Hydrobiologia

, Volume 766, Issue 1, pp 135–150 | Cite as

Effects of nutrient enrichment on epipelic diatom assemblages in a nutrient-rich lowland stream, Pampa Region, Argentina

Primary Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

We analyzed the diatom assemblages inhabiting the epipelic biofilm of a Pampean stream, characterized by their high basal nutrient levels, when exposed to a continuous surplus of inorganic nutrients. An in situ experience was conducted, increasing concentrations of N and P in water 3-fold from the basal concentration. Nutrient enrichment was achieved by the use of fertilizer bags distributed along the reach. The period of exposure was of 14 months. The effects of nutrient enrichment were analyzed following a BACIPS ANOVA design. The changes in nutrient concentration were associated with a significant increase in diatom density and a decrease in species richness and diversity. The additional nutrient load also caused the change in the diatom taxa proportion, favoring motile forms, Nitzschia species mainly. The fertilization in La Choza, caused a mild to moderate effect, indeed not immediate, on the diatom assemblage. These delayed responses of moderate intensity could be related with intrinsic characteristics of diatom assemblages pre-adapted to nutrient-rich environments. The rising urbanization and agricultural activity in the Pampean plain, may seriously impair the biodiversity of its rivers if the entrance of nutrients to these ecosystems is not mitigated.

Keywords

Epipelic diatoms Nutrient enrichment Pampean stream Density Diversity Nitzschia proportion Growth forms 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the project GLOBRIO of the Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) Foundation. We would like to express our thanks to the anonymous reviewers for improvements in this manuscript. This is ILPLA Scientific Contribution No. 940.

