| Literature DB >> 30460061 |
Hye-Ji Oh1, Hyun-Gi Jeong2, Gui-Sook Nam3, Yusuke Oda1, Wei Dai1, Eui-Haeng Lee3, Dongsoo Kong4, Soon-Jin Hwang5, Kwang-Hyeon Chang1.
Abstract
Rotifer community is often used as a taxon-based bioindicator for water quality. However, studies of the planktonic community from the viewpoint of functional groups in freshwater ecosystems have been limited, particularly for rotifers. Because rotifers have various trophi types determining their feeding strategies, thereby representing an ecological niche, their functional feeding groups can act as biological and ecological indicators in lakes and reservoirs where planktonic communities are dominant. We analyzed the patterns of spatial distribution of the rotifer community in various reservoirs and then its relationship with water quality through redundancy and regression analyses. Compared with taxon-based composition, the response of trophi-based composition appears simplistic and showed clearer tendency in relation with water-quality variables. Each trophi responded differently by the degree of eutrophication indicating that each trophi group is possibly affected by environments such as the combinations of water-quality variables in different ways.Entities:
Keywords: RDA; Trophi; community structure; spatial pattern; zooplankton
Year: 2017 PMID: 30460061 PMCID: PMC6138355 DOI: 10.1080/19768354.2017.1292952
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Cells Syst (Seoul) ISSN: 1976-8354 Impact factor: 1.815
Figure 1.List of rotifer trophi types and genus (scale bars = 10 μm). Trophi 1, malleate trophi of Brachionus; trophi 2, virgate trophi of Cephalodella; trophi 3, virgate trophi of Synchaeta; trophi 4, incudate trophi of Asplanchna; trophi 5, ramate trophi of bdelloid rotifer; trophi 6, malleoramate trophi of Fillinia (trophi 1 and 4, by author; trophi 2, Fischer & Ahlrichs 2011; trophi 3, Norgrady & Segers 2002; trophi 5 and 6, Sørensen & Giribet 2006).
Figure 2.Map of study sites.
The values of water-quality parameters in the 16 reservoirs.
| No. | Site | Temp. (°C) | EC (μS/cm) | pH | Chl. | TN (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) | COD (mg/L) | TSIKO | Dominant phytoplankton class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Jeondae | 22.6 | 282 | 9.7 | 98.2 | 1.700 | 0.100 | 13.6 | 84.0 | Chanophyceae(98%) |
| R2 | Yonggok | 9.4 | 145 | 8.5 | 23.4 | 1.425 | 0.034 | 6.0 | 57.0 | Bacillariophyceae(76%) |
| R3 | Bongsan | 22.4 | 320 | 8.5 | 6.0 | 0.671 | 0.047 | 10.4 | 60.5 | Cryptophyceae(60%) |
| R4 | Yongcheon | 14.8 | 119 | 6.8 | 9.2 | 2.332 | 0.047 | 7.8 | 58.3 | Bacillariophyceae(42%), |
| R5 | Jangchuck | 21.4 | 207 | 8.3 | 3.2 | 0.911 | 0.019 | 9.2 | 51.9 | Cryptophyceae(96%) |
| R6 | Gwarim | 18.2 | 473 | 8.3 | 74.2 | 3.547 | 0.149 | 16.9 | 83.2 | Cryptophyceae(38%) |
| R7 | Songgok | 20.9 | 354 | 8.0 | 9.4 | 4.112 | 0.475 | 7.6 | 68.9 | Bacillariophyceae(79%) |
| R8 | Yidam | 16.9 | 214 | 9.4 | 34.6 | 1.369 | 0.103 | 13.7 | 75.4 | Chlorophyceae(63%) |
| R9 | Genmjeong | 22.0 | 228 | 8.8 | 27.0 | 0.778 | 0.113 | 10.8 | 71.4 | Chlorophyceae(88%) |
| R10 | Sinchang | 21.1 | 350 | 7.8 | 51.0 | 1.565 | 0.147 | 13.7 | 78.7 | Cyanophyceae(68%) |
| R11 | Baengma | 14.1 | 121 | 8.9 | 6.0 | 1.030 | 0.042 | 7.6 | 55.6 | Cryptophyceae(99%) |
| R12 | Oseong | 14.5 | 160 | 8.7 | 27.7 | 0.908 | 0.046 | 9.2 | 65.1 | Cyanophyceae(61%) |
| R13 | Hadong | 22.8 | 109 | 6.8 | 10.0 | 0.849 | 0.041 | 7.0 | 56.4 | Cryptophyceae(90%) |
| R14 | Samgi | 11.0 | 140 | 8.2 | 11.6 | 1.279 | 0.028 | 4.8 | 50.0 | Cyanophyceae(64%) |
| R15 | Yeonjae | 25.5 | 290 | 9.4 | 15.7 | 0.594 | 0.050 | 9.6 | 63.7 | Cyanophyceae(54%) |
| R16 | Chodae | 19.9 | 457 | 7.5 | 39.7 | 5.320 | 0.460 | 20.3 | 84.5 | Cyanophyceae(95%) |
Note: Temp, temperature; EC, electrical conductivity; pH, Chl. a, chlorophyll a; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus; COD, chemical oxygen demand; TSIKO, 30 < Mesotrophication< = 50, 50 < Eutrophication< = 70, and 70 < Hypereutrophication; dominant phytoplankton class, %, relative abundance.
Figure 3.Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of reservoirs according to water-quality variables. Dotted line indicates the division of the two main groups separated by the similarity of approximately 65%, and bubbles indicate the relative values of COD, TN, Chl. a, and TP for each reservoir.
Figure 4.Clustering of 16 reservoirs based on water-quality variables (a) and compositions of rotifer species (b), and trophi groups (c).
Figure 5.Redundancy analysis triplots on rotifer species (a), and trophi (b) groups and environmental variables.
Figure 6.Regression results for the relationship between proportion of each trophi (%) and indices related to TSIKO (*, p < .05).