Ciliate populations in temporary freshwater ponds: seasonal dynamics and influential factors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
SUMMARY 1. The ciliate populations of two temporary ponds in southern Ontario were studied throughout their aquatic phases in 2001. Pond I (∼1 ha) held water for 98 days, whereas Pond II (∼0.25 ha) held water for 34 days. Populations were assessed both within the ponds themselves and within a series of enclosures in which invertebrate predator pressure was manipulated. 2. In the natural pond water, total ciliate abundance in Pond II rose rapidly from day 1 increasing two orders of magnitude by day 7. In contrast, total abundance in Pond I began at the same level as in Pond II but increased much more slowly, reached a plateau of around 500 individuals L −1 , and increased again late in the hydroperiod. 3. Despite being only 500 m apart, the two ponds were fairly dissimilar in terms of their species richness and species composition. Pond I contained 50 species compared with 70 species for Pond II, with only 24 species shared. Additional species occurred within the enclosures raising the total species richness to 145 species; 88 from Pond I, 104 from Pond II, with 47 species (30%) in common. Pond II contained more mid‐sized ciliates (50–200 μm), whereas Pond I was dominated by smaller ciliates, especially in mid‐May and early June. In Pond I, cumulative species richness throughout the hydroperiod was highest in the predator addition enclosures (65 ± 4 species), followed by the partial‐predator exclusion enclosures (50 ± 4). Lowest species richness was found in the control enclosures (39 ± 2) and in the pondwater controls (39 ± 0). Differences between the ciliates in the natural pond water and the enclosures appeared to be related to a greater concentration of phytoplankton within the enclosures (perhaps resulting from extensive growth of duckweed, Lemna , outside), and higher densities of zooplankters in the pond. 4. The physicochemical environment influenced species richness, total abundance and the number of rare species (27 in Pond II versus 13 in Pond I). Variation in ciliate abundance in Pond I could be explained by the number of days after filling (39%) and enclosure treatment (23%). These two parameters also explained 72% of the variation in species richness in Pond I (46 and 26%, respectively). Sixty‐five per cent of the variation in abundance in Pond II could be explained by the measured parameters: number of days after filling 27%, pH 19%, and nitrate levels 12%. Fifty‐two per cent of the variation in species richness was explained by the environmental parameters, of which pH was the most influential. Species succession was a strong feature of both ponds and its relationship to environmental variables and the presence of other organisms is discussed. 5. Addition of invertebrate predators resulted in higher abundance and higher species richness for a limited time period in one of the ponds – suggesting that differences in foodweb dynamics may influence ciliate community composition.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».