Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2014View details →

Fig. 5 in Ecomorphology of radii in Canidae: Application to fragmentary fossils from Plio-Pleistocene hominin assemblages

Fig. 5. Neighbour-joining cluster analysis performed using Euclidean distances extracted from proximal measurements. Bootstrap values show the support for each internal node.

Fig. 5 in Diet and ecomorphological relationships of four cichlid species from the Cuiabá River basin

Fig. 5. Projections of the scores on axes 1 (PC1) and 2 (PC2) of the principal components analysis performed with values of the morphological attributes and food size consumed by four species of cichlids from the Cuiabá River basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Variance explained: PC1= 68.55%; PC2= 26.73%. Abbreviations are in Table 2. C. australis = Chaetobranchopsis australis; C. dimerus = Cichlasoma dimerus; C. vittata = Crenicichla vittata; S. pappaterra = Satanoperca pappaterra.

Fig. 4 in Diet and ecomorphological relationships of four cichlid species from the Cuiabá River basin

Fig. 4. Position and shape of the mouth, and first pair of gill raker of cichlids from the Cuiabá River basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Scale = 1 cm. (drawing by Gisele C. Novakowski).

Fig. 3 in Diet and ecomorphological relationships of four cichlid species from the Cuiabá River basin

Fig. 3. Dendrogram of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity for the trophic matrix (percentage of IAi of the food resources versus species) and morphologic matrix (RHM, SRGR, NGR, PM, RWM, DRG, OM versus species) of the cichlids of the Cuiabá River basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil. IAi = Feeding Index; RHM = Relative height of the mouth; SRGR = Relative size of the gill rakers; NGR = Number of gill rakers; PM = Protrusion of the mouth; RWM = Relative width of the mouth; DRG = Distance between gill rakers; OM = Orientation of the mouth. C. australis = Chaetobranchopsis australis; C. dimerus = Cichlasoma dimerus; C. vittata = Crenicichla vittata; S. pappaterra = Satanoperca pappaterra.

Fig. 1 in Diet and ecomorphological relationships of four cichlid species from the Cuiabá River basin

Fig. 1. Location of the Cuiabá River basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil, and the sampling sites: lotic (2, 3 and 4) and lentic (1, 5 and 6).

Fig. 2 in Diet and ecomorphological relationships of four cichlid species from the Cuiabá River basin

Fig. 2. Representation of ecomorphological measurements taken for four species of cichlids of the Cuiabá River basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil. OM = orientation of the mouth opening; HM = height of the mouth; WM = width of the mouth; DMO = distance from the anterior end of the jaw to anterior border of the eye, with the mouth open; DMC = distance from the end of the jaw to anterior border of the eye, with the mouth closed; LG = length of the gill; DGR = distance between the gill rakers; SL = standard length.

Fig. 3 in Ecomorphology and use of food resources: inter- and intraspecific relationships of fish fauna associated with macrophyte stands

Fig. 3. Distribution of species scores in the multivariate ecomorphological space generated by the first two PCA axes. In each diagram, the species scores were distinguished by black symbols. A polygon was used to delimit the population ecomorphological space.

Fig. 1 in Ecomorphology and use of food resources: inter- and intraspecific relationships of fish fauna associated with macrophyte stands

Fig. 1. Map depicting location of the lagoons studied (PU - Pousada das Garças; PO - Porcos; ML - Maria Luiza; ON - Onça; AS -Água Suja; XI - Xirica; PM - Pombas; IP - Ilha do Pacu; BI - Ressaco do Bilé; GA - Garças) in the Upper Paraná River floodplain, Brazil.

Fig. 2 in Ecomorphology and use of food resources: inter- and intraspecific relationships of fish fauna associated with macrophyte stands

Fig. 2. Distribution of species scores in the multivariate ecomorphological space generated by the first two PCA axes (axis 1: eigenvalue = 4.3 and explained variability (%) = 20.474; axis 2: eigenvalue = 3.4 and explained variability (%) =16.434). The main variables responsible for explaining the ordination pattern are indicated in each axis (eigenvectors axis 1: compression index = 0.9006, relative area of the anal fin = 0.6539, relative width of the mouth = 0.6068, relative height of the caudal peduncle = -0.9125 and relative length of the caudal peduncle = -0.8237; eigenvectors axis 2: aspect ratio of the pectoral fin = 0.6544, aspect ratio of the caudal fin = 0.5162, aspect ratio of the anal fin = 0.5145, relative area of the pectoral fin = -0.7929 and relative area of the dorsal fin = -0.7373).

