Method of capture and population structure of Aegla georginae Santos and Jara, 2013 (Decapoda: Anomura: Aeglidae) in a tributary of the Ibicuí River in southern Brazil

Abstract

In the current study, we investigated population aspects of Aegla georginae in the Ibicuí River Basin by considering different capture methods and the implication of these data in the analysis of population dynamics. We sampled 1774 individuals: 1259 males (21 and 97 juveniles and 1029 and 113 adults in trap and handnet, respectively), 512 females (05 and 140 juveniles, 184 and 64 adults, and 81 and 38 ovigerous in trap and handnet, respectively) and 03 unsexed individuals (02 and 01 in trap and handnet, respectively). The frequency distribution in size classes shows a bimodal model for both sexes. The carapace length (CL) in males and females varied from 3.11 to 26.00 and 3.73 to 22.36 mm, respectively. Males presented significantly larger sizes than females. The relative abundance between males and females was significantly different from 1:1 with more males than females in most sampling periods (p < 0.05) when considering the grouped data (handnet + trap) and trap captures, but followed the expected ratio in most months when considering individuals sampled only with handnet (p > 0.05). Juveniles were recorded in all seasons, and reproduction occurs throughout the year. The population structure is similar to the model known for aeglids, and the capture methods affected the analysis of A. georginae, where the grouped data and trap captures presented greater abundance of individuals than handnet and males predominate in the larger size classes, and females in the intermediary size classes. Therefore, an integrated view of the capture methods is the best model for studying the population dynamics of aeglids.

Population and reproductive structure in the endangered and highly endemic freshwater crab Aegla concepcionensis (Decapoda:Pleocyemata:Aeglidae) from Chile

“…Gray bars correspond to Chilean species. (a) Bueno & Shimizu, 2008, 2009; (b) Bueno et al, 2014; (c) Fransozo et al., 2003; Marçal et al, 2018; (d) Chaves et al., 2019; (e) Cohen et al., 2013; (f) da Silva et al., 2016; (g) Rocha et al., 2010; (h) Teodósio and Masunari, 2009; (i) Grabowski et al, 2013, (j) Oliveira & Santos, 2011; (k) Noro & Buckup, 2002, 2003; (l) Colpo et al., 2005; (m) Gonçalves et al, 2006; (n) Copatti et al., 2016a; Copatti et al., 2016b; (o) Trevisan & Santos, 2012, 2014; (p) Catchpole, 2019; (q) Bahamonde and López, 1961; (r) Viau et al., 2006; (s) This study; (t) Jara, 1989…”