Keywords:

1600 caractères maximum) :

Brazil's Atlantic forest is a hot spot of biodiversity and its surface area is constantly being reduced for cultivation, causing a fragmentation of the forest landscape. For several years now, protection measures have been put in place and the restoration of forest fragments by their owners is controlled through the Brazilian Forestry Code. The study of these forest fragments is important to assess their importance in crop protection, but also to justify their preservation. There are several types of forest fragments and this study aims to study the fragments located along rivers and on plateaus. These two types of fragment have different preservation policies, and we hypothesised that variations in biodiversity and plantarthropod interaction would be highlighted. We showed differences between the fragments, but the type of fragment did not explain these dissimilarities. These initial results enabled us to estimate several variables to measure the quality of forest fragments. We finally proposed a method for assessing this quality for the fragments studied, the results of which could make it possible to classify the fragments according to their restoration needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my two favourite supervisors, Odair and Davi, for having welcomed me warmly in their town and for having allowed me, despite the current conditions, to carry out a very enriching fieldwork. I would like to thank Davi for the botanical knowledge he brought during the plant collection and for his motivation to harvest the branches. I would also like to thank him for the time he devoted to guiding me in my work and to reviewing my work. I would like to thank Odair for his help in identifying the arthropods, for his motivation in handling the machete in the field and for his suggestions concerning the analyses carried out. I would like to thank both of them who devoted a lot of their time to support me in the field. I would like to thank Sabrina who helped me a lot with the identification of caterpillars and devoted a lot of time to it, but also Welliny, Hermann and Dra Ana who helped me at distance with the identification of the collected species. I thank my Brazilian roommates, Ari, Yana, Sabrina, Vinicius, Jonas and João, who supported my "portugnol" and helped me to improve my Portuguese, shared moments of complicity and made this period of confinement less difficult. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for helping and guiding me in my choices so far, for giving me a desire to travel and the strength to follow my desires. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest is one of the most important and diverse type of tropical forest in the world [START_REF] Ribeiro | The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: a shrinking biodiversity hotspot[END_REF]. Several definitions are adopted when dealing with such biome; defenders of the sensu stricto definition only consider the area of rainforest appearing along the Atlantic coast as Atlantic forest [START_REF] Oliveira-Filho | Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic Forests in Southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate[END_REF]. In contrast, for sensu lato defenders, Atlantic forest is divided into 2 principal areas showing distinct vegetation types: rainforest along the coast and semideciduous forest in the inland.

The inland in turn is divided between semideciduous forest occurring at plateau and gallery forests, which are present along the river's margins. Additionally, certain parts of south Atlantic Forest are qualified as mixed forests, with forest vegetation partly composed of plants from Araucaria genus [START_REF] Oliveira-Filho | Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic Forests in Southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate[END_REF]. According to [START_REF] Morellato | Introduction: the Brazilian Atlantic Forest[END_REF], the Atlantic Forest is a biome composed of several types of vegetation (Figure 1), differentiated mainly by the distinct rainfall, drought and temperature regimes.

Figure 1: Map modified personally from the map of (Bohrer, 1999) PHD thesis, seasonal forest representing semideciduous forest. The Atlantic forest has experienced several periods of deforestation along human history [START_REF] Pinto | Governing and delivering a biome-wide restoration initiative: the case of Atlantic Forest restoration pact in Brazil[END_REF]. This forest originally covered 12% of the country, occupying littoral and interior areas, and in 2017 the remaining forest was estimated at 12% only (Zwiener et al., 2017). Because of the high number of endemic species and its large deforestation, this forest is described as a biodiversity hotspot and its protection is considered as a priority [START_REF] Mittermeier | Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots[END_REF].

RESTAURATION POLICY IN BRAZIL

Ecological restoration programmes are increasingly put forward at the international level and are becoming a priority for the preservation of biodiversity [START_REF] Suding | Committing to ecological restoration[END_REF]. Today about 53% of Brazil's savannas and forests are privately owned [START_REF] Soares-Filho | Cracking Brazil's Forest Code[END_REF], the forest management is partly owner-driven, but state-controlled. To control land use, there is notably the forestry code, developed in 1965. In 2012, a new version of the forestry code concerning the management of land on private property was put in place and approved by the national congress [START_REF] Pinto | Governing and delivering a biome-wide restoration initiative: the case of Atlantic Forest restoration pact in Brazil[END_REF].

This new code enable to set up an online register of the country's private property, in which all permanent preservation zones (along watercourses, around towns, on steep slopes and on hilltops) and legal reserves must be registered by the owner. If the quota (20% of properties covered by indigenous vegetation) is not respected, the owner must implement restoration measures [START_REF] Soares-Filho | Cracking Brazil's Forest Code[END_REF].

However, a study showed that the new text in force is less constraining to the conversion of native forest into cropland [START_REF] Vieira | Compliance to Brazil's Forest Code will not protect biodiversity and ecosystem services[END_REF]. Indeed, the type of restoration to be implemented is not specified in the code, which limits the impact of the measure [START_REF] Chaves | On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: new perspectives from São Paulo state (Brazil): legal instruments for assessing restoration[END_REF]. For fragments of riverside forests (gallery forest) the forest code gives a minimum area of restoration required of fifteen meters (Congresso Nacional, 2012), whereas for fragments of other types, such as forest occupying plateau regions, there is no specification.

This difference can be explained by the fact that the value of conserving areas along rivers has been widely studied in the Atlantic Forest, particularly through stream control for the reduction of soil erosion and loss of fertility, but especially for water management [START_REF] Wantzen | Streamvalley systems of the Brazilian Cerrado: impact assessment and conservation scheme[END_REF][START_REF] Lowrance | Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds[END_REF]. However, forest fragments do not only provide ecosystem services related to water control, in Quebec, Canada, a study has shown an impact of forest fragments on the regulation of pests at the forest edge and for the carbon stock in the soil for example [START_REF] Mitchell | Forest fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem services[END_REF]. It is therefore expected that plateau forest will also be providers of important ecosystem services for human well-being and agriculture.

This difference of regulation may lead to a priority preservation of gallery forests at the expense of forest plateau. Therefore, it is interesting to study the biodiversity and variables linked to ecosystem services of these two types of forest fragments to encourage their conservation and restoration.

LAND USE IN SÃO PAULO STATE

The majority of forests in São Paulo state have been transformed into agricultural land with the expansion of agriculture (Figure 2), and in 2000, only 3% of the forests were still present mainly in fragment forms [START_REF] Kronka | Inventário florestal da vegetação natural do estado de São Paulo[END_REF].

Figure 2: from [START_REF] Kronka | Inventário florestal da vegetação natural do estado de São Paulo[END_REF].

The expansion of coffee production first and then the fuel ethanol program developed by Brazilian government during the 70´s can in part explain this great fragmentation. The state of São Paulo is the most important zone for Brazilian ethanol production from sugarcane crops, holding 54.9% of the Brazilian ethanol production in the year 2008 [START_REF] Rudorff | Studies on the rapid expansion of sugarcane for ethanol production in São Paulo State (Brazil) using landsat data[END_REF], which were traduced in an homogenization of cultures along the state landscape.

It has been shown that culture's homogenization leads to a simplification of landscapes which may impact plant and arthropods biodiversity [START_REF] Gámez-Virués | Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization[END_REF], resulting on changes in ecosystem services provided to agriculture [START_REF] Hatt | Spatial diversification of agroecosystems to enhance biological control and other regulating services: an agroecological perspective[END_REF].

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF FOREST FRAGMENTS

Ecosystem services are described by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as: "the benefits people obtain from ecosystems" (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In agriculture, the main ecosystem services provided notably by natural ecosystems are biological pest control, pollination, water quantity and quality, soil structure and fertility and influence of landscapes [START_REF] Power | Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies[END_REF].

Biological pest control is an important ecosystemic service that can be provided by forest fragment, as these regions may hold a certain diversity of plants and insects [START_REF] Ribeiro | The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: a shrinking biodiversity hotspot[END_REF]. Several studies have shown that complex landscapes with different kind of habitats and natural areas have lower quantity of pests and higher presence of predators [START_REF] Veres | Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review[END_REF][START_REF] Bianchi | Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control[END_REF].

In São Paulo state, forest fragments are surrounded by agricultural crops, especially sugarcane, which are strongly affected by pests, which leads to approximately 10% of losses production in Brazil each year [START_REF] Oliveira | Crop losses and the economic impact of insect pests on Brazilian agriculture[END_REF]. Although relegated to the background, plant and insect composition of forest fragments may be a key asset to complement the biocontrol methods used in agriculture today [START_REF] Hatt | Spatial diversification of agroecosystems to enhance biological control and other regulating services: an agroecological perspective[END_REF].

DIVERSITY AND INTERACTIONS AS ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

MEASUREMENTS

There are many factors to consider when assessing the ecosystem services provided by an environment, and measuring aspects of the biodiversity of an environment is one of them [START_REF] Mace | Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship[END_REF]. [START_REF] Mace | Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship[END_REF] has described the relationship between ecosystem services and biodiversity in several ways. In this study, we are interested in the following definition: "biodiversity is a factor controlling the ecosystem processes that underpin ecosystem services" [START_REF] Mace | Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship[END_REF].

Assessing the diversity of an environment and its interactions are subjects much studied in ecology [START_REF] Loreau | Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges[END_REF][START_REF] Tylianakis | Conservation of species interaction networks[END_REF]. Many tools are used, including the measurement of alpha and beta diversity [START_REF] Mcintosh | An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity[END_REF] and also the evaluation of interaction networks quality [START_REF] Tylianakis | Conservation of species interaction networks[END_REF].

The paper written by [START_REF] Tylianakis | Conservation of species interaction networks[END_REF] shows that indexes measuring network quality can help monitor ecosystem conservation. It has been shown that changes in the environment not only affect species diversity, but also the networks formed by such species [START_REF] Tylianakis | Conservation of species interaction networks[END_REF]). An increasing number of studies rely on the characteristics of networks to study ecosystems, like [START_REF] Losapio | Structure-dynamic relationship of plant-insect networks along a primary succession gradient on a glacier foreland[END_REF] which used the quality of interaction networks to deduce the stability of the ecosystem under study.

CONTEXT AND ORDER

This study is the first approach to measure plant and arthropod biodiversity and its role on the ecosystem services (here mainly related to pest control) provided by plateau and gallery forest fragments. Understand ecosystem services delivered by forest fragments on Jaboticabal region, in São Paulo State, is an objective of the Biology and Plant Health departments of College of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Jaboticabal campus, Jaboticabal -São Paulo State University, Brazil. The Unesp University is one of the most important universities in Latin America, being known by its important role on develop biodiversity and bio-control methods studies. In fact, a Research Centre for Sugar Cane Health was assembled in 2019, with the main aim focused on the control of sugar cane pests and the use of natural services to increase sugar cane health. The study of the ecosystem services provided by forests is therefore an important issue not only from an agronomic point of view but also from an ecological point of view. Increase knowledge of an ecosystem and its biodiversity enables to justify policy management to protect such forest ecosystems [START_REF] Klink | Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado[END_REF]. Enlightening plant diversity and interactions among fragment forest surrounded by sugarcane crops could provide useful information to encourage preservation and even restoration of these ecosystems. This internship was supervised by Drs. Davi Rodrigo Rossatto (Associate Professor of Ecology) and Odair Aparecido Fernandes (Full Professor of Entomolgy).

