Conserving the Invisible Common: Advances and Challenges of the Insect Conservation in Brazil

Abstract

In 2019, B. Jarvis paraphrased E. Wilson in that “insects are a case study in terms of the invisible importance of the common”. However, threats to insect diversity are rapidly increasing worldwide, and there is a significant challenge to halt or reverse this process. This is especially true in tropical regions where insect diversity is large, but resources are scarce and conservation policy is poorly developed. In Brazil, studies into insect conservation have grown over the last 30 years and, in this contribution, we use available literature to ask: i) what advances have been made; ii) where are the major knowledge gaps and iii) what are the priorities for action? Brazilian studies into insect conservation reflect international trends with respect to levels of ecological organization and a focus on taxonomic conservation. In general, research is restricted to the main Brazilian hotspots and to the states with better infrastructure. Hymenoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera are the main orders studied. Work on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Odonata has increased in recent years and currently are the main insect orders covered by official management initiatives due to their role as indicators of water quality. Priority areas for future work include the promotion of species conservation and ways to increase resource contribution from the private sector through legal instruments that can support integrative public policies for insect species conservation.

Keywords:
Conservation strategies; entomofauna; systematic review.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Most Brazilian entomology has focused on the Atlantic Forest biome.

• Research on the Amazon and Pantanal biomes should be increased given their biodiversity.

• The Hymenoptera is the most studied taxon in Brazil for conservation.

• Aquatic insects are widely used in official monitoring and conservation programs.

• Insect recovery programs should provide effective conservation.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Most Brazilian entomology has focused on the Atlantic Forest biome.

• Research on the Amazon and Pantanal biomes should be increased given their biodiversity.

• The Hymenoptera is the most studied taxon in Brazil for conservation.

• Aquatic insects are widely used in official monitoring and conservation programs.

• Insect recovery programs should provide effective conservation.

INTRODUCTION

It is a fact that the conservation of the insects is necessary [¹], because of its importance to the functioning of ecosystems [²], issues of ethic nature [³] and maintenance of the diversity in face of the decline or extinction of species [⁴]. However, the conservation of the insects is a complex issue considering the threats by which they are exposed [¹,⁵] and because of many challenges that worry scientists and authorities.

Globally, the challenges on insect conservation are related, mainly in the tropics [⁶], to the mega diversity, to the insufficiency of biological knowledge about the majority of the species (sensu lato), to the difficulties on the monitoring of the cryptic species and to the limited value society puts on insects [³,⁷].

In Brazil, other challenges also threaten the preservation of insects, such as: (a) territorial extension and the existence of under sampled areas [⁸,⁹]; (b) limited number of specialists [¹⁰]; (c) great species richness [¹¹], even in urban areas [⁹]; (d) incomplete entomological collections, non-catalogued or collections that are not registered in computers [¹²]; (e) biopiracy [¹³]; (f) lack of public policies to the insect conservation [¹⁴]; and (g) flexibilization of the laws for the use of pesticides [¹⁵].

This scenario has contributed, at least in part, to researchers [⁹] to propose different strategies to the conservation of land invertebrates’ species in Brazil, but little of it is put into practice as policies or priorities for the government to the conservation of native insects. It is important to highlight that all the initiatives adopted as public instruments to the prospection of the insect conservation and their habitats evolved with a basis on researches and experiences with other taxa, but what changed after the first publications about the conversation of insects in Brazil?

In this context, this study aims to systematically review what the scientific community has produced about the insect conservation in the last decades in Brazil (i.e., 1997 a 2018) and identify tendencies, limitations and/or knowledge gaps to answer the following questions: (a) What are the limitations and the trends of the published studies about the insect conservation? (b) Can the knowledge produced until now inspire new strategies of insect conservation (i.e. more realistic approaches)? By the end of this paper, we suggest how the future researches can reduce uncertainties and stimulate more efficiently the actions to the conversation of the species of insects.

What is covered by research on insect conservation in Brazil?

A total of 93 publications were analyzed among 308 selected by the Scopus base using the words: insect and Brazil and conservation. The yearly production from 1997 and 2007 registered a small increase (1.2 ± 1 publication/year), in contrast to the period from 2008 to 2018 (7.3 ± 3 publication/year). The total of publications about insect conservation is equivalent to 1.5% when compared to the total of studies published about insects in Brazil in the same period (i.e., 6.113 publications).

Most insect conservation studies in Brazil dealt with communities (93.4% of the publications), while studies about populations or species represented together a total of 6.5% of the analyzed publications. In addition, 52.6% of the publications indicated direct conservation and 47.3% indirect conservation. To sum up, recommendations to direct conservation were strict author’s indication to the conservation of the community, population or species of insects being analyzed; while the recommendations to the indirect conservation pointed to the need to preserve the habitats and the entirety of the ecosystems to reach the taxa conservation.

It is important to highlight that the studies with communities of insects that pointed to direct conservation, in general, present deficiencies regarding the identification of the key-species or umbrella species [¹⁶,¹⁷], as well as a lack of indication regarding the management or conservation of the species (48.3% of the publications). In this last case, it has already been criticized by other studies [¹⁸], which argued that it would be fundamental to produce scientific information which is applicable to the management of communities or species of insects.

The preference for studies with insect communities and habitat conservation is linked to the evolution of the concepts and experiences acquired in years of research about insect conservation [³,¹⁹], and also represents more manageable financial strategies to the conservation and management of the mega diversity of insects.

Even though it seems logic to preserve the habitats or the entirety of ecosystems to preserve a large number of species, one cannot discard the fact that species with reduced dispersion, reduced distribution or the ones that have philopatric tendencies to specific habitats deserve special attention, as already considered in other research [⁵] about the evaluation of the priorities and conservation of unique species or special status.

The geographical and ecological distribution of the studies about insect conservation in Brazil

The Brazilian production about insect conservation is focused on the Southeast, (37.7%, 48 publications) and Northeast (24.4%, 31 publications) (Figure 1). The other regions (Central-West, South and North) together have 37.7% of the Brazilian production (48 publications). The pattern on the distribution of the publications about insect conservation in Brazil reiterates the maintenance of a historic view of knowledge about the Brazilian entomofauna and the regionalization of the publications [¹⁰]. Nevertheless, the current position occupied by the northeast of Brazil is surprising, because the geographic and biogeographic distribution of the knowledge of the land invertebrates was considered the worst one among all the other Brazilian regions [²⁰].

The two largest Brazil regions (North - 3.853.6767.9 km² and Central-West - 1.606.403.5 km²: [²¹]) are too deprived of studies about insect conservation, as well as of knowledge of its own insect diversity [¹⁰]. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the Central-West and North regions still concentrate the smallest amount of public research institutions [²²], collections [²³], researchers [¹⁰] and probably resources in comparison to the Southeast, South and Northeast regions.

In the Southeast, Minas Gerais was the state with the highest regional production (41.6%, 20 publications), whereas the state of Rio de Janeiro registered the lowest volume of publications about the theme for this same region (12.5%, 6 publications). On the Northeast, the State of Bahia registered the highest regional production (35.4%, 11 publications), while the State of Maranhão did not register any research about insect conservation among the publications analyzed (Figure 1).

