4.2 Article

Diatoms from the genus Achnanthidium in flowing waters of the Appalachian Mountains (North America):: Ecology, distribution and taxonomic notes

期刊

LIMNOLOGICA
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 227-241

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.limno.2007.01.004

关键词

diatoms; achnanthidium; Appalachian mountains; rivers; taxonomy; ecology; distribution; generalized additive models; non-parametric multiplicative regression models; water-quality assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diatoms from the genus Achnanthidium are abundant in rivers, streams, and springs of the Appalachian Mountains. They inhabit clean and polluted waters, including those affected by acid mine drainage. The identification of Achnanthidium taxa is difficult due to their small cell size and insufficient information in the diatom floras. We studied the taxonomy and ecology of Achnanthidium in Appalachian rivers by analyzing a data set of benthic diatom samples and corresponding water chemistry data collected during several water-quality surveys from 181 sampling sites. Ten species were identified using scanning electron and light microscopy: A. alpestre (Lowe & Kociolek) Lowe & Kociolek, A. atomus (Hustedt) Monnier, Lange-Bertalot, & Ector, A. deflexum (Reimer) Kingston, A. duthii (Sreenivasa) Edlund, A. eutrophilum (Lange-Bertalot) Lange-Bertalot, A. cf. gracillinium (Meister) Lange-Bertalot, A. cf. latecephalum Kobayasi, A. minutissimum (Ktitzing) Czarnecki (sensu lato), A. reimeri (Camburn) comb. nov., and A. rivulare Potapova & Ponader. The distribution of common taxa in relation to water chemistry was studied by fitting nonparametric regression models (generalized additive models, GAM, and non-parametric multiplicative regression models, NPMR) to species relative abundances. Studied Achnanthidium species differed considerably in their responses to water chemistry. These results suggest that species-level identifications will lead to more accurate bioassessments. (c) 2007 Elsevier GrnbH. 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

4.2
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