4.1 Article

Abiotic factors and trophic interactions affect the macroinvertebrate community of bromeliad tanks in a Neotropical Restinga

期刊

LIMNOLOGY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 275-285

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10201-020-00614-2

关键词

Vriesea friburguensis; Macroinvertebrates; Microhabitats systems; Trophic interactions

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [421288/2017-5, 405290/2018-7]
  2. Chico Mendes Institute for Conservation of Biodiversity (ICMBio) [421288/2017-5, 405290/2018-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities are dependent on intrinsic environmental characteristics and biological interactions in microhabitat systems. We investigated the species-area relationships, detritus content input and trophic interactions of macroinvertebrate fauna in 46 Vrieseae friburguensis in a Restinga environment. Our hypotheses are that (i) bromeliad water volume and detritus content would positively affect the macroinvertebrate richness and abundance; (ii) predators would exercise a top-down effect on macroinvertebrates community; but (iii) will control the prey in different ways, due to the preference to occupy and stay in a spatial position on the bromeliad tank. We found 2201 macroinvertebrates from 18 taxa (12 preys and 6 predators). Higher water volume, detritus content and bromeliad area increased the richness and abundance of macroinvertebrates. Culicidae (swimming preys) coexist with predators due to the segregation in the use of the water column caused by the presence of Chironomidae (browsing preys). The opposite response of browsing and swimming preys to predator abundance suggests that trophic interactions are more important to swimming preys than for browsing ones, and this latter is more related to abiotic factors. Therefore, abiotic factors (mainly, water volume) and trophic interactions (abundance of predators) drive the macroinvertebrate community of bromeliad tanks in the studied Neotropical Restinga.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据