4.3 Article

Benthic meiofauna assemblage structure of headwater streams: density and distribution of taxa relative to substrate size

期刊

AQUATIC ECOLOGY
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 405-414

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10452-007-9108-0

关键词

lotic freshwater meiofauna; permanent meiofauna; sediment; stream assessment; temporary meiofauna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Permanent meiofauna taxa and portions of the population of other invertebrates that are temporarily in the meiofauna size class are often precluded from stream studies and assessments. This study was designed to determine the identity, density, and distribution of major meiofauna taxa relative to substrate size in a set of similar headwater streams. Using a coring technique, meiofauna (80 mu m-1 mm) and substrate samples were collected from 11 Ozark headwater streams in the Boston Mountain ecoregion of Arkansas, USA. Mean meiofauna density among streams was 1739 +/- 436 organisms per l. Permanent meiofauna taxa (Copepoda, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Rotifera, Nematoda, Hydrachnida, and Tardigrada) comprised 22.5% of the organisms collected with a mean density of 394 +/- 233 organisms per l; temporary meiofauna taxa (Oligochaeta, Turbellaria, Hydroidea, Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera, and other insects) comprised the remainder with a density of 1346 +/- 308 organisms per l. Chironomidae was the most numerous temporary meiofauna taxon, and Hydrachnida was the most numerous permanent taxon. Streams were found to differ significantly in substrate composition and densities of major taxonomic categories. Substrate size was found to predict densities for most of these taxonomic categories. Meiofauna patchiness was reflected in high variability within streams. Canonical correspondence analysis revealed positive associations between Copepoda and Nematoda and silt, and between Copepoda, Nematoda, and Rotifera and fine sand. Hydrachnida and Rotifera were negatively associated with silt and coarse sand, respectively. The potential value of inclusion of meiofauna in stream environmental assessments is discussed.

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

4.3
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