Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates

By D. Bilton, J. Freeland, B. Okamura. 2001

944 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2bb5060f82a70a4690e7854ee56260fc3b464066

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. J. Heino
2. A. Green
3. L. Brendonck
4. J. Figuerola
5. G. Grenouillet
6. M. Soons
7. Bram Vanschoenwinkel
8. Ran Nathan

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. J. Heino
2. A. Green
3. M. Soons
4. Ran Nathan
5. L. Brendonck
6. J. Figuerola
7. G. Grenouillet
8. Bram Vanschoenwinkel

Citations in the corpus

• Long‐distance biological transport processes through the air: can nature's complexity be unfolded in silico? (2005, background): “…vector for aquatic invertebrates has been questioned, mostly resulting from the seemingly inherent inefficiency of random deposition by wind, as compared to directed (targeted) dispersal by waterfowl and other animal vectors (Bilton et al., 2001; Bohonak & Jenkins, 2003; Green & Figuerola, 2005).”
• Body size and dispersal mode as key traits determining metacommunity structure of aquatic organisms. (2012, background): “Yet, while acknowledging this complexity, a number of general predictions can be made (Bilton et al. 2001).”
• The potential role of waterbirds in dispersing invertebrates and plants in arid Australia (2007, neutral): “Bilton, Freeland & Okamura, 2001 ), yet we observed large numbers of apparently viable non-diapause ostracod eggs.”
• The role of dispersal in river network metacommunities: Patterns, processes, and pathways (2018, background): “…of individuals is driven by both intrinsic (e.g. morphological, physiological and 785 genetic) and extrinsic (e.g. biotic interactions, habitat conditions or barriers) factors at the time of 786 a dispersal event (e.g. Bilton et al., 2001; Fronhofer, Klecka, Melián, & Altermatt, 2015).”
• Aerial dispersal of aquatic invertebrates along and away from arid-land streams (2012, background): “These occasional long-distance dispersal events are difficult to observe but may be extremely important for maintaining local populations (Bilton et al. 2001).”
• Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in streams (2005, background): “Drift is the most common means of transport for many stream invertebrates [42].”
• A comparative study of the dispersal of 10 species of stream invertebrates (2003, background): “The review by Bilton, Freeland & Okamura (2001) concludes that most dispersal is passive, often through transport by animal vectors or wind, and that active dispersal is relatively uncommon, apart from flight in adult freshwater insects.”
• How did this snail get here? Several dispersal vectors inferred for an aquatic invasive species (2013, background): “…e.g. Figuerola, Green & Santamarı́a, 2003; Frisch, Green & Figuerola, 2007; Van Leeuwen et al., 2012a) and more recent human activities can explain how aquatic species can persist in metacommunity structures (reviewed by Bilton et al., 2001) and how aquatic species spread around the world.”
• Dispersal strength determines meta‐community structure in a dendritic riverine network (2015, background): “Aquatic invertebrates are known to have very different dispersal capacities, ranging from a few metres to thousands of kilometres (Kovats et al., 1996; Bilton et al., 2001; McCauley, 2006).”
• Does size matter for dispersal distance (2007, background): “Much of what is written regarding dispersal of tiny organisms is inherited myth of potential dispersal and lacks supporting data on realized dispersal (Bohonak & Jenkins, 2003), though multiple investigators are working to overcome this using novel approaches (Bilton et al., 2001; Figuerola et al., ”
• Passive internal transport of aquatic organisms by waterfowl in Doñana, south-west Spain (2003, background): “Since Darwin (1859), the possibility that waterbirds transport seeds and invertebrates or their eggs has often been recognized (see also Salisbury, 1970; Galatowitsch & van der Valk, 1996; Bilton et al ., 2001).”
• The Monopolization Hypothesis and the dispersal–gene flow paradox in aquatic organisms (2002, background): “In addition, experimental work by Jenkins and Buikema (1998) has provided direct evidence for rapid colonization of newly formed habitats, supporting indirect evidence provided by a variety of more anecdotal records [see Bilton et al. (2001) for review].”
• Dispersal traits drive the phylogenetic distance decay of similarity in Neotropical stream metacommunities (2015, background): “…would exhibit a lower distance decay rate (H3) because directional flight capacity enables an organism to disperse long distances in search for locations suitable to reproduction, which results in lower beta diversity (Bilton et al., 2001; Astorga et al., 2012; Gr€onroos et al., 2013; Heino, 2013).”
• Small habitat size and isolation can promote species richness: second-order effects on biodiversity in shallow lakes and ponds (2006, background): “At least for macroinvertebrates (Bilton et al. 2001) and zooplankton (Shurin 2000, De Meester et al.”