Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, 80:16 | Cite as

Factors affecting the metacommunity structure of periphytic ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda): a deconstruction approach based on biological traits

  • Ramiro de Campos
  • Fernando Miranda Lansac-Tôha
  • Eliezer de Oliveira da Conceição
  • Koen Martens
  • Janet Higuti
Research Article

Abstract

Metacommunity studies using the deconstruction approach based on biological traits have received a great deal of attention in recent years as they often better describe characteristics of the species that reflect adaptations to a specific environment. This approach has not yet been used for ostracods, which are nevertheless highly diverse crustaceans and abundant in continental aquatic environments. Here, we investigate the influence of environmental and spatial factors on the metacommunity structure of periphytic ostracods in 27 tropical floodplain lakes in the Upper Paraná River floodplain (Brazil). An analysis of variance partitioning was used to estimate the relative importance of these factors (environmental and spatial) on both the entire community as well as after its deconstruction according to the biological traits (size and locomotion mode). Ostracods, regardless of body size, are good dispersers at regional scales. In addition, as expected, swimming ostracods were better dispersers at local scales than non-swimmers, which were influenced mainly by the diversity of aquatic macrophytes. Environmental factors (species sorting mechanism) seem important in structuring the entire ostracods metacommunity, as well as for most categories of biological traits. The unexplained variability remained high showing that other variables, not measured here, must be important. The analysis based on deconstruction, when compared to the analysis based on the metacommunity as a whole, contributed to a better assessment of ostracod metacommunity structuring.

Keywords

Microcrustacean Dispersal Body size Aquatic vegetation Partitioning Upper Paraná River floodplain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jaime Luiz Lopes Pereira (Maringá, Brazil) for the production of the map, Julien Cillis (Brussels, Belgium) provided technical assistance with the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images used for the ostracod measurements. We thank the Ministry of Science and Technology (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia, MCT) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq) for financial support (Edital Universal nr 476130/2010-7), coordinated by Dr Fábio Amodêo Lansac-Tôha, to whom we are also most grateful. We would like to thank the Nucleus of Research in Limnology, Ichthyology and Aquaculture (Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura, Nupélia) and the Post-graduate Program in the Ecology of Continental Aquatic Environments (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais, PEA) of the State University of Maringá (Universidade Estadual de Maringá, UEM) for continuous logistic support. RC, FMLT and EOC would like to thank the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES) and CNPq for granting their scholarships. The Universidade Estadual de Maringá, (UEM, Maringá) and the Royal Belgian Institute of natural Sciences (RBINS, Brussels) have a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding regarding collaborative Scientific Research. Two anonymous referees suggested important improvements.

Supplementary material

27_2018_567_MOESM1_ESM.docm (452 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCM 452 KB)

