1
Supporting Information
2
3
Available cross-taxa comparisons:
4
Table S1. List of available cross-taxa comparisons for concordance analyses.
Year
Number of
2000 2001
sampling sites
Cross-taxa comparison
Fish - macrophytes

20
Fish - benthic macroinvertebrates


20
Fish - zooplankton


20
Fish - phytoplankton


19
Fish - periphyton

19
Macrophytes - benthic macroinvertebrates

36
Macrophytes - zooplankton

36
Macrophytes - phytoplankton

30
Benthic Macroinvertebrates - zooplankton


36
Benthic Macroinvertebrates - phytoplankton


30
Benthic Macroinvertebrates - periphyton

Zooplankton - phytoplankton

Zooplankton - periphyton

32
Phytoplankton - periphyton

32
5
6
1
32

30
7
Detailed description of sampling data:
8
Fish community
9
Fish were sampled through experimental fishery using gillnets with 11 different mesh sizes (2.4, 3,
10
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 cm mesh) exposed for 24 h with samplings at 08:00 am, 04:00 pm,
11
and 10:00 pm. Abundance was expressed in CPUE (individuals × 24 hours/1000m2gillnet).
12
Specimens were counted and taxonomically identified in the field. When identification was not
13
possible, they were labeled and preserved in 4% formaldehyde solution for further identification.
14
Aquatic macrophyte community
15
In each lake, aquatic macrophytes species were recorded from a boat moving at low and constant
16
velocity along the whole margin. Submersed plants were sampled from the boat with a grapnel
17
during 10 minutes. Only presence/absence data are available for this community.
18
Benthic macroinvertebrate community
19
In each sampling lake, nine sediment samples (three in each margin and three in the middle of
20
each lake) were collected to sample benthic macroinvertebrates. For that, we used a Petersen’s
21
grab modified for benthic samples. Sediments were washed in nets of different mesh sizes (2.0
22
mm, 1 mm, and 0.2 mm mesh). Organisms retained in the nets were immediately transferred to
23
plastic bottles with 4% formaldehyde solution for further identification to the lowest taxonomic
24
level possible. The total number of individuals of each taxon was used as abundance data.
25
Zooplankton community
26
Zooplankton samples were obtained by pumping 600 L of water over a 70 µm mesh net. Sampled
27
material was transferred to labeled polyethylene bottles with 4% formaldehyde cold solution and
28
calcium carbonate buffer for further identification. Abundance was calculated by counting the
29
individuals in a Sedgwick-Rafter in three sub-samples taken with a Stempel pipette. Final densities
30
were expressed as individuals/m3.
2
31
Phytoplankton community
32
Phytoplankton samples were taken from the surface in the central region of the lake. Van Dorn
33
samplers were used, and samples were transferred to amber bottles with 5% acetic Lugol solution
34
for further identification. Phytoplankton abundance was estimated in a Carl Zeiss inverted
35
microscope (Axiovert 135), after sedimentation in Utermöhl chambers (Utermöhl, 1958),
36
following APHA methods (APHA 1985). Results were expressed in individuals (cells, coenobia,
37
colonies or filaments) per milliliter.
38
Periphyton community
39
The periphyton community was sampled from petioles of Eichhornia azurea Kunth in the mature
40
stage, as this macrophyte was best represented in most environments on the Upper Paraná River
41
floodplain. For that, we sampled three petioles of E. azurea per lake, each one from a different
42
macrophyte stand chosen randomly along the lake. The periphyton removed from the substratum
43
was fixed and preserved in 0.5% acetic Lugol. Organisms were quantified using a Carl Zeiss
44
(Axiovert 135) inverted microscope, after sedimentation in Utermöhl chambers (Utermöhl 1958),
45
following APHA methods (APHA, 1985). Abundance was expressed in individuals/cm2.
46
Environmental variables
47
The following limnological variables were obtained from each lake: depth (m); water temperature
48
