| Literature DB >> 34084088 |
Gabriela Onandia1, Sebastian Maassen1, Camille L Musseau2, Stella A Berger2, Carla Olmo3, Jonathan M Jeschke2, Gunnar Lischeid1.
Abstract
Understanding the influence of envEntities:
Keywords: biodiversity; eutrophication; freshwater; water quality; zooplankton
Year: 2021 PMID: 34084088 PMCID: PMC8163045 DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbab033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Plankton Res ISSN: 0142-7873 Impact factor: 2.455
Fig. 1(A) Geographical location of the studied ponds in Uckermark (Germany). Colors correspond to the three land use categories surrounding the ponds: arable fields (n = 29), grassland (n = 6) and forest (n = 7). (B) Aerial view of part of our study area (photo by G. Verch) and (C) kettle hole (photo by G. Onandia).
Mean and standard deviation of physical–chemical parameters along with rotifer abundance and diversity indices in the studied ponds in spring (n = 36) and autumn (n = 33)
| Parameter | Spring | Autumn |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| pH | 7.0 ± 0.9 | 7.0 ± 0.7 |
| EC (μS cm−1) | 495.0 ± 296.3 | 541.9 ± 278.9 |
| DO (mM) | 3.8 ± 2.4 | 5.1 ± 3.4 |
| Water temperature (°C) | 18.9 ± 3.1 | 11.3 ± 1.2 |
| Cl (mM) | 23.5 ± 16.6 | 23.0 ± 12.2 |
| TN (mM) | 3.0 ± 1.7 | 3.1 ± 2.3 |
| NO3-N (mM) | 0.1 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 2.5 |
| NH4-N (mM) | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 0.3 ± 0.7 |
| TP (mM) | 0.9 ± 0.6 | 0.8 ± 0.5 |
| SRP (mM) | 0.7 ± 0.7 | 0.7 ± 0.6 |
| SO4 (mM) | 55.9 ± 69.7 | 47.9 ± 65.4 |
| Na (mM) | 8.3 ± 6.1 | 10.7 ± 5.5 |
| K (mM) | 10.1 ± 6.9 | 18.5 ± 10.3 |
| Mg (mM) | 6.7 ± 5.0 | 10.4 ± 5.5 |
| Ca (mM) | 55.7 ± 44.4 | 82.6 ± 50.8 |
| TFe (mM) | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 1.3 ± 1.3 |
| DOC (mM) | 35.7 ± 16.2 | 24.5 ± 10.3 |
| TOC (mM) | 37.4 ± 18.1 | 26.0 ± 11.1 |
| SAC (mM) | 116.3 ± 51.2 | 82.3 ± 39 |
| Chl- | 10.8 ± 22.6 | 32.8 ± 54.1 |
| Pheo (μM) | 12.0 ± 26.1 | 14.5 ± 17.5 |
| Alkalinity (mM) | 5.3 ± 4.3 | 5.0 ± 2.7 |
| Total hardness (mM) | 3.3 ± 2.6 | 5.0 ± 2.9 |
|
| ||
| Rotifer abundance (ind L−1) | 343.5 ± 728.2 | 328.1 ± 867.5 |
| Rotifer richness | 4.7 ± 3.1 | 2.9 ± 2.4 |
| Shannon index | 1.0 ± 0.6 | 0.6 ± 0.6 |
| Whittaker index | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 |
Fig. 2Presence of rotifer taxa (frequency) throughout the study period in the studied ponds.
Fig. 3Results of variation partitioning (%) analyses of rotifers for each sampling season explained by: pure environmental variation (Environment), pure spatial variation (Space), an overlap between these components (Overlap), and the unexplained variation (Residuals).
Fig. 4Loadings of the first four Isomap components for physical–chemical parameters. Black bars represent significant correlations (P < 0.05) between Isomap components and physical–chemical parameters. The percentage of the total variance in our data set explained by each Isomap component is indicated in parentheses.
Fig. 5Isomap component scores for (A) land use categories and (B) seasons. Box plots indicate interquartile ranges (areas within a box), medians (horizontal line within the box), 25th and 75th percentiles (lower and upper box boundaries), and 5th and 95th percentiles (whiskers above and below the box); outliers are shown as solid circles. Asterisks indicate significant differences among land use categories or seasons (P < 0.05) based on GLMM results.
Summary statistics of generalized linear mixed-effects models for the effects of the Isomap components on rotifer abundance, richness, the Shannon index and the Whittaker index in the studied ponds
| Response variable | Factor | Estimate | SE | t-value |
| SDrandom |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotifer abundance | Intercept | 5.48 | 0.25 | 21.88 |
| |
| Component 1 | -0.33 | 0.10 | -3.22 |
| ||
| Component 2 | -0.08 | 0.09 | -0.83 | 0.41 | ||
| Component 3 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 1.50 | 0.15 | ||
| Component 4 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.81 | ||
|
| 1.6 × 10−1 | |||||
|
| 1.6 × 10−1 | |||||
|
| 1.1 × 10−4 | |||||
| Rotifer richness | Intercept | 1.37 | 0.10 | 13.77 |
| |
| Component 1 | -0.11 | 0.04 | -2.64 |
| ||
| Component 2 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.96 | ||
| Component 3 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 2.15 |
| ||
| Component 4 | -0.04 | 0.07 | -0.54 | 0.59 | ||
|
| 6.7 × 10−1 | |||||
|
| 6.7 × 10−1 | |||||
|
| 1.3 × 10−2 | |||||
| Shannon index | Intercept | 0.84 | 0.08 | 11.15 |
| |
| Component 1 | -0.07 | 0.03 | -2.59 |
| ||
| Component 2 | -0.02 | 0.03 | -0.59 | 0.56 | ||
| Component 3 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 2.14 |
| ||
| Component 4 | -0.03 | 0.05 | -0.66 | 0.52 | ||
|
| 1.6 × 10−5 | |||||
|
| 1.6 × 10−5 | |||||
|
| 1.7 × 10−5 | |||||
| Whittaker index | Intercept | 0.75 | 0.02 | 43.26 |
| |
| Component 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.86 |
| ||
| Component 2 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.17 | 0.25 | ||
| Component 3 | -0.03 | 0.01 | -2.28 |
| ||
| Component 4 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.92 | ||
|
| 3.4 × 10−6 | |||||
|
| 3.4 × 10−6 | |||||
|
| 3.1 × 10−2 |
Note that forest ponds were excluded from these analyses. Significant P-values are shown in bold.
Fig. 6Rotifer abundance and diversity estimates for (A) land use categories and (B) seasons. Box plots indicate interquartile ranges (areas within a box), medians (horizontal line within the box), 25th and 75th percentiles (lower and upper box boundaries), and 5th and 95th percentiles (whiskers above and below the box); outliers are shown as solid circles. Note that no significant differences (P < 0.05) among land use categories or seasons were found based on GLMM results.