References

  1. Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Thomaz SM, Hahn NS (2004) The upper Paraná River and its floodplain: main characteristics and perspectives for management and conservation. In: Thomaz SM, Agostinho AA, Hahn NS (eds) The Upper Paraná river and its floodplain: physical aspects, ecology and conservation. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 381–393Google Scholar
  2. Agostinho AA, Pelicice FM, Gomes LC (2008) Dams and the fish fauna of the Neotropical region: impacts and management related to diversity and fisheries. Braz J Biol 68:1119–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842008000500019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilar-Alberola JA, Mesquita-Joanes F (2014) Breaking the temperature-size rule: thermal effects on growth, development and fecundity of a crustacean from temporary waters. J Therm Biol 42:15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2014.02.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Alahuhta J, Johnson LB, Olker J, Heino J (2014) Species sorting determines variation in the community composition of common and rare macrophytes at various spatial extents. Ecol Complex 20:61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2014.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Algarte VM, Rodrigues L, Landeiro VL, Siqueira T, Bini LM (2014) Variance partitioning of deconstructed periphyton communities: does the use of biological traits matter? Hydrobiologia 722:279–290.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1711-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Astorga A, Oksanen J, Luoto M, Soininen J, Virtanen R, Muotka T (2012) Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro- and microorganisms follow the same rules? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:365–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00681.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchet G, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Forward selection of spatial explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632.  https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0986.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Borcard D, Legendre P (2002) All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol Model 153:51–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00501-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brochet AL, Gauthier-Clerc M, Guillemain M, Fritz H, Waterkeyn A, Baltanás Á, Green AJ (2010) Field evidence of dispersal of branchiopods, ostracods and bryozoans by teal (Anas crecca) in the Camargue (southern France). Hydrobiologia 637:255–261.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9975-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campos R, Conceição EO, Pinto MBO, Bertoncin APS, Higuti J, Martens K (2017) Evaluation of quantitative sampling methods in pleuston: an example from ostracod communities. Limnol Ecol Manag Inl Waters 63:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castillo-Escrivà A, Rueda J, Zamora L, Hernández R, Del Moral M, Mesquita-Joanes F (2016a) The role of watercourse versus overland dispersal and niche effects on ostracod distribution in Mediterranean streams (eastern Iberian Peninsula). Acta Oecol 73:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2016.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castillo-Escrivà A, Valls L, Rochera C, Camacho A, Mesquita-Joanes F (2016b) Disentangling environmental, spatial, and historical effects on ostracod communities in shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2945-x
  13. Castillo-Escrivà A, Valls L, Rochera C, Camacho A, Mesquita-Joanes F (2016c) Spatial and environmental analysis of an ostracod metacommunity from endorheic lakes. Aquat Sci 78:707–716.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-015-0462-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castillo-Escrivà A, Valls L, Rochera C, Camacho A, Mesquita-Joanes F (2017) Metacommunity dynamics of Ostracoda in temporary lakes: Overall strong niche effects except at the onset of the flooding period. Limnol Ecol Manag Inl Waters 62:104–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2016.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chase JM (2007) Drought mediates the importance of stochastic community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:17430–17434.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704350104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Conceição EO, Higuti J, Campos R, Martens K (2018) Effects of flood pulses on persistence and variability of pleuston communities in a tropical floodplain lake. Hydrobiologia 807:175–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3392-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Bie T, De Meester L, Brendonck L, Martens K, Goddeeris B, Ercken D, Hampel H, Denys L, Vanhecke L, Van der Gucht K, Van Wichelen J, Vyverman W, Declerck SAJ (2012) Body size and dispersal mode as key traits determining metacommunity structure of aquatic organisms. Ecol Lett 15:740–747.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01794.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Escrivà A, Poquet J, Mesquita-Joanes F (2015) Effects of environmental and spatial variables on lotic ostracod metacommunity structure in the Iberian Peninsula. Inl Waters 5:283–294.  https://doi.org/10.5268/IW-5.3.771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernandes IM, Henriques-Silva R, Penha J, Zuanon J, Peres-Neto PR (2014) Spatiotemporal dynamics in a seasonal metacommunity structure is predictable: the case of floodplain-fish communities. Ecography 37(5):464–475.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00527.x Google Scholar
  20. Gonzalez A (2009) Metacommunities: spatial community ecology. Encycl Life Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021230 Google Scholar
