Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais?
| Ano de defesa: | 2018 |
|---|---|
| Autor(a) principal: | |
| Orientador(a): | |
| Banca de defesa: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
| Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: | por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: | |
| Link de acesso: | https://hdl.handle.net/1843/36026 |
Resumo: | To better identify the connection between environmental variables and phytoplankton communities, we can study nearly distributed lenthic systems, which are thus affected by the same climatic conditions. In these studies, the community structure is generally simplified by classifications based on the organism’s functions, physiology or morphological traits. We aimed to compare the efficiency of assemblages based on taxonomy and the morphology based functional groups (MBFG) classification to explain variations in phytoplankton communities under different environmental conditions. Our hypotheses are: 1) spatial variations in environmental conditions are more important than temporal variations; 2) MBFG’s are more efficient to explain the difference between systems. Physical and chemical variables were different among the six reservoirs studied, resulting in a pattern of similarity that was reflected in the structure of phytoplankton community, for both taxonomical and morphological groups. Differences among reservoirs were mainly determined by nutrients concentrations, reflected in the trophic state index. Even though seasonality moderately homogenized the systems, both classifications distinguished the communities with similar explanatory power (16% for taxonomy and 17% for MBFG), and were influenced by the same environmental variables. However, the classification in MBFG was more efficient to distinguish systems, the influence of environmental conditions on phytoplankton composition can be better evaluated based on this classification. The morphological classification can be useful for long-term monitoring programs or studies that compare a great number of systems, due to its simplicity and easiness, compared to taxonomic classification. |
| id |
UFMG_9af2c2a1c26c7aecf1448cf741429bd7 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/36026 |
| network_acronym_str |
UFMG |
| network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
2021-05-21T16:38:22Z2025-09-09T00:52:42Z2021-05-21T16:38:22Z2018-01-21https://hdl.handle.net/1843/36026To better identify the connection between environmental variables and phytoplankton communities, we can study nearly distributed lenthic systems, which are thus affected by the same climatic conditions. In these studies, the community structure is generally simplified by classifications based on the organism’s functions, physiology or morphological traits. We aimed to compare the efficiency of assemblages based on taxonomy and the morphology based functional groups (MBFG) classification to explain variations in phytoplankton communities under different environmental conditions. Our hypotheses are: 1) spatial variations in environmental conditions are more important than temporal variations; 2) MBFG’s are more efficient to explain the difference between systems. Physical and chemical variables were different among the six reservoirs studied, resulting in a pattern of similarity that was reflected in the structure of phytoplankton community, for both taxonomical and morphological groups. Differences among reservoirs were mainly determined by nutrients concentrations, reflected in the trophic state index. Even though seasonality moderately homogenized the systems, both classifications distinguished the communities with similar explanatory power (16% for taxonomy and 17% for MBFG), and were influenced by the same environmental variables. However, the classification in MBFG was more efficient to distinguish systems, the influence of environmental conditions on phytoplankton composition can be better evaluated based on this classification. The morphological classification can be useful for long-term monitoring programs or studies that compare a great number of systems, due to its simplicity and easiness, compared to taxonomic classification.CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFAPEMIG - Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisOutra AgênciaporUniversidade Federal de Minas Geraishttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFunção ecológicaEstrutura de comunidadesMorfologiaTaxonomiaEcologiaClassificaçãoMorfologia (Biologia)FitoplânctonAgrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais?info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisArthur Cupertino Serpa dos Santosreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMGhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0130610326759201Cleber Cunha Figueredohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/8962850253839431Gabriela von RückertAmbientes lênticos localizados próximos uns dos outros são afetados similarmente pelo clima regional, sendo muito úteis para identificar relações entre o fitoplâncton e variáveis ambientais. Para isso, a estrutura da comunidade pode ser sintetizada em agrupamentos baseados na função, características fisiológicas ou morfológicas dos organismos. O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar a eficiência da classificação taxonômica com a de grupos funcionais baseados na morfologia (GFBM) para explicar as respostas do fitoplâncton às diferenças ambientais em seis reservatórios tropicais. As hipóteses são: 1) as variações espaciais das condições ambientais serão mais importantes que as variações temporais; 2) a classificação em GFBM é mais eficiente em explicar as diferenças entre os ambientes. Em termos físicos e químicos, verificou-se diferenças entre os reservatórios, coincidindo com o padrão de diferenciação registrado em relação à estrutura da comunidade fitoplanctônica, tanto para a classificação taxonômica quanto nos GFBMs. Em termos físicos e químicos, os ambientes se diferenciaram principalmente pela concentração de nutrientes, refletido também pelo índice de estado trófico. Apesar de a sazonalidade homogeneizar moderadamente os ambientes, notou-se que as comunidades diferiram entre si para ambas as classificações e estas apresentaram poder explicativo similar (16% para a taxonômica e 17% para os GFBMs) e foram associadas às mesmas variáveis ambientais. Entretanto, a classificação funcional foi mais eficiente em diferenciar um maior número de reservatórios, o que permite uma melhor avaliação da influência das condições ambientais sobre a composição