The Brazilian Central-West registered 18 publications distributed among the states of Mato Grosso do Sul (33.3%, 6 publications), Mato Grosso (27.7%, 5 publications), Distrito Federal (22.2%, 4 publications) and Goiás (16.6%, 3 publications). On the South, the State of Rio Grande do Sul concentrated 52.6% (10 publications) of the regional publications; while the states of Paraná and Santa Catarina registered respectively: 31.7% and 15.7%. The North region registered 11 publications, with the prominent position being occupied by Amazonas (54.5%, 6 publications). In addition, the States of Amapá, Rondônia, Roraima and Tocantins did not register any publications (Figure 1).

In general, the distribution of research among the states reiterates the tendencies of concentrating scientific production about the insect conservation regarding the Brazilian regions. Approximately 15 years ago, the production profile of information to Hexapoda was already heavily biased, presenting the States of São Paulo, Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro as the main responsible for concentrating together 67.0% of the national production [¹⁰] (Figure 1).

Among biomes, the Atlantic Forest and the Brazilian savannah (Cerrado) concentrated more than a half of the national production about the insect conservation, respectively 46.5% (47 publications) and 23.8% (24 publications), but the relation between these pieces of information and the percentage of the protected areas among the biomes in Brazil is too divergent. For instance, the Amazon biome has 28.6% of legally protected area; the Brazilian savannah (Cerrado), Caatinga and Atlantic Forest have, respectively, 8.6%, 9.0% and 10.4%; while the Pantanal and Pampa have less than 5.0% of protected areas (i.e., respectively, 4.5% and 3.2%) [²⁴] (Figure 1).

Despite the region or biome, 79.5% of the publications refer to studies developed in terrestrial environments and only 20.4% on aquatic environments. Specifically, the forest habitats were preferably studied regarding insect conservation (78.2% of the publications) in comparison to other habitats (e.g., fields, plantations, creeks, river/small streams and floodplains). Among the aquatic habitats, 65.9% of the studies were developed in rivers/small streams, while creeks and floodplains registered, respectively, 30.0% and 5.0% of the studies.

The predominance of studies in land habitats in comparison to the aquatic habitats suggest that the easy access, logistics and investments to research [⁸] are responsible for the differences on the amount of information, despite the continuous publication of researches on aquatic bioindicators [²⁵,²⁶].

Figure 1
Distribution of research among Brazilian regions, states and biomes. Polygons - Amazon (dark green), Caatinga (brown), Cerrado (orange), Atlantic Forest (light green), Pampa (blue) and Pantanal (purple); Dots - searched locations (red). Datum SIRGAS 2000.

What are the main taxa related to insect conservation in Brazil?

In total, 19 orders and 226 families of insects were mentioned in the publications (Table 1). The orders Hymenoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera were the main references of insect conservation in Brazil. At least two publications did not inform which orders of insects were analyzed, and the orders Embioptera, Zoraptera, Psocoptera, Phthiraptera, Mecoptera, Siphonaptera e Strepsiptera were not registered.

In Brazil, the taxonomic knowledge of orders and families of insects is not equally distributed, in part because of the differences in the number of specialists in activity [¹⁰]. The concentration of studies of Hymenoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera e Lepidoptera can also be explained by the whole amount of species richness registered in Brazil for each taxon, since some authors [¹¹], the orders who present largest species richness in Brazil are Coleoptera (28.000 spp.), Lepidoptera (26.000 spp.), Hemiptera (10.200 spp.), Hymenoptera (10.000 spp.) and Diptera (8.700 spp.).

The ranking of the main orders studied requires reflections about the few public policies and/or criteria implemented for the insect conservation on Brazil territory. For instance, Hymenoptera and Coleoptera together have only 6.0% of species included in a threat of extinction category [²⁷], that is to say, what is the relevance of this number for the conservation of the species from both orders? Another issue refers to the insufficient efforts for the inclusion of hymenopterans, especially Formicidae and Apoidae, which knowledge of taxa was considered sufficient to carry out programs of conservation, evaluation and monitoring of the environmental quality of the habitats [⁹]. On the other hand, the actual position occupied by Diptera can be considered surprising, because for a long time the taxon has been related to studies of medical or economical interest [⁹].

In terms of insect conservation in Brazil, Lepidoptera has always been a reference on the topic. Until December 2018, in the scientific journals specialized on insect conservation (e.g., Journal of Insect Conservation and Insect Diversity and Conservation), Brazil was ranked among the countries with high number of studies about Lepidoptera. At the beginning of the century, many studies have already suggested Lepidoptera as an important flagship group [⁹,²⁸], but only some species were officially included as instruments to conservation [²⁹] or are under broader protection [³⁰].

The orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera Trichoptera and Odonata also deserve attention regarding the insect conservation in Brazil, due to the increasing number of studies that discuss the relation of the taxa with the environmental quality of the waters [³¹,³²]. Apparently, these issues have been influencing the increasing focus of the authorities regarding the applications in official programs of management and monitoring of watersheds [³³] and reinforce the protection for the species in threat of extinction [²⁷].

Table 1
Literature review on insect conservation in Brazil.

