DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of Native Forest Dynamics Upon the Arrangements of Species in Oak Forests-Analysis of Heterogeneity Effects at the Example of Epigeal Arthropods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of Native Forest Dynamics Upon the Arrangements of Species in Oak Forests-Analysis of Heterogeneity Effects at the Example of Epigeal Arthropods Master thesis Summer term 2011 The effect of native forest dynamics upon the arrangements of species in oak forests-analysis of heterogeneity effects at the example of epigeal arthropods Die Auswirkungen natürlicher Walddynamiken auf die Artengefüge in Eichenwäldern: Untersuchung von Heterogenitätseffekten am Beispiel epigäischer Raubarthropoden Study course: Ecology, Evolution and Nature conservation (M.Sc.) University of Potsdam presented by Marco Langer 757463 1. Evaluator: Prof. Dr. Monika Wulf, Institut für Landnutzungssysteme Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung e.V. 2. Evaluator: Tim Mark Ziesche, Landeskompetenzzentrum Eberswalde Published online at the Institutional Repository of the University of Potsdam: URL http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2011/5558/ URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-55588 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-55588 Abstract The heterogeneity in species assemblages of epigeal spiders was studied in a natural forest and in a managed forest. Additionally the effects of small-scale microhabitat heterogeneity of managed and unmanaged forests were determined by analysing the spider assemblages of three different microhabitat structures (i. vegetation, ii. dead wood. iii. litter cover). The spider were collected in a block design by pitfall traps (n=72) in a 4-week interval. To reveal key environmental factors affecting the spider distribution abiotic and biotic habitat parameters (e.g. vegetation parameters, climate parameters, soil moisture) were assessed around each pitfall trap. A TWINSPAN analyses separated pitfall traps from the natural forest from traps of the managed forest. A subsequent discriminant analyses revealed that the temperature, the visible sky, the plant diversity and the mean diameter at breast height as key discriminant factors between the microhabitat groupings designated by The TWINSPAN analyses. Finally a Redundant analysis (RDA) was done revealing similar environmental factors responsible for the spider species distribution, as a good separation of the different forest types as well as the separation of the microhabitat groupings from The TWINSPAN. Overall the study revealed that the spider communities differed between the forest types as well as between the microhabitat structures and thus species distribution changed within a forest stand on a fine spatial scale. It was documented that the structure of managed forests affects the composition of spider assemblages compared to natural forests significantly and even small scale-heterogeneity seems to influence the spider species composition. I Abstract................................................................................................................................. I Figures .............................................................................................................................. IV Tables ................................................................................................................................. VII Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ IX 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Description of the study area ................................................................................... 4 2.2 Site selection and study design ............................................................................... 7 2.3 Data acquisition ....................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Invertebrate sampling .......................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Microhabitat measurements ...............................................................................10 2.4 Data Evaluation ......................................................................................................14 2.4.1 Pitfall traps .........................................................................................................14 2.4.2 Soil samples .......................................................................................................14 2.4.3 Additional evaluation ..........................................................................................15 2.5 Statistical analysis ..................................................................................................16 2.5.1 Species accumulation ........................................................................................16 2.5.2 Dominance .........................................................................................................17 2.5.3 Jaccard and Sørensen coefficient of the community...........................................18 2.5.4 Dominance identity .............................................................................................19 2.5.5 Multidimensional scaling ....................................................................................20 2.5.6 Guild composition ...............................................................................................20 2.5.7 Ecological type ...................................................................................................21 2.5.8 Diversity .............................................................................................................22 2.5.8.1 Shannon-Wiener-Index ................................................................................22 2.5.8.2 Evenness .....................................................................................................23 2.5.9 Rarefaction .........................................................................................................24 2.5.9.1 Hurlbert curve and estimation of α-diversity .................................................24 2.5.10 Spearman´s rank correlation coefficient .............................................................25 2.5.11 Habitat preference and Indicator analysis ...........................................................25 2.5.12 Twinspan analysis ..............................................................................................26 2.5.13 Discriminant analysis ..........................................................................................27 2.5.14 Redundancy analysis (RDA) ..............................................................................27 3 Results .........................................................................................................................28 3.1 Environmental parameters .....................................................................................28 3.1.1 Vegetation ..........................................................................................................28 3.1.2 Dead wood distribution .......................................................................................31 II 3.1.3 Climate of the local population ...........................................................................35 3.1.4 Soil parameters ..................................................................................................37 3.2 Faunistic .................................................................................................................40 3.2.1 Spectrum of species ...........................................................................................40 3.2.2 Species accumulation ........................................................................................44 3.2.3 Dominance .........................................................................................................46 3.2.4 Faunal similarity .................................................................................................46 3.2.5 Multidimensional scaling ....................................................................................48 3.2.6 Guild composition ...............................................................................................51 3.2.7 Ecological type ...................................................................................................53 3.2.8 Shannon- Weaver Diversity/ Evenness ..............................................................54 3.2.9 Rarefaction .........................................................................................................55 3.2.9.1 HURLBERT curve to examine the α-diversity ..............................................55 3.2.10 Species correlation to environmental parameters ...............................................59 3.2.11 Habitat preference of species .............................................................................60 3.2.12 Indicator species analysis ..................................................................................61 3.2.13 TWINSPAN analysis ..........................................................................................63 3.2.14 Discriminant analysis ..........................................................................................65 3.2.15 RDA analysis......................................................................................................68 4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................71 4.1 Relevance ..............................................................................................................71
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Checklist of the Non -Acarine Arachnids
    Original Research A CHECKLIST OF THE NON -A C A RINE A R A CHNIDS (CHELICER A T A : AR A CHNID A ) OF THE DE HOOP NA TURE RESERVE , WESTERN CA PE PROVINCE , SOUTH AFRIC A Authors: ABSTRACT Charles R. Haddad1 As part of the South African National Survey of Arachnida (SANSA) in conserved areas, arachnids Ansie S. Dippenaar- were collected in the De Hoop Nature Reserve in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. The Schoeman2 survey was carried out between 1999 and 2007, and consisted of five intensive surveys between Affiliations: two and 12 days in duration. Arachnids were sampled in five broad habitat types, namely fynbos, 1Department of Zoology & wetlands, i.e. De Hoop Vlei, Eucalyptus plantations at Potberg and Cupido’s Kraal, coastal dunes Entomology University of near Koppie Alleen and the intertidal zone at Koppie Alleen. A total of 274 species representing the Free State, five orders, 65 families and 191 determined genera were collected, of which spiders (Araneae) South Africa were the dominant taxon (252 spp., 174 genera, 53 families). The most species rich families collected were the Salticidae (32 spp.), Thomisidae (26 spp.), Gnaphosidae (21 spp.), Araneidae (18 2 Biosystematics: spp.), Theridiidae (16 spp.) and Corinnidae (15 spp.). Notes are provided on the most commonly Arachnology collected arachnids in each habitat. ARC - Plant Protection Research Institute Conservation implications: This study provides valuable baseline data on arachnids conserved South Africa in De Hoop Nature Reserve, which can be used for future assessments of habitat transformation, 2Department of Zoology & alien invasive species and climate change on arachnid biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Species 2010 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA
    Wild Species 2010 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2010: La situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract Wild Species 2010 is the third report of the series after 2000 and 2005. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide an overview on which species occur in Canada, in which provinces, territories or ocean regions they occur, and what is their status. Each species assessed in this report received a rank among the following categories: Extinct (0.2), Extirpated (0.1), At Risk (1), May Be At Risk (2), Sensitive (3), Secure (4), Undetermined (5), Not Assessed (6), Exotic (7) or Accidental (8). In the 2010 report, 11 950 species were assessed. Many taxonomic groups that were first assessed in the previous Wild Species reports were reassessed, such as vascular plants, freshwater mussels, odonates, butterflies, crayfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other taxonomic groups are assessed for the first time in the Wild Species 2010 report, namely lichens, mosses, spiders, predaceous diving beetles, ground beetles (including the reassessment of tiger beetles), lady beetles, bumblebees, black flies, horse flies, mosquitoes, and some selected macromoths. The overall results of this report show that the majority of Canada’s wild species are ranked Secure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spider Collection (Arachnida: Araneae) of the Zoological Museum of the Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, with New Species Records for Iran
    Arachnologische Mitteilungen 50: 11-18 Karlsruhe, November 2015 The spider collection (Arachnida: Araneae) of the Zoological Museum of the Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, with new species records for Iran Alireza Zamani doi: 10.5431/aramit5002 Abstract. The spider collection of the Zoological Museum of the Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection was studied during the summer of 2014. A total of 180 specimens, belonging to 25 families, 60 genera and 77 species were documented. Of these, the following nine species could be recorded from Iran for the first time: Alopecosa schmidti (Hahn, 1835), Anyphaena accentuata (Walckenaer, 1802), Crustulina sticta (O. P.-Cambridge, 1861), Enoplo- gnatha mordax (Thorell, 1875), Ero tuberculata (De Geer, 1778), Salticus zebraneus (C. L. Koch, 1837), Pardosa aenig- matica Tongiorgi, 1966, Pardosa nebulosa (Thorell, 1872) and Tmarus piochardi (Simon, 1866). Morphological and geographical data are provided for the newly recorded species. Two species (P. aenigmatica and T. piochardi) are illustrated and a map of localities is given. Keywords: fauna, Lycosidae, museum collection, Thomisidae Zusammenfassung. Die arachnologische Sammlung (Arachnida: Araneae) des Zoologischen Museums des iranischen Forschungsinstitutes für Pflanzenschutz, mit neuen Artnachweisen für den Iran. Im Sommer 2014 wurde die arachnologische Sammlung des Zoologischen Museums des iranischen Forschungsinstitutes für Pflan- zenschutz untersucht. Insgesamt 180 Individuen, die sich auf 25 Familien, 60 Gattungen und 77 Arten verteilen, konnten dabei vorgefunden werden. Darunter befanden sich insgesamt neun Neufunde für den Iran: Alopecosa schmidti (Hahn, 1835), Anyphaena accentuata (Walckenaer, 1802), Crustulina sticta (O. P.-Cambridge, 1861), Enoplog- natha mordax (Thorell, 1875), Ero tuberculata (De Geer, 1778), Salticus zebraneus (C. L.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Notes on Agroeca (Araneae, Liocranidae)
    Arachnol. Mitt. 37: 27-30 Nürnberg, Juli 2009 Taxonomic notes on Agroeca (Araneae, Liocranidae) Torbjörn Kronestedt Abstract: Agroeca gaunitzi Tullgren, 1952 is stated here to be a junior synonym of A. proxima (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871). The illustrations of the male palp attributed to A. proxima in papers by Tullgren of 1946 and 1952 in fact show A. inopina O. P.