| Literature DB >> 27699201 |
Júlio C Sá-Oliveira1, Stephen F Ferrari2, Huann C G Vasconcelos3, Raimundo N G Mendes-Junior4, Andrea S Araújo5, Carlos Eduardo Costa-Campos6, Walace S Nascimento1, Victoria J Isaac7.
Abstract
Urbanization causes environmental impacts that threaten the health of aquatic communities and alter their recovery patterns. In this study, we evaluated the diversity of intertidal fish in six areas affected by urbanization (areas with native vegetation, deforested areas, and areas in process of restoration of vegetation) along an urban waterfront in the Amazon River. 20 species were identified, representing 17 genera, 14 families, and 8 orders. The different degrees of habitat degradation had a major effect on the composition of the fish fauna; the two least affected sectors were the only ones in that all 20 species were found. Eight species were recorded in the most degraded areas. The analysis revealed two well-defined groups, coinciding with the sectors in better ecological quality and degraded areas, respectively. The native vegetation has been identified as the crucial factor to the recovery and homeostasis of the studied ecosystem, justifying its legal protection and its use in the restoration and conservation of altered and threatened environments. These results reinforce the importance of maintaining the native vegetation as well as its restoration in order to benefit of the fish populations in intertidal zones impacted by alterations resulting from inadequate urbanization.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27699201 PMCID: PMC5028870 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2810136
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Study area: intertidal zone of the Amazon River on the waterfront of the city of Macapá in Amapá, Brazil. Source: Google Earth.
Characteristics of the study sectors surveyed on the waterfront of Macapá, in the Brazilian state of Amapá.
| Variable | Area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | |
| Geographic coordinates | 0°00′35′S–0°00′05′′N | 0°00′5′N–0°00′045′′N | 0°00′45′N–0°01′25′′N | 0°01′25′N–0°02′05′′N | 0°02′05′N–0°02′50′′N | 0°02′50′N–0°03′30′′N |
| Vegetation | Area in a better environmental condition with native forest, with trees, shrubs, and aquatic macrophytes abundant | Open areas mostly with no vegetation, but occasional herbaceous vegetation | Open areas mostly with no vegetation, but occasional herbaceous plants | Mostly with no vegetation, but with occasional aquatic macrophytes | Vegetation in natural restoration process, with trees, shrubs, and aquatic macrophytes | Open area with no vegetation |
| Impacts | Stilt housing; discharge of domestic effluents | Stilt housing; bars; discharge of domestic effluents; polluted drains | Residential and commercial buildings; bars; port installations, discharge of domestic and industrial effluents; large quantities of rubbish; polluted storm drains | Leisure area; commercial buildings (open air market and shops); bars; residential and commercial effluents; polluted storm drains; port installations; rubbish | Residential and commercial buildings; leisure areas; bars; residential and commercial effluents; polluted storm drains; traffic vessels | Residential buildings; leisure areas; bars; residential and commercial effluents; polluted storm drains |
Occurrence and relative abundance of fish species recorded in the intertidal zone of an urban waterfront on the Amazon.
