Manzotti, Angelo Rodrigo; Ceneviva-Bastos, Mônica; Teresa, Fabrício Barreto; Casatti, Lilian

Angelo Rodrigo Manzotti

Departamento de Zoologia e Botânica, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP), Rua Cristóvão Colombo Street, 2265, 15054-000 São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil. (ARM) armanzotti@gmail.com, (LC) licasatti@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4181-8645

Mônica Ceneviva-Bastos

Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste (UNICENTRO), Rua Simeão Camargo Varela de Sa, 03, 85040-080 Guarapuava, PR, Brazil. mcbastos@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4932-9320

Fabrício Barreto Teresa

Campus de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, Universidade Estadual de Goiás (UEG), Rodovia BR-153, 3105, 75132-903 Anápolis, GO, Brazil. fabricioteresa@yahoo.com.br

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1357-4391

Lilian Casatti

Departamento de Zoologia e Botânica, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP), Rua Cristóvão Colombo Street, 2265, 15054-000 São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil. (ARM) armanzotti@gmail.com, (LC) licasatti@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2966-0905

Correspondence

Angelo Rodrigo Manzotti (armanzotti@gmail.com)

Edited by

Fernando Pelicice

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Angelo Rodrigo Manzotti: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing (original draft).

Mônica Ceneviva-Bastos: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing (review & editing).

Fabrício Barreto Teresa: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing (review & editing).

Lilian Casatti: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing (review & editing).

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors declare no competing interests.

ETHICAL STATEMENT

All captured specimens (license number 11435) were euthanized by eugenol overexposure (300 mg / L), subsequently fixed in 10% formalin solution and, after 48 h, transferred to 70% EtOH solution.

Figuras (4)
Tabelas (3)

Thumbnail

FIGURE 1
| Map of the study area, highlighting the state of São Paulo and the location of the streams within the watersheds: Tietê River (streams P1, P2, P6 and P7), São José dos Dourados River (P3 and P4), and Turvo River (P5 and P8).

Thumbnail

FIGURE 2
| Details of the structure used in the experiment. A. top view; B. side view; C. representation of the placement of the leaf-packs; D. cross section of the stream channel showing details of how the structure was placed in the stream; E. top view of the structure showing the points where the iron rods were installed.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 3
| Physical changes in stream reaches: A. Picture of the buried structure in P2; B. P3 stream reach at the beginning of the experiment; C. P3 stream reach at the end of the experiment, illustrating organic matter retention by the woody structure; D. macrophytes retention by wire in P8; E. growth of periphyton on the wood; F. growth of algae on the wood.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 4
| Changes in environmental parameters (mean ± sd) depth, flow and structural diversity in pre and post-restoration conditions. C= Control treatment, W= Wood treatment, WL= Wood/leaf treatment, *= p-values <0,05.

Thumbnail

TABLE 1
| Description of five functional traits and 22 trait categories used to characterize fish species, including aspects of ecology, feeding behaviour and habitat use. ¹Casatti (2002Casatti L. Alimentação dos peixes em um riacho do Parque Estadual Morro do Diabo, bacia do Alto Rio Paraná, sudeste do Brasil. Biota Neotrop. 2002; 2(2):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032002000200012
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-0603200200... ), Casatti et al. (2003Casatti L, Mendes HF, Ferreira KM. Aquatic macrophytes as feeding site for small fishes in the Rosana reservoir, Paranapanema river, southeastern Brazil. Braz J Biol. 2003; 63(2):213-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842003000200006
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-6984200300... ), and Teresa, Casatti (2012Teresa FB, Casatti L. Influence of forest cover and mesohabitats types on functional and taxonomic diversity of fish communities in Neotropical lowland streams. Ecol Freshw Fish . 2012; 21(3):433-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2012.00562.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2012... ). ²Casatti et al. (2001Casatti L, Langeani F, Castro RMC. Peixes de riacho do Parque Estadual Morro do Diabo, bacia do alto rio Paraná, SP. Biota Neotrop . 2001; 1:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032001000100005
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-0603200100... ), Casatti (2002Casatti L. Alimentação dos peixes em um riacho do Parque Estadual Morro do Diabo, bacia do Alto Rio Paraná, sudeste do Brasil. Biota Neotrop. 2002; 2(2):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032002000200012
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-0603200200... ) and personal observations.

