4.1 Article

Community development of free-living aquatic nematodes in littoral periphyton communities

期刊

NEMATOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 901-916

出版社

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1163/156854105776186352

关键词

age structure; benthos; feeding types; freshwater; hard substrates; morphological adaptations; nematode species composition; passive transport; temporal patterns

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of an epilithic nematode Community and the mode of colonisation was monitored over a 57-day period during spring in a field experiment in the littoral zone of a large oligotrophic lake. Two types of experimental units were used: one type prohibited direct colonisation via active crawling by elevating substrates into the water column and the second type had substrates placed on the lake bottom. Data from the two types of units and from nearby natural hard substrates were compared. The nematodes quickly colonised on the introduced substrates and reached maximum densities of 123 individuals per 10 cm(2) after 57 days. Nematode densities on elevated and non-elevated substrates did not differ significantly. The nematode abundance and community Structure showed a large initial variation, but became more stable over time and resembled the natural community structure at the end of the experiment. The maximum number of nematode species was reached after 2 weeks of colonisation, with a maximum species number on days 12 and 14 in the experimental units and on day 19 on the surrounding natural hard substrates. The five numerically dominant species, Eumonhystera vulgaris, Chromadorina bioculata, Eumonhystera filiformis, Chromadorina viridis and Daptonema dubium, accounted for most of the variation between the different communities. The results indicate that water-column transport was the main colonisation pathway of epilithic nematodes. The distribution of nematode species points to potential morphological adaptations of some species for persistence on hard substrates.

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