Find research datasets worth reusing

FIGURE 4 in Functional diversity: a review on freshwater fish research

FIGURE 4 | A. Total number functional traits types found in our review; B. Total number of functional traits in each category. (Feed = Feeding, Locom = Locomotion, Hab.U = Habitat use, Lif.H = Life history, Phys = Phsysiology) (see Tab. S3).

FIGURE 2 in Functional diversity: a review on freshwater fish research

FIGURE 2 | A. World map showing the distribution of research effort among biogeographic realms; B. Pie charts represent the number of studies in each type of aquatic environment per realm. *Global: studies that evaluated more than one biogeographic realm.

FIGURE 1 in Functional diversity: a review on freshwater fish research

FIGURE 1 | Temporal trend of the number of published articles on the functional diversity of fish in freshwater ecosystems.

FIGURE 2 in Protected areas and compositional diversity of fish from Serranias Costeiras of the Ribeira de Iguape River basin, Southeast Brazil

FIGURE 2 | Species richness shared and exclusive of the stream stretches from full protection, sustainable use, and outside areas.

FIGURE 1 in Protected areas and compositional diversity of fish from Serranias Costeiras of the Ribeira de Iguape River basin, Southeast Brazil

FIGURE 1 | Protected Areas and stream stretches sampled in the rio Ribeira de Iguape basin. 1) Parque Estadual Jurupará (PEJU), 2) Parque Estadual Carlos Botelho (PECB), 3) Parque Estadual Intervales (PEI), 4) Área de Proteção Ambiental da Serra do Mar (APASM), and 5) Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira (APAQMR).

FIGURE 4 in Protected areas and compositional diversity of fish from Serranias Costeiras of the Ribeira de Iguape River basin, Southeast Brazil

FIGURE 4 | Sample-size-based species richness rarefaction interpolation (solid line) and extrapolation (dotted line) sampling curves of full protection (FP), sustainable use (SU), and outside (Out) with confidence intervals.

FIGURE 3 in Protected areas and compositional diversity of fish from Serranias Costeiras of the Ribeira de Iguape River basin, Southeast Brazil

FIGURE 3 | NMDS biplot of the fish abundance data (Hellinger- transformed and Euclidean distance matrix). Stress = 0.20. The 30% most frequent species with 50% best axis fit were added using weighted averages. Species identification with code is in Tab. 1.

Figure 6 in Discrimination between six commercially relevant and ecologically diverse fish species across the Gulf of Tunis using fatty acid composition and otolith shape analyses

Figure 6. Principal component analysis (PCA) graph (biplot) showing the consistency between the variation in the otoliths shape (OS) and the variation in fatty acid composition between and within males (M) and females (F) of the six species collected from the five stations in the Gulf of Tunis, Tunisia.

Figure 4 in Discrimination between six commercially relevant and ecologically diverse fish species across the Gulf of Tunis using fatty acid composition and otolith shape analyses

Figure 4. Principal component analysis (PCA) graph (biplot) showing the barycenter () projection of the left (L) and right (R) otolith shape values between (a) and within (b) males (M) and females (F) of the six species collected from the five stations in the Gulf of Tunis, Tunisia. TM: T. mediterraneus; SP: S. pilchardus; CA: C. auratus; MB: M. barbatus; GN: G. niger; TD: T. draco.

Figure 5 in Discrimination between six commercially relevant and ecologically diverse fish species across the Gulf of Tunis using fatty acid composition and otolith shape analyses

Figure 5. Hierarchical ascending classification (HAC) dendrogram generated based on the left and right otoliths shape values of dissimilarity between individuals of the six species collected from the five stations in the Gulf of Tunis, Tunisia. TM: T. mediterraneus; SP: S. pilchardus; CA: C. auratus; MB: M. barbatus; GN: G. niger; TD: T. draco.

Figure 3 in Discrimination between six commercially relevant and ecologically diverse fish species across the Gulf of Tunis using fatty acid composition and otolith shape analyses

Figure 3. (a) Discriminant function analysis (DFA) and (b) principal component analysis (PCA) graph (biplot) showing the barycenter projection and distribution of the fatty acid composition percentage values between and within males (M) and females (F) of the six species collected from the five stations in the Gulf of Tunis, Tunisia. T.m.: T. mediterraneus.

