2006
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-89132006000400010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A simple method to estimate spatial complexity in aquatic plants

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
23
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is important to point out, however, that we studied beds formed by only two macrophyte species (E. densa and E. najas), both with similar architecture and intermediate levels of morphological complexity (Cook & Urmi-Konig, 1984;Dibble & Thomaz, 2006). If patches have different macrophyte life forms (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is important to point out, however, that we studied beds formed by only two macrophyte species (E. densa and E. najas), both with similar architecture and intermediate levels of morphological complexity (Cook & Urmi-Konig, 1984;Dibble & Thomaz, 2006). If patches have different macrophyte life forms (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under such circumstances, macrophyte biomass may constitute an adequate predictor. On the other hand, if patches have many coexisting macrophyte species, the use of alternative metrics such as the index of morphological complexity (Dibble & Thomaz, 2006) or fractal geometry (Thomaz et al, 2008), combined with quantitative measures (as biomass), seems more appropriate. In this case, we presume that predictions at small spatial extents will become more complex and difficult, because surface area effects (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Aquatic macrophytes add complexity to aquatic systems because of their plant morphology (the structures of roots, stems, and leaves), creating a unique substrate for macroinvertebrate and zooplankton fixation (Dibble and Thomaz, 2006) and consequently promoting an enhancement of food availability for fish (Casatti et al, 2003;Dibble and Thomaz, 2006;Pelicice and Agostinho, 2006). Additionally, they provide refuge from predators to young and small adult fish (Meschiatti et al, 2000;Agostinho et al, 2003Agostinho et al, , 2007Neiff et al, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In ponds with fish presence, abundant communities of pelagic zooplankters, especially larger-bodied crustaceans, despite their ecological requirements, will be found among patches of macrophytes during the daytime when fish are most active (Wojtal et al, 2003). At the same time plant habitat, due to its highly complex structure connected with an increase in the fractal variation of a plant patch (McAbendroth et al, 2005;Dibble & Thomaz, 2006), may support the development of a variety of periphytic planktonic organisms, thus favouring the development of zooplankton species of littoral origin (Duggan, 2001). Therefore, macrophyte build reflected in the plant density or biomass, known as plant architecture, is of significant importance for the inhabiting zooplankters.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%