Ref.	Location/Ecological scale				Cited taxons
	State	Biome	Env	Habitat	Order	Family
[34]	PA	Am	T	Fo	L	Erebidae
[35]	PA	Am	A	Ri	Di	Chironomidae
[36]	RJ, SP, SC, PR	MA	T	Fo	L	Sphingidae
[37]	RS	Pm	T	Fo	Di	Muscidae
[38]	SP	MA	T	Fo, FP	Bl1, C, De, Di, He, Hy, I, L, Or	Formicidae
[39]	PE	Ca	T	Fo	Hy	Formicidae
[40]	MT, MS	Pn	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae, Crabronidae, Mutillidae, Pompilidae, Scoliidae, Sphecidae, Tiphiidae, Vespidae
[41]	PE	Ca	T	Fo	Hy	Formicidae
[42]	ES	MA	A	Ri	C, Di, Ep, He, L, Od, Pl, Tr	Baetidae, Calamoceratidae, Calopteterygidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, Elmidae, Empididae, Gerridae, Glossosomatidae, Gomphidae, Helichopsychidae, Hydroptilidae, Hydropsychidae, Leptoceridae, Leptohyphidae, Leptophlebiidae, Libellulidae, Megapodagrionidae, Naucoridae, Odontoceridae, Perlidae, Philopotamidae, Polycentropodidae, Psephenidae, Psychodidae, Pyralidae, Simuliidae, Tipulidae, Veliidae
[43]	MG	MA	T	FP	Hy	Vespidae
[44]	RJ, MG, BA	MA, Ce	T	Fo	-	-
[45]	PR	MA	T	FP	Di	Syrphidae
[46]	GO	Ce	A	Ri	Tr	-
[47]	RJ	MA	T	Fo	Di	Asilidae
[48]	SP	MA	T	Fo	L	Sphingidae
[49]	RS	MA	A	Ri	C	Elmidae
[50]	RS	MA	T	Fo	C	Anobiidae, Anthribidae, Biphyllidae, Cerylonidae, Ciidae, Clambidae, Colydiidae, Corylophidae, Cryptophagidae, Elateridae, Endomychidae, Erotylidae, Latridiidae, Leiodidae, Melandryidae, Nitidulidae, Phalacridae, Ptiliidae, Staphylinidae, Tenebrionidae
[51]	PA	Am	A	St	Bl1, C, Di, Ep, He, Me, Od, Pl, Tr	Aeshnidae, Baetidae, Blaberidae, Caenidae, Calamoceratidae, Calopterygidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, Coenagrionidae, Corduliidae, Corixidae, Corydalidae, Coryphoridae, Crambidae, Dicteriadidae, Dolichopodidae, Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Ecnomidae, Elmidae, Empididae, Entomobryidae, Euthyplociidae, Gerridae, Glossosomatidae, Gomphidae, Gyrinidae, Helicopsychidae, Hydraenidae, Hydrochidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydroptilidae, Hydropsychidae, Paronellidae, Leptoceridae, Leptohyphidae, Leptophebiidae, Libellulidae, Limnichidae, Megapodagrionidae, Naucoridae, Noteridae, Odontoceridae, Perilestidae, Perlidae, Philopotamidae, Polycentropodidae, Polymitarcyidae, Polythoridae, Ptilodactylidae, Protoneuridae, Sialidae, Simuliidae, Scirtidae, Staphylinidae, Stratiomyidae, Tabanidae, Tipulidae, Veliidae
[52]	CE	Ca	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae, Chrysididae, Crabronidae, Ichneumonidae, Leucospidae, Megachilidae, Pompilidae, Sphecidae, Vespidae
[53]	MG	Ce	T	Fo	Di	Psychodidae
[54]	MG	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Vespidae
[55]	SP	MA	T	FP	Bl2, C, De, Di, He, Hy, I, L, N, Or, Th	Acrididae, Aetalionidae, Agromyzidae, Aphididae, Apidae, Asilidae, Blatellidae, Carabidae, Cercopidae, Chrysopidae, Chrysomelidae, Coreidae, Culicidae, Curculionidae, Cydnidae, Dolichopodidae, Drosophilidae, Elateridae, Forficulidae, Formicidae, Gryllidae, Hemerobiidae, Hesperiidae, Labiduridae, Muscidae, Mycetophilidae, Noctuidae, Passalidae, Phoridae, Pieridae, Piophilidae, Psychodidae, Reduviidae, Rhizophagidae, Scarabaeidae, Sciaridae, Sphaeroceridae, Staphylidae, Tachinidae, Termitidae, Ulidiidae, Vespidae
[56]	RS	MA, Pm	T	Fo	Di	Syrphidae
[57]	AL	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Formicidae
[58]	MG, SP, GO	Ce	A	St	Ep, Pl, Tr	-
[59]	MS	Ce	A	St	C, Di, Ep, L, Od, Tr	Aeshinidae, Caenidae, Calamoceratidae, Calopterygidae, Ceratopogonidae, Coenagrionidae, Dryopidae, Ecnomidae, Elmidae, Empididae, Ephemeridae, Gomphidae, Gyrinidae, Helicopsychidae, Hydropsychidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydroptilidae, Leptoceridae, Leptohyphidae, Leptophlebiidae, Libellulidae, Lutrochidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Philopotamidae, Pieridae, Polycentropodidae, Protoneuridae, Pyralidae, Riodinidae, Scarabaeidae, Scirtidae, Simuliidae, Staphylinidae, Stratyomidae, Tabanidae, Tipulidae, Xiphocentronidae
[60]	BA, PE, PI	Ca	T	Fo	Di	Drosophilidae
[61]	MG, SE	Ce, Ca	T	Fo	C, He, Or, Ph	Acanaloniidae, Achilidae, Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Cercopidae, Chrysomelidae, Cicadellidae, Cixiidae, Coreidae, Curculionidae, Dictyopharidae, Fulgoridae, Lygaeidae, Membracidae, Miridae, Proscopiidae, Psyllidae, Rhopalidae, Tettigonidae, Thyreocoridae, Tingidae
[62]	BA, PE, PI	Ca	T	Fo	Di	Drosophilidae
[63]	BA	Ce	T	Fo	-	-
[64]	DF	Ce	T	Fo	L	Elachistidae, Gelechiidae, Oecophoridae, Pyralidae, Tortricidae
[65]	BA	MA	T	Fo, FP	C, He	Achilidae, Achilixiidae, Aetalionidae, Anobiidae, Cerambycidae, Chrysomelidae, Cicadellidae, Cicadidae, Cixiidae, Curculionidae, Cydnidae, Derbidae, Elateridae, Issidae, Lygaeidae, Membracidae, Miridae, Phasmidae, Psyllidae, Pyrrhocoridae, Tingidae
[66]	GO	Ce	A	Ri	Ep, Pl, Tr	-
[67]	MS	Ce	T	Fi	C	Scarabaeidae
[68]	MT	Am	T	Fo	Hy	Mutillidae
[69]	AM	Am	A	Ri	C, Di, Ep, Me, Pl, Tr	Chironomidae, Corydalidae, Dryopidae, Lutrochidae, Odontoceridae
[70]	BA, MG	Ce, Ca	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[71]	MT	Am	T	Fo	Hy	Formicidae
[72]	MG	MA	A	St	Ep, Pl, Tr	-
[73]	MS	Ce, Pn	T	Fo	L	Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Riodinidae
[26]	PA	Am	T	Fo	Od	Aeshnidae, Gomphidae, Libellulidae
[74]	RS	Pm	A	Ri	C, Di, Ep, Me, Od, Pl, Tr	Baetidae, Caenidae, Calopterygidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, Coenagrionidae, Corduliidae, Corydalidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Empididae, Gomphidae, Gypopterygidae, Helicopsychidae, Hydropsychidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydroptilidae, Leptohyphidae, Leptophlebiidae, Libellulidae, Perlidae, Philopotamidae, Polycentropodidae, Psephenidae, Tricorythidae
[75]	ES	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[76]	PR	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae, Crabronidae, Pompilidae
[77]	PE	MA	T	Fo	C	Scarabaeidae
[78]	AL, PE	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[79]	MS	Ce, Pn	A	Ri	C, Di, Ep, Tr	Chironomidae, Dryopidae, Ecnomidae, Elmidae, Leptoceridae, Leptophlebiidae
[80]	BA	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[81]	MS	Ce	A	Ri	Ep	Leptophlebiidae
[82]	MG	Ce, MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[83]	PI	Ce	T	FP	Bl2, C, De, Di, He, Hy, I, Le, Ma, N, Or, Th	Acrididae, Apidae, Blattidae, Brassolidae, Carabidae, Coccinelidae, Corizidae, Culicidae, Curculionidae, Cydnidae, Dolichopodidae, Elateridae, Formicidae, Gryllidae, Hesperiidae, Ichneumonidae, Lampyridae, Mantidae, Mutillidae, Myrmeleontidae, Noctuidae, Pompilidae, Proscopiidae, Pyralidae, Sarcophagidae, Scarabaeidae, Tenebrionidae, Termitidae
[84]	AM	Am	T	Fo	Hy	Mutillidae
[85]	BA	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[86]	BA	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[87]	BA	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[88]	RJ	MA	A	Ri	Ep, Pl, Tr	Chironomidae
[89]	ES	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[90]	RS	Pm	A	Ri	Di	Chironomidae
[91]	RS	Pm	A	Ri	Di	Chironomidae
[92]	AM	Am	T	Fo	C, Di	Scarabaeidae, Scathophagidae
[93]	MG	Ce	T	Fi	L	Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Riodinidae
[25]	AM	Am	A	St	C, Di, E, Pl, Tr	Chironomidae, Baetidae
[94]	SP	Ce	T	Fo	Hy	Formicidae
[95]	SP	MA	T	Fo	L	Nymphalidae
[96]	SP	MA	T	Fi	C	Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae, Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Hydraenidae
[97]	MT	Ce	A	Ri	Od	Coenagrionidae
[98]	SP	MA	T	Fo, Fi	Hy	Braconidae
[99]	RS	Pm, MA	A	FP	Di, E, Od, Tr	Aeshnidae, Baetidae, Caenidae, Calamoceratidae, Chironomidae, Coenagrionidae, Gomphidae, Hydroptilidae, Leptoceridae, Leptophlebiidae, Letisdae, Libellulidae, Polymitarcyidae
[100]	SP	MA	T	Fi	C, He, Hy, N, Od, Or	Acrididae, Braconidae, Cercopidae, Chrysopidae, Chrysomelidae, Cicadellidae, Coccinelidae, Coenagrionidae, Curculionidae, Delphacidae, Eulophidae, Figitidae, Libellulidae, Lygaeidae, Pentatomidae, Phalacridae, Pyrricoridae, Platygastridae, Tettigonidae
[101]	RS	Pm	T	Fi	L	Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Riodinidae
[102]	MG	Ce	T	Fo, FP	C	Scarabaeidae
103]	PR	MA	T	Fo	C	Anthicidae, Carabidae, Cerambycidae, Cerylonidae, Chrysomelidae, Clambidae, Cneoglossidae, Coccinellidae, Corylophidae, Curculionidae, Dytiscidae, Elateridae, Endomychidae, Erotylidae, Eucinetidae, Hydraenidae, Hydrophilidae, Laemophloeidae, Lagriidae, Lampyridae, Languridae, Leiodidae, Limnichidae, Lycidae, Melandryidae, Nitidulidae, Ptiliidae, Ptilodactylidae, Scarabaeidae, Scirtidae, Scydmaenidae, Staphylinidae, Tenebrionidae, Trogossitidae, Zopheridae
[104]	RN	MA	T	Fi	Hy	Apidae
[105]	MG	Ce	T	Fo	Hy	Vespidae
[106]	AC	Am	T	Fo	Hy	Chalcididae, Crabronidae, Eucharididae, Evaniidae, Mutillidae, Pompilidae, Vespidae
[107]	ES	MA	T	Fo		Scarabaeidae
[108]	DF	Ce	T	Fo	Di	Drosophilidae
[109]	SP, SC, RJ, AL, BA, PE, PR, SE, ES	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[110]	PB	MA	T	Fo	Hy	Apidae
[111]	MG	MA	T	Fo, FP	Hy	Trichogrammatidae
[112]	MG	MA	T	Fo	L	Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Riodinidae
[113]	ES	MA	T	Fo	Bl2	Blaberidae
[114]	SP	Ce	T	Fo	Di, L	Cecidomyidae, Tephritidae
[115]	AM	Am	T	Fo	C	Scarabaeidae
[116]	MG	MA	T	Fo	C	Aderidae, Aphodiidae, Biphlyllidae, Cerambycidae, Cetoniidae, Curculionidae, Elateridae, Histeridae, Laemophloeidae, Lampyridae, Melolonthidae, Nitidulidae, Nosodendridae, Rutelidae, Scolytidae, Staphylinidae, Tenebrionidae
[117]	MG	MA	T	Fo	Hy, Or	Formicidae, Mogoplistidae, Phalangopsidae, Trigoniidae
[118]	SP	MA	A	St	C, Di, E, He, Le, Od, Pl, Tr	Baetidae, Caenidae, Calamoceratidae, Calopterygidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, Coenagrionidae, Corduliidae, Curculionidae, Dixidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Empididae, Gomphidae, Gripopterygidae, Haliplidae, Hydrophilidae, Leptoceridae, Leptophlebiidae, Libellulidae, Aeshnidae, Megapotagrionidae, Odontoceridae, Perlidae, Philopotamidae, Polycentropodidae, Psychodidae, Pyralidae, Simuliidae, Tricorythidae, Vellidae
[119]	MG, SP	MA	T	FP, Fi	He	Anthocoridae
[28]	PB, PE, MT, DF, MG, RJ, SP, PR, ES, SC	MA	T	Fo	L	Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae
[120]	AM	Am	T	Fo	Hy	Formicidae
[121]	MG	MA	T	Fo	Bl2, C, He, Or, Ph	Acrididae, Chrysomelidae, Cerambycidae, Cercopidae, Cicadelidae, Cicadidae, Curculionidae, Delphacidae, Distyopharidae, Fulgoridae, Membracidae, Pentatomidae, Scutelleridae, Tettigonidae, Tingidae
[122]	MG	MA	T	Fi	L	Hesperiidae, Nymphalidae
[123]	DF	Ce	T	Fo, FP	L	Actiidae, Apatelodidae, Blastobasidae, Crambridae, Dalceridae, Gelechidae, Geometridae, Hedylidae, Hesperiidae, Lasiocampidae, Limacodidae