PROBLEM

Diversity and interactions between plant and arthropod species have already been assessed around the world, usually by studying host plant diversity for a specific insect type [START_REF] Burgio | The role of ecological compensation areas on predator populations: an analysis on biodiversity and phenology of Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) on non-crop plants within hedgerows in Northern Italy[END_REF] or even analysing arthropod species diversity for a certain plant genus [START_REF] Slinn | Across multiple species, phytochemical diversity and herbivore diet breadth have cascading effects on herbivore immunity and parasitism in a tropical model system[END_REF][START_REF] Endara | Coevolutionary arms race versus host defense chase in a tropical herbivore-plant system[END_REF]. However, we did not find any studies comparing diversity patterns and networks of plant-arthropod interactions in different forest types (plateau or gallery forest) in sugar cane landscapes, which place this approach as a novelty study. As explained previously, forest fragments are subject to a regulation depending on the choices of the owners of the surrounding farms, and this may affect drastically the diversity patterns and interactions between plant and arthropod species.

The first objective will be to compare fragments forest according to their environmental conditions: gallery or plateau forest. These comparisons will be based on diversity and interaction networks.

The second objective will be to use characteristics of these fragments to determine a way to measure quality of a fragment. Determine quality index of a fragment is part of the global evaluation of ecosystem services delivered by these fragments.

Purpose of this study will be to answer the following questions:

-Which differences arise between fragment forest types, regarding to diversity and interaction network and can this be explained by the land management policy linked to their environmental conditions (gallery or plateau forest)? -Which preliminary conclusion can be drawn about plant and arthropod species sampled in the fragments? -What preliminary conclusions can be drawn about the quality of the fragments regarding to biodiversity and interactions networks and can we link it to the management of these fragments?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

STUDY SITE

This study was conducted in the municipality of Jaboticabal (Latitude: 21°15.2832′ S Longitude: 48°19.3332′ W), in the state of São Paulo (Figure 3). According to Koppen's classification, the climate is Cwa-subtropical-mesothermal type. The mean annual temperature is 22°C and the mean precipitation is 1,424.6 mm. The altitude of the municipality is between 465 and 685 m [START_REF] Greggio | Avaliação dos fragmentos florestais do município de Jaboticabal-SP[END_REF]. The primary landscapes were composed of semi-deciduous tropical forests and savannah fragments, inserted in the Atlantic Forest Biome [START_REF] Veloso | Classificação da vegetação brasileira, adaptada a um sistema universal[END_REF]. Forest fragments represented only 3.63% of the municipality of Jaboticabal in 1971 and 1.55% in 2000 [START_REF] Greggio | Avaliação dos fragmentos florestais do município de Jaboticabal-SP[END_REF]. As described above (1.1), semideciduous forest vegetation is composed of plateau forest and gallery forest. For both types of fragments, we placed 5 plots per forest type, one plot per fragment, around Jaboticabal municipality (Figure 3). The studied fragments belong to farmers, which agreed with UNESP to study their crops.

DATA ACQUISITION

The description of the data acquisition is presented in one part because the entire protocol was used to answer the three questions stated in the introduction. Each plot of 50 x 20m was placed, using the software Google Earth to ensure a minimum distance of 1km between the studied areas. For each plot, four transects were drawn on Google Earth, being separated by 4m from each other. One of the four transects was then randomly selected using random number software. Along the transect, five points were marked in the field, being spaced 11m apart from each other. At each point, a 1x1m quadrat was placed (Annex 1).

Herbaceous vegetation with plant bases within the quadrat was identified [START_REF] Dengler | Pitfalls in small-scale species-area sampling and analysis[END_REF]. Tree seedlings were not considered as the objective was to identify herbaceous plants diversity in the understory to complete tree diversity measurement. Four trees were identified per quadrat, based on the quadrant sampling method of the book written by [START_REF] Felfili | Fitossociologia no Brasil: Métodos e estudos de casos : volume I[END_REF]. The quadrat was divided into four sectors and the closest tree in each quadrat corner was sampled. This sampling was carried out on the first tree corresponding to the following criteria: more than 5 cm trunk diameter, a branch at cutting range, at a maximum distance of 5 m from the quadrat so as not to intersect with the neighboring quadrat.

Each identified tree was sampled; the lowest branch was recovered using a telescopic branch cutter. Each species or morpho-species of trees, herbaceous plants and lianas was referenced to have a code for each individual.

The arthropods observed on the plants were manually collected in vials annotated with the host plant code. Arthropods were collected from herbaceous plants, lianas and harvested branches with an observation range limit set at 1±0.2m, with an observation time of 5±1 minutes for each sample. At the end of each day the samples were first placed in the freezer to sedate them. They were then immersed in 70% diluted alcohol to ensure their preservation for identification.

Vegetation species were identified by Dr. Davi Rossatto, with latter confirmation using specific botanical guides produced by taxonomists for Brazilian vegetation [START_REF] Ramos | Árvores da Floresta Estacional Semidecidual: guia de identificação[END_REF][START_REF] Lorenzi | Plantas daninhas do Brasil: terrestres, aquáticas, parasitas e tóxicas. 4 a Edição[END_REF][START_REF] Souza | Guia das plantas da mata atlântica: floresta estacional[END_REF] The arthropods samples were then identified at the highest possible taxon level, with specialized books [START_REF] Delvare | Les insectes d'Afrique et d'Amérique tropicale: clés pour la reconnaissance des familles[END_REF][START_REF] Rafael | Insetos do Brasil: diversidade e taxonomia[END_REF][START_REF] Borror | Estudo dos insetos[END_REF] with help of Prof. Odair A. Fernandes, DR. Ana L. Peronti and students of entomology department. Most were identified to family and then classified by morphospecies. Some of the samples were not identified as morphospecies because it was harder and the risk of error in the separation into morphospecies was higher. Others correspond only to exuviae or eggs that did not allow them to be separated into morphospecies. Then all samples were classified and assigned to functional groups (based on the same specialized books used for identification): parasitoid, predator, omnivore and phytophagous (Annex 2).

A qualitative and visual disturbance index has been assembled for each fragment forest, considering canopy cover and the presence of invasive grasses (Panicum maximum Jacq.) and lianas. These two types of growth forms are important to take into consideration because they have negative impact on forest fragment development [START_REF] Mantoani | Regeneration response of Brazilian Atlantic Forest woody species to four years of Megathyrsus maximus removal[END_REF][START_REF] Ingwell | The impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality[END_REF]. Infestation of forest areas with lianas leads to higher than normal tree mortality and limits tree growth [START_REF] Ingwell | The impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality[END_REF]. Panicum maximum, also known as Megathyrsus maximus, is an invasive herb native to Africa. It has been shown by [START_REF] Ingwell | The impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality[END_REF] that ecological succession is slower when this plant is present in restoration areas, mainly because its affect seed germination and plant establishment.

Percentage of canopy coverage was estimated visually over the entire plot, between 0 and 1, 1 representing 100% of canopy cover. Invasive grasses and lianas cover was estimated visually between -1 and 0, -1 representing a strong presence (Table 1).

The same person evaluated all the plots to avoid measurement bias. Summary of these indicators gave us an index of disturbance for each plot (Annex 3), a negative index means a disturbed area [START_REF] Felfili | Fitossociologia no Brasil: Métodos e estudos de casos : volume I[END_REF].

DATA ANALYSIS

For the entire data analysis we used Past326b [START_REF] Hammer | Palaeontological Statistics,version 4.01[END_REF] and R(4.0.2) (R Core Team, 2020) software. The convention for statistical probability levels is * p (H0) < 0.05; ** p (H0) < 0.01; *** p (H0) < 0.001.

COMPARISON BETWEEN GALLERY AND PLATEAU FOREST AND AMONG FRAGMENTS

We decided to measure the plant and arthropod diversity of the fragments to assess the differences among the fragments and between the two types of fragments. In this study we decided to measure diversity as species richness since it is an biodiversity index which is not taking into account the abundance of individuals for each species [START_REF] Béguinot | Biodiversité: comment tirer le meilleur parti des inventaires incomplets : illustrations de la procédure d'extrapolation au moyen de quelques exemples d'applications concrets[END_REF]. Indeed, abundance for arthropods species would have required repeated sampling, which is time consuming to the field work and for identification.

Alpha diversity

Alpha diversity represents diversity of a local point or a community [START_REF] Mcintosh | An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity[END_REF]. Plant and arthropod richness of each plot have been calculated with Past326b software (Annex 4, Annex 5) [START_REF] Hammer | Palaeontological Statistics,version 4.01[END_REF]. This software determine rarefaction curve, to allow comparison of several inventory from different sampling efforts [START_REF] Béguinot | Biodiversité: comment tirer le meilleur parti des inventaires incomplets : illustrations de la procédure d'extrapolation au moyen de quelques exemples d'applications concrets[END_REF]. Richness is estimated in this software with Chao 1 estimator, based on the publication of [START_REF] Colwell | Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages[END_REF]:

𝑆 𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑆 𝑜𝑏𝑠 + 𝑓 ̂0 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑜1 𝑓 ̂0 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑜1 = 𝑓 1 2 2𝑓 2 , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓 2 > 0 or 𝑓 ̂0 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑜1 = 𝑓 1 (𝑓 1 -1) [2(𝑓 2 + 1)] , 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓 2 = 0
Sobs is the richness observed in the samples and f0 is the estimated number of species not observed in the sample, based on the number of rare species [START_REF] Colwell | Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages[END_REF]. We tested the correlation between plant and arthropod diversity with the R software (R Core Team, 2020), using Mann-Kendall nonparametric test, which is:

𝑆 = ∑ ∑ 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑥 𝑗 𝑛 𝑗=𝑘+1 - 𝑛-1 𝑘=1 𝑥 𝑘 )
Where 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑥) = { +1, 𝑥 > 0 0 𝑥 = 0 -1 𝑥 < 0 H0: S=0 [START_REF] Hipel | Chapter 23: nonparametric tests for trend detection[END_REF].

Fragments networks

To illustrate links which occur between plant and arthropods present in these fragments, bipartite networks were created using the bipartite package in R [START_REF] Dormann | Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks[END_REF]. The bipartite package in R allows the calculation of indices to characterize the networks quality [START_REF] Nico | Measuring specialization in species interaction networks[END_REF].

The networks are bipartite because it was not possible to determine which arthropod interacts with which other arthropod, considering the level of identification achieved. A bipartite network consists of nodes (the identified species) separated into two levels (here arthropod species at the upper level and plant species at the lower level). The nodes are connected by edges representing the interactions between species [START_REF] Leclerc | Insular threat associations within taxa worldwide[END_REF]. The construction of networks is based on matrices previously constructed with plant species in rows and arthropod morphospecies in columns, grouped into the 4 identified functional groups (phytophagous, predator, parasitoid and omnivore) (Annex 6, Annex 7,Annex 8, Annex 9, Annex 10, Annex 12, Annex 13, Annex 14, Annex 15, Annex 15).

We based the construction of the networks on the study of [START_REF] Losapio | Structure-dynamic relationship of plant-insect networks along a primary succession gradient on a glacier foreland[END_REF], which compares interaction networks according to a primary succession gradient, classifying the species collected according to their functional group. We built a network with the same construction, for each plot.

To illustrate differences between networks, we used the linkage density index which gives the number of existing links divided by the total number of potential links, which enables us to estimate the complexity of a network ((May, 1973), as cited in [START_REF] Losapio | Structure-dynamic relationship of plant-insect networks along a primary succession gradient on a glacier foreland[END_REF]).

Linkage density is calculated as:

𝐿 𝑞 = 0.5 (∑ 𝐴 𝑗 𝑚 2 𝐻 𝑗 + ∑ 𝐴 𝑖 𝑚 2 𝐻 𝑗 𝐼 𝑖=1 𝐽 𝑗=1
) [START_REF] Dormann | Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks[END_REF].

