Winter Microhabitat Selection and Growth of Jacky Dragons (Amphibolurus muricatus)

Copeia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-625
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Hall ◽  
Daniel A. Warner
Keyword(s):  
Microhabitat Selection ◽  
Amphibolurus Muricatus

Microhabitat selection and diel patterns of zooplankton in a Mediterranean temporary pond

Hydrobiologia ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 766 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Compte ◽  
Marc Montenegro ◽  
Albert Ruhí ◽  
Stéphanie Gascón ◽  
Jordi Sala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Temporary Pond ◽  
Microhabitat Selection ◽  
Diel Patterns ◽  
Mediterranean Temporary Pond

scholarly journals Microhabitat selection and distribution of functional feeding groups of mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera) in lotic karst habitats

2018 ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Vilenica ◽  
Andreja Brigić ◽  
Michel Sartori ◽  
Zlatko Mihaljević
Keyword(s):  
Water Current ◽  
Functional Feeding Groups ◽  
Feeding Strategies ◽  
Microhabitat Selection ◽  
Dinaric Karst ◽  
Feeding Groups ◽  
Microhabitat Preferences ◽  
One Year ◽  
Physical And Chemical ◽  
Chemical Water

Research examining mayfly ecology in karst streams and rivers has increased in recent years, though microhabitat preferences remain poorly characterized. We examined mayfly assemblage taxonomy, functional feeding groups and microhabitat preferences in two contrasting lotic Dinaric karst catchments, one pristine and one anthropogenically impacted. At monthly intervals over a one-year period, all major microhabitats (i.e. dominated by boulders, cobbles, sand, silt, mosses, or angiosperms) were sampled at sites spanning springs, upper, middle and lower river reaches, and tufa barriers. In both catchments, mayfly species richness was comparable among microhabitats, while mayfly abundance was highest on mosses and lowest on silt. NMDS ordination did not group assemblages according to microhabitat type, which may reflect the greater influence of physical and chemical water properties. In both catchments and all microhabitats, mayfly assemblages were dominated by grazers/scrapers at upstream sites and by detritivores at downstream sites. Active filter feeders were more abundant in microhabitats with silt substrates and lower current velocities. This study demonstrated that certain mayfly species strongly preferred a specific microhabitat type, reflecting their water current preferences and feeding strategies, while other species shifted between microhabitats, likely in search of food resources and shelter. The results emphasize the importance of habitat heterogeneity in supporting diverse communities in karst rivers.

Differences in microhabitat selection patterns between a remnant and constructed landscape following management intervention

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose W. Valdez ◽  
Kaya Klop-Toker ◽  
Michelle P. Stockwell ◽  
Loren Fardell ◽  
Simon Clulow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aquatic Vegetation ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Microhabitat Use ◽  
Microhabitat Selection ◽  
Habitat Creation ◽  
Litoria Aurea ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Detection Probabilities ◽  
Future Management

Context Achieving successful conservation outcomes in habitat creation and reintroductions requires an understanding of how species use their habitat and respond to these interventions. However, few initiatives directly compare microhabitat selection between remnant and managed habitats to measure effectiveness and evaluate outcomes. Probability of detection is also rarely included in studies on microhabitat use, which may lead to erroneous conclusions if detectability varies between variables. Methods In this study, we used the endangered green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) to compare differences in microhabitat-use patterns in both a remnant and a constructed habitat. A detectability study was also conducted to determine detection probabilities among microhabitats. Key results Aquatic vegetation was used more than expected in both the remnant and constructed habitats, and rock piles were utilised less than expected in the constructed habitat, despite their recommendation in most habitat templates. We found that detection probabilities altered the outcomes of abundance estimates for nearly all the measured microhabitat variables. Conclusions Future management for this species should focus on providing high proportions of aquatic vegetation. Furthermore, although rock piles have been utilised greatly in past L. aurea habitat creation, placing large rocks on a managed site is expensive and time consuming. Future management initiatives may need to focus on providing smaller proportion of rocks, which would be a more appropriate use of resources. Implications With conservation management projects increasing over the next few decades, understanding habitat use before implementing strategies should be a priority as it will provide important insights and inform decision-making for optimum habitat creation and restoration. Furthermore, accounting for detectability in microhabitat use studies is essential to avoid wrong conclusions that may negatively affect the success of ecological management strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document