  21. Göthe E, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Wiberg-Larsen P, Graeber D, Kristensen EA, Friberg N (2016) Environmental and spatial controls of taxonomic versus trait composition of stream biota. Freshw Biol 62:397–413.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gravel D, Canham CD, Beaudet M, Messier C (2006) Reconciling niche and neutrality: the continuum hypothesis. Ecol Lett 9:399–409.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00884.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gronroos M, Heino J, Siqueira T, Landeiro VL, Kotanen J, Bini LM (2013) Metacommunity structuring in stream networks: roles of dispersal mode, distance type, and regional environmental context. Ecol Evol 3:4473–4487.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.834 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hájek M, Roleček J, Cottenie K, Kintrová K, Horsák M, Poulicková A, Hájková P, Fránková M, Díte D (2011) Environmental and spatial controls of biotic assemblages in a discrete semi-terrestrial habitat: comparison of organisms with different dispersal abilities sampled in the same plots. J Biogeogr 38:1683–1693.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02503.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heino J (2011) A macroecological perspective of diversity patterns in the freshwater realm. Freshw Biol 56:1703–1722.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02610.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heino J, Mendoza G (2016) Predictability of stream insect distributions is dependent on niche position, but not on biological traits or taxonomic relatedness of species. Ecography 39:1216–1226.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heino J, Melo AS, Siqueira T, Soininen J, Valanko S, Bini LM (2015) Metacommunity organisation, spatial extent and dispersal in aquatic systems: patterns, processes and prospects. Freshw Biol 60:845–869.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heino J, Alahuhta J, Ala-Hulkko T, Antikainen H, Bini LM, Bonada N, Datry T, Erős T, Hjort J, Kotavaara O, Melo AS, Soininen J (2017) Integrating dispersal proxies in ecological and environmental research in the freshwater realm. Environ Rev 25:334–349.  https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higuti J, Martens K (2012a) Description of a new genus and species of Candonopsini (Crustacea, Ostracoda, Candoninae) from the alluvial valley of the Upper Paraná River (Brazil, South America). Eur J Taxon:1–31Google Scholar
  30. Higuti J, Martens K (2012b) On a new cypridopsine genus (Crustacea, Ostracoda, Cyprididae) from the Upper Paraná River Floodplain (Brazil). Zootaxa 38:23–38Google Scholar
  31. Higuti J, Martens K (2014) Five new species of Candoninae (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from the alluvial valley of the Upper Paraná River (Brazil, South America). Eur J Taxon 106:1–36.  https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.106 Google Scholar
  32. Higuti J, Martens K (2016) Invasive South American floating plants are a successful substrate for native Central African pleuston. Biol Invasion 18:1191–1201.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1061-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Higuti J, Velho LFM, Lansac-Tôha FA, Martens K (2007) Pleuston communities are buffered from regional flood pulses: the example of ostracods in the Paraná River floodplain, Brazil. Freshw Biol 52:1930–1943.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01821.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Higuti J, Declerck SAJ, Lansac-Tôha FA, Velho LFM, Martens K (2010) Variation in ostracod (Crustacea, Ostracoda) communities in the alluvial valley of the upper Paraná river (Brazil) in relation to substrate. Hydrobiologia 644:261–278.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0122-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Higuti J, Schön I, Audenaert L, Martens K (2013) On the Strandesia obtusata/elliptica lineage (Ostracoda, Cyprididae) in the alluvial valley of the upper Paraná river (Brazil), with the description of three new species. Crustaceana 86:182–211.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15685403-00003160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoeinghaus DJ, Winemiller KO, Birnbaum JS (2007) Local and regional determinants of stream fish assemblage structure: Inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups. J Biogeogr 34:324–338.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01587.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Ecology 32:1771–1772Google Scholar
  38. Junk WJ, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127.  https://doi.org/10.1127/lr/11/1999/261 Google Scholar
  39. Kiss A (2007) Factors affecting spatial and temporal distribution of Ostracoda assemblages in different macrophyte habitats of a shallow lake (Lake Fehér, Hungary). Hydrobiologia 585:89–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0631-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landeiro VL, Waldez F, Menin M (2014) Spatial and environmental patterns of Amazonian anurans: Differences between assemblages with aquatic and terrestrial reproduction, and implications for conservation management. Nat Conserv Braz J Nat Conserv 12:42–46.  https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2014.008 Google Scholar
  41. Lansac-Tôha FM, Meira BR, Segovia BT, Lansac-Tôha FA, Velho LFM (2016) Hydrological connectivity determining metacommunity structure of planktonic heterotrophic flagellates. Hydrobiologia 781:81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2824-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420100716 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 601–613.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00608.x
  44. Liberto R, Mesquita-Joanes F, César I (2012) Dynamics of pleustonic ostracod populations in small ponds on the Island of Martín García (Rio de la Plata, Argentina). Hydrobiologia 688:47–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0600-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lindström ES, Langenheder S (2012) Local and regional factors influencing bacterial community assembly. Environ Microbiol Rep 4:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-2229.2011.00257.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Logue JB, Mouquet N, Peter H, Hillebrand H (2011) Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol Evol 26:482–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Martens K, Behen F (1994) A checklist of the recent non-marine ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from the inland waters of South America and adjacent islands. Trav Sci Du Mus Natl D’Histoire Nat Luxemb 22:1–81Google Scholar