-

Statistic test to compare plateau and gallery forest

The influence of the type of forest on the alpha diversity of plants and arthropods species and on the linkage index have been tested with a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test [START_REF] Rosner | Power and sample size estimation for the Wilcoxon rank sum test with application to comparisons of c statistics from alternative prediction models[END_REF], calculated via the R package ggpubr [START_REF] Kassambara | Package 'ggpubr[END_REF]:

The test is based on the following statistic test:

𝜃 ̂= ∑ ∑ 𝑈(𝑋 𝑖 𝑛 𝑘=1 -𝑌 𝑘 )/(𝑚𝑛) 𝑚 𝑖=1
With samples X1, ..., Xm and Y1, ..., Yn from continuous distributions FX and FY. Where the hypotheses tested are:

𝐻 0 : 𝐹 𝑋 = 𝐹 𝑌 versus 𝐻 1 : 𝐹 𝑋 ≠ 𝐹 𝑌

Beta diversity

To compare diversity among fragments, we calculated beta diversity. Beta diversity "is a measure of the difference in species composition either between two or more local assemblages" [START_REF] Koleff | Measuring beta diversity for presenceabsence data[END_REF]. Beta diversity of plants and arthropods among plots was evaluated with Past326b to observed difference between plots, based on matrices of interactions between plants and arthropod morphospecies (as in Annex 6 but not grouped by functional groups). Measure is based on the Whittaker's original measure (βw) which is the most common used measure in ecological study according to [START_REF] Koleff | Measuring beta diversity for presenceabsence data[END_REF]:

𝛽 𝑤 = 𝑆 𝛼 S= total number of species recorded for both quadrats; α = average number of species found within the quadrats.

This method calculates the dissimilarity between sites based on species presence/absence data [START_REF] Legendre | Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data[END_REF]. For example, a beta diversity between two fragments equal to 1 corresponds to 100% dissimilarity between fragments, which means they have no species in common.

PLANT SPECIES IMPORTANCE AND ARTHROPOD SPECIES CHARACTERISTICS

Plant species importance

Estimate of the strength of species interaction is usually calculated by considering species abundance [START_REF] Welti | Impacts of plant diversity on arthropod communities and plant-herbivore network architecture[END_REF]. We did not have the opportunity to rehearse the sampling of arthropod species, so we felt that arthropod abundance could not be included in the calculation.

To study the importance of the different plant species identified in the fragments, we estimated the host strength of plant (Hs) by dividing the total number of interactions (i) of a plant species with arthropods by the identified number of plant individuals (v) of the species (Annex 16).

𝐻𝑠 = 𝑖 𝑣

The influence of abundance and species origin (exotic or native) of the species was tested on the interaction forces with a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test [START_REF] Rosner | Power and sample size estimation for the Wilcoxon rank sum test with application to comparisons of c statistics from alternative prediction models[END_REF], previously presented. For abundance, species were considered abundant when there were more than 4 individuals identified on all fragments. Species were described as native when described in the Brazilian Atlantic forest books description [START_REF] Souza | Guia das plantas da mata atlântica: floresta estacional[END_REF][START_REF] Ramos | Árvores da Floresta Estacional Semidecidual: guia de identificação[END_REF].

Arthropods species characteristics

We compared the proportions of the different types of arthropods of interest according to the identified morphospecies to describe the most abundant and illustrate the diversity of arthropod functionality within the fragments (Annex 17). We have chosen to show the proportion of spiders, lepidopters, ants and scale insects because they are taxa with important ecosystem functions. Indeed, spiders and ants (for some species) are predators that can play an important role in the regulation of phytophagous [START_REF] Way | Role of ants in pest management[END_REF][START_REF] Sunderland | Effects of agricultural diversification on the abundance, distribution, and pest control potential of spiders: a review[END_REF]. Lepidopterans (caterpillars) and scale insects are known to inflict severe damage on crops (García [START_REF] Morales | Scale net: a literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics[END_REF][START_REF] Borror | Estudo dos insetos[END_REF].

QUALITY FRAGMENTS INDICES ESTIMATION

Measuring the ecosystem services of the fragments involves estimating the factors impacting these ecosystem services provided [START_REF] Mace | Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship[END_REF]. The scientific literature shows that species diversity and the complexity of interactions within an environment are related to the ecosystem services provided by those environments [START_REF] Gardarin | Understanding plant-arthropod interactions in multitrophic communities to improve conservation biological control: useful traits and metrics[END_REF][START_REF] Welti | Impacts of plant diversity on arthropod communities and plant-herbivore network architecture[END_REF][START_REF] Mace | Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship[END_REF].

Partial least square path modelling

We therefore sought to estimate the ecosystem services provided by fragments from the perspective of biodiversity and species interactions, leading to a quality of fragment. To differentiate fragments and to estimate the quality of each one, we used the R plspm package based on the PLS-PM (Partial least square path modelling) method [START_REF] Sanchez | PLS path modeling with R[END_REF]. The objective of this method is to develop a model that reflects as much as possible the covariances observed in a dataset. It allows the analysis of relationships between measured variables [START_REF] Sanchez | PLS path modeling with R[END_REF]. Details on the construction of the model are explained in the part

Choice of indicators and latent variables

To estimate the secondary latent variable Quality, we chose to use three latent variables. Richness, Network and Disturbance. We used the indicators (Annex 18) measured with the data collected in the field to estimate these latent variables.

Richness of fragment

A high species diversity of an environment results in a diversity of individual functionalities, which translates into environment stability, according to the hypothesis put forward by [START_REF] Loreau | Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges[END_REF]. We chose as the first latent variable the richness of the fragment illustrated by the specific richness of plants and arthropods.

Network stability

As explained above, the linkage density index measures the complexity of networks (May, 1973, as cited in [START_REF] Losapio | Structure-dynamic relationship of plant-insect networks along a primary succession gradient on a glacier foreland[END_REF]). Due to the complexity of a network that can reflect network stability [START_REF] Montoya | Ecological networks and their fragility[END_REF] we have chosen this index to express the stability of the fragments. Linkage density is the indicator of the latent variable network.

Disturbance index

We chose to use the disturbance index estimated in the field because it estimates the abundance of lianas and of the exotic grass Panicum maximatum. As explained above (2.2), the overabundance of liana has a negative effect on tree growth [START_REF] Ingwell | The impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality on Barro Colorado Island, Panama: impact of lianas on 10 years of tree growth and mortality[END_REF] and the presence of Panicum maximatum slows down the succession of an area under restoration [START_REF] Mantoani | Regeneration response of Brazilian Atlantic Forest woody species to four years of Megathyrsus maximus removal[END_REF]. This index is therefore an important element in estimating the quality of forest fragments. This index is the indicator for the disturbance latent variable.

Model results

It was then possible to estimate a quality ranking of the fragments studied using parameters of this model (Annex 22) and we used the cluster analyses of plspm package (ward's hierarchical clustering method) to see which fragments can be grouped in term of fragment quality. The results were then discussed in relation with the management of the fragments described by the specialist.

(Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

RESULTS

A total of 235 plant individuals have been identified, with 97 species belonging to 33 different families. For arthropods, 570 were sampled on these plants and only 310 could be classified into 215 morphospecies, separated into 4 functional groups (predators, phytophagous, parasitoid and omnivore).

COMPARISON BETWEEN GALLERY AND PLATEAU FOREST AND AMONG FRAGMENTS

ALPHA DIVERSITY

The rarefacted species richness of arthropod and plant species were compared by Wilcoxon's tests, and no significant differences were found for plants (Figure 4 (a)) and neither for arthropods (Figure 4 (b)). There was not a significant correlation between plant and arthropod species (Annex 24).

NETWORK

The modelling of networks fragments illustrating plant-arthropod interaction allowed us to compare the two types of fragments (gallery and plateau forest) in term of linkage density. Wilcoxon's test performed on the linkage density did not show any significant difference (Figure 5).

BETA DIVERSITY OF FRAGMENTS

In terms of plant specific richness, fragment P4 was the most dissimilar in comparison with the other fragments (except for fragment P5). Fragments P8 and P10 are the most similar among all the fragments. All the fragments have a dissimilarity of more than 50% (Figure 6 and Table 2). In terms of arthropods richness, all fragments also showed a high dissimilarity (>81%). Fragment P7 has the highest average dissimilarity (Figure 7 and Table 3). Table 2: According to their dissimilarity mean value in terms of plant specific richness, from the less dissimilar to the most dissimilar. The third column represents the standard deviation of the calculated averages. Data: Figure 6. Table 3: According to their dissimilarity mean value in terms of arthropod specific richness, from the less dissimilar to the most dissimilar. The third column represents the standard deviation of the calculated averages. Data: Figure 7.

PLANT AND ARTHROPODS SPECIES IMPORTANCE

PLANT SPECIES

The most abundant plants in the whole sample are native species such as, Croton floribundus Spreng., Acacia polyphylla DC., Piptadenia gonoacantha Mart. and Platypodium elegans Vogel (Annex 16). In addition, species native to the Atlantic forest represent 72% of the identified species (Annex 16). We found plant species showing different levels of interactions with the identified arthropods. The species Bauhinia longifolia Bong., Handroanthus impetiginosus Mart., Rollinia mucosa Jacq. and Triplaris gardneriana Wedd. were the ones with the highest number of interactions (Table 4). Checking for abundance and if the species was native or exotic, we were to found that the number of such interactions are not related to abundance and nativity of the plant species. The Wilcoxon's test performed on the dependence of host strength on abundance of plant species was not significant (Figure 8(a)). Wilcoxon's test performed on the dependence of host strength on nativity of plant species were not significant (Figure 8(b)).

ARTHROPOD SPECIES

The separation of arthropods into morphospecies allowed us to illustrate the functional diversity of arthropods present within the fragments. Among the identified individuals, a high proportion of spiders and scale insects were found. Lepidopterans (caterpillars) and ants are present in a smaller proportion but represent a non-negligible part of the sample (Table 5).

QUALITY FRAGMENTS INDICES ESTIMATION

SUMMARY OF THE INDICATORS MEASURING QUALITY OF

FRAGMENTS

Fragments P3, P4 and P5 are the only fragments to have positive disturbance levels (Figure 9 (b)) and to have been fully restored (Table 6). Fragment P9 has the lowest level of disturbance and arthropods species richness (Figure 9(c),(d)) and appears to be the fragment that has suffered most from accidental fires over the last 30 years (Table 6). The fragments subject to fire and unrestored (Table 6) all have negative disturbance indices.

There is little variation in the specific richness of arthropods between fragments (Figure 9(d)). Fragments P3, P7 and P9 have the lowest linkage density indices compared to the other fragments (Figure 9(a)).

The indicators made it possible to form the latent variables richness, network and disturbance, which according to the results of the model have a significant positive relationship with the quality variable (Figure 10

HISTORIC OF FRAGMENTS

Of the 5 gallery forest fragments, 3 fragments are identified as restored (P3, P4 and P5) and none has burnt in the last 30 years (Table 6). Of the 5 native fragments (P2, P6, P8, P9, P10), 3 fragments had experienced accidental fire episodes (P6, P9, P10)(Table 6).

. Table 6 Information on the history of the fragments collected from a specialist in the agricultural areas of the region.

Fragment type Plot fragment number Historic

Gallery forest P1 No information available.

Gallery forest P2

Native forest along the river, no fire for the past thirty years.

Gallery forest P3

Forest completely restored after occupation of the land by sugar cane crops. No fire events.

Gallery forest P4

Forest completely restored after occupation of the land by sugar cane crops. No fire events.

Gallery forest P5

Forest completely restored after occupation of the land by sugar cane crops. No fire events.

Plateau forest P6

Native forest with regular fire in the last 30 years, recent fire burnt the entire fragment (2017)(2018).

Plateau forest P7

No information available.

Plateau forest P8 Native forest.

Plateau forest P9

Native forest with regular fire in the last 30 years.

Plateau forest P10

Native forest with fire in the past but not recently, partial deforestation.

