4.1 Article

Aquatic macrophytes as a habitat for free-living nematodes

期刊

NEMATOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 691-701

出版社

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1163/156854106778877956

关键词

aquatic free-living nematodes; feeding groups; functional groups; macrophyte stands; trophic groups

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The composition, trophic structure and diversity of nematode assemblages associated with three aquatic macrophyte species (Polygonum amphibium, Carex sp., Ceratophyllum demersum) were surveyed. Sampled stands were present at the three sites of the north bank in the Conakut Channel (Nature Park Kopacki rit, Croatia). They were all submerged during the period of investigation, which included two vegetation seasons. Nematode abundances (expressed as a number of individuals per 100 g of macrophyte dry weight) differ between the two vegetation seasons and between the sites, but not between the macrophyte species. In total, 19 nematode species were recorded. Chromadorina viridis, C. bioculata, Brevitobrilus stefanskii, Eutobrilus notus, Prodorylaimus longicaudatus and Ethmolaimus sp. were associated with all macrophyte species. Genera Eutobrilus, Brevitobrilus and Chromadorina were present at the highest relative abundances. Species diversity (H' and Simpson's D) and evenness (Pielou's J), calculated on the nematode species level, display little or no change in relation to different macrophyte species. Ceratophyllum demersum associated nematode fauna had distinct dominance of one species (Eutobrilus notus) and consequently lower evenness, which was not statistically significant. Chewers (CH) represented the dominant trophic group of total nematode abundance for all three macrophyte species followed by epistrate feeders (EF). Detritus feeders (DF) and suction feeders (SF) were represented by low relative abundances. This paper is a contribution to ecology of aquatic nematodes associated with macrophyte species in mesoeutrophic to eutrophic slow flowing channel.

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

4.1
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