(°C, using a thermometer attached to a thermistor); dissolved oxygen (mg/L), using a YSI portable
49
digital oximeter; water transparency (m), using a Secchi disk 0.30 m in diameter; pH and electric
50
conductivity (µS/cm), through portable digital potentiometers; total alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
51
estimated through the “Gran” method (Carmouze, 1994), using 0.01N H2SO4; turbidity (NTU),
52
measured using a LaMotte 2008 portable digital turbidimeter; total nitrogen concentration (µg/L)
53
following Zagatto et al. (1982); total phosphorus concentration (µg/L) following Mackereth,
54
Heron & Talling (1978); chlorophyll-a (µg/L), using an aliquot of water filtered through Whatman
3
55
GF/C filters (Golterman, Clymo & Ohnstad, 1978); total suspended matter (mg/L), using another
56
aliquot of water filtered through filters previously combusted in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 4 h;
57
and dissolved organic carbon (mg/L), estimated in filtered water in a Shimadzu Total Organic
58
Carbon 5000 analyzer.
59
60
References
61
APHA. 1985. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste-water. Washington, 1268
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
p.
Carmouze, J. P. 1994. O metabolismo dos ecossistemas aquáticos: fundamentos teóricos, métodos
de estudo e análises químicas. Edgar Blucher, FAPESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Golterman, H. L., Clymo, R. S. & Ohnstad, M. A. M. 1978. Methods for physical and chemical
analysis of freshwaters. IBP Handbook no. 8. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.
Mackereth, F. Y. H., Heron J. G. & Talling, J. J. 1978. Water analysis some revised methods for
limnologist. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, UK.
Utermöhl, H. 1958. Zur Vervollkomrnnung ver quantitativen PhytoplanktonMethodic.
Mitteilungen Internationale Vereinigung für Limnologie 9: 1-38.
71
Zagatto, E. A. G., Jacintho, A .O., Reis, B. F., Krug, F. J., Bergamin, H., Pessenda, L. C. R.,
72
Mortatti, J. & Giné, M. F. 1982. Manual de análises de plantas empregando sistemas de
73
1982. CENA/USP, Piracicaba, Brazil.
74
4
75
Environmental variables across habitat types and subsystems in each sampling period:
76
Biological and environmental features of the Upper Paraná River floodplain have been extensively
77
studied since the 80’ (Thomaz, Agostinho & Hahn, 2004). We found a large variability in the
78
different variables analyzed by us (Table S2). As a general trend, habitats associated to the three
79
subsystems (Baía River, Paraná River and Ivinheima River subsystems) are heterogeneous
80
according both biological and limnological characteristics (Thomaz, Agostinho & Hahn, 2004).
81
Moreover, abiotic characteristics vary among habitat types (lakes permanent connected to the main
82
river, lakes connected to the main river during floods, and river channels) within each subsystem
83
(Padial et al., 2012).
84
85
References
86
Padial, A. A., Siqueira, T. S., Heino, J., Vieira, L. C. G., Bonecker, C. C., Lansac-Tôha, F. A.,
87
Rodrigues, L. C., Takeda, A. M., Train, S., Velho, L. F. M. & Bini, L. M. 2012. Relationships
88
between multiple biological groups and classification schemes in a Neotropical floodplain.
89
Ecological Indicators 13: 55-65.
90
Thomaz, S. M., Agostinho, A. A., Hahn, N. S. 2004. The Upper Paraná River and its floodplain:
91
physical aspects, ecology and conservation. Backhuys Publishers, The Netherlands.
5
92
Table S2. Average, minimum (Min), maximum (Max) values and standard deviation (SD) of environmental variables in each sampling
93
period across sampling sites used for concordance analysis.
February 2000
Variable
Average
Min
Max
August 2000
SD
Average
Min
Max
February 2001
SD
Average
Min
Max
August 2001
SD
Average
Min
Max
SD
Depth (m)
1.68
0.20
4.25
1.02
2.09
0.25
4.10
1.22
1.90
0.30
5.00
1.24
1.94
0.20
3.50
0.97
Temperature (°C)
24.14
17.70
29.60
3.92
24.04
18.00
29.30
3.58
24.06
17.70
30.00
3.71
24.24
18.00
29.40
3.60
Secchi disk transparency (m)
0.66
