RESUMO
Temporary waters are common environments found in physical and biological substrates. Among them, some bromeliads species are known to hold water in their tanks, in a habitat called phytotelmata. Phytotelmata serve as habitats for several organisms, from bacteria and protists to arthropods and anurans. Peritrich ciliates are often found as epibionts on aquatic invertebrates in these environments. Here, we report two cases of epibiosis involving Lagenophrys sp. attached to ostracods (Elpidium spp.) and Rhabdostyla sp. colonizing hydrachnid mites in the tanks of two bromeliad species. In our analysis, we measured the frequency of epibiosis considering the presence of both basibiont and epibiont in the samples. The results shown a significant difference between Elpidium sp. and Lagenophrys sp. compared to hydrachnid mites and Rhabdostyla sp. (87.5% and 19%, respectively), supported by the Kruskal-Walis test (p = 0.0003, Chi-square = 9.687). These reports are important since the knowledge of phytotelmata communities from tropical and subtropical areas is incipient, although it has been increasing over the last years. It also shows that epibiosis doesn't always represent a beneficial relationship. These two epibiosis systems found in bromeliad tanks raise questions about organism's dispersal throughout other phytotelmata and other temporary water habitats.
Assuntos
Bromeliaceae , Cilióforos , Ácaros , Animais , Brasil , Crustáceos , Invertebrados , ÁguaRESUMO
Grazing exclusion may lead to biodiversity loss and homogenization of naturally heterogeneous and species-rich grassland ecosystems, and these effects may cascade to higher trophic levels and ecosystem properties. Although grazing exclusion has been studied elsewhere, the consequences of alleviating the disturbance regime in grassland ecosystems remain unclear. In this paper, we present results of the first five years of an experiment in native grasslands of southern Brazil. Using a randomized block experimental design, we examined the effects of three grazing treatments on plant and arthropod communities: (i) deferred grazing (i.e., intermittent grazing), (ii) grazing exclusion and (iii) a control under traditional continuous grazing, which were applied to 70 x 70 m experimental plots, in six regionally distributed blocks. We evaluated plant community responses regarding taxonomic and functional diversity (life-forms) in separate spatial components: alpha (1 x 1 m subplots), beta, and gamma (70 x 70 m plots), as well as the cascading effects on arthropod high-taxa. By estimating effect sizes (treatments vs. control) by bootstrap resampling, both deferred grazing and grazing exclusion mostly increased vegetation height, plant biomass and standing dead biomass. The effect of grazing exclusion on plant taxonomic diversity was negative. Conversely, deferred grazing increased plant taxonomic diversity, but both treatments reduced plant functional diversity. Reduced grazing pressure in both treatments promoted the break of dominance by prostrate species, followed by fast homogenization of vegetation structure towards dominance of ligneous and erect species. These changes in the plant community led to increases in high-taxa richness and abundance of vegetation-dwelling arthropod groups under both treatments, but had no detectable effects on epigeic arthropods. Our results indicate that decision-making regarding the conservation of southern Brazil grasslands should include both intensive and alleviated levels of grazing management, but not complete grazing exclusion, to maximize conservation results when considering plant and arthropod communities.
Assuntos
Artrópodes/fisiologia , Herbivoria , Poaceae/fisiologia , Animais , Artrópodes/classificação , Biodiversidade , Biomassa , Brasil , Conservação dos Recursos Naturais , Ecossistema , Pradaria , Poaceae/classificaçãoRESUMO
The level of endemism at a site may indicate species richness of the site. Nevertheless, assessing endemism levels in taxonomic groups such as plants may be difficult because the species richness of plants is high relative to species richness of other taxonomic groups (e.g., vertebrates). A major problem in determining whether plant species are endemic is the lack of standardization of the geographic extent of endemism: species are considered endemic to, for example, countries, continents, or states. We compiled a history of the concept of endemism as it applies to plants. The application of the concept to geographic distribution dates from the 19th century, when European explorers discovered many taxa exclusive to regions outside Europe. Two types of endemism, paleoendemism and neoendemism, were then acknowledged, according to evolutionary age, and these categories are still in use. In the 20th century, most of the research on endemism focused on explaining range restriction on the basis of cytological data, edaphic and geological factors, and phylogeny. This research led to a vast number of concepts, of which only edaphic endemism remains relatively well accepted. More recently, researchers suggest that competition may determine endemism in some cases. We suggest that plants be labeled as endemic only if their distribution occurs in a distinct ecological unit, such as a biome. On the basis of a literature review of the factors that cause range restriction, we categorized endemic taxa as paleoendemic, neoendemic, edaphically endemic, or suppressed endemic. For example, Schlechtendalia luzulifolia, is a rare forb that is a paleoendemic species of the granite and sandstone-based grasslands of the Pampa. Levels of endemism in southern Brazilian grasslands are poorly known. We emphasize the importance of recognizing these grasslands as a single transnational biome so that levels of endemism of species therein can be assessed correctly.