| Literature DB >> 35273316 |
Anna Maria Goździejewska1, Marek Kruk2.
Abstract
Water turbidity can significantly influence interspecific interactions in aquatic ecosystems. We tested the hypothesis that the turbidity gradient significantly differentiates the dynamics, significance and type of relationships in the structure of zooplankton communities colonizing mine pit reservoirs. The interactions between zooplankton species were evaluated by network graph analysis for three water turbidity classes: high turbidity (HT), moderate turbidity (MT) and low turbidity (LT). The HT network was most cohesive, and it was controlled by taxa grazing on various food sources within one ecological niche (Polyarthra longiremis, Brachionus angularis, Cyclops vicinus, Codonella cratera) and the positive and negative relationships between them were balanced. The MT biocenotic network was composed of three sub-networks connected by nodes with high communication attributes (Polyarthra vulgaris, Bosmina longirostris, C. vicinus), and antagonistic interactions (predation and competition) were less important. The LT network was most heterogeneous, and Daphnia cuculllata exerted the strongest influence on the network's structure by forming numerous positive (coexistence with predators) and negative (interference competition with microphagous rotifers) interspecific relationships. The study provides new information about the ecology of aquatic ecosystems, that are disturbed by changes in water turbidity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35273316 PMCID: PMC8913641 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08045-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Water quality and zooplankton parameters across the studied turbidity classes (mean ± SD).
| LT | MT | HT | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ± SD | ± SD | ± SD | |||||
| Turbidity (NTU) | 12.58a | 7.34 | 18.67b | 9.99 | 31.83c | 17.87 | 0.000 |
| SDT (m) | 1.18a | 0.38 | 0.74b | 0.20 | 0.54c | 0.14 | 0.000 |
| Color (Hazen) | 10.10a | 6.99 | 18.03b | 13.51 | 23.87b | 19.10 | 0.000 |
| Tot susp (mg/l) | 4.35a | 3.05 | 6.84ab | 5.60 | 9.03b | 6.99 | 0.000 |
| In susp (mg/l) | 1.27a | 1.26 | 2.76ab | 3.02 | 3.24b | 3.49 | 0.003 |
| Org susp (mg/l) | 3.08a | 2.47 | 4.08ab | 4.90 | 5.79b | 5.93 | 0.019 |
| Chl | 3.46a | 4.43 | 4.49ab | 2.97 | 6.16b | 6.81 | 0.027 |
| Temperature (°C) | 17.44 | 3.06 | 16.71 | 4.87 | 17.08 | 4.36 | > 0.05 |
| pH | 7.74 | 0.26 | 7.78 | 0.32 | 7.80 | 0.27 | > 0.05 |
| DO (mg/l) | 8.29 | 1.41 | 8.74 | 1.24 | 8.66 | 0.93 | > 0.05 |
| TP (mg/l) | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.06 | > 0.05 |
| TN (mg/l) | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.30 | 0.12 | > 0.05 |
| Biomass (mg/l) | 0.122a | 0.269 | 8.02b | 12.42 | 3.66c | 6.76 | 0.000 |
| Abundance (ind./l) | 105.9a | 407.7 | 1265.5b | 1555.4 | 751.4c | 1345.20 | 0.000 |
| Number of species (ind.) | 17a | 5 | 17a | 4 | 15b | 5 | 0.009 |
| Shannon’s biodiversity index | 1.99a | 0.58 | 1.64b | 0.39 | 1.62b | 0.45 | 0.000 |
| Pielou’s eveness index, | 0.714a | 0.192 | 0.583b | 0.127 | 0.622b | 0.175 | 0.001 |
Differences in the analysed parameters were determined by ANOVA (df = 157; P ≤ 0.05); values with the different superscripts are different among reservoirs by post-hoc Tukey test.
SDT Secchi depth, Tot susp total suspended solids, In susp inorganic suspended solids, Org susp organic suspended solids, Chl a chlorophyll a, DO dissolved oxygen, TP total phosphorus, TN total nitrogen.
General attributes of the zooplankton network in compared turbidity classes.
| Attribute | Turbidity class | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| LT | MT | HT | |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.332 | 0.3 | 0.523 |
| Network centralization | 0.252 | 0.134 | 0.28 |
| Shortest paths (100%) | 462 | 756 | 702 |
| Characteristic path length | 2.81 | 2.947 | 2.023 |
| Range, and average number of neighbours | 2.81 | 3.643 | 7.259 |
| Network density | 0.199 | 0.135 | 0.279 |
| Network heterogeneity | 0.528 | 0.465 | 0.474 |
Figure 1Network graph analysis of the interactions between zooplankton species in the HT class with node closeness centrality (NCC), node betweenness centrality (NBC) and edge betweenness centrality (EBC). Node size is proportional to the NCC measure; node color ranging from blue (dark) to orange (bright) is proportional to the NBC measure; edge thickness is proportional to the EBC measure. Sign of the relationship: a bright orange edge denotes positive relations between nodes, while a dark blue edge represents negative relations.
Figure 2Network graph analysis of the interactions between zooplankton species in the MT class with node closeness centrality (NCC), node betweenness centrality (NBC) and edge betweenness centrality (EBC). Refer to the legend and explanations in Fig. 1 (HT class).
Figure 3Network graph analysis the interactions between zooplankton species in the LT class with node closeness centrality (NCC), node betweenness centrality (NBC) and edge betweenness centrality (EBC). Refer to the legend and explanations in Fig. 1 (HT class).
Zooplankton species with the highest net attribute.
| LT | MT | HT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCC | NBC | NDC | NCC | NBC | NDC | NCC | NBC | NDC | |
| 0.456 | 0.342 | 0.634 | 10 | ||||||
| 0.456 | 0.162 | 7 | 0.435 | 0.112 | 6 | 0.634 | 10 | ||
| 0.465 | 0.262 | 5 | 0.456 | ||||||
| 0.488 | 0.144 | 0.428 | 0.129 | 0.565 | 10 | ||||
| 0.467 | 6 | 0.391 | 0.553 | 9 | |||||
| 5 | 0.169 | ||||||||
| 0.172 | 10 | ||||||||
| 0.114 | 6 | 0.107 | |||||||
| 7 | 10 | ||||||||
| 0.38 | 0.216 | 0.605 | 8 | ||||||
| 0.115 | 5 | 10 | |||||||
| 0.382 | 6 | 0.428 | 0.184 | 5 | 0.52 | 9 | |||
| 0.512 | 0.341 | 6 | 0.36 | 6 | 0.509 | 9 | |||
| Copepodites | 0.28 | 0.403 | 0.107 | 0.605 | 8 | ||||
| Nauplii | 0.181 | 6 | 0.16 | 8 | |||||
| 0.35 | 8 | 0.465 | 0.145 | 5 | 0.634 | 0.114 | |||
| 0.181 | 0.109 | 10 | |||||||
NCC node closeness centrality, NBC node betweenness centrality, NDC node degree centrality.
Figure 4Location of the study area. O-MB opencast mine in Bełchatów, O-MS opencast mine in Szczerców; reservoirs CH1, CH2, and KA3 represent the MT class; reservoirs KA1, KA2, and KU represent the HT class; reservoirs PN, WI represent the LT class. Modified, see[37].
Figure 5Water turbidity levels (mean ± SD) in 2014–2016, based on which the analysed reservoirs were divided into turbidity classes (HT, MT and LT).