||||||||||||||
Syrphidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Tipulidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Ensifera | Phalangopsidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
Tetigoniidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Ephemeroptera | unidentified | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Hemiptera/Heteroptera | unidentified | + | + | |||||||||||||
Cydnidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||
Gelastocoridae | + | |||||||||||||||
Naucoridae | + | |||||||||||||||
Emesiinae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
Reduviinae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
Vellidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Hemiptera/Homoptera | unidentified | + | ||||||||||||||
Cixidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Membracidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Hymenoptera | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||
Brachonidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Evaniidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Formicidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
Halictidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Mutilidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Sphecidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Vespidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Isoptera | Termitidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
Lepidoptera | unidentified | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||
Geometridae | + | |||||||||||||||
Hesperiidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Noctuidae | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||
Nymphalidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Tineidae | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||
Neuroptera | Myrmeleontidae | + | + | + | ||||||||||||
Odonata | unidentified | + | ||||||||||||||
Psocoptera | unidentified | + | + | |||||||||||||
Lepidopsoscidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Pseudocaeciliidae | + | |||||||||||||||
Psyllipsoscidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Trichoptera | unidentified | + | + | |||||||||||||
Hydropschidae | + | + | ||||||||||||||
Thysanura | Lepidotrichidae | + | ||||||||||||||
Lepismatidae | + | + | + | |||||||||||||
Mollusca | unidentified | + |
Twelve species with troglomorphic traits were found, all arthropods, with distributions restricted to six caves: one isopod (Trachelipodidae) and one spider (Ochiroceratidae) both from a granitic cave, in Santa Teresa municipality; a silverfish (Zygentoma: Lepismatidae) and an isopod (Isopoda: Plathyarthridade: Trichorhina sp.) both from a granitic cave in Ecoporanga municipality; another silverfish species (Zygentoma: Lepismatidae) from a granitic cave in Pedro Canário municipality; a palpigrade (Eukoeneniidae: Eukoenenia spelunca,
Biological characteristics and priority actions for 15 caves in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Legend: (S) total richness (A) abundance, (D) dominance, (H) diversity, (E) equitability, (TR) organic resources (HG) hematophagous guano (PD) plant debris (CG) carnivore guano, (FG) frugivore guano (R) roots. (PA) priority actions (1) microbiological research, (2) define status of endemic species, (3) recovery of the surroundings, (4) management plan, (5) maintenance of the surroundings, (6) compensatory measure. (T) troglomorphic taxa.
Cave | S | A | D | H | E | TR | pa | T |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Archimedes Pansini | 66 | 760 | 0.08 | 2.99 | 0.71 | HG | 2, 3 | Eukoenenia spelunca, Pseudonnanolene sp. n., Cryptodesmidae sp. n., Escadabiidae sp. n., Trichorhina sp. n. |
Casa Branca | 41 | 183 | 0.2 | 2.36 | 0.64 | ? | 6 | |
Didi Vieira | 64 | 231 | 0.06 | 3.51 | 0.84 | PD | 5 | |
Evald | 17 | 50 | 0.19 | 2.23 | 0.79 | pd | 3 | |
Fazenda do Dr. Saulo | 46 | 1162 | 0.11 | 2.61 | 0.68 | HG | 2, 3 | Zygentoma and Trichorhina sp. n. |
Fazenda Paraiso* | 40 | 797 | 0.18 | 2.12 | 0.57 | CG | 1 | |
Henrique Altoé | 50 | 854 | 0.14 | 2.44 | 0.63 | R, HG | 3, 4 | Trichopolydesmidae sp. n. |
João Buteco | 17 | 646 | 0.16 | 2.17 | 0.76 | HG | 3 | |
Limoeiro | 78 | 4074 | 0.20 | 2.38 | 0.54 | HG | 2, 3, 4 | Opiliones |
Michele | 73 | 245 | 0.06 | 3.48 | 0.81 | R, HG | 3 | |
Mirante | 45 | 1920 | 0.2 | 2.11 | 0.55 | HG | 5 | |
Represa | 43 | 297 | 0.1 | 2.86 | 0.76 | R | 3, 5 | |
Rio Itaúnas | 49 | 9029 | 0.12 | 2.28 | 0.59 | FG | 2, 3 | Zygentoma and Trichorhina sp. n. |
Ruschi | 79 | 462 | 0.09 | 3.13 | 0.72 | PD; HG | 2, 5 | Trachelipodidade and Araneae |
Santa Bárbara | 61 | 617 | 0.08 | 2.95 | 0.72 | HG | 3, 4, 5 | |
Average | 51.3 | 1421 | 0.13 | 2.64 | 0.60 | |||
Standard Deviation | 19 | 2330 | 0.05 | 0.48 | 0.1 |
The total richness varied between 17 to 79 species, and the average species richness was 51 species. The relative richness varied between 0.01 to 1.03, and the average relative species richness was 0.25 (Figures
The average richness was higher in the limestone caves (marble and calcareous) (63 spp., sd = 16.7) and the diversity was higher in the granite caves (H’= 2.68, sd = 0.5), but there were no significant differences in average richness and diversity between carbonate and granite caves (Fig.
