Monitoring simplification in plankton communities using different ecological approaches

• Autor(a) principal: Souza,Carla Albuquerque de
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Machado,Karine Borges, Nabout,João Carlos, Muniz,Daphne Heloisa de Freitas, Oliveira-Filho,Eduardo Cyrino, Kraus,Cleber Nunes, Ribeiro,Rômulo José da Costa, Vieira,Ludgero Cardoso Galli
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2179-975X2019000100314
• topic: reservoir; concordance; substitute groups; numerical resolution; taxonomic resolution

Abstract Aim This study aimed to answer: (i) can phytoplankton communities be used as surrogate of zooplankton communities?; (ii) can we use ecological approaches like functional groups (FG) or morphofunctional classification (MBFG) as surrogate for phytoplankton species?; (iii) can we use substitute groups (cladocera, copepod, rotifer or testate amoebae) as surrogate for zooplankton species?; (iv) are the environmental variables’ ordination standards concordant with the ordering patterns of phytoplankton and zooplankton species?; and (v) for both communities, is the spatial pattern of ordination maintained using density data or presence/absence of individuals or lower taxonomic resolutions? Methods The study was conducted in 25 water bodies that supply central-pivot irrigation in the Federal District - Brazil (Rio Preto Basin), in October 2012. We evaluated some physical and chemical variables as well as phytoplankton and zooplankton samples. To evaluate correlation among biological groups, numerical and higher taxonomic resolutions, we performed some Mantel and Procrustes analyses. Results Evaluating the use of substitute groups, comparisons between phytoplankton and zooplankton, FG and MBFG classifications and almost all the comparisons between zooplankton groups suggested concordant patterns. However, the values of r were low, all below 0.70. Biological analyses with phytoplankton and zooplankton can be performed using presence/absence of individuals without significant loss of information, except for MBFG classification and copepods. Data may also be used at genus or family level for copepods and testate amoebae and only data at genus level for cladocerans and rotifers. Different results were found concerning taxonomic resolution for phytoplankton considering that, while being significant, the r value was less than 0.70. Conclusions For environmental monitoring purposes, it is important to sample both phytoplankton and zooplankton communities because one is not surrogate of the other one, in the same way as phytoplankton density and their functional and morphofunctional approaches. On the other hand, to simplify the environmental monitoring, it is possible to adopt presence/absence species data instead of abundance data for both zooplankton and phytoplankton communities, except for copepods and morphofunctional approach. It is also possible to adopt genera level for zooplankton community and family level for copepods and testate amoebae.