Figure 2 in Discrimination between six commercially relevant and ecologically diverse fish species across the Gulf of Tunis using fatty acid composition and otolith shape analyses

Figure 2. Real images of the left (L) and right (R) otoliths of (A) T. mediterraneus, (B) S. pilchardus, (C) C. auratus, (D) T. draco, (E) G. niger, and (F) M. barbatus individuals collected from the five stations in the Gulf of Tunis, Tunisia.

Figure 1 in Discrimination between six commercially relevant and ecologically diverse fish species across the Gulf of Tunis using fatty acid composition and otolith shape analyses

Figure 1. Study area and location of the sampling stations (■) from which individuals of the six species were collected from the Gulf of Tunis, Tunisia.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2013View details →

Figure 1 in Metazoan ectoparasites of two teleost fish, Boops boops (L.) and Mullus barbatus barbatus L. from Algerian coast: diversity, parasitological index and impact of parasitism

Figure 1. - Number of examined specimens per size classes for Boops boops and Mullus barbatus barbatus from Béjaïa, Algeria.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2013View details →

Figure 2 in Metazoan ectoparasites of two teleost fish, Boops boops (L.) and Mullus barbatus barbatus L. from Algerian coast: diversity, parasitological index and impact of parasitism

Figure 2. - Variation of the parasitologic indexes according to the month and the size classes of B. boops (A, B) and M. barbatus barbatus (C, D). P (%): prevalence; Im: mean intensity; A: mean abundance.

FIGURE 3 in Functional diversity: a review on freshwater fish research

FIGURE 3 | A. Distribution of the general backgrounds in studies on the functional diversity of freshwater fish over time; B. Distribution of the central objectives in studies in each biogeographic realm.

TABLE 2 in Functional diversity: a review on freshwater fish research

TABLE 2 | List of functional diversity indices in the reviewed studies, number of studies that used the index and a brief description of each index. *The number of studies does not correspond to the total number of studies reviewed, but the number of studies that used functional indices to measure the functional diversity.<table><tbody><tr><th>Functional diversity index</th><th>Number of studies*</th><th>Description</th><th>References</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Functional Richness (FRic)</th><td>64</td><td>Volume of the functional space occupied by the community</td><td>Mason et al. (2005), Villéger et al. (2008)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Evenness (FEve)</th><td>46</td><td>Sum of the minimum spanning tree branch length weighted by relative abundance of the two species</td><td>Mason et al. (2005), Villéger et al. (2008)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Divergence (FDiv)</th><td>34</td><td>Species deviance from the mean distance to the center of gravity weighted by relative abundance</td><td>Mason et al. (2005), Villéger et al. (2008)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Dispersion (FDis)</th><td>34</td><td>Mean distance in functional space of individual species to the centroid of all species</td><td>Laliberté, Legendre (2010)</td></tr><tr><th>Rao (Q)</th><td>19</td><td>Sum of species distance weighed by abundance</td><td>Botta-Dukát (2005), Ricotta, Moretti (2011)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Originality (FOri)</th><td>10</td><td>Mean distance between each species and its nearest neighbour in the functional space</td><td>Mouillot et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Specialization (FSpe)</th><td>8</td><td>Mean Euclidean distance between each species and the average position of all species in the functional space</td><td>Mouillot et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Redundancy (FRed)</th><td>8</td><td>Difference between species diversity (Gini-Simpson diversity index) and Rao; average number of species or as mean abundance or biomass per functional group</td><td>de Bello et al. (2007), Laliberté et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Diversity (FD)</th><td>3</td><td>Sum of the largest branch of the functional dendrogram</td><td>Petchey, Gaston (2002)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Uniqueness (FUni)</th><td>3</td><td>Ratio between Rao index and the Simpson diversity index, relating functional diversity to the maximum dissimilarity value of the community</td><td>Ricotta et al. 2016</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Identity</th><td>2</td><td>Expressed as the biomass-weighted mean trait value for a community</td><td>Mouillot et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Vulnerability</th><td>2</td><td>Sum of the total number of functional entities and the number of species in functional entity</td><td>Mouillot et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><th>Mean Pairwise Distance (MPD)</th><td>2</td><td>The average of the distances between pairs of species in the focal community</td><td>Webb (2000)</td></tr><tr><th>Mean Nearest Taxon Distance (MNTD)</th><td>1</td><td>The average of distances between the species of focal community with the respective functionally most similar species (“neighbor closer”)</td><td>Webb (2000)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Regularity Index (FRO)</th><td>1</td><td>Species evenness in functional space weighted by species abundances</td><td>Mouillot et al. (2005)</td></tr><tr><th>Functional Distinctiveness</th><td>1</td><td>Functional dissimilarity of one species in relation to the other species of the community, representing functional redundancy</td><td>Grenié et al. (2017)</td></tr></tbody></table>