INDEX QUALITY OF FRAGMENTS

Fragments P7 and P9 are the fragments with the lowest quality index, fragments P4 and P5 are the fragments with the highest quality index (Figure 11). The two fragments with the best indices (P4 and P5) are two fragments planted in the last 30 years (Table 6). The fragment with the worst index (P9) is native and regularly submits to forest fires (Table 6). The separation of the fragments into three clusters allowed us to separate the fragments into three levels of quality ( Figure 12). It shows the proximity of the planted fragments (P3, P4 and P5) with the highest quality. Fragments P9 and P7 appear to be the closest with a of low fragment quality. Figure 12: Cluster dendrogram representing results of cluster analyses on scores obtained for the latent variable Quality, in the plspm package, cluster separation have been effected at k=3, the three groups representing three levels of quality of fragment, from left the smaller quality to right the higher quality.

DISCUSSION

COMPARISON BETWEEN GALLERY AND PLATEAU FOREST AND AMONG FRAGMENTS

GALLERY VS PLATEAU

We hypothesized that gallery forest fragments would harbour greater plant diversity and less disturbed fragments in comparison with plateau areas. However, the plateau fragments and gallery forests do not seem to present any significant difference in terms of plants and arthropods richness (Figure 4), but in fact they were found to differ in terms of disturbance and historic aspects (Figure 9(b), Table 6).

Factors other than the type of fragments could be considered to explain differences in biodiversity. For example, the studied forest fragments have varying levels of connectivity among each other, and many of them may be isolated from each other. This difference in connectivity with other natural areas generally has an impact on biodiversity since species exchanges are increased when natural areas are linked to others by ecological corridors [START_REF] Macdonald | The role of corridors in biodiversity conservation in production forest landscapes: a literature review[END_REF], which would increase arthropods movement and in case of plants seed dispersal. In the case studied here, we suggest that it would be interesting to measure connectivity and species dispersal among fragments of each fragment with the surrounding fragments to link its connectivity with their species richness.

BETA DIVERSITY

Although we did not find differences in species richness between gallery and plateau forest, we found great levels of dissimilarity between the studied fragments (Figure 6, Figure 7). The strong dissimilarity between all the fragments seems to show that each fragment is unique in terms of biodiversity, not only in terms of plant but also in terms of arthropod. This strong dissimilarity shows that it is important to protect each type of fragment because it hosts a specific biodiversity that is unique from the point of view of species richness.

We have also seen that the management of the fragments is very variable, some were native, and others were restored (Table 6). Fragment P4 has a very strong dissimilarity in terms of the specific richness of plant species (Table 2). As it is a replanted fragment, we can hypothesise that the choice of species did not consider the species present in the surrounding fragments, increasing diversity of plants at the region scale. As the fragments all have strong dissimilarity indices, we made the hypothesize that the different levels of management create this high level of complementary on the scale of the region. This confirms the results of a study of [START_REF] Rother | Ecological restoration increases conservation of taxonomic and functional beta diversity of woody plants in a tropical fragmented landscape[END_REF] which has shown that the conservation of the biodiversity of plant species requires the conservation of existing the highest number of native and restored forest fragments.

It has long been shown that the larger the sampling area, the more precise the measurement of biodiversity is [START_REF] References Arrhenius | Species and area[END_REF]. It would be interesting to carry out identifications of the flora and arthropods over the entire surface of the fragments, which was not possible in view of the duration of the training period and the conditions, which imposed certain limitations to the sampling approach adopted here and to identification of the sampled arthropods. Finally, since the width of a natural area having an impact on its biodiversity [START_REF] Metzger | Pattern of tree species diversity in riparian forest fragments of different widths (SE Brazil)[END_REF], it would also be interesting to consider the impact of the total surface area of the fragments when comparison its real patterns of biodiversity.

PLANT AND ARTHROPODS SPECIES IMPORTANCE

PLANT SPECIES

The most abundant plants in all the fragments (Croton floribundus, Acacia polyphylla, Piptadenia gonoacantha and Platypodium elegans), (Table 4) are native species of the Atlantic forest [START_REF] Ramos | Árvores da Floresta Estacional Semidecidual: guia de identificação[END_REF]. Despite drastic fragmentation, native species still remain as the most abundant species in the studied fragments. In a study on the distribution of species in one of the last important mature semideciduous forests in the west of the state of São Paulo state [START_REF] Durigan | Estrutura e diversidade do componente arbóreo da floresta na estação ecológica dos Caetetus, Gália, SP[END_REF], the floristic distribution is different from that of the fragments we studied. Metrodorea nigra A.St.-Hil., the most frequent species in their study was identified only once in our study. On the other hand, Acacia polyphylla, which is highly present in the fragments we studied, is one of the least frequent species in their study [START_REF] Durigan | Estrutura e diversidade do componente arbóreo da floresta na estação ecológica dos Caetetus, Gália, SP[END_REF]. It has been shown that the distribution of species in the Atlantic forest is subject to spatial and environmental variables [START_REF] Maçaneiro | More than environmental control at local scales: do spatial processes play an important role in floristic variation in subtropical forests?[END_REF] which could, allied with historical exploitation of the fragments, explain this difference in floristic distribution. Abundance and nativity do not seem to have an impact on the number of plant species interactions with arthropods (Figure 8). We expected to find a stronger interaction of arthropods with native plants, as shown in the study of (Cook-Patton & Agrawal, 2014) for old field communities. However, this study also shows that exotic species, when included in a native and non-invasive ecosystem, can bring new arthropod functionalities not existing in the ecosystem, which diversify plant-arthropod interactions (Cook-Patton & Agrawal, 2014).

As exotic plants sampled are not invasive among the fragments, this could explain why no difference between native and exotic plants is observed.

The most abundant species are more likely to interact with arthropods in a given environment [START_REF] Montoya | Ecological networks and their fragility[END_REF]. However, we have considered the abundance of these species at the entire scale of the study, and at the scale of a fragment, other plant species may be more abundant. This could explain that the most abundant species at the scale of the whole study are not necessarily the species with the most interactions. This confirms the idea that each fragment is unique, so the importance of species should be considered at the fragment level.

ARTHROPOD SPECIES

The characterization of the morphospecies present in the fragments shows that these fragments harbor a great diversity of arthropod species, with different functionalities (Table 5).

The role of spiders in pest control is still little studied [START_REF] Sunderland | Effects of agricultural diversification on the abundance, distribution, and pest control potential of spiders: a review[END_REF] but based on our data (showing a high presence of such taxon in forest fragments surrounding crops), we could encourage the setting up of studies on the subject.

Ants have variable impacts on phytophagous insects, but generalist species have been shown to have a strong impact on the biocontrol of phytophagous insects [START_REF] Way | Role of ants in pest management[END_REF]. A thesis on the larvae of Diatraea saccharalis, a major pest of sugarcane, showed an impact of certain genera of predatory ants on their regulation ((Campiolo, 1994), as cited in [START_REF] Rossi | Predaceous ant fauna in new sugarcane fields in the state of São Paulo, Brazil[END_REF]). In addition, research is currently being carried out by a UNESP PhD student on the impact of ants on sugarcane pests. Comparison between the species present in fragments and in sugar cane crops is an important biocontrol issue.

Lepidoptera and scale insects are phytophagous insects that can cause significant crop damage (García [START_REF] Morales | Scale net: a literature-based model of scale insect biology and systematics[END_REF][START_REF] Borror | Estudo dos insetos[END_REF]. Their presence in the fragments is interesting as a source of food for predators. The more a natural environment hosts prey, the more food it will be able to provide to predators, being able to hunt in the surrounding crops, also known as the principle of alternative prey [START_REF] Landis | Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture[END_REF]. Their presence within the fragments might show the potential of the forest fragments as a refuge for predators of the surrounding culture pets.

Seasonality is known to be an important factor to consider in arthropod sampling, its importance has for example been shown in the study of ant diversity in a dry tropical forest in Brazil [START_REF] Neves | Diversity of arboreal ants in a brazilian tropical dry forest: effects of seasonality and successional stage[END_REF]. It would be interesting to reproduce the protocol of this study during the summer season, to consider the differences in temperature and humidity with the winter season.

QUALITY FRAGMENTS INDICES ESTIMATION

We provide evidence that each fragment is unique and therefore important to preserve. This finding led us to attempt to characterize each of them to assess their quality. The indicators selected seem to be interesting elements to represent the quality of the studied fragments. Indeed, they seem to translate the quality of the network in the same sense in view of the preliminary results of the model (Figure 10). The repetition of the protocol on other fragments will make it possible to ensure the validity of the variables constructed using the indicators.

RICHNESS

.

A greater diversity of arthropods is expected in areas with higher plant diversity, as shown by several studies on the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity [START_REF] Siemann | Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity[END_REF][START_REF] Haddad | Plant species loss decreases arthropod diversity and shifts trophic structure[END_REF]. Plant richness has also been shown to increase stability [START_REF] Haddad | Plant diversity and the stability of foodwebs[END_REF]. The measure of correlation between arthropod and plant species diversity did not show a significant correlation (2.3.1.1). It can therefore be presumed that the absence of repetition of arthropod sampling and the impossibility to identify all the collected species does not allow to show the real richness in arthropods and therefore the correlation with the richness of plant species. In order to guarantee the stability of an ecosystem, a minimum number of species is necessary, and the maintenance of stability under changing conditions requires more stable species [START_REF] Loreau | Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges[END_REF], we therefore believe that this richness index should be retained in the evaluation of the quality of the fragments. As discussed in the section about beta diversity (2.3.1.4), the fragments are unique from the point of view of specific richness, with a possible link to their management history, which further justifies the use of this variable.

NETWORK STABILITY

Fragments with a lower linkage density index (P3, P7 and P9(Figure 9(a))) may be less complex and therefore less stable [START_REF] Montoya | Ecological networks and their fragility[END_REF]. The study by [START_REF] Losapio | Structure-dynamic relationship of plant-insect networks along a primary succession gradient on a glacier foreland[END_REF] shows that plant and arthropod communities develop more and more connections along the successional gradients of plant communities. One might therefore expect a higher density of connections for native forest fragments, being older than planted fragments. Fragment P3 is a plantation but the other two planted fragments do not show lower levels of stability (Figure 9(a)). The interaction networks are very complex to study and their response to disturbance remains subject to much controversy [START_REF] Montoya | Ecological networks and their fragility[END_REF], and we do not have the necessary elements on all the fragments to explain the differences in link density between the fragments. In any case, this variable is important because studying interaction networks as a complement to diversity enable to better target the conservation required to guarantee the maintenance of ecosystem services provided by an ecosystem [START_REF] Harvey | Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function[END_REF].

DISTURBANCE

Three of the five fragments close to the rivers have been completely restored in the last 30 years (Table 6), which shows that the forestry code updated in 2012 has allowed the restoration of new fragments along the rivers. Disturbance measurements show a negative index for the non-restored fragments, due to the presence of lianas and invasive grasses (Figure 9(b)). Based on the testimonies of the Jaboticabal forest area specialist, we hypothesize that the fragments of unrestored forest (mainly plateau) are not maintained or controlled, and that some trees may have been cut down. Tree felling and fragmentation favours the invasion of lianas [START_REF] Campbell | Edge disturbance drives liana abundance increase and alteration of liana-host tree interactions in tropical forest fragments[END_REF], but also invasive herbs. A study on the invasion of grasses (including Panicum maximum, named Urochloa maxima Jacq. in the study) in dry forests in Bolivia was conducted by [START_REF] Veldman | Selective logging and fire as drivers of alien grass invasion in a Bolivian tropical dry forest[END_REF]. In this study, Panicum maximum dominates forest areas disturbed by roads. This is consistent with our observations, as Panicum maximum is mainly present in the edges of the fragments. This could explain the disturbance of the unrestored fragments.

The 3 restored fragments have not been burnt since they were planted (Table 6). It could be hypothesized that since these fragments have been completely restored and the presence of lianas and invasive grasses is minimal, accidental fires are less likely to propagate in this type of fragments. The study of [START_REF] Veldman | Selective logging and fire as drivers of alien grass invasion in a Bolivian tropical dry forest[END_REF],for example, shows that Panicum maximatum is an important fuel for forest fires. We assume that lianas may also represent fuel for accidental fires, but we have not found any study on the subject.