0.20
1.70
0.46
0.91
0.25
1.85
0.39
0.75
0.10
3.40
0.74
0.76
0.15
2.25
0.56
pH
6.44
5.63
8.85
0.66
6.45
5.60
7.75
0.49
6.47
5.70
7.23
0.43
6.56
5.67
7.94
0.40
Conductivity (µS/cm)
36.46
23.00
75.00
13.03
41.26
22.60
61.00
13.90
38.68
23.90
60.50
9.50
43.65
24.00
64.00
13.03
Alkalinity (mg /L CaCO3)
325.36
8.99
1612.00
338.47
304.87
40.81
679.10
172.59
252.15
5.42
1024.00
219.24
284.62
0.00
579.30
146.75
Turbidity (NTU)
28.64
1.45
100.50
26.09
12.54
2.93
44.50
10.01
30.97
1.45
128.70
33.83
26.80
2.60
101.60
25.55
Oxygen (mg/L)
5.31
1.20
10.87
2.32
6.18
2.54
12.11
2.40
5.89
1.50
10.05
1.95
6.80
2.43
10.06
1.55
Total Suspended Matter (mg/L)
16.51
1.40
48.33
12.78
9.52
2.33
27.33
6.01
15.99
1.10
44.67
10.81
17.10
0.00
58.33
14.63
Chlorophyll-a (µg/L)
15.47
0.78
113.58
23.77
5.16
0.00
18.02
4.85
11.47
1.02
57.79
12.78
13.43
0.00
143.34
30.23
Total Nitrogen concentration (µg/L)
386.83
164.57
902.50
171.22
317.51
152.52
593.03
111.78
401.73
204.54
1041.00
172.82
398.14
194.05
879.61
182.19
Total phosphorus concentration (µg/L)
63.73
13.87
289.57
60.36
29.24
5.12
85.05
18.16
50.98
3.26
130.86
32.16
64.74
8.47
308.83
70.92
Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L)
6.63
2.42
16.28
3.25
4.57
1.76
9.93
2.47
6.45
1.65
16.66
3.30
5.50
1.81
18.06
4.22
6
94
Traits of taxa and expectations about cross-taxa concordance:
95
Considering the behavior and biological interactions of biota in floodplain lakes, different
96
concordance patterns are expected between groups of each community. For that, we used
97
information in textbooks and regional articles about the biology of groups and species of the
98
communities used here. We evaluated the concordance level only using the Mantel test and in each
99
sampling period separately. The cross-taxa comparisons considered on the basis of the traits were:
100
(i) Invertivorous fish with benthic macroinvertebrates, because benthic macroinvertebrates
101
are the main component of the diet of these fish (Hahn, Fugi & Andrian, 2004; Graça & Pavanelli,
102
2007).
103
(ii) Zooplanktivorous and omnivorous fish with microcrustaceans (cladocerans and
104
copepods), because microcrustaceans are the main prey species for zooplanktivorous and
105
omnivorous fish (Hahn, Fugi & Andrian, 2004; Graça & Pavanelli, 2007). There is only one truly
106
zooplanktivorous fish species in the Upper Paraná River floodplain, the Hypophthalmus edentatus
107
(Hahn, Fugi & Andrian, 2004). However, omnivorous fish species typically use planktonic
108
organisms as an accessory.
109
(iii) Fish species that are also found inhabiting littoral habitats with different life forms of
110
macrophytes. The rationale behind this is that different life forms of macrophytes can affect the
111
community structure of organisms such as fish and zooplankton in different ways (e.g. Meerhoff et
112
al., 2003; 2007; Troutman, Rutherford & Kelso, 2007). We used four life forms of macrophytes
113
(see Pott & Pott, 2000): emergent macrophytes (rooted in the sediment with above-water leaves);
114
free-floating macrophytes (most of the plant is at or near the surface of the water, and roots, if
115
present, hang free in the water and are not anchored to the bottom); submersed macrophytes (the
116
entire plant is below the surface of the water); rooted-floating (macrophytes rooted in the sediment
117
with floating leaves).
7
118
119
(iv) Zooplankton species that are also found inhabiting littoral habitats with different life
forms of macrophytes. The reason is the same as that given in paragraph (iii) above.
120
(v) Zooplankton of different body sizes with phytoplankton of different body size. Small
121
species of zooplankton (e.g., rotifers and testate amoeba) are not able to feed on large species of
122
phytoplankton (Burns, 1968; Cyr & Curtis, 1999), and thus may be more dependent on the
123
community structure of phytoplankton. Thus, small zooplankton and phytoplankton may present
124
higher levels of concordance. Large zooplankton species (cladocerans and copepods) are probably
