Invertebrate dispersal by waterbird species in neotropical wetlands

Silva, G. G.; Green, A. J.; Stenert, C.; Maltchik, L.

doi:10.1590/1519-6984.250280

G. G. Silva ^**e-mail: giliandrog@gmail.com

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, Laboratory of Ecology and Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems, São Leopoldo, RS, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5903-4043

A. J. Green

Estación Biológica de Doñana – EBD-CSIC, Department of Wetland Ecology, Sevilla, Spain

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1268-4951

C. Stenert

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, Laboratory of Ecology and Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems, São Leopoldo, RS, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9095-2018

L. Maltchik

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande – FURG, Graduate Program in Biology of Continental Aquatic Environments, Rio Grande, RS, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5321-7524

*e-mail: giliandrog@gmail.com

Figures (2)
Tables (4)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Ordination (Principal Coordinate Analysis) of invertebrate taxonomic composition (propagules and hatchlings) and how it varied among bird species (based on data from ). The combined amount of variation explained by the axes was 57% (Axis 1 = 39% and Axis 2 = 18%). Bird species are represented by initials: CS = coscoroba swan; RT = ringed teal; WF = white-faced whistling-duck; YT = yellow-billed teal; SC = southern screamer; ST = silver teal; ES = Egretta spp; and BI = buff-necked ibis. Dots represent samples.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Ordination (Principal Coordinate Analysis) of taxonomic composition of invertebrate propagules and how it varied among Cold and Warm periods, considering only Anatidae species (based on data in ). The total variation explained by the axes was 56% (Axis 1 = 36% and Axis 2 = 20%). Dots represent samples.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Invertebrate propagules recovered from waterbird faecal samples. n = total number of samples per waterbird species, (s) = number of samples with propagules, a= number of propagules found in the samples.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Frequency of invertebrate hatchings (samples in which hatching was observed, divided by the total samples for each waterbird species, multiplied by 100) from organic material remaining after waterbird faeces had been sieved, and after intact propagules seen under the binocular microscope had been removed (i.e. those from ).

Thumbnail

Table 3
Summary of all run models explaining Richness and Abundance of invertebrates found in faeces of waterbirds in southern Brazil. Both variables were affected by the bird species and not by sample weight. All models included wetlands as random factors (1 | Wetland) and (1 | Collect Event). Richness models considered both invertebrate eggs and uncountable hatchlings from organic material of individual samples. Abundance models considered only the eggs found in the faeces (countable). Details are only shown for models with ΔAIC<2.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Summary of the best fitted models explaining Richness and Abundance of invertebrate eggs found in faeces of waterbirds in southern Brazil, using only Anatidae species with adequate temporal repetition in order to analyse the effect of seasonality. All models included wetlands as random factors (1 | Wetland) and (1 | Collect Event). Richness models considered both invertebrate eggs and uncountable hatchlings from organic material of individual samples. Abundance models considered only the eggs found in the faeces (countable). Details are only shown for models with ΔAIC<2.

			YT			RT			SC			CS			WF			ES			BI
			n (s) = 17 (4)			n (s) = 29 (2)			n(s) = 18 (3)			n (s) = 27 (13)			n (s) = 34 (6)			n (s) = 6 (1)			n (s) = 14 (2)
			a		(s)	a		(s)	a		(s)	a		(s)	a		(s)	a		(s)	a		(s)
Cladocera
	Daphnia sp.	Ephippia										1	(1)
Insecta
	Notonectidae	Egg	9	(4)					6	(2)		10	(3)		5	(5)					2	(1)
Bryozoa
	Plumatella sp.	Statoblast				2	(2)		1	(1)		2	(2)		2	(2)		1	(1)		1	(1)
Platyhelminthes
	Temnocephalida	Egg										61	(8)
Non identified
	Morphotype 1											58	(1)
	Morphotype 2	Egg										1	(1)
	Morphotype 3	Egg										1	(1)
	Morphotype 4	Egg										1	(1)

Taxa		BT	YT	ST	RT	SC	CS	WF	ES	RC	BH	PI	BI
		n = 28	n = 17	n = 2	n = 29	n = 18	n = 27	n = 34	n = 6	n = 7	n = 13	n = 2	n = 14
Ciliophora
	Paramecium sp.	0.0	0.0	50.0	3.4	0.0	3.7	2.9	33.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	14.3
	Litostomatea	0.0	11.8	0.0	3.4	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7.1
	Non-identified	17.9	41.2	0.0	17.2	27.7	14.8	23.5	33.3	71.4	30.8	50.0	35.7
Nematoda
	Non-identified	3.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	21.4
Rotifera
	Adineta sp.	3.6	0.0	0.0	3.4	0.0	7.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	14.3
	Nottomatidae	3.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Variable	Models	ΔAIC	Weight (AIC)	Factor	AIC	df	LR Chisq	P-value
Richness
Model 1	~Bird	0.0	0.45		419.73	17	29.503	0.005

Model 2	~Bird+ Weight	1.1	0.27		420.79	18
				Bird	423.84		29.046	0.006
				Weight	419.73		0.941	0.332
Model 3	~1	2.1	0.16
Model 4	~ Weight	2.7	0.12
Abundance
Model 1	~Bird + Weight	0.0	0.59		292.96	18
				Bird	322.48		55.517	<0.001
				Weight	294.18		3.221	0.073

Model 2	~Bird	0.7	0.41		293.68	17	80.551	<0.001

Model 3	~Weight	20.3	<0.01
Model 4	~1	38.0	<0.01

Variable	Model	ΔAIC	Weight (AIC)	Factor	df	AIC	LR Chisq	P-value
Richness
Model 1	~Bird + Season + Weight + Bird*Season	0.0	0.89		14	265.13
				Weight		264.94	1.808	0.179
				Bird*Season		273.46	16.331	0.003
Model 2	~Bird	5.5	0.06
Model 3	~Bird + Weight	6.4	0.04
Model 4	~Weight	8.4	0.01
Model 5	~1	10.9	<0.01
Model 6	~Season	12.8	<0.01
Abundance
Model 1	~ Bird +Season + Weight +Bird *Season	0.0	0.38		14	225.15
				Weight		228.57	5.415	0.020
				Bird *Season		224.70	7.544	0.110

Model 2	~ Bird+ Weight	0.2	0.34		9	225.37
				Bird		248.85	31.481	<0.001
				Weight		225.92	2.548	0.110

Model 3	~Bird	0.6	0.28		8	271.23	53.481	<0.001
Model 4	~Weight	19.0	<0.01
Model 5	~Season	32.6	<0.01
Model 6	~1	35.3	<0.01

[1] *e-mail: giliandrog@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Invertebrate dispersal by waterbird species in neotropical wetlands

A dispersão de invertebrados por aves aquáticas na região neotropical

Abstract