A second hypothesis is that the fragments least disturbed by invasive grasses and lianas are less susceptible to fires that spread via sugarcane fields.

As the aim of the index is also to promote the restoration of forest fragments, we feel it is important to retain this index in the model. A statistical comparison considering the fire event history of each fragment would therefore be interesting to specify the disturbance index of each fragment.

MANAGEMENT OF FRAGMENTS ADVICES

The actual model does not make it possible to assert what is the ideal management of the fragments to be put in place to guarantee the quality of the network regarding ecosystem services. However, the preliminary results of network quality show a positive index for replanted fragments, so we could encourage the replanting of forests in open areas. Measures to limit the spread of lianas and invasive species could also be put in place, to decrease disturbance of the fragments. Clustering enable to separate the fragments into three levels ( Figure 12) of fragment quality, we could presume that first group (fragment P9 and P7) are the fragments which precise the most of restoration management.

(Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

CONCLUSION

The comparison of the gallery and plateau type fragments did not show a clear difference between the two types of fragments, but it did show that each fragment is unique and that many variables have to be taken into account to characterise these fragments. This study has allowed us to begin to shed light on the interactions that take place within the fragments. It is a preliminary study whose methodology can be repeated at different seasons and over larger areas to complement the data already collected. The principle of evaluating the quality of the fragments could be used with a stronger model based on more repetitions. Current conditions have limited the possibilities of identifying the arthropods present within the fragments. In the future, a more precise description of the species present will make possible to consider the interactions between arthropods and to measure the impact of predators and parasitoid on the phytophagous species within the fragments. The value of the fragments in pest control can thus be assessed. In addition, the results could be crossreferenced with the future results of the university's studies on the diversity of arthropods present in the crops surrounding the forest fragments.

As farmers are the owners of the forest fragments, it is important to measure the benefits they can derive from these fragments to justify their conservation. The quality of the fragments related to biodiversity and plant-arthropod interactions can thus be coupled with other indices related to the ecosystem services rendered, such as the role of the fragments in the presence of predators and parasitoid of pest species in the surrounding crops. In more global questions, the carbon storage capacity and the prevention of soil erosion could also be considered.

As explained [START_REF] Montoya | Ecological networks and their fragility[END_REF], the interest of this type of study is to link the theory of ecology with conservation practices and the work of field ecologists.

Zwiener

TABLE OF TABLES

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PLANT AND ARTHROPOD MORPHOSPECIES WITH FUNCTIONAL GROUP IDENTIFICATION

Annex 2: List of morphospecies with their order, family, subfamily, functional group, plant host and the code of the plant containing the plot number. The plspm package then calculates the model parameters to estimate the quality of the fragments. These parameters are calculated in several steps. First the initial weight of each indicator in the formation of the latent variables. Then the internal model is considered to recalculate the scores of the latent variables. The external weights can then be calculated in two ways: reflective or formative. Here the latent variables are formed by their indicators (Annex 18), so the formative mode was used to calculate the weights of each indicators, also called loadings.

Plant_species

ANNEX 21-23: RESULTS OF PLSPM PACKAGE

PLS models normally require a minimum number of samples, which corresponds to 10 times the number of links forming the model [START_REF] Hair | PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet[END_REF]. The duration of the internship did not allow such a large amount of field work to be carried out to have a sufficient data set for the construction of this model. Therefore, we present the results of the model in the Appendix section.

However, we still chose to build the model to show a method that could be used in future studies to assess the quality of forest fragments.

To check the structural assessment, the R², the redundancy and the Goodness-of-Fit are calculated to measure the performance of the model [START_REF] Sanchez | PLS path modeling with R[END_REF], (Annex 21).

(

  Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance) 3.2.2. Arthropod species .................................................................................... 3.3. Quality fragments indices estimation 3.3.1. Summary of the indicators measuring quality of fragments .................................... 3.3.2. Historic of fragments ................................................................................. 3.3.3. Index quality of fragments .......................................................................... 4. DISCUSSION .............................................................. 4.1. Comparison between gallery and plateau forest and among fragments 4.1.1. Gallery vs Plateau .................................................................................... 4.1.2. Beta diversity ......................................................................................... 4.2. Plant and arthropods species importance 4.2.1. Plant species .......................................................................................... 4.2.2. Arthropod species .................................................................................... 4.3. Quality fragments indices estimation 4.3.1. Richness ................................................................................................ 4.3.2. Network stability ..................................................................................... 4.3.3. Disturbance ............................................................................................ 4.3.4. Management of fragments advices ................................................................. 5. CONCLUSION ............................................................. 6. REFERENCES .............................................................. 7. LIST OF ABREVIATIONS .................................................... 8. TABLE OF TABLES .........................................................

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Map of principal vegetation types of Atlantic Forest. 7

Figure 2 : 9 Figure 3 :Figure 4 : 9 Figure 5 :Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 10 :Figure 12 :

 293495671012 Figure 2: Evolution of forest cover evolution from its primitive situation to 2000.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Map of principal vegetation types of Atlantic Forest.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Evolution of forest cover evolution from its primitive situation to 2000.

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Study location and plots locations.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Boxplots of effect of the type of fragment on plant and arthropod richness.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: (a) Boxplot and p-value of a Wilcoxon test with the type of fragment as group variable and plant specific richness as dependent variable. p =0.84. Data: Annex 25 (b) Boxplot and p-value of a Wilcoxon test with the type of fragment as group variable and arthropod specific richness as dependent variable. p =0.42. Data: Annex 26.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Boxplots of effect of the type of fragment on plant and arthropod richness.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Boxplot and p-value of a Wilcoxon test with the type of fragment as group variable and linkage density as dependent variable. p =0.55. Data: Annex 27

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: Analysis to estimate the dissimilarity (in %) of fragments based on the plant specific richness calculated with Past326b software, the cells with the hottest colours representing the highest values of dissimilarity between fragments.

Figure 7

 7 Figure 7 Pairwise matrix of arthropod beta diversity

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7: Analysis to estimate the dissimilarity (in %) of fragments based on the arthropod specific richness calculated with Past326b software, the cells with the hottest colours representing the highest values of dissimilarity between fragments.

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: Boxplots of effect abundance and nativity on host strength.

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 8: (a) Boxplot and p-value of a Wilcoxon test with the level of abundance as group variable and host strength as dependent variable. p =0.21. Data: Annex 27 (b) Boxplot and p-value of a Wilcoxon test with the factor "nativity" as group variable and host strength as dependent variable. p =0.31. Data: Annex 29.

  thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9: Indicators used for fragment quality.

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9: Barplots representing the values of the indicators per plot, which will be used in the PLS-PM. (a) Linkage density. (b) Disturbance index. (c) Plant specific richness. (d) Arthropod specific richness. Data: Annex 18.

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10: Weights of the variables in the determination of quality index.

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10: Represents weights of each latent variable in the construction of the second latent variable Quality. Blue lines mean significant positive relation, negative relations would have been shown on red lines.

Figure 11

 11 Figure 11 Boxplot of the fragment quality indices calculated via the plspm package.

Figure 11 :

 11 Figure 11: Data: Annex 23.

Figure 12 :

 12 Figure 12: Plots grouped by quality index.

  thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

  thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance) Annex 9: Matrices of plant-arthropod trophic level interaction of P4 thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance) Annex 11: Matrices of plant-arthropod trophic level interaction of P6 thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance) Annex 15: Matrices of plant-arthropod trophic level interaction of P10

Annex 21 :

 21 Indices obtained from the structural model assessment with the plspm package (a) Goodness-of-Fit (GoF) (b) R² determination coefficients (c) Redudancy Annex 22: Results of the inner model testing statistical representation of data by latent variables. P-value obtained for Richness, Network and Disturbance are significative (*** p (H0) < 0.001).Annex 29: Data used for the construction of the boxplot of the Wilcoxon test with the nativity as group variable and host strength as dependent variable.

Table 1 :

 1 Examples for extremes disturbance index measurement. 16 Table 2 Classification of fragments by plant dissimilarity. 23 Table 3 Classification of fragments by arthropod dissimilarity. 24

Table 4 :

 4 The ten species with the higher host force interaction per individual. 5

Table 5 :

 5 Functional diversity of morphospecies. 26

Table 6

 6

		Information on the history of the fragments collected from a specialist
	in	the	agricultural	areas	of	the	region.
	8
	9.

TABLE

  OF FIGURES ........................................................

Table 1 :

 1 Examples for extremes disturbance index measurement.

	Extreme	Canopy cover	Lianas presence Invasive grasses Disturbance index
	situations
	Disturbed	0.3	-0.8	-0.2	-0.7
	forest
	Restored forest 0.9	0	0	0.9
	This table presents two virtual examples of forests with extreme index disturbance values
	to illustrate the construction of the index.

Table 2 :

 2 Classification of fragments by plant dissimilarity.

		Mean
		(%) (n=10)
	P8	80±0.142
	P10	81±0.146
	P1	84±0.086
	P5	86±0.074
	P9	87±0.098
	P6	87±0.101
	P2	88±0.081
	P7	90±0.087
	P3	94±0.055
	P4	97±0.074

Table 3

 3 Classification of fragments by arthropod dissimilarity.

		Mean
		(%) (n=10)
	P5	90±0.061
	P8	90±0.053
	P1	91±0.055
	P6	92±0.037
	P2	93±0.061
	P4	93±0.056
	P3	95±0.056
	P10	97±0.039
	P9	98±0.040
	P7	98±0.024

Table 4 :

 4 The ten species with the higher host force interaction per individual.

Table 4 :

 4

Also nativity information (1 means native from Atlantic forest and 0 not native). Data: Annex 17.

Table 5 :

 5 Functional diversity of morphospecies.

	Proportion
	(% )
	Spiders	27
	Lepidopterans
	(caterpillars)	11
	Ants	14
	Scale insects	25

Table 5 :

 5 Proportion of 4 interest groups within the fragments, percentage of individuals identified in the interest group relative to the total number of individuals identified (310).

Data: Annex 2.

  V.P., Padial A.A., Marques M.C.M., Faleiro F.V., Loyola R., & Peterson A.T. 2017. Planning for conservation and restoration under climate and land use change in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Diversity and Distributions, 23(8), p. 955-966.

	7. LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
	Partial least square path modelling (PLS-PM)

(Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

TABLE 1 : EXAMPLES FOR EXTREMES DISTURBANCE INDEX

 1

MEASUREMENT. ............................

TABLE 2 CLASSIFICATION OF FRAGMENTS BY PLANT DISSIMILARITY. ............................ TABLE 3 CLASSIFICATION OF FRAGMENTS BY ARTHROPOD DISSIMILARITY. .....................

TABLE 4 : THE TEN SPECIES WITH THE HIGHER HOST FORCE INTERACTION PER INDIVIDUAL.

 4

TABLE 5 :

 5

FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY OF MORPHOSPECIES. ..................................

TABLE 6 INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF THE FRAGMENTS COLLECTED FROM A SPECIALIST IN THE AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF THE REGION. . 9. TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: MAP OF PRINCIPAL VEGETATION TYPES OF

 6

ATLANTIC FOREST. .............................

FIGURE 2: EVOLUTION OF FOREST COVER EVOLUTION FROM ITS PRIMITIVE SITUATION TO 2000. .................................................

FIGURE 3: STUDY LOCATION AND PLOTS LOCATIONS. .......................................

. 12 FIGURE 4: BOXPLOTS OF EFFECT OF THE TYPE OF FRAGMENT ON PLANT AND ARTHROPOD RICHNESS

. .........................................