₁₂

Different perspectives to the insect conservation: implications and opportunities for its management

In the last few years, different suggestions to the approach on the insect conservation were prominent because they pointed to new directions and priorities to the conservation of the diversity of insects worldwide [¹,³]. In addition, the efficient insect conservation cannot be reached in the same way as the conservation of vertebrates [¹²⁴]. Likewise, the politics for the insect conservation cannot be restricted to the lists of species in threat of extinction or on the creation of new protected environmental reserves.

In Brazil, the different views on the insect conservation require some teamwork from the scientist and the authorities and also the establishment of short-term, medium-term and long-term priorities. That is to say, in a context in which there is limited financing and a lack of plans for the national conservation for all the groups, how can we come up with priorities for the insect conservation?

The decentralization of research among the Brazilian regions is a priority that can be reached through resources delivered by public funding, so the government can finance research in underexplored areas, such as “Complexo Pantaneiro” [⁸,²⁰], “Amazonia” [⁹] and “Campos Sulinos” [¹⁰]. Certainly, the perspectives that come from this action would be a cheaper alternative when compared to the possibility of opening and doing the maintenance of new university campuses, because the amount of studies production among regions is highly influenced by the geographic proximity to universities and research institutes.

Another important aspect regarding the increase of researches about the insect conservation, discovery of new species and, consequently, decentralization of researches refers to the need of improving the means for obtaining financial resources in the private sector. Based on the experiences from the last 10 years, the description of new species of cave invertebrates increased significantly in different areas of Brazil, because of the companies’ demands created on the process of environmental licensing [¹²⁵].

On the other hand, it is important to highlight that the inclusion of insects in the official programs of diversity monitoring (e.g., aquatic insects: [³³]; frugivorous lepidopterans: [²⁹]) arises as emerging initiatives on the evaluation of the environmental quality and the biodiversity in general. However, it is expected that other insects as flaghship species [⁹] have an opportunity to integrate these programs after the development of technical protocols to the environmental analysis. Furthermore, future national plans to the insect conservation must adopt a broader and more functional approach [¹²⁶], once the representative conservation of diversity cannot be based on rare, charismatic or umbrella species [¹²⁴].

Recently, reviews on insect conservation [³] mentioned that the efficient reach of the insect conservation, in terms of development of public policies, does not limit itself to the development and validation of studies, but on its alignment with the human needs, being essential to understand how society evaluates (e.g., positive and negative experiences) and relates the insect conservation with well-being and life quality (i.e., Citizen Science).

