4.6 Article

Spatial-temporal distribution of preimaginal blackflies in Neotropical streams

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 513, 期 1-3, 页码 183-196

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:hydr.0000018182.69746.f5

关键词

blackfly; Simulium; Neotropical; lotic; species assemblages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study investigates the spatial-temporal distribution of preimaginal blackflies in three a priori established, adjacent areas of Brazil and Venezuela. First we tested the hypothesis that the distribution of individual simuliid species, over two geographic scales, were predictable on the basis of several habitat parameters. Secondly, we determined if local species assemblages remain constant over two spatial axes, i.e., were species assemblages predictable within and between defined regions. Finally we compared the species assemblage between Venezuelan streams sampled in both the wet (October) and dry (February) seasons. As stream conditions changed across a north-south gradient, so did the occurrence of the most common species. This change in species composition from upland to lowland areas is consistent with the patterns of faunal change seen in North American simuliid assemblages. Discriminant Function Analysis showed a strong association between regional demarcations and stream site conditions. These results were paralleled by the strong correspondence between species assemblages and these regions. Thus each region presented both distinct stream environments and species assemblages. Monte Carlo analysis suggests that some if not all species are not only present in both the wet and dry season but that they are continuing to use the same stream sites. Three broad contingent rules for blackfly species assemblages in new world streams are put forward; (i) the ubiquitous nature of simuliids; (ii) species often distribute themselves along an axis of stream size and; (iii) there is a strong and consistent correspondence between regional characteristics of streams and the species assemblage.

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