4.7 Article

Contrasting Species-Environment Relationships in Communities of Testate Amoebae, Bryophytes and Vascular Plants Along the Fen-Bog Gradient

Journal

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 3, Pages 499-510

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-009-9617-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union [SUSTDEV-2004-3.1.4.1]
  2. National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) on Climate, (Bern, Switzerland)
  3. Swiss NSF [205321-109709/1]
  4. CCES
  5. Foundation for Polish Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied the vegetation, testate amoebae and abiotic variables (depth of the water table, pH, electrical conductivity, Ca and Mg concentrations of water extracted from mosses) along the bog to extremely rich fen gradient in sub-alpine peatlands of the Upper Engadine (Swiss Alps). Testate amoeba diversity was correlated to that of mosses but not of vascular plants. Diversity peaked in rich fen for testate amoebae and in extremely rich fen for mosses, while for testate amoebae and mosses it was lowest in bog but for vascular plants in extremely rich fen. Multiple factor and redundancy analyses (RDA) revealed a stronger correlation of testate amoebae than of vegetation to water table and hydrochemical variables and relatively strong correlation between testate amoeba and moss community data. In RDA, hydrochemical variables explained a higher proportion of the testate amoeba and moss data than water table depth. Abiotic variables explained a higher percentage of the species data for testate amoebae (30.3% or 19.5% for binary data) than for mosses (13.4%) and vascular plants (10%). These results show that (1) vascular plant, moss and testate amoeba communities respond differently to ecological gradients in peatlands and (2) testate amoebae are more strongly related than vascular plants to the abiotic factors at the mire surface. These differences are related to vertical trophic gradients and associated niche differentiation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available