In Brazil, the development of programs to promote the conservation of insects (e.g., Rede Brasileira de Interações Planta Polinizador - REBIPP; Associação Brasileira de Estudo das Abelhas - A.B.E.L.H.A; Iniciativa Brasileira dos Polinizadores - IBP) and the representation of insects in cartoons [¹²⁷] emerge with the potential to boost the public opinion through an easy dialogue between studies and different levels of society. By all means, these approaches could lead to the implementation of many integrative practices for the insect conservation, aiming to insert and instrumentalise society, while the scientists would correct the existent practices (e.g. generation of taxonomic information; identification of important species for the conservation. Rare, endemic, key, umbrella and flagship species; expansion of studies of under sampled biomes; development and testing of technical protocols of sampling for different taxons) and would explore new research horizons. Moreover, the participation of the government and research institutions would improve mechanisms in favor of conservation through strategies to organize actions, policies and resources regarding the full service of Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in October 2010.

Acknowledgments:

The Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) provided student fellowships to CASS and PFG (Finance Code 001).

• Funding: This research received no external funding.

REFERENCES

• ^1.
  Leather SR, Basset Y, Hawkins BA. Insect conservation: finding the way forward. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2008;1:67-9.
• ^2.
  Wilson EO. The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conserv. Biol. 1987;1:344-6.
• ^3.
  Samways MJ. Insect Conservation for the Twenty-First Century. In: Insect Science-Diversity, Conservation and Nutrition, Mohammad Manjur Shah and Umar Sharif, IntechOpen. 2018;19-39.
• ^4.
  Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a rewiew of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 2019;232(2019):8-27.
• ^5.
  Samways MJ. Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007;16:1995-7.
• ^6.
  Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF. [Insect Studies]. São Paulo-SP, Cengage Learning. 2011;816p.
• ^7.
  Lewis OT, New TR, Stewart AJA. Insect conservation: progress and prospects. In: Insect Conservation Biology. Stewart, AJA, New, TR and Lewis, OT (eds.). Oxfordshire-UK, CAB. 2007;(18):431-6.
• ^8.
  Lewinsohn TM, Prado PI. [Brazilian biodiversity: synthesis of the current state of knowledge]. Ed. 3. São Paulo-SP, Editora Contexto, MMA/Conservation Internacional do Brasil. 2002;176 p.
• ^9.
  Lewinsohn TM, Freitas AVL, Prado PI. [Conservation of terrestrial invertebrates and their habitats in Brazil]. Megadivers. 2005;1(1):62-9.
• ^10.
  Marques AC, Lamas CJE. [Zoological Taxonomy in Brazil: state of the art, expectations and suggestions for future actions]. Pap Av Zool. 2006;46(13):139-74.
• ^11.
  Rafael JA, Melo GAR, Carvalho CJB, Casari AS, Constantino R. [Insects from Brazil - Diversity and Taxonomy]. Rafael, JA, Melo, GAR, Carvalho, CJB, Casari, AS & Constantino, R (eds.). Ribeirão Preto-SP, Holos Editora. 2012;810p.
• ^12.
  MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). [Brazilian biodiversity: assessment and identification of priority areas and actions for conservation, sustainable use and sharing of benefits from biodiversity in Brazilian biomes]. Brasília-DF, MMA/SBF. 2002;404p.
• ^13.
  Fitzgerald S. International Wildlife Trade: Whose business is it?. Baltimore, World Wildlife Fund. 1989;459p.
• ^14.
  Brandão CRF, Cancello EM, Yamamoto CI. [Profile of the knowledge of terrestrial invertebrate diversity in Brazil]. PNUD - Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento. Relatório Técnico do Projeto: avaliação do estado do conhecimento da diversidade biológica do Brasil. Brasília-DF, MMA-GTB, CNPq-Nepam/Unicamp. 2000;38p.
• ^15.
  Almeida MD, Cavendish TA, Bueno PC, Ervilha IC, Gregório LS, Kanashiro NBO, et al. [The flexibilization of the Brazilian legislation on pesticides and the risks to human health: analysis of Bill # 3,200/2015]. Cad Saúde Pública. 2017;33(7):1-11.
• ^16.
  Mills LS, Soulé ME, Doak DF. The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. Bioscience. 1993;43(4):219-24.
• ^17.
  Caro TM, O'Doherty G. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 1999;13(4):805-814.
• ^18.
  Pullin AS. The challenger of insect conservation. J. Insect Conserv. 1997;1:1-4.
• ^19.
  Samways MJ. Insect conservation: a synthetic management approach. Annu. Ver. Entomol. 2007;52:465-487.
• ^20.
  Brandão CRF, Cancello EM, Yamamoto CI. [Terrestrial invertebrates]. In: [Assessment of the state of knowledge on biological diversity in Brazil]. Lewinsohn, T. M. (org.). Brasília-DF, MMA. Cap.4, 2000;203-259.
• ^21.
  IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). [Thematic maps]. [Internet]. [cited 2018 Mar 15]. Available from: www.mapas.ibge.gov.br/tematicos.html
  » www.mapas.ibge.gov.br/tematicos.html
• ^22.
  INEP (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira). [Technical summary: 2015 Higher Education Census]. Brasília-DF, MEC. 2018;90p.
• ^23.
  Brandão CRF, Yamamoto CI. [Recent diagnosis on Brazilian zoological collections]. Bol. Soc. Bras. Zool. (Anais XXII). 2000;61:3-6.
• ^24.
  CNUC (Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação). [National System of Conservation Units]. Ministério do Meio Ambiente: [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 22]. Available from: www.mma.gov.br/areas-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de-ucs
  » www.mma.gov.br/areas-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de-ucs
• ^25.
  Couceiro SRM, Hamada N, Forsberg BR, Pimentel TP, Luz SLB. A macroinvertebrate multimetric index to evaluate the biological condition of streams in the Central Amazon region of Brazil. Ecol. Indic. 2012;18:118-25.
• ^26.
  Oliveira-Júnior JMB, Shimano Y, Gardner TA, Hughes RM, Marco Júnior P, Juen L. Neotropical dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) as indicators of ecological condition of small streams in the eastern Amazon. Austral Ecol. 2015;40(6):733-44.
• ^27.
  ICMBIO (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). [Red book of threatened Brazilian fauna]. Vol. VII. - Invertebrados. Ed. 1. Brasília-DF, ICMBio/MMA. 2018;727p.
• ^28.
  Brown Jr KS, Freitas AVL. Atlantic forest butterflies: indicators for landscape conservation. Biotropica. 2000;32(4b):934-56.
• ^29.
  ICMBIO (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). [In situ monitoring of biodiversity: proposal for a Brazilian biodiversity monitoring system]. Brasília-DF, ICMBio/MMA. 2013;61p.
• ^30.
  ICMBIO (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). [National Action Plan for the Conservation of Endangered Lepidoptera]. Série Espécies Ameaçadas n° 13. Brasília-DF, ICMBio. 2011;124p.
• ^31.