References

  1. Acuña, V., C. Vilches & A. Giorgi, 2011. As productive and slow as a stream can be the metabolism of a Pampean stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association (APHA), 1998. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  3. Armendariz, L., C. Ocón & A. Rodrigues Capítulo, 2012. Potential responses of oligochaetes (Annelida, Clitellata) to global changes: experimental fertilization in a lowland stream of Argentina (South America). Limnologica 42(2): 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artigas, J., E. García-Berthou, D. E. Bauer, M. I. Castro, J. Cochero, D. Colautti, A. Cortelezzi, J. Donato, A. Elosegi, C. Feijoó, A. Giorgi, N. Gómez, L. Leggeri, I. Muñoz, A. Rodrigues-Capitulo, A. M. Romaní & S. Sabater, 2013. Global pressures, specific responses: the effects of nutrient enrichment in streams. Environmental Research Letters 8: 014002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahls, L. L., R. Bukantis & S. Tralles, 1992. Benchmark Biology of Montana Reference Streams. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences; WaterQuality Bureau, Helena.Google Scholar
  6. Barnett, A., V. Méléder, L. Blommaert, B. Lepetit, W. Vyverman, K. Sabbe, C. Dupuy & J. Lavaud, 2015. Growth form defines physiological photoprotective capacity in intertidal benthic diatoms. The ISME Journal, Nature Publishing Group 2015(9): 32–45.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, D. E., J. Donadelli, N. Gómez, M. Licursi, C. Ocón, A. C. Paggi, A. Rodrigues Capítulo & M. Tangorra, 2002. Ecological status of the Pampean plain streams and rivers (Argentina). Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie 28: 259–262.Google Scholar
  8. Bellinger, B. J., C. Cocquyt & C. M. O’Reilly, 2006. Benthic diatoms as indicators of eutrophication in tropical streams. Hydrobiologia 573: 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biggs, B. J. F., 1996. Patterns in benthic algae of streams. In Stevenson, R. J., M. L. Bothwell, & R.L. Lowe (eds), Algal Ecology Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, Academic Press. San Diego: 31–56, 753.Google Scholar
  10. Böhm, J. S., M. Schuch, A. Düpont & E. A. Lobo, 2013. Response of epilithic diatom communities to downstream nutrient increases in Castelhano Stream, Venâncio Aires City, RS, Brazil. Journal of Environmental Protection 4: 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borchardt, M. A., 1996. Nutrients. In Stevenson, R. J., M. L. Bothwell, & R. L. Lowe (eds), Algal Ecology Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, Academic Press. San Diego: 183–227, 753.Google Scholar
  12. Bothwell, M. L., 1989. Phosphorus—Limited growth dynamics of lotic periphytic diatom communities: areal biomass and cellular growth rate responses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1293–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cartaxana, P. & J. Serôdio, 2008. Inhibiting diatom motility: a new tool for the study of the photophysiology of intertidal microphytobenthic biofilms. Limnology and Oceanography 6: 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, K. R. & R. M. Warwick, 1994. Change in Marine Communities: an Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Natural Environment Research Council.Google Scholar
  15. Chetelat, J., F. R. Pick & A. Morin, 1999. Periphyton biomass and community composition in rivers of different nutrient status. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56(4): 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cochero, J., A. M. Romaní & N. Gómez, 2013. Delayed response of microbial epipelic biofilm to nutrient addition in a pampean stream. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 69: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cochran, W. G., 1941. The distribution of the largest of a set of estimated variances as a fraction of their total. Annals of Eugenics 11: 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohn, S. A. & R. E. Weitzell Jr, 1996. Ecological considerations of diatom cell motility. I. Characterization of motility and adhesion in four diatom species. Journal of Phycology 32: 928–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colautti, D. C., M. E. Maroñas, E. D. Sendra, L. C. Protogino, F. Brancolini & D. Campanella, 2009. Ictiofauna del arroyo La Choza, cuenca del Río de la Reconquista (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Biología Acuática 26: 55–62.Google Scholar
  20. Dodds, W. K., 2006. Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnology and Oceanography 51(1): 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dodds, W. K., V. H. Smith & B. Zander, 1997. Developing nutrient targets to control benthic chlorophyll levels in streams: a case study of the Clark Fork River. Water Research 31: 1738–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dodds, W. K., V. H. Smith & K. Lohman, 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to benthic algal biomass in temperate streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 865–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dodds, W. K., W. W. Bouska, J. L. Eitzmann, T. J. Pilger, K. L. Pitts, A. J. Riley, J. T. Schloesser & D. J. Thornbrugh, 2009. Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: analysis of potential economic damages. Environmental Science & Technology 43: 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ereño, C. 2002. Climatología de la cuenca. En: Borthagaray, JM (Comp). El Río de la Plata como territorio. FADU-UBA Ed. Infinito-Furban. Buenos Aires. 51–75.Google Scholar
  25. FAO, 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org.
  26. Feijoó, C. S., A. Giorgi, M. E. García & F. Momo, 1999. Temporal and spatial variability in streams of a Pampean basin. Hydrobiologia 394: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feijoó, C., L. Leggieri, C. Ocón, I. Muñoz, A. Rodrigues Capítulo, A. Giorgi, D. Colautti, N. Ferreiro, M. Licursi, N. Gómez & S. Sabater, 2014. Stoichiometric homeostasis in the food web of a chronically nutrient-rich stream. Society of Freshwater Sciences 33(3): 820–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fore, L. S. & C. Grafe, 2002. Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (USA). Freshwater Biology 47: 2015–2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giorgi, A., 1998. Factores reguladores del fitobentos de arroyos de llanura. PhD thesis No. 711, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata.Google Scholar
