Estrutura de assembléias de Muscidae (Diptera) no Paraná: uma análise por modelos nulos

Comunidades Zooplanctónicas en Lagos Del Parque Nacional Torres Del Paine: Un Nuevo Enfoque De Análisis De Factores Reguladores De Su Estructura Comunitaria

“…Otra posible causa es la homogeneidad de hábitats (Franca & Araujo 2007), o interacciones con especies de características ecológicas similares (Tondoh 2006, Tiho & Johens 2007. En un caso contrario, la presencia de competencia interespecífica y la diferenciación ecológica denota la ausencia del azar en las asociaciones de especies (Ulrich 2004, Rodríguez-Fernández et al 2006. Por otro lado, la existencia de factores reguladores, puede deberse a segregaciones de hábitats y compartimiento de recursos entre las especies de la comunidad (Costa de Azevedo et al 2006).…”

The Muscidae (Diptera) from the Atlantic Forest of Serra de Paranapiacaba, southestern Brazil

“…When considering the main surveys of Muscidae for southern Brazil (Rodríguez-Fernández et al, 2006;Krüger et al, 2010;Zafalon-Silva et al, 2018), we observe that the richness in this family, disregarding the Coenosiinae, is 109 species for Paraná State (Rodríguez-Fernández et al, 2006), 59 species for localities in the grasslands and south coast of Lagoa dos Patos (Krüger et al, 2010) and 63 species for the coastal plain of the Rio Grande do Sul (Zafalon- Silva et al, 2018), values that are 31 to 132% higher than that found for Biological Reserve of Paranapiacaba. It is worth mentioning that the morphospecies richness values are also much higher than those found here, varying from 23% of the fauna in Krüger et al (2010) to 38% in Rodríguez-Fernández et al (2006), while in this work only four species were not nominally identified (8.89%). Therefore, when disregarding mor-phospecies, the richness in the Biological Reserve of Paranapiacaba was of 41 species, values close to those found by Krüger et al (2010) and Zafalon-Silva et al (2018), 45 and 42 species, respectively.…”

“…With regard to Muscidae, there are a number of inventories in Brazil, but unbalanced between the different Brazilian biomes and states. For example, while there is a voluminous literature on Muscidae for the States of Paraná and Rio de Janeiro (e.g., Carvalho et al, 1984;D'Almeida, 1991;Pamplona et al, 2000;Oliveira et al, 2002;Costacurta et al, 2003;Couri & Carvalho, 2005;Leandro & D'Almeida, 2005;Rodríguez-Fernández et al, 2006;Couri & Barros, 2009), the most rich and populous Brazilian State remains with the Muscidae diversity knowledge still incipient. Furthermore, it is relatively scarce the Muscidae surveys in the Neotropics based on the use of non-baited collecting techniques (e.g., Carvalho & Couri, 1991;Costacurta et al, 2003;Rodríguez-Fernández et al, 2006;Krüger et al, 2010;Zafalon-Silva et al, 2018).…”

Species co-occurrences based on a presence/absence null model for Copepoda and cladocerans in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego lakes and ponds

“…Other similar causes can be the homogeneity of studied habitats (Franca & Araujo 2007), or interactions between species with similar ecological characteristics (Tondoh 2006;Tiho & Johens 2007). In an opposite scenario, the presence of interspecific competition and ecological differentiation denotes the absence of random in species association (Ulrich 2004;Rodríguez-Fernandez et al 2006). In another side, the existence of significant effects, expressed in random absence, as it was observed in two simulations denoted the existence of habitat seg-regations and resources partition (Costa de Azevedo et al 2006).…”