Dispersal and colonization success of monoraphid vs. biraphid diatoms (Bacillariophyta).
dc.contributor.author | Giordimaina, Alicia M. | en_US |
dc.coverage.spatial | Lancaster Lake | en_US |
dc.coverage.spatial | Munro Lake | en_US |
dc.coverage.spatial | Douglas Lake | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2007-06-14T23:33:38Z | |
dc.date.available | 2007-06-14T23:33:38Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/55057 | |
dc.description.abstract | Monoraphid diatoms (Bacillariophyta) evolved more recently than biraphid diatoms. Monoraphids initially support two raphes, but seal the second raphe during the valve construction process. I studied the change in relative abundance sizes of biraphid and monoraphid diatoms colonizing artificial substrates to determine if the monoraphid condition was advantageous to early colonists. Three monoraphid species (Cocconeis placentula, Achnanthidium minutissimum, and Eucocconeis flexella) and three biraphid species (Mastogloia smithii, Navicula cryptotenella, and Sellaphora pupula) were examined. Original diatom collections were made from artificial substrates in three northern Michigan lakes over the course of 21 days in 1975. Monoraphid and biraphid relative abundances were counted on days 1, 3, 6, 15, and 21. The hypothesis that monoraphids would initially out-compete biraphids as pioneer colonists had mixed support. Because both groups' relative abundances tended to increase over time and the site of collection had no effect on relative abundance, results suggest that both monoraphid and biraphid diatoms were colonizing the artificial substrate. There was no difference in relative abundance size across all lakes and all days. However, the monoraphid relative abundance increased faster than the biraphid relative abundance. Further research is necessary to determine why monoraphids have higher relative abundance growth rates. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 439774 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3144 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.relation.haspart | Diagram or Illustration | en_US |
dc.relation.haspart | Graph | en_US |
dc.relation.haspart | Map | en_US |
dc.relation.haspart | Table of Numbers | en_US |
dc.subject | Phycology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | DIATOMS | en_US |
dc.subject.other | ALGAE | en_US |
dc.subject.other | ARTIFICIAL | en_US |
dc.subject.other | SUBSTRATES | en_US |
dc.subject.other | COLONIZATION | en_US |
dc.subject.other | IMMIGRATION | en_US |
dc.title | Dispersal and colonization success of monoraphid vs. biraphid diatoms (Bacillariophyta). | en_US |
dc.type | Working Paper | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Natural Resource and Environment | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Biological Station, University of Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/55057/1/3502.pdf | en_US |
dc.description.filedescription | Description of 3502.pdf : Access restricted to on-site users at the U-M Biological Station. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Biological Station, University of Michigan (UMBS) |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.