. 19 FIGURE 5: BOXPLOTS OF EFFECT OF THE TYPE OF FRAGMENT ON PLANT AND ARTHROPOD RICHNESS

. .......................................... 20 FIGURE 6 PAIRWISE MATRIX OF PLANT BETA DIVERSITY. .......................................... 20 FIGURE 7 PAIRWISE MATRIX OF ARTHROPOD BETA DIVERSITY .......................................... 21 FIGURE 8: BOXPLOTS OF EFFECT ABUNDANCE AND NATIVITY ON HOST STRENGTH. .........

23 FIGURE 9: INDICATORS USED FOR FRAGMENT QUALITY. ........................................... 25 FIGURE 10: WEIGHTS OF THE VARIABLES IN THE DETERMINATION OF QUALITY INDEX. ......... 25 FIGURE 11 BOXPLOT OF THE FRAGMENT QUALITY INDICES CALCULATED VIA THE PLSPM PACKAGE

. ........................................... 27 FIGURE 12: PLOTS GROUPED BY QUALITY INDEX. ....................................................... 28 (Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

10 .

 10 ANNEX ANNEX 1: DESIGNED EXPERIMENTATION ....................................... ANNEX 2: LIST OF PLANT AND ARTHROPOD MORPHOSPECIES WITH FUNCTIONAL GROUP IDENTIFICATION ...................................................... ANNEX 3: DISTURBANCE INDICES RESULTS .................................... ANNEX 4-5: RICHNESS ESTIMATION ...........................................

ANNEX 6-15: MATRICES USED FOR NETWORKS CONSTRUCTION ................ ANNEX 16: LIST OF PLANT IDENTIFIED IN THE FRAGMENTS ..................... ANNEX 17: ARTHROPODS FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY ............................. ANNEX 18: INDICATORS OF LATENT VARIABLES ................................ ANNEX 19: PARTIAL LEAST SQUARE MODELLING CONSTRUCTION ............... ANNEX 21-23: RESULTS OF PLSPM PACKAGE .................................. ANNEX 24: TEST OF CORRELATION BETWEEN PLANT AND ARTHROPOD RICHNESS ANNEX 25-29: DATA USED FOR THE WILCOXON TESTS ........................ -46 -(Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

  Indexes of canopy cover, percentage of invasive grasses and percentage cover of lianas. Estimation were made visually. The sum of them give the disturbance index for each plot. Individual rarefaction estimation for arthropod richness calculated with Past326b, with values in bold as the values used to define the specific richness of the fragments

