2019
DOI: 10.1155/2019/2650678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Habitat Types on Macroinvertebrates Assemblages Structure: Case Study of Sun Island Bund Wetland

Abstract: Sun Island Bund Wetland (SIBW) is a river floodplain wetland located at the south part of Heilongjiang Province in Northeast China. An investigation of the influence of habitat type on macroinvertebrates assemblages structure was conducted in July 2016. Nine (9) sampling sites were selected based on sediment type, water condition, and aquatic vegetation type. Macroinvertebrates attributes including density, biomass, and four diversity indices (Simpson diversity index, Margalef richness index, Shannon-Weiner in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These differences probably reflect increasing structural complexity of substrates, with artificial vegetation providing a greater number of feeding opportunities relative to the fine-grained monogenic substrates. Specifically macrophytes may (1) act as a direct food source or enable colonisation by epiphytic algae (Paice et al, 2017;Wolters et al, 2018a); (2) provide a more stable substrate (not prone to burial; Brookes, 1986;Cotton et al, 2006); (3) provide opportunities for filtering taxa to gain access to and protection from areas of high flow velocity within the channel (Phiri et al, 2011;Wolters et al, 2018b) and (4) provide a higher density of prey for predatory taxa than is available in benthic habitats (Khudhair et al, 2019). These feeding mode differences are reflected in our findings, with artificial macrophyte fronds being characterised by G. pulex, A. aquaticus and several algal grazing gastropods, whereas minerogenic substrates were characterised by burrowing taxa such as S. lutaria (Linnaeus, 1758) and Sphaeriidae.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These differences probably reflect increasing structural complexity of substrates, with artificial vegetation providing a greater number of feeding opportunities relative to the fine-grained monogenic substrates. Specifically macrophytes may (1) act as a direct food source or enable colonisation by epiphytic algae (Paice et al, 2017;Wolters et al, 2018a); (2) provide a more stable substrate (not prone to burial; Brookes, 1986;Cotton et al, 2006); (3) provide opportunities for filtering taxa to gain access to and protection from areas of high flow velocity within the channel (Phiri et al, 2011;Wolters et al, 2018b) and (4) provide a higher density of prey for predatory taxa than is available in benthic habitats (Khudhair et al, 2019). These feeding mode differences are reflected in our findings, with artificial macrophyte fronds being characterised by G. pulex, A. aquaticus and several algal grazing gastropods, whereas minerogenic substrates were characterised by burrowing taxa such as S. lutaria (Linnaeus, 1758) and Sphaeriidae.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Statistical analysis of plankton community structure in the Diannong River (Yinchuan City section), Yuehai Wetland, Baohu Wetland, and Hequanhu Wetland. The density and dominant species were analyzed using Excel 2021 [15]. The formula for dominant species is as follows:…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the results of this study, and in accordance with previous literature, we could conclude that appropriate management of streambed vegetation would require: (1) accurately planned removal/clearance of streambed vegetation patches in areas prone to flooding; this would locally reduce water depths (by up to 40% as evident from our results), but would increase flow velocities (by up to 34% in our particular case study) (Bronte, 2013;Benifei et al, 2015); (2) accurately planned restoration of streambed vegetation in non-flooding (wider) areas to enhance geomorphic stability (Admiraal, 2007), and habitat suitability, diversity and quality (Huttunen et al, 2017;Khudhair et al, 2019) by locally increasing water depths and reducing flow velocities. Ecohydraulic models can be of valuable help to both ends, and could be case-specifically applied to inform accurate management practices regarding the removal or restoration of streambed vegetation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%