| Summary: | Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-07-17T13:30:07Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
MarcioJoaquimDaSilva_TESE.pdf: 6572053 bytes, checksum: 24e9484e2537c31f4a72339d474f1faa (MD5) === Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-07-20T11:14:03Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
MarcioJoaquimDaSilva_TESE.pdf: 6572053 bytes, checksum: 24e9484e2537c31f4a72339d474f1faa (MD5) === Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-20T11:14:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
MarcioJoaquimDaSilva_TESE.pdf: 6572053 bytes, checksum: 24e9484e2537c31f4a72339d474f1faa (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017-04-12 === Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior (CAPES) === Os ecossistemas aqu?ticos dulc?colas est?o entre os mais ricos, em termos de n?mero de
esp?cies, e amea?ados por altera??es antr?picas no mundo. Impactos como a introdu??o de
esp?cies n?o nativas e as transposi??es de ?guas entre bacias distintas (como ? o caso do Projeto
de Transposi??o do rio S?o Francisco-PISF) amea?am a conserva??o das esp?cies. A
preocupa??o com a conserva??o das esp?cies fomentou a cria??o das chamadas Unidades de
Conserva??o (UCs - No Brasil foram criadas a partir de 1930 e tem n?veis de restri??o de usos
diversos). Provavelmente, estes mecanismos t?m sido insuficientes na conserva??o dos peixes,
pois mesmo ap?s suas cria??es, a contribui??o das esp?cies n?o nativas nas comunidades
naturais s? tem crescido ao longo dos anos e ? apontada como a segunda causa de extin??o de
esp?cies do planeta. Nesse contexto, o presente estudo buscou estabelecer uma padroniza??o
da nomenclatura das esp?cies nas bacias envolvidas no PISF, antes da conex?o artificial,
evidenciando o atual n?vel de conhecimento da ictiofauna e construir uma linha de base para
detectar futuros impactos da obra. Al?m disso, objetivamos avaliar a efetividade das UCs em
proteger os peixes das bacias envolvidas no projeto e modelar o risco de invas?o de esp?cies
exclusivas da bacia doadora nas receptoras. Para tanto, foram utilizados registros prim?rios e
secund?rios das esp?cies. Os resultados apontam para baixa similaridade entre a composi??o
de esp?cies das bacias doadora e receptoras do PISF, al?m de indicar a import?ncia das UCs
para conserva??o dos peixes da regi?o, que mesmo com tamanho reduzido (~1% da Caatinga)
abrigam porcentagem significativa da fauna associada (entre 24 e 31% das esp?cies de cada
bacia). Ademais, foi obtido que as bacias receptoras do PISF, apresentam adequabilidade para
11 esp?cies (sete fam?lias e tr?s ordens) exclusivas da bacia doadora (Leporinus friderici,
Megaleporinus obtusidens, Pamphorichthys hollandi? Pimelodus maculatus, Moenkhausia
sanctaefilomenae, Hemigrammus brevis, Pimelodella laurenti, Cichlasoma sanctifranciscense,
Centromochlus bockmanni, Conorhynchos conirostris e Pseudoplatystoma corruscans, ordem
decrescente de adequabilidade geral). Por fim, refor?amos a necessidade da cria??o/amplia??o
das UCs nas bacias envolvidas, para que estas cumpram melhor o seu objetivo conservacionista
e, corroboramos a necessidade do monitoramento constante da invas?o de esp?cies nas bacias
receptoras das ?guas do PISF, a fim de garantir a preserva??o das comunidades ?cticas nativas. === Freshwater ecosystems are within the richest in terms of species number and are threatened by
anthropic transformations worldwide. Impacts such as non-native species introduction and
interbasin water transfer (like S?o Francisco River Interbasin Water Transfer Project ? SFIBWT,
PISF ? in Portuguese) put species conservation in peril. The concern with this matter
promoted the creation of Conservation Unities (UCs ? created from 1930?s onward in Brazil
and have distinct restriction levels). Possibly, these mechanisms have been insufficient in
species conservation, because even after their creation, non-native species contribution to
natural communities has only grown over years and it is pointed as the second main cause of
planet?s species extinction. Regarding this issue, we hereby tried to establish a species
nomenclatural pattern in basins encompassed by PISF, previous to the artifitial connection,
demonstrating the current ichthyofaunal knowledge level and building a baseline for future
identification of the project?s impacts. Besides, we aim to evaluate the effectivity of UCs in
protecting fish of the basins included in the project and model the invasiveness risk of exclusive
species of donor basins to receptor ones. Therefore, we used primary and secondary records of
species. The results showed a low similarity among species composition of donor and receptor
basins of PISF, besides indicating the UCs? importance for regional fish species conservation.
Even though these UCs have a small size (~1% of Caatinga), they contain a significant
percentage of associated fauna (between 24 and 31% of each basin?s species). Lastly, we
noticed the PISF receptor basins show adequability to 11 species (seven families and three
orders) which were exclusive to donor basin (Leporinus friderici, Megaleporinus obtusidens,
Pamphorichthys hollandi? Pimelodus maculatus, Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae,
Hemigrammus brevis, Pimelodella laurenti, Cichlasoma sanctifranciscense, Centromochlus
bockmanni, Conorhynchos conirostris e Pseudoplatystoma corruscans, decending order of
general suitability). Within this context, we strengthen the need of creation/enlargement of UCs
in encompassed basins so these can better fulfill their conservational goals, and we also
corroborate the need of constant monitoring of invasive species in receptor basins of PISF?s
water in order to guarantee the preservation of native ichthyc communities.
|
|---|
