4.7 Article

Relationship between mild seasonal oxygen deficiency and seasonal variations of macrozoobenthic community: A case study in the Yangtze River estuary and its adjacent area, China

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 11-19

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.001

关键词

Oxygen deficiency; Environmental parameter; Macrozoobenthos; Biodiversity index; Community structure; Yangtze River estuary

资金

  1. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA11020303]
  2. Ocean Public Welfare Scientific Research Project, State Oceanic Administration of the PRC [201505004-1]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31872194, 41176133]
  4. Scientific and Technological Innovation Project - Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology [2015ASKJ01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, environmental parameters and macrozoobenthos in the Yangtze River estuary and its adjacent area, China, were investigated in summer and winter of 2015, and significant seasonal differences were found. Biodiversity was found to be lower in summer, which may result from the higher deposition rate. The relationship between the macrozoobenthic community and environmental parameters (especially dissolved oxygen) was revealed. Linear models describing the response of macrozoobenthic biodiversity indexes to mild oxygen deficiency were constructed. Mild seasonal oxygen deficiency was revealed significantly related to seasonal variations of the macrozoobenthic community, but this deficiency could not damage the community. In contrast, when mild oxygen deficiency occurred, natural predators of macrozoobenthos decreased, which may relieve the survival pressure of macrozoobenthos to some extent. Dissolved oxygen alone could not explain many variations of macrozoobenthos, and other environmental parameters, especially water depth, phosphate concentration and turbidity, also greatly contributed to those variations.

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

4.7
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