4.7 Article

Stable isotope proxies for evaluating biodiversity in stream biota

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 228-235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.030

关键词

Aquatic invertebrate; Assemblage; Biodiversity; Charr; delta C-13 and delta N-15; Periphyron

资金

  1. Global Environment Research Fund from the Ministry of the Environment, Japan [H-081]
  2. Japan Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports [18580154]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18580154] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differences in delta C-13 and delta N-15 values in stream biota are caused by several environmental conditions. Variations in abundance, species richness and the assemblage structure of stream biota are also caused by several environmental conditions. Hence, abundance, species richness and the assemblage structure of stream biota are expected to be strongly correlated with the differences in value of stable isotopes. In this study, the gaps in delta C-13 and delta N-15 between periphyton and charr are discussed in terms of the abundance, genus richness, and assemblage of benthic invertebrates at each site. Gaps in delta C-13 between periphyton and charr were strongly correlated with some aspects of mountainous area and the genus richness of benthic invertebrates at each site. The gaps in delta N-15 between periphyton and charr were strongly correlated with the abundance and assemblage structure of benthic invertebrates at the location tested. The delta C-13 values of predators were correlated with some aspects of mountainous area and the assemblage structure of the benthic invertebrates. The delta N-15 values of predators were correlated with genus richness and the assemblage structure of the benthic invertebrates. These results suggest that the value gaps in delta C-13 and delta N-15 can be used to assess biodiversity and could provide indices for estimating the biodiversity in a stream. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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