4.5 Article

Net primary productivity and seasonality of temperature and precipitation are predictors of the species richness of the Damselflies in the Amazon

期刊

BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY
卷 35, 期 -, 页码 45-53

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2019.01.001

关键词

Alpha diversity; Aquatic diversity; Climate heterogeneity; Amazon; Tropical diversity

类别

资金

  1. CNPq [481015/2011-6, 303252/2013-8, 449315/2014-2]
  2. Para. State Foundation for Amazonian Research (FAPESPA project ICAAF) [03/2011]
  3. U.S. National Science Foundation [MSM-0949996, DEB-1457602]
  4. CAPES
  5. CNN [140111/2015-8]
  6. postdoctoral scholarship PNPD (PPG Zoologia, UFPA/MPEG)
  7. CNN productivity grants [307597/2016-4]
  8. PELD/CNPq [23038.000452/201716]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the mechanisms that generate temporal and spatial species richness patterns. We tested four common hypotheses (water, energy, climatic heterogeneity and net primary productivity) to evaluate which factors best explain patterns of Zygoptera species richness. Of these, we predicted that climatic heterogeneity would be the most important predictor for Zygoptera richness patterns. We sampled communities of adult Zygoptera in 100 small Amazonian streams. Based on generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), we found that net primary productivity and climatic heterogeneity comprised the best model of Zygoptera species richness in Amazonian streams, with an pseudo r(2) of 39.5%. Results indicate that species richness increases by one species per 1 kg of biomass per square meter in NIT, or with an increase of 2 degrees C in air temperature variability, Our work corroborates a recent study with other taxa in Brazilian Bioms, This suggests that temporal variation in climate and net primary productivity are important predictors of the macroecological patterns of richness for aquatic organisms in tropical regions. (C) 2018 Gesellschaft fur Okologie. Published by Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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