-Cambridge, 1886. The record of A. inopina from Finland, quite outside its known distribution range, was based on a misidentification. It is argued that the type species of the genus Agroeca Westring, 1861 should be A. proxima (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871), not A. brunnea (Blackwall, 1833) as currently applied. Protagroeca Lohmander, 1944 is placed as an objective synonym of Agroeca Westring, 1861. Key words: Agroeca gaunitzi, synonyms, type species On the identity of Agroeca gaunitzi Tullgren, 1952 Because Agroeca gaunitzi still appears as a valid Agroeca gaunitzi was described based on a single nominal species (HELSDINGEN 2009, PLATNICK male from the southern part of Swedish Lapland 2009), a re-study of the holotype was undertaken in (TULLGREN 1952). No additional specimens have order to clarify its identity. As a result, the following since been assigned to this nominal species and it conclusions were reached: was not mentioned in the most recent taxonomical revision of the genus (GRIMM 1986) nor in the 1. The holotype of Agroeca gaunitzi is a male of latest treatment of the family in Sweden (ALM- Agroeca proxima, thus making the former a junior QUIST 2006). synonym, syn. n. According to the original description, A. gau- 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher-Level Phylogenetics of Linyphiid Spiders (Araneae, Linyphiidae) Based on Morphological and Molecular Evidence
    Cladistics Cladistics 25 (2009) 231–262 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00249.x Higher-level phylogenetics of linyphiid spiders (Araneae, Linyphiidae) based on morphological and molecular evidence Miquel A. Arnedoa,*, Gustavo Hormigab and Nikolaj Scharff c aDepartament Biologia Animal, Universitat de Barcelona, Av. Diagonal 645, E-8028 Barcelona, Spain; bDepartment of Biological Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA; cDepartment of Entomology, Natural History Museum of Denmark, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Accepted 19 November 2008 Abstract This study infers the higher-level cladistic relationships of linyphiid spiders from five genes (mitochondrial CO1, 16S; nuclear 28S, 18S, histone H3) and morphological data. In total, the character matrix includes 47 taxa: 35 linyphiids representing the currently used subfamilies of Linyphiidae (Stemonyphantinae, Mynogleninae, Erigoninae, and Linyphiinae (Micronetini plus Linyphiini)) and 12 outgroup species representing nine araneoid families (Pimoidae, Theridiidae, Nesticidae, Synotaxidae, Cyatholipidae, Mysmenidae, Theridiosomatidae, Tetragnathidae, and Araneidae). The morphological characters include those used in recent studies of linyphiid phylogenetics, covering both genitalic and somatic morphology. Different sequence alignments and analytical methods produce different cladistic hypotheses. Lack of congruence among different analyses is, in part, due to the shifting placement of Labulla, Pityohyphantes,
    [Show full text]
  • First Records and Three New Species of the Family Symphytognathidae
    ZooKeys 1012: 21–53 (2021) A peer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1012.57047 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research First records and three new species of the family Symphytognathidae (Arachnida, Araneae) from Thailand, and the circumscription of the genus Crassignatha Wunderlich, 1995 Francisco Andres Rivera-Quiroz1,2, Booppa Petcharad3, Jeremy A. Miller1 1 Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Understanding Evolution group, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Darwin- weg 2, 2333CR Leiden, the Netherlands 2 Institute for Biology Leiden (IBL), Leiden University, Sylviusweg 72, 2333BE Leiden, the Netherlands 3 Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University, Rangsit, Pathum Thani, 12121 Thailand Corresponding author: Francisco Andres Rivera-Quiroz ([email protected]) Academic editor: D. Dimitrov | Received 29 July 2020 | Accepted 30 September 2020 | Published 26 January 2021 http://zoobank.org/4B5ACAB0-5322-4893-BC53-B4A48F8DC20C Citation: Rivera-Quiroz FA, Petcharad B, Miller JA (2021) First records and three new species of the family Symphytognathidae (Arachnida, Araneae) from Thailand, and the circumscription of the genus Crassignatha Wunderlich, 1995. ZooKeys 1012: 21–53. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1012.57047 Abstract The family Symphytognathidae is reported from Thailand for the first time. Three new species: Anapistula choojaiae sp. nov., Crassignatha seeliam sp. nov., and Crassignatha seedam sp. nov. are described and illustrated. Distribution is expanded and additional morphological data are reported for Patu shiluensis Lin & Li, 2009. Specimens were collected in Thailand between July and August 2018. The newly described species were found in the north mountainous region of Chiang Mai, and Patu shiluensis was collected in the coastal region of Phuket.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary List of Fossil Spiders
    A summary list of fossil spiders compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2010. A summary list of fossil spiders. In Platnick, N. I. (ed.) The world spider catalog, version 10.5. American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html Last udated: 10.12.2009 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the spider fossil record and numerous new taxa have been described. As part of a larger project to catalog the diversity of fossil arachnids and their relatives, our aim here is to offer a summary list of the known fossil spiders in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Catalog. For this reason some of the family groupings proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions. Extinct families have been inserted in the position which we hope best reflects their probable affinities. Genus and species names were compiled from established lists and cross-referenced against the primary literature.
