| Literature DB >> 24031609 |
André Luiz Cabral Monteiro de Azevedo Santiago1, Sandra Farto Botelho Trufem, Elaine Malosso, Paulo Jorge Parreira Dos Santos, Maria Auxiliadora de Queiroz Cavalcanti.
Abstract
Thirty-eight taxa of Zygomycetes distributed in 15 genera were recorded from tapir (Tapirus terrestris), camel (Camelus bactrianus), horse (Equus caballus), deer (Cervus elaphus), agouti (Dasyprocta aguti), donkey (Equus asinus), llama (Llama glama) and waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) dung collected at the Reserva Ecológica de Dois Irmãos located in Recife, State of Pernambuco, Northeast Brazil. The samples were collected on a monthly basis from June 2005 to May 2006, taken to the laboratory and incubated in moist chambers. Higher number of taxa was observed in the excrements of tapir, followed by deer and donkey. The highest number of species was detected for Mucor, followed by Pilobolus. Statistical analyses showed significant differences in richness of Zygomycetes taxa between the herbivore dung types. Differences of species composition, however, were weak. Seasonality influenced the Zygomycetes species composition but not its richness. Variations in taxa composition between ruminants and non-ruminants dung were non significant.Entities:
Keywords: Coprophilous; ecology; ruminants; taxonomy
Year: 2011 PMID: 24031609 PMCID: PMC3768924 DOI: 10.1590/S1517-83822011000100012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
Zygomycetes from herbivore dung in Ecological Reserve of Dois Irmãos in Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
| Excrement | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | + | + | - | - | - | - | + | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | |
| + | + | + | - | - | - | + | + | |
| - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | + | - | - | - | + | - | - | |
| - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | - | - | - | + | + | - | ||
| + | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | |
| + | + | + | + | - | + | + | + | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | |
| - | + | - | - | + | - | - | + | |
| - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | - | - | - | + | + | + | + | |
| + | + | - | - | + | + | + | + | |
| + | + | + | - | + | + | + | + | |
| + | + | - | + | + | + | + | - | |
| + | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | |
| + | - | + | - | - | + | + | + | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | |
| - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | |
| + | - | + | - | + | + | + | - | |
| + | - | + | - | + | - | - | + | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| + | - | + | - | + | + | - | - | |
| + | + | + | - | + | + | - | + | |
| - | - | + | + | + | - | - | - | |
| - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | - | + | + | - | - | |
| + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | |
| + | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | |
| - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | |
| + | + | - | - | + | + | + | + | |
| Total of taxa | 23 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 14 | 18 | 12 | 15 |
(R) ruminant; (NR) non-ruminant; + presence; - absence.
Frequency of occurrence of Zygomycetes in herbivores dung in Ecological Reserve of Dois Irmão in Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil from june/05 to may/06.
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | + | + | 33.3% | |
| + | + | - | + | - | - | + | + | - | + | + | + | 66.7% | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | - | - | 16.7% | |
| + | + | + | + | + | - | + | + | - | - | + | + | 75.0% | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | 8.3% | |
| - | - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | 25.0% | |
| - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.3% | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | 8.3% | |
| - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | 75.0% | |
| - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | 16.7% | |
| + | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | + | + | + | 33.3% | |
| + | + | - | + | + | + | + | - | + | + | + | + | 83.3% | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | - | 16.7% | |
| - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | + | 25.0% | |
| - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.3% | |
| + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.3% | |
| - | + | + | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | 33.3% | |
| + | + | + | + | - | - | + | + | - | + | + | + | 75.0% | |
| + | + | - | - | + | - | + | - | - | + | + | + | 58.3% | |
| + | - | - | + | + | + | + | - | - | + | + | - | 58.3% | |
| + | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | + | + | + | 50.0% | |
| + | + | + | + | - | + | + | + | - | + | - | + | 75.0% | |
| - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.3% | |
| - | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 16.7% | |
| + | - | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | 50.0% | |
| - | + | + | - | + | - | + | - | - | + | - | - | 41.7% | |
| - | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | - | 66.7% | |
| - | - | + | + | + | - | - | + | + | + | - | - | 50.0% | |
| - | - | + | + | + | + | - | - | + | - | - | - | 41.7% | |
| + | - | + | - | - | + | + | + | - | - | - | - | 41.7% | |
| - | - | - | + | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 16.7% | |
| - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.30% | |
| - | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | + | 25.0% | |
| - | + | - | + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 16.7% | |
| + | - | - | - | - | - | + | - | + | - | - | - | 25.0% | |
| + | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.30% | |
| - | + | - | - | - | - | + | - | - | - | - | + | 25.0% | |
| + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 100.0% | |
| Total of taxa | 15 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 11 | 14 | ppppp |
+ presence; - absencep