Phylogeny of the Neotropical genus Acestrorhynchus (Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences and morphology: A total evidence approach

Acestrorhynchus is the sole genus of the family Acestrorhynchidae which includes 14 species currently recognized as valid. Species of Acestrorhynchus comprise small-to-medium sized piscivorous fishes and have been traditionally grouped on the basis of well-defined color patterns. A recent phylogeny, based on morphological characters, could not resolve the phylogenetic affinities of A. heterolepis and the relationships among the species of the clade formed by A. abbreviatus, A. altus, A. falcatus, A. lacustris, and A. pantaneiro. The simultaneous analysis of two mitochondrial genes (16S and ATP synthase subunits 6 and 8) and one nuclear intron (S7) was able to resolve the latter clade, but the position of A. heterolepis remained unresolved. The combination of the molecular and morphological data sets in a total evidence analysis resulted in a well-resolved hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic relationships of Acestrorhynchus species. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Comparing methods for sampling large- and medium-sized mammals: camera traps and track plots

Activities involving fauna monitoring are usually limited by the lack of resources; therefore, the choice of a proper and efficient methodology is fundamental to maximize the cost-benefit ratio. Both direct and indirect methods can be used to survey mammals, but the latter are preferred due to the difficulty to come in sight of and/or to capture the individuals, besides being cheaper. We compared the performance of two methods to survey medium and large-sized mammal: track plot recording and camera trapping, and their costs were assessed. At Jatai Ecological Station (S21 degrees 31`15 ``- W47 degrees 34`42 ``-Brazil) we installed ten camera traps along a dirt road directly in front of ten track plots, and monitored them for 10 days. We cleaned the plots, adjusted the cameras, and noted down the recorded species daily. Records taken by both methods showed they sample the local richness in different ways (Wilcoxon, T=231; p;;0.01). The track plot method performed better on registering individuals whereas camera trapping provided records which permitted more accurate species identification. The type of infra-red sensor camera used showed a strong bias towards individual body mass (R(2)=0.70; p=0.017), and the variable expenses of this method in a 10-day survey were estimated about 2.04 times higher compared to track plot method; however, in a long run camera trapping becomes cheaper than track plot recording. Concluding, track plot recording is good enough for quick surveys under a limited budget, and camera trapping is best for precise species identification and the investigation of species details, performing better for large animals. When used together, these methods can be complementary.