| Order/family | Species | Relative abundance (%) area | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Erythrinidae |
| 40 | 52.4 | — | — | — | 42.9 | 4.8 |
| Characidae | ||||||||
| Triportheinae |
| 20 | 63.6 | — | — | — | 27.3 | 9.1 |
| Tetragonopterinae |
| 88 | 38.8 | 14.3 | 4.1 | 10.0 | 20.4 | 12.0 |
| Serrasalminae |
| 23 | 50.0 | 13.6 | — | — | 36.4 | — |
| Siluriformes | ||||||||
| Loricariidae |
| 68 | 48.2 | 10.7 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 28.6 | 5.4 |
|
| 90 | 51.2 | 12.2 | 2.4 | 4.9 | 22 | 7.3 | |
| — | 7.7 | 23.1 | 15.0 | |||||
| Auchenipteridae |
| 60 | 43.6 | 10.3 | — | 7.7 | 23.1 | 15.0 |
| Trichomycteridae |
| 184 | 15.4 | 26.0 | 13.0 | 11.0 | 20.2 | 14.0 |
| Pimelodidae |
| 32 | 52.4 | — | 4.8 | — | 42.9 | — |
|
| 29 | 50.0 | — | — | — | 44.4 | 5.6 | |
| Heptapteridae |
| 15 | 66.7 | — | 17.0 | — | 16.7 | — |
| Callichthyidae |
| 84 | 39.6 | 11.3 | 19.0 | 1.9 | 22.6 | 5.7 |
| Cyprinodontiformes | ||||||||
| Anablepidae |
| 83 | 42.6 | 17.0 | 19.0 | 4.3 | 17 | — |
| Perciformes | ||||||||
| Sciaenidae |
| 9 | 62.5 | 12.5 | 13.0 | — | 12.5 | — |
|
| 43 | 38.5 | — | 12.0 | 15.0 | 23.1 | 12.0 | |
| Tetraodontiformes | ||||||||
| Tetraodontidae |
| 63 | 71.9 | — | — | — | 28.1 | — |
| Clupeiformes | ||||||||
| Clupeidae |
| 172 | 48.7 | — | 16.0 | — | 35.4 | — |
|
| 80 | 56.1 | — | 4.9 | — | 39 | — | |
| Pleuronectiformes | ||||||||
| Achiridae |
| 39 | 68.4 | — | — | — | 31.6 | — |
| Beloniformes | ||||||||
| Belonidae |
| 44 | 87.9 | — | — | — | 12.1 | — |
Figure 3Cluster analysis and nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis of the study areas, indicating two clear groups: A, containing only areas I and V, and B, encompassing all others area (II, III, IV, and VI).
Mean ± standard deviation of diversity parameters of fish species and abundance recorded in the intertidal zone of the Amazon River at Macapá, Amapá (Brazil).
| Index | Areas |
|
| Tukey | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | ||||
| Number of species ( | 18.25 ± 6.096 | 7.25 ± 1.5 | 7.50 ± 3.69 | 3.50 ± 2.886 | 15.75 ± 3.304 | 6.00 ± 4.082 | 15.13 |
| a, b, b, b, a, b |
| Abundance ( | 144.5 ±78.66 | 27.75 ± 14.17 | 28.75 ± 24.28 | 12.75 ± 11.35 | 85.50 ± 15.94 | 18.25 ± 15.94 | 6.41 |
| a, b, b, b, ab, b |
| Dominance ( | 0.07 ± 0.006 | 0.20 ± 0.041 | 0.20 ± 0.039 | 0.62 ± 0.437 | 0.09 ± 0.007 | 0.36 ± 0.25 | 17.64 |
| b, ab, ab, a, b, a |
| Shannon-Wiener ( | 2.72 ± 0.091 | 1.74 ± 0.162 | 1.71 ± 0.315 | 0.78 ± 0.091 | 2.54 ± 0.130 | 1.38 ± 0.79 | 7.83 |
| a, ab, ab, b, a, ab |
| Equitability ( | 0.94 ± 0.005 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.50 ± 0.069 | 0.44 ± 0.050 | 0.93 ± 0.028 | 0.55 ± 0.092 | 15.13 |
| b, ab, ab, a, b, a |
p < 0.001; df = 5 for all indexes. Equal letters together (aa or bb) correspond to no significant differences between areas; different letters separated (a, b) correspond to significant differences between areas; different letters together (ab) correspond to no significant differences between area.
Figure 2Ecological indices of the ichthyofauna from intertidal zone of the Macapá waterfront in northern Brazil.
Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald test, degrees of freedom, and descriptive level for the final logistic regression model adjusted between the species richness and environmental variables (vegetation, effluents, and residences) on the intertidal zone of the Amazon River at Macapá, Amapá (Brazil).
| Variable |
| SE | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation | 3.318 | 1.301 | 4.294 | 1 | 0.038 | 27.607 |
| Effluents | −0.794 | 1.515 | 0.275 | 1 | 0.600 | 0.452 |
| Residences | 2.762 | 1.280 | 3.484 | 1 | 0.049 | 15.831 |
| Constant | −1.630 | 1.172 | 1.934 | 1 | 0.164 | 5.100 |
B: “b” estimates of the parameters of equations; SE: standard error; Wald: Wald statistic; df: degrees of freedom; Sig: significance of the Wald statistics; Exp (B): odds ratio.