Environmental factors affect macrophyte diversity on Amazonian aquatic ecosystems inserted in an anthropogenic landscape
Open accessAbstract
Land use is considered one of the most serious drivers of biodiversity change. Aquatic macrophytes are sensitive to changes occurring within their physical habitat and respond at different scales to the effects of land use. Our main objective was to evaluate the effects of multiple land uses on macrophyte diversity. For that, we surveyed aquatic macrophyte richness and cover, in addition to local (water parameters and canopy cover) and landscape (land use and land cover) environmental variables. We evaluated 30 aquatic ecosystems and the results showed canopy cover was negatively correlated with temperature and land use gradient, indicating this parameter reflects land use change within sites. Species richness was affected negatively by canopy cover. Forest cover loss could change macrophyte microhabitats, increasing light resources that favor species that otherwise would not be able to occur there. Species composition was related negatively with canopy cover and water turbidity, and positively related to pH. Three species were selected as indicators of change in canopy cover, which reflects land use change within the sites. Land use change favors mostly emergent and amphibious species, and some species belonging to other life-forms that show adaptations and niche requirements that are benefited by it. Macrophyte communities could be experiencing succession, in which the appearance of invasive species could be the onset of a reduction in diversity as land use consequences bec…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Areas with lower forest cover have greater compensatory growth of floating meadows due to greater light availability.
“Forest cover was negatively associated with macrophyte cover, suggesting areas with lower forest cover have greater compensatory growth of floating meadows due to greater light availability, as documented by Fares et al. (2020).”
From Threshold responses of floating meadow fish communities to floodplain forest cover in the lower Amazon River (2025) · cites this paper as Fares et al. (2020)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grinstead, S., Arantes, C. C., Winemiller, K. O., Kelso‐Winemiller, L. C., de Oliveira, J. A., Petrere, M., & Freitas, C. E. C. (2025) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.70110
- Authors
- Fares, A. L. B., Calvão, L. B., Torres, N. R., Gurgel, E. S. C., & Michelan, T. S.
- Affiliations
- Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (BR)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Michelan, Thaísa Sala
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ecological Indicators
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 113
- Pages
- 106231
- ISSN
- 1470-160X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3007393805
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 5.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Ecological Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (154761/2018-4)
- NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (001)
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Botany and Plant Ecology Studies
- Keywords
- aquatic macrophytes, macrophyte diversity, land use change, canopy cover, water turbidity, water pH, species richness, species composition, invasive species, ecological succession, biodiversity indicators, ecological integrity, anthropogenic landscapes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review