    [Show full text]
  • 196 Arachnology (2019)18 (3), 196–212 a Revised Checklist of the Spiders of Great Britain Methods and Ireland Selection Criteria and Lists
    196 Arachnology (2019)18 (3), 196–212 A revised checklist of the spiders of Great Britain Methods and Ireland Selection criteria and lists Alastair Lavery The checklist has two main sections; List A contains all Burach, Carnbo, species proved or suspected to be established and List B Kinross, KY13 0NX species recorded only in specific circumstances. email: [email protected] The criterion for inclusion in list A is evidence that self- sustaining populations of the species are established within Great Britain and Ireland. This is taken to include records Abstract from the same site over a number of years or from a number A revised checklist of spider species found in Great Britain and of sites. Species not recorded after 1919, one hundred years Ireland is presented together with their national distributions, before the publication of this list, are not included, though national and international conservation statuses and syn- this has not been applied strictly for Irish species because of onymies. The list allows users to access the sources most often substantially lower recording levels. used in studying spiders on the archipelago. The list does not differentiate between species naturally Keywords: Araneae • Europe occurring and those that have established with human assis- tance; in practice this can be very difficult to determine. Introduction List A: species established in natural or semi-natural A checklist can have multiple purposes. Its primary pur- habitats pose is to provide an up-to-date list of the species found in the geographical area and, as in this case, to major divisions The main species list, List A1, includes all species found within that area.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Herunterladen
    Arachnologische Mitteilungen Heft 23 Basel, Mai 2002 ISSN 1018 - 4171 www.AraGes.de Arachnologische Mitteilungen Herausgeber: Arachnologische Gesellschaft e.V., Internet: www.AraGes.de Schriftleitung: Dr. Ulrich Sirnon, Bayerische Landesanstalt fur Wald und Forstwirtschaft, Sachgebiet 5: Waldokologie und Waldschutz, Am Hochanger 11, D-S5354 Freising, TeI. OSI611714661, e-mail: [email protected] Helmut Stumpf, Wandweg 5, D-970S0 Wiirzburg, TeI. 0931195646, FAX 0931/9701037 e-mail: [email protected] Redaktion: Theo Blick, Hummeltal Dr. Ulrich Simon, Freising Dr. Jason Dunlop, Berlin Helmut Stumpf, Wiirzburg Dr. Ambros Hanggi, Base! Gestaltung: Naturhistorisches Museum Basel, e-mail: [email protected] WissenschaftIicher Beirat: Dr. Peter Bliss, Halle (D) Dr. sc. Dieter Martin, Waren (D) Prof. Dr. Jan Buchar, Prag (CZ) Dr. Ralph Platen, Berlin (D) Prof. Peter J. van Helsdingen, Leiden (NL) Dr. Uwe Riecken, Bonn (D) Dr. Volker Mahnert, Genf (CH) Prof. Dr. Wojciech Starega, Bialystok (PL) Prof. Dr. Jochen Martens, Mainz (D) UD Dr. Konrad Thaler, Innsbruck (A) Erscheinungsweise: Pro Jahr 2 Hefte. Die Hefte sind laufend durchnumeriert und jeweils abgeschlossen paginiert. Der Umfang je Heft betragt ca. 60 Seiten. Erscheinungsort ist BaseI. Auflage 450 Expl., chlorfrei gebleichtes Papier Druckerei Schiiling Buchkurier, D-Miinster Bezug: Im Mitgliedsbeitrag der Arachnologischen Gesellschaft enthalten (15.- Euro pro Jahr), ansonsten betragt der Preis fur das Jahresabonnement Euro 15.-. Bestellungen sind zu richten an: DipI. BioI. Boris Striffler, Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Konig, Adenauer­ allee 160, D-53113 Bonn, TeI. ++49 228 9122-254, e-mail: [email protected] Die Kontonummer entnehmen Sie bitte dem nachsten Heft! Die Kiindigung des Abonnements ist jederzeit moglich, sie tritt spatestens beim iibernachsten Heft in Kraft.
