Monitoring simplification in plankton communities using different ecological approaches

Abstract

Aim This study aimed to answer: (i) can phytoplankton communities be used as surrogate of zooplankton communities?; (ii) can we use ecological approaches like functional groups (FG) or morphofunctional classification (MBFG) as surrogate for phytoplankton species?; (iii) can we use substitute groups (cladocera, copepod, rotifer or testate amoebae) as surrogate for zooplankton species?; (iv) are the environmental variables’ ordination standards concordant with the ordering patterns of phytoplankton and zooplankton species?; and (v) for both communities, is the spatial pattern of ordination maintained using density data or presence/absence of individuals or lower taxonomic resolutions? Methods The study was conducted in 25 water bodies that supply central-pivot irrigation in the Federal District - Brazil (Rio Preto Basin), in October 2012. We evaluated some physical and chemical variables as well as phytoplankton and zooplankton samples. To evaluate correlation among biological groups, numerical and higher taxonomic resolutions, we performed some Mantel and Procrustes analyses. Results Evaluating the use of substitute groups, comparisons between phytoplankton and zooplankton, FG and MBFG classifications and almost all the comparisons between zooplankton groups suggested concordant patterns. However, the values of r were low, all below 0.70. Biological analyses with phytoplankton and zooplankton can be performed using presence/absence of individuals without significant loss of information, except for MBFG classification and copepods. Data may also be used at genus or family level for copepods and testate amoebae and only data at genus level for cladocerans and rotifers. Different results were found concerning taxonomic resolution for phytoplankton considering that, while being significant, the r value was less than 0.70. Conclusions For environmental monitoring purposes, it is important to sample both phytoplankton and zooplankton communities because one is not surrogate of the other one, in the same way as phytoplankton density and their functional and morphofunctional approaches. On the other hand, to simplify the environmental monitoring, it is possible to adopt presence/absence species data instead of abundance data for both zooplankton and phytoplankton communities, except for copepods and morphofunctional approach. It is also possible to adopt genera level for zooplankton community and family level for copepods and testate amoebae.

Testate amoebae (Arcellinida and Euglyphida) from Pantanal dos Marimbús, Chapada Diamantina, Bahia state, Brazil, including new occurrences

“…Of those 15 new taxa, A. costata var. angulosa and D. microclaviformis occurred in both plankton and periphyton habitats, as was previously noted by other authors (Alves et al 2007;López 2009;Matsumura-Tundisi et al 2015;Schwind et al 2016;Souza 2018;Gomes 2019;Souza et al 2019), evidencing their ability to colonize different environments and substrates. Arcella peruviana, on the other hand, was found exclusively in plankton.…”

Testate amoebae: a review on their multiple uses as bioindicators

“…Biomonitoring using zooplankton has indicated that it's identification and analysis, including TA, can be done to genera level (Machado et al 2015, Souza et al 2019. Identification to the genera level has been an economic strategy to overcome the lack of specific taxonomists to certain groups.…”

Temporal stability in beta diversity does not guarantee surrogacy or compositional stability in a micro-phytoplankton metacommunity

“…Considering the above, it is possible to assume that ecological assessment and community monitoring are common approaches in ecological studies. However, monitoring species composition can be costly considering both the time used to identify species and the financial resources for field campaigns and specialist expertise (Souza et al, 2019). The use of surrogate groups has recently been revealed to be quite attractive to circumvent such shortcomings (Leal et al, 2010).…”