Qualitatively, the food resources for invertebrates were variable regarding to the type and quantity present in different caves. The most frequent were the plant detritus accumulated near the entrances, bat guano (from hematophagous, insectivorous, frugivorous and carnivorous bats) and roots of external vegetation accessing the cave galleries. The presence of visible food resources for invertebrate fauna was not detected only in the Casa Branca cave. This cave has been transformed into a small church with cemented floors and walls, electric lighting, an altar and wooden benches (Fig.
Human alterations in caves of Espírito Santo, Brazil. A religious use in granite cave in Venda Nova dos Imigrantes B transformation of granitic cave into a church in Itaimbé-Itaguassu C deforestation surrounding cave in Ecoporanga, D drainage exploitation in granite cave near Pedro Canário E use of cave as goat corral F road construction destroying cave chambers in Vargem Alta G and I Limoeiro cave entrance with religious and tourist use in Conceição de Castelo H using limestone cave as a timber-yard in Vargem Alta.
Human changes (threats) observed were religious use, tourist use, deforestation of the surroundings, collapse by detonation, trampling, construction, garbage, subterranean drainage exploitation, electrical lighting and degradation of speleothems (Table
Qualification of use occurrence * and human alteration weights in 15 caves in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Cave | 1* | 2* | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Sum | IW |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Archimedes Pansini | + | 1 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 18 | H | |||||
Casa Branca | + | 1 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 26 | EH | ||||
Didi Vieira | 0 | L | ||||||||||
Evald | 1 | 1 | L | |||||||||
Fazenda do Dr. Saulo | 1 | 6 | 7 | A | ||||||||
Fazenda Paraíso | 0 | L | ||||||||||
Henrique Atoé | 1 | 1 | L | |||||||||
João Buteco | 1 | 7 | 8 | L | ||||||||
Limoeiro | + | + | 1 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 33 | EH | |
Michele | 1 | 1 | L | |||||||||
Mirante | 0 | L | ||||||||||
Represa | 1 | 1 | L | |||||||||
Rio Itaúnas | 1 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 18 | H | ||||||
Ruschi | 0 | L | ||||||||||
Santa Bárbara | + | + | 1 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 19 | H |
Regarding the biological relevance, 33% of the caves presented extremely high relevance, 26.7% high, 33% average and 6.7% low (Table
Categorization of the caves regarding biological relevance, impact degree and vulnerability of their communities. Caves with troglomorphic species (*).
Cave | Troglomorphic relevance | Biological relevance | Impacts degree | Vulnerability to protect |
---|---|---|---|---|
Didi Vieira | Low | High | Low | Average |
Evald | Low | Low | Low | Average |
Faz. Paraíso | Low | High | Low | Average |
Henrique Atoé | Low | Average | Low | Average |
João Buteco | Low | Average | Low | Average |
Michele | Low | High | Low | Average |
Mirante | Low | High | Low | Average |
Represa | Low | Average | Low | Average |
A. Pansini | Extremely High | Extremely high | High | Extremely high |
Faz. do Dr. Saulo* | Average | Extremely high | Average | Extremely high |
Limoeiro* | Low | Extremely high | Extremely high | Extremely high |
Rio Itaúnas* | Average | Extremely high | High | Extremely high |
Ruschi* | Average | Extremely high | Low | Extremely high |
Casa Branca | Low | Average | Extremely high | High |
Santa Bárbara | Low | Average | High | High |
Categories | % | % | % | % |
Extremely high (%) | 6.7 | 33.3 | 13.3 | 33.3 |
High (%) | 0 | 26.7 | 20 | 13.3 |
Average (%) | 20 | 33.3 | 6.7 | 53.3 |
Low (%) | 73.3 | 6.7 | 60 | 0 |
Criteria used in defining cave priorities for conservation actions based on 15 caves located at Espírito Santo.
