Light originating from the sun is essential to all life on earth. Sunlight drives photosynthesis in primary producers, such as cyanobacteria and plants, which rest at the base of the food chain. Light affects photosynthetic plants in a number of ways. Red and blue light in the visible wavelength are absorbed by photosynthetic organisms, and while the quality of light does not vary much on land, it can be a limiting factor in the oceans.
Light intensity varies with both latitude and seasonality, with hemispherical differences varying among organisms because of the switching of the seasons. Day length can also be a factor, with organisms in northern arctic ecosystems needing to be adapted to extremes of daylight in the summer and darkness in the winter. Far more species of organisms exist in regions of high humidity compared to arid regions. Some organisms, such as fish, can only exist in a marine environment, and rapidly die when removed from water.
Other organisms can survive in some of the driest environments in the world. Plants such as cacti have developed the Crassulacean Acid Metabolism system of photosynthesis, in which they open their stomata at night, when it is much cooler, to take in carbon dioxide, store it as malic acid, and then process it during the day. Soil conditions can also have an effect on organisms. This is because the individuals in each species are adapted to occupy particular niches.
Abiotic factors can all be measured to show the living conditions in an ecosystem. Light meters can be used to measure light intensity. The meter is held at the soil surface and pointed in the direction of the maximum light intensity, and then the meter is read. Errors can be made when measuring light intensity by accidentally shading the light meter. The reliability of the results can be checked by taking many samples.
Soil moisture and soil pH meters are also available. Journal overview. Special Issues. Bidau , 1 Carolina I. Castillo, 3,4 and Dardo A. Academic Editor: Matilda Savopoulou-Soultani. Received 19 Aug Revised 28 Dec Accepted 03 Jan Published 08 Apr Abstract We review the effects of abiotic factors on body size in two grasshopper species with large geographical distributions: Dichroplus pratensis and D.
Introduction: Ecogeographic Rules, Body Size, and Abiotic Factors Body size, one of the most important characteristics of animals, is strongly influenced by abiotic factors [ 1 , 2 ]. Study Species Dichroplus pratensis Bruner, , and D. Table 1. Correlation coefficients and their statistical significance between an estimator of body size BL: body length and several geographic and environmental predictors for males M and females F of two grasshopper species. Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients and their statistical significance in parentheses between the arsin -transformed proportions of three morphometric traits F3L: femur 3 length; T3L: tibia 3 length; TeL: tegmina length and body length BL with respect to latitude LAT , altitude ALT , and three selected abiotic factors TMEAN: mean annual temperature; PMm: mean difference between maximum and minimum mean monthly precipitation; WB: water balance in males and females of 25 and 19 populations of D.
Table 3. Mean body length in mm BL and coefficients of variation CV in selected marginal and central populations of two species of grasshoppers. Figure 1. Regressions of body size and body size variability of D. Body size and its variability are represented by the first and second principal components of a PCA analysis of six linear morphometric measurements and their coefficients of variation.
Marginal populations show smaller body sizes than central ones. Marginal populations show higher variability than central ones. Body size decreases but its variability increases with higher chiasma variance. Body size decreases but its variability increases with higher recombination frequency.
Table 4. Reduced major axis RMA regressions of male body length on female body length under the null hypothesis of in Dichroplus pratensis and D. References M. View at: Google Scholar D. Fielding and L. View at: Google Scholar J. Konarzewski, and A. View at: Google Scholar O. Akman and D. View at: Google Scholar B. Filin, O. Schmitz, and O. View at: Google Scholar C.
Bidau and D. View at: Google Scholar R. Blackburn, K. Gaston, and N. Millien, S. Kathleen Lyons, L. Olson, F. Smith, A. Wilson, and Y. Gaston, S. Chown, and K. Watt, S. Mitchell, and V. View at: Google Scholar H. View at: Google Scholar P. Hertz, R. Huey, and R. View at: Google Scholar S. Springate and M. O'Neill and M. View at: Google Scholar M.
Lindstedt and M. View at: Google Scholar A. Medina, D. Blanckenhorn and M. Cigliano and D. View at: Google Scholar N. Dingle, Ed. View at: Google Scholar T. Mousseau and D. Peat, B. Darvill, J. Ellis, and D. Serrat, D. King, and C. Tosto and C. Webb and R. Hochkirch and J. View at: Google Scholar W.
Blanckenhorn, R. Stillwell, K. Young, C. Fox, and K. Gardenal, and C. Chiappero, C. Parise, D.
0コメント