Cited by 5Crustacean biology and ecologyInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyWildlife Ecology and Conservation

External marking of terrestrial isopods (Isopoda, Oniscidea): efficiency of materials and influence on feeding behavior

Open access
Kenne, Diego Costa, Araujo, Paula Beatriz, Soares, Geraldo Luiz Gonçalves·2019·Nauplius

Abstract

Many monitoring studies use marking techniques to obtain dispersal data on individuals. Marking procedures may influence the vital activities of the terrestrial isopods, such as feeding behavior. The objective of this study was to identify the efficiency of different materials for external marking of woodlice and the influence on their feeding performance. Cyanoacrylate glue + glitter and nail polish were used as separate marking materials on three species: Balloniscus glaber, Benthana picta and Armadillidium vulgare. The material efficiency was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log-Rank analysis. Individuals were fed with leaf discs of Machaerium stipitatum for feeding performance trials, and consumption rates were compared using ANOVA (α<0.05). There was no difference in durability between the materials used for external markings, except between marked and unmarked Benthana specimens when the observation period exceeded 15 days (Log-Rank=8.446, p=0.015). Nail polish was considered more suitable for feeding experiments. Statistical differences in consumption rates were observed only between the marked individual treatments of Benthana (ANOVA, F=7.5440, p=0.0002). These results indicate that external marking does not affect the feeding habits of the animals and suggest that this technique can be used to monitor dispersal of terrestrial isopods in field conditions for approximately 15 days.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1590/2358-2936e2019018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 80 · Cited by 5

Authors
Kenne, D. C., Araujo, P. B., & Soares, G. L. G.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
Venue
Nauplius
Published
2019
Volume
27
ISSN
  • 0104-6497 (ISSN-L)
  • 2358-2936
OpenAlex
W2993238468
Cited by
5
References
80
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nauplius (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Crustacean biology and ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
terrestrial isopods, marking materials, feeding behavior, Armadillidium vulgare, cyanoacrylate glue, nail polish, marking durability

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