		Id_plant	Order	Family	Subfamily	Morphospecies	Functional
							group
	Piptocarpha sellowii	P1S1Id2	Aranea	Thomisidae		Thomisidae sp. 6 Predator
	Piptocarpha sellowii	P1S1Id2	Aranea	Lycosidae		Lycosidae sp. 1	Predator -59 -
	Dalbergia frutescens	P1S1Id3	Diptera	Tachinidae		Tachinidae sp. 1	Parasitoid
	Acacia polyphylla Plant_species Plant_species Plant_species Plant_species Plant_species Plant_species Plant_species	P1S1Id4 Id_plant Id_plant Id_plant Id_plant Id_plant Id_plant Id_plant	Aranea Order Order Order Order Order Order Order	Lycosidae Family Family Family Family Family Family Family	Subfamily Subfamily Subfamily Subfamily Subfamily Subfamily Subfamily	Lycosidae sp. 2 Morphospecies Morphospecies Morphospecies Morphospecies Morphospecies Morphospecies Morphospecies	Predator Functional Functional Functional Functional Functional Functional Functional
	Acacia polyphylla	P1S1Id4	Aranea			Aranea sp. 1	Predator group group group group group group group
	Acacia polyphylla Senegalia tucumanensis Jacaranda cuspidifolia Cecropia pachystachya Croton floribundus Acacia polyphylla Astronium graveolens Cordia superba Parodiolyra micrantha Celtis fluminensis Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Piptadenia gonoacantha Cedrela fissilis Machaerium stipitatum Guarea macrophylla Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Copaifera langsdorffii Celtis fluminensis Celtis fluminensis Celtis fluminensis Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Panicum maximum Panicum maximum Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Acacia polyphylla Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Platypodium elegans Smilax fluminensis Smilax fluminensis Acacia polyphylla Senegalia tucumanensis Guarea guidonia Guarea guidonia Guarea guidonia Guarea guidonia Oeceoclades maculata Acacia polyphylla Acacia polyphylla Acacia polyphylla Senegalia tucumanensis Senegalia tucumanensis Acacia polyphylla Guarea guidonia Senegalia tucumanensis Senegalia tucumanensis Guarea guidonia Guarea guidonia Guarea guidonia Guarea guidonia Annona dolabripetala Annona dolabripetala Acacia pollyphylla Cordia mixa Cordia mixa Cordia mixa Magonia glabrata Nectandra megapotamica Morus alba Morus alba Morus alba Morus alba Annona dolabripetala Morus alba Morus alba Morus alba Morus alba Morus alba Mangifera indica Mangifera indica Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Croton urucurana Croton urucurana Bauhinia longifolia Bauhinia longifolia Bauhinia longifolia Bauhinia longifolia Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Calophyllum brasiliense Eucalyptus sp. Heliocarpus popayanensis Heliocarpus popayanensis Platypodium elegans Heliocarpus popayanensis Heliocarpus popayanensis Heliocarpus popayanensis Heliocarpus popayanensis Heliocarpus popayanensis Acroceras zizanioides Acroceras zizanioides Croton floribundus Croton floribundus Mangifera indica Mangifera indica Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Cecropia pachystachya Hyptis sp. Tabernaemontana catharinensis Tabernaemontana catharinensis Triplaris gardneriana Triplaris gardneriana Triplaris gardneriana Triplaris gardneriana Piptadenia gonoacantha Inga striata Acacia polyphylla Acacia polyphylla Manihot grahami Manihot grahami Croton floribundus Vochysia tucanorum Endlicheria paniculata Acacia polyphylla Acacia polyphylla Acacia polyphylla Piptadenia gonoacantha Cordia superba Trema micrantha Trema micrantha Annex 5: Samp Trema micrantha size Amaioua intermedia 1 2 ANNEX 4-5: RICHNESS ESTIMATION P1S1Id4 Lepidoptera Geometridae P2S3Id2 Aranea Corinnidae P4S3Id4 Aranea P5S2Id4 Araneae P6S3Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Azteca P8S2Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes P9S1Id2 Hemiptera Diaspididae P10S5Id1 Formicidae Formicinae P1S1Id5 Aranea Corinnidae P1S2Id3 Hemiptera Tingidae P1S2Id5 Aranea Salticidae P1S2Id5 Aranea Araneidae P1S3Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplaste P1S3Id3 Hemiptera Tingidae P1S4Id4 Aranea Corinnidae P1S4Id5 Aranea P1S5Id2 Lepidoptera P1S5Id2 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Ferrisia P1S5Id3 Hemiptera Coccidae P1S5Id4 Hemiptera Tingidae P1S5Id4 Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae P1S5Id4 Hemiptera Tingidae P2S1Id2 Aranea Gnaphosidae P2S1Id2 Hemiptera Coccidae P2S1Id2 Lepidoptera P2S1Id2 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P2S1Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus P2S1Id3 Lepidoptera P2S1Id3 Hemiptera Coccidae P2S2Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P2S2Id1 Hemiptera Diaspididae P2S2Id4 Aranea Corinnidae P2S2Id4 Hemiptera Fulgoridae P2S2Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Azteca P2S2Id6 Pseudoscorpionida P2S2Id7 Aranea Corinnidae P2S2Id7 Diptera Tephritidae P2S2Id7 Coleoptera Curculionidae P2S2Id7 Aranea Corrinidae P2S2Id8 Lepidoptera Noctuidae P2S2Id8 Aranea Corinnidae P2S3Id1 Lepidoptera P2S3Id2 Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae P2S3Id4 Aranea Corinnidae P2S3Id4 Hemiptera Auchenorrhyncha sp. 1 P2S3Id4 Hemiptera Diaspididae P2S3Id4 Hemiptera Cicadellidae P2S3Id5 Lepidoptera Erebidae P2S4Id1 Hemiptera Coreidae ? P2S4Id1 Hemiptera Largidae Largus P2S4Id1 Hemiptera Diaspididae P2S4Id2 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae P2S4Id2 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae ? P2S4Id3 Hemiptera Diaspididae P2S4Id4 Hemiptera Diaspididae P2S5Id2 Aranea Araneidae P2S5Id2 Hemiptera Monophlebidae ? P2S5Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P2S5Id3 Aranea Thomisidae P2S5Id3 Hemiptera Diaspididae P2S5Id3 Aranea Corinnidae P3S2Id2 Hemiptera Membracidae P3S2Id2 Hemiptera Aphididae P3S2Id5 Hemiptera Reduviidae P3S3Id1 Aranea P3S3Id1 Hemiptera Reduviidae P3S3Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes P3S3Id2 Aranea Thomisidae P3S3Id3 Aranea Thomisidae P3S3Id4 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae P3S3Id4 Aranea Thomisidae P3S3Id4 Diptera Muscidae P3S3Id4 Orthoptera P3S4Id1 Aranea P3S4Id4 Aranea P3S4Id4 Aranea P3S4Id4 Aranea P3S5Id2 Aranea P3S5Id2 Hemiptera Cicadellidae P3S5Id3 Aranea Corinnidae P3S5Id3 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae P4S4Id1 Lepidoptera P4S4Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Azteca P4S4Id1 Hemiptera Cicadellidae P4S4Id2 Hemiptera Coccidae Pseudokermes P4S4Id2 Aranea Theridiidae P4S4Id2 Hymenoptera Formicidae Dorymyrmex P4S4Id2 Hemiptera Aphididae P4S4Id3 Hemiptera Pentatomidae P4S4Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P4S4Id4 Hemiptera Coccidae P4S4Id4 Aranea Thomisidae P4S4Id4 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae P4S4Id4 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus P4S5Id3 Aranea Corinnidae P4S5Id3 Aranea Theridiidae P4S5Id5 Aranea P4S5Id5 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Ferrisia P4S5Id5 Hemiptera Aphididae P4S5Id5 Hymenoptera Formicidae Brachymyrmex P4S5Id6 Mesostigmata Phytoseiidae P5S1Id1 Lepidoptera Geometridae P5S1Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae P5S1Id2 Hemiptera Diaspididae P5S1Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Brachymyrmex P5S1Id3 Araneae Corinnidae P5S1Id3 Araneae Thomisidae P5S1Id3 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae P5S1Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P5S1Id6 Hymenoptera Formicidae Monomorium P5S1Id6 Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus P5S2Id1 Araneae Corinnidae P5S2Id1 Araneae Thomisidae P5S2Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae P5S2Id3 Araneae Salticidae P5S2Id4 Thysanoptera P5S2Id4 Araneae Thomisidae P5S2Id4 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae P5S2Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Monomorium P5S2Id7 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae P5S3Id6 Hemiptera Reduviidae P5S3Id6 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplaste P6S3Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Crematogaster P6S3Id4 Aranea Corinnidae P6S3Id4 Lepidoptera Geometridae P6S3Id4 Hemiptera Coccidae P6S4Id2 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae P6S4Id3 Lepidoptera Elachistidae P8S2Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P8S2Id1 Aranea P8S2Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P8S2Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P8S2Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex P9S1Id3 Hemiptera Coccidae P9S1Id4 Hemiptera Coccidae P9S2Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplaste P9S2Id1 Hemiptera Tingidae P9S2Id1 Hemiptera P9S2Id3 Hemiptera P10S5Id1 Aranea Oxyopidae P10S5Id2 Lepidoptera Crambidae P10S5Id2 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P10S5Id2 Hemiptera Cicadellidae P10S5Id3 Hemiptera Monophlebidae 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.995 1.985 1.986 1.994 1.993 1.994 1.979 3 2.986 2.954 2.958 2.983 2.980 2.983 2.938 Acacia polyphylla P9S3Id1 Hemiptera Serjania lethalis P10S5Id5 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae 4 3.971 3.910 3.916 3.966 3.960 3.966 3.877 5 4.952 4.851 4.861 4.943 4.934 4.943 4.798 Inga striata P6S4Id3 Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Trema micrantha P8S3Id1 Aranea Salticidae Celtis iguanea P9S4Id1 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Annex 4: Individual rarefaction estimation for plant richness calculated with Past326b, with values in bold Geometridae sp. 1 Corinnidae sp. 2 Predator Aranea sp. 11 Predator Aranea sp. 13 Predator Azteca sp. 2 Omnivore Ceroplastes Phytophageous Diaspididae sp. 6 Phytophageous Formicinae sp. 11 Omnivore Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Tingidae sp. 5 Phytophageous Salticidae sp. 1 Predator Araneidae sp. 1 Predator Ceroplastes cirripediformis Phytophageous Tingidae sp. 2 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Aranea sp. 22 Predator Lepidoptera sp. Phytophageous Ferrisia sp. 1 Phytophageous Coccidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Tingidae sp. 4 Phytophageous Ichneumonidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Tingidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Gnaphosidae sp. 1 Predator Coccidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Lepidoptera sp. Phytophageous Pseudomyrmex sp. 1 Omnivore Camponotus sp. 1 Omnivore Lepidoptera sp. Phytophageous Coccidae sp. 2 Phytophageous Pseudomyrmex sp. 1 Omnivore Diaspididae sp. 3 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 3 Predator Fulgoridae sp. 1 Phytophageous Azteca sp. 1 Omnivore Pseuscorpionida sp. 1 Predator Corinnidae sp. 2 Predator Tephritidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Curculionidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 3 Predator Noctuidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 2 Predator Lepidoptera sp. Phytophageous Ichneumonidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Phytophageous Diaspididae sp.1 Phytophageous Cicadellidae sp. 5 Phytophageous Erebidae sp. 2 Phytophageous Coreidae ? sp. 1 Phytophageous Largidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Diaspididae sp.2 Phytophageous Pseudococcidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Chrysomelidae ? sp. 3 Phytophageous Diaspididae sp.2 Phytophageous Diaspididae sp.1 Phytophageous Araneidae sp. 2 Predator Monophlebidae ? sp. 1 Phytophageous Pseudomyrmex sp. 2 Omnivore Thomisidae sp. 5 Predator Diaspididae sp.1 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 2 Predator Membracidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Aphididae sp. 1 Phytophageous Reduviidae sp. 1 Predator Aranea sp. 2 Predator Reduviidae sp. 2 Predator Ceroplastes sp. 1 Phytophageous Thomisidae sp. 1 Predator Thomisidae sp. 2 Predator Chrysomelidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Thomisidae sp. 2 Predator Muscidae sp. 1 Omnivore Orthoptera sp. 1 Phytophageous Aranea sp. 3 Predator Aranea sp. 4 Predator Aranea sp. 6 Predator Aranea sp. 7 Predator Aranea sp. 8 Predator Cicadellidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Chrysomelidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Lepidoptera sp. 4 Phytophageous Azteca sp. 1 Omnivore Cicadellidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Pseudokermes vitreus Phytophageous Theridiidae sp. 2 Predator Dorymyrmex brunneus Omnivore Aphididae sp. 2 Phytophageous Pentatomidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Pseudomyrmex sp. 4 Omnivore Coccidae sp. 4 Phytophageous Thomisidae sp. 5 Predator Pseudococcidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Nipaecoccus sp. 1 Phytophageous Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Theridiidae sp. 2 Predator Aranea sp. 12 Predator Ferrisia sp. 2 Phytophageous Aphididae sp. 2 Phytophageous Brachymyrmex sp. 5 Omnivore Phytoseiidae sp. 2 Predator Geometridae sp. 2 Phytophageous Coccidae sp. 5 Phytophageous Diaspididae sp. 4 Phytophageous Brachymyrmex sp. 6 Omnivore Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Thomisidae sp. 6 Predator Pseudococcidae sp. 4 Phytophageous Pseudomyrmex sp. 4 Omnivore Monomorium sp. 1 Omnivore Camponotus sp. 1 Omnivore Corinnidae sp. 2 Predator Thomisidae sp. 5 Predator Myrmicinae sp. 1 Omnivore Salticidae sp. 6 Predator Thysanoptera sp. 1 Omnivore Thomisidae sp. 1 Predator Pseudococcidae sp. 5 Phytophageous Monomorium sp. 1 Omnivore Pseudococcidae sp. 6 Phytophageous Reduviidae sp. 2 Predator Ceroplastes Crematogaster sp. 1 Omnivore Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Geometridae sp. 4 Phytophageous Coccidae sp. 7 Phytophageous Pseudococcidae sp. 9 Phytophageous Elachistidae sp. 2 Phytophageous glometarus Pseudomyrmex sp. 2 Omnivore Aranea sp. 17 Predator Pseudomyrmex sp. 2 Omnivore Pseudomyrmex sp. 1 Omnivore Pseudomyrmex sp. 2 Omnivore Coccidae sp. 7 Phytophageous Coccidae sp. 7 Phytophageous Ceroplastes glometarus Phytophageous Tingidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Hemiptera sp. 1 Predator Hemiptera sp. 1 Oxyopidae sp. 1 Predator Crambidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Pseudococcus sp. Phytophageous P8 P9 P10 2 Cicadellidae sp. 6 Phytophageous Monophlebidae sp. 2 Phytophageous 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.987 1.945 1.985 2.960 2.838 2.955 Predator Hemiptera sp. 1 Pseudococcidae Phytophageous 3.920 3.681 3.912 Predator sp. 14 4.868 4.478 4.856 Phytophageous Lycaenidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Salticidae sp. 4 Predator Pseudococcus sp. Phytophageous 6 5.929 5.779 5.793 5.914 5.902 5.915 5.702 5.803 5.231 5.787 cirripediformis Ochroma pyramidale P5S3Id7 Lepidoptera Geometridae Geometridae sp. 3 Phytophageous Cariniana legalis P5S3Id8 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pheidole Pheidole sp. 2 Omnivore Eugenia pitanga P5S4Id1 Araneae Corinnidae Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Syzygium cumini P5S4Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Monomorium Monomorium sp. 1 Omnivore Syzygium cumini P5S4Id3 Coleoptera Chrysomeloidae Charidotella Charidotella sp. 1 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P5S4Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pheidole Pheidole sp. 3 Omnivore Acacia polyphylla P5S4Id4 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes Ceroplastes glometarus Phytophageous Rollinia mucosa P5S5Id2 Araneae Aranea sp. 20 Predator Rollinia mucosa P5S5Id2 Hemiptera Coccidae Parasaissetia Parasaissetia nigra Phytophageous Rollinia mucosa P5S5Id2 Hemiptera Coccinellidae Coccinellidae sp. 1 Predator Rollinia mucosa P5S5Id2 Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Ichneumonidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Bauhinia variegata P5S5Id3 Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmelachista Myrmelachista sp. 1 Omnivore Bauhinia variegata P5S5Id3 Hemiptera Cicadellidae Cicadellidae sp. 6 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P6S1Id1 Lepidoptera Lepidoptera sp. 5 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P6S1Id1 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. 11 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P6S2Id1 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Pseudococcus sp. 1 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P6S2Id2 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Pseudococcus sp. 1 Phytophageous Allophylus edulis P6S2Id3 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. 9 Phytophageous Myracrodruon urundeuva P6S2Id4 Hemiptera Ortheziidae Ortheziidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Myracrodruon urundeuva P6S2Id4 Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Ichneumonidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Myracrodruon urundeuva P6S2Id4 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Pseudococcus sp. 2 Phytophageous Serjania lethalis P6S2Id6 Aranea Aranea sp. 16 Predator Undetermined liana sp2 P6S2Id7 Aranea Aranea sp. 14 Predator Platycyamus regnelii P6S3Id1 Aranea Araneidae Micrathena Micrathena sp. 3 Predator Platycyamus regnelii P6S3Id1 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus Nipaecoccus sp. 3 Phytophageous Platycyamus regnelii P6S3Id1 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcidae sp. 8 Phytophageous Albizia nipoides P6S3Id2 Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Lycaenidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Albizia nipoides P6S3Id2 Lepidoptera Elachistidae Elachistidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P6S4Id4 Aranea Araneidae Araneidae sp. 3 Predator Croton floribundus P6S4Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Formicinae sp. 1 Omnivore Croton floribundus P6S5Id3 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Ferrisia Ferrisia sp. 3 Phytophageous Allophylus edulis P6S5Id4 Aranea Gnaphosidae Gnaphosidae sp. 2 Predator Allophylus edulis P6S5Id4 Hemiptera Tingidae Tingidae sp. 2 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P7S1Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Azteca Azteca sp. 2 Omnivore Croton floribundus P7S1Id1 Hemiptera Tingidae Tingidae sp. 5 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P7S1Id2 Hymenoptera Ceraphronidae Ceraphronidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Croton floribundus P7S1Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex Pseudomyrmex Omnivore Piptadenia gonoacantha P8S3Id2 Lepidoptera Pyralidae Pyralidae sp. 1 1 as the values used to define the specific richness of the fragments 7 6.900 6.694 6.713 6.880 6.864 6.880 6.589 6.725 5.942 6.707 Phytophageous Piptadenia gonoacantha P8S3Id2 Hymenoptera Braconidae Braconidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Piptadenia gonoacantha P8S3Id2 Aranea Salticidae Salticidae sp. 3 Predator Piptadenia gonoacantha P8S3Id2 Lepidoptera Drepanidae Drepanidae sp. Celtis iguanea P9S4Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae Coccidae sp. 6 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P9S4Id3 Hemiptera Tingidae Tingidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P9S5Id2 Hemiptera Reduviidae Reduviidae sp. 8 Predator Samp size P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 8 7.867 7.597 7.620 7.840 7.820 7.840 7.460 7.635 6.615 7.615 P10 9 8.829 8.487 8.516 8.794 8.771 8.795 8.316 8.533 7.253 8.513 10 9.786 9.366 9.400 9.743 9.716 9.744 9.158 9.419 7.857 9.401 ANNEX 3: DISTURBANCE INDICES RESULTS 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11 10.738 10.234 10.273 10.686 10.656 10.687 9.987 10.293 8.431 10.280 Phytophageous Piptadenia gonoacantha P8S3Id2 Lepidoptera Ceiba speciosa P9S5Id3 Hemiptera Reduviidae Reduviidae sp. 7 Predator 2 1.920 1.913 1.924 1.931 1.975 1.931 1.789 1.883 1.942 1.957 12 11.686 11.091 11.135 11.623 11.590 11.624 10.804 11.156 8.978 11.149 Lepidoptera sp. 6 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P8S3Id3 Aranea Aranea sp. 18 Predator Croton floribundus P8S3Id3 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. Phytophageous Croton floribundus P8S3Id3 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes Ceroplastes cirripediformis Phytophageous Manihot grahami P8S3Id4 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Ferrisia Ferrisia sp. 1 Phytophageous Manihot grahami P8S3Id4 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes Ceroplastes sp. Phytophageous Astronium graveolens P10S1Id1 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Pseudococcus sp. 2 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P10S1Id2 Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Nymphalidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Luehea paniculata P10S1Id4 Aranea Salticidae Pachomius Pachomius sp.1 Predator Fridericia sp. P10S1Id5 Aranea Araneidae Micrathena Micrathena sp. 1 Predator Fridericia sp. P10S1Id6 Blattodea Blattodea sp. 1 Omnivore 3 2.770 2.747 2.782 2.798 2.926 2.800 2.443 2.664 2.830 2.872 13 12.629 11.937 11.987 12.554 12.519 12.556 11.609 12.007 9.500 12.010 Annex 3: Canopy Invasive grasses Lianas Sum P1 0.3 0 -0.8 -0.5 P2 0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.4 4 3.557 3.509 3.584 3.608 3.854 3.614 3.009 3.354 3.670 14 13.567 12.773 12.828 13.480 13.444 13.482 12.404 12.848 10.000 12.864 3.749 5 4.291 4.207 4.338 4.364 4.759 4.378 3.518 3.967 4.466 15 14.500 13.600 13.660 14.400 14.364 14.402 13.189 13.677 13.709 4.589 6 4.977 4.845 5.053 5.074 5.642 5.097 3.990 4.512 5.222 16 15.429 14.417 14.482 15.314 15.279 15.316 13.965 14.495 14.548 5.396 7 5.621 5.431 5.734 5.740 6.504 5.777 4.434 4.999 5.944 17 16.352 15.226 15.295 16.223 16.190 16.225 14.733 15.303 15.380 6.170 8 6.229 5.970 6.389 6.369 7.347 6.422 4.858 5.436 6.633 18 17.271 16.026 16.100 17.126 17.096 17.128 15.495 16.101 16.205 6.914 9 6.804 6.466 7.021 6.963 8.169 7.035 5.265 5.830 7.296 19 18.186 16.817 16.895 18.023 17.999 18.026 16.250 16.888 17.025 7.630 20 19.095 17.601 17.683 18.914 18.897 18.917 17.000 17.665 17.839 sp. 5 Croton floribundus P7S1Id4 Hymenoptera Formicidae Azteca Azteca sp. 2 Omnivore Croton floribundus P7S2Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pseudomyrmex Pseudomyrmex sp. 5 Omnivore Croton floribundus P7S2Id1 Lepidoptera Crambidae Crambidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P7S2Id1 Lepidoptera Elastichidae Elastichidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Machaerium acutifolium P7S2Id2 Hemiptera Cicadellidae Cicadellidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Machaerium acutifolium P7S2Id2 Hemiptera Pseudoccocidae Pseudoccocidae sp. 10 Phytophageous Machaerium acutifolium P7S2Id2 Aranea Aranea sp. 17 Predator Croton floribundus P7S3Id2 Coleoptera Coleoptera sp. 1 Fongivore Croton floribundus P7S3Id2 Mesostigmata Phytoseiidae Phytoseiidae sp. 3 Predator Aegiphilla integrifolia P7S4Id2 Hemiptera Coccidae Cerroplastes Ceroplastes sp. 2 Phytophageous Aegiphilla integrifolia P7S4Id2 Hemiptera Aphididae Aphididae sp. 3 Phytophageous Aegiphilla integrifolia P7S4Id2 Lepidoptera Geometridae Geometridae sp. 5 Phytophageous Cupania vernalis P7S5Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Pheidole Pheidole sp. 4 Omnivore Cupania vernalis P7S5Id1 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. 10 Phytophageous Cupania vernalis P7S5Id3 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. 8 Phytophageous Cupania vernalis P7S5Id3 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. 11 Phytophageous Trema micrantha P8S1Id2 Lepidoptera Erebidae Erebidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Trema micrantha P8S1Id3 Aranea Araneidae Araneidae sp. 4 Predator Trema micrantha P8S1Id3 Hemiptera Membracidae Membracidae sp. 2 Manihot grahami P8S3Id4 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. Phytophageous Manihot grahami P8S3Id4 Aranea Araneidae Micrathena Micrathena sp.2 Predator Undetermined liana sp1 P8S4Id1 Hemiptera Coccidae Coccidae sp. 8 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S4Id2 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes Ceroplastes glometarus Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S4Id2 Lepidoptera Lepidoptera sp. 7 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S4Id2 Hymenoptera Formicidae Ectatomma Ectatomma sp. Omnivore Acacia polyphylla P8S4Id2 Lepidoptera Erebidae Erebidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S4Id2 Lepidoptera Lepidoptera sp. 8 Phytophageous Myrcia fenzliana P8S4Id3 Aranea Theridiidae Theridiidae sp. 2 Predator Myrcia fenzliana P8S4Id4 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Chrysomelidae sp. 2 Predator Celtis iguanea P8S4Id5 Hemiptera Reduviidae Reduviidae sp. 6 Predator Celtis iguanea P8S4Id5 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcidae sp. 13 Phytophageous Celtis iguanea P8S4Id5 Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Ichneumonidae sp. 1 Parasitoid Croton floribundus P8S5Id1 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcidae sp. 12 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P8S5Id1 Aranea Corinnidae Corinnidae sp. 1 Predator Croton floribundus P8S5Id1 Hemiptera Cicadellidae Cicadellidae sp. 7 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S5Id2 Hemiptera Coccidae Ceroplastes Ceroplastes glometarus Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S5Id2 Hymenoptera Formicidae Ectatomma Ectatomma sp. Omnivore Fridericia sp. P10S1Id6 Aranea Araneidae Micrathena Micrathena sp. 1 Predator Fridericia sp. P10S1Id6 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcidae Phytophageous P3 0.9 -0.1 0 10 7.351 6.924 7.636 7.527 8.973 7.620 5.658 6.187 7.933 8.320 21 20.000 18.377 18.463 19.800 19.791 19.803 18.433 18.647 0.8 P4 0.8 -0.1 0 11 7.873 7.349 8.238 8.065 9.758 8.180 6.037 6.513 8.550 8.985 22 19.146 19.236 20.680 20.682 20.684 19.190 19.450 0.7 12 8.374 7.744 8.830 8.579 10.526 8.717 6.404 6.812 9.148 9.627 23 19.907 20.002 21.554 21.570 21.558 19.938 20.249 sp. 15 Allophylus edulis P10S2Id1 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus Nipaecoccus sp. 3 Phytophageous Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S2Id2 Hymenoptera Mutillidae Mutillidae sp. 1 Omnivore Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S2Id2 Aranea Thomisidae Thomisidae sp. 6 Predator Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S2Id2 Lepidoptera Pyralidae Pyralidae sp. 2 Phytophageous Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S2Id3 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Pseudococcus sp. Phytophageous P5 0.8 -0.3 -0.1 0.4 P6 0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 P7 0.3 0 -0.9 -0.6 P8 0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 P9 0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -1.2 P10 0.4 -0.1 -0.8 13 8.855 8.113 9.414 9.073 11.277 9.235 6.759 7.089 9.730 24 20.662 20.760 22.423 22.454 22.427 20.677 21.042 10.248 14 9.318 8.459 9.993 9.551 12.012 9.735 7.104 7.347 10.298 25 21.410 21.513 23.286 23.335 23.291 21.407 21.832 10.849 15 9.766 8.785 10.569 10.013 12.730 10.219 7.439 7.589 10.855 26 22.152 22.259 24.143 24.212 24.148 22.128 22.617 11.430 16 10.200 9.094 11.142 10.463 13.434 10.688 7.765 7.818 11.403 27 22.888 23.000 24.994 25.087 25.000 22.840 23.397 11.995 17 10.622 9.389 11.714 10.903 14.123 11.143 8.083 8.035 11.942 28 23.619 25.840 25.959 23.544 24.174 12.543 18 11.032 9.673 12.286 11.335 14.798 11.585 8.395 8.242 12.474 29 24.343 26.680 26.829 24.239 24.947 13.076 30 25.063 27.514 27.696 24.926 25.716 -0.5 19 11.432 9.947 12.857 11.759 15.459 12.016 8.700 8.440 13.000 13.594 31 25.777 28.343 28.561 25.606 26.481 2 Celtis iguanea P10S2Id4 Lepidoptera Crambidae Crambidae sp. 2 20 11.822 10.215 13.429 12.178 16.107 12.435 9.000 8.632 14.099 32 26.486 29.166 29.423 26.277 27.242 Phytophageous Celtis iguanea P10S2Id4 Aranea Aranea sp. 19 21 12.204 10.478 14.000 12.591 16.742 12.842 8.818 33 27.190 29.983 30.284 26.941 28.000 14.592 Predator Celtis iguanea P10S2Id4 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Nipaecoccus Nipaecoccus sp. 3 Phytophageous Celtis iguanea P10S2Id4 Hemiptera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcus Pseudococcus sp. 2 Phytophageous Allophylus edulis P10S3Id1 Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus Camponotus sp. 22 12.577 10.739 13.000 17.364 13.239 9.000 34 27.890 30.794 31.143 27.597 15.073 23 12.943 11.000 17.975 13.625 35 28.586 31.600 32.000 28.246 15.542 24 13.302 18.574 14.000 36 29.277 32.400 28.888 16.000 25 13.654 37 29.963 33.194 29.524 19.162 26 14.000 38 30.646 33.983 30.152 19.740 39 31.325 34.766 30.774 Omnivore 27 20.306 40 32.000 35.543 31.390 2 Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S3Id2 Hymenoptera Formicidae Crematogaster Crematogaster sp. 28 20.863 41 36.314 32.000 Omnivore 29 21.409 42 37.080 1 Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S3Id2 Hemiptera Monophlebidae Monophlebidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Machaerium brasiliense P10S3Id3 Lepidoptera Noctuidae Noctuidae sp. 3 Phytophageous Machaerium brasiliense P10S3Id3 Lepidoptera Noctuidae Noctuidae sp. 4 Phytophageous Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S3Id4 Aranea Theridiidae Theridiidae sp. 3 Predator 30 43 37.840 21.946 31 44 38.594 22.473 32 45 39.343 22.991 33 46 40.086 23.500 34 47 40.823 24.000 48 41.554 Phytophageous Trema micrantha P8S1Id3 Hemiptera Cicadellidae Cicadellidae sp. 4 Phytophageous Acacia polyphylla P8S2Id1 Lepidoptera Pyralidae Pyralidae sp. 1 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P8S5Id3 Hemipera Pseudococcidae Pseudococcidae sp. 11 Phytophageous Croton floribundus P8S5Id3 Aranea Corinnidae Corinnidae sp. 1 Astronium graveolens P9S1Id2 Hemiptera Ortheziidae Cordia superba P10S5Id1 Aranea Theridiidae Theridiidae sp. 1 Predator Ortheziidae sp. Phytophageous Cariniana estrellensis P10S4Id4 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Charidotella Charidotella sp. 2 Phytophageous Predator Piptadenia gonoacantha P10S3Id4 Aranea Salticidae Salticidae sp.5 49 42.280 Predator Machaerium brasiliense P10S4Id1 Hemiptera Diaspididae Diaspididae sp. 5 Phytophageous 50 43.000

(Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

  Table of number of individuals of 4 interest groups within the fragments, allowing the calculation of the percentage of individuals identified in the interest group relative to the total number of individuals identified (310).

				Individuals
				(Number of individuals)
		Spiders		85
		Lepidopterans (caterpillars)	34
		Ants		42
		Scale insects		77
		Total individual identified
	ANNEX 18: INDICATORS OF LATENT VARIABLES
	Annex 18: Indicators of latent variables used in the plspm model
	Disturbance_index	Plant_richness	Arthropods_richness	Linkage_density
	P1	-0.5	11.432	13.567	3.322
	P2	-0.4	9.947	12.773	3.973
	P3	0.8	12.857	12.828	3.207
	P4	0.7	11.759	13.48	4.291
	P5	0.4	15.459	13.444	4.771
	P6	-0.2	12.016	13.482	4.087
	P7	-0.6	8.7	12.404	2.702
	P8	-0.3	8.44	12.848	3.864
	P9	-1.2	13	10	2.650
	P10	-0.5	13.594	12.864	4.609

(Maëlle CARIO) Master 2 internship thesis mention BEE course BioGET 2019-2020 (Plant and arthropod diversity in forest fragments with different levels of disturbance)

(Maëlle CARIO)

We set up a higher order construct based on the repeated indicators approach to associate a secondary latent variable (Fragment quality) with the latent variables created (Richness, Network, Disturbance).