| Literature DB >> 23029412 |
Jean-Michel Mortillaro1, François Rigal, Hervé Rybarczyk, Marcelo Bernardes, Gwenaël Abril, Tarik Meziane.
Abstract
One of the greatest challenges in understanding the Amazon basin functioning is to ascertain the role played by floodplains in theEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23029412 PMCID: PMC3460950 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Location of the study area and connection diagram between sampled sites used to generate AEM and PCNM functions in both HW and LW.
Study area (a) on the Amazonian Basin (Brazil). Framed area (b) highlight the different sampling sites, Várzea names are in italic. Connection diagrams (c, d) highlight the links between stations. Várzea stations (open circles), white, black or clear water rivers (closed circles), stations sampled in a single season (stars).
Figure 2Spatial modeling of the fatty acids composition in the Amazon Basin for HW and LW.
The PCNM and AEM eigenvector site scores selected by FS were mapped for HW in (a) and (b) and for LW in (c). Note that for LW, any PCNMs were significant. The bubbles represent the centered PCNM and AEM eigenvector site scores (mean = 0, standard deviation = 1) with positive (black circles) and negative (white circles) values proportional in area to the absolute value. Circles with cross are for river stations and without cross for Várzea stations. The percentage of variation (adjusted R2) explained by each eigenvector is given in parentheses.
Correlation matrix from the PCA of the environmental variables for HW and LW seasons.
| HW | LW | |||||||||
| PCA1 | PCA2 | PCA3 | PCA4 | PCA5 | PCA1 | PCA2 | PCA3 | PCA4 | PCA5 | |
| (34.01) | (26.74) | (22.07) | (8.63) | (5.71) | (38.24) | (26.68) | (17.67) | (7.85) | (5.19) | |
| conductivity |
| 0,34 | −0,19 | 0 | −0,17 |
|
|
| 0 | −0,09 |
| pH |
| −0,21 | −0,29 | −0,18 | −0,09 |
| −0,03 | 0,08 | 0,09 | 0,07 |
| turbidity |
| −0,18 | 0,37 |
| −0,12 |
|
| −0,32 |
| 0,30 |
| O2 | −0,01 |
| 0,07 | −0,16 | −0,11 |
| −0,12 |
| 0,38 | 0,13 |
| CO2 | 0,18 |
| −0,24 | 0,11 | 0,24 |
| −0,01 | −0,39 | 0,10 | −0,10 |
| TA |
| 0,36 | −0,29 | −0,12 | −0,07 |
| 0,39 |
| 0,19 | −0,14 |
| Chl | 0,29 | −0,25 |
| 0,05 | −0,1 | −0,32 |
| −0,02 | 0,12 | −0,20 |
| Phe | 0,34 | −0,15 |
| 0,32 | −0,07 | −0,05 |
| −0,15 | 0 | −0,31 |
| DOC |
|
| 0,19 | −0,08 |
| 0,39 |
|
|
|
|
Values in brackets are the variance explained (eigenvalues) per each PCA axis. Values in italic r>0.4 or r<−0.4 (modest correlation, 0.001>p>0.05) and in bold r>0.7 or r<−0.7 (strong correlation, p<0.001).
Results of the partial canonical redundancy analysis (pRDA).
| PC axes |
|
|
| |
| HW season | PC3 | 3.50 | 0.008** | 10.73 |
| PC2 | 3.17 | 0.003** | 9.93 | |
| PC4 | 2.88 | 0.012* | 8.83 | |
| LW season | PC2 | 5.47 | <0.001*** | 15.14 |
| PC1 | 3.51 | 0.006** | 10.86 | |
| PC4 | 2.10 | 0.053 | 7.82 | |
| PC3 | 2.14 | 0.031* | 6.31 | |
| PC5 | 2.14 | 0.034* | 6.03 |
P-values are tested with 9999 permutations tests. P-values *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001. Semi-partial R2 are given.
Figure 3Biplot of canonical redundancy analyses between FAs composition per site and environmental variables during HW.
The FAs most correlated to the first two canonical axes are shown for an easy-reading of the figure. Downstream (triangles) and upstream (squares) stations are according to PCNM map (Fig. 3a). Várzea (open), rivers (closed). The angles between variables in the RDA biplot reflect their correlation coefficient.
Figure 4Biplot of canonical redundancy analyses between FAs composition per site and environmental variables during LW.
The FAs most correlated to the first two canonical axes are shown for an easy-reading of the figure. Várzea (open), rivers (closed). The angles between variables in the RDA biplot reflect their correlation coefficient.
Figure 5Venn diagram showing the results of the variation partitioning procedure.
The variance partitioning was carried out on the forward selected environmental (PCs) and spatial variables (PCNM and AEM eigenvectors for HW and AEM for LW).
Figure 6Venn diagrams showing the results of the specific additive model.
The specific additive model was carried out on the environmental variables. a) AEM eigenvector for HW, b) PCNM eigenvector for HW and c) AEM eigenvector for LW.