  Barbola IF, Moraes MFPG, Anazawa TM, Nascimento EA, Sepka ER, Polegatto CM, et al. [Assessment of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community as a tool for monitoring a reservoir in the Pitangui River basin, Paraná, Brazil]. Iheringia (Série Zoológica). 2011;101(1-2):15-23.
• ^32.
  Roque FO, Lima DVM, Siqueira T, Vieira LJS, Stefanes M, Trivinho-Strixino S. Concordance between macroinvertebrate communities and the typological classification of white and clear-water streams in Western Brazilian Amazonia. Biota Neotrop. 2012;12(2):83-92.
• ^33.
  Silveira MP. [Application of biomonitoring to assess water quality in rivers]. Comunicado Técnico n° 19. Jaguariuna-SP, EMBRAPA Meio Ambiente. 2004;68p.
• ^34.
  Valente DMP, Zenker MM, Teston JA. Tiger-Moths in Savannas in Easter Amazon: first assessment of diversity and seasonal aspects. Neotrop. Entomol. 2018;47(45):842-51.
• ^35.
  Sonoda KC, Monteles JS, Ferreira A, Gerhard P. Chironomidae from Eastern Amazon: understanding the differences of land-use on functional feeding groups. J. Limnol. 2018;77(s1):196-202.
• ^36.
  Cardoso LW, Silva-Brandão KL, Duarte M. Adhemarius eurysthenes (Felder, 1874) (Lepidoptera, Sphingidea) in the Atlantic Rain Forest: a phylogeographic perspective. Zool. Anz. 2018;277:231-41.
• ^37.
  Zafalon-Silva A, Kirst FD, Kruger RF. Houseflies speaking for the conservation of natural areas: a broad sampling of Muscidae (Diptera) on coastal plains of the Pampa biome, Southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2018;62(4):292-303.
• ^38.
  Amazonas NT, Viani RAG, Rego MGA, Camargo FF, Fujihara RT, Valsechi OA. Soil macrofauna density and diversity across a chronosequence of tropical forest restoration in Southeastern Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2018;78(3):449-56.
• ^39.
  Siqueira FFS, Ribeiro-Neto JD, Tabarelli M, Andersen AN, Wirth R, Leal IR. Human disturbance promotes herbivory by leaf-cutting ants in the Caatinga dry forest. Biotropica. 2018;50(5):1-10.
• ^40.
  Aranda R, Aoki C. Diversity and effect of historical inundation on bee and wasp (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Vespoidea) communities in the Brazilian Pantanal. J. Insect Conserv. 2018;22:581-91.
• ^41.
  Arnan X, Arcoverde GB, Pie MR, Ribeiro-Neto JD, Leal IR. Increased anthropogenic disturbance and aridity reduce phylogenetic and functional diversity of ant communities in Caatinga dry forest. Sci. Total Environ. 2018;631-632:429-38.
• ^42.
  Kiffer Jr WP, Giuberti TZ, Serpa KV, Mendes F, Moretti MS. Do changes in riparian zones affect periphyton growth and invertebrate colonization on rocky substrates in Atlantic Forest streams? Iheringia (Série Zoológica). 2018;108:e2018014.
• ^43.
  Tomazella VB, Jacques GC, Lira AC, Silveira LCP. Visitation of social wasps in Arabica Coffee Crop (Coffea arabica L.) intercropped with different tree species. Sociobiology. 2018;65(2):299-304.
• ^44.
  Coelho MS, Carneiro MAA, Branco CA, Borges RAX, Fernandes GW. Species turnover drives β-diversity patterns across multiple spacial of plant-galling interactions in mountaintop grassland. PLos ONE. 2018;13(5):e0195565.
• ^45.
  Medeiros HR, Hoshino AT, Ribeiro MC, Morales MN, Pereira Neto OC, Carstensen DW, et al. Non-crop habitats modulate alpha and beta diversity of flower flies (Diptera, Syrphidae) in Brazilian agricultural landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018;27:1309-26.
• ^46.
  Simão-Ferreira J, Nogueira DS, Santos AC, De Marco Jr P, Angelini R. Multi-scale homogenization of caddisfly metacommunities in human-modified landscapes. Environ. Manage. 2018;61:687-99.
• ^47.
  Moreira-Junior DP, Maia VC. Asilidae (Diptera) of two Atlantic Forest protected areas of Rio de Janeiro, Southeastern Brazil. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2018;90(2):1579-89.
• ^48.
  Chiquetto-Machado PI, Amorim FW, Duarte M. Long-term stability of the hawkmoth fauna (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) in a protected area of Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest. J. Insect Conserv. 2018;22:277-86.
• ^49.
  Braun BM, Pires MM, Stenert C, Maltchik L, Kotzian CB. Effects of riparian vegetation width and substrate type on riffle beetle community structure. Entomol. Sci. 2018;21:66-75.
• ^50.
  Graf LV, Barbieri F, Sperb E, Rivaldo DS, Moura LA, Silveira RMB, et al. Factors affecting the structure of Coleoptera assemblages on bracket fungi (Basidiomycita) in a Brazilian forest. Biotropica. 2018;50(2):1-9.
• ^51.
  Brito JG, Martins RT, Oliveira VC, Hamada N, Nessimian JL, Hughes RM, et al. Biological indicators of diversity in tropical streams: congruence in the similarity of invertebrate assemblages. Ecol. Indic. 2018;85:85-92.
• ^52.
  Flores LMA, Zanette LRS, Araujo FS. Effects of habitat simplification on assemblages of cavity nesting bees and wasps in a semiarid neotropical conservation area. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017;27(2):311-28.
• ^53.
  Cerqueira RFV, Simões-Gomes FC, Sincura YR, Santos T, Barata RA. Phlebotomine fauna (Diptera, Psychodidae) in Rio Preto State Park, Southern Espinhaço Range, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 2017;53(2):85-90.
• ^54.
  Clemente MA, Campos NR, Vieira KM, Del-Claro K, Prezoto F. Social wasp guild (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) visiting flowers in two of the phytophysiognomic formations: Riparian forest and campos rupestres. Sociobiology. 2017;64(2):217-24.
• ^55.
  Santos LAO, Naranjo-Guevara N, Fernandes OA. Diversity and abundance of edaphic arthropods associated with conventional and organic sugarcane crops in Brazil. Fla. Entomol. 2017;100(1):134-44.
• ^56.
  Kirst FD, Marinoni L, Krüger RF. What does the Southern Brazilian Coastal Plain tell about its diversity? Syrphidae (Diptera) as a model. Bul. Entomol. Res. 2017;107(5):645-57.
• ^57.
  Câmara T, Almeida WR, Tabarelli M, Andersen AN, Leal IR. Habitat fragmentation, EFN-bearing trees and ant communities: Ecological cascades in Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Austral Ecol. 2017;42(1):31-9.
• ^58.
  Ferreira WR, Hepp LU, Ligeiro R, Macedo DR, Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, et al. Partitioning taxonomic diversity of aquatic insect assemblages and functional feeding groups in neotropical savanna headwater streams. Ecol. Indic. 2017;72:365-73.
• ^59.
  Roque FO, Corrêa EC, Valente-Neto F, Stefan G, Schulz G, Souza PRB, et al. Idiosyncratic responses of aquatic and terrestrial insects to different levels of environmental integrity in riparian zones in a karst tropical dry forest region. Austral Entomol. 2017;56:459-65.
• ^60.
  Oliveira GF, Garcia ACL, Montes MA, Jucá JCLA, Valente VLS, Rohde C. Are conservation units in the Caatinga biome, Brazil, efficient in the protection of biodiversity? An analysis based on the drosophilid fauna. J. Nat. Conserv. 2016. 34:145-50.
• ^61.
  Leal CRO, Silva JO, Sousa-Souto L, Neves FS. Vegetation structure determines insect herbivore diversity in seasonally dry tropical forests. J. Insect Conserv. 2016;20(6):979-88.
• ^62.
