Trends in freshwater microcrustaceans studies in Brazil between 1990 and 2014

Abstract

This study presents a review of scientiometric data about freshwater microcrustaceans (Copepoda, Ostracoda, Branchiopoda: Cladocera, Anostraca, Notostraca and Conchostraca) in Brazil from 1990Brazil from -2014. This review is based on 179 papers published across four databases, using the following keywords in the search: microcrustaceans, Copepoda, Cyclopoida, Calanoida, Harpacticoida, Ergasilidae, Daphniidae, Moinidae, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Conchostraca, zooplankton, reservoir, river, ponds, reservoirs, wetlands, caves, lakes, limnology, ecology, aquatic, taxonomy, systematics, morphology and biogeography. No studies were identified that addressed freshwater microcrustaceans in four (Amapá, Roraima, Alagoas and Espírito Santo) of the 27 Brazilian Federative States. Forty-five percent of the included studies were concentrated within three of the most populous states (São Paulo, Minas Gerais and Paraná), which also have a long tradition of limnological study. The included studies mostly addressed reservoirs for hydropower generation (22%), multiple environments (22%), rivers (14%) and small artificial reservoirs (11%). Pools, ponds, small lakes, wetlands and phytothelma were not widely studied. Cladocera (48%) and Copepoda (48%) were the most studied groups. No studies were identified that addressed Notostraca, Anostraca or Conchostraca. The sharp increase in the number of published freshwater studies after 2000 is likely a result of increased internet facilities and the implementation of the Scielo platform. Ecology was most frequently the study focus (~50%), followed by taxonomy. Three journals (two Brazilian and one international) accounted for the publication of 44% of the Brazilian studies on microcrustaceans. We expect the frequency of studies employing newer technologies to increase in the coming years. Based on our findings, we propose that future studies should focus on the least well-studied states and should integrate biogeography and systematic approaches. Further data on the fauna within environmental sub-types in Brazil is required.Keywords: Cladocera, Copepoda, Ostracoda, Conchostraca, study approaches. Tendências nos estudos de microcrustáceos de água doce no Brasil entre 1990 e 2014 ResumoEsse estudo apresenta uma revisão cienciométrica para trabalhos com microcrustáceos de água doce (Copepoda, Ostracoda, Branchiopoda: Cladocera, Anostraca Notostraca e Conchostraca) no Brasil entre 1990-2014. Essa revisão foi baseada em 179 artigos científicos encontrados em quatro bases de dados, usando as seguintes palavras-chave: Microcrustáceos, Copepoda, Cyclopoida, Calanoida, Harpacticoida, Ergasilidae, Chydoridae, Daphniidae, Moinidae, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Conchostraca, Zooplankton, reservatório, rio, lagoas, áreas inundáveis, cavernas, lagos, limnologia, ecologia, aquático, taxonomia, sistemática, morfologia e biogeografia. Não foram encontrados estudos para microcrustáceos de água doce em quatro (Amapá, Roraima, Alagoas e Espírito Santo) dos 27 Estados da Federação Brasileira. Quarenta e cinco ...

Continental copepods (Crustacea: Hexanauplia) of Colombia: revision and additions to the inventory

“…The diversity of copepods in Colombian continental waters, including brackish species of coastal lagoons and ponds is with 119 species, lower than in Mexico (159 species) (Suárez-Morales et al, 1998). Considering only freshwater taxa (82 species and subspecies), the diversity of copepods in Colombia is lower than in Brazil (200) (Reid, 1998;Rocha & Botelho, 1998;Santos Silva, 1998;Previatelli & Santos-Silva, 2007;Perbiche-Neves et al, 2013;Silva & Perbiche-Neves, 2016;Corgosinho et al, 2017), similar to Mexico (78) (Suárez-Morales et al, 2000) and higher than in Venezuela (66) (Dussart, 1984), Cuba (56) (Collado et al, 1984) and Costa Rica (25) (Morales-Ramírez et al, 2014).…”

Distribution of planktonic microcrustaceans (Cladocera and Copepoda) in lentic and lotic environments from the semiarid region in northeastern Brazil

“…The knowledge of limnic microcrustaceans from 18 years ago was considered insufficient in Brazil (Elmoor-Loureiro, 2000), and currently, even with new research, little progress has been made to fill this gap, especially when considering the Northeastern region (Silva & Perbiche-Neves, 2017). According to Silva (2008), the endemism record per region is related to the number of specialists in each area, which makes it difficult, or even impossible, to compare results between regions.…”

Relationship between zooplankton richness and area in Brazilian lakes: comparing natural and artificial lakes and trends

“…Generally, artificial lakes with less than 39 Km 2 have microcrustacean richness up to ideal (equilibrium). The missing of diversity in the microfauna, in turn, places these small environments on the risks of ecological degradation, seen in the importance of microcrustaceans for the support of the trophic chain and quick response for environmental disturbances (Perbiche- Neves et al, 2016).…”

“…In Brazil, there are no studies that compared zooplankton diversity between natural and artificial lakes. Most of the studies focus on artificial lakes, especially reservoirs for hydropower generation (Silva & Perbiche-Neves, 2016). Brazilian natural lakes are formed by erosion or deposition in river banks, for example in Amazon, Doce, Paraguay, and Paraná River basins.…”