Priority | Degree | Criteria |
1 | Extremely high | Expected relative occurrence of 3.76 or more troglobiotic/troglomorphic species of wide or narrow distribution; total species richness more than 61 species; relative richness more than 0.76 (biological relevance greater than 6.1 points) and sum of impact weights more than 25 points. |
2 | High | Expected relative occurrence from 2.6 to 3.75 troglobiotic/troglomorphic species of wide or narrow distribution, total richness between 41 to 50 species; relative richness between 0.6 and 0.75 species (biological relevance between 4.1 and 6 points) and the sum of impact weights between 16.6 and 24.9 points. |
3 | Average | Expected relative occurrence from 1.26 to 2.5 troglobiotic/troglomorphic species of wide or narrow distribution; total richness between 21 and 40 species; relative richness between 0.26 and 0.5 species (biological relevance between 2.1 and 4 points) and the sum of impact weights between 8.26 and 16.5 points. |
4 | Low | Expected occurrence from 1.25 or less troglobiotic/troglomorphic species; total richness less than or equal 20 species; relative richness less than or equal 0.25 species (biological relevance less than 2.1 points) and the sum of impact weights less than or equal 8.25 points. |
Microbiological research in caves with a suspected presence of Histoplasma sp. was suggested only for the Fazenda Paraíso cave, since two members of the collecting team who had contact with guano presented symptoms and were diagnosed positive for histoplasmosis, including one of the authors (RL Ferreira). The farm owner also reported that a nephew who had visited the cave had a recurring fever (one of the histoplasmosis symptoms), but did not have a confirmed diagnosis.
Studies to define the population size and the real threat status of the troglobiont and endemic species were suggested for five caves. Recovery of cave surroundings that had sustained deforestation activity was suggested for nine caves, with the possibility of using permanent fruit culture (especially cocoa) mixed with native trees, because it can additionally function as an economic and ecological service. Management plans for caves with tourist and/or religious use was suggested for three caves. Maintenance of cave surroundings to preserve external vegetation was suggested for five caves (Private Natural Heritage Reserves-PNHRs). Environmental compensatory measures resulting from completely uncharacteristic cave habitat due to human activities were suggested for one cave (Table
Three karst areas were identified as priorities for conservation action: granitic areas with caves located in the extreme north of Espírito Santo state, in the municipalities of Pedro Canário, and Ecoporanga (24K-395452/7977430), since the caves contain at least three troglomorphic species and face human modifications such as deforestation, agriculture, livestock and groundwater water exploitation. Another area is the granitic mountain rocks with caves in Santa Teresa municipality (24K-339370/7791692), since it presents at least two troglomorphic species and faces human impact, such as deforestation, agriculture, livestock, subterranean drainage alteration. The third area comprises the carbonate area with caves in Castelo, Vargem Alta and Cachoeiro do Itapemirim municipalities (24K-285168/7711062), with at least five species of troglobiont/troglomorphic species and faces human alterations, such as religious and tourism uses, deforestation, mining activities and road construction.
The composition of the invertebrate cave fauna evaluated in this study, at least to the family level, is very similar to that registered for other caves in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (
It is important to consider that the work was developed almost two decades ago, in a scenario where the main goal was to conduct primary surveys. Currently, it is essential to include more consistent ecological analyses when the goal is to characterize a subterranean community (
The average diversity presented by
Different caves may have considerably different richness and diversity values, even if using similar sampling efforts. According to
The β-diversity values and similarities found show large differences in the community composition of 15 caves and reveal that nearby caves do not necessarily have similar communities. As well as the influence of the type of rock in which the cave is located, variations in the physical (microhabitat availability, humidity, etc.) and trophic structures may lead to differences in the composition and distribution of cave invertebrate communities (
The Casa Branca cave, located in Itaimbé municipality, showed the least similarity when compared to the other caves. This may be due to the impact of the construction of a church within the cave (Fig.
Troglobiont invertebrates can demonstrate tolerance to certain types of changes which may even occur in partially impacted caves (
When comparing the richness of troglobiont species found in this study with other karst regions in Brazil and around the world (
Facing the conditions found in the sampled caves up to now, we recommend emergency attention regarding protective measures, the management and conservation of caves of extremely high and high biological importance, with high impact degree and extremely high vulnerability facing the impacts. It is very important to intensify speleological studies and faunistic surveys, since some areas in the Atlantic Forest in Espírito Santo with the potential for cave occurrence have not been intensively studied (Castelo, Vargem Alta, Nova Venécia, municipalities). Reforestation of at least 250 meters of the cave surroundings that have surrounding pastures, using agroforestry models and management plans and/or ecological restoration of the caves that have received human impacts that come from tourism, religious use and implementation of information and awareness plans for users, with the accompaniment of environmental inspectors at times of mass celebrations and holy days, should be undertaken. Finally it is important to stimulate the creation of Private Natural Heritage Reserves (PNHRs) in the surroundings of caves with troglobiont species, preserved natural vegetation or that under recuperation.
Critical Ecossystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), Aliança for the conservation of the Mata Atlântica, Conservação Internacional (CI), IBAMA-CECAV, S.O.S. Mata Atlântica, Empresa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural (Emater, MG), Estação Biologia Marinha Ruschi, Instituto de Defesa Agropecuária e Florestal (IDAF, MG) ES. We thank Leopoldo Ferreira, Erika Linzi Taylor and Augusto Cezar Francisco Alves for their support in the fieldwork. R. Ferreira is grateful to the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for funding support and to the National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) for the research grant (process No. 304682/2014-4). License number: 0182/2004 CGFAU/LIC and IBAMA 02001.005461/2004