4.6 Article

Aquatic Macrophytes Determine the Spatial Distribution of Invertebrates in a Shallow Reservoir

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13111455

关键词

microhabitat; habitat heterogeneity; gastropods; self-organizing map; spatial pattern

资金

  1. National Institute of Ecology [NIE-2015-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the relationship between aquatic macrophytes and the spatial distribution of invertebrates in South Korean wetlands, finding that macrophyte coverage significantly influences the distribution of invertebrates.
Aquatic macrophytes determine the physical structure of many microhabitats in water and strongly influence the distribution of various aquatic animals. In this study, we analyzed the main microhabitat characteristics that affected the spatial distribution of invertebrates in shallow wetlands of South Korea (Jangcheok Reservoir). Environmental variables, macrophyte biomass, and invertebrate groups were used to analyze invertebrate distribution using a self-organizing map (SOM). Thirteen invertebrate groups were mapped onto the SOM, and each group was compared with the distribution of environmental variables and macrophyte biomass. Based on a U-matrix, five clusters were categorized according to Euclidean distance on the SOM. Invertebrate groups were closely related to macrophyte biomass. In particular, Lymnaeidae, Physidae, Viviparidae, Ecnomidae, and Hydrophilidae were abundant in quadrats with a high cover of Paspalum distichum and Nelumbo nucifera. Bithyniidae and Coenagrionidae were strongly associated with Trapa japonica and Hydrocharis dubia, whereas Planorbidae, Corduliidae, and Hydrophilidae were abundant with a high cover of Typha orientalis. Similar habitat preferences were found in a survey of gastropod distribution on the surface of each macrophyte species. The results clearly indicated that invertebrate distribution clusters were related to the spatial distribution of aquatic macrophytes in a shallow wetland.

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