    [Show full text]
  • SA Spider Checklist
    REVIEW ZOOS' PRINT JOURNAL 22(2): 2551-2597 CHECKLIST OF SPIDERS (ARACHNIDA: ARANEAE) OF SOUTH ASIA INCLUDING THE 2006 UPDATE OF INDIAN SPIDER CHECKLIST Manju Siliwal 1 and Sanjay Molur 2,3 1,2 Wildlife Information & Liaison Development (WILD) Society, 3 Zoo Outreach Organisation (ZOO) 29-1, Bharathi Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641004, India Email: 1 [email protected]; 3 [email protected] ABSTRACT Thesaurus, (Vol. 1) in 1734 (Smith, 2001). Most of the spiders After one year since publication of the Indian Checklist, this is described during the British period from South Asia were by an attempt to provide a comprehensive checklist of spiders of foreigners based on the specimens deposited in different South Asia with eight countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The European Museums. Indian checklist is also updated for 2006. The South Asian While the Indian checklist (Siliwal et al., 2005) is more spider list is also compiled following The World Spider Catalog accurate, the South Asian spider checklist is not critically by Platnick and other peer-reviewed publications since the last scrutinized due to lack of complete literature, but it gives an update. In total, 2299 species of spiders in 67 families have overview of species found in various South Asian countries, been reported from South Asia. There are 39 species included in this regions checklist that are not listed in the World Catalog gives the endemism of species and forms a basis for careful of Spiders. Taxonomic verification is recommended for 51 species. and participatory work by arachnologists in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on Interactions Between Aquatic And
    Effects of artificial light at night (ALAN) on interactions between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems Alessandro Manfrin Freie Universität Berlin Berlin, 2017 Effects of artificial light at night (ALAN) on interactions between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems Inaugural-Dissertation to obtain the academic degree Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in River Science submitted to the Department of Biology, Chemistry and Pharmacy of Freie Universität Berlin by ALESSANDRO MANFRIN from Rome, Italy Berlin, 2017 I This thesis work was conducted during the period 29th September 2013 – 21st February 2017, under the supervision of PD. Dr. Franz Hölker (Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Berlin), Dr. Michael T. Monaghan (Leibniz- Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Berlin), Prof. Dr. Klement Tockner (Freie Universität Berlin and Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Berlin), Dr. Cristina Bruno (Edmund Mach Foundation San Michele all´Adige) and Prof. Dr. Geraldene Wharton (Queen Mary University of London). This thesis work was conducted at Freie Universität Berlin, Queen Mary University of London and University of Trento. Partner institutes were Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries of Berlin and Edmund Mach Foundation of San Michele all´Adige. 1st Reviewer: PD. Dr. Franz Hölker 2nd Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Klement Tockner Date of defence: 22nd May 2017 II The SMART Joint Doctorate Programme Research for this thesis was conducted with the support of the Erasmus Mundus Programme1, within the framework of the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate (EMJD) SMART (Science for MAnagement of Rivers and their Tidal systems). EMJDs aim to foster cooperation between higher education institutions and academic staff in Europe and third countries with a view to creating centres of excellence and providing a highly skilled 21st century workforce enabled to lead social, cultural and economic developments.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Frontiers ALAN.Pdf
    fnins-14-602796 November 11, 2020 Time: 19:19 # 1 REVIEW published: 16 November 2020 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.602796 Exposure to Artificial Light at Night and the Consequences for Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems Jack Falcón1*, Alicia Torriglia2, Dina Attia3, Françoise Viénot4, Claude Gronfier5, Francine Behar-Cohen2, Christophe Martinsons6 and David Hicks7 1 Laboratoire Biologie des Organismes et Ecosystèmes Aquatiques (BOREA), MNHN, CNRS FRE 2030, SU, IRD 207, UCN, UA, Paris, France, 2 Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, INSERM U 1138, Ophtalmopole Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Université de Paris - SU, Paris, France, 3 ANSES, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Maisons-Alfort, France, 4 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France, 5 Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), Waking Team, Inserm UMRS 1028, CNRS UMR 5292, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France, 6 Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, Saint Martin d’Hères, France, 7 Inserm, CNRS, Institut des Neurosciences Cellulaires et Intégratives, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France The present review draws together wide-ranging studies performed over the last decades that catalogue the effects of artificial-light-at-night (ALAN) upon living species and their environment. We provide an overview of the tremendous variety of light- Edited by: Jacques Epelbaum, detection strategies which have evolved in living organisms - unicellular, plants and Institut National de la Santé et de la animals, covering chloroplasts (plants), and the plethora of ocular and extra-ocular Recherche Médicale, France organs (animals). We describe the visual pigments which permit photo-detection, Reviewed by: Randy J. Nelson, paying attention to their spectral characteristics, which extend from the ultraviolet West Virginia University, United States into infrared.
    [Show full text]