125
opportunistic, and can access a broader size spectrum of phytoplankton (Burns, 1968; Cyr &
126
Curtis, 1999).
127
(vi) Zooplankton species that are also found inhabiting littoral habitats and periphyton.
128
These zooplankton species may use periphyton as an alternative food resource (Siehoff et al.,
129
2009).
130
131
References
132
Burns, C. W. 1968. Relationship between body size of filter-feeding cladocera and maximum size
133
of particle ingested. Limnology & Oceanography 13: 675-678.
134
Cyr, H. & Curtis, J. M. 1999. Zooplankton community size structure and taxonomic composition
135
affects size-selective grazing in natural communities. Oecologia 118: 306-315.
136
Graça, W. & Pavanelli, C. S. 2007. Peixes da planície de inundação do alto rio Paraná e áreas
137
adjacentes. Eduem, Maringá, Brazil.
138
Hahn, N. S., Fugi, R. & Andrian, I. F. 2004. Trophic ecology of the fish assemblages. In: The
139
Upper Paraná River and its floodplain: physical aspects, ecology and conservation (Eds S. M.
140
Thomaz, A. A. Agostinho & N. S. Hahn), pp. 247-269. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The
141
Netherlands.
8
142
Meerhoff, M., Mazzeo, N., Moss, B. & Rodriguez-Gallego, L. 2003. The structuring role of free-
143
floating versus submerged plants in a subtropical shallow lake. Aquatic Ecology 37: 377-391.
144
Meerhoff, M., Iglesias, C., Mello, F. T., Clemente, J. M., Jensen, E., Lauridsen, T. L. and
145
Jeppesen, E. 2007. Effects of habitat complexity on community structure and predator avoidance
146
behaviour of littoral zooplankton in temperate versus subtropical shallow lakes. Freshwater
147
Biology 52: 1009-1021.
148
Pott, V. J. & Pott, A. 2000. Plantas aquáticas do Pantanal. Embrapa, Brasília, Brazil.
149
Siehoff, S., Hammers-Wirtz, M., Strauss, T. & Ratte, H. T. 2009. Periphyton as alternative food
150
source for the filter-feeding cladoceran Daphnia magna. Freshwater Biology 54: 15-23.
151
Troutman, J. P., Rutherford, D. A. & Kelso, W. E. 2007. Patterns of habitat use among vegetation-
152
dwelling littoral fishes in the Atchafalaya river basin, Louisiana. Transactions of the American
153
Fisheries Society 136:1063-1075.
154
9
155
156
Figure S1. STATICO results showing the importance of samplings periods (length of arrows) to the common community structure of
157
cross-taxa comparisons using abundance data (except for macrophytes). F = fish; BM = benthic macroinvertebrates; MA =
158
macrophytes; PE = periphyton; PH = phytoplankton; Z = zooplankton. Circled numbers indicate sampling periods: (1) February of
159
2000; (2) August 2000; (3) February 2001; and (4) August 2001. For each sampling period, the Mantel’s correlations (r) between the
160
two dissimilarity matrices under comparison are shown. *P < 0.05.
10
161
Table S3. Correlation coefficients derived from PROTEST (rP) and Mantel (rM) analyses for
162
each sampling period and cross-taxon comparison. m2 values were transformed in rP by the
163
equation described in Peres-Neto & Jackson (2001). Bold numbers indicate significant values (P <
164
0.05). Dashes indicate that no data are available (see Appendix 1). BMac = Benthic
165
Macroinvertebrates.
February 2000
August 2000
February 2001
August 2001
Cross-taxa comparison
rM
rP
rM
rP
rM
rP
rM
rP
0.36
0.45
0.04
0.20
-0.01
0.29
-0.03
0.23
Fish-Macrophytes
-
-
-
-
0.09
0.15
0.45
0.56
Fish-Zooplankton
0.31
0.49
0.15
0.35
0.10
0.18
0.01
0.34
Fish-Phytoplankton
0.22
0.58
0.06
0.28
0.02
0.22
-0.05
0.22
Fish-Periphyton
0.25
0.37
0.10
0.22
-
-
-
-
BMac.-Macrophytes
-
-
-
-
0.01
0.15
0.14
0.37
BMac.-Zooplankton
-0.04
0.11
0.02
0.20
0.12
0.39
0.17
0.36
BMac.-Phytoplankton
0.01
0.19
-0.02
0.30
0.13
0.50
0.13
0.40
BMac-Periphyton
0.09
0.25
0.11
0.29
-
-
-
-
Macroph.-Zooplankton
-
-
-
-
0.21
0.35
0.26
0.30
Macroph.-Phytoplankton
-
-
-
-
0.15
0.44
0.21
0.32
Zoopl.-Phytoplankton
0.02
0.18
0.09
0.13
0.21
0.33
0.31
0.37
Zoopl.-Periphyton
0.14
0.38
-0.02
0.12
-
-
-
-
Phytopl.-Periphyton
0.13
0.36
0.02
0.30
-
-
-
-
Fish-BMac.
166
11