  48. Martens K, Schön I, Meisch C, Horne DJ (2008) Global diversity of ostracods (Ostracoda, Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:185–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9245-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matsuda JT, Lansac-Tôha FA, Martens K, Velho LFM, Mormul RP, Higuti J (2015) Association of body size and behavior of freshwater ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) with aquatic macrophytes. Aquat Ecol 49:321–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-015-9527-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meisch C (2000) Freshwater ostracoda of Western and Central Europe. In: Schwoerber J, Zwick P (eds) Sußwasserfauna von Mitteleuropa 8/3. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, p 522Google Scholar
  51. Nabout C, Siqueira T, Bini LM, Nogueira IDS (2009) No evidence for environmental and spatial processes in structuring phytoplankton communities. Acta Oecol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2009.07.002 Google Scholar
  52. Ng ISY, Carr CM, Cottenie K (2009) Hierarchical zooplankton metacommunities: distinguishing between high and limiting dispersal mechanisms. Hydrobiologia 619:133–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9605-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Padial A, Thomaz SM, Agostinho AA (2009) Effects of structural heterogeneity provided by the floating macrophyte Eichhornia azurea on the predation efficiency and habitat use of the small Neotropical fish Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae. Hydrobiologia 624:161–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9690-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Padial A, Ceschin F, Declerck SAJ, De Meester L, Bonecker CC, Lansac-Tôha FA, Rodrigues L, Rodrigues LC, Train S, Velho LFM, Bini LB (2014) Dispersal ability aetermines the role of environmental, spatial and temporal drivers of metacommunity structure. PloS One 9:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pagioro TA, Thomaz SM (1999) Influence of the decomposition of Eichhornia azurea on selected abiotic limnological variables of different environments of the floodplain of the Paraná River. Acta Limnol Bras 11:157–171Google Scholar
  56. Pandit SN, Kolasa J, Cottenie K, Kolasa J (2009) Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. Ecology 90:2253–2262.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0851.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Pereira LC, Lansac-Tôha FA, Martens K, Higuti J (2017) Biodiversity of ostracod communities (Crustacea, Ostracoda) in a tropical floodplain. Inland Waters 7(3):323–332.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2017.1329913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2614:VPOSDM]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Petsch DK, Pinha GD, Dias JD, Takeda AM (2015) Temporal nestedness in Chironomidae and the importance of environmental and spatial factors in species rarity. Hydrobiologia 745:181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2105-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  61. Ricklefs RE (1987) Community diversity: relative roles of and regional processes. Science 235:167–171.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.235.4785.167 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rossetti G, Martens K (1998) Taxonomic revision of the recent and Holocene representatives of the family Darwinulidae (Crustacea, Ostracoda), with a description of three new genera. Bull l’Institut R des Sci Nat Belqique Sci la Terre 68:55–110Google Scholar
  63. Silva PG, Hernández MIM (2015) Scale-dependence of processes structuring dung beetle metacommunities using functional diversity and community deconstruction approaches. PLoS One 10:1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123030 Google Scholar
  64. Siqueira T, Bini LM, Roque FO, Couceiro SRM, Trivinho-Strixino S, Cottenie K (2011) Common and rare species respond to similar niche processes in macroinvertebrate metacommunities. Ecography 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06875.x
  65. Souza Filho EE (2009) Evaluation of the Upper Paraná River discharge controlled by reservoirs. Braz J Biol 69:707–716.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842009000300024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. StatSoft Inc (2005). STATISTICA (data analysis software system) version 7.1. www.statsoft.comGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomaz SM, Cunha ER (2010) The role of macrophytes in habitat structuring in aquatic ecosystems: methods of measurement, causes and consequences on animal assemblages’ composition and biodiversity. Acta Limnol Bras 22:218–236.  https://doi.org/10.4322/actalb.02202011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vanschoenwinkel B, De Vries C, Seaman M, Brendonck L (2007) The role of metacommunity processes in shaping invertebrate rock pool communities along a dispersal gradient. Oikos 116(8):1255–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15860.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winegardner AK, Jones BK, Ng ISY, Siqueira T, Cottenie K (2012) The terminology of metacommunity ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 27:253–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wojciechowski J, Heino J, Bini LM, Padial AA (2017) The strength of species sorting of phytoplankton communities is temporally variable in subtropical reservoirs. Hydrobiologia 800:31–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3245-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhai M, Novácek O, Výravský D, Syrovátka V, Bojková J, Helesic J (2015) Environmental and spatial control of ostracod assemblages in the Western Carpathian spring fens. Hydrobiologia 745:225–239.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2104-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais (PEA)Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)MaringáBrazil
  2. 2.Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS)BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of GhentGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM), Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (Nupélia), Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais (PEA)MaringáBrazil

Personalised recommendations