4.6 Article

Within-river variation in growth and survival of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels assessed by in situ exposure methods

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 810, 期 1, 页码 393-414

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-017-3236-x

关键词

Longitudinal profile; Margaritifera margaritifera; Substrate types; Bioindications; Conservation; Hyporheal

资金

  1. Czech University of Life Science (Internal Grant Agency of Faculty of Environmental Sciences, CULS Prague [20164236]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [13-05872S]
  3. Technological Agency of the Czech Republic [TB050MZP006]
  4. government of the Czech Republic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The early post-parasitic phase is considered to be the most vulnerable life stage of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), yet little is known about the spatial variability in juvenile performance at a river scale. The main aim of this study was to determine within-river variation in habitat suitability for juvenile M. margaritifera. The growth and survival rates of juveniles (one and two year old) were measured in the Vltava River (Czech Republic) in relation to several physical and chemical variables using a total of 166 bioindication units (individual mesh cages and sandy boxes) during two thermally different vegetation seasons. Three spatial scales were studied: a longitudinal river profile, bottom habitat types, and hyporheic microhabitats. Both the survival rate and growth of the exposed juveniles varied considerably within the studied river. The effect of the longitudinal river profile and the roles of temperature, oxygenation within microhabitats, episodic pollution, and exposure method were demonstrated. This study represents the first example of a hierarchized approach to the assessment of a riverine mussel biotope with the use of bioindication methods. The results demonstrate the importance of the scale and bioindication method used in understanding the suitability of a river environment to juvenile freshwater mussels.

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