TABLE 1 in Functional diversity: a review on freshwater fish research

TABLE 1 | Extracted data from the articles, description of the classification and application for each topic analyzed.<table><tbody><tr><th>Extracted data</th><th>Classification</th><th>Application</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>a) Year of publication</th><td>1945–2021</td><td>Used to determine the temporal trend of publications.</td></tr><tr><th>b) Biogeographic realm</th><td>Palearctic, Nearctic, Neotropical, Indomalayan, Australian, Afrotropical, and Global (when the study assessed more than one region).</td><td>Used to identify the distribution of research effort among biogeographic realms.</td></tr><tr><th>c) Freshwater environment</th><td>River, Stream, Lake, Reservoir, Floodplain, and several (when the study assessed more than one environment). 1) Biological invasion; 2) Climate change; 3) Conservation; 4) Environmental factors; 5) Environmental filtering; 6) Flood pulse; 7) Functional</td><td>Used to verify the type of freshwater ecosystem most assessed.</td></tr><tr><th>d) General background</th><td>structure; 8) Habitat heterogeneity; 9) Impoundments; 10) Land use; 11) Lateral connectivity; 12) Methodological; 13) Multiple stressors; 14) Taxonomic and functional patterns</td><td>Classification based on the main objectives of the studies.</td></tr><tr><th>e) Functional trait</th><td>Ecological traits; morphological traits</td><td>Classification based on the type of trait measure. Used to identify the traits most applied to assess functional diversity.</td></tr><tr><th>f) Functional category</th><td>Feeding; Habitat use; Life History; Locomotion; and Physiology (Classified according to Villéger et al., 2017).</td><td>Identify which functional category with the greatest number of traits evaluated.</td></tr><tr><th>g) Functional diversity index</th><td>All indices found in the reviewed studies.</td><td>Used to identify the main index applied to quantify the functional diversity of fish.</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-zeroJun 2021View details →

dryad40/100

Functional beta diversity of New Zealand fishes: characterising morphological turnover along depth and latitude gradients, with derivation of functional bioregions

Changes in the functional structures of communities are rarely examined along multiple large-scale environmental gradients. Here, we describe patterns in functional beta diversity for New Zealand marine fishes vs depth and latitude, including broad-scale delineation of functional bioregions. We derived eight functional traits related to food acquisition and locomotion and calculated complementary indices of functional beta diversity for 144 species of marine ray-finned fishes occurring along large-scale depth (50 - 1200 m) and latitudinal gradients (29° - 51° S) in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone. We focused on a suite of morphological traits calculated directly from in situ Baited Remote Underwater Stereo-Video (stereo-BRUV) footage and museum specimens. We found that functional changes were primarily structured by depth followed by latitude, and that latitudinal functional turnover decreased with increasing depth. Functional turnover among cells increased with increasing depth distance, but this relationship plateaued for greater depth distances (> 750 m). In contrast, functional turnover did not change significantly with increasing latitudinal distance at 700 - 1200 m depths. Shallow functional bioregions (50 - 100 m) were distinct at different latitudes, whereas deeper bioregions extended across broad latitudinal ranges. Fishes in shallow depths had a body shape conducive to efficient propulsion, while fishes in deeper depths were more elongated, enabling slow, energy-efficient locomotion, and had large eyes to enhance vision. Environmental filtering may be a primary driver of broad-scale patterns of functional beta diversity in the deep sea. Greater environmental homogeneity may lead to greater functional homogeneity across latitudinal gradients at deeper depths (700 - 1200 m). We suggest that communities living at depth may follow a 'functional village hypothesis', whereby similar key functional niches in fish communities may be maintained over large spatial scales.