4.6 Article

Shifts in taxonomical and guild composition of littoral diatom assemblages along environmental gradients

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 694, 期 1, 页码 41-56

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-012-1128-7

关键词

Diatoms; Ecological guild; Lakes; pH; Total phosphorus

资金

  1. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
  2. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences via the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment programme (FoMA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diatoms are commonly and frequently used as water quality indicators, but only a few studies have been done to evaluate the importance of littoral, contemporary diatoms as bioindicators. This study aims to determine the main predictors of diatom community composition from 73 Swedish lakes. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) revealed pH, phosphate, nitrite/nitrate levels, longitude and percentage of forest in the catchment to be the most important factors of 51 environmental variables for structuring diatom assemblages. Cluster analysis separated the lakes into three groups based on the diatom community composition. Lakes belonging to these groups were characterised as: (1) acidic, nutrient-poor; (2) circumneutral, nutrient-poor and (3) alkaline, nutrient-rich, according to the results of a discriminant function analysis and dominant diatom taxa revealed by similarity percentage analysis. Ecological guilds according to growth morphology and the ability of nitrogen-fixation were assigned to all diatom taxa. All three lake groups exhibited a distinct guild composition. Nitrogen-fixing diatoms were found in nutrient-rich lakes, only. Our results indicate that taxonomical composition of littoral diatom assemblages can be applied in the assessment of nutrient and acidity status of Swedish lakes. Differences in distribution of the ecological guilds were connected to several environmental factors such as nutrients, light and grazing; their application in assessment of trophic status of lakes is therefore precarious.

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

4.6
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