  Oliveira GF, Rohde C, Garcia ACL, Montes MA, Valente VLS. Contributions of Dryland Forest (Caatinga) to species composition, richness and diversity of Drosophilidae. Neotrop. Entomol. 2016;45(5):537-47.
• ^63.
  Silva JO, Espírito-Santo MM, Fernandes GW. Galling insect species richness and leaf herbivory in an abrupt transition between Cerrado and Tropical Dry Forest. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2016;109(5):705-12.
• ^64.
  Scherrer S, Lepesqueur C, Vieira MC, Almeida-Neto M, Dyer L, Forister M, Diniz IR. Seasonal variation in diet breadth of folivorous Lepidoptera in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biotropica. 2016;48(4):491-8.
• ^65.
  Novais SMA, Macedo-Reis LE, Da Rocha WD, Neves FS. Effects of habitat management on different feeding guilds of herbivorous insects in cacao agroforestry systems. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2016;64(2):763-77.
• ^66.
  Godoy BS, Simião-Ferreira J, Lodi S, Oliveira LG. Functional process zones characterizing aquatic insect communities in streams of the Brazilian Cerrado. Neotrop. Entomol. 2016;45(2):159-69.
• ^67.
  Correa CMA, Puker A, Korasaki V, Ferreira KR, Abot AR. Attractiveness of baits to dung beetles in Brazilian savanna and exotic pasturelands. Entomol. Sci. 2016;19(2):112-23.
• ^68.
  Vieira CR, Pitts J, Colli GR. Microhabitat changes induced by edge effects impact velvet ant (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae) communities in southeastern Amazonia. Brazil. J. Insect Conserv. 2015;19(5):849-61.
• ^69.
  Roque FO, Escarpinati SC, Valente-Neto F, Hamada N. Responses of aquatic saproxylic macroinvertebrates to reduced-impact logging in Central Amazonia. Neotrop. Entomol. 2015;44(4):345-50.
• ^70.
  Miranda EA, Carvalho AF, Andrade-Silva ACR, Silva CI, Del Lama MA. Natural history and biogeography of Partamona rustica, an endemic bee in dry forests of Brazil. Insectes Soc. 2015;62(3):255-63.
• ^71.
  Falcão JCF, Dátillo W, Izzo TJ. Efficiency of different planted forests in recovering biodiversity and ecological interactions in Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015;339:105-11.
• ^72.
  Amaral PHM, Silveira LS, Rosa BFJV, Oliveira VC, Alves RG. Influence of habitat and land use on the assemblages of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera in neotropical streams. J. Insect Sci. 2015;15(1):1-7.
• ^73.
  Souza PRB, Guilhermo-Ferreira R. Butterflies of the bodoquena plateau in Brazil (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). ZooKeys. 2015;546:105-24.
• ^74.
  Baptista VA, Antunes MB, Martello AR, Figueiredo NSB, Amaral AMB, Secretti E, et al. Influence of environmental factors on the distribution of families of aquatic insects in rivers in Southern Brazil. Ambient. Soc. 2014;17(3):153-74.
• ^75.
  Nogueria C, Valdujo PH, Paese A, Ramos Neto MB, Machado RB. [Challenges for identifying areas for biodiversity conservation]. Megadivers. 2009;5(1-2):43-53.
• ^76.
  Gonçalves RB, Sydney NV, Oliveira PS, Artmann NO. Bee and wasp responses to a fragmented landscape in southern Brazil. J. Insect Conserv. 2014;18(6):1193-201.
• ^77.
  Souza TB, Maia ACD, Schlindwein C, Albuquerque LSC, Iannuzzi L. The life of Cyclocephala celata Dechambre, 1980 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) in captivity with descriptions of the immature stages. J. Nat. Hist. 2014;48(5-6):275-83.
• ^78.
  Nemésio A, Santos Junior JE. Is the “[Pernambuco Endemism Center]” a biodiversity hotspot for orchid bees? Braz. J. Biol. 2014;74(3):78-92.
• ^79.
  Escarpinati SC, Siqueira T, Medina Jr PB, Roque FO. Short-term effects of visitor trampling on macroinvertebrates in karst streams in an ecotourism region. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014;186(3):1655-63.
• ^80.
  Viana JL, Francisco AK, Carvalho CA, Waldschmidt AM. Genetic variability in Melipona scutellaris from Recôncavo, Bahia, Brazil. Gen. Molec. Res. 2013;12(3):3444-54.
• ^81.
  Brasil LS, Shimano Y, Batista JD, Cabette HSR. Effects of environmental factors on community structure of Leptophlebiidae (Insecta, Ephemeroptera) in Cerrado streams, Brazil. Iheringia (Série Zoológica). 2013;103(3):260-5.
• ^82.
  Antonini Y, Martins RP, Aguiar LM, Loyola RD. Richness, composition and trophic niche of stingless bee assemblages in urban forest remnants. Urban. Ecosyst. 2013;16(3):527-41.
• ^83.
  Luz RA, Fontes LS, Cardoso SRS, Lima EFB. Diversity of the arthropod edaphic fauna in preserved and managed with pasture areas in Teresina-Piauí-Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73(3):483-9.
• ^84.
  Emer C, Venticinque EM, Fonseca CR. Effects of dam-induced landscape fragmentation on amazonian ant-plant mutualistic networks. Conserv. Biol. 2013;27(4):763-73.
• ^85.
  Nemésio A. The orchid-bee faunas (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of ‘[Monte Pascoal National Park]’, ‘[Descobrimento Nacional Park]’ and three other Atlantic Forest remnants in southern Bahia, eastern Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73(2):437-46.
• ^86.
  Nemésio A. The orchid-bee faunas (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of two Atlantic forest remnants in southern Bahia, eastern Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73(2):375-81.
• ^87.
  Nemésio A. The orchid-bee fauna (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of ‘[Una Biological Reserve]’, a hotspot in the Atlantic forest of southern Bahia, eastern Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73(2):347-52.
• ^88.
  Valle IC, Buss DF, Baptista DF. The influence of connectivity in forest patches, and riparian vegetation width on stream macroinvertebrate fauna. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73(2):231-8.
• ^89.
  Nemésio A. Are orchid bees at risk? First comparative survey suggests declining populations of forest-dependent species. Braz. J. Biol. 2013;73(2):367-4.
• ^90.
  Floss ECS, Secretti E, Kotzian CB, Spies MR, Pires MM. Spatial and temporal distribution of non-biting midge larvae assemblages in streams in a mountainous region in southern Brazil. J. Insect Sci. 2013;13(156):1-27.
• ^91.
  Sensolo D, Hepp LU, Decian V, Restello RM. Influence of landscape on assemblages of Chironomidae in Neotropical streams. Ann. Limnol. 2012;48(4):391-400.
• ^92.
  Braga RF, Korasaki V, Audino LD, Louzada J. Are dung beetles driving dung-fly abundance in traditional agricultural areas in the Amazon? Ecosystems. 2012;15(7):1173-81.
• ^93.
  Soares GR, Oliveira AAP, Silva ARM. [Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea, and Hesperioidea) an urban park in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil]. Biota Neotrop. 2012;12(4):209-217.
• ^94.
  Christianini AV, Mayhé-Nunes AJ, Oliveira PS. Exploitation of fallen diaspores by ants: are there ant-plant partner choices? Biotropica. 2012;44(3):360-7.
• ^95.
  Ribeiro DB, Batista R, Prado PI, Brown Jr KS, Freitas AVL. The importance of small scales to the fruit-feeding butterfly assemblages in a fragmented landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012;21(3):811-27.
• ^96.
