Diversité et structure du zooplancton : importance pour la conservation de la biodiversité aquatique en zone urbaine

Urban ecology is an emerging research field that seeks to understand the structures and patterns of communities and ecosystems located in urban landscapes. Small waterbodies are known as aquatic ecosystems that can harbour notable biodiversity for various taxonomic groups (birds, amphibians, macroinvertebrates), making them interesting ecosystems for conservation studies. However, the biodiversity of zooplankton, a central element of aquatic trophic networks, is still not entirely known for urban waterbodies and should be better described and understood. This study examined the biodiversity patterns of zooplanktonic communities in urban waterbodies on the Island of Montreal and their sources of variation. Suggestions for biodiversity assessment and for biodiversity preservation are also discussed. Zooplankton biodiversity urban waterbodies proved to be quite high, with cladoceran and rotifer taxa showing the highest contributions to gamma and beta diversity. Across waterbodies, there was a negative correlation between the contributions to cladoceran and rotifer beta diversity. Within waterbodies, the littoral zone showing macrophytes proved to be an important habitat for zooplankton biodiversity, considerably contributing species richness, often with a different species composition. Zooplankton communities responded to bottom-up and top-down forces, but also management practices, as waterbody emptying in winter affected zooplankton community composition. Cladoceran communities in these waterbodies showed varying amounts of phylogenetic diversity, which allowed them to be ranked in order to prioritize sites to preserve with regards to phylogenetic diversity. Selection of sites to preserve in order to maximize phylogenetic diversity should be properly guided, in order to avoid making suboptimal choices. However, for taxa such as Cladocera, for which phylogenetic relationships remain difficult to establish, placing absolute confidence in a single tree is a dangerous procedure. Incorporation of phylogenetic uncertainty showed that, when it is taken into account, then several potential differences in phylogenetic diversity were not supported anymore. Community composition patterns differed between waterbodies, months and sampling zones. Due to the presence of significant interactions between these factors, this indicates that all these factors should be considered. Urbanization did not seem to select for a single type of feeding group composition, as communities in waterbodies could shift between assemblages with different feeding types. Environmental variables, especially waterbody macrophyte coverage, were important factors for zooplankton biodiversity, positively affected species richness of various taxonomic groups and feeding groups. These variables also affected community composition, but to a lesser extent, being modest predictor variables, indicating the need to consider other processes.

Keyphrases: Biodiversity, Zooplankton, Community structure, Urban ecology, Phylogenetic diversity, Evolutionary heritage, Phylogenetic uncertainty, Site conservation, Urban waterbodies, Feeding groups