| Literature DB >> 35448443 |
Rodrigo Silva de Sousa1, Gilmar Clemente Silva2, Thiago Bazzan3, Fernando de la Torre4, Caroline Nebo5, Diógenes Henrique Siqueira-Silva6, Sheila Cardoso-Silva7, Marcelo Luiz Martins Pompêo8, Teresa Cristina Brazil de Paiva9, Flávio Teixeira da Silva9, Daniel Clemente Vieira Rêgo da Silva10.
Abstract
Rivers in the Amazon have among the greatest biodiversity in the world. The Xingu River, one of the tributaries of the Amazon River, has a length of 1640 km, draining 510,000 km2 in one of the most protected regions on the planet. The Middle Xingu region in Brazil has been highly impacted by mining and livestock farming, leading to habitat fragmentation due to altered water quality. Therefore, comparing two rivers (the preserved Xingu River and the impacted Fresco River) and their confluence, the aims of the present study were to (1) assess the land uses in the hydrographic basin; (2) determine the water quality by measurements of turbidity, total solids, and metals (Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, Zn, and Hg); (3) compare the zooplankton biodiversity; and (4) to evaluate the avoidance behavior of fish (Astyanax bimaculatus) when exposed to waters from the Xingu and Fresco Rivers. Zooplankton were grouped and counted down to the family level. For the analysis of fish avoidance, a multi-compartment system was used. The forest class predominated at the study locations, accounting for 57.6%, 60.8%, and 63.9% of the total area at P1XR, P2FR, and P3XFR, respectively, although since 1985, at the same points, the forest had been reduced by 31.3%, 25.7%, and 27.9%. The Xingu River presented almost 300% more invertebrate families than the Fresco River, and the fish population preferred its waters (>50%). The inputs from the Fresco River impacted the water quality of the Xingu River, leading to reductions in local invertebrate biodiversity and potential habitats for fish in a typical case of habitat fragmentation due to anthropic factors.Entities:
Keywords: aquatic biodiversity; fish habitats; habitat fragmentation; non-forced exposure; water pollution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35448443 PMCID: PMC9031983 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10040182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Study area and locations of the three sites for collection of water and aquatic invertebrates. Three rivers are shown: the Xingu River and the Fresco River, in the municipality of São Félix do Xingu, Pará state, and the Branco River, in the municipality of Ourilândia do Norte, Pará state, Brazil. Source image data: Google Image ©2022 TerraMetrics.
Figure 2Map showing the spatial distribution of land use classes and vegetation cover in the study area in the municipality of São Félix do Xingu, Pará state, Brazil. The red rectangle in the lower right-hand corner indicates an extensive mining area near the Branco River, a tributary of the Fresco River.
Spatial distribution of land use classes and vegetation cover (from 1985 to 2020) in the study area (in%) in the municipality of São Félix do Xingu, Pará state, Brazil, from the P1XR, P2FR, and P3XFR locations.
| Class | P1XR 1985 | P1XR 2020 | P2FR 1985 | P2FR 2020 | P3XFR 1985 | P3XFR 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | 88.9 | 57.6 | 86.5 | 60.8 | 91.8 | 63.9 |
| Non-forest natural formation | 5.0 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 2.6 |
| Farming | 5.6 | 37.7 | 8.2 | 33.9 | 5.1 | 33.3 |
| Non-vegetated Area | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Figure 3PCA components plot (based on the correlation matrix) for the waters of the Xingu River (XR) and the Fresco River (FR), considering the following variables: Mn, Zn, avoidance (AVO), total solids (TS), turbidity (TB), area with forest (FOR), aquatic invertebrate abundance (ABU), and aquatic invertebrate diversity (DIV).
Figure 4Distributions of A. bimaculatus (twospot Astyanax) fish in the control assay (using well water) and in the assay with exposure to river water (C1 and C2 = P1XR; C3 and C4 = P3XFR; C5 and C6 = P2FR).
Percentage distributions of A. bimaculatus (twospot Astyanax) according to chamber and treatment, using the river water samples from the P1XR, P2FR, and P3XFR locations.
| Chambers | Chamber (%) | Treatment (%) |
|---|---|---|
| C1 (P1XR) | 27.78 | 51.85 |
| C2 (P1XR) | 24.07 | |
| C3 (P3XFR) | 12.96 | 20.37 |
| C4 (P3XFR) | 7.40 | |
| C5 (P2FR) | 16.66 | 27.77 |
| C6 (P2FR) | 11.11 |