Fig. 4 in Ecomorphology and use of food resources: inter- and intraspecific relationships of fish fauna associated with macrophyte stands

Fig. 4. Simple linear regressions between the Standardized Levins Index (Bi) and the ecomorphological distances calculated for populations analyzed. Significance values of the models are indicated (p).

Figure 3. - A in Ecomorphology and diet of two species of Acestrorhynchus from Brazilian Northeast

Figure 3. - A: Discriminant analysis on the non-uniform component. B: Deformations grid showing the local variations of all landmarks describing the differences between the species. The grid was configured to represent the variations associated with the positive side of the discriminant axis.

Figure 1 in Ecomorphology and diet of two species of Acestrorhynchus from Brazilian Northeast

Figure 1. - Landmarks on the lateral region of Acestrorhynchus heterolepis. See text for definition of each landmark.

Figure 4 in Ecomorphology and diet of two species of Acestrorhynchus from Brazilian Northeast

Figure 4. - Temporal variation in the frequency of occurrence of food items in stomachs from April 2000 to January 2001. A: A. heterolepis; B: A. falcatus.

Figure 2. - A in Ecomorphology and diet of two species of Acestrorhynchus from Brazilian Northeast

Figure 2. - A: Discriminant analysis on the uniform component. B: Deformations grid showing the global variation of all landmarks in the uniform component. The grid was configured to represent the variations associated with the positive side of the discriminant axis.

Fig. 7. a in Ecomorphological patterns of the fish assemblage in a tropical floodplain: effects of trophic, spatial and phylogenetic structures

Fig. 7. a) Diagram of Canonical Discriminant Analysis for the ecomorphological indices of the fish assemblage grouping in habitat types in the upper Paraná River floodplain (rivers, channels, connected and disconnected lagoons). b) Histograms with the scores of the habitat types for Canonical axis 1.

Fig. 6 in Ecomorphological patterns of the fish assemblage in a tropical floodplain: effects of trophic, spatial and phylogenetic structures

Fig. 6. Diagram of Canonical Discriminant Analysis for the ecomorphological indices of the fish assemblage grouping in trophic guilds in the upper Paraná River floodplain (detritivores, insectivores, piscivores, invertivores, omnivores and herbivores).

Fig. 4 in Ecomorphological patterns of the fish assemblage in a tropical floodplain: effects of trophic, spatial and phylogenetic structures

Fig. 4. Distribution of scores centroids of the 35 species on the first two axes of the Principal Components Analysis (PC 1 and PC 2), applied to the correlation matrix (Pearson) formed by 22 ecomorphological indices. Each polygon defines the morphological space occupied by the species that compose the corresponding trophic guild.

Fig. 5 in Ecomorphological patterns of the fish assemblage in a tropical floodplain: effects of trophic, spatial and phylogenetic structures

Fig. 5. Distribution of scores centroids of the 35 species grouped by habitat type on the first two axes of the Principal Components Analysis (PC 1 and PC 2), applied to the correlation matrix (Pearson) formed by 22 ecomorphological indices. Each polygon defines the morphological space occupied by the species that exploit the corresponding habitat type.

Fig. 3 in Ecomorphological patterns of the fish assemblage in a tropical floodplain: effects of trophic, spatial and phylogenetic structures

Fig. 3. Distribution of scores centroids of the 35 species on the first two axes of the Principal Components Analysis (PC 1 and PC 2), applied to the correlation matrix (Pearson) formed by 22 ecomorphological indices.

Fig. 2 in Ecomorphological patterns of the fish assemblage in a tropical floodplain: effects of trophic, spatial and phylogenetic structures

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the linear morphometric measurements and the calculated areas: standard length (SL), maximum body height (MBH), body midline height (BMH), maximum body width (MBW), caudal peduncle length (CPdL), caudal peduncle height (CPdH), caudal peduncle width (CPdW), head length (HdL), head height (HdH), head width (HdW), length of snout with the mouth closed (LSC), length of snout with the mouth open (LSO), eye height (EH), mouth height (MH), mouth width (MW), dorsal fin length (DL), dorsal fin height (DH), caudal fin length (CL), caudal fin height (CH), anal fin length (AL), anal fin height (AH), pectoral fin length (PtL), pectoral fin height (PtH), pelvic fin length (PvL), pelvic fin height (PvH), eye area (EA), dorsal fin area (DA), caudal fin area (CA), anal fin area (AA), pectoral fin area (PtA), and pelvic fin area (PvA).