  Segura MO, Fonseca-Gessner AA, Spies MR, Siegloch AE. Water beetles in mountainous regions in southeastern Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2012;72(2):311-21.
• ^97.
  Pinto NS, Juen L, Cabette HSR, Marco Jr P. Fluctuating asymmetry and wing size of Argia tinctipennis Selys (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) in relation to Riparian forest preservation status. Neotrop. Entomol. 2012;41(3):178-85.
• ^98.
  Barbieri Jr CA, Dias AMP. Braconidae (Hymenoptera) fauna in native, degraded and restoration areas of the Vale do Paraíba, São Paulo state, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2012;72(2):305-10.
• ^99.
  Maltchik L, Dalzochio MS, Stenert C, Rolon AS. Diversity and distribution of aquatic insects in Southern Brazil wetlands: implications for biodiversity conservation in a Neotropical region. Rev Biol Trop. 2012;60(1):273-89.
• ^100.
  Fritz LL, Heinrichs EA, Machado V, Andreis TF, Pandolfo M, Salles SM, Oliveira JV, Fiuza LM. Diversity and abundance of arthropods in subtropical rice growing areas in the Brazilian south. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011;20(10):2211-24.
• ^101.
  Rosa PLP, Chiva EQ, Iserhard CA. [Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) from Southwest, Uruguaiana, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil]. Biota Neotrop. 2011;11(1):355-60.
• ^102.
  Gries R, Louzada J, Almeida S, Macedo R, Barlow J. Evaluating the impacts and conservation value of exotic and native tree afforestation in Cerrado grasslands using dung beetles. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2012;5(3):175-85.
• ^103.
  Hopp PW, Ottermanns R, Caron E, Meyer S, Roß-Nickoll M. Recovery of litter inhabiting beetle assemblages during forest regeneration in the Atlantic forest of Southern Brazil. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2010;3(2):103-13.
• ^104.
  Oliveira ES, Torres DF, Brooks SE, Alves RRN. The medicinal animal markets in the metropolitan region of Natal City, northeastern Brazil. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2010;130(1):54-60.
• ^105.
  Souza MM, Louzada J, Serrão JE, Zanuncio JC. Social wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) as indicators of conservation degree of riparian forests in southeast Brazil. Sociobiology. 2010;56(2):387-96.
• ^106.
  Morato EF, Amarante ST, Silveira OT. Rapid ecological assessment of wasp fauna (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) of the Serra do Divisor National Park, Acre, Brazil. Acta Amaz. 2008;38(4):789-97.
• ^107.
  Vieira L, Louzada JNC, Spector S. Effects of degradation and replacement of Southern Brazilian Coastal sandy vegetation on the dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Biotropica. 2008;40(6):719-27.
• ^108.
  Mata RA, McGeoch M, Tidon R. Drosophilid assemblages as a bioindicator system of human disturbance in the Brazilian Savanna. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008;17(12):2899-916.
• ^109.
  Gonçalves RB, Brandão CRF. [Bee diversity (Hymenoptera, Apidae) along a latitudinal gradient in the Atlantic Forest]. Biota Neotrop. 2008;8(4):51-61.
• ^110.
  Farias RCAP, Madera-da-Silva MC, Pereira-Peixoto MH, Martins CF. [Composition and seasonality of Euglossina (Hymenoptera: Apidae) species in Mata and Dune in the Environmental Protection Area of Barra do Rio Mamanguape, Rio Tinto, PB]. Neotrop. Entomol. 2008;37(3):253-8.
• ^111.
  Murta AF, Ker FTO, Costa DB, Espírito-Santo MM, Faria ML. [Effects of Atlantic Forest remnants on the biological control of Euselasia apisaon (Dahman) (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) by Trichogramma maxacali (Voegelé and Pointel) (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae)]. Neotrop. Entomol. 2008;37(2):229-32.
• ^112.
  Silva ARM, Landa GG, Vitalino RF. [Butterflies (Lepidoptera) from an urban forest fragment in Minas Gerais, Brazil]. Lundiana. 2007;8(2):137-42.
• ^113.
  Pellens R, Grandcolas P. The conservation-refugium value of small and disturbed Brazilian Atlantic forest fragments for the endemic ovoviviparous cockroach Monastria biguttata (Insecta: Dictyoptera, Biaberidae, Blaberinae). Zool. Sci. 2007;24(1):11-9.
• ^114.
  Almeida AM, Fonseca CR, Prado PI, Almeida-Neto M, Diniz S, Kubota U, et al. Assemblages of endophagous insects on Asteraceae in São Paulo Cerrados. Neotrop. Entomol. 2006;35(4):458-68.
• ^115.
  Quintero I, Roslin T. Rapid recovery of dung beetle communities following habitat fragmentation in central Amazonia. Ecology. 2005;86(12):3303-11.
• ^116.
  Gonçalves TT, Louzada JNC. Vertical stratification of carpophilous beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) in forest fragments in the Southeastern of Brazil. Austral Ecol. 2005;15(1):101-10.
• ^117.
  Ribas CR, Sobrinho TG, Schoereder JH, Sperber CF, Lopes-Andrade C, Soares SM. How large is large enough for insects? Forest fragmentation effects at three spatial scales. Acta Oecol. 2005;27(1):31-41.
• ^118.
  Roque FO, Trivinho-Strixino S, Strixino G, Agostinho RC, Fogo JC. Benthic macroinvertebrates in streams of the Jaragua State Park (Southeast of Brazil) considering multiple spatial scales. J. Insect Conserv. 2003;7(2):63-72.
• ^119.
  Silveira LCP, Bueno VHP, Pierre LSR, Mendes SM. [Cultivated and invasive plants as habitat for predators of the genus Orius (Wolff) (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae)]. Bragantia 2003;62(2):261-5.
• ^120.
  Vasconcelos HL, Vilhena JMS, Caliri GJA. Responses of ants to selective logging of a central Amazonian forest. J. App. Ecol. 2000;37(3):508-14.
• ^121.
  Ribeiro SP, Carneiro MAA, Fernandes GW. Free-feeding insect herbivores along environmental gradients in Serra do Cipó: basis for a management plan. J. Insect Conserv. 1998;2(2):107-18.
• ^122.
  Ruszcyk A, Silva CF. Butterflies select microhabitats on building walls. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1997;38(1-2):119-27.
• ^123.
  Diniz IR, Morais HC. Lepidopteran caterpillar fauna of cerrado host plants. Biodivers. Conserv. 1997;6(6):817-36.
• ^124.
  Leandro C, Jay-Robert P, Vergnes A. Bias and perspectives in insect conservation: a European scale analysis. Biol. Conserv. 2017;215:213-24.
• ^125.
  Zeppelini D, Brito RA, Lima ECA. Three new species of Collembola (Arthropoda: Hexapoda) from Central Brazilian shallow caves: side effects of long term application of environmental law on conservation. Zootaxa. 2018;4500(1):59-81.
• ^126.
  Gadoum S, Roux-Fouillet JM. Plan national d'actions “France Terre de pollinisateurs” pour la préservation des abeilles et des insectes pollinisateurs sauvages. Office Pour les Insectes et leur Environnement - Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Énergie. 2016;136p.
• ^127.
  Queiroz L, Merlin M. [No one bathes twice in the same river]. Ciclos. 2019;1-7.

Edited by

Editor-in-Chief: Alexandre Rasi Aoki

Associate Editor: Marcos Pileggi

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 July 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  28 Oct 2021
• Accepted
  18 Feb 2022