4.6 Review

Insect communities in saline waters consist of realized but not fundamental niche specialists

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0008

关键词

osmotic stress; evolutionary trade-offs; freshwater salinization; aquatic macroinvertebrates; hyperregulation

类别

资金

  1. 'I + D + i' projects (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity) [CGL2010-15378, CGL2013-48950-C2-2-P]
  2. FEDER funds
  3. 'Juan de la Cierva-Formacion' research contracts (MINECO) [FJCI-2015-25785, FJCI-2014-20581]
  4. University of Castilla-La Mancha
  5. University of Murcia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Considering how organisms adapt to stress is essential if we are to anticipate biological responses to global change in ecosystems. Communities in stressful environments can potentially be assembled by specialists (i.e. species that only occur in a limited range of environmental conditions) and/or generalist species with wider environmental tolerances. We review the existing literature on the salinity tolerance of aquatic insects previously identified as saline specialists because they were exclusively found in saline habitats, and explore if these saline realized niche specialists are also specialists in their fundamental niches or on the contrary are fundamental niche generalist species confined to the highest salinities they can tolerate. The results suggest that species inhabiting saline waters are generalists in their fundamental niches, with a predominant pattern of high survival in freshwaterlow salinity conditions, where their fitness tends to be similar or even higher than in saline waters. Additionally, their performance in freshwater tends to be similar to related strictly freshwater species, so no apparent trade-off of generalization is shown. These results are discussed in the framework of the ecological and evolutionary processes driving community assembly across the osmotic stress gradient, and their potential implications for predicting impacts from saline dilution and freshwater salinization.

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