  30. Giorgi, A., C. Feijoó & G. Tell, 2005. Primary producers in a Pampean stream: temporal variation and structuring role. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1699–1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gómez, N., 1998. Use of epipelic diatom for evaluation of water quality in the Matanza-Riachuelo (Argentina), a pampean plain river. Water Research 32: 2029–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gómez, N. & M. Licursi, 2001. The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology 35(2): 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gottschalk, S. & M. Kahlert, 2012. Shifts in taxonomical and guild composition of littoral diatom assemblages along environmental gradients. Hydrobiologia 694: 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gudmundsdottir, R., J. S. Olafsson, S. Palsson, G. M. Gislason & B. Moss, 2011. How will increased temperature and nutrient enrichmentaffect primary producers in sub-Arctic streams? Freshwater Bio logy 56: 2045–2058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gudmundsdottir, R., S. Palsson, E. R. Hannesdottir, J. S. Olafsson, G. M. Gislason & B. Moss, 2013. Diatoms as indicators: the influences of experimental nitrogen enrichment on diatom assemblages in sub-Arctic streams. Ecological Indicators 32: 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hart, D. D. & C. T. Robinson, 1990. Resource limitation on a stream community: phosphorus enrichment effects on periphyton and grazers. Ecology 71: 1494–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hellebust, J. A. & J. Lewin, 1977. Heterotrophic nutrition. In Werner, D. (ed), The Biology of Diatoms. University of California Press, Berkeley Press, Berkeley and New York: 169–197, 498.Google Scholar
  38. Hoagland, K. D., 1983. Short term standing crop and diversity of periphytic diatoms in a eutrophic reservoir. Journal of Phycology 19: 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoagland, K. D., S. C. Roemer & J. R. Rosowski, 1982. Colonization and community structure of two periphyton assemblages, with emphasis on the diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). American Journal of Botany 69(2): 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hudon, C. & P. Legendre, 1987. The ecological implications of growth forms in epibenthic diatoms. Journal of Phycology 23: 434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hulme, M. & N. Sheard, 1999. Climate change scenarios for Argentina. Climatic Research Unit, Norwich.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, R. E., N. C. Tuchman & C. G. Peterson, 1997. Changes in the vertical microdistribution of diatoms within a developing periphyton mat. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, M. G., 2003. Short term dynamics of diatoms in an upland stream and implications for monitoring eutrophication. Environmental Pollution 125: 117–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, M. G. & B. A. Whitton, 1995. Trophic diatom index—a new index for monitoring Eutrophication in Rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology 7: 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelly, M. G., A. Cazaubon, E. Coring, A. Dell’Uomo, L. Ector, B. Goldsmith, H. Guasch, J. Hürlimann, A. Jarlman, B. Kawecka, J. Kwandrans, R. Laugaste, E. A. Lindstrøm, M. Litao, P. Marvan, J. Padisák, E. Pipp, J. Prygiel, E. Rott, S. Sabater, H. van Dam & J. Vizinet, 1998. Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. Journal of Applied Phycology 10: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kitoh, A., S. Kusunoki & T. Nakaegawa, 2011. Climate change projections over South America in the late 21st century with the 20 and 60 km mesh Meteorological Research Institute atmospheric general circulation model (MRI-AGCM). Journal of Geophysical Research 116(D6): 14920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kjeldsen, K., T. M. Iversen, J. Thorup & T. Winding, 1998. Benthic algal biomass in an unshaded first-order lowland stream: distribution and regulation. Hydrobiologia 377: 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krammer, K., 1992. Pinnularia: eine Monographie der europäischen Taxa. Biblioteca Diatomologica 26: 1–353.Google Scholar
  49. Krammer, K., 2000. The genus Pinnularia. In Lange-Bertalot, H. (ed.), Diatoms of Europe, Vol. 1. ARG GantnerVerlag, Ruggell.Google Scholar
  50. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986. Bacillariophyceae teil 1: naviculaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Vol. 2. GustavFischerVerlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  51. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1988. Bacillariophyceae: teil 2: bacillariaceae, epthemiaceae, surirellaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Vol. 2. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgar.Google Scholar
  52. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991a. Bacillariophyceae teil 3: centrales, fragilariaceae, eunotiaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Vol. 2. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  53. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991b. Bacillariophyceae Teil 4: achnanthaceae, literaturverzeichnis. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Vol. 2. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  54. Licursi, M. & N. Gómez, 2002. Benthic diatom and some environmental condition in three lowland streams of Pampean Plain. Annales de Limnologie 38(2): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Licursi, M. & N. Gómez, 2009. Effects of dredging on benthic diatom assemblages in a lowland stream. Journal of Environmental Management 90(2): 973–982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Licursi, M., N. Gómez & J. Donadelli, 2010. Ecological optima and tolerances of coastal benthic diatoms in a freshwater mixohaline zone from the Río de la Plata estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 418: 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liess, A. & H. Hillebrand, 2004. Invited review: direct and indirect effects in herbivore –periphyton interactions. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 159(4): 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lobo, E. A., V. L. M. Callegaro, G. Hermany, N. Gomez & L. Ector, 2004. Review of the use of microalgae in South America for monitoring rivers, with special reference to diatoms. Vie et Milieu 53(2/3): 35–45.Google Scholar
  59. Ludwig, J. A. & J. F. Reynolds, 1988. Statistical Ecology. Wiley, New York. 337.Google Scholar
  60. Martínez, D. E. & M. Osterrieth, 1998. Geoquímica de la Sílice Disuelta en el Acuífero Pampeano en la Vertiente Sudoriental de Tandilia. Serie Correlación Geológica 13: 241–250.Google Scholar
  61. Mc Cormick, P. V. & R. J. Stevenson, 1991. Mechanisms of benthic algal succession in lotic environments. Ecology 72: 1835–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCune, B. & J. B. Grace, 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach: 300.Google Scholar