das comunidades. A simplicidade e facilidade de uso dos GFBM frente à classificação taxonômica fazem com que essa classificação seja mais aplicável para monitoramentos de longa duração ou para comparação de um grande número de ambientes.BrasilICB - INSTITUTO DE CIÊNCIAS BIOLOGICASPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Conservacao e Manejo da Vida SilvestreUFMGORIGINALDISSERTAÇÃO - ARTHUR CUPERTINO.pdfapplication/pdf1360416https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/a2ecbdb4-d0b8-407e-a19a-3bb2b219b28c/downloadba6fe6ed3c482a6f6374a9517df3c3abMD51trueAnonymousREADCC-LICENSElicense_rdfapplication/octet-stream811https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/288c5786-582b-49cb-8742-7562576dfe6e/downloadcfd6801dba008cb6adbd9838b81582abMD52falseAnonymousREADLICENSElicense.txttext/plain2119https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/c096716d-cf78-41ab-a341-b5e50c9986b0/download34badce4be7e31e3adb4575ae96af679MD53falseAnonymousREADTEXTDISSERTAÇÃO - ARTHUR CUPERTINO.pdf.txtDISSERTAÇÃO - ARTHUR CUPERTINO.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain85959https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/1d4a1923-bc9d-462f-979e-1f495c96e007/download562d13c8218ec2d0fb2c8102d2c52889MD54falseAnonymousREADTHUMBNAILDISSERTAÇÃO - ARTHUR CUPERTINO.pdf.jpgDISSERTAÇÃO - ARTHUR CUPERTINO.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg3267https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/0142a255-3b12-4aca-bb85-b4ceb7ce38d8/download7c0d3310ac5867808459a336d427618bMD55falseAnonymousREAD1843/360262025-09-09 15:16:07.517http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/Acesso Abertoopen.accessoai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/36026https://repositorio.ufmg.br/Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oairepositorio@ufmg.bropendoar:2025-09-09T18:16:07Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)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 |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| title |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| spellingShingle |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? Arthur Cupertino Serpa dos Santos Ecologia Classificação Morfologia (Biologia) Fitoplâncton Função ecológica Estrutura de comunidades Morfologia Taxonomia |
| title_short |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| title_full |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| title_fullStr |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| title_sort |
Agrupamento taxonômico ou funcional do fitoplâncton: qual o melhor descritor das condições ambientais? |
| author |
Arthur Cupertino Serpa dos Santos |
| author_facet |
Arthur Cupertino Serpa dos Santos |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Arthur Cupertino Serpa dos Santos |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Ecologia Classificação Morfologia (Biologia) Fitoplâncton |
| topic |
Ecologia Classificação Morfologia (Biologia) Fitoplâncton Função ecológica Estrutura de comunidades Morfologia Taxonomia |
| dc.subject.other.none.fl_str_mv |
Função ecológica Estrutura de comunidades Morfologia Taxonomia |
| description |
To better identify the connection between environmental variables and phytoplankton communities, we can study nearly distributed lenthic systems, which are thus affected by the same climatic conditions. In these studies, the community structure is generally simplified by classifications based on the organism’s functions, physiology or morphological traits. We aimed to compare the efficiency of assemblages based on taxonomy and the morphology based functional groups (MBFG) classification to explain variations in phytoplankton communities under different environmental conditions. Our hypotheses are: 1) spatial variations in environmental conditions are more important than temporal variations; 2) MBFG’s are more efficient to explain the difference between systems. Physical and chemical variables were different among the six reservoirs studied, resulting in a pattern of similarity that was reflected in the structure of phytoplankton community, for both taxonomical and morphological groups. Differences among reservoirs were mainly determined by nutrients concentrations, reflected in the trophic state index. Even though seasonality moderately homogenized the systems, both classifications distinguished the communities with similar explanatory power (16% for taxonomy and 17% for MBFG), and were influenced by the same environmental variables. However, the classification in MBFG was more efficient to distinguish systems, the influence of environmental conditions on phytoplankton composition can be better evaluated based on this classification. The morphological classification can be useful for long-term monitoring programs or studies that compare a great number of systems, due to its simplicity and easiness, compared to taxonomic classification. |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2018-01-21 |
| dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2021-05-21T16:38:22Z 2025-09-09T00:52:42Z |
| dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2021-05-21T16:38:22Z |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| format |
masterThesis |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/1843/36026 |
| url |
https://hdl.handle.net/1843/36026 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
| language |
por |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pt/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMG instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG |
| instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
| instacron_str |
UFMG |
| institution |
UFMG |
| reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
| collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/a2ecbdb4-d0b8-407e-a19a-3bb2b219b28c/download https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/288c5786-582b-49cb-8742-7562576dfe6e/download https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/c096716d-cf78-41ab-a341-b5e50c9986b0/download https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/1d4a1923-bc9d-462f-979e-1f495c96e007/download https://repositorio.ufmg.br//bitstreams/0142a255-3b12-4aca-bb85-b4ceb7ce38d8/download |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
ba6fe6ed3c482a6f6374a9517df3c3ab cfd6801dba008cb6adbd9838b81582ab 34badce4be7e31e3adb4575ae96af679 562d13c8218ec2d0fb2c8102d2c52889 7c0d3310ac5867808459a336d427618b |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositorio@ufmg.br |
| _version_ |
1862105571277144064 |