Nestedness in sessile and periphytic rotifer communities: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

The freshwater littoral comprises a mosaic of habitats structured at several scales by a combination of hydrophyte architecture and physiology. Within this complex environment littoral invertebrates should distribute themselves to maximize fitness: that is, for sessile animals selection of permanent substrata is critical, while distribution of motile (periphytic) animals should follow predictions of Ideal Free Distribution theory. Here we explore the relationships between littoral rotifers and hydrophytes by conducting nestedness analyses on 10 published datasets (7 sessile; 3 periphytic); one dataset each of microcrustaceans and insects were included for comparison. We used four metrics to assess nestedness: mean matrix temperature (T); counts of discrepancy shifts and species segregation; and percent singletons. Six sessile rotifer datasets exhibited nestedness (T ¼ 9.25-30.2°, supported by !2 null models; the other metrics varied widely). Our results indicate that distribution of sessile rotifers and periphytic insects was highly structured, but until more data is available little can be said about the distribution of the periphytic rotifer or microcrustacean community structure. Sessile rotifer species possessing idiosyncratic temperatures (T>T þ1.5 SD) exhibited a trend toward a record of cosmopolitanism. Important idiosyncratic hydrophytes included Ceratophyllum, Chara, and Utricularia. Two of the three periphytic, rotifer datasets exhibited nestedness (T ¼ 19.2°, 39.9°), but each was supported by only one of the four null models. The periphytic microcrustaceans did not show nestedness, while the insects did (T ¼ 15.5°; supported by four null models). The three other metrics varied considerably among the periphytic datasets, showing no discernable pattern.

Patterns of Rotifer Diversity in the Chihuahuan Desert

“…These results are not surprising as the basins within of each of these systems are quite similar: Tuff Canyon (basalt larva and tuff deposits); Window Trail (limestone); Mesocosms (plastic basins filled with artificial pond water). This indicates that, for nestedness to be present, the inclusive habitats must possess environmental heterogeneity, and if nestedness were not present, we would expect the species assembly to be random within the habitats [161,162].…”

Sessile rotifers (Rotifera) exhibit strong seasonality in a shallow, eutrophic Ramsar site in Mexico

“…For epiphytic animals, the freshwater littoral provides a wide array of habitats that are structured by physical, chemical, and biological influences of the dominant hydrophytes (Meksuwan, Pholpunthin, Walsh, Segers, & Wallace, ). However, studies of littoral communities are hindered by this complexity because hydrophyte morphology varies extensively.…”

“…However, studies of littoral communities are hindered by this complexity because hydrophyte morphology varies extensively. Leaves range from broad, flat, and floating, to highly dissected and submerged (Meksuwan et al, ; Wallace, Snell, Ricci, & Nogrady, ). Plants can be floating with an extensive root system or submerged with embedded roots.…”

“…While there are >100 species of epiphytic (sessile) rotifers belonging to two gnesiotrochan orders (Collothecaceae and Flosculariaceae), most studies of rotifer communities have focused on planktonic taxa, almost to the exclusion of sessile species, which as adults live attached to macrophytes and filamentous algae (Edmondson, ; Pejler & Bērziņš, ; Wallace, ; Wallace et al, ) and contribute to the high rotifer diversity in the littoral zone. This species diversity is no doubt related to the greater structural complexity and increased the availability of microhabitats provided by hydrophytes (Basińska & Kuczyńska‐Kippen, ; Duggan, ; Hochberg & Hochberg, ; Kuczyńska‐Kippen, ; Lucena‐Moya & Duggan, ; Meksuwan et al, ; Walsh, ). Macrophytes with multiple, narrow leaves, such as elodeids, appear to harbor a greater diversity of sessile rotifers than macrophytes with single, wide leaves, such as nymphaeids (Basińska & Kuczyńska‐Kippen, ).…”

Disentangling food webs interactions in the littoral of temperate shallow lakes

“…various macrophyte stands, harboring diverse faunal and floral entities (Meerhoff et al, 2003;Celewicz-Gołdyn & Kuczyńska-Kippen, 2017). Macrophytes are key organisms in modifying physico-chemical conditions (metabolic gasses, nutrients and light attenuation) and biotic interactions, e.g., predation and zooplankton migration (Scheffer et al, 1993;Kuczyńska-Kippen & Wiśniewska, 2011;Meksuwan et al, 2014). They support various life styles, functional groups and food sources from organic matter, algae and epiphyton (Kuczyńska-Kippen & Nagengast, 2006) to littoral microfauna Malekzadeh-Viayeh & Špoljar, 2012), meiofauna (Ali et al, 2007) and macroinvertebrates (Habdija et al, 1995;Warfe & Barmuta, 2006;Kovačević et al, 2007;Cremona et al, 2008).…”