4.2 Article

Primary Succession of Soil Rotifers in Clays of Brown Coal Post-Mining Dumps

Journal

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF HYDROBIOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages 164-174

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/iroh.201011251

Keywords

soil rotifers; post mining dumps; primary succession

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [2B08023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Changes in rotifer soil communities along a primary succession chronosequence was studied on brown coal post mining areas near Sokolov, NW part of the Czech Republic. The chronosequence of unreclaimed plots was 2, 11, 14, 20, 43 years old. The rotifers were extracted from soil samples using a modification of the Baermann funnel method with combined light and temperature gradients. In total, 34 taxa of soil rotifers were identified throughout the study. The most common species were Encentrum arvicola, Adineta vaga, A. steineri, Habrotrocha rosa, H. elegans, H. filum, Macrotrachela quadricornifera and M. nana. Rotifer abundance varied from 4 +/- 2 . 10(3) to 516 +/- 488 . 10(3) individuals m(-2). Species number per sample increased with age of the plot (r = 0.45, P = 0.003). The most important environmental variables which significantly affected rotifer community were wood cover, sodium concentration and age of the plot. Pioneer plant species occupied 2 and 11 year old plots, 14-20 year old plots were covered by Salix caprea shrubs and a forest formed by Betula pendula and Populus tremuloides developed on the 43 year old plot. Some species were ubiquitous and present throughout the chronosequence (Macrotrachela quadricornifera). Among the pioneer species were Encentrum incisum, Habrotrocha rosa and Macrotrachela papillosa, 14-20 years old plots were preferred by Adineta vaga, E. arvicola, H. filum and M. nana, while the oldest plot was dominated by Adineta steineri and Encentrum mucronatum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available