Thumbnail

TABLE 2
| Taxonomic and functional diversity of stream fish communities in each stream (P1-P8), for the pre- and post-restoration periods, and across the three treatments (Control, Wood and Wood/Leaf). Mean and standard deviation (sd) are also shown.

Thumbnail

TABLE 3
| Species contribution to dissimilarity between the pre- and post-retoration periods of the Wood/Leaf treatment. a = Contribution of each species to the mean dissimilarity between groups. b = Mean dissimilarity between groups ± standard deviation. c = Contribution percentage of each species (> 5.0%) to the dissimilarity between groups.

Traits	Trait categories
Ecology and feeding behaviour
Diet1	Omnivore, periphytivore, insectivore, carnivore or detritivore
Feeding tactic2	Water column feeding, substrate speculation, stealth, predation, grazing, nocturnal predation or digging
Habitat use1
Flow preference	Slow, intermediate or fast
Stable substrate preference	High, moderate or low
Position in water column	Surface, nektonic, nektobenthic, margins or benthic

Response variable	Sites	Control		Wood		Wood/Leaf
Response variable	Sites	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Taxonomic diversity (richness)	P1	6	7	10	9	8	8
	P3	6	3	3	3	5	4
	P4	8	7	7	12	6	8
	P6	4	10	7	6	5	10
	P7	10	7	9	6	5	5
	P8	9	10	12	5	8	6
	Mean±sd	7.2±2.2	7.3±2.6	8.0±3.1	6.8±3.2	6.2±1.5	6.8±2.2
Taxonomic diversity (shannon)	P1	1.39	1.48	2.02	2.02	1.66	1.44
	P3	0.61	0.29	0.79	0.95	1.34	1.21
	P4	1.37	1.25	1.51	2.04	1.59	1.92
	P6	1.07	1.72	1.61	1.61	1.61	1.96
	P7	1.71	1.70	1.73	1.43	1.23	1.44
	P8	1.69	1.76	2.01	1.36	1.82	1.54
	Mean±sd	1.30±0.41	1.37±0.56	1.61±0.45	1.57±0.42	1.54±0.22	1.58±0.30
Functional diversity (MPD)	P1	0.65	0.63	0.75	0.74	0.72	0.76
	P3	0.75	0.68	0.82	0.82	0.70	0.81
	P4	0.61	0.71	0.71	0.72	0.68	0.75
	P6	0.74	0.73	0.74	0.74	0.76	0.74
	P7	0.75	0.67	0.72	0.73	0.73	0.72
	P8	0.73	0.74	0.74	0.69	0.69	0.73
	Mean±sd	0.70±0.06	0.69±0.04	0.75±0.04	0.73±0.06	0.71±0.03	0.75±0.03
Functional diversity (MPD)	P1	0.18	0.42	0.35	0.33	0.36	0.41
	P3	0.46	0.54	0.82	0.82	0.31	0.77
	P4	0.19	0.35	0.48	0.38	0.50	0.49
	P6	0.60	0.43	0.38	0.48	0.60	0.35
	P7	0.48	0.38	0.37	0.45	0.48	0.45
	P8	0.37	0.41	0.37	0.38	0.29	0.36
	Mean±sd	0.38±0.17	0.42±0.06	0.46±0.18	0.47±0.18	0.43±0.12	0.47±0.16

Species	Mean abundancea		Mean dissimilarityb	Contribution %c
Species	Pre	Post	Mean dissimilarityb	Contribution %c
Piabina argentea	0.13	0.11	8.74 ± 0.98	11.61
Poecilia reticulata	0.17	0.1	7.67 ± 1.32	10.19
Cetopsorhamdia iheringi	0.04	0.12	6.53 ± 0.86	8.67
Aspidoras fuscoguttatus	0.12	0.03	5.82 ± 0.94	7.73
Imparfinis schubarti	0.14	0.1	5.8 ± 1.42	7.71
Astyanax cf. paranae	0.1	0.06	5.46 ± 1.01	7.26
Hypostomus variipictus	0	0.1	5.15 ± 0.46	6.84
Oligosarcus pintoi	0.01	0.09	4.87 ± 0.55	6.47
Hisonotus francirochai	0	0.08	3.8 ± 0.92	5.05

[1] Correspondence

Angelo Rodrigo Manzotti (armanzotti@gmail.com)

Brasil

Brasil

Short-term response of fish assemblages to instream habitat restoration in heavily impacted streams

RESUMO