| Literature DB >> 32953278 |
Pablo E Gutiérrez-Fonseca1, Alonso Ramírez2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hydrological impacts on aquatic biota have been assessed in numerous empirical studies. Aquatic insects are severely affected by population declines and consequent diversity loss. However, many uncertainties remain regarding the effects of hydrology on insect production and the consequences of energy transfer to the terrestrial ecosystem. Likewise, sublethal effects on insect morphology remain poorly quantified in highly variable environments. Here, we characterized monthly fluctuation in benthic and emerged biomass of Ephemeroptera in a tropical lowland stream. We quantified the proportion of mayfly production that emerges into the riparian forest. We also examined the potential morphological changes in Farrodes caribbianus (the most abundant mayfly in our samples) due to environmental stress.Entities:
Keywords: Costa Rica; Disturbance; Emergence pattern; Emergence production; Environmental stress; Export; Mayflies; Morphometry; Secondary production; Sublethal effects
Year: 2020 PMID: 32953278 PMCID: PMC7474519 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Temporal variability of precipitation in 2002 and 2003 (A), and relationship between mean monthly precipitation and discharge (B).
Grey shaded area represents the 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 2Temporal variability of benthic and emerging adult biomass during (A) 2002 and (B) 2003.
Figure 3Body length variability of F. caribbianus and precipitation.
Relationship between F. caribbianus body length and average precipitation in the 159 days prior to the sampling date. Each point represents an individual, including males and females. Gray shaded area represents the 95% confidence intervals.
Test for normality and t-test for each trait.
| Trait | Mean (R–L) | SE | Normality test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | |||||||
| AFW | 31 | 0.00 | 0.082 | 0.975 | 0.685 | 0.065 | 0.984 |
| LFW | 33 | −0.013 | 0.083 | 0.969 | 0.473 | −0.924 | 0.363 |
| SF | 30 | −0.004 | 0.016 | 0.955 | 0.235 | −1.453 | 0.157 |
| Female | |||||||
| AFW | 28 | 0.028 | 0.077 | 0.981 | 0.862 | 1.958 | 0.061 |
| LFW | 40 | 0.007 | 0.023 | 0.956 | 0.120 | 2.015 | 0.051 |
Note:
AFW, forewing area; LFW, forewing length; SF, length of the second segment of forceps.
Result of the two-way mixed model ANOVAs performed for each trait with side as a fixed component and individual as random component.
| Trait | Mean error | Mean (mm) | Side | Individual | Side × individual | MEerror[ | FA1 | FA4a | FA10a | ME3 (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | df | df | MESxI | |||||||||||||
| Male | ||||||||||||||||
| AFW | 31 | 0.03 | 4.41 | 1 | 18.90 | 30 | 797.40 | 30 | 3.98E−5 | 13.30 | 2.99E−6 | 0.076 | 0.088 | 0.004 | 16.4 | |
| LFW | 30 | 0.03 | 3.79 | 1 | 2.05 | 29 | 223.89 | 29 | 3.33E−3 | 5.10 | 6.52E−4 | 0.063 | 0.066 | 0.034 | 19.6 | |
| SF | 30 | 0.006 | 0.45 | 1 | 10.70 | 29 | 103.80 | 29 | 4.25E−4 | 7.50 | 5.67E−5 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 13.3 | |
| Female | ||||||||||||||||
| AFW | 28 | 0.03 | 5.16 | 1 | 0.01 | 27 | 2163.2 | 27 | 1.38E−5 | 16.9 | 8.27E−7 | 0.065 | 0.062 | 0.002 | 5.9 | |
| LFW | 28 | 0.02 | 4.01 | 1 | 8.66 | 27 | 507.30 | 27 | 2.35E−3 | 5.20 | 4.51E−4 | 0.043 | 0.046 | 0.028 | 19.2 | |
Notes:
p < 0.05.
Mean of the standard deviation of triplicate measurements on the right and left sides (i.e., indicator of accuracy during photo measurement).
Mean of the right and left side measurements.
Mean squared of the side × individual interaction.
Mean squared of the variance of the repeated measurements.
Indices of asymmetry: FA1, FA4a, FA10a and measurement error as percentage (ME3 as % of MESxI). AFW, forewing area; LFW, forewing length; SF, length of the second segment of forceps.