The Upper River Paraná Floodplain System comprises the rivers Ivinheima, Baía and Paraná, which with their associated waterbodies form three subsystems, each showing individual characteristics.

No abstract

RESUMO A qualidade do resíduo vegetal e a disponibilidade de nitrogênio (N) mineral 00-30-90, (iii)30-30-60, (iv)60-30-30 e (v) 00-00-00, (2) 00-30-90, (3) 30-30-60, (4) 60-30-30, (5) 90-30-00

Summary 1. Invasion biologists use two main approaches to evaluate the effects of non‐native species (NNS) on diversity of native species (DNS), namely space‐for‐time and time approaches. These approaches have pitfalls related to lack of controls: the former lacks pre‐invasion data, while the latter often lacks data from non‐invaded sites. 2. We propose a framework that combines space‐for‐time and time approaches and which should result in more focused mechanistic hypotheses and experiments to test the causes of invasibility and the effects of NNS on DNS. We illustrate the usefulness of our framework using two case studies: one with the submersed macrophyte, Hydrilla verticillata, in reservoir and the other with the fish, Geophagus proximus, in a large river–floodplain system. 3. Hydrilla verticillata invaded sites with DNS similar to that found in non‐invaded sites, indicating that biotic and/or abiotic factors did not influence invasion success; however, DNS increased over time in invaded sites compared with non‐invaded sites, suggesting that H. verticillata facilitated natives. In contrast, G. proximus invaded sites with higher DNS than non‐invaded sites, suggesting that biotic and/or abiotic factors favouring natives were important for invasion success, but DNS increased in invaded and non‐invaded sites over time, indicating that an independent factor contributed to DNS increases. 4. Conclusions from both studies would have been inaccurate or incomplete if the space‐for‐time and time approaches had not been used in combination as proposed in our framework.

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.