| Literature DB >> 21789234 |
Rafael D Guariento1, Luciana S Carneiro, Adriano Caliman, João J F Leal, Reinaldo L Bozelli, Francisco A Esteves.
Abstract
Understanding the effects of predators and resources on primary producers has been a major focus of interest in ecology. Within this context, the trophic cascade concept especially concerning the pelagic zone of lakes has been the focus of the majority of these studies. However, littoral food webs could be especially interesting because base trophic levels may be strongly regulated by consumers and prone to be light limited. In this study, the availability of nutrients and light and the presence of an omnivorous fish (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21789234 PMCID: PMC3138757 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
General comparison of the biotic and abiotic variables of the water column among treatments.
| Control | Fish | Nutrient | Fish + Nutrient | |
| Pelagic Chl- | 7.9a (1.2) | 11.1a (2.0) | 19.7a (7.5) | 64.9b (37.3) |
| Secchi disc (m) | 1.0a (0.3) | 1.0a (0.1) | 0.96a (0.1) | 0.74b (0.05) |
| DIN (µmol.L−1) | 3.6a (4.1) | 3.9a (1.2) | 30.8b (3.5) | 24.7b (5.5) |
| TDN (µmol.L−1) | 5.6a (21.9) | 6.6a (20.1) | 39.2b (76.0) | 40.5b (80.0) |
| DIP (µmol.L−1) | 0.1a (0.1) | 0.1a (0.1) | 5.9b (0.8) | 6.1.b (1.5) |
| TDP (µmol.L−1) | 0.5a (0.1) | 0.5a (0.2) | 6.1b (1.0) | 6.3.b (0.9) |
| TN (µmol.L−1) | 13.95a (1.8) | 14.75a (1.2) | 49.32b (2.5) | 50.87b (4.7) |
| TP (µmol.L−1) | 0.8a (0.2) | 0.8a (0.2) | 8.65b (1.0) | 9.4b (0.6) |
| TN∶TP | 17.43a (2.7) | 18.43a (4.4) | 5.7b (1.3) | 5.4b (0.9) |
DIN = Dissolved inorganic nitrogen; TDN = Total dissolved nitrogen; DIP = Dissolved inorganic phosphorus; TDP = Total dissolved phosphorus; TN = Total nitrogen; TP = Total phosphorus.
Results are the mean (± SD) throughout the weeks (2nd to 7th week). Different letters above mean values represent significant differences (RM-ANOVA with Contrast Analysis as post hoc test, P<0.05).
Figure 1Biomass (a), Carbon content (b), Nitrogen content (c), Phosphorus content (d) and C∶N (e), C∶P (f) and N∶P (g) molar ratios of Biomphalaria tenagophila (Gastropoda).
Treatments are represented by different nomenclatures (N0F0 (no fish or nutrients addition); N0F1 (only fish addition); N1F0 (only nutrients [N and P] addition); N1F1 (both nutrients and fish addition). Each bar represents mean values +1SE. Different letters above bars represent significant statistical differences (Two-way ANOVA with Contrast Analysis as post hoc test, P<0.05).
Figure 2Periphyton total biomass (top – a and c) and algal biomass (bottom b and d) over the time at different light regimes (High light – a and b; Low light – c and d).
Treatment abbreviations are the same as in figure 1. Circles indicate enriched treatments and unfilled symbols indicate presence of fish. Data are means ± SE. For statistical differences see the text.. Note the differences on Y-axis scales for each graph.
Figure 3Periphyton Carbon∶Chlorophyll-a ratio in high (○) and low (▪) light conditions.
Treatment abbreviations are the same as in figure 1. Each point represents averaged values of three weeks (n = 12) ±SE. Different letters above bars represent significant statistical differences (Two-way ANOVA with Contrast Analysis as post hoc test, P<0.05).
Figure 4Response of C∶N∶P stoichiometric ratios in periphyton biomass to different light regimes (high light – a, b, c; low light – d, e, f) and treatments.
Treatment abbreviations are the same as in figure 1. Each bar represents mean values for each week (n = 4) +1SE.