4.4 Article

Diatom ecological guilds display distinct and predictable behavior along nutrient and disturbance gradients in running waters

期刊

AQUATIC BOTANY
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 171-178

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.09.018

关键词

alga; competition; current velocity; disturbance; ecological guild; mantel test; periphyton; nutrient

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three diatom ecological guilds were distinguished based on their potential to tolerate nutrient limitation and physical disturbance, i.e. a low profile, high profile, and motile guild. The guild distributions were examined along nutrient and flow disturbance gradients and across habitats in two extensively sampled streams. The guilds showed distinct distributional patterns, i.e. the low profile guild was favored in nutrient-poor and high disturbance habitats; the high profile guild reached a maximum in nutrient-rich sites and in conditions of low flow disturbance; and the motile guild increased along the nutrient gradients and decreased along the disturbance gradient. Guild distribution was habitat-specific: the low profile guild dominated the epipsammon, the high profile guild showed preference for epilithon and epiphyton, and the motile guild-for epipelon. The highest guild diversity was observed at high nutrient levels across all habitats, at higher flow disturbance levels, and in the epipelon and epiphyton. Comparisons of species, guild, and environmental distances, derived from species counts, guild abundance, and physico-chemical data, respectively. revealed high congruence between species-environment and guild-environment correlations. The predictable behavior of the three ecological guilds along nutrient and disturbance gradients, and across major benthic habitats elucidates the functional value of different diatom growth morphologies in species-environment interactions and suggests a potential use in ecological assessments of human-impacted ecosystems. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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