  63. Molloy, J. M., 1992. Diatom communities along stream longitudinal gradients. Freshwater Biology 28: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ocón, C., M. V. Lopez-van Oosterom, M. I. Muñoz & A. Rodrigues-Capítulo, 2013. Macroinvertebrate trophic responses to nutrient addition in a temperate stream in South America. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 182(1): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pan, Y., R. M. Hughes, A. T. Herlihy & P. R. Kaufmann, 2012. Non-wadeable river bioassessment: spatial variation of benthic diatom assemblages in Pacific Northwest rivers, USA. Hydrobiologia 684: 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Passy, S. I., 2007. Diatom ecological guilds display distinct and predictable behavior along nutrient and disturbance gradients in running waters. Aquatic Botany 86: 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Patrick, R. & C. W. Reimer, 1966. The Diatoms of the United States, Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Monograph Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia: 131–152.Google Scholar
  68. Patrick, R. & C. W. Reimer, 1975. The Diatoms of the United States, Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Monograph Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia: 132.Google Scholar
  69. Pringle, C. M., 1990. Nutrient spatial heterogeneity—effects on community structure, physiognomy, and diversity of stream algae. Ecology 71: 905–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rier, S. T. & R. J. Stevenson, 2006. Response of periphytic algae to gradients in nitrogen and phosphorus in streamside mesocosms. Hydrobiologia 561: 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rodrigues Capítulo, A., N. Gómez, A. Giorgi & C. Feijoo, 2010. Global changes in pampean lowland stream: implications for biodiversity and functioning. Hydrobiologia 657: 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rumrich, U., H. Lange-Bertalot & M. Rumrich, 2000. Iconographia Diatomologica—Annotated Diatom Micro-graphs: diatoms of the Andes, from Venezuela to Patagonia/Tierra delFuego, Vol. 9. GanterVerlag, Ruggell.Google Scholar
  73. Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin III, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Blommfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker & D. H. Wall, 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sabater, S., J. Artigas, A. M. Romaní, A. Gaudes, I. Muñoz & G. Urrea, 2011. Long-term moderate nutrient inputs enhance autotrophy in a forested mediterranean stream. Freshwater Biology 56: 1266–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sierra, M. V., N. Gómez, A. V. Marano & M. Di Siervi, 2013. Caracterización funcional y estructural del biofilm epipélico en relación al aumento de la urbanización en un arroyo de la llanura pampeana (Argentina). Ecología Austral 23: 108–118.Google Scholar
  76. Smith, V. H. & D. W. Schindler, 2009. Eutrophication science: where do we go from here? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(4): 201–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stevenson, R. J., 1996. An introduction to algal ecology in freshwater benthic habitats. In Stevenson, R. J., M. L. Bothwell, & R. L. Lowe (eds), Algal Ecology Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, Academic Press. San Diego: 3–30, 753.Google Scholar
  78. Stevenson, R. J. & S. Sabater, 2010. Understanding effects of global change on river ecosystems: science to support policy in a changing world. Hydrobiologia 657: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stevenson, R. J., S. T. Rier, C. M. Riseng, R. E. Schult & M. J. Wiley, 2006. Comparing effects of nutrients on algal biomass in streams in two regions with different disturbance regimes and with applications for developing nutrient criteria. Hydrobiologia 561: 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Svensson, F., J. Norberg & P. Snoeijs, 2014. Diatom cell size, coloniality and motility: trade-offs between temperature, salinity and nutrient supply with climate change. PLoS ONE 9(10): e109993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109993.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stewart-Oaten, A. & J. R. Bence, 2001. Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71: 305–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tuchman, N. C., M. A. Schollett, S. T. Rier & P. Geddes, 2006. Differential heterotrophic utilization of organic compounds by diatoms and bacteria under light and dark conditions. Hydrobiologia 561: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. van Dam, H., A. Mertens & J. Sinkeldam, 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 28: 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Veraart, A. J., A. M. Romaní, M. Tornés & S. Sabater, 2008. Algal response to nutrient enrichment in forested oligotrophic stream. Journal of Phycology 44: 564–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vilbaste, S. & J. Truu, 2003. Distribution of benthic diatoms in relation to environmental variables in lowland streams. Hydrobiologia 493: 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walton, S. P., E. B. Welch & R. R. Horner, 1995. Stream periphyton response to grazing and changes in phosphorus concentration. Hydrobiologia 302: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Warwick, R. M. & K. R. Clarke, 1993. Increased variability as a symptom of stress in marine communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 172: 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Welch, E. B., J. M. Quinn & C. W. Hickey, 1992. Periphyton biomass related to pointsource nutrient enrichment in seven New Zealand streams. Water Resources 26(5): 669–675.Google Scholar
  89. Winter, J. G. & H. C. Duthie, 2000. Epilithic diatoms as indicators of stream total N and total P concentration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Worm, B., H. K. Lotze, H. Hillebrand & U. Sommer, 2002. Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 417: 848–851.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wyatt, K. H., R. J. Stevenson & M. R. Turestky, 2010. The importance of nutrient co-limitation in regulating algal community composition, productivity and algal-derived DOC in an oligotrophic marsh in interior Alaska. Freshwater Biology 55: 1845–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Limnología “Dr. Raúl A. Ringuelet” (ILPLA-CONICET La Plata-UNLP)La PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y MuseoUniversidad Nacional de La PlataLa PlataArgentina
  3. 3.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Catalan Institute for Water ResearchScientific and Technological Park of the University of GironaGironaSpain
  5. 5.Institute of Aquatic EcologyUniversity of GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations