BARETTA, D.

BARTZ, M.

BROWN, G. G.

DECAËNS, T.

English

Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa

XVI ICSZ – International Colloquium on Soil ZoologySoil Biodiversity and Monitoring – Poster Presentations40[MO_SBM_P20] Sampling efficiency for earthworms diversity survey MARIE BARTZ1, THIBAUD DECAËNS2, GEORGE BROWN3, DILMAR BARETTA1 1Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Brazil; 2ECODIV lab, Université de Rouen, Mont Saint Aignan, France 3Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária - Florestas, Brazil  Earthworms play an important role in the soil ecosystem and it is important to identify thelevel of earthworm diversity (at least the most close to the real) to decypher the relationsbetween those organisms with the anthropogenic impact in the environment. So the aim thisstudy was to compare the efficiency of the TSBF method and qualitative sampling forearthworms diversity surveys. The study was carried in the Santa Catarina (SC) State in Braziland is part of the SisBIOTA SC Project. Five land use systems (LUS) were sampled (forest F,eucalyptus plantation RE, pasture PA, no till PD and crop livestock integration ILP) inthree counties of each one of the two regions (West and Plateau). Nine points for handshorting sampling (monoliths from 25 x 25 cm x 20 cm TSBF) and over 20 points for randomlyqualitative sampling were defined for each site, in the winter (July and August of 2011) andsummer (December of 2011 and January of 2012) seasons. Rarefaction curves of theearthworms diversity were derived for each method and the total (qualitative + TSBF method),using the results of identification for adult, subadult and juvenile (with accurate identificationto the species level) earthworms. The rarefaction curve of the TSBF method show a lowernumber of species and the stability of the curve never achieved the qualitative samplingrarefaction curve. In other words, even if a greater sampling effort using TSBF is made, thismethod will never reach the same level of biodiversity, obtained from the qualitative sampling.The observed and estimated species richness are closer for the qualitative sampling and thecombination TSBF method and qualitative sampling (total) than only for the TSBF method. Inthe TSBF method 17 species were found (Urobenus brasiliensis, Ocnerodrilidae sp.1,Ocnerodrilidae sp.2, Ocnerodrilidae sp.3, Glossoscolex sp.1, Glossoscolex sp.2, Glossoscolexsp.3, Glossoscolex sp.4, Fimoscolex sp.1, Fimoscolex sp.3, Fimoscolex sp.4, Amynthas gracilis,Amynthas corticis, Metaphire californica, Octolasion tyrtaeum, Bimastus parvus andDichogaster gracilis) whereas in qualitative sampling 26 species were identified (all thosefound in the TSBF plus Ocnerodrilidae sp.4, Ocnerodrilidae sp.5, Glossoscolex sp.5,Glossoscolex sp.6, Fimoscolex sp.2, Andiorrhinus sp.1, Andiorrhinus sp.2, Andiorrhinus sp.3 andMetaphire sp.1). So to achieve a higher diversity in earthworm sampling, the use of qualitativesampling showed to be the best option.

Sampling efficiency for earthworms diversity survey.

http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/938733/1/2012GeorgeBICSZSampling.pdf

Sampling efficiency for earthworms diversity survey.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa